Poll: US-Mexico border residents feel ignored, oppose wall

Associated Press ^ | Jul 18, 2016 2:37 PM EDT | Russell Contreras

[Olog-hai]

Residents along the U.S.-Mexico border are feeling ignored in the midst of a U.S. presidential election in which immigration, border security and a proposed wall are being hotly debated, a poll released Monday suggests.

A Cronkite News-Univision News-Dallas Morning News border poll found a majority of urban residents surveyed on both sides of the border are against the building of a wall between the two countries and believe the campaign’s tone n is damaging relations.

Residents feel Democrats and Republicans are ignoring their concerns and aren’t proposing solutions to help their economies or combat drug trafficking and human smuggling, journalists who gathered reaction to the poll found. …

[Olog-hai]

Murdered, rather.

[BobL]

True, of course.

[b4me]

agree,
and whatever people on the mexico side say should carry NO weight at all.

I do think it good to hear out US citizens living near the border, as they may have good ideas or concerns to be considered as the USA goes ahead with the plan and builds

[Moonman62]

“Residents” probably means illegal aliens.

[AmericanVictory]

Somebody check out this article and tell me why its not a good idea complementary to the wall and Trump has not suggested it?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/for_every_wrong_a_remedybut_not_for_the_honest_worker_and_contractor.html

[fireman15]

I believe that enforcing current law that makes it illegal to hire people who are here illegally has already been proposed by Trump and others. I am fairly certain that it is already possible for people to sue employers who have replaced them with illegal aliens. In general I do not see the point in giving lawyers one more way to enrich themselves. If people who are caught hiring illegal aliens were fined and punished as current law prescribes... we would probably not have an illegal immigrant problem.

[AmericanVictory]

The provision quoted in the article from the United States Code specifically preempts any state or local law imposing civil ... sanctions ... upon upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.

This specifically prohibits such law suits. Such law suits are a civil sanction imposed by the state. I personally had an exchange with FAIR attorneys about this and they cited Federal Court of Appeals case law making clear that such law suits are prohibited.

The federal preemption would have to be repealed to allow such law suits. Why would it be worse to allow lawyers to take a risk in order to make money than to continually spend taxpayer money to dry up the problem? We do that in anti-trust law.

[Nifster]

Plus it is urban

Bigger tell is that border counties in Texas voted for Trump