Posted on 04/26/2006 7:15:13 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
By emphasizing enforcement of the law, Democrats have leaped ahead of Republicans in the latest poll asking Americans which party they trust more on the issue of illegal immigration.
As the immigration debate rose to the top of the national agenda this year, the GOP was favored by 37 percent to 31 percent over Democrats, said pollster Rasmussen Reports.
But the newest survey shows round two going to the Democrats as Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean declares enforcement of the border his party's top priority.
Now 42 percent trust Democrats more on this issue while 35 percent trust the GOP.
Rasmussen comments: "While the short-term benefit may accrue to those who favor a tougher enforcement policy, the long-term implications of the issue are less clear. At the moment, neither political party enjoys unity within its own ranks on the issue. Politicians from both sides are struggling with the nuances of the issue."
Prior to the debate's emergence this year Americans were evenly divided on which party they trusted.
Democrats have gained ground primarily by solidifying their base, Rasmussen says, as 77 percent of Democrats now trust their party more on the issue than Republicans, up from 60 percent earlier.
Democrats also have made gains among unaffiliated Americans.
Republicans still trust their own party more on the issue by a 70 percent to 12 percent margin.
Although Democrats have gained ground, they still are behind among the 53 percent of Americans who say immigration will be a very significant factor in terms of how they vote in November.
Among this group, 43 percent trust Republicans more and 33 percent trust Democrats.
Rasmussen also found 57 percent of Americans still favor building a barrier along the Mexican border. Among those who consider immigration very important, 73 percent want a barrier.
The poll indicated only 26 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the protesters who engaged in massive rallies for illegal immigrants. Fifty-four percent have an unfavorable view.
In an earlier survey, Rasmussen found that in a hypothetical race for Congress, a plurality of Americans would vote for the candidate who favors more enforcement of immigration laws.
Another poll found two-thirds of Americans think it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws.
The same survey found 40 percent of Americans favor "forcibly" requiring all an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to leave the U.S.
It's really a simple thing to get ahead in the polls. All one must do is argue for both sides of the issue and have 90% of the press on your side and therefore never get questioned about it...that way you make both sides happy, although it's only because they don't know what you stand for.
Just image the future value of the transfer payments to the recipients of amnesty with the current programs in place. This amount would not even include their enhanced ability to vote themselves more transfer payments in the future.
When the hell have Democrats ever done that?
World Nut Daily at its finest.
This "poll" is proof that America has a lot of mental retards running around loose and participating in "polls." I guess that's better than having them pick their noses and wiping it on other people.
Set on?
They've already done it.
Dean made a big speech the other day castigating the Republicans for lack of border enforcement.
The fact that he was being thoroughly disingenuous is just a techicality at this point.
Sadly, I agree.
I only made that point to highlight Dubya's shortsightedness as he follows the dictates of his own emotions. He is not made of the same stuff as most conservatives. This is the result of his wealthy origins and his intemperate past. The result is compassionate conservatism. Liberalism in disguise.
If the democrats win, any talk about border security will go down the drain.
That is where Congress (and yes our President) is out of sync with the voters. What worries me more than the details of any bill, is that when it comes to enforcement, we will not do any better than we are now. I am not from Missouri, but I am in a "show me" state of mind. The direction we seem to be going, is a cart before the horse direction. And I don't think immigrants, illegal or otherwise, is the end of the greatness of the American experiment. In the long term, I remain optimistic. But the numbers in play are just too large, and a new regime without enforcement will just add fuel to the fire.
If anyone disagrees with the above, have at me.
What do you think of my point of view?
No disagreement here.
In fact, I'm against any bill because they won't enforce it. They've all earned my cynicism.
of course, any real bill would involve putting the sticks before the carrots. A 2 year period of employer/landlord sanctions, increased border security, fence construction, et al. if that is shown to be working, then we can talk about the carrots - guest workers, more green cards, etc.
my own hope - is that nothing happens. we have 2 national elections coming up in the next 2.5 years, let this be an issue that candidates debate on, and let the voters provide some consensus about what direction they want to go.
I hate to see a wall built, but, if that's all that will work, then build it.
But the president is ALSO for strong border security.
It's the democrats that are BLOCKING border security.
Unfortunately, it will probably be a completely stage-managed "debate", unless the voters really start raising hell over this. The two parties are in basic agreement on how to proceed, with only minor matters of detail separating them.
The dems have set them up and for some reason known only to them they are allowing the libs to bury them.
Pass strong border control, keep up the raids, deport most of the illegals, get tough with employers, no amnesty and watch the positive reaction of voters.
I see a majority of house and senate republicans, who do not want blanket amnesty. how many R votes does the senate bill have?
Everyone in Washington claims to be in favor of strong border security. But most of them, Bush included, refuse to go along with the idea of securing the borders first before legalizing illegals. That makes his rhetorical stance on border security pretty much worthless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.