Public Warms to Bush Immigration Stance

Wall Street Journal ^ | 15 June 2006 | John Harwood

[RKV]

Add this to the list of things that have gone right lately for President Bush: Americans appear to be drawing closer to his view on the immigration debate.

But that hasn't alleviated the squeeze on Republican candidates in the fall elections. A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that the party's conservative electoral base remains at odds with broader public opinion on the issue, including sentiment of the nation's swelling Latino population.

[tertiary01]

On Gordon Liddy they (Corsi, Gilchrist) were discussing how instead of TREATIES which reguire ratification by the 2/3's of Senate, they are called AGREEMENTS and need only an simple majority to pass....even though they contain the same criteria as a treaty.

[Biblebelter]

Exactly

It used to be before political correctness, there was a battle of the sexes. And in that battle, the male hard line position was I like to keep my women pregnant and barefoot.

Big government, bought and paid for by multinational companies, is making a similar statement with this bill. The populace cannot be too poor or undeducated and if they cannot even speak the prevailing language then that is just icing on the cake.

[bybybill]

This is hard for some to understand, but, if there isn`t an alternative, a compromise on those illegals already here, there will be NO bill. That means millions more illegals over the next couple of years.
Terrible Tom is leading this all or nothing lunacy because thats his ticket to the White House. Imagine if he got his way and nothing was done till he was elected. Take a couple of years after that to implement. How many would have come across by then?
Lets work to stop the major problem and close the border now. This issue is to important to be held prisoner to anybodies presidential schemes.

[RKV]

Your logical fallacy is over-generalization. General approval ratings do not translate into approval or disapproval of specific policies. As I demonstrated the American public wants less immigration (legal and illegal) and has held this opinion for some time. And I wouldn't be proud to quote an organization that has as its claim to fame that "50 TV News Organizations Count on SurveyUSA." Survey methodology matters. The quick look I did at their track record shows their results to be variable (i.e. some outside of expected accuracy +/-).

[bybybill]

See post #83

[RKV]

aka a push poll

[Reaganwuzthebest]

That means millions more illegals over the next couple of years.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

That means millions more illegals over the next couple of years.

Why would that be? There are plenty of laws on the books now to both stop illegal aliens at the border and go after employers hiring them. They just need to be enforced. To suggest we should compromise with Ted Kennedy and his schemes in order to get the problem under control is not a winner for the GOP House.

[meema]

WSJ/NBC push poll alert.

WSJ/NBC push poll is RIGHT!

[RR76]

Don't forget RINO Chris Cannon in Utah who is now in a runoff from the primary.

Thank God for the internet. Without it, we'd never know of these small victories. Not from the liberal MSM.

[brytlea]

I just never talk to ANYONE who wants to see the people who are here illegally be allowed to stay. I find it hard to inagine who they're polling....
susie

[Rokke]

"General approval ratings do not translate into approval or disapproval of specific policies."

Nor do national polls indicate the priorities in local races. Which is exactly what we are talking about with Senators and Congressmen.

Having said all that, I still believe all polls are bogus and cannot be relied on as the foundation of any argument (other than the argument that all polls are bogus) which is THE point I made in my first post. The only "polls" that really matter are elections, and when the status quo is maintained come November, what is that going to indicate with regard to the public's view on immigration?

[VOA]

Thank God for the internet. Without it, we'd never know of these small victories.
Not from the liberal MSM.

That's for d-mn sure.
IIRC, the primary that Osborne lost happened on a Tuesday...
I didn't hear a word until someone posted an article that came out
in (IIRC) the Boston Globe on the following Sunday.
And posted it here.

Thanks for reminding us of the slap that Cannon has taken.
I don't know what's happened to Utah. Lots of illegals, committing
lots of identity theft (to something like 5% of Utah's population)...
but Vicente Fox gets a red-carpet and entre' into Utah's halls of power.

Just In-Freakin'-Credible.

[brytlea]

That`s the way to win,attack you friends. We will not be able to protect our borders and stop futher illegals if we won`t work with those that aren`t 100% in lock step on this issue. All this "holding our breath till we turn blue" unless we get our way is going to prevent stopping more illegals, divide our party, and elect Rats. Time to grow up and make a deal that can work.

Are you saying we aren't your friends? I consider what you said (basically calling us babies) rather an attack....

susie

[RKV]

NO, this thread is about immigration policy.

[ZULU]

Baloney.

The recent victory of a strong illegal invader control candidate in California over a pro-illegal Dem indicates exactly where the American people stand on this.

[Mamzelle]

Mrs. Harwood ought to learn to swab her own toilet, and maybe look after her own kids.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You appear to be taking the Lindsey Graham position that we must have something, anything no matter how destructive to the country as the Senate bill is otherwise conservatives will punish the House in November. That's the open border argument and they know it's not factual.

The House passed a strong border enforcement bill, which the Senate rejected. They can now take that back to their districts and lay the blame right where it belongs, on the laps of the obstructionist democrats and their RINO partners in crime. It sure worked for Bilbray.