|
January 2004 Commentary 1
On January 7, 2004 , when most folks were still shaking off the physical and financial effects of the holidays, President Bush announced, with a modest amount of fanfare, his plans to address the ongoing immigration problems faced by the United States . Observers and critics immediately tagged a portion of the plan as a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens living within the borders, and suggested that the plan was a few components short of comprehensive immigration reform.
Since that initial flurry of proposals and commentary, the Administration has been conspicuously quiet on the topic of immigration. During this sitzkrieg, we thought that some opinion research might help illuminate the topic. So we dedicated a portion of January's edition of The American Survey (conducted among 800 registered voters nationwide 1/15-1/25; margin of error 3.5%) to the topic of immigration.
First, we believe that language is critical to the framing any public policy debate, and that is especially true with respect to immigration. There is a significant rhetorical and intellectual chasm between the clear, concise and direct phrase "illegal aliens" and the overtested (before focus-groups), inelegant, and vaguely Soviet "undocumented workers". The difference is clear to all but the most dense, and, we believe, crucial to determining which side will ultimately prevail on this issue. An undocumented worker is just a fellow who happens not to have his papers at the moment - a problem only in East Germany during the Cold War. An illegal alien, well, that is another situation altogether.
Informed by this, we asked respondents whether non-citizens who enter the U.S. from Mexico and Central America were illegal aliens or undocumented workers. About three-quarters told us that such people were illegal aliens; just 25% indicated they were undocumented workers. Bad news for the amnesty crowd. Worse for the President, the differences among Republicans was even more pronounced (78%-19%).
Another important component of the frame of this issue is the effect of such illegal aliens on American workers. Typically, the issue is presented as whether such aliens take jobs that Americans do not want or whether they take jobs directly from Americans. While such a question is interesting (we asked it, for form's sake), a more useful question is whether such workers ultimately depress wages. If 57% of the respondents are to be believed, illegals depress wages for all American workers. That sentiment, which may become more important as we move along on this debate, was strongest among those who had only completed high school (64%) and weakest among those with post-graduate or professional degrees (47%). These sentiments, and their alignment, are consistent with the theory that immigration is, on balance, better for the rich than the poor.
Finally, we wanted to take the voters' temperature on the President's immigration plan itself. Remembering that the plan is brand new, and that the Administration has yet to really sell it, we found the about a third (36%) generally supported the plan and that about half opposed it (53%). Unfortunately for the plan's proponents, those who "strongly oppose" outnumber those who "strongly support" by a ratio of better than 4 to 1 (27% to 6%). This lack of enthusiasm for the plan provides a compelling explanation of the Administration's public tentativeness about their own plan, and suggests some tough sledding ahead for the President and his hombres.
|
