LOS ANGELES TIMES SAYS "Legalization of immigrants widely backed."--[LAUGH OUT LOUD!]
How difficult is it to get poll results that you want? Not very. Check out the illegal alien friendly Los Angeles Times and it's Times/Bloomberg poll (hereafter, Times) today, for clues about this. Link
First, the headline gives a clue to the bias. Note that it doesn't say "illegal aliens," nor even "illegal immigrants." Instead, it says "immigrants."
The Times said it called 1,183 adults nationwide by telephone June 7-10, and asked them a number of questions.
First, the headline gives a clue to the bias. Note that it doesn't say "illegal aliens," nor even "illegal immigrants." Instead, it says "immigrants."
The Times said it called 1,183 adults nationwide by telephone June 7-10, and asked them a number of questions.
One ringy dingy, two ringy dingy...
"Hello Mr. or Mrs. Nobody, living out there in Turkey Gulch, this is the LOS ANGELES TIMES. Can we ask you a few questions?" ["Hey Ma, put down the varmint gun, you can bag a possum for supper later on. The Los Angles Times wants my 'pinion 'bout somethin'. I told you I was impotant and that someone values my uninformed opinions about things that I haven't thought much about."]...
"Do you support or oppose the following proposals:
"Q. Allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted and learning English among other requirements." (emphasis added)
"Geez," says the collective Opie in our subconscious, "our blessed great grandparents who came from Ireland or Germany or other European nations were immigrants and they were good. Why, golly, immigrants are just immigrants. We support our immigrant ancestors, ah, because they are our ancestors, er, because they're immigrants. Yes, that's it. We support immigrants. Long live immigrants. They are our ancestors."
"Do you support or oppose the following proposals:
"Q. Allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted and learning English among other requirements." (emphasis added)
"Geez," says the collective Opie in our subconscious, "our blessed great grandparents who came from Ireland or Germany or other European nations were immigrants and they were good. Why, golly, immigrants are just immigrants. We support our immigrant ancestors, ah, because they are our ancestors, er, because they're immigrants. Yes, that's it. We support immigrants. Long live immigrants. They are our ancestors."
The Times reports that, overall, 63% of respondents support the above and only 23% oppose it.
Notwithstanding that, could there really be a problem with the poll in general and the above question in particular?
Consider:
In the first place, the wording of the above question is suspect. Note, especially, that it refers to illegal aliens as undocumented immigrants. Note the use of positive and soft words such as "path," to citizenship. Note that the word "amnesty" is never used.
In the second place, respondents were asked a mixed bag of questions about immigration and Iraq.
Depending on the order in which the questions were asked, this can skew results. For example, salesmen are taught to lead a prospect to a sale by asking a series of questions whose only socially acceptable answer is "yes" and then finally asking the prospect the closing question. "You do want the best for your family don't you? You do love your children don't you? You do want to make them safe in this new car don't you?" Putting certain questions before others in a poll, even if unintentional, can have a similar result.
Again, note that the question doesn't use the term "illegal aliens," or even "illegal immigrants." Instead, it uses the term "undocumented immigrants," and then it lays on a sympathy phrase "who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years," and then it further defines this group as law abiding when it says "who do not have a criminal record."
Again, note that the question doesn't use the term "illegal aliens," or even "illegal immigrants." Instead, it uses the term "undocumented immigrants," and then it lays on a sympathy phrase "who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years," and then it further defines this group as law abiding when it says "who do not have a criminal record."
In other words it sets up illegal aliens as law abiding, hard workers who are part of the community. Poll respondents also often want to be liked by the pollsters or want to avoid sounding un-PC, and often pick up subtle nuances and answer so as to be liked or to be PC.
"Hey, you bigot, racist, xenophobe, nativist, do you want to kick that law abiding hard working person and his little kids out of this country where they have been productive undocumented citizens for many years? Hmmm? Well, would ya? Hey, we called you. We have your telephone number. We know who you are and where you live. You don't want to be a bigot, racist, xenophobe, nativist, do you? Answer the question!"
"Hey, you bigot, racist, xenophobe, nativist, do you want to kick that law abiding hard working person and his little kids out of this country where they have been productive undocumented citizens for many years? Hmmm? Well, would ya? Hey, we called you. We have your telephone number. We know who you are and where you live. You don't want to be a bigot, racist, xenophobe, nativist, do you? Answer the question!"
Here are a few questions off the top of my head that I'd like to ask the Times about this poll:
a. How did the Times know those answering were adults?
b. What were the ages of those adults?
c. How many males, how many females?
b. What were the ages of those adults?
c. How many males, how many females?
d. Did the Times contact land lines only or also cell phones? How many of each?
e. What time of day were the calls made?
f. Were the questions asked only in English?
g. How many of the "adults" were actually registered voters?
h. How many of the "voters" voted in the last election?
e. What time of day were the calls made?
f. Were the questions asked only in English?
g. How many of the "adults" were actually registered voters?
h. How many of the "voters" voted in the last election?
i. What political party affiliations do they claim?
j. What was the ethnic breakdown of those responding?
j. What was the ethnic breakdown of those responding?
k. What was the education level of respondents?
l. What was the income level of the respondents?
m. Did any of the Times' callers have marked ethnic--perhaps, Hispanic--accents?
n. How many calls were made to each state and how many respondents were there from each state?
m. Did any of the Times' callers have marked ethnic--perhaps, Hispanic--accents?
n. How many calls were made to each state and how many respondents were there from each state?
Here's the question I think the Times should have asked: "Do you favor amnesty for illegal aliens who have broken into this country in what amounts to an on-going trespass and who are lowering your quality of life, who are draining public resources, who are causing the closing of hospital emergency rooms, and who are destroying our cities and our schools?"
My guess is that if the Times asked the people in the poll the question as I've rephrased it immediately above, that their results would have been much different and that their headline on page one would have been something like: "Large majority against Bush's amnesty." But, of course, that's not what the Times wanted to appear in the paper.
# # #
