Poll: Almost 70% of Americans would favor an immigration bill that focused exclusively on securing the border

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

[Scott & Lai 12]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

Interesting what happens when you ask the right questions

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

Interesting what happens when you ask the right questions

Where would you put the number at - your best estimate?

[GaryC 7]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

Interesting what happens when you ask the right questions

Where would you put the number at - your best estimate?

Judging by the people I talk to (both lib and cons) I would say that number is just about right! Wake up Washington! The people have spoken!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

Interesting what happens when you ask the right questions

Indeed.

[peejay 327]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

Interesting what happens when you ask the right questions

Where would you put the number at - your best estimate?

Judging by the people I talk to (both lib and cons) I would say that number is just about right! Wake up Washington! The people have spoken!!

The problem is that the political elites from both parties don't want to secure the border or really enforce the law...they want to give the appearance that they are securing the border and enforcing the law.

Their dilemma is that the American people are jaded to their bullshit and don't trust them one iota anymore. It is easier to do nothing and blame everyone else for the anarchy.

Edited June 14, 2007 by peejay

[Anais Nin 0]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

Interesting what happens when you ask the right questions

Indeed.

How can americans guard their border when they're off in their War of Terror?

"Sending America's Finest Men and Women to defend the Southern Border from Attack. LET'S ROLL!!!"

[JoeMama 0]

How can americans guard their border when they're off in their War of Terror?

"Sending America's Finest Men and Women to defend the Southern Border from Attack. LET'S ROLL!!!"

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, the Wogmeister, himself!

[Ban Hammer 13,110]

How can americans guard their border when they're off in their War of Terror?

"Sending America's Finest Men and Women to defend the Southern Border from Attack. LET'S ROLL!!!"

perhaps in your brilliance you can tell us why a pic of a c-130 dropping flares has anything to do with the southern border?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

Overall, just 21% are opposed to the enforcement-only approach.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._on_enforcement

Interesting what happens when you ask the right questions

Where would you put the number at - your best estimate?

Judging by the people I talk to (both lib and cons) I would say that number is just about right! Wake up Washington! The people have spoken!!

The problem is that the political elites from both parties don't want to secure the border or really enforce the law...they want to give the appearance that they are securing the border and enforcing the law.

That, they do want. As one Senator put it:

This legislation will direct the Department of Homeland Security to complete construction of hundreds of miles of additional double layered fencing and create 200 miles of vehicle barriers on our border with Mexico. The department will hire and train 18,000 border patrol agents. In addition, this bill provides for surveillance technologies to enhance our ability to monitor the border, such as, 70 ground –based radar and camera towers on the southern border and 4 unmanned aerial vehicles.

Some fancy stuff, eh?

Almost good reading - going into all the employment verification that is going to be installed on top of the border security before anything is done to legalize anyone currently here illegally or institute the guest worker program.

So, we seal the border, crack down on employers of illegals and then we start the illegals on the road to legalizing them - as long as they have been here long enough and are employed. Funny thing is, if we crack down on illegal employment prior to rolling this out, then either none of the illegals will be employed or the crackdown has failed in which case the supposed "benchmarks" won't be met to start the legalization. This just doesn't make any sense. It's a scam. Read on from the good Senator:

After the border has been certified secure by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the employment verification system is in place, the remaining provisions of the bill will go into effect. .... It is my firm belief that addressing border security and cracking down on unscrupulous employers while doing nothing to address those already living here illegally would amount to de facto amnesty for those 12 million.

How so? If the borders are secure and illegal migrants cannot find work here, then how is that a de facto amnesty? It is a de facto amnesty only if we permit them to stay and work here without getting serious on enforcing the laws on he books. Tells a lot about how serious the Congress is on enforcing labor laws and securing the border. Just as serious as they've been the past 20 years.

And in 2025 or thereabout, we'll be debating why we need to legalize the additional 30-40 million illegals in the country. Meanwhile, the illegal migration may dry up as we'll have descended to the level of our southern neighbors and there won't be any more goldmines to be had here. Canada better be getting ready...

[JoeMama 0]

How can americans guard their border when they're off in their War of Terror?

"Sending America's Finest Men and Women to defend the Southern Border from Attack. LET'S ROLL!!!"

perhaps in your brilliance you can tell us why a pic of a c-130 dropping flares has anything to do with the southern border?

Probably because he thought it looked pretty, oh so pretty!

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Build a wall and make people stand in line. Is that too much to ask?

[Scott & Lai 12]

How can americans guard their border when they're off in their War of Terror?

"Sending America's Finest Men and Women to defend the Southern Border from Attack. LET'S ROLL!!!"

perhaps in your brilliance you can tell us why a pic of a c-130 dropping flares has anything to do with the southern border?

Probably because he thought it looked pretty, oh so pretty!

I guess he likes shiny objects

[Ivaiting 0]

Anybody have any idea why the folks in Washington do not want to enact or enforce laws that secure the border? The President seems to think that securing the border is somehow linked to making changes with the immigration system! (I don't believe that the immigration laws presently in force are adequate either. There must be ways to bring down the numbers constructively to relieve the pressure on the system. But that is altogether a different issue)

My 2 cents - The big corporations that pull the strings in Washington would lose out big time on cheap labor if the border is plugged............ and most political bigwigs in Washington stand to lose re-election and campaign funds from these companies if they support anything close to a secure border!

[JoeMama 0]

Anybody have any idea why the folks in Washington do not want to enact or enforce laws that secure the border? The President seems to think that securing the border is somehow linked to making changes with the immigration system! (I don't believe that the immigration laws presently in force are adequate either. There must be ways to bring down the numbers constructively to relieve the pressure on the system. But that is altogether a different issue)

My 2 cents - The big corporations that pull the strings in Washington would lose out big time on cheap labor if the border is plugged............ and most political bigwigs in Washington stand to lose re-election and campaign funds from these companies if they support anything close to a secure border!

You hit the nail on the head. It's all about money and not a care in the world from politicians on what they think of the people who put them in office. Personally, I would love to see the majority of the politicians out of office during the next election. Hopefully, we can have a "politician for the people". Not a politician who's controlled by the greed of corporations and special interests groups. It's obvious to see that temptation of wealth will always underline politics and a politician's wallet.