A.J. DiCintio
Borders, polls & statistics schmatistics
By A.J. DiCintio
For a host of reasons that are fundamental to why humans have organized themselves within secure borders for millennia, a nation of "open borders" is not long for this world.
Yet, from the Reagan "amnesty solution" of '87 to Obama's attack on Arizona's new law directed at illegal aliens, every president and Congress has lied to the American people about their intention to secure our borders while using every trick in the political trade to insure that America's de facto Open Border policy continues.
Fortunately, however, a landslide majority of the public, properly tired, sick, and angered at being slimed as Know-Nothing racists, have come to recognize the profound danger inherent in a madness caused by a particularly rotten love of power or money.
Those same Americans are also wise enough to know they can act only in the present. Therefore, they insist fiercely that the current president completely "owns" the issue.
All of this explains the disconnect that exists between an extremist president who is committed to lying the lies of the past and the common sense American people.
However, before getting to polling that reveals the enormity of that gulf, we should focus on just how insanely radical Obama's position is by examining the relationship between it and national security — the most immediately important of the many crucial issues pertinent to the border/immigration problem.
Unsurprisingly, a recent editorial by the NY Times, a staunch supporter of all of Obama's rampant extremism, serves to illustrate the profound danger the president's policy poses to national security.
The piece begins with this sensible observation:
Some of the Sept. 11 commission's most glaring warnings about gaps in homeland security continue to be ignored six years after they were hailed as indispensable to the defense against terrorism.
But while it rightly complains about the lack of progress regarding a number of issues that pertain to keeping Americans safe from terrorism or responding effectively to an act of terror, it makes no mention of the connection between terrorism and our borders.
Apparently, like Obama and the rest of the virulently Pollyannaish crowd that huffs and puffs the dangerous, oxymoronic nonsense of "borders that unite us instead of dividing us," the editorialist believes that for decades terrorist masterminds have been too stupid to know they can walk or have "coyoted" across our southern border as many highly trained, dirty bomb armed, terror cell forming, "person-next door," psychopathic terrorists as they wish.
Fortunately, the great majority of the American people understand stupidity and danger when they see it, as evidenced by in-depth polling such as that done by the Pew Research Center (May, 2010) in "Broad Approval for New Arizona Immigration Law."
Here are some of Pew's key findings, which extend beyond the Arizona law to illuminate the vast chasm that exists between the public and the Obama administration on the entire border/immigration problem.
"Requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status" 73% approve, 23% disapprove
"Allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify legal status" 67% approve, 29% disapprove
"Allowing police to question anyone they think may be in country illegally" 62% approve, 35% disapprove
"Considering everything, opinion of new Arizona law" 59% approve, 32% disapprove
In a happy blow to Obama and his Open Border allies, Pew's polling also shows that a mere 25% of the public approve of the president's "job" with respect to "immigration policy."
Do Pew's results comport with those of other polls? To see, we can turn to a CNN poll also released in May:
Want number of illegal immigrants decreased, 76%
Want to stop illegal immigration and deport illegal immigrants, 60%
Want more federal agents on the Mexican border, 88%
Want to fine employers of illegal immigrants tens of thousands of dollars, 71%
Moreover, the poll finds a near-landslide 57% of Americans supporting the Arizona law and a mountainous landslide of 82% opposing a boycott of Arizona.
No wonder, then, that after reading the CNN poll, the always insightful Diana West (dianawest.net) wrote, "The Spirit of Arizona lives — just not in Washington, DC."
Finally, there is the question of whether it is correct to argue that public support for the "Spirit of Arizona" (and, inversely, public opposition to "Open Border Obama") exists in "landslide" proportions.
To answer that question, we need simply consider the numbers reported in the polling cited above in the context of the percentages of the vote received by the four presidential candidates who won "landslide" presidential elections in the 20th century:
Roosevelt 60.6% ('36); Johnson 61.1% ('64); Nixon 60.7% ('72); Reagan 58.8% ('84).
Yes, it is supremely accurate to say that Americans oppose Obama's border/immigration policies by landslide and even super-landslide majorities.
However, as 23 years worth of experience has revealed, politicians — those effete, arrogant, power and money loving compulsives — will sweat buckets when challenged with the work of finding ways around Lincoln's ideal of government of, for, and by the people.
That's why if the remarkable cynic Diogenes were living in America today, his ancient Greek certainly enriched by a number of Yiddish words and traditions, he would react to the polling results reported above with something like this:
In a democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve. Therefore, statistics schmatistics, unless, election after election after election, the people vote in a manner that insists they control the government — not the other way around.
© A.J. DiCintio
June 5, 2010
For a host of reasons that are fundamental to why humans have organized themselves within secure borders for millennia, a nation of "open borders" is not long for this world.
Yet, from the Reagan "amnesty solution" of '87 to Obama's attack on Arizona's new law directed at illegal aliens, every president and Congress has lied to the American people about their intention to secure our borders while using every trick in the political trade to insure that America's de facto Open Border policy continues.
Fortunately, however, a landslide majority of the public, properly tired, sick, and angered at being slimed as Know-Nothing racists, have come to recognize the profound danger inherent in a madness caused by a particularly rotten love of power or money.
Those same Americans are also wise enough to know they can act only in the present. Therefore, they insist fiercely that the current president completely "owns" the issue.
All of this explains the disconnect that exists between an extremist president who is committed to lying the lies of the past and the common sense American people.
However, before getting to polling that reveals the enormity of that gulf, we should focus on just how insanely radical Obama's position is by examining the relationship between it and national security — the most immediately important of the many crucial issues pertinent to the border/immigration problem.
Unsurprisingly, a recent editorial by the NY Times, a staunch supporter of all of Obama's rampant extremism, serves to illustrate the profound danger the president's policy poses to national security.
The piece begins with this sensible observation:
Some of the Sept. 11 commission's most glaring warnings about gaps in homeland security continue to be ignored six years after they were hailed as indispensable to the defense against terrorism.
But while it rightly complains about the lack of progress regarding a number of issues that pertain to keeping Americans safe from terrorism or responding effectively to an act of terror, it makes no mention of the connection between terrorism and our borders.
Apparently, like Obama and the rest of the virulently Pollyannaish crowd that huffs and puffs the dangerous, oxymoronic nonsense of "borders that unite us instead of dividing us," the editorialist believes that for decades terrorist masterminds have been too stupid to know they can walk or have "coyoted" across our southern border as many highly trained, dirty bomb armed, terror cell forming, "person-next door," psychopathic terrorists as they wish.
Fortunately, the great majority of the American people understand stupidity and danger when they see it, as evidenced by in-depth polling such as that done by the Pew Research Center (May, 2010) in "Broad Approval for New Arizona Immigration Law."
Here are some of Pew's key findings, which extend beyond the Arizona law to illuminate the vast chasm that exists between the public and the Obama administration on the entire border/immigration problem.
"Requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status" 73% approve, 23% disapprove
"Allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify legal status" 67% approve, 29% disapprove
"Allowing police to question anyone they think may be in country illegally" 62% approve, 35% disapprove
"Considering everything, opinion of new Arizona law" 59% approve, 32% disapprove
In a happy blow to Obama and his Open Border allies, Pew's polling also shows that a mere 25% of the public approve of the president's "job" with respect to "immigration policy."
Do Pew's results comport with those of other polls? To see, we can turn to a CNN poll also released in May:
Want number of illegal immigrants decreased, 76%
Want to stop illegal immigration and deport illegal immigrants, 60%
Want more federal agents on the Mexican border, 88%
Want to fine employers of illegal immigrants tens of thousands of dollars, 71%
Moreover, the poll finds a near-landslide 57% of Americans supporting the Arizona law and a mountainous landslide of 82% opposing a boycott of Arizona.
No wonder, then, that after reading the CNN poll, the always insightful Diana West (dianawest.net) wrote, "The Spirit of Arizona lives — just not in Washington, DC."
Finally, there is the question of whether it is correct to argue that public support for the "Spirit of Arizona" (and, inversely, public opposition to "Open Border Obama") exists in "landslide" proportions.
To answer that question, we need simply consider the numbers reported in the polling cited above in the context of the percentages of the vote received by the four presidential candidates who won "landslide" presidential elections in the 20th century:
Roosevelt 60.6% ('36); Johnson 61.1% ('64); Nixon 60.7% ('72); Reagan 58.8% ('84).
Yes, it is supremely accurate to say that Americans oppose Obama's border/immigration policies by landslide and even super-landslide majorities.
However, as 23 years worth of experience has revealed, politicians — those effete, arrogant, power and money loving compulsives — will sweat buckets when challenged with the work of finding ways around Lincoln's ideal of government of, for, and by the people.
That's why if the remarkable cynic Diogenes were living in America today, his ancient Greek certainly enriched by a number of Yiddish words and traditions, he would react to the polling results reported above with something like this:
In a democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve. Therefore, statistics schmatistics, unless, election after election after election, the people vote in a manner that insists they control the government — not the other way around.
© A.J. DiCintio
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
