Obama Immigration Shift - 64% Approve

[Guest]

.... And 66% of independents approve .......

[Guest]

From the Bloomberg.com news on June 19 -

"Obama, who has long backed legislation offering young immigrants a pathway to citizenship, announced a Department of Homeland Security directive forbidding the federal government from initiating the deportation of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who came to the U.S. before age 16; have lived in the country for at least five years; have no criminal records; and are in school, high school graduates, or military veterans.

The decision left Republicans struggling to respond, trapped between alienating their political base and sending a negative signal to the Hispanic community and independent voters. A majority -- 56 percent -- of likely Republican voters opposed the decision, while almost nine in 10, or 86 percent, of Democrats supported it. Sixty-five percent of independents backed the policy change, while 26 percent disagreed.

Romney, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, has refused to say whether he would reverse the decision if he’s elected.

Yesterday, Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, dropped plans to introduce legislation that would grant work visas to some young people brought to the U.S. illegally. The president’s decision undercut momentum for Rubio’s plans, said Alex Conant, the senator’s spokesman."


Yes, this was a truly brilliant idea by President Obama and the Republicans and Teapartiers are sputtering helpless in the water about this action.

[Guest]

I love people making claims and providing no evidence but only conjecture.

[Guest]

Can't wait to hear what Mitt Romney proposes when he speaks to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on Thursday in Orlando. He will have had almost a week to come up with his immigration plan since the president's announcement on Friday. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with his hard-core primary position of having all illegals deported to their home countries to get in line for immigration.

Romney talking about alternative proposals for children of illegal immigrants

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120619/NEWS09/306190044/In-Iowa-Romney-challenges-Obama-on-economy?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage&nclick_check=1

Perhaps after he answers these questions, he will tell us how he proposes to pay for his five trillion dollars in tax cuts.

[Guest]

Just another poll huh hich let them all in what do we care drive the country down farther.

[Guest]

Just another poll huh hich let them all in what do we care drive the country down farther.

I would like see the poll or news article citing it, is all. When I cite a story or a poll or a comment, I link it.

It's a bit rude, in my opinion, to expect others to redo the legwork if you've already done it.

I assume that the story or source is extremely suspect and that is why the "source" is omitted.

[Guest]

why should Romney be held accountable for how he would pay for ANYTHING he proposes?

That is obviously not a requirement nor is it a care of Obama and his supporters......while promising and spending and bailing out and proposing new give aways....there has ever been a commitment of how these programs will be paid for.

Now just why is it OK for him to spend out of control....borrowing 40 cents of every dollar....without a budget? Why???????

There certainly would not be a double standard in the party thinking.....is there?:1rotfl::1rotfl:

btk

[Guest]

BTK is right. After all, Newt Moonbeam did not ever say how he was going to pay for an American colony on the Moon, did he, and yet there were lots of wubers who voted for him in the primary.

I am sure that Mitt Romney would have a plan similar to the plans of Bain Captial when they bought an insolvent company, raided all the assets, fired employees right and left, and sold the scraps.

[Guest]

Since Mitt Romney has aligned himself with the Ryan Budget, it's more likely he'll want to pay for his five trillion dollars in tax cuts with cuts in government programs, such as ending Medicare as we know it and replacing it with a voucher system. Just hope nobody has an existing medical condition, because they could be denied coverage if the Affordable Care Act gets overturned.

[Guest]

Like all polls, it depends upon whom is actually ASKED to participate in the poll.

[Guest]

I would like see the poll or news article citing it, is all. When I cite a story or a poll or a comment, I link it.

It's a bit rude, in my opinion, to expect others to redo the legwork if you've already done it.

I assume that the story or source is extremely suspect and that is why the "source" is omitted.

The Bloomberg Survey found just 30% of likely voters disagreed with the president's plan.


Obama immigration shift a hit with voters, says new poll - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-immigration-shift-hit-voters-poll/story?id=16602880)

[Guest]

I love people making claims and providing no evidence but only conjecture.Just out of curiosity, what's "conjecture" about Rubio suddenly stopping work on a Dream Act that he would introduce? Or Romney simply avoiding saying anything about whether he's for or against the content of the Executive Order? Neither are conjecture; both are facts, as the result of several interviews of both men over the weekend.

Actually, I've answered my own question. The silence by both Rubio and Romney leaves the voters to conjecture whether they're for or against what the Executive Order specifies.

I intend to vote for Romney, but I'd sure like to know what he's thinking with regard to this element of the immigration problem. Does he agree with it? Will be reverse the order if he is elected and begin again to prosecute the young illegals, all of whom would be pretty outstanding citizens as the order specifies? Will he introduce immigration legislation? What will be the important elements of legislation he might introduce?

It seems to me that the politics just go on. If Obama is for something, Romney and the GOP must be against it...even if last week they were for it!

[Guest]

The real problem here is that BHO circunvented the Congress to do this. He ignored the Constitution, He had solid Democract majorities in Congress for his first two years and could have gotten this passed the legal way.

Plus the Republican plan would have worked Constitionaly through Congress and then BHO would have to sign it.

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity, what's "conjecture" about Rubio suddenly stopping work on a Dream Act that he would introduce? Or Romney simply avoiding saying anything about whether he's for or against the content of the Executive Order? Neither are conjecture; both are facts, as the result of several interviews of both men over the weekend.

Actually, I've answered my own question. The silence by both Rubio and Romney leaves the voters to conjecture whether they're for or against what the Executive Order specifies.

I intend to vote for Romney, but I'd sure like to know what he's thinking with regard to this element of the immigration problem. Does he agree with it? Will be reverse the order if he is elected and begin again to prosecute the young illegals, all of whom would be pretty outstanding citizens as the order specifies? Will he introduce immigration legislation? What will be the important elements of legislation he might introduce?

It seems to me that the politics just go on. If Obama is for something, Romney and the GOP must be against it...even if last week they were for it!

VK...this must be one of the polls that you like, huh...no railing on this one !!!

But I have a question....the new announcement, if I understood correctly and it is possible that I did not, gives work rights to illegals to compete with US citizens IF they meet certain criteria, one of which is being here so many years.

How can anyone verify the amount of time an ILLEGAL has been here ? Are/were there Illegal stamps of some sort to verify this as a USA citizen must do to get a job ?

Just curious

[Guest]

I am confused, not that uncommon, but doesn't the fact that 64% polled agree with the decision to provide work visas but still somehow all repubs are against Latinos? I don't think the math works out.
I think this poll shows that all the finger pointing and accusing from the "holier than thou" left that GOP leaning voters are against Latinos is just wishful thinking.
Besides all the Pres did was fill his vast vacuum of a head with a GOP idea making it look like it was his!
So I think your poll shows that your generalizing and stereotyping the GOP is just wrong and only a device for your lefty agenda to divide the country, and it did not.

[Guest]

vk - a small technical explanation:
the prez did not sign an executive order - as janmcn noted in another post, the new immigration policy is based on "prosecutorial discretion" described in a memo by janet napolitano.

an executive order would be one way to aviod enforcing existing law and prosecutorial discretion is the way to aviod not enforcing the law by executive order.

and as far as either/any of the boys defining their position on immigration - it is no longer necessary - they can just spend the rest of the days up until the election criticizing obama for having failed the immigrant community by not embracing all of them and a meaningful resolution to the need for a revised on immigration. long-term policy

[Guest]

VK...
[snip]
But I have a question....the new announcement, if I understood correctly and it is possible that I did not, gives work rights to illegals to compete with US citizens IF they meet certain criteria, one of which is being here so many years.

How can anyone verify the amount of time an ILLEGAL has been here ? Are/were there Illegal stamps of some sort to verify this as a USA citizen must do to get a job ?

Just curious

bucco - isn't the granting of work rights what g w bush attempted to do with the 'guest worker' plan that he had - that even some democrats voted against?

and as far as verifying the amount of time an illegal has been here - this gives janet naploitans the opportunity to reduce unemployment by hiring an entire ne cadre of investigators and processors to review and approve or reject the applications from these illegals.

i want to know what the dept of homeland security is going to do with the applicants who do NOT get approved for this program! do ya think they will be sent packing to their homeland? hmmmmmm

if the head hombre in mexico thinks this is such a good idea - how come he is not offering the same reciprocity to illegals in his country?

[Guest]

Yelp all you want about it but it is approved of by around 65% of voting Americans and basically the only people against it are the republicans who would be against anything this Administration did.

Basically, they are outdone, outwitted, and outplayed.

[Guest]

The real problem here is that BHO circunvented the Congress to do this. He ignored the Constitution, He had solid Democract majorities in Congress for his first two years and could have gotten this passed the legal way.

Plus the Republican plan would have worked Constitionaly through Congress and then BHO would have to sign it.

As you recall, on Dec 18, 2010, the House of Representatives passed The Dream Act, and the Senate defeated it by a 55-41 vote after republicans filibustered the bill requiring 60 votes. Five democrats voted no, three republicans voted yes, and four were absent. This was when the president had solid majorities in congress.

If you're speaking about Senator Marco Rubio's Dream Act Bill, which was never written, it would be highly doubtful it would pass in congress today.

[Guest]

Yelp all you want about it but it is approved of by around 65% of voting Americans and basically the only people against it are the republicans who would be against anything this Administration did.

Basically, they are outdone, outwitted, and outplayed.

Republicans conveniently forget that their hero, President Ronald Reagan, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, which granted amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants. At that time, he proposed having open borders between the US, Mexico and Canada.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

[Guest]

As you recall, on Dec 18, 2010, the House of Representatives passed The Dream Act, and the Senate defeated it by a 55-41 vote after republicans filibustered the bill requiring 60 votes. Five democrats voted no, three republicans voted yes, and four were absent. This was when the president had solid majorities in congress.

If you're speaking about Senator Marco Rubio's Dream Act Bill, which was never written, it would be highly doubtful it would pass in congress today.

I am sure that you want to post with some integrity and sure dont want things to be presented without all the facts, so I will help you...

.....IF all Democrats had voted for it, then it would have passed !! (and actually, 3 Republicans voted for it)

.....The bill that was voted down actually allowed for TWO misdemeanors to qualify

.....There was no requirement to actually GRADUATE from college.

.....The bill voted down also added quite a lot to the deficit.

Oh, and by the way, you talk about filibuster....in reality, the Dream Act that was voted down WAS NOT FILIBUSTERED. What was filibustered was the Democrats attempt to add it to a defense bill.

Now, you are welcome......I KNOW you did not want to omit these facts.

.....

[Guest]

Republicans conveniently forget that their hero, President Ronald Reagan, signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, which granted amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants. At that time, he proposed having open borders between the US, Mexico and Canada.

Not forgotten by me for sure.

It was a one time amnesty with conditions...those conditions were that we would make a concerted effort to control the borders.....this country did not do that. Second condition was that an tough empoyer verification program would be implemented.

His idea was a good one, but he trusted folks so much....the left has tried hard to NOT patrol the borders and surely did not want illegals to have to verify anything..they dont want them to have to verify to VOTE, for gosh sake.

Not all the lefts fault by the way, we have not done what was intended by his act to patrol and secure the borders.

These were the stated purposes but you just forgot to mention them, an I might add that you make assumptions about people all the time...like ONLY Republicans are against this bill, etc.

So once again, you just forget to add these little small details that can change meanings !

[Guest]

bucco - isn't the granting of work rights what g w bush attempted to do with the 'guest worker' plan that he had - that even some democrats voted against?

and as far as verifying the amount of time an illegal has been here - this gives janet naploitans the opportunity to reduce unemployment by hiring an entire ne cadre of investigators and processors to review and approve or reject the applications from these illegals.

i want to know what the dept of homeland security is going to do with the applicants who do NOT get approved for this program! do ya think they will be sent packing to their homeland? hmmmmmm

if the head hombre in mexico thinks this is such a good idea - how come he is not offering the same reciprocity to illegals in his country?

This President has copied so much of what Bush did or wanted to do after doing nothing but defaming him...he still uses him as an excuse and still uses Bush's policies on a daily basis, but since he NEVER has press events to take question nobody can ask him about any of this.

[Guest]

And finally, you folks have spent most of the day skewing facts and presentin things out of context to make yourselves feel good...isnt America great where you dont have to tell the full truth...just what you select.....but anyway...

"Bloomberg News is touting a new poll that appears to shows strong public support for President Barack Obama’s de facto amnesty for many illegal immigrants, but the poll is skewed and pushes respondents toward approval, say critics.

“It doesn’t mention that at least one and a half million illegal aliens are being offered work permits to compete with the 20 million under- and unemployed Americans who can’t find a full-time job,” said Roy Beck of NumbersUSA.

The June 19 poll also “doesn’t mention that this is a form of amnesty that offers no new enforcement to keep it from enticing more illegal immigration,” he said.

“If you don’t tell people what the issues are, you can get any result you want,” said Dan Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “It is a gross disservice to public discourse to create these ridiculous polls and pass them off as scientific,” he added.

Read more: Critics denounce Bloomberg poll indicating support for Obama's immigration pivot | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/19/critics-denounce-bloomberg-poll-indicating-support-for-obamas-immigration-pivot/#ixzz1yHMWm4TN)


Now it is just opinion of course but since we had a poster go off on a Newsmax poll, why not critique this one also.

BUT, here is the one part you have to read and it quotes PEW, a pretty respected group.......this is important in reality dont you think or are we not going to stay in reality and only play a GAME of wins and losses.....

"The president’s de facto amnesty was announced June 15. It could provide work permits to 1.4 million people over the next few years, according to the Pew Research Center, amid an economy where roughly 20 million people are unemployed or underemployed.

However, that 1.4 million number may be boosted by the arrival of new immigrants with fraudulent documents, said critics."

This must make you so proud

[Guest]

.... And 66% of independents approve .......

coralway - do you think any of the 64% or 66% surveyed are unemployed? do you think the pollster's question was 'are you in favor of the us govt giving up to 800,000 illegal immigrants work permits that can be renewed every two years when so many us citizens are out of work or underemployed?

i doubt it. i would have liked to see the percentages of THAT survey!

just ANOTHER reason to ignore any polls other than the one on election day!

[Guest]

Amazing, isn't it that some posters will go to such lengths of their criticism of the President's brilliant plan and way of making a decent directive of it.

They appear to be concerned about jobs for Americans. I believe the jobs should go to those who can compete and do the best job. However, I do not believe that is their concern.

Daily Kos: Mitt Romney Lies Again - FACT: GOP Filibustered Dream Act Twice in 2010 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/17/1100802/-Mitt-Romney-Lies-Again-FACT-GOP-Filibustered-Dream-Act-Twice-in-2010)

[Guest]

Amazing, isn't it that some posters will go to such lengths of their criticism of the President's brilliant plan and way of making a decent directive of it.

They appear to be concerned about jobs for Americans. I believe the jobs should go to those who can compete and do the best job. However, I do not believe that is their concern.

Daily Kos: Mitt Romney Lies Again - FACT: GOP Filibustered Dream Act Twice in 2010 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/17/1100802/-Mitt-Romney-Lies-Again-FACT-GOP-Filibustered-Dream-Act-Twice-in-2010)

Thanks for posting this...Romney is right on with all his comments. Thanks

AND Yes I am concerned about jobs for Americans, and yes I am concerned about the deficit, and if you took the time to read my posts, I am also concerned about a forum that presents obvious party notes full of half truths and non truths.

[Guest]

coralway - do you think any of the 64% or 66% surveyed are unemployed? do you think the pollster's question was 'are you in favor of the us govt giving up to 800,000 illegal immigrants work permits that can be renewed every two years when so many us citizens are out of work or underemployed?

i doubt it. i would have liked to see the percentages of THAT survey!

just ANOTHER reason to ignore any polls other than the one on election day!






LOL - that is the way Rasmussen and Luntz word their surveys.

You should send an email to the Faux website and suggest the do a poll and ask the question the way you framed it. Better yet - go to Newt.org and send in a suggestion.

The way the Cons are squirming on this one - and Willard's inability to say anything even remotely coherent about immigration makes it obvious Willard has no chance with hispanics.

[Guest]

LOL - that is the way Rasmussen and Luntz word their surveys.

You should send an email to the Faux website and suggest the do a poll and ask the question the way you framed it. Better yet - go to Newt.org and send in a suggestion.

The way the Cons are squirming on this one - and Willard's inability to say anything even remotely coherent about immigration makes it obvious Willard has no chance with hispanics.

i don't think the cons are squirming - they know better than to put faith in any poll other than the one on election day! if i look like i'm squirming it's because i'm just have'n fun laffin at the dems who actually believe the poll stuff and want others to believe it, too!

[Guest]

LOL - that is the way Rasmussen and Luntz word their surveys.

You should send an email to the Faux website and suggest the do a poll and ask the question the way you framed it. Better yet - go to Newt.org and send in a suggestion.

The way the Cons are squirming on this one - and Willard's inability to say anything even remotely coherent about immigration makes it obvious Willard has no chance with hispanics.


It is pretty funny actually.....most news reports talk about the inherent problems with what he did with this stunt (See NPR) and how it will affect our own workforce...the kudos are coming for the most part from the hardcore left who would bow to the man if he dissolved the constitution (oh wait, he is doing that).

It was a GOOD political stunt...I will give him that. It gets him some voters from the hispanic community (at least those who can forget that he has deported more than any other president, although I applauded him for that) and perhaps some votes from the illegals. It was a political stunt and for that he gets an A. Policy wise it is quite immature, shallow and even if he wins in Nov it will go away and HE KNOWS THAT.

Now, I hate polls..always have and have said that a lot but did you not read my post where folks are really a bit disconcerted with this particular poll, as they should be...read the quotes on what was NOT asked. Makes no difference to me but if this makes you happy...be my guest. The posts that you guys have made on this thread are astoundingly false, out of context, and I will assume that was just an error on your part(s)

[Guest]

Do you know what happens when you assume?

[Guest]

Do you know what happens when you assume?

I see, by this post you are saying that you made those deletions to facts and made the misrepresentations on purpose....interesting....thanks for the clarification !!!!

[Guest]

Thanks for posting this...Romney is right on with all his comments. Thanks

AND Yes I am concerned about jobs for Americans, and yes I am concerned about the deficit, and if you took the time to read my posts, I am also concerned about a forum that presents obvious party notes full of half truths and non truths.

No thanks, I certainly will not take time to read your posts. I do not find them interesting but rather boorish. You may have great intentions when writing them but they miss the points completely.

[Guest]

No thanks, I certainly will not take time to read your posts. I do not find them interesting but rather boorish.

Ok..they were just the factual reports...but that is your call of course

[Guest]

I can Imagine Buggy's expression when my previous predictions come true and this come back to bite The Amateurs skinny butt.

He will rue his decision to act unilaterally.

Obama's DREAM Act is a constitutional nightmare | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/obamas-dream-act-is-a-constitutional-nightmare/)

[Guest]

I can Imagine Buggy's expression when my previous predictions come true and this come back to bite The Amateurs skinny butt.

He will rue his decision to act unilaterally.

Obama's DREAM Act is a constitutional nightmare | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/obamas-dream-act-is-a-constitutional-nightmare/)

from the article you cite:
"Never one to fall victim to the adage that “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” Obama made his “DREAM” announcement after declaring just last year during a speech to the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, that the “idea of doing things on [his] own is very tempting,” but noted “that’s not how our system works.” Obviously he was wrong; that is precisely how his system of extra-constitutional government works.'"

i wonder if the obama action would be considered a flip flop or another evolution.

[Guest]

from the article you cite:
"Never one to fall victim to the adage that “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” Obama made his “DREAM” announcement after declaring just last year during a speech to the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, that the “idea of doing things on [his] own is very tempting,” but noted “that’s not how our system works.” Obviously he was wrong; that is precisely how his system of extra-constitutional government works.'"

i wonder if the obama action would be considered a flip flop or another evolution.

DEvolution. Slouching Toward the USSR....That's Defunct.

[Guest]

I can Imagine Buggy's expression when my previous predictions come true and this come back to bite The Amateurs skinny butt.

He will rue his decision to act unilaterally.

Obama's DREAM Act is a constitutional nightmare | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/18/obamas-dream-act-is-a-constitutional-nightmare/)

Seems even John Kyle from "immigration friendly" Arizona agrees with the basis of Obama's decision though perhaps not the way he would have done it. With the polls showing the majority support and agree with Obama on this issue it appears you may be wrong Richie. That must hurt. :laugh:

[Guest]

Seems even John Kyle from "immigration friendly" Arizona agrees with the basis of Obama's decision though perhaps not the way he would have done it. With the polls showing the majority support and agree with Obama on this issue it appears you may be wrong Richie. That must hurt. :laugh:

I think that this thread has been lost by some and some of the conservatives here have tried diverting from the FACT that Obama's decision has an approval rating of around 65% with 8 in 10 Democrats in favor of it and a whole lot of Republicans in favor, too.

It will be interesting to see how Mr. Romney handles it with his tough anti-immigration talk during the primaries and now flip flopping around like a tuna on a trawler.

[Guest]

Seems even John Kyle from "immigration friendly" Arizona agrees with the basis of Obama's decision though perhaps not the way he would have done it. With the polls showing the majority support and agree with Obama on this issue it appears you may be wrong Richie. That must hurt. :laugh:

The trouble with you bent at the knees worshipers of all things Obama is that you never see the forest for the trees.

We can debate the effects of Obama's run at the Constitution if you like, but it doesn't change the power grabbing unconstitutionality of it, which is what the critics are protesting.

If you stole something from me and I barged into your house with a gun to retrieve it, I would be breaking the law. People could talk about how it was understandable for me to reacquire my possessions in view of your thievery, but that wouldn't be the important aspect of this analogy.

The Republicans running for office know that a large percentage of Americans are stupid or ignorant enough to believe that the ends justify the means even if it damages the constitutional protections of the Constitution against one branch having too much power and control.

This is why they are pussy footing around the incredible constitutional nightmare of this power grab of the present occupant of the people's house.

All the comments by the leftists on this forum prove my point quite nicely.

[Guest]

The trouble with you bent at the knees worshipers of all things Obama is that you never see the forest for the trees.

We can debate the effects of Obama's run at the Constitution if you like, but it doesn't change the power grabbing unconstitutionality of it, which is what the critics are protesting.

If you stole something from me and I barged into your house with a gun to retrieve it, I would be breaking the law. People could talk about how it was understandable for me to reacquire my possessions in view of your thievery, but that wouldn't be the important aspect of this analogy.

The Republicans running for office know that a large percentage of Americans are stupid or ignorant enough to believe that the ends justify the means even if it damages the constitutional protections of the Constitution against one branch having too much power and control.

This is why they are pussy footing around the incredible constitutional nightmare of this power grab of the present occupant of the people's house.

All the comments by the leftists on this forum prove my point quite nicely.

Wow, old friend, Mrs. Lion had better switch you to decaf coffee in the morning. And you should take a Constitutional Law class at the local nightschool to learn a few things.

[Guest]

I think that this thread has been lost by some and some of the conservatives here have tried diverting from the FACT that Obama's decision has an approval rating of around 65% with 8 in 10 Democrats in favor of it and a whole lot of Republicans in favor, too.

It will be interesting to see how Mr. Romney handles it with his tough anti-immigration talk during the primaries and now flip flopping around like a tuna on a trawler.

I think perhaps if you READ anything, not only on this individual thread but just in general, you would find that your continual talking about this has been debunked with FACTS.

Now, you told me on here last evening that you do not read my posts and that is up to you, but when they contain FACTS disputing all you say you should at least give them a quick scan before you keep saying things.