A careful reading of opinion surveys over several years shows that the public has a sophisticated understanding of what constitutes a pragmatic immigration solution, and what constitutes political pandering. Full Story »
Posted by Ivor Harvey - via Thanh Tran (t), Thanh Tran (f)
This story is the report card on perceptions (of people and politicians) on illegal immigration. However, people and politicians are not separated, if they’re, then there is a business behind. This phenomenon about immigration in America is part of a series of foggy tactics to confuse voters’ attention, and politicians are using immigration as an issue to overpower their opponents. People perceive, politicians play.
Insightful analysis of a range of opinion surveys. It digs beneath the surface to show that most Americans favor an immigration approach that combines border security with a path to citizenship for qualified undocumented immigrants.
A careful reading of opinion surveys over several years shows that the public has a sophisticated understanding of what constitutes a pragmatic immigration solution, and ... More »
This story presents an overwhelming amount of polling information. While this is very informative, the author's opinions of differing news sources made the article less fair and more bias.
No too many assumptions. Jumps around trying to prove something he doesn't have the facts to support.
It seems curious he seems to agree a balanced approach is the most favored by the populace and that polls and opinion surveys are a good way to prove that. However gauging where the main points of focus should be in such a program , with a poll, somehow constitutes making a choice of either / or.
I believe that this is good journalism. The story has a variety of sources to formulate their argument and approach, and the reader can get the sense that the writer knows what they are talking about. The only piece of the article I question is the fact that in the voter's polls for the states, they did not do any interviews or polls from states along the border, since this could have possibly changed the percentages. Besides this, the story was very believable.
The primary responsibility of good journalism is to tell us about us, to illuminate the society in which we live, and to help us with that most difficult of all imperatives: Know thyself. This article not only exemplified the previous statement, but did an outstanding job of conveying facts that are supported by credited sources as well. Great writing and reporting from Frank Sharry.
This is good journalism because it cites a large variety of sources and allows the numbers from those sources to speak for themselves. It approaches immigration from both sides of the debate throughout the article.
A) The article explained how the legal citizens of America feel about illegal immigrants. If they should remain here or get deported. It explained what actions Americans think the government should take to control the issue. Whether just cutting off all immigration or making better laws that help illegal immigrants stay here if they pay their taxes. I believe that the article did explain the complexities of the issue. B) The article offered what Americans believe should happen to illegal immigrants but not why they feel that way. It didn’t go into depth about the frustrations that people have about illegal aliens. C) The article clarified how most of the Americans feel about what should be done. D) Most people agree that ... More »
This story provides insight to the public's view on an issue we mostly hear through government and political debate. It used valid sources and presented the facts in a way that was easy and interesting to read. I really enjoyed this story and it opened my eyes to some opinions that I didn't know existed.
Even though the author is smarmy, he presents his opinion clearly and it turns out to be rather compelling. However, it is one-sided even though I agree with its premise.
This article is very in depth, lots of statistics to go off of from several different sources. On the other hand, a lot of the journalists' personal opinions and biases come out during a couple parts of the article.
This story presents a combination of social responsibility and institutional frames. Sharry presents the opinions of voters, showing overwhelming statistics (from 41 to 84 percent, depending on the poll) that show that voters support the Arizona law (requiring documentation from suspected aliens) and a policy of granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. Sharry presents this voter response as voters assuming their social responsibility for the country's immigration situation. He then switches to an institutional frame, attacking the government for their hesitation to take any decisive action towards immigration reform, and highlights the ignorance the government has towards their own responsibilities. These frames are extremely ... More »
In this article I believe that as far as social capital, social networks would result is civic engagement. I also believe that there was a use of bonding as well as bridging. In the article they are mainly reviewing percentages of polls that were taken, and sharing statistics to the public, coming up with the conclusion that most voters would rather have an immigration reform rather than just kick everyone out. While stating the statistics, it showed us how the voters are siding ... More »
This article took a very direct approach on Americans views about immigration. Frank Sherry makes a good point that Americans want action. Not only on protecting our borders, or illegal immigrants that are already here. That many Americans want change in both sides of immigration. Plus, his argument is well backed buy several different polls. Frankly, Frank Sherry makes a great argument. Americans want change, and that the US government needs to step up and start meeting those expectations.
It's hard to consider things from The Huffington Post (aka a bonafide blog) to be really great journalism. However, they do a good job with research and making sure to get all the numbers before throwing out any "sighs..." or other opinionated remarks.
I do agree that most people are slowly starting support the Arizona law only because they are frustrated. When polled, people see that a lot needs to be done, but it doesn't just mean kick them out. The frustration is starting to set in, however, and it's starting to hurt the chances that something legitimate may get done.
This story is extremely one sided. It relies on mindless statistics and never goes into the reasons that politicians apparently don't understand immigration.
Retrieving Comments
