Ask Elise Foley to explain why an anti-American bill might be popular (DREAM Act, Huffington Post)

In the Huffington Post article about Antonio Villaraigosa attacking Mitt Romney, Elise Foley says this:

Romney said in December that he would veto the Dream Act, a bill that would aid some undocumented young people and that receives high support from the public.

The DREAM Act is an openly anti-American bill that would let illegal aliens deprive some citizens of college; see the last link.

Those who aren't familiar with the issue might wonder: how could an anti-American bill receive "high support" from the American public?

The answer to that is simple: for years, the establishment media and those below them have been conducting a propaganda campaign for the bill in which they avoid mentioning the downsides of the bill. Instead, they pull readers' heartstrings using the dozens of highly-similar articles discussed on the PIIPP page.

If the media had done their job, the DREAM Act would be considered toxic and its many supporters would have been discredited over their support for it.

Instead, the media has conducted a disinformation campaign about the bill.

If you object to being subjected to a disinformation campaign, tweet @elise_foley and suggest that the next time she tells the truth about the bill and the campaign to pass it.

UPDATE: Foley directs me (twitter dot com/elise_foley/status/167343399140212736) to the poll here which asks:

Do you think illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since they were children should be eligible for legal citizenship, or not?

That gets 63% "yes" to 31% "no". That question suffers from the same problems inherent in other immigration polls (see immigration poll) and doesn't really address my point: people might support things they shouldn't because the media doesn't tell them the whole truth. For instance, the "children" covered by the DREAM Act could be as old as in their 30s per one of the versions, and various versions might have late cutoff dates for the time of arrival. For instance, someone could have come here at 15 or 16 and be eligible for the DREAM Act under certain versions. That question also doesn't go into the impact that would have as far as increasing future illegal immigration; if they'd included some of the downsides in the question they would have assuredly gotten a result with fewer yes votes. If they'd asked, "Do you think illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since they were children should be eligible for a mass legalization program, or not?" things would be different, and even more so if they'd used "amnesty" instead of "legalization".

And, the poll question doesn't mention the DREAM Act or the negative impacts it would have: the illegal aliens covered by it would be able to take scarce education resources away from U.S. citizens. Let's try a question like this for once:

"Imagine two students of nearly equal capabilities and accomplishments apply for one college slot. One of them is a citizen, the other is an illegal alien. Imagine also that there's a repatriation program that illegal aliens could take advantage of to return to their home countries, some of which give free or low-cost educations. That would also increase the number of smart people in Third World countries. If you give the college slot to the illegal alien, the U.S. citizen will be left out in the cold. If you give the college slot to the U.S. citizen, the illegal alien will be able to take advantage of the repatriation program to get their college education. Which student would you give the college slot to: the illegal alien or the U.S. citizen?"

What do you think the poll results on that would be?

If the establishment media would reveal the truth about the DREAM Act for once and discussed other options, it wouldn't be very popular at all and its supporters would find themselves scrambling to explain their support for bad, anti-American policies.