What do you mean “we”?

Robert Samuelson has an excellent column about the MSM’s failure to report on the impact of the Senate’s immigration reform bill on legal immigration.

One job of journalism is to inform the public what our political leaders are doing. In this case, we failed. The Senate bill’s sponsors didn’t publicize its full impact on legal immigration, and we didn’t fill the void. It’s safe to say that few Americans know what the bill would do because no one has told them. Indeed, I suspect that many senators who voted for the legislation don’t have a clue as to the potential overall increase in immigration.

Actually, the Washington Times did a great job on this front, and bloggers spread the word. Still Samuelson’s assessment is correct, since I assume that his “we” doesn’t include the Washington Times and bloggers. It is certain, in any case, that few Americans know what the Senate’s bill will mean when it comes to legal immigration

Which is one reason why House Republicans should have little fear in defeating that bill. Once they tell their constituents what it contains, there’s little reason to believe they will face a backlash — more likely they will benefit politically. For example, Samuelson notes that a recent poll showed that 40 percent of the public favors a decrease in legal immigration, 37 would hold it steady, and 17 percent wanted an increase. “There seems to be scant support for a doubling,” which would likely be the outcome under the Senate bill.


Books to read from Power Line