The following is a partial list of the immigration polls - or polls featuring one or more immigration-related questions - that we've covered. Most polls on this topic aren't that reliable because they ask open-ended or misleading questions that frequently fail to disclose all the details of a specific issue. Only questions that ask about a very specific topic and that are asked of those familiar with that topic should be trusted.
Larry Kudlow offers "Immigration reform is pro-growth and pro-GOP" (cnbc . com/id/101685285). I'll briefly describe how it's wrong and what he's intentionally or not ignoring.
Do the latest results of a Gallup poll (link) show that the public is moving more towards support of mass legalization of illegal aliens? While those with a pro-comprehensive immigration reform agenda might like to think that or make you think that, the answer is no.
Not only that, but Gallup itself is showing their bias by misleading about the interpretation of their own results.
Five times since 2006, Gallup has been asking this question:
Another misleading Public Religion Research Institute immigration poll (Saperstein, Preston, CNN) - 11/25/13
The Public Religion Research Institute describes itself in the highest terms possible :
Ed Morrissey of HotAir will grasp at any straw to support amnesty, and the latest is "Reason-Rupe poll shows majority approves path to citizenship, oppose targeted drone killings of Americans"  referring to a poll by Reason Magazine .
That poll obtains its result by misleading; here's the question that was asked with the results:
If I said we should require all illegal aliens to leave, what would you say? I'd imagine most people would laugh and say, "how? Illegal aliens shouldn't be here in the first place. It's not like we could wave a magic wand and 'require' them to leave."
And, that explains why a new immigration poll from CBS News misleads (link).
The Pew Research Global Attitudes Project shows that Mexicans - the largest immigrant group to the U.S. - don't like Americans all that much.
A new Bloomberg immigration poll contends that 64% of likely voters approve of Obama enacting a version of the anti-American DREAM Act (link):
The chart below  shows that the GOP has become a party of crazed accountants, obsessing over the budget deficit. At the same time, the immigration issue has become less important to the GOP.
That's despite immigration - which determines who lives in the U.S. and who votes - being a far more vital and fundamental issue than spending. Deficits can be reduced in future years with increased economic activity and other means, but immigration is forever and ever and ever.
Public Religion Research Institute's misleading poll (immigration, DREAM Act, Brookings Institution) - 09/06/11
The Public Religion Research Institute ("PRRI") has released a poll called "What it Means to be American: Attitudes in an Increasingly Diverse America Ten Years after 9/11" (publicreligion.org/research/?id=680) which includes a few questions about immigration. I'll explain how two of the poll questions are misleading (see immigration poll for other misleading polls about this issue).
The ad appears to be vaguely referencing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act which Reid attached to the defense reauthorization bill last month as an amendment. The DREAM Act wouldn’t give undocumented students special tuition rates, but it would eliminate a federal provision that penalizes states that provide in-state tuition without regard to immigration status. Angle’s ad doesn’t mention that it would also allow certain undocumented immigrant youth who were brought to the U.S. by their parents at a young age to eventually obtain legal permanent status by enlisting in the military or attending a university. A June 2010 national poll of 1,008 adults revealed that 70 percent of voters support the DREAM Act, across party lines.
1. As I stated at the Angle ad link, she should have run it by NumbersUSA or some other group first, because, unfortunately, Nill is correct in a technical sense: the DREAM Act itself wouldn't give "special tuition rates".
2. However, where Nill is misleading is with that same Orwellian sentence containing "special tuition rates". Federal law currently says that states can't give illegal aliens a rate that they don't give to citizens . The DREAM Act would do away with that, letting states give illegal aliens a better rate than citizens. The bill itself wouldn't give illegal aliens a better rate, it would just allow states to do that with impunity. What she says above is like saying, "this bill wouldn't raise the speed limit, it would just eliminate the speed limit and let people go as fast as they want". Needless to say, giving illegal aliens a better rate than citizens is openly anti-American and shows how little loyalty those Americans who support the DREAM Act have to their fellow citizens.
3. Nill doesn't tell her readers that the "federal provision that penalizes states" has not ever as far as I know been enforced; see this, which references this. The reason for that is federal corruption: those running the Department of Homeland Security are too corrupt to enforce the laws they're required to enforce.
4. The "poll" she mentions (from First Focus) was more of an advocacy poll designed to obtain a skewed result, and the poll question misleads about the DREAM Act. No respectable polling organization would ever ask such a blatantly biased question; most would try to hide it better. Take a look at the incredibly biased question that was asked at . That question includes, "To earn legal status, students must have come to the U.S. when they were very young." In fact, the DREAM Act that Harry Reid was pushing would be open to those who claimed they came here at 15 years or younger. Does anyone think 15 years of age is "very young"?
 Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623, link:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
When Arizona enacted an unauthorized immigrant enforcement bill earlier this year, the immigration policy debate reignited across the country. Even so, the new survey shows that immigration does not rank as a top voting issue for Hispanics. Rather, they rank education, jobs and health care as their top three issues of concern for this year's congressional campaign. Immigration ranks as the fifth most important issue for Latino registered voters and as the fourth most important issue for all Latinos.
However, the survey finds that two-thirds (66%) of Latino registered voters say they talked about the immigration policy debate with someone they know in the past year. It also finds that those who have had these conversations are more motivated to vote in the upcoming election than are those who haven't. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Latino registered voters who have discussed the immigration debate say they are absolutely certain they will vote in November, compared with just four-in-ten (39%) of those who have not talked about the immigration debate.
Needless to say, the above is not how most politicians - Democrats or Republicans - act. They seem to believe that immigration is the primary motivation for Hispanics, when - despite Arizona - 34% of them haven't even discussed the issue with others. It's certainly the top motivating factor for Hispanic leaders and others who hope to profit monetarily or electorally from increased numbers of Hispanics, but to their base it's not a top-tier issue.
The Politico has released a poll  that asked people to choose from the following two choices (graphic with results below). The second choice is mostly clear-cut, but the first choice - to the extent it makes any sense at all - is open to multiple interpretations. Taken together, the poll question and the results are mostly meaningless:
Q. Which is closest to your views regarding immigration reform?
1. Congress needs to pass comprehensive immigration law guidelines now.
2. Congress should take no action and allow states to pass restrictions on illegal immigration.
Amnesty is usually called comprehensive immigration reform, except in cases like the above where pollsters are trying to mislead people. What exactly do "immigration reform" and "comprehensive immigration law guidelines" mean to the various people who took the poll? Some polls spell out what comprehensive immigration reform would consist of, even if they omit its downsides. The choice above leaves it up to the respondents' imaginations.
Who, you might ask, could be behind such a misleading poll choice? Why, none other than former Bill Clinton pollster Mark Penn; the poll was conducted by his company. And, to accompany the poll and to mislead about it, he offers "Surprising demand for immigration reform" 
Fifty-nine percent of the general population wants to see action on meaningful reform, and so do 76 percent of D.C. elites. More notable in today’s partisan climate is that reform gets the nod from Democrats and independents in equal measure (61 percent of both think Congress should "pass comprehensive immigration law guidelines now") and that 59 percent of Republicans agree as well.
The word "meaningful" only appears in his article, not in the question. And, who knows whether respondents wanted something "meaningful" or something more limited? Further, whether respondents actually "agree" with one another is doubtful since the poll question left open what exactly it was referring to. No doubt most "D.C. elites" are aligned, but the same can't be said of those outside the Beltway.
 Currently at politico.com/polls/power-and-the-people
Gallup poll: Hispanics 2-to-1 for Democrats both before and after Arizona immigration law - 06/11/10
Hispanic voters nationwide haven't shifted their congressional voting preferences since the signing of Arizona's new immigration law on April 23. Their preference for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate, 61% to 32%, in April 23 to June 8 interviewing almost identically matches the 60% to 32% margin recorded between March 1 and April 22. White voters and black voters also haven't changed their voting intentions.
Bear in mind, of course, that this was a nationwide poll and wasn't of, say, Mexican-Americans in Arizona or Southern California. However, it does contradict specific propaganda efforts like CNN's "Arizona Democrats say immigration law energizes Latinos" (link) as well as the more general predictions of electoral doom unless politicians basically turn immigration policy over to one ethnicity.
Another day, another misleading immigration poll. This one is from Lake Research for Frank Sharry's America's Voice. It's promoted by Kos of DailyKos at . And, one wonders what the game is: why promote misleading polls when all they do is give a false sense that something's popular when it isn't? Since many of the consumers of the poll will be on Kos' side, why is he trying to mislead them? Or, is it just that he can't figure out how the poll is misleading?
The only question we need to look at is this, which got a whopping 78% of support:
Now I'd like to read you a description of comprehensive immigration reform: Under this proposal, the federal government would strengthen border security and crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship. Do you support or oppose Congress passing comprehensive immigration reform?
1. That question doesn't clearly tell respondents that any illegal alien who passed their background check and the rest would be able to eventually get U.S. citizenship; it's ambiguous. If they'd said "Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government... and then would be able to go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship" it might be a bit clearer, but they're still front-loading the punitive steps and hiding the pay-off for corrupt politicians and businesses at the end. Would they have asked something like, "In order to get U.S. citizenship, illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line"? Maybe they should try an A/B test; most likely the second wouldn't fare as well since they would then be front-loading something most people probably don't want.
2. As with all the other immigration polls, they don't outline the downsides of comprehensive immigration reform, some of which are listed at that link. Can anyone imagine them asking whether someone would support "reform" despite the fact that - among many other negative consequences - it would give even more power inside the U.S. to the Mexican government? Or, consider this: "Illegal immigrants currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government... and then would be able to go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship. And, all of this would occur despite the fact that it would give a pass to decades of politicians supporting, enabling, or ignoring massive illegal immigration and decades of businesses knowingly profiting from illegal activity." What percentages would Kos get for that?
The National Council of La Raza and others  recently released a poll  making the claim that 70% of Latinos "strongly oppose" the new Arizona immigration law, with 11% in the "somewhat oppose" camp. Their findings are a bit questionable considering the results to the first question "What do you think are the most important issues that
President Obama and the Congress should address over
the next year?" Respondents were allowed to choose two of these:
Fix the economy 22%
Health Care 17%
Create more jobs 13%
War on terror 4%
Banking reform 2%
Those results seem more than a bit questionable; for instance, why did an important topic like education only get 5%? Why is immigration far and away their top issue when other polls have shown markedly different results? Did the NCLR's partners pre-select people in order to obtain the desired outcome? (I have no evidence to support that, but it's not like I'd put it past them.)
In addition, the NCLR once again showed how willing they are to engage in racial divisiveness by asking "If most of the immigrants in Arizona where White Europeans, this law would not have been passed". 76% took the race bait, only 21% disagreed. For a discussion of the implications of questions like that, see the all illegal aliens white page.
A few days ago, I discussed how a new Los Angeles Times / University of Southern California poll was designed to mislead. It not only presented a false choice about immigration, but it made one question deliberately unworkable (denying "emergency room treatment" to illegal aliens) in order to force people to choose one of the other, more amnesty-friendly options.
In 1994, Proposition 187 passed with almost 60% of the vote, and polling done by both political parties during subsequent election campaigns has suggested that the state's electorate would continue to support measures to deny a broad range of social services to illegal immigrants. Our new poll, however, found that California voters today are almost evenly divided on the question. Forty-five percent of respondents still support the denial of services -- including public schooling and healthcare to illegal immigrants -- but 47% oppose the idea. This represents a marked shift in public opinion with ramifications for both state and national politics and policy reform efforts.
The poll didn't just ask about "healthcare"; it asked about "any taxpayer funded social services, including emergency room treatment..." That's a much more extreme position than denying non-emergency healthcare, and Dan Schnoor isn't honest enough to reveal it to his readers.
Further, the LAT/USC polling partnership only began in November of last year (link), and the only instances of the emergency treatment question that I can find are for this latest poll. When other polling organizations discuss trends, they do it based on having asked the same exact questions year after year.
Somehow, Daniel Schnur is able to divine a trend based on the data from just one poll.
 Per his bio at the LAT link above: "Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, was communications director for Gov. Pete Wilson and an advisor to the 2000 presidential campaign of U.S. Sen. John McCain."
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/ LAT / USC poll designed to mislead; has immigration false choice - 04/03/10
A new "American Viewpoint" poll from the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California - conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner - can be accessed at gqrr.com/index.php?ID=2437, with a report here. Like others listed in immigration poll, it offers a false choice about the options available to us. These are the only three options that people were given for the "IMMIBAT" question (numbering and results added):
1. Implement stronger enforcement at the border and prohibit those here illegally from benefiting from any taxpayer funded social services, including emergency room treatment and public education for children here illegally. (45 for, 47 against)
2. Implement stronger enforcement at the border and design a temporary worker program that does not grant immigrants legal citizenship, but does allow them to legally work here for a specific period of time and then requires them to return to their country of origin. (70 for, 24 against)
3. Implement stronger enforcement at the border and set up a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants who admit they broke the law, perform community service, pay fines and back taxes and learn English. (67 for, 26 against)
The first, surprisingly-popular choice is completely unrealistic, would be a public safety nightmare, and wouldn't stand up to even the slightest constitutional challenge. And, USC, the LAT, and Greenberg all know that: they're intentionally trying to mislead people.
The second is the "corrupt Republican fantasy program", similar in spirit to plans from George W Bush, Mike Pence, and Helen Krieble. USC, the LAT, and Greenberg aren't telling respondents that such a program would be nearly impossible: those guest workers would be here to stay, especially those who've had U.S. citizen children. We'd trade millions of illegal aliens we can't deport for millions of "guests" who won't go home despite being "required" to do so.
The third is the comprehensive immigration reform choice, with a possible tip of the hat to the recent Chuck Schumer/Lindsey Graham scheme (From their scheme: "They would be required to admit they broke the law and to pay their debt to society by performing community service and paying fines and back taxes. These people would be required to pass background checks and be proficient in English before going to the back of the line of prospective immigrants to earn the opportunity to work toward lawful permanent residence.") It has the flaws listed at the first link in this paragraph and many more, and USC, the LAT, and Greenberg aren't telling respondents about those flaws.
And, USC, the LAT, and Greenberg aren't asking about a fourth plan: attrition. That would involve enforcing the law - but not blocking emergency treatment and the like - in order to reduce the numbers of illegal aliens here over time. Needless to say, polls that are designed to mislead - such as this one - don't ask about plans like that.
Poll: church members disagree with religious leaders' support for amnesty, massive immigration - 12/29/09
In contrast to many national religious leaders who are lobbying for increases in immigration numbers, a new Zogby poll of likely voters who belong to the same religious communities finds strong support for reducing overall immigration. Moreover, the poll finds that members strongly disagree with their leaders’ contention that more immigrant workers need to be allowed into the country. Also, most parishioners and congregants advocate for more enforcement to cause illegal workers to go home, while most religious leaders are calling for putting illegal immigrants on a path to U.S. citizenship. The survey of Catholic, mainline Protestant, born-again Protestant, and Jewish voters used neutral language and was one of the largest polls on immigration ever done.
On the question of whether there are enough Americans to do unskilled jobs, large majorities said yes. On the question of whether immigration is too high, 50% of Jews said yes with 22% saying it was just right. The other groups were higher, ranging from 69% to 78%. And, 60% to 85% aren't buying the line that illegal immigration is caused by limitations on the legal variety.
68% of U.S. voters oppose the creation of sanctuary cities. Only 13% favor the creation of cities that give safe haven to illegal immigrants. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure.
Forty-nine percent (49%) say federal and state government funds should be cut off to cities that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants. Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree and oppose any funding cutoff. Eighteen percent (18%) aren’t sure.
Fifty percent (50%) of voters say sanctuary policies that protect illegal immigrants lead to an increase in crime. Just 20% do not believe this to be true, while 30% are undecided.
Seventy-three percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday morning called for a drop in the number of illegal immigrants, with 22 percent saying the number should remain the same and just 3 percent stating that there should be an increase in the number of illegal immigrants. That 73 percent figure is the highest number since CNN started asking this question four years ago.
According to the poll, 37 percent want to see all illegal immigrants deported, also the highest number since the questions was first asked in 2006, and another 23 percent say that the number of illegal immigrants in the country should be decreased significantly.
Zogby poll: 69% of Mexicans think immigrants should be loyal to Mexico; most say immigration "reform" would increase illegal immigration - 10/14/09
A Zogby poll done of Mexicans in Mexico is discussed here. They seem to have buried the lede, so I'll put that shocking revelation first:
* An overwhelming majority (69 percent) of people in Mexico thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) should be to Mexico. Just 20 percent said it should be to the United States. The rest were unsure.
* Also, 69 percent of people in Mexico felt that the Mexican government should represent the interests of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) in the United States.
Certainly, some of those who thought that Mexican immigrants should have loyalties to Mexico might change their minds once they get here. However, many or most will not. And, many or most of those here now might disagree. But, anyone who promotes massive immigration or guest workers should be asked about that statistic and what exactly they intend to do about it. Really pressing a political leader on that on video could have an impact on their political career and send a strong message to the others. For a tangible example, instead of throwing tantrums, those who attended Lindsey Graham's townhall could have found the smartest person among them to really press him on that issue.
Half (50%) say immigration should be decreased, up from 39% last year. A third (32%) say immigration levels should be kept the same, down from 39%, and 14% say they should be increased, down from 18%... Currently, 58% say [immigration] is a good thing -- the lowest percentage saying so since 2003. The historical low for this measure, 52%, came in 2002, after the 9/11 attacks.
Not only that, but 44% of Democrats and 46% of independents want immigration decreased.
One of the games that illegal immigration supporters like to play is to pretend that comprehensive immigration reform isn't amnesty; they use a variety of misleading euphemisms, such as "earned legalization" and so on. But, sometimes the mask slips, as it did with Angela Kelley of the Center for American Progress. Referring to the recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, she says (americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/immigration_friends.html):
In fact, in the poll a majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, moderates, and conservatives supported an Amnesty Program. "Seven in 10 liberals and 68 percent of Democrats support an amnesty program. But so do majorities of Republicans and independents (59 percent in both cases), moderates (63 percent) and conservatives (56 percent) alike."
On immigration, while support for a path to citizenship is up, interest in greater border control remains high and strong. Seventy-four percent say the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the country; 59 percent feel "strongly" about it.
In fact, as detailed at the discussion of the poll, it doesn't mention a "path to citizenship" at all; legalization doesn't necessarily imply that all those legalized would be able to become citizens.
Washington Post /ABC News poll shows 61% favor illegal alien legalization; didn't ask about citizenship - 05/12/09
Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?
61% supported that vs. 35% against, up from 49/46, 51/44, and 52/44 in the second half of 2007. The uptick in support is slightly worrisome, as is the fact that this poll can be spun as supportive of comprehensive immigration reform when it doesn't include a main component of most CIR plans: a "path to citizenship" where former illegal aliens would eventually become citizens. The poll question is mostly useless and could also be read as supportive of a massive guest workers plan. And, as with other questions along these lines it fails to inform respondents of all the downsides of such schemes; many or most people are ignorant of those downsides because the mainstream media has done a terrific job at misleading people on this topic.
57%: The economy
43%: National security
33%: The environment
20%: Energy policy
Note that two surveys were conducted, and all adults Latinos were eligible. Thus, the persons answering that question could be Puerto Ricans, native born Mexican-Americans, legal immigrants, illegal aliens, or so on.
Further, voters (presumably citizens) were asked "What one issue mattered most to you in deciding how to vote for president?" They were not given a choice of responses. Only 6% named immigration, behind the economy/jobs (31%), "change" (13%), Iraq (7%), and "candidate attributes" (14%). No one appears to have named Sarah Palin as a reason one way or another. Only 2% named Bush, and only 1% named things related to the Republican party.
None of the above is very favorable to those who support massive/illegal immigration, so NC Aizenman of the Washington Post supplies the orthodoxy (link):
Still, Mark Hugo Lopez, co-author of the survey released today, cautioned that the current results may reflect Latinos' increasing concern with the economy more than mounting apathy over immigration. He noted that 75 percent of Hispanics reported that immigration should be at least a "very important" priority for President-elect Barack Obama, and 88 percent cited it as at least "important."Hacks are funny.
Lopez also said the current poll did not necessarily disprove the impression of many analysts that the Republican Party's opposition to the legalization plan contributed to Obama's two-to-one victory over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) among Hispanics. Although previous polling indicated that registered Latino voters had more confidence in Democrats' ability to manage the economy, a September poll by the Pew Hispanic Center also found that 55 percent of Latino registered voters believed Democrats had more concern for Hispanics, compared to 6 percent who cited Republicans.
"We don't have any evidence to be able to tease out the independent effect of immigration [on the election's outcome]," said Lopez. "There are several possible scenarios there and I don't think our survey allows us to tease them out."
I don't have an original link for this, but according to "The menace of multiculturalism":
A poll for the Pew Hispanic Center finds that 55 percent of Americans of Mexican descent consider themselves Mexicans first. A similar study of Muslim immigrants in Los Angeles finds that only 10 percent think of themselves as Americans rather than citizens of the countries they abandoned for new lives here.
Believe it or not, Morton wants Bush to co-opt Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Laura Ingraham, so that those fine hosts can then turn around and explain the wisdom of Bush's plans to the great unwashed out there beyond the beltway. Unfortunately, Kondracke doesn't discuss what those hosts would do when their ratings started to plummet.
And, he can't even tell his amnesty schemes apart:
...Bush tilted right himself... declaring opposition to "amnesty" for illegals... ...but business and pro-immigrant groups are concerned that the bill will contain a provision sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) that would require workers to return to their home countries after their six-year work visas expire... That would disrupt employment patterns and family life and discourage illegals from reporting for work permits in the first place.Actually, the Cornyn/Kyl scheme requires the workers to go back to their countries and then register. It's Bush's "temporary" worker scheme that says they have to leave after six years. Therefore, Morton just called into question Bush's scheme.
Immigration restrictionists denounce the McCain-Kennedy provision as "amnesty," but it's really a recognition of reality: There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., and it would be far more efficient to concentrate law enforcement resources on finding and expelling criminals among them than trying to corral them all...Now, for the truth, see "GAO: ICE all but ignores workplace enforcement".
...It's up to Bush to avoid stalemate - and there are lots of good arguments he can use to pull his party together. On the merits, he can show that enforcement-only immigration policy simply doesn't work. According to the Migration Policy Institute, overall spending on immigration enforcement increased from $1 billion in 1985 to $4.9 billion in 2002. Appropriations for the border patrol went up tenfold, and the number of agents rose eightfold. Yet, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. has averaged from 480,000 to 660,000 and a total of 9 million have entered since 1990.
Kondracke goes on to quote the National Immigration Forum and suggest that Bush should work with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And, he plays the "Hispanic Vote" card.
But, wait, there's more work for me to do:
...Anti-immigrant campaigns don't win. In Southern California, Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the much-publicized Minutemen Project, a civilian border-control group, got only 25 percent of the vote and finished third...The Kilgore race appears to have hinged on something else. As for Gilchrist, Mort completely distorts the significance of that 25%. For instance, on election day, Gilchrist seems to have gotten more votes than Campbell.
And former Virginia Attorney Gen. Jerry Kilgore (R) lost to Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) despite ads that attacked Kaine's support for a day-labor site in suburban Herndon and education for immigrant children. The ad concluded, "What part of illegal doesn't Kaine understand?"
Then, he says:
Currently, the 2006 favorite [for prez of Mexico] is former Mexico City Mayor Andres Lopez Obrador of the left-wing PRD party - someone who's likely to get financial assistance from Venezuela's radical President Hugo Chavez and, if elected, could pursue economic policies that cause a surge in illegal immigration.Even more than Bush and Fox have managed to do? While I'm sure he would drive MX even further down, he might also shake things up a bit. And, he certainly wouldn't be as chummy with our "American" president as Fox has been. Plus, we'd probably see Mexico's plans a bit more clearly with someone else at the helm. I'm not in favor of Obrador, but if he won it would have some advantages that another Pepsi executive type would not have.
Then, Mort trots out the poll discussed in "FAIR Responds to Sham Immigration Poll" and Immigration "news" from the Wall Street Journal. And, he ends with this:
Doing the right thing is win-win for Republicans, if only Bush can convince Sean Hannity.Hannity might be an idiot, but I'm sure he isn't stupid. I'm sure he doesn't want to be reduced to being the night jock on a Fargo Oldies station. Perhaps Bush should learn from him, instead of the other way around? After all, Hannity actually knows what most of the public wants, unlike the Bush administration and Beltway hacks.
Here's the main findings of a new Gallup poll (gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=12439):
only 14% of Americans wanting to see immigration increased; another 33% want it kept at the present level while 49% want it decreased.
In a more detailed question: