Yesterday, the
Washington Post ran an editorial on the immigration rallies around the country, and what the rallies tell us about the immigration debate. The editorial board is once again coming up with opinions without bothering to read the facts - in this case,
facts that appear just pages before the editorial itself. While the editorial board claimed that there is no consensus on the best way to deal with the immigration problem among voters, a poll commissioned by the Washington Post and ABC News showed that 63% of Americans support a program that allows immigrants who have been in the United States for a set amount of time to pursue citizenship - a plan very similar to the one shelved by the Senate last week.
The Republican alternatives - and you can pick any one of the three big ones - all had far less support, and were far more punitive in handling the issue. Senators Cornyn and Kyl want to let immigrants in for a limited number of years and then send them back to their home countries; 14% of those surveyed liked this idea. The House plan, which is similar to Senator Frist's plan, doesn't address much beyond building a wall and declaring everyone here illegally to be a felon; 20% of respondents liked this plan. Why is it so hard for the Post editorial board to understand these numbers? What are they trying to accomplish by ignoring the facts
reported in their own paper?
From the editorial (on Page A20):
"It's impossible to predict how the rallies will be received in part because there is no consensus on what to do about the estimated 12 million people who live and work here illegally, which in turn is reflected in the lack of political consensus."
From the article (on Page A12):
"The Senate is trying to fashion a broader solution to address both border security and the fate of 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants already here.
But amid partisan finger-pointing, the Senate left town Friday for a two-week recess, having failed to pass a bipartisan immigration compromise that appeared to have the support of a clear majority of the Senate. The deal also appears to have overwhelming support among voters. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 63 percent of those surveyed backed letting immigrants who have lived in the country a certain number of years apply for legal status and eventually become citizens.
In contrast, only 14 percent favored a plan to let illegal immigrants work for a limited number of years before having to return to their home countries -- an alternative pushed by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). An additional 20 percent said illegal immigrants should be declared felons and offered no temporary work program, a stand that corresponds with the legislation approved by the House."
What makes it even more mystifying is that they seem to be leaning toward supporting the compromise bill that 63% of the public supports, and they use polling numbers to show that illegal immigrants are willing to do whatever it takes to become legal:
"A recent poll of undocumented immigrants published by the National Immigration Forum and the Manhattan Institute shows that 98 percent wished to learn English, 98 percent would become legal residents if they could, and virtually all would be willing to be fingerprinted and pay a fine and back taxes to become legal, if that were required. Their eagerness to contribute, on vivid display yesterday, ought to count for a lot."
What purpose does it serve here to misrepresent the facts, especially in a way that undermines their apparent support of a position?
Full Disclosure: I work for Senator Kennedy's re-election campaign.