May 16, 2006

OKAY, THE HIGH TEENS:

Poll suggests Bush address swayed viewers (CNN, 5/16/06)

In a CNN snap poll of 461 people who watched Monday's speech, 42 percent said they had a positive opinion of the president's immigration policies before they heard him speak. Afterward, 67 percent said they had a positive view, a jump of 25 percentage points.

The polled audience was 41 percent Republican, 23 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

"People who watch the speech do tend to be somewhat more Republican than the voters as a whole," CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said. "But that wasn't the best response he's gotten compared to other speeches, in fact it was lower than any speech we've measured since he took office."


Every poll on immigration shows that if you combine amnesty-by-another-name with "increased enforcement" you win politically on the issue.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 16, 2006 1:49 PM
Comments

As I noted in a post below compare this to the assessment that 95% of the blogosphere hated the speech.

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2006 2:04 PM

All George did last night was throw the door wide open and invited his conservative base to leave quietly...and that we did.

Posted by: NC3 [KKK] at May 16, 2006 2:05 PM

KKK:

David Duke awaits with open arms and spiffy hoods.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 2:08 PM

If you think you're the base, chances are pretty good that you're not.

Posted by: Timothy at May 16, 2006 2:09 PM

AWW:

What do blogs have to do with the American people?

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 2:10 PM

"Every poll on immigration shows that if you combine amnesty-by-another-name with "increased enforcement" you win politically on the issue."

Which is precisely why the issues should be separated since they contradict each other.

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 2:14 PM

OJ - see my earlier post below about how some bloggers, like Hewitt and NRO, believe that they are the voice of American people.

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2006 2:15 PM

sharon:

No, that's exactly the point.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 2:17 PM

AWW:

I believe chicks dig thick mats of back hair--doesn't make it so...

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 2:20 PM

I'll forever be amazed by the percentage of adult Americans prone to temper tantrums.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 16, 2006 2:20 PM

OJ,

Your analysis is correct up to the point that the 'enforcement' is seen as serious and not a scam.

The fact is that the current situation is unsustainable for both political and cultural reasons. Anything viewed as a fake fix will turn out to be a mistake.
___

Re: blogs...

Blogs have racked up an impressive record. Their influence is underneath the surface, and tends to grow with time. Their linkage with talk radio amplifies their influence.

The stuff we throw into the meme pool has a way of replicating.

Come now, OJ. You are up to nearly 1.5 million hits (and accelertating, if my analysis is correct) False humility is the worst form of conceit.

Posted by: Bruno at May 16, 2006 2:23 PM

Bruno:

No one cares if it's real, they just want to be able to pretend it is. Talk is good enough.

Go out in the street and ask the next ten folks who walk by to name a blog they read.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 2:30 PM

There are not a great many bloggers I would want in my platoon, much less in my foxhole. Bunch of cats.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 16, 2006 2:35 PM

"You're right. It is a nice racism touch, because it's not-so-nice racism that says it's okay for the Derbyshires of the world to break the immigration laws while it's just terrible for darker-skinned people to do the same."

Like other pro-illegal immigrationists on this board, you make the mistake of assuming those of us who want our laws enforced would only want them enforced against brown skinned people. I have no problem deporting white-skinned people anymore than any other lawbreaker. Calling people racists for wanting the law enforced shows the shallow hypocrisy of your argument. Sure, there may be those who care more about brown-skinned illegals than white-skinned illegals, but that's probably because they live in areas where they have more contact (and are taxed more heavily to support) the brown-skinned illegals.

"But I don't want Hipsanic illegals getting fired and shipped back to Mexico, either."

Why not? They are breaking our laws daily.

"Again, face the logic of your position."

Oh, I have. And I have logic, which is more than the people calling us racists for wanting immigration laws enforced across the board.

"If you don't want amnesty, what do you want?"

Raoul articulated the position. Punish the employers severely and they will stop hiring illegals.

" The self-deportation dream could only work if you are willing to punish severely, and I mean severely, hundreds of thousand of Americans whose only crime iss giving legitimate jobs to people willing to work."

More obfuscation in your language. It isn't giving illegals a legitimate job. By definition, illegals cannot have a legitimate job since their work status is, in fact, illegitimate.

"Even then, I don't think there would be large self-deportation, because too many people would find ways around the law."

This is pure hypothetical. What are we to do? Nothing? If you want to change the law, then muster the courage to change it instead of doing what Bush is describing, which is ignoring the laws on the books and thinking he can placate Americans by laughably suggesting 6k National Guardsmen on the border.

"So what exactly do you want to do?"

Kick out the illegals. Already answered.

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 2:58 PM

Okay then, go over to NRO and deport Derbyshire. He gets no amnesty, he broke the immigration laws, he's admitted it. Drive him into the Atlantic if he won't go peacefully.

Do that with 12 million other people, including millions of children. Herd them with pitchforks, suffocate them in trains, throw them into the sea.

Then watch more people try to get into this country, anyway. Not that I would relish living in a country you run, but America would still have plenty of economic incentives for people to come here.

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 3:28 PM

Yeah, but 1.3 million of those hits are from about twelve of us.

Posted by: joe shropshire at May 16, 2006 3:31 PM

sharon:

The racism lies in the law you want enforced as well as in the enforcement.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 3:33 PM

Ahhh, it's for the children, is it?

Posted by: Sandy P at May 16, 2006 3:34 PM

Sharon - so after your long post you come back to exactly what we think you are saying - kick out the illegals.

Which I generally agree with. My problem is that there an estimated 12MM of them (probably more since you probably can't find them all) and some who have been here for 10 years or more. So to do what you are suggesting would take a large bureacracy to run which small govt conservatives would then complain about. And what do you think will happen to the GOP image when the MSM starts running video of families being physically deported? Think of Elian Gonzalez x 12MM.

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2006 3:36 PM

Sandy:

Yes, you threw the children a bone or two to shut them up and then grant the amnesty. Reagan pioneered the technique.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 3:40 PM

Yep, Sharon wants to throw millions of kids out of the country, including Derbyshire's son and daughter. She's really doing it for the kids.

And if you say that Derbyshire's kids had nothing to do with their father's law-breaking, tough on them. They can follow their illegal immigrant daddy into the Atlantic.

(Okay, the kids were born citizens. But they'll follow daddy home.)

Posted by: Casey Abell at May 16, 2006 3:43 PM

sharon,

What is it about the immigration laws that makes you insist on strict enforcement more than, say, underage liquor laws?

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 3:44 PM

You make the assumption I don't believe underage liquor laws should be enforced.

And I think "small government conservatives" would say that we could move spending from one area of the government to deal with illegal immigration.

And isn't it fun to paint me as hard-hearted for saying we should enforce the laws? I thought so.

Posted by: sharon at May 16, 2006 3:59 PM

Or campaign finance laws? Or election laws? Or IRS regulations? Or student loan repayments? Or the Beck decision?

Posted by: ratbert at May 16, 2006 4:01 PM

Not hard-hearted, hateful.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 4:02 PM

sharon, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798-99 are still on the books. They're the law. Should we enforce them?

Posted by: Brad S at May 16, 2006 4:21 PM

Brad:

Yes.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 4:29 PM

I don't think the illegals should be kicked out. I don't think illegals should protest or receive welfare. If they feel "exploited", tough, that's a rite of passage. I was "illegal" for a couple of years. It's a citizen's priviledge to throw a tantrum, not an illegal's. I want stronger border control to stop the torrent of illegals flowing in. For those who are already here, I want ID's issued to them so that they can stay on their jobs, and go visit their families when the job season is over, then come back when jobs are available. Their money can fuel their economy at home.

It's true that illegals are taking jobs that locals won't do. E.g. $15/hr for planting a tree. Local charges: per hr plus a percentage of the cost of the tree. Why is the cost of the tree any of the worker's business? If I can't find a person, legal or illegal, planting my tree at the price I can afford: I'll either do it myself and sprain my back and pay a visit to a doctor raising my insurance premium and stay home from work lowering my productivity; or I'll leave my lawn without a tree, one less sale to be ringed by a very underworked cashier in the local nursery, one less tree to be grown by an illegal labor, one less profit to be made by the owner, one less sale tax to be collected by the local govt., and income tax to the Fed.

Illegals are taking jobs for a price that locals won't do, but some jobs would have never been created without their "illegal" labors, some other jobs will be lost without their "illegal" labors.

Americans are lucky to have a supply of "illegal" labors, "illegals" are lucky to have opportunities for gainful employment.

Posted by: ic at May 16, 2006 4:36 PM

And look how well it has worked.

they've had 20 years to increase legal immigration, they've chosen not to. I remember reading what they've done for Australia.

My daughter is here legally. She was supposed to be fast-tracked and it still took 2-1/2 years.

Adopting her legally didn't take that long. considering how slow the wheels of justice turns, that says something.

It's also interesting that everyone's piecemealing everything.

Discussing people here 10++ years is 1 thing, recently is another.

And yes, I'd send the whites back, too.

Should they have to meet the same qualifications we had to meet? I have 3 years of tax returns sitting at our embassy in Russia to show I could support my child. And I had to be fingerprinted and run thru the system.

Posted by: Sandy P at May 16, 2006 5:11 PM

Cool, working the system to suit yourself! Because, after all, it's about them not you.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 5:17 PM

Sandy: You write as if these particular laws were handed down from Mt. Sinai. We don't like these laws and we want to change them. It's happened a time or two in American history. We don't find those who broke them, for that reason, morally objectionable. Saying over and over "It's the law; It's the law." isn't going to change that. In the 19th century, I wouldn't have blamed the slaves for escaping, which was a crime, and I wouldn't have felt compelled to cooperate when the government tried to send them back.

Now, I'm not suggesting that illegal immigrants are the moral equivalents of escaped slaves, but I am saying that simply telling us what the law is is imbecilic. Suggesting that people who risk their lives getting into this country are morally equivalent to same as people who cut in front of us in line is also silly.

So, what substantive reason is there to so viciously oppose illegal immigrants that the mere fact that the president is not being as harsh as you want is reason enough to abandon the nation to the Democrats, who not only are worse on your pet issue, but are worse on every issue and who, while we're at it, don't take the defense of this country from armed enemies very seriously? I am, in fact, reluctant to conclude that it is vicious racism, but what else can it be.

Most of the problems anti-immigrationists claim are caused by illegals are purely a result of their illegal status. We can solve those problems simply by having open borders. What reason is there to choose closed borders instead? It better be a pretty good one, because immigrants and their children make us rich and secure. So, you'd better come up with something that's better than being rich and secure.

They won't assimilate? That's been proven false by 450 years of experience. Everyone assimilates.

The don't speak the language? No immigration wave came here all speaking the language. They'll learn or their kids will learn.

They take our jobs? You might as well worry about robots taking our jobs, or Chinese laborers. It's another argument that's been wrong for 450 years.

They cost us lots of money? They don't cost us a cent we don't choose to spend and their children will make us rich.

So, what is it? What, other than oxymoronic American racial purity causes people to throw such childish fits?

Posted by: David Cohen at May 16, 2006 5:43 PM

If the objection is just illegality then amnesty removes it.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 5:47 PM

Mr. Cohen;

"Everyone assimilates" -- you mean like the Europeans assimilated to the Native American way of life? Or they way immigrants to the Roman Empire maintained it's civilization?

Ah, I can hear you sputter, but that's different!. Well yes it is. On the other hand, it does demonstrate that your claim is not universal but is in fact context dependent. What, other than historical ignorance, makes you throw out such a childish statement?

But you're not nearly as much fun to bait as OJ, so I will instead ask you two serious questions:

1) Do you believe that there is any upper limit to the number of immigrants that can be assimilated in a fixed period of time?

2) If you think (1) is true, do you believe that open borders could allow immigrant flows of that magnitude? If not, why not?

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 16, 2006 5:54 PM

AOG:

The superior culture assimilates the inferior. Darwinism is true as a social science, just false as a biological one.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 6:00 PM

Sandy, my niece had to go through much the same thing adopting a baby from Guatemala. It cost a fortune and she was investigated and interviewed for weeks and months before being told she could pick up the baby. Funny because four month old Vanessa doesn't look that dangerous to homeland security.

Posted by: erp at May 16, 2006 6:08 PM

The Alien and Sedition acts are NOT still on the books. Jefferson had them repealed. Look to McCain to ask that they be re-instated to "get rid of corruption."

Posted by: Bruno at May 16, 2006 7:06 PM

OJ,

The ten people I ask about blogs don't matter. The reporters, their friends, and the 1 in a 100 who is an opinion leader among some of these 10 may actually matter.

Further, I'd only ask 10 people who vote. People who don't vote truly don't matter.

Posted by: Bruno at May 16, 2006 7:08 PM

AOG: I never sputter. I think you knew what I meant.

1. There may be a limit, but it is so much higher than our current level of immigration that, for all practical purposes, there is no limit.

2. I'm not particularly in favor of open borders but, no, I don't think that any real world influx of immigration would be beyond the theoretical limits of assimilation. Let's be clear, though, that I don't think that immigration will leave the US unchanged.

Posted by: David Cohen at May 16, 2006 7:11 PM

I'm working the system to suit myself?

QUE?

Posted by: Sandy P at May 16, 2006 7:16 PM

Well, someone's going to be proved correct and we are living in interesting times.

Posted by: Sandy P at May 16, 2006 7:26 PM

AOG: Regarding your first question to Mr. Cohen and Mr. Judd, the people coming here are self selecting. They see a country worth risking a lot for (even if we don't deport them, it is difficult to leave your home and family to start from scratch somewhere else) and want to be a part of it. That desire helps fuel assimilation.

As to the second question, given that becoming American can be achieved by believing in our philosophy and not by blood relation, there probably isn't a limit. Why worry about too many Americans, anyway?

Posted by: Buttercup at May 16, 2006 8:09 PM

Opinion leader? There's no such thing.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 9:14 PM

Bruno:

To the contrary, Jefferson and his party used sedition acts once in office.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 9:22 PM

Actually, I just read both the Enemy Alien and Friendly Alien Acts. They're both pretty good laws. They'd be useful today.

Posted by: David Cohen at May 16, 2006 9:42 PM

FWIW, I think I've solved the mystery of PoliPundit's emotional diatribe against illegals. Poli is generally anonymous, but once acknowledged having been born in Asia. Probably a legal immigrant who dutifully jumped through all the requisite hoops. I'm guessing from blog posts that Poli had to leave family and/or loved one(s)behind. Hence the extraordinary resentment. Much like Michel Malkin's.

Among Asian immigrants here in Oregon, BTW, I see an obviously deep interest in the issue, coupled with an enigmatic posture. I think there is a lot of resentment.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 16, 2006 10:49 PM

Yes, ghostcat, INS has a lot to answer for. Some on the Right want to give those destroyers of families more power. You lost me coach....

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 16, 2006 11:35 PM

Robert -

No message there, except that the "hell no" crowd appears to include a bunch of non-Anglos.

Posted by: ghostcat at May 16, 2006 11:50 PM

Whichever group we tried keeping out last time is always ready to keep out the next. In 2040 the Minutemen of the moment will be predominantly Latino and the Congressman Tancredo of the day will be a Hernandez or a Rodriguez.

Posted by: oj at May 16, 2006 11:57 PM

Buttercup;

I take it as given that immigrants do not have the correct social memeware to operate in American society, otherwise their host societies would be like ours and they wouldn't be immigrating. The process of rewriting them to have this memeware is normally called "assimilation". You are presuming this can happen without effort on the part of the natives, something I find implausible at best. Somebody has to teach them or show them. Given that, there is a finite amount of assimilation that can be provided, even if the immigrants are willing. Everyone can learn to drive a car, but if you just throw people in one and say "drive!" you are unlikely to get a lot of success no matter how much the subjects think driving is a good thing.

I think there are upper limits on the immigrant flow we can absorb for this reason among others, and I believe that our capacity is less than it has been historically because of the welfare state and the rise of multi-culturalism. I would agree that the limit is very likely to be significantly larger than current legal immigration rates, but I am not so sanguine that it matches the high water mark of the early 1900s.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 17, 2006 12:00 AM

AOG, the act of moving to this country shows their willingness to adapt, and they excape the traditions and habits that made their old country different. Joyfully working hard and taking care of one's self is all someone really has to do to be an American. Not much in the way of "assimilation" there. The only problem I see is that the racist quotas the Dems set up allow some of the Old country traditions to be reinforced. Open up the borders to everyone and the problem will be solved. Assimilation is really something other countries do. Try and become part of Japan
or France, for example.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 17, 2006 12:14 AM

Or they way immigrants to the Roman Empire maintained it's civilization?

The Empire became a rotted hulk first. The "barbarians" simply moved into the power vacuum.

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at May 17, 2006 12:30 AM

AOG:

I take it as given that immigrants do not have the correct social memeware to operate in American society, otherwise their host societies would be like ours and they wouldn't be immigrating. The process of rewriting them to have this memeware is normally called "assimilation". You are presuming this can happen without effort on the part of the natives, something I find implausible at best. Somebody has to teach them or show them.

Your "given" should be given back. You sound like a European. Immigrants import their food, faith and family cohesion, but they do not come with the general social and political ethos of the home country, and not just in the States. All around the world Greek, Syrian, Chinese and East Indian immigrants have thrived so well they have often triggered native resentment, and this during times all of their native lands were basket cases and hardly prone to democratic individualism. No one gave them lessons. No country in the world is more of a dysfuntional cesspool than Haiti, but look how well Haitian immigrants are doing in New York and Quebec.

You speak of assimilation as if it were or should be a government indoctrination programme that rooted out bad habits and inclinations. When did that ever happen? There is no need, most of these people understand freedom and self-reliance very well from the moment they arrive. As a matter of fact, the only good thing government can do is check nativism in the public schools.

Posted by: Peter B at May 17, 2006 6:14 AM

Sort of bizarre the way he dehumanizes them. Rewriting memeware?

Posted by: oj at May 17, 2006 8:30 AM

Joseph:

The superior culture triumphed.

Posted by: oj at May 17, 2006 8:49 AM
You speak of assimilation as if it were or should be a government indoctrination programme that rooted out bad habits and inclinations
No I don't. I wrote "on the part of the natives", not "on the part of the government".
their willingness to adapt
I specifically noted that this problem existed regardless of their willingness, I even highlighted that specific point, yet you cite that against me.

If we can't accurately communicate about such basic points, there's no gain in discussing the more subtle issues that follow from them.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 17, 2006 9:23 AM

---Assimilation is really something other countries do. Try and become part of Japan
or France, for example.---

I've heard the same about NEsterners.

Posted by: Sandy P at May 17, 2006 10:43 AM
« ARE YOU GOING TO BE THE ONE LOADING THE CATTLE CARS?: | Main | FAIR TRADE: »

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference OKAY, THE HIGH TEENS::

» Midday Line, May 17 from Pajamas Media
Go for the win in 2006: Townhall's Lorie Byrd and The Anchoress are of one mind on whether or not conservatives should blow up the Republicans in 2006. Sociologist Frank Furedi pulls back the curtain on the politics of happiness at... [Read More]