immigrants
Undermining the 2020 Census: Trump’s Toxic Brew of Crime, Hysteria and Immigrants

In a recent news story, The New York Times tells us that the Trump administration is sending elite tactical Border Patrol teams (BORTRAC) to sanctuary cities that “release dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public.” [i]  Sanctuary cities are targeted because local officials have refused to provide  support to ICE in enforcing immigration policies that are perceived as pushing undocumented people further into the shadows, making cities less safe as immigrant become less likely to report crimes or cooperate with investigations.
These BORTAC agents are accustomed to engaging in armed confrontations with drug-smuggling suspects using armored vehicles. They act as the SWAT team of the Border Patrol using such gear as stun grenades and enhanced Special Forces-type training. The officers usually target individuals who are known to be violent with extensive criminal records. Local officials have voiced concerns about the increased militarizing of their communities that could also have deadly consequences. The interventions also result in “collateral arrests” involving innocent family members.    
   
This terror campaign against sanctuary cities is broad in its scope and includes large cities like Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, Detroit and Newark, N.J. The map[ii]below, produced by The Center for Immigration Studies, shows the current distribution of sanctuary counties (yellow), cities (red) and states (green) throughout the U.S.  Importantly, there are many communities throughout the U.S. with substantial numbers of immigrants that are not sanctuaries and thus excluded from this map.
Figure 1: Distribution of Sanctuary Cities, Counties and States, 2020
Source:  Center for Immigration Studies, February 2020.

Interestingly, it is no coincidence that the BORTRAC agents are being deployed from February  through May of this year – the same period of time that the 2020 Census is being conducted.   Previously, the Trump administration also worked feverishly to include a citizenship question in the 2020 Census questionnaire which was rejected by the courts due to its potential to discourage response rates of the nation’s immigrant population. Similarly, the deployment of BORTRAC agents is designed to create fear and anxiety among immigrants in sanctuary cities that is likely to discourage participation in the 2020 Census. 
Why does this matter?  Because access to millions of federal dollars by cities throughout the nation are jeopardized by a Census under-count – funds that are used to support schools, hospitals, roads and highways, and other infrastructure needs. The irony is that a Census under-count will impact not just sanctuary cities, but many communities with substantial immigrant populations that are not sanctuaries.  For example, Dallas County is not included in the list of sanctuary counties, but it is estimated that $40 million in federal funds will be lost for every 1 percent drop in the Census response rate. [i]

To justify this reign of terror, the Trump administration explains that the elite agents will assist the targeted communities in handling “dangerous criminal illegal aliens” that are being protected by sanctuary cities. The facts about immigrant crime, however, have established over numerous studies that immigrants do not increase local crime rates, are less likely to cause crime and less likely to be incarcerated than their native-born peers – important facts that were included in a recent review by The Cato Institute regarding immigrant crime rates in the U.S. and the State of Texas. [ii]  In their in-depth analysis of data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, Institute investigators analyzed the arrests and convictions for the year 2015 to determine the extent to which different crimes were conducted by illegal immigrants, legal immigrants and the native born.  The conclusion from their analysis, quoted below, provides concrete evidence that the Trump narrative about “dangerous criminal aliens” is false and misguided:
“The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 16 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 7.9 percent and 77 percent below that for native-born Americans for sex crimes and larceny, respectively.  For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 50 percent below that of native-born Americans.  Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 66 percent below that of native-born Americans.”  (p.5)
Crime, therefore, is merely a pretext for justifying the deployment of BORTRAC agents in sanctuary communities – a pretentious show of force whose only purpose is to discourage participation of immigrants in the 2020 Census and enhance the political positioning of the Republican party.
Also lost in the campaign to target sanctuary cities are the substantial contributions made by immigrants,  both legal and undocumented, to the U.S. economy, the defense of our nation in times of war, the many patents for inventions at U.S. academic institutions, keeping the Social Security system solvent, and the numerous jobs created by entrepreneurs. [iii]
The Trump administration and the GOP have demonstrated an uncanny ability of fortifying their political power by implementing draconian policies that punish immigrant families and the public entities that value and support immigrants. I am hopeful, nonetheless, that the supportive network of sanctuary cities, counties and states will remain steadfast in their support and maintain careful vigilance over the newly deployed tactical agents to discourage the use of aggressive or violent behavior towards immigrant residents. Non-sanctuary cities should be equally concerned about the potential loss of federal dollars in their communities as well since the deployment of BORTRAC agents will be communicated by news media throughout the nation.
In the meantime, the Census Bureau will be doubly challenged to ensure an accurate count in the 2020 Census as Trump’s elite forces are deployed in the sanctuary cities. To minimize potential confrontations with ICE and Trump’s elite forces, perhaps immigrants should be strongly encouraged to complete the online version of the Census questionnaire on their smart phones, home computers or other devices. Trump should not be handed a victory by allowing his elite forces to suppress Census participation, depriving communities of important federal funds, and shaping the balance of political representation.
U.S. residents should realize that when immigrants lose, we all lose.       

Reference Notes

[i] Dallas County, Texas (2018). Request for Proposal for 2020 Census Participation Initiative for Dallas County, Page 21.
[ii] Nowrasteh, A. (2018).  Criminal immigrants in Texas:  Illegal immigrant conviction and arrest rates for homicide, sex crimes, larceny, and other crimes. Immigration Research and Policy Brief No. 4, The Cato Institute. Accessed at https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant
[iii] Rincón, E. T. (2017). Sanctuary city politics:  Wolves in sheep’s clothing.  TribTalk – Perspectives on Texas. A Publication of the Texas Tribune.  Accessed at https://www.tribtalk.org/2017/02/13/sanctuary-city-politics-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing/


[i]Dickerson, C. and Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2020).  Border Patrol will deploy elite tactical agents to sanctuary cities. The New York Times, accessed at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/us/Border-Patrol-ICE-Sanctuary-Cities.html
[ii]Griffin, B. and Vaughan, J.S. (2020). Center for Immigration Studies, accessed at https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States

Texas Politics and Hispandering

The first debate debate between Senator Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke was intensive and covered many issues of substance to Texas voters.  Interestingly, news coverage of the debate also highlighted the accusation by the Cruz campaign that Beto O’Rourke was engaging in “Hispandering” – that is, trying to win favor among Latino voters by use of his Spanish nick name.  According to O’Rourke, however, the name “Beto” was given to him at birth and a common nickname in his birthplace of El Paso that he has used throughout his lifetime.   It seems curious that the Cruz campaign has focused attention on this issue since Senator Ted Cruz opted to change his own birth name from “Felito“ to Ted because of the taunting that he faced as a teenager and the need to reshape his image. 

For the record, the practice of “Hispandering” has been popularized in past political campaigns by Republicans like Gov. Gregg Abbott who have had no reservations about showcasing their Latino wives and family members, and using Spanish-language ads to gain political favor among Latinos.  The pandering becomes more salient in these campaigns since the programs and policies supported by Gov. Abbott and Senator Cruz are often damaging to the quality of life for Texas Latinos, including the following:

  • Associating Latino immigrants with high crime rates despite scientific evidence that disputes claim;
  • Supporting voter ID laws that limit Latino  voting rights and civic participation;
  • Separating families, mostly Latinos seeking asylum, and placing them in detention centers;
  • Planning to eliminate legal immigrants from receiving food and healthcare benefits if they cannot support themselves financially; and
  • Supporting the Trump administration that has constantly disparaged Latinos, immigrants, African Americans and women.

By contrast, Beto O’Rourke supports programs and policies that directly benefit Texas Latinos, as well as other groups. He has voiced strong support for the Dream Act, measures to improve gun control, increasing attention on the violence towards African Americans by law enforcement officials, and universal healthcare.  O’Rourke’s position on these issues represents a fresh approach that is desperately needed to replace the punitive political platforms of Republicans like Senator Cruz, Gov. Gregg Abbott, and President Trump. Indeed, showcasing Latino family members and speaking Spanish when it is politically convenient seems more like “Hispandering” than using a name that one is given at birth. 

I would encourage all Texans to get past the name calling and trivia often associated with political campaigns, and focus on programs and policies that are being advocated by the political candidates. Texas Latinos, in particular, should easily dismiss the “Hispandering” by Republican candidates who seek their votes during election season but once in office, dedicate much of their political careers to supporting programs that damage the quality of life for Latinos.   

All things considered, I believe that Beto O’Rourke is on the right path to victory to be our next Texas senator.

Ethnic Cleansing: Trump’s New Strategy

     

          If you were under the impression that ethnic cleansing takes place only in other countries with maniacal dictators, perhaps it is time to reflect on the recent behavior of President Trump in regards to recovery efforts in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria.  By some accounts, the disaster recovery in Puerto Rico was a clear example of the deliberate and prolonged neglect of a large segment of U.S. citizens.

An estimated 3,000 Puerto Rican residents died as a result of Hurricane Maria – not just from the immediate storm but also from the inadequate recovery efforts that allowed too many victims to suffer from the limited access to clean water, food, transportation and medical attention. The level of human misery in Puerto Rico, which continues to this day, was apparently of little consequence to President Trump who boasted that the recovery effort was one of the most successful in U.S. history.  Making matters worse, President Trump even now rejects the estimate of 3,000 deaths from Hurricane Maria, suggesting that the high death estimate was merely a political ploy by Democrats to “make me look bad.”   

Trump’s suggestion that the 3,000 deaths resulting from Hurricane Maria was a political ploy by Democrats is consistent with other conspiracy theories that point to his detachment from reality, including such things as:

·        Promotion of the birther theory regarding President Obama;
·       The claim that Muslims celebrated 9/11 on rooftops;
·        Suggesting that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination; and
·        Claiming that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election.

President Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Puerto Rico and its leadership, even delaying the waiver of the Jones Act to expedite the delivery of needed resources. Indeed, his disdain for other non-white and immigrant groups has been shown through statements and policies, including the separation of Latino children from their families;  legal action to end the DACA program;  travel restrictions based on religious beliefs;  and the consistent derogatory statements made in reference to Mexicans,  Haitians, black athletes, and war heroes like the late Senator McCain.  More recently, the Trump administration announced the transfer of $10 million from the FEMA budget to ICE  — an action that further underscores the priority placed on the removal of unwanted groups.  Perhaps it is time to ask: Is President Trump developing a program of ethnic cleansing? 

As defined by a United Nations Commission, ethnic cleansing is defined as follows:   
“….rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. “
Since he became president, Donald Trump has implemented a number of programs that could fall under this definition of ethnic cleansing,  including  arbitrary arrest and detention; confinement in ghetto areas (i.e., families in detention centers); forcible removal;  displacement and deportation (i.e., even asylum seekers);  deliberate attacks or threats of attacks on civilians (i.e., especially protestors at campaign rallies); and robbery of personal property (that is, seizure of personal property from forcibly removed persons). 

Although Trump has yet to implement some of the most coercive practices that have been utilized globally by current and past dictators, following is a listing of the various practices that have been used to achieve the objectives of ethnic cleansing:
  • Murder
  • Torture
  • Extrajudicial executions
  • Rape and sexual assaults
  • Severe physical injury to civilians
  • Use of civilians as human shields
  • Destruction of property
  • Attacks on hospitals, medical personnel and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

Without intervention by legal advocates and human rights organizations, one wonders how many of these most coercive practices President Trump would implement given the opportunity and growing support by his conservative base.  Yet, the withholding and delay of needed emergency assistance and the resulting 3,000 deaths of Puerto Rican citizens presents tangible evidence that President Trump has added a new dimension to the ethnic cleansing formula. 

Apparently, it is not enough to separate families, deport asylum seekers, place immigrant children in detention centers, and publicly disparage immigrants and non-whites – it now appears acceptable to simply delay or withhold emergency assistance in order to punish or remove unwanted segments of the U.S. population.  To say the least, this is a disturbing development and made equally frightening by the many “pro-life” Republicans who choose to remain silent on this issue.

Anti-Immigrant Bashers: Time to Look in the Mirror

For many political campaigns, the immigration issue is being elevated as the winning formula for energizing conservative voters who have grown increasingly intolerant of immigrants.  Governor Gregg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Kirkpatrick, and Senator Ted Cruz are among the many politicians who have spared no expense in bashing immigrants to advance their campaign objectives. No amount of objective information is likely to change the sentiments of these politicians, who are more likely to follow President Trump’s mantra of dismissing factual information as “fake news” and using isolated instances of crime by undocumented immigrants to paint the entire immigrant community as criminals. Without a doubt, this strategy has been effective in energizing the conservative voter base that supports these politicians.
As conservatives continue their immigrant bashing, however, it might be a good idea for them to simply “look in the mirror” and reflect on the extent to which immigrants – undocumented and legal – have influenced their own experiences and lifestyles. Consider the following points:
·        We are all descendants of immigrants: Unless you trace your ancestry to indigenous tribes of America, you are probably a descendent of previous immigrants who were motivated for the same reasons to start a new life in the U.S. How would your ancestors feel about your current perceptions of immigrants?
·        The real criminals.  Isolated crimes by undocumented immigrants often lead to public outcries for the deportation of immigrants or limits to legal immigration. Historically, white males have been responsible for most of the mass murders in the U.S.  Are you spending any time bashing white males?
·        Taking jobs.  Immigrants are often characterized as taking jobs away from native-born residents. Restrictions on immigration have led to labor shortages in such industries as construction, agriculture, hotels, and restaurants —  leading to higher prices and food shortages. How many native-born friends or family members do you know that are applying for these jobs?  Probably none.
·        Public health safety. Immigrants are often blamed for bringing diseases to the U.S. that threaten public safety. Recent health studies, however, confirm that middle and upper-income white families are the least likely to have their children immunized for highly contagious illnesses like measles and mumps.  Should the standards for public health safety be lowered for the more privileged families?
·        Intellectual competitiveness.  An estimated 70 percent of all patents obtained by top U.S. universities were developed by immigrant inventors. It is very likely that you have benefitted from these inventions in past years. Should the U.S. settle for being less competitive in the global marketplace by limiting the admission of immigrants to U.S. universities?
·        Consumption practices. Look at the product brands that you have purchased for your home or business – automobiles, computers, appliances, toys, etc. In all likelihood, most of these products were manufactured in foreign countries.
·        School quality. What schools are your children attending and how did you select that school?  If school academic ratings were an important selection factor, it is very likely that these ratings were elevated by immigrants who tend to be high achievers and valedictorians.
·        Defense of our country.  Many immigrants have lost their lives in past wars in defense of the U.S. and continue to play an important role in global military operations due to their unique language skills and cultural knowledge. Should immigrants be discouraged from participation in the U.S. military?
While is not likely that any of these points will change the behavior of political candidates who make it a practice of demonizing immigrants, perhaps it might encourage their constituents to re-consider their support of such candidates as they reflect on the many ways in which immigrants influence their collective quality of life.

Amazon’s Investment in U.S. Immigrants

It was indeed news shattering:  Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos just announced a contribution of $33 million to 1,000 DACA program students to pay for a four-year college education. As you may know, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program participants includes “Dreamers” – the nearly 700,000 immigrants who illegally were brought into the U.S. by their parents when they were young.  Many of the Dreamers are gainfully employed in the U.S., pursuing a college degree, own or plan to start a business, or have established strong roots in this country.  Indeed, many of the Dreamers have little or no experience with their countries of origin — countries which, in many cases, have records of criminal violence, natural disasters, and poor economies.

Mr. Bezos, also the son of a Cuban immigrant, is to be celebrated for making this investment.  Unlike other financial investments that this billionaire has made in past years, this one promises to yield significant rewards to the families involved.  Indeed, immigrants are responsible for two-thirds of the patents generated by U.S. higher education institutions, and create substantial employment opportunities for U.S. residents.  The U.S. economy has benefited significantly from the presence of immigrants, and it makes imminent sense to reward their contributions by investing in their college education.

Which begs the question:  Why have other large private corporations remained on the sidelines at a time when immigrants could really use their support?  A number of other high technology companies recently advocated for the DACA program participants and the value of immigrant labor – including Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook and others.  However,  based on the millions in profits that many U.S.  companies have earned as a result of Latino and Asian immigrants consumer power, I would think that their voices and financial support would have been more forthcoming.  Why the silence and lack of investment at this critical time?

By contrast, national and local media have given substantial coverage to the many public agencies that are literally falling over their feet to be considered as the ideal location for the next Amazon headquarters.  It would indeed be interesting to see if Mr. Bezos, who clearly values immigrants, will add another selection criterion for the new headquarters:  immigrant friendly policies.  If immigrant-friendly policies were a consideration to Mr. Bezos, it seems clear that many of the competing communities, including Texas, could end up at the tail end of the rankings given their past positions on sanctuary cities, voter suppression, environmental contamination, and poor funding for health and public education. If he so chooses, Mr. Bezos may now be in the position to shape public policy regarding immigrants in the U.S.

To the corporate community, I would suggest that now is the time to raise your voice and emulate Jeff Bezos by making a financial contribution to immigrant-friendly policies and programs.  To the many public entities that are competing for the next Amazon headquarters, I wish you well and hope that Mr. Bezos will place some consideration on past immigrant-friendly policies and practices.

And lastly, Mr. Bezos, I hope you are listening to this conversation.

The Texas Recipe for Muting the Hispanic Voice in Public Opinion Polls


If you are a tax-paying Texas resident, should your opinion matter in decisions related to publicly-funded programs or services in Texas?  Of course, you may say, the opinions of all Texas residents are important.  But one Texas state agency thinks that it is acceptable to exclude Spanish-speaking Hispanics from state-funded public opinion polls that are used to decide how tax dollars are spent.  I would like to share the details of an actual case study that vividly illustrates how one Texas agency is being allowed to silence the voice of Texas Hispanics in its public opinion polls.
The State of Texas has plans to spend billions of dollars to improve their transportation system, including the possibility of high speed rail. To ensure that the improved system meets the needs and expectations of Texas residents, the Texas Transportation Institute has the responsibility for conducting important surveys of Texans that reside in specific geographic areas, or corridors, that are likely to be impacted by these improvements.
A recently released report by the Texas Transportation Institute for the first of these two surveys, conducted during the Fall of 2012, provides concrete evidence that the voice of Texas Hispanics was muted by the survey planners.  Indeed, Hispanics represented only 20 percent of the survey respondents, despite their current representation of 38 percent in Texas (American Community Survey, 2011).  Even worse, only 19 percent of the few Hispanics included in the study were interviewed in Spanish – which compares poorly with other state surveys that have shown that 50 to 67 percent of Hispanics prefer a Spanish-language interview.
How could this occur, especially when the study design was reviewed by a “panel of experts” at the Institute?  A careful review of the study methodology reveals several missteps in the planning and execution of this survey:

  • The 16,000 households selected as respondents received only an English-language version of the survey.
  • The cover letter that was included with the English-language survey was provided only in English, and did not offer respondents any support to complete the survey in another language.
  • A question that asked respondents to identify their race-ethnic background provided only one ethnic identifier for Spanish-speaking respondents — “Hispanic” – which could partly explain the under-count of these respondents because other labels are often preferred over the “Hispanic” option.
  • A call center was supposedly set up to receive incoming calls from survey respondents that had questions or needed Spanish-language support. But this call center probably received few calls from Spanish-speaking respondents since the cover letter did not provide the needed contact information.  Moreover, the report did not include a copy of the Spanish-language telephone survey that was supposedly used by the survey vendor’s call center to capture incoming calls by the survey respondents.  
  • The study design required that automated advanced calls (or “robo calls”) be made to the selected households prior to the survey mailing.  Automated calls are a recognized nuisance from telemarketers and political campaigns that often discourage response rates to legitimate public opinion polls.
  • The report indicated that the survey “participation rate” was 34.6 percent – a rate that appears subjectively created and not recognizable by the American Association of Public Opinion Research (2011).  Instead, the overall survey response rate was more likely to be a much lower 9.7 percent (1,559 completions /16,000 invited participants) – not surprising given the recognized shortcomings in the methodology.
  • While the vendor acknowledged that Hispanic respondents were significantly under-represented and non-Hispanic whites were over-represented, no explanation was provided about the potential causes or consequences of this imbalance.
  • The fact that the survey planners ignored a previous warning about the potential flaws in the survey methodology suggests that the poor survey outcomes did not result from just simple carelessness.

         To make matters worse, the same survey vendor was awarded a second contract to conduct another public opinion poll of Texas residents using the same flawed methodology.  Why are state officials allowing such flawed practices to take place, especially at a time when the state’s population is being heavily impacted by the growing Hispanic population?

As one of the vendors that competed for both survey contracts, Rincón & Associates LLC monitored both competitions with some concern. In both competitions, state procurement staff decided to award the contract to the lowest bidder, which may not have been the brightest decision given the poor study outcomes.  As both studies required a mixed-mode survey methodology that few U.S. companies were capable of executing, more weight should have been given to proven experience using this specialized methodology with diverse communities in Texas. Procurement staff did not have to settle for the lowest bidder as other Texas vendors were ready, willing and able to conduct both studies.
Fortunately, an investigation was initiated on March 3, 2013 to find out why a state agency like the Texas Transportation Institute is allowed to deliberately design a study that minimizes the participation of Hispanic residents, especially Spanish speakers.  The outcome of this investigation is important because it could either (a) allow other state agencies to exclude Spanish-speaking Hispanics from state-funded studies, or (b) raise the standards of research for all state agencies to ensure that all state-funded studies provide adequate Spanish-language support.
The practical significance of this issue cannot be over-stated. Spanish-speaking residents are often the most likely to be overlooked in the delivery of public services, the most likely to receive the lowest quality services, and show distinctive attitudes or values that differ significantly from English-speakers.  Thus, excluding Spanish-speakers from opinion polls can lead to more positive satisfaction ratings than is actually the case, and result in erroneous public policy decisions.
It is time to require a higher standard for public opinion polling in communities that are linguistically and culturally diverse. Although professional research organizations have always defined quality and ethical standards for the research industry, it is apparent from the case just discussed that public agencies may not feel the need to follow these guidelines.  Following are a few ideas suggested from our experiences with public agencies like the Texas Transportation Institute:
  • Research firms that compete for opinion polls in the public sector should be required to produce evidence that they have the staff, facilities and past experience to conduct polls in linguistically and culturally diverse communities. If a research firm does not produce a representative sample of such communities in a contracted study, they should not be rewarded with another contract that utilizes the same flawed methodology.
  • The committee members convened by public agencies to evaluate research proposals may not have the expertise to judge these proposals in terms of their adequacy for diverse communities. The inclusion of experts with experience in conducting polls in diverse communities may have prevented the missteps in the Texas A & M studies.
  • In the haste to award a contract to the lowest bidder, proposal evaluators do not regularly check the references provided by the different bidders, but oddly enough still find a way to rate the relevant experiences of the bidders without this information. Prior to contract award, an audit should be conducted to ensure that such references were verified for all of the vendors that submitted a bid in such competitions.

       It is unclear that the State of Texas got the “best value” by selecting the lowest bidder from outside of Texas. Indeed, what is the economic benefit to Texans when a contract is awarded to a non-Texas vendor whose payrolls, taxes and local spending for goods and services will only benefit another state? 

Legislators and advocacy organizations, especially those that represent the needs of Texas Latinos, should show their concern about public opinion polling practices that minimize or eliminate the voice of the constituents that they represent. Can we afford to remain silent on this issue? 
The more conservative members of the Texas community may believe that all public work should be conducted only in English, and that no special accommodations should be made to non-English speakers. Unless we are willing to also exempt non-English speakers from the payment of taxes as well, then I believe that they should be given the option of voicing their opinions on topics that impact their quality of life.  Although many Hispanics and Asian residents have proficiency in English and their native language, about 50 to 70 percent of these residents still prefer to express their opinions in their native language.  By providing the appropriate linguistic options, public opinion researchers are more likely to establish rapport, increase response rates, and obtain more valid responses to their questions from ethnic respondents – all desirable outcomes for high quality research.     
Texas public agencies, especially the Texas Transportation Institute, must be required to raise their standards when conducting opinion polls of Texas residents, and legislators must take a more assertive role to ensure this outcome. We cannot afford to bury our collective heads in the sand on this issue.