How many times have you participated in an annoying field poll telephone call and you only hear the last part of the question?

That’s probably because they only seem to call when you have dinner on the stove, somebody knocking on the door and children following you around with 247 different school forms that need to be signed by tomorrow morning–under those circumstances you would say “uh-huh, sure I do” to just about anything to get off the phone!

The headline in the San Francisco Chronicle was this:

FIELD POLL [3/09/06]
Two-thirds of Californians support guest-worker plan; Jobs diminishing issue in illegal immigration

Typical rubbish from that region of Mars but the headlines in various other publications were unfortunately cut from the same cloth…you know the liberal game: New Poll Says Californians Love Illegal Immigrants!

Let’s have a closer look at this poll and two of the (ahem) questions. [PDF here]

This was the exact wording of the question: “Do you favor or oppose reforming immigration laws to create temporary worker programs for illegal immigrants that would legalize their status and allow future immigrants to work in the U.S.?”

OK…first of all that’s not a question–that’s three questions:

Do you favor creating temporary worker programs for illegal immigrants…stop! That’s the first question.

Do you favor legalizing their status…stop! That’s number two.

Do you favor a policy which allows future immigrants to work in the U.S. is question number three, friends.

The question was convoluted and intentionally so–had they asked a simple question such as do you favor a guest worker program for the millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws to become legal residents the response may have been different than the Chronicle is reporting.

The answer would have been “no!”

Then again, the liberal interpretation seems to have skipped over a far more important question anyway–and the most telling part of the poll:

“Generally speaking, do you feel that illegal or undocumented immigrants who come to California have a
very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable effect on the state as a
whole?”

It seems 57% of registered voters say illegal immigrants have an unfavorable effect on the state as a whole.< /em>

One of the Instacliches of blogging is “Read the Whole Thing.” In the case of veteran economics pundit Robert J. Samuelson’s new Washington Post column on immigration, however, that’s a worthy statement (except for maybe the weak last paragraph):

It’s time to build a real fence or a wall along every foot of the 1,989 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border. There can be only two arguments against this approach to keeping out illegal immigrants: (1) it won’t work — possible, but we won’t know unless we try; or (2) we don’t want it to work — then, we should say so and open our borders to anyone but criminals and terrorists. Either way, we need more candor in our immigration debates. Now is the time, because Congress is considering its first major immigration legislation in years.

In 2005 the Border Patrol stopped 1.19 million people trying to enter the United States illegally; 98.5 percent of them were caught along the southern border. Of those who got through and stayed (crude estimate: some 500,000 annually), about two-thirds lack a high school education. Even a country as accepting of newcomers as the United States cannot effortlessly absorb infinite numbers of poor and unskilled workers. Legal immigration totals 750,000 to 1 million people annually, many of them also unskilled.

I do not like advocating a fence. It looks and feels bad. It’s easily stigmatized as racist. It would antagonize Mexico. The imagery is appalling, but it beats the alternative: a growing underclass and social tensions. Moreover, a genuine fence would probably work. The construction of about 10 miles of steel and concrete barriers up to 15 feet high in San Diego has reduced illegal crossings in that sector by about 95 percent since 1992, reports Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a supporter of a U.S.-Mexico fence. Sure, there will be tunnels and ladders. But getting in will be harder. Policing will be easier.

We also need to stiffen employer fines for hiring illegal immigrants. Businesses should have to check prospective workers against computer databases with Social Security numbers, passports or immigration documents. Now employers only have to inspect physical documents, which are easily forged. Even these lax rules are widely flouted and poorly policed. In 2004 the Department of Homeland Security cited only three employers for possible violations, says the Government Accountability Office. With an estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, that’s mighty slim.

Fewer jobs and genuine border control ought to curb illegal immigration. Good. Naturally, there’s another point of view. It is that the United States needs more unskilled workers to fill jobs native-born Americans won’t take. One solution is to admit more unskilled workers legally. By this view, Hispanics are assimilating economically and culturally as fast as some groups in the past.

Perhaps. But common sense and available evidence suggest skepticism. If there are “shortages” of unskilled American workers, the obvious remedy is to raise their wages. A Texas roofing contractor testified to Congress that he couldn’t get enough roofers at $9 an hour. Okay, increase it to $10 or $12. Higher wages will bring forth more workers. Perish the thought. Business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, clamor for more guest workers. That’s a euphemism for cheap labor. These business groups seem unperturbed by extravagant increases in chief executives’ pay. But they’re horrified by anything that might raise the wages of maids, waitresses, laborers or gardeners.

As for assimilation, it’s true that millions of Hispanic families are moving into — and reshaping — the American mainstream. But average trends look less encouraging. Since 1990 about 90 percent of the increase in people living below the government’s poverty lines has come among Hispanics. That has to be mainly immigrants and their U.S.-born children. In a report, the Pew Hispanic Center notes:

• Residential segregation is increasing. In 2000, 43 percent of Hispanics lived in neighborhoods with Hispanic majorities, up from 39 percent in 1990.
• The median net worth of Hispanic households is about 9 percent of that of non-Hispanic whites (net worth is what people own minus what they owe).
• Only about a quarter of Hispanic college students graduate compared with about half for non-Hispanic whites.

Read The Whole Thing:[Build a Fence -- And Amnesty, By Robert J. Samuelson , March 8, 2006]

The famous piggyman behavior of the Mexican male has been met with disapproval by the big brains in Mexico City, who have decided that something must be done to lessen the everyday harassment that half of women workers suffer ["Sex dolls fight Mexican machismo"].

President Vicente Fox acknowledged on Wednesday that Mexico has to do more to overcome widespread machismo.

“Our society still has a long way to go in overcoming hangovers from the past, eradicating prejudice and changing habits,” he said.

However, Mr Fox has himself caused offence recently by joking that women were just “washing machines with two legs”.

But you have to wonder about the message being sent when the primary image is that of sex dolls. The bizarre ad campaign shows inflatable sex dolls in workplace situations, with the warning that “Sexual harassment is a crime.” (Really? In Mexico?!)

Doesn’t dressing a sex doll as an office worker convey the idea that the local secretary is a whore? (Link includes image.)

Perhaps something is lost in cultural translation, but the ad campaign appears to have all the psychological insight of Mexico’s racist stamps of last year.

How Mexico treats illegal immigrants: The AP reports:

Mexico tightens security for Cuba migrants
By MARK STEVENSON

MEXICO CITY — The Mexican government said Tuesday it was stepping up security at detention centers for illegal Cuban migrants after a group of detainees fought police officers and held a guard against his will - the seventh uprising or mass escape by Cubans in a year.

Officials also will deny political asylum to those involved in the latest conflict.

“After these acts, changes will certainly have to be reviewed to increase the level of security” at immigration holding centers like the one in Mexico City where a dozen Cubans rioted and briefly took over the facilities Monday, presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said.

The riots are fueled in part by the fact that most Cubans are forced to wait for months inside decrepit Mexican detention centers. The Cuban government often delays recognizing them as a means of punishment for their attempt to leave the island, Mexican officials say.

The Cubans involved in Monday’s uprising were demanding they not be returned to the island, saying they feared reprisals there. Eight Cubans were injured in the scuffle, though their injuries were not life-threatening, the government said in a news release…

Yet the estimated 500 Cubans detained each year make up a tiny fraction of the approximately 250,000 undocumented foreigners detained in Mexico annually. Most of the detainees are Central Americans, and they are usually released to their home countries in two days or less. But officials say Cuba takes much longer to react.