Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch’s Partnership for a New American Economy (a.k.a. Billionaires for Open Borders) has released what may be the most ridiculously skewed pro-amnesty poll I’ve seen. The poll, conducted by McLlaughlin & Associates, is timed to coincide with Tea Party Express executive Sal Russo’s teaming up with Grover Norquist to push amnesty (they both co-sponsored the poll as well); it purports to show that even tea-party people support Chuck Schumer’s amnesty bill, so get on with it already, Boehner!
The mendacity of the whole exercise becomes apparent when you read the actual questions. After a few setup questions you get to this (all the emphases are mine):
7. SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE PROPOSED A PLAN FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM THAT WOULD INCLUDE BOTH IMPROVED BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT, AS WELL AS A WAY FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE ALREADY IN THIS COUNTRY TO STAY IN THIS COUNTRY, IF THEY PAY PENALTIES, PAY BACK TAXES, PASS A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK AND LEARN ENGLISH AND AMERICAN CIVICS.WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THIS PLAN?
Pretty standard so far — using the left’s “undocumented” label and repeating the “back taxes” and “learn English” lies — there, is in fact no such proposal.
The next question might be the most dishonest:
8. WOULD YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE IMMIGRATION REFORM THAT WOULD REQUIRE WE REDUCE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BY AT LEAST 90% BEFORE GRANTING LEGAL STATUS TO ANY UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT WHO IS ALREADY IN THE UNITED STATES, IMPLEMENTS THE E-VERIFY SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES ALL EMPLOYERS TO INSTANTLY CHECK IF SOMEONE IS HERE LEGALLY AND ELIGIBLE TO WORK BEFORE THEY’RE HIRED, AND PROHIBITS ANY IMMIGRANT FROM BEING ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ANY TAXPAYER FUNDED BENEFIT LIKE WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS OR MEDICAID UNTIL THEY HAVE BECOME A CITIZEN?
The Big Lie here is right up front — there is no proposal that would require any reduction in illegal immigration (or any other precondition) before illegal immigrants are legalized. In the words of Chuck Schumer, author of the Senate bill, “first, people will be legalized. . . . Then, we will make sure the border is secure.” (That’s Schumer-ese for “Of course I’ll respect you in the morning.”) Any poll question that asks about a control-first/legalization-second approach simply has no relation to the actual legislative debate in Congress.
And so on. Question 9 not only repeats the “back taxes” lie but also implies the DREAM Act applies only to those “brought” to the U.S. illegally, when in fact people who came on their own as teenagers would also benefit. Question 10 starts “Current immigration policy is based upon country quotas,” which is simply false. Question 11 offers the hilarious choice between leaving things the way they are or having a deal between the president and Congress that “fixes the system, secures the borders and restores the rule of law” — it’s not clear who was supposed to pick option 1. And question 13 offered the phony choice of deporting everybody, amnesty without citizenship (repeating the “back taxes” and “learn English” lies), or amnesty with citizenship.
There’s no question that much of the public (myself included) is open to amnesty for established, non-violent illegal aliens as the final stage of a process re-establishing control over immigration. But there’s nothing before Congress — and nothing that Obama (or Hillary or Jeb) would sign — that fits that description.