Thread: ALIPAC says key legislator needs to know of opposition to am

Letter To The Editor:

I strongly object to the article, "Legal Immigration Fan Wants Word With Senator" by Naomi Laine, written on June 26, 2007. This article is filled with statistical misinterpretations and much of the text in this article has been construed to misinform readers. I do not believe the author has presented her information in a fair manner. Naomi Laine, the author, is manipulating and skewing information to fit an obvious bias, and I hope this article is either removed from publication or corrected to reflect the actual current data and true statistical correlations.

The article also serves to unfairly undermine Mr. William Gheen's efforts to legalize immigration by the use of a demeaning descriptor in the article's title. Why would someone publicly refer to the President of ALIPAC, a National organization, as a "fan" unless there was a blatant agenda for this article? Naomi Laine's attempt to minimize and ridicule Mr. Gheen is pathetic, especially when considering the content of this article. I have seen Mr. Gheen on several national television segments and heard Mr. Gheen speak on radio shows. Mr. Gheen studies the trends and has presented current data on immigration during each of these instances. William Gheen provides an important connection to Americans who believe in legalized immigration in America.

In Ms. Laine's article, she states the following:
"Gheen wants Burr to consider his constituents. Polls continue showing Americans against the touchback provision in increasing numbers. In a March Gallup Poll, 59 percent of Americans believed illegal immigrants should remain in the United States to become citizens, if they met certain requirements." First, the majority of people who have studied the S.1639/S.1348 Immigration Bill, have admitted that a "touchback" is not feasible simply because it will be difficult to measure and to enforce. This is one of the many flaws written into this Bill. Also, the statistical correlation used in this paragraph of Naomi Laine's article is simply wrong. The March 2007 Gallup statistic used here was presented out of context by correlating that figure with the "touchback" requirement of the S.1348/S.1639 Immigration Bill.

Ms. Laine's use of this statistic was gleaned from a March 2007 Gallup analysis from an open-ended series of questions that is compiled in an article "The People's Priorities: Gallup's Top 10". The statistic that was culled from the Gallup article has no bearing whatsoever on the "touchback" issue at all. The Gallup article, with a paragraph on illegal immigration (Number 5 in the Gallup list) can be found here: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24391&pg=1

The next statement also used old, outdated polling numbers. Naomi Laine writes, "A May poll conducted by CNN in association with Opinion Research Corporation Polls indicated 80 percent of Americans favored allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. and apply for citizenship if they were only employed and paid back taxes." The polling data that was extracted by Naomi Laine in this instance is another example of how the author is utilizing outdated information to fit her agenda. Why didn't Naomi Laine extract the findings of the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll taken on June 22-24, 2007? That poll shows that only 30% favor the Immigration Bill and 47% oppose the Bill. Big difference!

The next polling information that Naomi Laine cites was also conducted in May, during the week of the Immigration Bill's Cloture Vote and Senate Debate. Naomi Laine states "the survey CBS and New York Times shows 57 percent of Americans think illegal immigrants contribute to the country." Had Naomi Laine chosen to use the more recent survey taken by the NBC News/Wall Street Journal, the downward trend would have become apparent. The NBC News/WSJ Poll was taken just 3 weeks later and the percentage of Americans dropped to 46%, a 10% DECREASE in Americans' opinions. Again, Naomi Laine chose to use data that would 'fit' her article's agenda.

Several of the polls that Naomi Laine is extracting data from are all compiled at PollingReport.com and the author was aware that more current data was available, as the website data provides all of these polls with the most recent polls listed first. The polls can be found here: http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm

I am convinced of the ulterior motive behind the article written by Naomi Laine.Knowing that Naomi Laine, the author of this article, had all of these polls available to use for this article, but chose to eliminate current data that would deflate her stance. For example, why didn't Naomi Laine use the NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll taken on June 8-11? One of the questions in that survey was in reference to the "touchback" provision of the Immigration Bill. That Poll asked: " do you think that having illegal immigrants who are currently in the United States voluntarily return to their native countries before applying to become legal citizens is a realistic and achievable goal, or not?" A whopping 76% say it is NOT a realistic goal.

The author's use of old, outdated analyses in the highly controversial immigration issue provides no "current" evidence and has used statistics out of context. In truth, there is little factual information for informed readers. This tactic, under the guise of journalism, renders the article to nothing more than agenda-pushing.

It is a shame that WND has published such a poorly researched and agenda-based article. This article does little but reduce the credibility of WND.

Sent email to the editor.

Latest verison of article:




WND INVASION USA
Legal immigration fan wants word with senator
ALIPAC says key legislator needs to know of opposition to amnesty
Posted: June 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Naomi Laine
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The Senate will vote on cloture of debate for the Senate amnesty bill today, but before debate over the immigration reform plan ends, William Gheen wants a word with Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C.

Burr is a key senator; amnesty supporters will need his vote to achieve cloture of debate, but Gheen wants Burr to vote against it, lest the bill pass into law.

"I want to speak with Sen. Burr for 15 minutes, before he votes, to make sure he has the national and North Carolina polls that show a super majority of his constituents oppose this bill and want our existing laws enforced instead,â€

Hey, hadenuf, ya think Naomi got herself a slap upside the head for submitting that article?

Originally Posted by LynnS

Hey, hadenuf, ya think Naomi got herself a slap upside the head for submitting that article?

Hopefully she'll be in the unemployment line this morning.

I'm kinda hoping for the same thing!!