The question follows a Clark County Today opinion column examining whether immigration enforcement should be viewed as a legal duty rather than an act of racism
This poll stems from a Clark County Today opinion column by editor Ken Vance responding to recent ICE enforcement actions in Vancouver that drew public criticism and accusations of racism. The column centers on a cell phone video circulated locally showing ICE agents taking a man into custody, which prompted the Vancouver Police Department to open a traffic investigation and sparked strong community reaction. Vance references statements from Vancouver police, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and family members of those detained, while also addressing a separate Thanksgiving Day ICE arrest involving a Vancouver father. Acknowledging that not all individuals targeted by ICE are criminals, the column argues that immigration laws exist for a reason and that enforcing them — even when controversial — is lawful, legal, and necessary. The poll asks readers whether they agree with that position.
Read more:
Opinion: ‘I don’t understand how it is an act of racism to enforce our immigration laws’
Also read:
- Opinion: ‘Seeking might over right destroys representative government’
Retired judge Dave Larson argues that prioritizing political power over constitutional principles has undermined representative government and calls for renewed civic responsibility. - Letter: ‘Immigration’ resolution scheduled for this Wednesday at Clark County Council Meeting
Rob Anderson urges residents to closely watch an upcoming Clark County Council meeting where an immigration-related resolution and proposed rule changes are expected to be discussed. - Opinion: The 1700-square-foot solution to Washington’s housing crisis
An opinion column arguing that Washington’s energy code has driven up housing costs and outlining how HB 2486 aims to limit those impacts for smaller, more affordable homes. - Letter: Public school vision
Clark County resident Larry Roe urges a deeper community discussion about public school priorities, levy funding, and the long-term affordability of education for local families. - Opinion: House Bill 1834 would create a regulatory nightmare and restricts parental control on social media
Mark Harmsworth argues that House Bill 1834 would undermine parental authority and create sweeping regulatory and legal risks under the guise of protecting minors online.
Interesting that following the law could be tied to racism. Much ado about this saddens me. Is it right to defend law breakers of choice? Pedo’s? Rapists? Bank robbers? If it’s against the law it’s enforceable is it not?
You can’t make an orange to orange example without taking into account the difference between what is law based on current values and what is law based upon old ways of thinking. We need a better form factor to fit our current values so the will of the people is actually relevant instead of the oligarchs dictating everything. But if you’re not willing to look at the grey area and want to be the person who says “this is how we’ve always done it” then I think you should be asking yourself why you are ok with laws that hurt everyone except the ultra rich.
The “will of the people” is based on the assumptions the “people” are well informed and understand the topic under discussion. Sadly, both assumptions are contradicted by general observation. As to being informed, a population which watches professional sports and “reality TV” at a rate of 90% to 95% over daily news, CSPAN, BBS World News, or any other “reputable news source” can not be considered “well informed”. This is confirmed by the closure of more than 3,500 newspapers in the last five years and diminishing readership if those which have survived. Secondly, given the deterioration in secondary and post secondary education it is obvious that the majority of people, who apparently can’t do simple math, are incapable of understanding any nuanced subject.
I am disappointed to see a purported news source (which I used to respect) using such leading and inaccurate questions in a poll.
This question and the options to select as answers are not at all neutral; they are designed to elicit a specific opinion and response.
The way immigration enforcement is being done currently isn’t “enforcing U.S. immigration laws” because the way it is being done is not following existing laws.
They are not only enforcing it unevenly in a way that targets specific people groups and ethnicities, which is not properly enforcing it in the first place. But they are also acting outside the law, and are blatantly failing to follow existing immigration law (as well as a number of other laws and the Constitution). And they are often enforcing it against U.S. citizens and immigrants who are here legally—which, again, is not following the laws.
What’s currently happening isn’t enforcing laws; it’s operating outside of and in contradiction to U.S. immigration laws. But even if it was, the way this poll is worded is designed to make people more likely to answer in a specific way.
A legitimate poll would be worded much more neutrally. This is designed to encourage people to think and vote a certain way.
Well, Angela, you seem to have a multitude of issues the recent Immigration Survey. Your first complaint regards the structure of the survey and wording of the questions. I assume you never had a graduate level course in statistic and surveys. I taught an MBA course is statistics and sampling. This type of “survey” is a random, voluntary, open response. There is no control over which individuals choose to respond and how those respondents understand the option the select. I do not understand your complaint about “leading and inaccurate questions” about ICE and Immigration. The four options offered are straight forward: Yes, No, Maybe, Do Not Know. Straight forward issue: Enforcement of US Federal Immigration Laws. Is it racist to arrest illegal aliens? Are, or should there be, option other than arrest? Brain dead?
Your second complaint is that ICE enforcement of Immigrant laws (which are federal laws) is not according to existing federal laws, regulations, policies and procedures; as directed and overseen by the Federal District Court. Your crazy assumption is refuted daily by The Columbian, The Oregonian, KGW, KOIN, KPTV, and KATU.
Your third complaint is stating a commonly misunderstood relationship. “Correlation is not causation”. You are assuming an immigration arrest is caused by some biased, racial arterial motive, or random event. In reality immigration arrests are the result of the illegal entry into the United States by foreign aliens, and their apprehension by ICE.
Unfortunately Angela, that is threes strikes and your OUT!!!
*you’re.
(Speaking of “deterioration in secondary and post secondary education.”)