Posted on 04/09/2006 8:40:20 PM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
Americans support building a security fence along the entire 2,000 mile U.S.- Mexican border by a landslide, a new Time magazine poll has found.
By a margin of 56 to 40 percent, respondents said they want the wall built from sea to shining sea - not just the 700 miles stipulated in the House plan, a proposal the press calls "draconian."
In more evidence that the American people want a tougher crackdown on illegal immigration than anything favored by Congress or the media, 62 percent told Time that they favored using the military to guard the border. Just 35 percent opposed.
But the poll's biggest shocker may be on the question of deporting illegals back to their native country, an option that politicians and the press say is out of the question.
Time found, however, that 47 percent of those surveyed actually favor deporting "all illegal immigrants." 49 percent were opposed.
And 51 percent said the U.S. would be "better of" if all illegals were deported and the border sealed to prevent any more from coming in. Just 38 percent disagreed.
A full 75 percent say illegals should be denied government supplied healthcare and food stamps, with 21 percent saying they should get those benefits. 69 percent say illegals shouldn't be allowed to get U.S. drivers licenses.
Time surveyed 1004 adult Americans on March 29 and 30. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent
we do not need a wall. .50 cal., ma duece gun emplacements with interlocking fields of fire at 100 yards would be fine.
The wall will make all the other problems tractable. Until we cut off the inflow, none of the other problems can be solved.
:)
I agree the inflow needs to be stopped first.
As a Bushbot I say if this (a fence only) passed the House and Senate Bush would not veto it. And that would send the Presidents polls through the roof. But the Senate needs a spine.
Yes they have a powerful motive. But they have to physically get here--its not like trying to police the Internet.
The Berlin wall worked really well. The wall in Israel is working really well. In areas where we have built a wall with Mexico, it works really well.
What makes you think a wall along our border will not? Do you want to just give up on this without trying? And if in reduces the flood of illegals by 95%, are the remaining 5% really an argument against it?
The reason nothing has worked 'til now is an unholy alliance of leftists who are drooling over the prospect of another government-dependent underclass that will give them a permanent majority and business R's who want cheap, non-union labor.
Until now, the public hasn't really cared and so that alliance has had it's way. If politicians become convinced that they have to halt the flood to remain in office, watch 'em get a spine. Building the wall is step one.
Bush for the past year has been telling the base to take a hike!
Yes...If the legislative body of this nation passed a Fence Only bill...with saber tooth bite...and Bush endorsed it as a step on the way to immigration reform...his poll numbers would sky rocket...
I totally agree...
And what odds are we placing on this eventuality?
In Mexico, it is consitutionally illegal for a non-citizen, legal or not, to publicly COMMENT on internal politcal questions or policy, let alone demonstrate.
It's the inevitable by-product of the GOP telling its conservative base to go and pound sand and the inability of voters to discern a true conservative from a RINO (see: Bill Weld, Massachusetts, circa 1990). Without a revolution by conservatives in their voting we'll all be paying taxes to El Presidente Fox before my 3-year-old graduates high school (and I only mean that partially as hyperbole).
Find the most conservative candidate you can find and back them. If you can't find one in the GOP, vote Constitution Party. At least then we'll have a chance to save the country. The GOP needs to be scared out of its wits and the voices of the voters is the only way to do it.
Why wouldn't it? It would be a physical barrier.
The problem, is that this country, will not physically , by threat of certain death, stop people from crossing. The shiite would be all over that fan. The crossers know this. They call the bluff, and will continue to do so.
Agreed, the wall will keep out the "honest" ones, but in the long run, we need to address the reason they come here, not simply the fact that they do, because the driving force is sufficient for them to indeed risk their lives for.
There is no way in hell that Bush would ever allow the fence to be reinforced. He would veto that bill and the Senate wouldn't have the votes to override.
Not that he has EVER vetroed anything..
But just yesterday, I heard Predident Bush directly say that he would veto any immigration bill that included a 'wall'.
"the angriest voices are still heard on the far right, asking, "Whose country is this anyway?" and denouncing "amnesty" for immigrants. Sometimes it's a thin cover, with strong racial overtones, for opposing any rational approach to letting people who are already here, holding jobs and paying taxes, become legal. There may be short-term benefits to this sort of pandering, but, as has been shown before, it can come back to hurt politicians.---"A Hispanic Civil Rights Movement By Juan Williams Monday, April 10, 2006; Page A17
Where are getting the idea that the wall would be "certain death"?
The wall would be just that - a wall. Those very few that were able to find a way over it would be rounded up and sent back.
The reason nothing has worked 'til now is an unholy alliance of leftists who are drooling over the prospect of another government-dependent underclass that will give them a permanent majority and business R's who want cheap, non-union labor.
Until now, the public hasn't really cared and so that alliance has had it's way. If politicians become convinced that they have to halt the flood to remain in office, watch 'em get a spine. Building the wall is step one.
Why should the GOP listen to anything it's base has to say. The base can bitch and moan all they want but the GOP politicians know that all they have to say in November is "Do you want a democrat in charge?".
It's quite sad.
James N. Clymer
National Chairman, Constitution Party
(snip)
Said Clymer:
"I think that this will be the final straw for conservatives who have held their nose and stuck with the Republican Party as they watched it trash nearly every core principle that identified it as a conservative party: protecting the peace, controlling spending, limiting government, and being strong on law and order. Placing illegal immigrants on a fast track to citizenship is a frontal assault on law and order. President Bush has deliberately chosen not to enforce our immigration laws, and then declared immigration to be out of control...I predict that the Republican rank-and-file will not follow their leaders in the "Millionaire's Club" out this particular gangplank.
The only way that Senate Republicans can avoid incurring the wrath of the voters this November is by backing away from this capitulation on principle, Clymer stated. "This curious alliance between the leftists and much of the business community is an abdication of their duty and their oath to uphold the Constitution. It gives compromise a bad name, "continued Clymer. He suggested that those like Sen. Jeff Sessions, who have held onto their principles, will be okay; but that "the rest of these Republicans will need to look to the Democratic Party for their votes, and that flat-out won't happen."
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.