Thanks, Dafydd. I predict the late-Friday appearance of this memo will probably lower its visibility. The Weekly Standard's blog pointed this out, BTW.

Vaseline. Dowd (and you) are selling vaseline. BOHICA conservatives. Again. Why else should we be happy with a bill for which more DemocRATs voted than Republicans? As to polls and statistics here are a few (please note the last one in particular). SOURCE: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_researchd74c

* 89 percent of Americans think illegal immigration into the U.S. is a problem (30% "extremely serious," 33% "very serious," and 26% "somewhat serious." (Time Magazine, Jan. 2006)

* 82 percent think that not enough is being done along the borders to keep illegal immigrants from crossing into the country. (Time Magazine, Mar. 2006)

* Nearly 63 percent would support a policy that stopped all immigration from countries suspected of harboring terrorists. (Hamilton College, Feb. 2003)

* 58 percent think that the U.S. should "admit fewer immigrants each year." (Zogby Intl., May 2002)

* 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of America. (Quinnipiac Univ., Feb. 2006)

Dafydd,
I have to relate to "Where's The Beef?" and ask instead, "Where's The Fence?" with regard to the polls spouted by Dowd.

I posted about this major avoidance of THE prime issue....

http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2006/05/but-what-about-fence.html

Thanks
Duke of DeLand

Well, your good at this. Research this, get the acutal questions asked, who they asked by party leanings, etc.

Post them, let us see for ourselves.

Otherwise, I will look at this poll as I look at others that are not explained, detailed or explored. That look will be one of "two shakes of salt, with a followup of distrust in large gulps".

Until then, lets say that my personal knowledge of the feelings of those here in MY world, say that the Senator's bill is crap, and that the House should destroy it and come up with a new bill that is not much different than the one that they already have.

Otherwise, just do nothing, because nothing is better than the Senate's bill.

Maybe after the elections, something positive and real can be passed. But I would not hold my breath.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

If Dowd believes that Conservatives believe that the Senate version of a guest worker program will solve the problem then he has been spending too much time at the BizHub looking for the coffee pot.

It is time for the Republicans in the House to stand up to the weak kneed Senate and call their bill what it is – Dead On Arrival!!!

Alas the devil is always in the details, meaning the actual law being writen by the Senate will bear no resemblance to the polling questions or the media sound bites. Back of the line, pay back taxes, learn english...just so much yada yada yada without it being incorporated into the legislation. Instead we find that because of the earned income credit boondoggle we'll actually pay quite a few of our newest citizens. And fines might not have to be paid for about 8 years. (wonder if the court would ok that on a speeding ticket ?)

My grandkids want to know if they can get the same type of deal all of the illegal aliens are going to get ? Actually, so do I.

One can only hope the House has the balls to stand firm and strip the Senate bill of most of the hogwash. Yes, they are going to have to come off the enforcement only position as it's a political loser now (it doesn't take a very active imagination to picture the headlines and news leads about how mean-spirited and racist the House Republicans are) but that doesn't mean they can't tighten up terrible law into something at least enforceable. Not that our government has ever given any indication it has the will to enforce the immigration laws that currently exist.

Noe of it matters if you don't stop the inflow of illegals first. Fine, give everyone here amnesty after you shut off the border. I don't know why you have such a hard time with the word amnesty. It simply means forgiving the fact that people have been BREAKING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS for upwards of 30 years. If you say, OK, no biggie, there ya go now, that's amnesty. It's really not that hard to understand. Remember when Jimmy Carter said all the draft dodgers could come back from Canada? All is forgiven - we won't prosecute you. That was amnesty, too, and I'd be willing to bet you recognized it then.

I think people want a long term solution to a problem that has been around for years and years. Needless to say no bill will satisfy everyone but if the Congress can end up coming up with a plan that provides border security, a temporary workers program of some kind and some way to normalize or at least deal effectively with the people already here...then I think most people will be satisfied. At least for awhile.

You know only about 30% of voters register as Republicans?

And yet, Dowd says, almost exactly the same proportion of that 30% favors these proposals, as the overall electorate. 83%/80%; 93%/89%; 86%/85%.

Sorry--and as a Republican I really am sorry--but that doesn't happen. 4/5ths of the GOP doesn't represent 4/5ths of the general feeling of the American electorate, ever, in any election. You don't see the guys roaring out of our conventions and primaries, collect anything like the same majorities in general elections.

There is some gross error behind that kind of statistical parity.

I've posted and commented on this other places.

Dowd's numbers may be right if they were taken before the Senate bill was loaded up with things an American citizen or a legal immigrant could never get or get away with. By getting Dowd's green light in the Senate, the bill now looks worse than anything that ever existed in the Welfare System.

Hopefully, the conference will get rid of all the new free pot luck give away items......

Comprehensive is fine. IN ORDER. Seal the borders.. Next, weed out the violent felons. Set up a guest worker program and give NO CREDIT for any activities that required breaking the law while the "guest" was illegal. (Yes McCain.. give the identity thieves their SSN money back with no interest).

All illegals go to the back of the immigration line while they are here as "guest workers".

If they can not prove on paper - through records - how long they have been here (and there will be a paper trail somewhere) they leave - under the leas than 2 years rule.

Mexico has no say on any fences or barriers.

The federal government should be required to immediately fix the SSN accounts and any IRS problems with people whose identities were stolen. The Feds should also work with the credit agencies to fix the credit reports.

Concerning employers who continue to break the law... the day after the conferenced bill takes effect render hard fines on them and throw them next to Kenny Boy.

If you are here, report in within 'X' days of the law being signed (or you will be excluded and deported)... play by the rule and will give those who have not broken the law since they have been here a 'watched break'. However, no extras, no free stuff, no overrides and no blind eyes. We citizens don't get these breaks. We're being told we'll never see SSN yet these folks are being gauranteed it.

No one is saying that this poll means there should be no changes in the Senate bill. But the point is people want a bill. They do not want some radicals ruining it for everyone by refusing to negotiate and compromise.

BTW, this poll is in line with a poll done by Gallup of the public as a whole. That poll done right before Bush's speech [which I found on their website] was almost exactly in line with Bush's talking points..so much so that the gallup people wondered if it were intentional. In that poll only 21% supported shipping all the illegals out. 61% supported a path to citizenship and strong majorities also supported guest worker programs and increased border security.

BTW, no one is saying Mexico gets a veto, but when you share a border with another country it is customary to let them know what you are doing. People get too bent out of shape about things like that, they really do not understand what it means. Some of these rules are just protocol, tradition etc.

Terrye - Will Mexico inform us the next time their military escorts the drug cartels across OUR border in order to fill their coffers? Didn't think so.

The poll to me is highly suspect as it runs against the results of every other poll I've seen. Heck, even my college professor, liberal, friend thinks the Senate bill needs serious rework.

Nice try!

Dafydd-

I am really disappointed.

Remember your May 18 post "How to Fake a Poll"? There you railed against a Rasmussen poll (the results of which, incidentally, you didn't agree with) for not disclosing its polling methodology, for asking biased questions, and for generally rigging its poll to come up with preordained results.

Now you uncritically present the results of Matthew Dowd's poll which, interestingly, happens to support your opinions. The links you provide have nothing but summaries -- no discussion of how the poll was conducted, what actual questions were asked and in what order, what population was sampled, etc. Where is your critique of methodology? Why don't you ask if it was a "push poll"?

One is left to wonder whether the lizard doth hiss out of both sides of his reptillian maw.

Oh, and how is a kazoo when it's toasted, anyway?

*shrug*

A favorable poll is like a favorable horoscope. It's a mistake to take them seriously but it's always nice to have one just in case they aren't utter drivel. I'm still waiting for a serious answer as to how much people think this "fence" is going to cost, how long it will take to build and why they think it'll do any good. The Great Wall of China sure didn't do that great a job of keeping people out and the Chinese had a little more reason to fret on the matter than we do.

Dafydd, I think the poll may very well be accurate.

But that is because most people think the border control will actually happen.

Fence first people know better. Thats all this poll shows.

Airdale:

You do not know if one word you said was true. Maybe some rogues soldiers were up to something bad, heaven knows we have court martialed a few of our own for that kind of thing. It happens. But the truth is if there were not Americans who would sell their first borns for those drugs, a lot of drug dealers, many of them American would be looking for a new way to make a living.

I think the poll is accurate because I don't think the loud people are the majority. Just ask Richard Nixon.

The larger point is that Americans want to see the problem dealt with, if you want to start the fence first, fine and dandy, but if you refuse to negotiate then you will get nothing and that will be good news for the Democrats who will claim that all Republicans can do is rant and rave and scream and yell and threaten to sit out elections and go from one freaking hissey fit to another.

I voted for Bush, in fact in recent years I have voted a straight Republican ticket and a lot of the people I hear making the most noise about this do not speak for me. I resent it when they claim they do.

Dasbow:

Noe of it matters if you don't stop the inflow of illegals first. Fine, give everyone here amnesty after you shut off the border. I don't know why you have such a hard time with the word amnesty. It simply means forgiving the fact that people have been BREAKING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS for upwards of 30 years. If you say, OK, no biggie, there ya go now, that's amnesty. It's really not that hard to understand. Remember when Jimmy Carter said all the draft dodgers could come back from Canada? All is forgiven - we won't prosecute you. That was amnesty, too, and I'd be willing to bet you recognized it then.

I think your argument would be stronger if you didn't give such a clear signal that you actually didn't read the blog before posting a comment.

This has all been asked and answered.

Dafydd

The Yell:

Sorry--and as a Republican I really am sorry--but that doesn't happen. 4/5ths of the GOP doesn't represent 4/5ths of the general feeling of the American electorate, ever, in any election.

You're right -- but this isn't an election; it's a poll on specific issues. It's entirely possible that about the same percent of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans will support a particular position on a specific issue.

For example, suppose you asked, in a poll, "should the United States continue to use the current American flag, or should we change to the Sickle and Hammer?"

You would get about the same percentage nationally, among Republicans, among conservatives, and among Democrats and liberals: somewhere north of 90% saying keep the same flag.

Airdale:

The poll to me is highly suspect as it runs against the results of every other poll I've seen. Heck, even my college professor, liberal, friend thinks the Senate bill needs serious rework.

These polls (there were many that Dowd looked at) didn't poll on whether the Senate bill needed serious rework; it only polled on the big issues.

I notice you didn't post any of those "other polls" you've seen that "run against" this one.

"Nice try."

Dick E:

Now you uncritically present the results of Matthew Dowd's poll which, interestingly, happens to support your opinions. The links you provide have nothing but summaries -- no discussion of how the poll was conducted, what actual questions were asked and in what order, what population was sampled, etc. Where is your critique of methodology? Why don't you ask if it was a "push poll"?

First, Dick E., I called the Rasmussen poll a "push pull" after I did see the questions. I even posted them here, so you could draw your own conclusions.

No other major poll was showing what Rasmussen was (that people want enforcement only); none has since. That is one way (among many) that you gauge a poll: you compare it to comparable polls conducted at the same time.

Second, Dowd did some internal polling; but he's primarily talking about public polls that are readily available for your viewing. I've been following them for months. These are much better crafted polls than the Rasmussen poll I discussed; the questions are cleaner and more choices are offered. They poll on the actual issues, not weird proxies for them.

Third, you are flatly wrong to think that I agree with every position taken by the massmind in this poll. For example, I've been persuaded by Mark Steyn to oppose a guest-worker program... I would much rather see those jobs taken by people planning on becoming citizens here... while most people polled do not want guest workers to stay.

That is a pretty major difference; but I'm not afraid to say I think the huge majority is wrong, admitting thereby that I am in the minority myself.

With this many polls all saying the same thing, it's awfully hard for you to pretend that they're all wrong, and people really only want enforcement -- and they want conservative to kill the bill if there's any hint of carrot with that big stick.

I'm not a statistician, but I am a mathematician; polling today is by and large well conducted -- which is why that Rasmussen poll was such an outrage: it was a throwback to the sort of polling we saw in the 1930s and 1940s (and still see today in candidate polls for public release -- which always seem to show the candidate whupping tail on his opponent).

This isn't talking out of both side of my mouth; you simply have to learn to discriminate between good polls and bad polls. I'm really annoyed that Bush is polling around 38% right now... but I don't say, therefore, that those polls must be wrong; I say it's largely irrelevant because he's not on the ballot, and because Democrats in Congress poll lower than Republicans in Congress.

LiveFreeOrDie:

Dafydd, I think the poll may very well be accurate.

But that is because most people think the border control will actually happen.

Fence first people know better. Thats all this poll shows.

There! Now that's the way to respond to these polls. You're not claiming there's anything wrong with them; you're saying that you know something the respondents don't know, and that's why they responded wrongly.

I disagree with you, of course; but I appreciate that you're accepting the reality of the polling.

Dafydd

Holy cannoli. You may have saved me from a mental breakdown. I am so grateful to read this, yet skeptical because the noise has been sooooooo loud and so very opposite from this data.

I know for a fact that our household has been polled by the RNC twice in the last 10 days, in great detail, about immigration. And our responses were all in the majority numbers as cited by Dowd.

I want to thank Terrye above for his/her remarks, which speak for me. Especially this: "No one is saying that this poll means there should be no changes in the Senate bill. But the point is people want a bill. They do not want some radicals ruining it for everyone by refusing to negotiate and compromise." I concur!

I did some surfing, on my original assessment that conservatives just aren't that synchronized with the pulse of America.

http://tanhorizons.blogspot.com/2006/05/cracking-rnc-code.html

The Yell:

You did surfing?? That means you are talking about partisans who come on line and discuss this stuff. Most people do not do that, liberal or conservative or moderate...most people are not that partisan.

Look at Kos, he gets more people coming to his site than most high profile conservative bloggers combined, that does not mean the left is bigger than the right. Well, it might be but the point is the internet is an echo chamber and columnists and opinion writers are just yakking away, mostly to each other. Those people are not always indicative of the people as a whole. In fact when Truman was running for reelection in 1948 not one of the top political writers of the day gave him a chance. Not one of the major papers gave him a chance, but the people said different.

So what you see on line only tells you what people like you are saying...therefore it should come as no surprise if they agree with you. But who really cares what they say? It seems most people don't. And the truth is partisans are making the atmosphere nasty and confrontational enough that a lot of people do not even like to discuss this stuff or debate it with other people.

Today a lot more folks are going to be thinking about car races than immigrants.

Your somewhat right. They will enjoy the races, but come voting time, they will

Papa Ray

Papa:

But maybe they will not be voting the way some people think they will.

There are a lot of polls out there saying the same thing: people want a comprehensive bill and they want this behind them. I have the feeling that most Americans hate this debate and they believe that the longer we go without dealing with it the worse it will be.

And if Republicans refuse to come up with something that can pass just because some noisey partisans will be sending lots of emails if they do...the story to the public will be that Republicans can not govern effectively as a majority party.

Killing is the answer, but we must only kill those who deserve death.

Problem is, America is too hung-up on the Politically Correctness of not killing. Well, we could try to bring Mother Nature before our Courts, but i seriously doubt that She would put up with such human foolishness. i tried to put a Burka on Mother Nature...once. Never again will i try such!!!

If we lose *BATTLES* in Foreign Lands, then our borders mean naught. We now have some retired Democrat Marine, John "Jack" Murtha...who was a "Battalion Staff Officer (S-2 Intelligence Section)" in Vietnam, claiming that he understands what *BATTLES* and War are about. We have 'vOtErS' who think that we have been in Iraq too long, and that protecting our borders is now more important!?!

Personally, in Prison, gentle me never allowed any other Inmate to even look at me in a 'nasty' way. John "Jack" Murtha would've allowed such looking, but 'she' ain't me. Now, we need to be willing to kill Terrorists and Mexicans, or give up America.

America needs to be Pruned...until no more "7-11" dudes are left to breed. Face some simple facts, or die whilst leaving yore loved ones at the mercy of America's enemies.

"Borders"...Scheesh, weak males make me *PUKE*!!!

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Terrye and Dafydd are quite confident that polls show the American people behing a comprehensive bill. I find it curious that so many Repub Congressmen, even liberal ones, don't think so.
Here's a snip from a PowerLine discussion of a WaPo article:
According to GOP lawmakers and strategists, about 75 percent of the 231 House Republicans are steadfastly opposed to the Senate bill or even a watered-down version of it.
The Post's article cites poll's that supposedly show strong support for the administration's plan, but, as one House member says, "they must not be polling anyone in [my] District."
And this is from a Washington Times piece, quoted in polipundit--
“I don’t want to see a bill come to the floor of the House that gives them a path to citizenship,” said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress.
This is a change from three weeks ago, before Mr. Shays attended 18 community meetings in his district, where the questions invariably turned to immigration. At the first meeting, he told a group of constituents that he supported providing a path to citizenship to illegals. Not anymore.
“There were real questions about that,” Mr. Shays said yesterday. “There is not much tolerance for allowing people to become citizens who came here illegally.”
It’s the same reaction many House Republicans in moderate and liberal districts have had after hearing from angry constituents in recent weeks, said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, the former chairman of the House Republican Campaign Committee

The American people were worried about the issue and seem to be behind a comprehensive solution with a fair amount of give in it until the demonstrations.

It is what is now in the Senate's view as comprehensive that has gone too far, much in the same way the demonstrations went too far in support of a cause. (That has become the norm with any issue in this country today.)

What MOST saw at the demonstrations - according to the polls - concerned most average Americansand angered many. It did not create a 'go home' majority and it should nothave created one.

The demonstrations did create a majority of "play by the rules" supporters. It brought an issue to view that many had just paid passing attention to in the past. The proposed new rules in the Senate are the problem. They are not rules, they are the candy store.

The brain power and ligic behind the Senate's bill renminds me of the passing out of cash and debit cards after Katrina. Weeks later,people were shocked, shcoked mind you, that their might be fraud. Programs were stopped, people were arrested and real rules were made. There will not be another chance with this one. Like Social Security, it is too hot.

Most have agreed all along that we need a solution to illegal immigration since 12 + million people are here. Most have agreed that it must be a multi-faceted solution. The 'Throw them out" strawmen was created by the amnesty crowd to make a "extreme speak" like Trancredo's sound like the accepted (and only) plan from their opposition instead of just one of many plans.

The conference has to produce legislation that covers the rule of law, sets up a clear checklist ove events, is fair in its enforcerment and penalties to the perceptions of Americans and legal immigrants, and has non-compliance penalties that make sense and are enforced.

The Senate bill was a reaction to Dowd's 'influence'. The contents and methods in the Senate bill do not reflect what has been in detailed polling. The bill came after the pressure from the polls. Talk about political pandering.

When people discover what was placed in the Senate bill last week, they DO get upset, concerned and even angry. (When they discover!) That is why many in the talk radio crowd are in a twist.. someone is reading the bill to them (forget the commentary)

The type of bill the Senate passsed is not governing. It is simply throwing the burden on the Conference Committe and the House.

No, if Dowd ran a set of polls with detailed questions on the major contents in the Senate bill, I'd bet a few bucks the responses would be a lot different than those he has in his pocket.

The Senate used his polling as a path to throw cash, look compassionate, pass a bill and go to happy hour. They plaed the effort and pain on the conference and the evil Republicans figure it out and then throw the flaming arrows. One can only watch with humor as the Senate members of the conference committee and their 'leaderhsip' stroll to the mic's every night to cry.

Hardly the most respected body of lawmakers in the world.

Honestly people can not be this dense.

There was a lot of 'stuff' in the Senate bill, no one is going to like it all. No one is saying they should. Those polls are indicative of a population that wants resolution, they want compromise. And while it is true that some parts of the bill are gonna be dead, the larger question is how do people feel about getting no bill at all? That seems to be the alternative to negotiation at this point.

I am sure that the demonstrations had an adverse impact on public opinion, but they also made it plain that there is a growing political movement in this country who would think that bill is too tough, not the opposite and if the Congress does not come up with a compromise now that most people can live with all people as a whole will know is that the status quo, [which helped create those demonstrations is still in place],is still in place. Nothing has changed. My guess is the right wing Republicans in Congress are getting an earful from the zealots, but the zealots while loud are not always the majority.

In fact it could be compared to the Democrats' dilemna with the Kos kids. All of Kos's candidates get beat in elections, but the Democrats are afraid of him. I think we may be seeing something like that on the Right where immigration is concerned.

Dense?

I agree that all want a resolution. Putting forward a bill like the Senate's is not contributing positvely to the resolution. It was playing the House's game.

The House's position is already done so nothing can be done about it until conference. The Senate decided not to be the statesman. I expected more from them. many voted yes to whatever (I have been told by one's office) to close the thing and move on to conference.

A good bill will come out of conference and most of the candy store items will go down the drain.

The demonstrations woke up people who were not paying attention. It hardened the far right when they saw the flag upside down and became aware of the groups that were in charge of the organizing.

Most others, like me, said solve this, solve it now and solve it so it considers all involved.

People want this to be settled. Settled, not just made to go away, again. That was what was done in 1986, it was made to go away. It came back like most unsolved problems do.

The Senate bill put forward things like EITC to be given to guest workers. They are here to work.
That amendment is an example.

Another example, consultation with Mexico on fence an barrier placements as put forward by Senator Christopher Dodd. Huh? Mexico has encouraged the problem and even if he was thinking they could participate in the solution (fixing the border going forward), he is living in Las Vegas.

And wages... I am all for paying wages to guest workers based on the market, the job, the wage laws in each state, union guidelines or whatever all workers compete for. I do think employers should be required to follow all wage laws, guidelines and withholding rules, regaedless of the worker's status. Wage stagnation is a true problem.

During a week when 27 million vets ID's may have been compromised, most (like me) support passing on any identity theft and misuse presecutions the illegals may have performed ONLY if the victims of any of the actions are made whole and they do not have problems with the IRS and their credit. This needs to be a part of the SOLUTION.

We know the house position, but when we want a solution and there are items backlogged in The Senate... to spend time on this type of amendment pandering is/was insane and not helpful. Get the important things in there, get a position for confrence and get to it. Solve it...

Simply put, THIS is a problem that needs a practical solution. The House was already out there (too far to one side) and the Senate had a chance to shine. They chose to keep up the shouting and give red meat to talk radio and the Trancredo brigade. Maybe that was the plan; split the Republican base. The Senate simply lit a dull bulb.

Yes, dense. There are people on the right bragging about how there will be no bill this year. The point is to take the part of the bill they can live with and do away with the rest of it in conference, it is not to announce the entire bill dead.

Consulting with Mexico is not the same thing as giving them a veto, but fine kill it. All people can do is bitch.

Those demonstrations did something other than piss off the right, they gave some people a new cause. And not all of those people are in left wing groups like ANSWER, the Catholic Church is supporting reform and once established well connected people within the community get involved on the other side of the issue the momentum could change.

Sorry Dafydd, I must disagree with you on this, and for a very basic reason. Securing our borders is a Constitutionally mandated duty of the Federal Government. Enforcement of our laws is basic to our system of government. Immigration is a legal process, governed by laws, rules and regulations and can be changed from time to time. My point? Securing our borders and enforcing our laws has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. This is a smoke and mirrors sort of misrepresentation of the issue that we have our elected officials and the clueless media to thank for.

An additional point, is that the millions of people illegally flooding into our country is an invasion. It is not illegal immigration, as that is an invalid term. Immigration is a legal process, therefore, it cannot be any such thing as illegal immigration. The only other term left is invasion.

Cowgirl:

If that is all there is to it, then why are we in this position today? This is not new, it did not come about in the last 6 months. This is decades of neglect. If all that is required to deal with this is what you say then there should never have been a problem in the first place. But when Governors and mayors can blow off the president and the INS why are we surprised that individuals do?

And now we have Congress threatening to kill a bill to secure the border when they were the ones most strident in demanding the border be secured in the first place.

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, not mass murder. It is very much within reason to make the penalty for illegal entry a hefty fine considering the fact that there has never been a coherent and established way of dealing with the problem in the past.

We can either make the changes necessary now to deal with this or in ten years when we have 25 million illegals we can still be saying the same things and dealing with the same problems.

BTW, this country was founded by millions of people flooding into this country. There was no legal or illegal immigration when my people came here from England and Ireland and Germany... there was just immigration and if the Irish could have walked here there would have been millions more during the Great Hunger. So does that make the Irish invaders?

looking at Boston...Yes!

seriously...the Irish, Scandanavians, Germans, Chinese and others in the 19th century didn't come here as guest workers. They didn't hold themselves out as subjects of the Huang-di or the Kaiser or the King of Norway. They also didn't challenge the territorial claims of the United States, or dispute its soveriegn control of its economy, population, or territory.
Quite a number of illegal aliens among do all those things.

BTW do you have any explanation why the RNC internal poll of 5/21-5/23 shows 80% support for a program the FoxNews poll of 5/16-5/18 showed at 63%?

Terrye: "And now we have Congress threatening to kill a bill to secure the border when they were the ones most strident in demanding the border be secured in the first place."

That is disingenuous and you should know it. The problem is that the bill does too little to secure the border and too much to pander to businesses that prosper by paying sub-market wages and benefits to illegal workers. The bill also neglects the demographic effects on the nation of it's provisions.

"Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, not mass murder. It is very much within reason to make the penalty for illegal entry a hefty fine considering the fact that there has never been a coherent and established way of dealing with the problem in the past."

So, "illegal entry" is no more than a source of revenue from the fines like traffic tickets. Right... Ok, but how about all the other laws "illegal entrants" break once here? Most do not stop at "illegal entry" they also choose to use false documents to obtain work and other socio-economic benefits from the American tax-payer. What is the 'fine' for those violations? Answer: Probably less than EIC refunds they will get at tax-payer expense under the senate 'comprehensive legislation'.

And it should be clarified that under this bill "illegal entrants" may go to the back of a line, but they get to stand in line in America... All the while receiving all the socio-economic benefits of being here while simultaneously other good people desiring American citizenship who chose not to violate our borders, laws, and sovereignity stand in line in their homelands with none of those socio-economic benefits. Back of the line indeed.

"We can either make the changes necessary now to deal with this or in ten years when we have 25 million illegals we can still be saying the same things and dealing with the same problems."

Back at you. Those who disagree with you see the senate 'comprehensive legislation' as hastening the very situation you described.

Comprehensive legislation is and always has been code for politicans getting what they want by obfuscating the real effects of the legislation with clutter and complexity to fool the American people. At 600+ pages, this one piece of legislation is longer than our entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. It doesn't take that many words to fix this problem, but it does take that that many words to try to fool the American public.

Cowgirl:

An additional point, is that the millions of people illegally flooding into our country is an invasion. It is not illegal immigration, as that is an invalid term. Immigration is a legal process, therefore, it cannot be any such thing as illegal immigration. The only other term left is invasion.

It's not an "additional point;" it's not a point at all: it's a word game.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Five? No, Cowgirl, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

The illegals streaming across the border are not "invading" our land; an invasion requires intent to seize land or inflict harm. The vast majority simply intend to find a job, send money home to their aged and starving parents, or to become Americans.

Alas, I would not be surprised to hear that you and the House Republicans believe that most of the illegals come here actually intending to conquer the Southwest and claim it for "Aztlan," or that they come here hoping to loot America.

I don't know that you think that, and I wouldn't presume to read your mind. But -- it would not surprise me.

I have long suspected that false belief is at the core of most of the truly deep-seated resistance to any sort of legalization: the idea that those who come here illegally, when the arbitrary and capricious nature of our byzatine immigration laws prevent them coming here legally, are some sort of "foreign invading army" coming here to "seize" our country.

I cannot possibly persuade anyone that they're not. As somebody said -- possibly Ronald Reagan -- you cannot reason somebody out of a position he was never reasoned into in the first place.

But the reality is that it boils down to a simple equation: if you want a wall, you are going to have to swallow legalization.

It's that simple. You can lecture Congress from now until shrove Tuesday about their constitutional duty; but the fact remains that, as adamant as House Republicans are never to legalize the illegals in any way, equally adamant are the more moderate Republicans and the Democrats in the Senate never to give a fence for nothing, but only as part of a comprehensive bill.

It is -- pardon the pun -- a Mexican standoff.

If the House Republicans do not yield on legalization, they will not get a fence. That's it; end of negotiation.

If they want to go back to their rather rabid constituents and say "we did it! we killed the bill! we made sure you'll never get a fence... o what good boys are we!" -- well, perhaps their constituents will be happy not to get a fence; but I doubt it.

That is your choice, stark as it is: no legalization -- no fence.

And time is not on your side, either. Folks forget that the Contract With America was only one part of why the Republicans swept to congressional power in 1994.

The other part was that the Democrats failed to pass health-care legislation, despite controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House.

The people didn't like all the proposals in the grotesque HillaryCare package, and the GOP threatened a filibuster on some of the more odious provisions (like the "health-care alliances," so reminiscent of Mussolini's business alliances). But rather than negotiate, rather than strip out the bad parts and enact something -- the liberal Democrats dug in their heels and said "we get everything, or we will allow nothing."

What they got was nothing. Congress killed the bill and enacted no other. And the Republicans ran a very effective campaign on the theme that, despite controlling everything, the Democrats had demonstrated a complete lack of fitness to govern.

They were slaughtered at the polls: voters liked the Contract, but equally important, they were disgusted with the high-handed, all-or-nothing tactics of the Democrats.

If a similar result happens in November -- much more likely if the House Republicans make good their threat to kill the very legislation they have just convinced America is a dire and urgent necessity -- then the Democrats will still get what they want, legalization... but they will not have the pay the price of a security fence.

Puff on that.

History is important. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," said George Santayana. And I believe those who shout a vindictive "never!" to any version of legalization, but think that what they most desire will still magically be put into their hands, are utterly deluded.

Now is the time. Now is the only time. Carpe diem.

We can get our fence, but only if we're willing to accept legalization. Or we can stand fast against legalization... and never, ever, ever get the fence. But soon, legalization will come, willy nilly, on little cat feet -- with no security attached.

Seize this moment. It will not come again.

Dafydd

The Yell:

BTW do you have any explanation why the RNC internal poll of 5/21-5/23 shows 80% support for a program the FoxNews poll of 5/16-5/18 showed at 63%?

If you're seriously asking, rather than simply using it as rhetoric, my guess would be slightly different wording.

Both polls show very significant Republican support, however worded.

Dafydd

Yeah, but those who favor "enforcement first" (but who have no real intention to get around to building the spillway), shout "Amnesty!" loudly enough and often enough that is has become the truth.

F15c:

Terrye: "And now we have Congress threatening to kill a bill to secure the border when they were the ones most strident in demanding the border be secured in the first place."

That is disingenuous and you should know it. The problem is that the bill does too little to secure the border and too much to pander to businesses that prosper by paying sub-market wages and benefits to illegal workers.

Then the House Republicans should offer a version stronger on security... not threaten to kill the entire bill if any form of legalization is involved. Remember 1994.

Ok, but how about all the other laws "illegal entrants" break once here? Most do not stop at "illegal entry" they also choose to use false documents to obtain work and other socio-economic benefits from the American tax-payer.

F16c, are you actually arguing that work is a "socio-economic benefit" that can be expropriated or extorted from taxpayers? That it is a commodity owned collectively by society, which can choose by law who shall work and who is told to starve?

That is a core belief of Marxism: "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." They believe that work is owned by the hive-collective, and allowing individuals to bargain their own labor is the social evil of "alienation." Are you a Communist?

(Communists are still welcome to post here; Big Lizards believes in a free exchange of ideas.)

By contrast, Capitalists believe that every person individually owns his own labor and his own intelligence, and can sell them for his own gain. Evidently, you do not.

And it should be clarified that under this bill "illegal entrants" may go to the back of a line, but they get to stand in line in America... All the while receiving all the socio-economic benefits of being here while simultaneously other good people desiring American citizenship who chose not to violate our borders, laws, and sovereignity stand in line in their homelands with none of those socio-economic benefits. Back of the line indeed.

For months and months, since before Big Lizards started last September, I have argued for a rationalization and reform of the nation's legal immigration laws. I've spent a lot of time on the subject in this very blog.

Where were you?

Have you proposed any such a thing at all? Have you argued in favor of it? Forgive me, but I cannot find any evidence that you have ever cared one whit about the problems facing those who want to immigrate here legally; if you have, please point me to something I can look at.

To me, at this moment, it appears that the hard Right only trots out the horrors of the immigration system in order to bash those who, having been capriciously rebuffed by it without a thought, have responded not by meekly contenting themselves with living in poverty and tyranny -- but instead have voted with their feet to give the gift of liberty and Capitalism to their families.

Show me some evidence that you have ever before cared about legal immigrants. Please tell me that you have actually spent years helping a loved one work through a system that is designed to humiliate and frustrate, rather than liberate or assimilate.

I desperately wish you would tell me that you have written your congressman or senator demanding a massive overhaul and reform of the legal immigration process to make it fairer, more rational, and more predictable.

I want to hear that you have attended town-hall meetings to demand immigration reform, or that you have a blog where you've been posting on the subject.

I ache to be proven wrong.

Dafydd

F15:

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor, it is common to pay a fine when one is guilty of something like that. As a general rule death by firing squad is not the usual penalty.

And you know what? I have heard enough conservative right wingers brag about killing a deal this year that I find your arguments a little tiresome myself.Obviously they are more than willing to say to hell with the fence.

Dafydd: "Then the House Republicans should offer a version stronger on security... not threaten to kill the entire bill if any form of legalization is involved. Remember 1994."

I agree. They should fight for American citizens and legal immigrants.

I didn't see this one coming: "Are you a Communist?"

That (among other things) clearly begs the issue. Why do you choose to attack me yet completely ignore my point? The term "going to the back of the line" as used in this debate is deceitful and is unjust to those "in line" in other countries?

We both know it makes no difference to those people if I'm a Communist or not, nor if I've said all the right or wrong words on this or any other forum...

Let's discuss the matters at hand: Giving illegal entrants to this nation benefits exceeding others awaiting citizenship who did not break our laws is wrong and in my opinion immoral as it is being done to satisfy certain businesses desire to continue paying sub-market wages and politicians desire to obtain future votes from 'legalized' illegal entrants.

Those benefits include the right to work in this country legally. It is not communism, it is the rule of law in a democratic republic. Are you arguing that it is right and just that illegal entrants will be receiving benefits from this nation and its people when at the exact same time others - who chose not to break our laws, violate our borders, and go against the wishes of the American people - do not?

Terrye: "As a general rule death by firing squad is not the usual penalty."

I must have missed something - why are we talking about firing squads?

As I said, it seems you see illegal immigration as a form of revenue generation and not the most significant social problem facing our nation. I am not sorry to say that I respectfully disagree.

If someone illegally enters our nation, I want them to return to their own nation post haste. Unlike you I don't even want to fine them. Once back in their own nation, they are free to go to the back of the line and apply to return to the US as citizens or on work visas.

Fi5:

Oh puhleaze. I made the point that the penalty for a misdemeanor is a fine and you went off on me. And now you make some smart ass comment when I point out to you that simple fact.

Right now in Califormina something like 80% of the ag workers in some areas are hispanics and many of them are illegal. Are they bad people? Are they harming yuou by doing field work? Do you want to be doing their jobs?

Now needless to say not all the illegals are like that, but they are people and many of them have been here for years. To see them as some sort of blight or to refuse to even acknowledge the fact that allowing some of these people the oppurtunity to become legal residents is not a terrible thing tells me you do not know what you are talking about.

We have an unemployment rate of about 4.7% and undomcumented workers make up about 5% of the workforce. These people are here because they work and it is not just that they work for nothing either.

People like you see everything in such absolutist terms that debate is useless and redundent and tiresome. It is your way or the highway, so why should I bother even talking to you?

BTW, we return more than a million people a year. We have truned back about about 780,000 in the last 7 months.

Now I understand that you believe anyone who enters this nation illegally should be immediately returned no questions asked, but if it were that damn simple we would not be talking about immigration reform and wlls and barriers etc.

That is like saying that you think all drug dealers are bad so all drug dealers should be arrested poste haste or all teenage mothers without fathers are a problem for our society to deal with so we should stop unwed teenagers from becoming mothers post haste.

Silly.

Terrye, you still did not answer the question about why you cited firing squads and the death penalty. I'm honestly don't get it. Fines for misdemeanors. Fine. Done. Got it. But, what does that have to do with firing squads and ultimately what are you really trying to say by using that term?

"People like me"... "It is your way or the highway".

Terrye, you have not addressed the points in what I've written. Your responses instead declare me tiresome or absolutist or whatever... I've not written anything about you personally or conceptually, nor have I declared you tiresome or otherwise not worthy of my time.

We're grown adults here so, being blunt, if you really believe in the argument you are putting forth then make and defend it - and do so without attacking those who disagree with you. Go after what I wrote with a vengence if you will, but don't expect to prove any of your points by lateral ad hominem "people like you" constructs.

You don't know me. Pretending to does not serve to impress anyone.

"BTW, we return more than a million people a year. We have truned back about about 780,000 in the last 7 months".

What are you saying? You aren't trying to imply that our border is not completely out of control are you? How many of those million actually stayed out of the US as a result of being turned around? Reality check: Most of them end up right back here before the paperwork is completed by the border patrol. It is one thing to intercede some of the illegal traffic at the border forcing them to retry elsewhere, and another thing altogether to actually stem the net growth of illegal aliens actually making it into our country. It is the difference between real border control and the purposefully inept system that we have now that best serves as a de facto system to supply sub-market wage earners to businesses.

BTW, I did not say that I "believe anyone who enters this nation illegally should be immediately returned no questions asked,", I wrote "If someone illegally enters our nation, I want them to return to their own nation post haste." Different thing. If I hadn't made it clear before, I do not believe in mass deportation.

Regarding drug dealers and teenage mothers: Illegal immigration is not like domestic law enforcement or social problems. Those problems do not threaten the sovereignity of the nation.

And if we decide as a nation to take your advice and ticket illegal entrants as a form of revenue generation, soon we will all be employed writing those tickets...

F15c:

I didn't see this one coming: "Are you a Communist?"

That (among other things) clearly begs the issue. Why do you choose to attack me yet completely ignore my point?

I think you need to read more attentively. I asked if you were a Communist in response to your point that jobs were a "societal benefit" that should be bestowed by society through law, rather than an individual contract between one person and one employer.

The position you stated is a core position of Marxism; hence I asked if you were a Communist.

Are you arguing that it is right and just that illegal entrants will be receiving benefits from this nation and its people when at the exact same time others - who chose not to break our laws, violate our borders, and go against the wishes of the American people - do not?

Aside from the nonsensical nature of the question -- are we arguing about whether people who don't come to this country should nevertheless receive the "benefit" of being allowed to work here (that's a heck of a telecommute!)? -- you are still equating getting a job with "receiving benefits from this nation."

A job is not a benefit. A job is a private contract between two or more individuals, and the government has nothing to do with it... other than having the power, via force of arms, to prevent willing workers from being hired by willing employers.

Boiled down, you are outraged that government is not interfering more aggressively in the desire of a private worker to work and a private employer to employ, if the USCIS has not previously given its approval.

That may or may not be appropriate; but surely working without the permission of the federal government can hardly be ranked alongside actual crimes such as robbery, rape, and murder.

Nor is employment a "benefit" granted by the government; at least, not in a Capitalist country.

Were it up to me, I would remove all restrictions on employers and focus on sealing the border better: a fence along the entire southern border and some of the northern, plus better coastal enforcement. I would also make it much, much easier for decent people (as opposed to terrorists and actual criminals) to permanently immigrate here legally, thus, with a record of their arrival; and I would repeal the minimum-wage laws. If new immigrants are willing to work for $1 an hour while they learn English, let 'em.

(I would also make welfare impossible until a person had worked in this country for some period of time; I wish we could have a Supreme Court test case on this today, with the current Court.)

The idea that we'll get rid of 11 million people by shutting down their employment -- that is, by trying to starve them out -- is not only morally repugnant, it won't even work: most would simply enter the black market, rather than return, and respect for law would plummet.

And while we're on the subject -- this is now generic, not specifically directed at F15c -- let's suppose the antis got hold of a magic wand and did manage to expel all the illegals. What would be the effect?

The following Califorian industries would be either devasted or destroyed altogether:

• Agriculture;
• Construction;
• Gardening;
• Janitorial services;
• Restaurants;
• Textiles;
• Hotels (housekeeping);
• Service stations;
• Automobile repair;
• Home appliance repair;
• Taxi services (gypsy cabs)

And to a lesser extent, many other industries. We're not just talking about a few prices going up here and there. Thousands of businesses would go belly-up virtually overnight, throwing hundreds of thousands out of work at the same time prices rose dramatically.

A recession would be guaranteed; an actual depression wouldn't be out of the question. The standard of living would drop very significantly even for native-born American citizens.

It would be an economic hit much bigger than 9/11 was, since the basic infrastructure of the United States was not damaged by the terrorist attacks.

And that's just one state. The same would also be true for Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida (I don't know enough about Alabama to guess), along with many non-border states that nevertheless have very large numbers of illegal immigrants living and working there. The recession would be nationwide, and it would be deep... and long.

Bear in mind that Americans are not reproducing themselves. Although our birth rate is higher than in Europe, it's certainly below the bare replacement level of 2.1 children per female.

That means that without very significant level of immigration (legal plus illegal), America would be losing population.

This may sound good at first hearing; but it's an economic nightmare. Again, look at Europe.

Somehow getting rid of all the illegals is not only a fantasy, it's a hellish one. Unless, of course, you're willing to vastly increase legal immigration to replace them.

Normalizing those already here is a shortcut way to do just that; if you refuse to do so, then not only must you answer the question of how you'll get rid of them (or do you prefer they stay here illegally?) -- but also how you'll get 11 million more legal immigrants into the country to take over the jobs currently done by the illegals.

Dafydd

Once you start listing everything this comprehensive bill lacks to do the job right, you destroy the sole justification for not resolving each issue separately: the arbitrary declaration that everything has to voted on at once for anything to succeed.

Matthew Dowd is wrong, because either the FOXNews Poll (63% yes for guest worker program) is right, or the RNC poll is right (80% yes for guest worker program). Public opinion doesn't bounce 17%. But Dowd wants to use both.
BTW by that same FOXNews poll 55% of America--and 66% of Republicans--want as many illegal immigrants sent back to their home countries as possible.

Your rhetoric borders on the hysterical. "Starve them out"? I hadn't heard there's a famine in Mexico. As for driving them into the "black market"--what would you call what we have now?

You don't understand your opposition. Right now, nobody's promised illegal aliens anything but deportation. Under this President, that won't be enforced--no matter what the law says.

Passing this bill won't make the President start ordering "mass deportations" from taxpayer-funded day laborer centers. Passing this bill will grant amnesty from deportation, amnesty from back taxes, amnesty from prosecution for forgery and identity theft, and promise huge payouts from Social Security and tax credits.

By killing this bill we avoid the worst excesses. And forgo what? Different open-fist enforcement than what we have now.

Then comes November. If the hardliners are returned after killing this bill, it stays dead. Any negotiation will take into account that hardliners get re-elected. If we support renegotiation in 2007--instead of waiting for 2008 to campaign on a real overhaul and crackdown for 2009, by both Congress and the Presidential nominee.

Of course we shrieking fanatics could be wrong, and sacrifice our advocates in the House. But as a hardcore Extreme Right Wing Co-Conspirator, I got the crazy idea that's what elections are supposed to decide...

Hmm … it seems to me that we have gotten a little off point. This thread started out as a discussion of polling results that purport to show that Americans really want “comprehensive” immigration reform. Some time ago, Jim,MtnViewCA,USA mentioned an apparent disconnect -- he pointed out that members of Congress are reporting that their constituents don’t like the Senate bill at all. (No, it’s not a scientific poll or even a representative sample, but stick with me.)

Is it possible that people tell pollsters that they want comprehensive immigration reform, but turn around and tell their Congressmen they don’t really mean it? I think it is entirely possible.

If people are asked in a poll whether they want improved border security, a program to deal with the illegal immigrants who are already here, and a guest worker program, they may well say yes to all three. The answer would probably also be yes with respect to a “comprehensive solution” that encompasses all three issues. And if people are asked if they want a “border security only law” that does not address the other issues, they may very well say no, depending on how the question is asked and where it falls in the list of questions.

Does this really mean that Americans think a comprehensive solution will WORK? I don’t know, because I don’t know whether any pollsters have asked. The next question after whether people want a comprehensive solution should be something like “Do you think that, if ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ is passed, the government will adequately reinforce border security, or will they enthusiastically find a way to legalize the illegal immigrants and adopt a guest worker program while doing little or nothing about border security -- just like they did after the 1986 immigration reform act?” (Do you think that question is too biased for a public opinion poll? Can you say “push poll”?)

So yes, I think that people responding to a poll may very well say that they want “comprehensive immigration reform” while, at the same time, not trusting the government to do the hard, dirty work required for border security -- at least when border security is part of a package that consists mostly of things that are much easier to do.

Dafydd -- Note that I didn’t say (at least not here, anyway) that a “comprehensive solution” is a bad idea.

Readers -- Note that the above does not claim to be a solution to the illegal immigration problem. It just says that, despite Mr. Dowd’s statistics, it isn’t necessarily clear that the American people think we should adopt a comprehensive plan now rather than sealing the border first and dealing with the other issues later.

A job is not a benefit. A job is a private contract between two or more individuals, and the government has nothing to do with it... other than having the power, via force of arms, to prevent willing workers from being hired by willing employers.

Boiled down, you are outraged that government is not interfering more aggressively in the desire of a private worker to work and a private employer to employ, if the USCIS has not previously given its approval.

That may or may not be appropriate; but surely working without the permission of the federal government can hardly be ranked alongside actual crimes such as robbery, rape, and murder.

I'll go further: Nobody has a right to a job - much less the perfect job. I wish I earned $100 an hour and only had to work 15 hours a week. But that ain't happening.

Furthermore, I'm getting more and more frustrated with those who want all of their agenda, and when they cannot get it, they turn to scorched earth tactics to destroy any hope of a compromise.

There are different angles on this issue. The policy issue, what is right, is the most important. What is right for us as citizens, for our economy, for the illegals, for the people who try to immigrate legally, and so on.
But strictly on the political point, Dafydd says frequently "If the House Republicans do not yield on legalization, they will not get a fence."
It would be interesting however to see the H/S conference come back with an enforcement-only bill. Do you really, really believe that Dems would vote NOT to enforce border security? And if they did so, do you really, really believe that it would translate to Dem gains in elections?
If you believe that, I can only guess that you believe that Dem Senators are allowing the comprehensive bill out of the goodness of their hearts. Otherwise, why not kill any bill and reap the gains in November?

IF they come back with enforcement-only, I'd hope that President Bush comes back with a veto.

Dick E:

Some time ago, Jim,MtnViewCA,USA mentioned an apparent disconnect -- he pointed out that members of Congress are reporting that their constituents don’t like the Senate bill at all. (No, it’s not a scientific poll or even a representative sample, but stick with me.)

On the other hand, let's apply the same level of scrutiny to the claim by these congressmen that "their constituents" don't like Hagel-Martinez.

What does that mean, at the raw, basic level? How does a member of Congress "know" what his constituents want?

Short of an election, there are four possible ways that I can think of:

1. He receives letters and phone calls;
2. He holds a town-hall type meeting, and the attendees tell him what they think;
3. He attends gatherings unrelated to him and asks those people he happens to meet what they think;
4. He orders his pollsters to do internal polling.

We can eliminate 4 as a possibility here, because if these opponents of H-M had polling showing that their constituents didn't like it, they would have said so up front. It's strong evidence; you don't hide it under a rock.

3 is theoretically possible, but it's rare; especially in an election year, congreemen tend to focus on events that they, themselves (and their staffs) control.

Besides, there is a problem with 3. The people were brought together for some reason... and that reason may well "self-select" for a group with a particular agenda. For example, you can go to any country-music concert in California and discover that the Republicans are going to sweep the Assembly, the state Senate, and all statewide offices! But darned if it doesn't seem to go the other way every election (except for governor with Arnold Schwarzenegger).

The problem, of course, is that people who attend country-music concerts are not representative of voters in California. Same with people who attend the opening ceremonies of a new museum of modern art, or people who go to the opera, or even people who attend baseball games: each of those self-selects a subsection of people, and that subsection is not necessarily representative of the folks as a whole.

In reality, however, the most common meaning of "I asked my constituents" is some combination of 1 and 2.

1 is of course about as unrepresentative as can be: each congressman represents well over half a million people in his district; he receives only a tiny, tiny fraction of that many letters... and the letters he receives are far more likely to be from those outraged by something than those more or less satisfied with the direction things are moving: that's why people write their representative -- to bitch and moan and demand action!

But what about a town-hall meeting? Isn't that a good way to gauge sentiment? Well... maybe. The problem is that unless you are very, very careful in selecting your audience, it's easy for determined individuals of one side or another to pack the meeting with their own supporters.

This isn't some arcane conspiracy theory; packing town-hall meetings is commonplace, and it's done every day, from political gatherings to the audience at an Oprah taping. Congressmen must, of course, advertise a town-hall meeting in advance; and if there is an organized group that wants to make the member think sentiment is horribly against any sort of "amnesty" for "illegal alien criminals," all it takes to pack the hall is a phone tree.

That is the problem on a nutshell, Dick E: there really is no good way, apart from a well-designed poll, to find out what your constituents want. The other methods are easily manipulated by outside forces with even the smallest level of organization.

A well-designed poll (rather, a series of separate polls) is in fact the best way to gauge actual sentiment:

• Respondents are chosen at random, so no side can "pack" the poll;
• If you properly weight for demographic groups -- including party affilliation -- you don't get inadvertent packing;
• If the questions are straightforward, people understand them and can answer rationally;
• It best simulates an election, in that people aren't being swept up the drama of the moment, as they may be in a town-hall meeting that turns loud and angry.

Polls can of course be rigged; I've discussed the methods and specific examples here on Big Lizards many times. But when a poll is rigged, it's typically easy for other pollsters to spot, and even easy for non-statisticians with a strong mathematics background in other areas.

Alas, most politicians didn't do well in maths at university, they don't trust (or even understand) numbers, and they're "people persons" who like to get out and mingle... and are inordinately impressed by a single person speaking forcefully with passion and eloquence, like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington... even if Mr. Smith speaks for only a tiny minority of the constituency.

(Actually, lots of people distrust polls for completely irrational reasons. They'll say utter non-sequiturs -- "well nobody polled me!" Or they'll chant slogans, such as "we are the evidence, we are the evidence!" -- and think they've refuted the poll. This goes back to the wretched way we teach math in this country: people don't trust what they don't understand.)

So a town-hall meeting that may well be wildly skewed towards one side nevertheless seems of much greater moment and significance to a typical politician than a slow, careful series of polls... even though the latter is tremendously more likely to reflect sentiment -- and how voters will respond in the actual contest.

Dafydd

Can't disagree about the usefulness of a well-designed poll.
But let me add another reason why polls are sometimes distrusted. It is interesting how often a conservative candidate is down in the polls but mysteriously wins the election. It can hardly have escaped the notice of the readers of this blog how often that occurs. Poorly designed polls? Persistent liberal bias? Repubs jimmying with the voting machines? Conservatives not cooperating with pollsters?
In another thread on this blog, the rhetorical question was asked "when was the last time a poll mistakenly favored the right wing?". As I recall, Dafydd weighed in with "Dewey vs Truman". :)

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

Poorly designed polls? Persistent liberal bias? Repubs jimmying with the voting machines? Conservatives not cooperating with pollsters?

None of the above: it's very often due to the studied refusal of the major media pollsters to weight for political party.

Not all polls, but a huge majority of them overpoll Democrats. Pollsters often poll over the weekend (when it's well known Republicans are less likely to respond), and they overpoll the the big cities, which are more liberal than rural or suburban areas.

This wouldn't be a problem; we have good analysis of how many registered Republicans vs. Democrats vs. other there are -- either in a particular region, or in the whole country, or (for polls closer to the actual election) how many of each voted in the last corresponding election.

It would be child's play to add party affiliation to the list of respondent characteristics that are weighted to correct the pool of poll respondents (along with race, sex, education, income, and so forth). But they almost never do this.

Therefore, a majority of major-media polls overpoll Democrats... and that accounts for much of their tendency to find less support for Republicans than actually shows up to vote.

The other problem only occurs near an election (which is probably when you're talking about). At that point, pollsters begin polling only "likely voters," rather than simply all adults.

But to poll likely adults, you must use some heuristic to figure out who among respondents is likely to go out and actually vote... and that means trying to guess the turnout.

Republicans consistently outperform the turnout models used by the major-media pollsters. Hence, more GOP voters than they expect, which means more Republican victories than they predict.

Neither of these means the poll is not well-designed or that it's not useful; you simply must take it into account when evaluating the poll.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

Sheesh! The best way to find out what most people think is with a well-designed poll. Tell me something I didn’t know.

Where did I say that the Congresscoundrels were accurately stating what their constituents think or even being truthful about what they are hearing? That was NOT my point. Please read beyond the first paragraph.

What I said is that it is entirely possible that most Americans want to accomplish the goals contemplated by comprehensive immigration reform (as demonstrated by Mr. Dowd’s polling statistics) but they may not believe that true comprehensive reform will really happen, because they don’t trust the government to secure the border (as demonstrated by past experience). I am not aware of any polls that address the latter question. If you knew of any, I assume you would have referred to them in your latest post.

Dick E:

One of the duties of running a blog (in my opinion) is that I really do read every word of every comment posted here. So I did indeed "read beyond the first paragraph."

...but they may not believe that true comprehensive reform will really happen

I'm certain that is true for some and not for others. But it's irrelevant. What is relevant, from a political standpoint, is whether they will nevertheless punish lawmakers who kill the whole bill because they didn't get everything they wanted.

If the House plans to engage by honestly working through the differences with the Senate (and if the Senate does the same for the House), then together, they will craft a bill that will not be what either body wants... but one that both can live with.

That is what the American people want: they want a comprehensive bill -- but that doesn't mean they want every stupid thing that got shoehorned into the Senate bill.

They would probably applaud the EITC thing being stripped out. They might want to see the Social Security thing go... which would be a shame from my perspective; I think anytime the government takes money from people for SS, it should credit them -- then subtract from that any amount required to make restitution to a living person hurt by the use of a fraudulent SSN.

Still, I would rather see a reform bill without the SS thing than no reform bill at all.

In fact, I would rather see a reform bill without what I consider to be the only element equal in importance to securing the border -- rationalizing the legal immigration system -- if the only alternative is no bill at all.

At least with a bill, after it's signed, maybe we can get Congress separately to rationalize the system. Who is going to stand up in Congress and say, "no, I want the legal immigration laws to be arbitrary, vindictive, capricious, and incomprehensible! I like it like that!"

The worst thing for Republicans, and the worst thing for border security, is for Congress first to tell everyone that securing the border is the most vital component of national security... but then to refuse to do it because not everything went their way.

The House is going to have to back away from its utter refusal to consider normalization. And the Senate is going to have to back off their three-tiered plan. Both sides must make concessions... but in the end, there will be a fence, and there will be some form of normalization -- or there will be no bill.

And if there is no bill, we may be bowing and scraping to Speaker Pelosi next January. And you know who would run the House Judiciary Committee then...?

Dafydd

Dafydd-

"The worst thing for Republicans, and the worst thing for border security, is for Congress first to tell everyone that securing the border is the most vital component of national security... but then to refuse to do it because not everything went their way."

I don’t really think that’s the worst thing they can do. If no bill is passes, the Executive branch can still improve border security under existing law. The only problem is if Congress refuses to fund it.

The WORST thing that can happen is for Congress to pass a bill that includes border security, but then either Congress fails to fund the effort or the Executive branch fails to really enhance border security. The historical record says that this has happened before.

And who cares if Congress "tell[s] everyone that securing the border is the most vital component of national security..." As long as the job gets done, I, for one, could care less if Congress thinks it's important or unimportant. (By the way, I don't know that many people think border security is the most vital component of "national security", but I think lots of people think it's the most vital component of immigration reform.)

So you say it's irrelevant if people don't think the government will enforce border security portions of a comprehensive law. Excuse me, but I thought the main thrust of this thread is that public opinion matters.

If a pollster asked me whether I would like to make $50 million a year, I'd say sure, where do I sign? (OK, there are some jobs I wouldn't do for even that much money.) If they then asked me what are my prospects for getting a job at that salary level, I'd have to say it's highly unlikely. Or, yes Mr. pollster, I'd love to win the lottery, but no, I don't buy tickets because the odds are I will lose money and not win the jackpot.

So if you ask people what they want -- i.e. they think it would be good if some particular thing happened -- that's fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't really mean that they believe that position is viable. They may think "Yeah, that's a great idea, but the government will never really do it, so, while I would like for this to happen, I don't really want my Congressman to vote for it."

Do very many people think that way about immigration reform? If we haven't done a poll about the issue, WE JUST DON'T KNOW.

Dick E:

So you say it's irrelevant if people don't think the government will enforce border security portions of a comprehensive law. Excuse me, but I thought the main thrust of this thread is that public opinion matters.

It's irrelevant because it neither determines whether we do or do not enforce the border... nor whether the voters will or will not punish politicians who kill the bill.

• They can believe we won't do it, but we might surprise them;
• And they can believe we won't do it... yet still get mad enough to "throw the bums out" if we don't at least pass it.

What's relevant is what we pass, what we enforce, and how the American voter responds... not what they think might happen in the future.

Dafydd

This can perhaps be considered an excellent test case. A solid Repub district near the Mexican border. The Dems sense weakness and have poured in ample resources. The Repub candidate is against the Senate version of immigration reform so openly that Sen McCain has cancelled a fund raising speech on behalf of the candidate.
Will the candidate succeed because his position on immigration resonates with his district? Or will he crash and burn, flipping a House seat over to the Dems because of his "hard line" attitude?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_el_ge/mccain_canceled_appearance

This belongs with the post "will Robert Rector recalculate" below. But that is a couple weeks old, and there seem to be a few people still reading comments in this section.
So perhaps check out this CQ post on the likely magnitude of future illegal immigration
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007096.php
I particularly relate to this-- "The Senate failed to inform us of the impact of CIRA, and the media did little to correct the problem. Samuelson argues that this reflects a bias that punishes those who ask critical questions about immigration policy, labeling them as bigots or idiots."
Or "dense" :)

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA:

Jim, it's not the hardliners who will be defeated in 2006 if the Republicans drop the ball on immigration reform; they'll mostly be reelected, because they're in safe districts almost by definition (though not always, especially after redistricting).

It's the moderate Republicans who will get it in the neck;

Whenever I say this, many hardline conservatives spontaneously cheer... thinking that somehow, if moderates lose, that means they'll be replaced by more conservative Republicans. But that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding: if those were conservative districts, believe me, we would already know it.

There was a very strong conservative movement from 1992 through 2000; conservative House districts that had moderate reps were pretty much all seized by the conservatives. Those remaining moderates represent moderate districts.

The moderates are at greater risk than the conservatives... not to be replaced by conservatives, but to be replaced by moderate or even liberal Democrats.

Only about 50%-65% of House Republicans come from hardline, right-wing districts; since a switch of only 15 seats would flip the House, and since a minimum of 80 Republicans are in moderate districts that could be vulnerable if the more moderate Republican voters get angry, that means that if even 20% of the vulnerable moderates are knocked off in a general rising anger at the GOP for losing this chance -- then it's Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Conyers.

At the moment, the GOP does not look vulnerable to losing that many seats; but that assumes that the moderate Republican voters more or less have the same attitude in November as they do now. That attitude can change on a dime -- if the Republicans fail to enact an immigration bill.

Bear in mind that if the 1994 election had been held in June, July, or August, instead of November, the Democrats would easily have held the House; most pollsters, even in hindsight, believe the sea-change occurred fairly quickly, and right towards the end: moderate Democrats deserted the party in anger after George Mitchell formally announced that they were unable to enact health-care reform -- which he did in late September, 1994.

Newt Gingrich unveiled the Contract With America at nearly the same time.

Prior to this, right up through most of September, the Democrats would have won that election. It all went south on them in the last five or six weeks before the election.

We are not safe yet. We won't be safe until and unless we wake up on November 8th, and we still have a working majority (to the extent that our majority is able to work!)

Until then, massive failures -- such as the House Republicans killing a bill on an issue that the American voters consider very important -- can flip the House and maybe even the Senate faster than a speeding ballot.

Dafydd

OK, so public opinion matters when discussing the merits of pending legislation, but not about what will happen after passage. I guess the only polls that matter at that point are elections. And, of course, we would NEVER poll the public about how they think a candidate will perform in office.

"It's irrelevant because it neither determines whether we do or do not enforce the border... nor whether the voters will or will not punish politicians who kill the bill."

I suppose so, but it could very well indicate that voters will punish those who PASS the bill or those who fail to enforce it.

Dick E:

OK, so public opinion matters when discussing the merits of pending legislation, but not about what will happen after passage.

I said no such thing.

If you're responding to me, please restrict the attribution to what I actually said, not some bizarre rewrite. That is a straw man.

I cannot think of an instance where voters have punished a member of Congress because he voted for a reasonable bill -- but the Executive failed to enforce its provisions. If you can think of such a case, let me know.

But I can certainly think of a case where voters, by a wide margin, believed a bill would not really help (and actually disliked many parts of it)... yet they still severely punished the party that controlled Congress yet failed to enact it: HillaryCare.

I support a comprehensive bill both for the policy -- I have said many times that we need a spillway, and I prefer it consist of immigrants, not temporary workers -- and also for the politics.

If the hard Right had not already made it such an imperative to pass border protection, it wouldn't be that serious a problem to let it slide until 2007. But having done so, now it could be 1994 all over again if the Republicans -- though controlling both houses of Congress -- fail to pass some form of immigration reform.

If it were possible to pass an enforcement-only bill, that might assuage the voters enough to remove the sting of not passing comprehensive legislation; but it's not possible, because the Democrats won't allow it.

It might still be all right if there were 51 votes for it in the Senate, but the Democrats filibustered it to death; then at least Republicans could run against the "obstructionist opposition;" alas, moderate Republicans in Congress will vote with the Democrats, and it won't even get 50 votes -- so no need for Reid to even filibuster.

Hence the only choices left are:

1. Pass a comprehensive bill; it can be very different from the Senate CIRA, so long as it's still comprehensive enough to get all the Republicans in the Senate plus (one truly hopes) at least five Democrats to stave off a filibuster... perhaps red-state Dems up for reelection;
2. Kill the whole bill and watch the Democrats knock off twenty moderate Republicans to seize the House, and maybe even enough in the Senate to seize that as well -- and spend the next two years in Subpoena Hell.

...With no fence, no border protection, nothing that the Republicans insisted was vital to safeguard the national security. And Bush on the ropes -- which means a good chance for "President Hillary" in 2008.

But at least you'll have the enormous satisfaction of saying "we refused to compromise! We were adamantine; we did not bend in the least."

You'll have no wall and real, actual, honest to badness "amnesty," Democrat style; but at least you, yourself will have remained ideologically pure.

Dafydd

So you think effective liberals would have won in 1994? I don't.

Woodrow Wilson and Hillary could have told you: Go to Congress with an all-or-nothing deal, and you'll get nothing.

"to thine own self be true." There is no reason we should count our own convictions as clay, because the opposition maintains theirs are a granite wall.

I demand a Congress that can defend the soveriegnity of the United States without asking "Well, what's my end?"

In response to Matthew Dowd on Charlie Rose Show on Jan. 28, 2008. He needs to take the average American's pulse again on the Iraq War. No, we don't want to pull out right away. No, we are not tired of the war. We will be out in time but nothing other than a slow graduated, cautious pullout.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)