|
media
[Gary Martin, reporter, unquestioningly reported poll results as authoritive, cut-and-paste Manhattan Institute press release] "Poll: Fine, don't deport, illegals" [Jose Cardenas, reporter, included full and fair criticisms of the poll] GOP voters don't want illegals expelled [cut-and-paste press release] Chertoff, Chao to push guest-worker proposal [Stephen Dinan, reporter, results noted choice respondents offered] Bias Should you trust a poll that would include a question like this:
Regardless of your view on this proposal, many of these immigrants have jobs & family ties to America and any deportation process would likely involve programs like creating a national ID card & government raids on millions of homes and businesses. With these facts in mind, do you think it is possible to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants? (Manhattan Institute Poll showing Republicans want an amnesty; 13% of respondents still said yes!) Real Deal Here's a poll by an Institute that takes real measurements. (submitted by NC LISTEN) 
READERS ARE ADVISED THAT ASSERTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THIS EZINE WILL BE AS TRUTHFUL AND AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. FURTHER, EZINE SUBJECT MATTER FREQUENTLY INCLUDES PRESIDENT BUSH, HE BEING THE PRESIDENT AND ALL. THEREFORE, THIS EZINE MAY NOT BE SUITABLE READING MATERIAL FOR SOME REPUBLICANS. THOSE REPUBLICANS WHO FIND READING MATTER OF THIS NATURE OFFENSIVE SHOULD READ INSTEAD AN INACCURATE AND MISLEADING, BUT COMFORTINGLY PRO-BUSH, VERSION FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES. |
|
www.projectusa.org >> ezine >> 2005
MI: turning corporate cash into influencePhony Poll-oney: The latest attempt to mislead from Ed Goeas and that clever Tamar JacobyW alking to work yesterday morning
I caught sight of the headline in the Washington Times: "Bush vows to oust 'every single' illegal." My goodness, I thought, Rove
isn't even in jail yet, and already Bush is improving.
But then I started reading the story, and my hopes faded. The administration is still pushing a guest worker program that would allow illegal aliens to receive legal status for six years, and then (when someone else is president) they'll be forced to return home. Yeah, mark me as skeptical. Well, said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao defending the president's temporary legalization plan in congressional testimony Monday, we can't just deport all 11 million of them immediately. But who's talking about immediately deporting 11 million illegal aliens? The only time I ever hear anyone talk about mass deportations is when a member of the anti-borders cheap labor crowd postulates mass deportations as the scary and only alternative to his own preferred response to massive illegal immigration: mass amnesty. False Dichotomy Back on January 31, 2004, arguing for that month's Bush amnesty in the Wall Street Journal, Francis Fukuyama wrote, "But since we are not about to expel the nearly seven million people potentially eligible for this program, we need to consider what policies would lead to their most rapid integration into mainstream American society." In an ezine sent out a few days later, I pointed out that the narrow choice between mass deportations and mass amnesty expounded in Fukuyama's argument was a classic false dichotomy. I noted the destructive historical use of the false dichotomy by demagoguing tyrants, warned that the anti-borders zealots would seek to employ this old demagogic trick in a massive push for amnesty, and then gave three simple policy suggestions that, if implemented, would solve the illegal alien conundrum without resorting to either mass deportations or mass amnesty.
A better slogan would be "turning corporate cash into influence." The corporate-funded think tank has just released a poll of Republican voters showing Republicans solidly in favor of the very immigration "reform" proposals supported by —surprise!—corporations. confounding expectations Members of Congress—both Houses, both parties—are returning from visits home and reporting that immigration is the dominant issue in their districts and states. Their constituents completely reject amnesty for illegal aliens, they say, and are demanding immigration laws be enforced. But they are all drunk or lying or something. The Manhattan Institute poll, "confounding expectations," as they put it, has discovered that, in reality, the Republican rank-and-file does not favor an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration. It turns out, in fact, that over 7 in 10 Republican voters actually favor a mass amnesty! Did you say "the Mad Hatter Institute," you might ask. No, it's the Manhattan Institute, and they know that it's all in how you ask the question. Here's how it works. Say you wanted to find out how Republican voters felt about amnesty for illegal aliens, so you asked Republican voters: How do you feel about amnesty for illegal aliens? You'd find that Republicans are just as overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty as everyone else. But where's the corporate payoff in that yawner of a poll result? Much more interestingly, and potentially profitably, you can discover that Republican voters actually support an amnesty—by a more than 2 to 1 margin—if you'll just ask them how they feel about the president's increased-border-security, tax-paying, fine-paying, multi-year-path-to-citizenship, non-crime-committing, increasing-the-penalties-on-employers (that-aren't-levied-now), temporary-guest-workers learning English, earned-legalization-program. See? Grain of Salt Other clients include Century Strategies, the Ralph Reed firm implicated in the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, Americans for Job Security, which is under investigation by a Texas grand jury for potential violations of a law prohibiting the use of corporate money to influence state elections, the notorious influence-peddling multinational Akin Gump, and Associated Builders & Contractors, which has spent $12,680,000 since 1998 trying to influence legislation for the benefit, not of the American people, but of themselves. But their client list of Washington players doesn't influence the Tarrance Group, the Tarrance Group says. "Our first demand of ourselves is accuracy," the firm claims on its website. But among the questions included on the immigration poll just released, for example, is one asking whether voters would support or oppose a program that "harshly enforced current laws so that illegal aliens would be forced to go home" (repondents opposed 53% to 41% with 6% undecided). What's the matter Tarrance Group? If Republican voters are so in favor of the immigration policy your corporate paymasters prefer, why do you need to include words like "harshly" in your questions?
“In examining this data," claims Goeas in the press release accompanying the new Manhattan Institute push poll, "it is clear that likely Republican voters strongly favor a comprehensive immigration reform plan that combines the stick of tighter borders and tougher enforcement with the carrot of a path to citizenship through an earned legalization process of registration, working, paying taxes, and learning English." Really Ed? I think we've heard you sing this song before. On Aug. 21, 2001, the Congressional Quarterly's Daily Monitor Recess Report carried the following: "MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT LEGALIZING TAX-PAYING IMMIGRANTS, POLL SAYS:"
The Tarrance Group shows up again in March, 2005 with another poll on immigration, this time sponsored by the National Immigration Forum and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, whose membership is open to immigration lawyers the world over. Guess what the Tarrance Group discovered voters wanted in the March poll. Why, three out of four Americans agree with the statement, “If an immigrant has been in this country working, paying taxes, and learning English, there should be a way for them to become a citizen.” [Oh, Ed, you sly dog, "immigrants" can already become citizens.] Furthermore, the March poll found, unlike those issues where Americans favor a piecemeal and bitterly partisan approach, "there is strong and intense support among likely voters for an immigration reform proposal that is comprehensive and bipartisan," just like the White House keeps telling us their plan is!
"Hardliners in the House," the Manhattan Institute's premier re-make-the-nation crusader points out cleverly, "supported by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his temporary replacement, Majority Whip Roy Blunt—favors an enforcement-only approach designed, they think, to appeal to the Republican base. Others—the President, Sens. John McCain, John Cornyn and colleagues in the House [oops, she forgot to mention that Senator Ted Kennedy, the author of the current immigration mess, and radicals like Representative Luis Guiterriez, who consults with Mexico on legislation he introduces in Congress, also support the "moderate" Republican plan]—say our current policy is so unrealistic that it is all but unenforceable and that we must change the law first, then redouble our efforts to make it stick." Let's see, there were a total of zero workplace enforcement actions last year, so "redoubling our efforts" would mean <grabs calculator> [0 X 2 = ...] zero!!? But that's just like nothing! Clever, Tamar, but we're not falling for it. “Our new poll shows that Republican voters see the hardliners’ tough talk for the posturing it is and side with the reformers,” continues Jacoby, betraying herself by the use of the word, "posturing" (politicians don't falsely adopt a public position to appeal to a minority of voters—she knows she's lying). Republican voters understand that enforcement alone will not fix the broken status quo, and they are demanding that the party step up to the plate with a solution worthy of the name.” Hogwash. The Manhattan Institute's own poll shows the number one reason respondents opposed the corporate-backed guest worker amnesty, despite the Manhattan Institute's candy-coating of it, was the path to citizenship included in the plan. By an equal percentage, the number one reason respondents cited as the reason they supported the amnesty was the increased border enforcement. In the basket of goodies in which the pollsters cleverly hid the amnesty, in other words, increased enforcement was the biggest draw; and the earned legalization multi-year path to citizenship—the amnesty—was the biggest reason voters opposed the program. Republicans, it's safe to say, are hardly demanding Washington give them the Manhattan Institute solution to the illegal immigration problem that Tamar wants you to think they are. Phight this Phony Poll-oney One of the ways corporations are corrupting our democracy is through the network of "think tanks" they fund. The think tanks can be counted on to produce a steady stream of bogus studies proving the great benefits to society of certain policies that—surprise!—would also be financially beneficial to the corporations sponsoring the study. Sometimes the think tanks produce polls that miraculously discover Americans don't actually support popular policies. Rather, voters support those very policies that—surprise!—would be profitable to the corporations sponsoring the poll [here is a good example of these skunks at work: The National Foundation for American Policy]. Once the bogus study or phony poll comes out, the offices of members of Congress and the newsrooms of America are flooded with the misinformation. It's a serious problem we immigration moderates simply don't have the funds to counter. That's where you come in. You can help ensure the Manhattan Institute doesn't get away with misleading members of Congress and the nation's reporters. It's a little bit complicated, but please take a minute to do this, as it's very important. Call up your representative in Congress at his or her DC office [who's my rep?] [what's my rep's number?] and both your Senators, if you're up for it [their numbers?]: Introduce yourself to the person who answers the phone with your name and the town in the district you are calling from. Then ask whether you could speak with the legislative assistant in charge of immigration policy. You'll likely be put into a voice mail box, in which case just leave your name, town you are calling from, telephone contact number, and this brief and polite message: I don't know whether you saw the poll released Monday by the corporate-funded Manhattan Institute claiming to show Republican voters support the president's "earned legalization" amnesty for illegal aliens, but please do not let Congressman Harvey B. Fuddelmont fall for this intentionally misleading poll. If you're interested, you can read a rebuttal of the poll by clicking on the Mad Hatter on the home page of ProjectUSA.org. |
The firm conducting the poll for the Manhattan Institute was the Tarrance Group, a well known "Republican polling" outfit here in DC that includes 
The President and CEO of the Tarrance Group is Ed Goeas, who claims to be an immigration policy consultant. Goeas has worked as a "field operative" for the RNC (Running the Nation for Corporations) and has served as the National Political Director of the NRCC (Nurturing Republicans on Corporate Cash). Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the Washington insider who headed the RNC during the time now under scrutiny in the DeLay affair, is a client currently of the Tarrance Group.
Of
course, no attempt to mislead the nation on immigration would be complete without
Tamar Jacoby chiming in.|
rightSide
|