DISCONNECT
There is a real disconnect between institutions,
including the media and politicians, and the public's
desire for immigration reduction and
enforcement. Immigration, widely
seen as a threat to low-wage American workers and as
a possible source of terrorism, draws remarkably
stronger reactions from the public than leaders. The
foreign policy goal of reducing illegal immigration
is a far higher public priority by a 48 point margin.
The public is substantially more alarmed by
immigrants and refugees coming into the United States
as a critical threat to U.S. interests by a 46 point
margin (60% of the public versus only 14% of
leaders). By large, 39 point gaps, the public is more
favorable to decreasing legal immigration (57% vs.
18%) and to combating international terrorism by
restricting immigration from Arab and Muslim
countries 79% vs. 40%).
Full report at: Elite
vs. Public Opinion.
There are many examples where organization leaders
have taken immigration stands contrary to the wishes
of membership. For example, the
AFL/CIO leadership supports amnesties for
illegal aliens in order to boost their sagging
membership roles, despite the clear harm mass
migration has been on American workers. The
Sierra Club, a leading environmental
organization, no longer supports U.S.
population stabilization because it has "no
position on immigration." Native-born
Americans would have to reduce their fertility to
perhaps one child per family to make it possible to
support U.S. population stabilization without
reducing mass migration. Yet many Sierra Club
members question how the Sierra Club can be
considered an American environmental organization
while refusing to support U.S. population
stabilization. When members hold their
organizations accountable the disconnect will
diminish.
|
