[SUP]Obviously I'm correct. You are confused about the scope of the not-operator. ~(Ax)(Fx) is not identical to (Ax)~(Fx) [Here is the proof: 1.(Ax)~(Fx); 2.~~(Ax)(Fx) (negated conclusion) |= 3.(Ax)(Fx) (DN), Fa (by instantiation from 3, ~Fa (by instantian from 1)]. ~(Ax)(Fx) is identical to (Ex)~(Fx)...which is pretty obvious if you think about it for a moment [in case it's not: clearly, ~Fa is instantiation of ~(Ax)(Fx), and ~Fa is also clearly instantiation of (Ex)~(Fx)]. (note: usual fonts for existential and universal quantifiers not supported, so E is existential quantifier, A is universal quantifier).
That some are undecided (or functionally equivalent thereto) supports my point, not yours. A minority wants illegal aliens deported. That means a majority don't want illegal aliens deported (but it does not mean that a majority wants to not deport illegal aliens). This isn't fine parsing. It's substantive, especially since those undecided could choose to side with those who don't want to deport.
The OP was insinuating that Canadians are sick and tired of illegal immigration. But the data shows otherwise. Some care enough to have made up their minds to keep the illegal aliens. Some don't care, or are otherwise unsure. Together, those make up a majority--a majority of Canadians who are not sick and tired of illegal immigration. Another way of saying the same thing is that you're arguing that, somehow, those undecideds add force to the OP's insinuation. But they clearly do not, and since my argument is about an absence of force from the insinuation of the OP, they do add force to my argument.[/SUP]