As discussed here several times, the editorial side of the WSJ favors open borders, smearing opponents and outright lying as necessary. The news side of the WSJ seems to have a few problems as well. Consider "California Race Highlights Split On Immigration" from Miriam Jordan. It reports on Jim Gilchrist getting 14% of the vote in California's 48th District, the same topic as that discussed in the editorial covered in How unserious are the free enterprise types? The WSJ's "news" piece even uses some of the same language as that piece. Why, it's almost like they're reading from the same talking points or something.

A full discussion of the WSJ's "news" article will have to wait, but let's consider this:

Economic conservatives tend to favor [Bush's anti-American plans.] Meanwhile, cultural conservatives vehemently oppose the Bush proposal...

Being so simplistic makes things so much easier, doesn't it? I'm positive that many more people than just "cultural conservatives" are opposed to guest worker schemes, just as long as those schemes are correctly described to them. Which brings us to the next bit of "news" from the WSJ:

New public-opinion data, generated by the Republican polling firm Tarrance Group, indicate that Republican voters nationwide don't necessarily agree with a deportation- and enforcement-only immigration policy. Instead they favor solutions that will deal with both future immigrants and the millions of undocumented workers already here. The national poll of 800 likely Republican voters, released yesterday, found that only 16% want to stop the flow of illegal immigrants entirely. Nearly 80% would support an enforcement package that increases penalties for employers, registers workers and -- provided those workers pay taxes, learn English and stay on the right side of the law -- offers a path to eventual citizenship.

What wonderful "news"! But, doesn't that paragraph almost sound a bit like a Soviet infomercial? So, let's look a little deeper:

The poll, of 800 American "likely voters," was conducted March 20-22. It was commissioned by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the National Immigration Forum.

The full questions and results are in PDFs at that link; the survey is a bit like asking people whether they want chocolate or vanilla ice cream without telling them both have lead in it. They haven't given those polled the full facts and they haven't offered them other choices. For instance, they get a good response when they ask whether fines for illegal aliens and employers should be increased; they don't ask about fines for politicians who refuse to enforce those laws. They even get people to agree that America's immigration system is broken, and needs to be fixed; what they don't reveal is that that's a favorite talking point of the open borders lobby.

A very similar poll was conducted by and for the same organization six months ago; see "FAIR Responds to Sham Immigration Poll". The Tarrance Group is risking their credibility by conducting polls of this sort for organizations like the AILA and the NIF. And, after reading this Pravda-level "news report" from the Wall Street Journal, I'll let the reader decide whether they have any credibility remaining.