The Public And The Elite Are At Odds On Immigration.

The Washington Dispatch ^ | 12-28-02 | Thomas D. Segel

[DWar]

The Public And The Elite Are At Odds On Immigration

Commentary by Thomas D. Segel

Dec 28, 2002

Just whose borders are these? We are referring to the borders, which define our national boundaries. Most Americans believe they are boundaries, which should be controlled on behalf of our people. The Washington elite, however, believe the borders are just political ammunition for their class to use in any manner they deem suitable.

A large new study reveals 60% of the American public view the present immigration situation as a “critical threat to the vital interests of the United States”. At the same time only 14% of our national leadership and opinion makers hold the same views. This reflects a huge disagreement between the people of America and the political elite. It also reveals why so little has been done to correct a problem everyone knows is worsening with every passing day.

One surprising thing is the lack of media attention given to this large study, conducted by the Chicago based Council on Foreign Relations. The organization interviewed 2,800 people over a three-month period to learn how the American public viewed the issue. At the same time the Council interviewed 400 opinion leaders, ranging from members of the current administration to union leaders, journalists and members of Congress. Most of the difference in viewpoint can best be understood when the motives of all concerned are examined. The American people see borders as homeland boundaries. If these boundaries are ignored, people view the intrusion as a threat to national security, a national economic threat, or an out and out violation of law. Our political elitists see immigration with very different eyes.

The Democrats have an unspoken view all immigrants. Be they legal or illegal, all are seen as potential future votes for the party. These party leaders refuse to take any action, which might turn off the flow of bodies, believing all immigration movement will eventually translate into votes.

Republicans also have a silent rationale behind their inaction on immigration. Their view is immigration translates into cheap labor. Because GOP support emanates from the business and agri- business world, the party does not want to take actions, which could harm those who provide needed funding. Further, they do not want to take actions, which could impede their attempts to generate more minority participation.

These attitudes, on the part of both parties, combine to form a completely unmanageable immigration policy.

The administration’s lack of response on immigration issues seems to be one area where President Bush does not enjoy public support. While his overall job performance ratings continue to hover in the mid 60s, when it comes to immigration 70 % of the people rated his actions poor to fair, the lowest rating received on any foreign policy matter.

Though the American public has desired reductions in all immigration for years, our leaders have continued to move in the opposite direction. They have regularly raising the numerical level of legal immigration above levels, which can be assimilated by our society. At the same time they have failed to take any meaningful steps to reduce the inflow of illegal aliens.

The Democrats have proposed amnesty for most of the estimated 8.5 million illegal aliens in the country. The White House also wants amnesty, but only for about 4 to 5 million illegal aliens from Mexico.

Some Republicans want illegal aliens to have the right to pay in-state tuition to attend college, while there is a Democrat move to make it easier for immigrants convicted of felonies to remain in the United States.

The feeling of the general public on immigration is almost a complete reversal of those attitudes reflected by the country’s leadership. In addition to the 60% of Americans who see immigration concerns as a critical threat, another 31% of the public see immigration as an important issue, but not critical. This means less then 10% of the general public remain unconcerned about the flow of human beings into the United States.

Within our national leadership there are those who view immigration as an important threat, but not critical. Overall 59% of the leadership compared to 91% of the public see the flow of foreign nationals into the United States as either an important or critical concern. But, it should also be noted only those who view the problem as critical are likely to take any action that might lead to a realistic solution.

One of the most interesting findings of the study is our political elite have not developed any increase in concern about immigration since the horror of 9-11. While the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have increased public concern about immigration, among the national leaders concern actually declined.

The opinion leaders of our country drive most public policy issues. This alone should answer many of our questions about government inaction. Because these leaders have not changed their attitudes on immigration since the terrorist attacks, those who make public policy have been very weak in their calls for action. This clearly explains why Congress and the President have not seriously addressed what almost all Americans consider a major national problem.

The gulf between our American public and the elite of our society has existed for many years and will continue into the future. Candidates of the future will find it very difficult to obtain public support for any immigration policy that does not include both a reductions in numbers and a strengthening of the borders. Because the political leadership is very aware of public concern, it seems likely some politician or group of politicians will eventually decide to carry this banner.

It should become a winning issue for whoever makes the call for national security and immigration reform. The big question is which party will forsake old ways and answer the public’s cry?

[Prerunner]

" the elite of our society "

Most of these people have extra borders, their gated communities.

[vikingchick]

Oh and don't forget FREE HEALTH CARE and SOCIAL SECURITY for the elders that don't work a day here!

That makes me so angry when they're telling AMERICANS there will never be any Social Security for our old age.

Unless we live until we're 97 years old, that is. Then we can collect.

[gubamyster]

Thank you for pointing out my grammatical error. I tend to make mistakes at 02:00. However, I am grateful that those perfect people in the world who have never made a mistake will be around to point out my errors.

[2sheep]

>A large new study reveals 60% of the American public view the present immigration situation as a “critical threat to the vital interests of the United States”. At the same time only 14% of our national leadership and opinion makers hold the same views. This reflects a huge disagreement between the people of America and the political elite.

Constitution:  by the People, for the People

New World Order socialism:  by the Elite, for the Elite...just say "its for the People."

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

"Garbage". Ummm. Coming from someone who pretends not to know that the term "White House" is not just used to refer to an inanimate building, but to a President and his administration, that's pretty rich.

On the other hand, your apparent literal-mindedness explains your complete inability to distinguish between facts and propaganda. Just because the White House calls it a "guest worker program" or some other euphemism, does not mean it is not, in fact, an amnesty. Read the fine print!

It's the same word game the left plays, when they relabel illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants", or when they call racial quotas "hiring and admission goals".

It's just a bull$hit rhetorical shellgame, designed to fool the unwary (such as yourself), and Bush is as guilty of it as anyone on the left.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Actually, they are still servants; it is just that they no longer serve the people who elected them. But they are still serving someone.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

You might have a point if the INS were actually attempting to do the job they were created to do, but they are not even making the attempt, for political reasons. Let's untie their hands before we write them off altogether. Your argument seems to be that because some government agencies are badly run, ergo they all must be badly run, so let's get rid of them all and have anarchy instead! Fine; we'll just funnel all the illegals to your property. You feed and clothe them, since "our" government is "obviously" incompetent "by its very nature" to enforce our laws or defend our borders, even though it had no problem doing this, in an efficient manner, 50 years ago. Now, did the nature of government change in the past 50 years, to make the INS incompetent, or was it the government's hidden agenda (re: immigration) which changed?

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Anyone who does not believe there are elites setting the political agenda, and controlling the shape of politics, is ignorant of history, economics, sociology, political science, and common sense. Our current policies are most definitely dictated to satisfy the interests of our ruling elites. That's why it doesn't matter what "the people" think. If anything, it is "the people" who are mythical, not the elites.

[Joe Boucher]

Deep down I am aware of this but I do like to delude myself with beliefs otherwise.
I would still like to believe in a lot of other things too:
tooth fairy
Santa
we are all equal Etc Etc Etc.

[fastdraw]

If you move to a small town in the Midwest, you can easily avoid all of the problems you cited, including high rent. However, unless you're in health care, getting a job could be a problem.

[fastdraw]

"Let's untie their hands before we write them off altogether."

Your position is reasonable, but a tad naive.

"Your argument seems to be that because some government agencies are badly run, ergo they all must be badly run, so let's get rid of them all and have anarchy instead!"

You seem to be replying to someone else, rather than to what I actually said. However, it is true that they are ALL badly run. That's because the elites in our society have gone berserk across the board, not just in the INS.

"Now, did the nature of government change in the past 50 years, to make the INS incompetent, or was it the government's hidden agenda (re: immigration) which changed?"

Yes, both are true. Even more dramatically, federal "law enforcement" agencies used to be our friends, but now they treat us, the citizens, as if we were a military enemy. Did the nature of government change, or was it some hidden agenda? You tell me.

[Jim Noble]

>> a guest worker program with computer ID tracking that makes sure the immigrant worker goes home after a couple years<<

Right now, the government is afraid to "make" illegal immigrants from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt "go home", so they don't.

When your "guest workers" have honors students in high school and are desparately in need of free kidney transplants, how are you going to "make sure they go home"?

[Jim Noble]

>>They only way you can make enforcement more effective is to change the current policy and laws<<

Say it louder!

Reality BUMP.

[Jim Noble]

>>Well he has until November of 2004<<

Dream on.

Bush has no right opposition, and if he did, it would be running in a country where Al Gore got 50 million people to vote for him.

[fastdraw]

Further elaborating, I would say that to the problem of bureaucratic resistance to reform, the solution is NOT anarchy. Consider the different approaches to economic reform in Russia and China in the past decade.

The Russians tried to introduce capitalism outwardly from the center of government, and thus stimulated every possible force of resistance. This approach failed.

By contrast, the Chinese established free enterprise zones after the pattern of Hong Kong, thus attacking the problem from the fringes toward the center. The result was that the entrepreneurs fled the controlled environment and entered the zones of freedom. The controlled portion of the country is thus "withering on the vine", and resistance at the center is irrelevant.

This latter approach to bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude is what Newt Gingrich alluded to in his famous statement about Medicare "withering on the vine". His vision was to offer alternatives so attractive that nobody would want Medicare any more. The Democrats deliberately misinterpreted this to claim that he advocated starving Medicare of funding, and to our everlasting misfortune, the voters bought the lie.

[sixmil]

The current thinking is to make a guest worker program with computer ID tracking that makes sure the immigrant worker goes home after a couple years.

You seriously think that is going to happen? Once you legalize them, they will stay.

[paltz]

Private and Public groups want to benefit from legal and illegal immigrants. It's all about the Mexican mowing a Beverly Hills' lawn or a politician telling a group of illegals they will grant them amnesty, social security, and health care for their vote. However, when events like the rape in Queens by illegals happen or 9/11 for that matter everyone bitches and complains that the INS isn't doing it's job to keep the illegals out.

[deport]

Just curious... which 3rd party banner is Tancredo going to run under?

[Crusader21stCentury]

The Party banner is of no concern. I intend to write Tancredo in if President Bush continues to fail to uphold his sworn duties.
While this will be of no concern to the President because of the state that I vote in, I can assure you it will concern Nancy Johnson who just narrowly squeeked by in the last election.