ABC News: 67% of voters had a negative reaction to Trump's immigration speech

[HillOfANight]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-voters-trump-mexico-pay-wall/story?id=41849627&cid=abcnp_tco
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/772795369168175104

[Wells]

They should.

[Sir Mohamed]

Sad!

[Dr. Arch]

They should.

[Xing]

Sad that number isn't higher.

[ProudModerate2]

Asked to give a one-word response to a video of one part of Trump's highly anticipated immigration speech last week (in Arizona), 67 percent reacted with a negative word, such as “ridiculous” and “disgusting.” Just 27 percent responded with a positive word, such as “great” and “agree.”

Also, 78 percent said they believed Trump could not deliver on this promise (of having Mexico pay for The Wall), while 13 percent said he could.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As seen over New Year's Day Rose Parade 2016 in Pasadena, California.
Skywriting spells out "TRUMP IS DISGUSTING" ....

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump's actual position on immigration is this:  Enforce existing laws.

Clinton's actual position on immigration is this:  Deport criminals, and only criminals.  Everyone else is good to stay; we won't do anything until force to by Federal Couts.

If 67% of folks really think that badly of Trump's speech for its content, then it begs the question of why immigration reform is such a non-starter in Congress.  Surely, the popular will on an issue with support of this magnitude ought to be manifested in some sort of Congressional action, especially with a sympathetic President (Obama) in office, so why hasn't it happened?

If Trump's position were what it was, and he was saying "Federal Laws be damned, I'm deporting them all!" I would not view his speech in a positive light.  But that's not what he's saying; he's saying that current laws should actually be enforced.  What's disturbing is the degree of folks who find that remarkable.

[Gustaf]

Trump's actual position on immigration is this:  Enforce existing laws.

Clinton's actual position on immigration is this:  Deport criminals, and only criminals.  Everyone else is good to stay; we won't do anything until force to by Federal Couts.

If 67% of folks really think that badly of Trump's speech for its content, then it begs the question of why immigration reform is such a non-starter in Congress.  Surely, the popular will on an issue with support of this magnitude ought to be manifested in some sort of Congressional action, especially with a sympathetic President (Obama) in office, so why hasn't it happened?

If Trump's position were what it was, and he was saying "Federal Laws be damned, I'm deporting them all!" I would not view his speech in a positive light.  But that's not what he's saying; he's saying that current laws should actually be enforced.  What's disturbing is the degree of folks who find that remarkable.

Don't be obtuse, it just makes you look silly.

[Virginiá]

Trump's actual position on immigration is this:  Enforce existing laws.

It would seem that the problem has grown to the point where simply enforcing existing laws is now inhumane, which is why things need to change. Most voters seem to agree that things need to change as well.

If 67% of folks really think that badly of Trump's speech for its content, then it begs the question of why immigration reform is such a non-starter in Congress.  Surely, the popular will on an issue with support of this magnitude ought to be manifested in some sort of Congressional action, especially with a sympathetic President (Obama) in office, so why hasn't it happened?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigrants.aspx

From 2015, but a very large portion of American favored/favors a pathway to citizenship. Other unrelated issues that also seem to be non-starters enjoy massive bipartisan support among the adult population, and yet, things never get done. Why? It seems like a minority of the electorate, and thus a minority of Congress is holding them hostage. Why did Boehner never give immigration reform a vote? I might even ask why one guy can prevent a bill that would probably pass from getting a vote, but that's another conversation. While we are at it, why won't Republicans in Congress support universal background checks even when the vast majority of the country supports it? What about the DISCLOSE Act? Most of the country supports enhanced campaign finance disclosures and more regulation in general.

I could go on and on. I'm trying to understand if you are questioning whether a majority of the country truly supports reform or not, because they do - it's the politicians playing politics that are the problem.

[TarHeelDem]

Beautiful poll, but it should surprise no one.

[Nym90]

Immigration reform is a non-starter in Congress because House Republicans fear a Tea Party challenge in a primary far more than a Democrat in the general election. The Tea Party has successfully held the country hostage on an issue in which a majority of Americans favor reform.

Remember, the Senate passed reform easily in 2013. The 2013 immigration reform bill would've passed the House if it had come up for a vote, but Boehner refused knowing he would lose his Speakership if he dared to allow it.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is why normal people hate politics.

[DrScholl]

I thought it was this big, fantastic speech that made him look presidential? Guess not.

[Pyro]

Sad that number isn't higher.

This a thousand times.

[Cory]

Sad that number isn't higher.

This a thousand times.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump's actual position on immigration is this:  Enforce existing laws.

It would seem that the problem has grown to the point where simply enforcing existing laws is now inhumane, which is why things need to change. Most voters seem to agree that things need to change as well.

If 67% of folks really think that badly of Trump's speech for its content, then it begs the question of why immigration reform is such a non-starter in Congress.  Surely, the popular will on an issue with support of this magnitude ought to be manifested in some sort of Congressional action, especially with a sympathetic President (Obama) in office, so why hasn't it happened?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegal-immigrants.aspx

From 2015, but a very large portion of American favored/favors a pathway to citizenship. Other unrelated issues that also seem to be non-starters enjoy massive bipartisan support among the adult population, and yet, things never get done. Why? It seems like a minority of the electorate, and thus a minority of Congress is holding them hostage. Why did Boehner never give immigration reform a vote? I might even ask why one guy can prevent a bill that would probably pass from getting a vote, but that's another conversation. While we are at it, why won't Republicans in Congress support universal background checks even when the vast majority of the country supports it? What about the DISCLOSE Act? Most of the country supports enhanced campaign finance disclosures and more regulation in general.

I could go on and on. I'm trying to understand if you are questioning whether a majority of the country truly supports reform or not, because they do - it's the politicians playing politics that are the problem.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/immigration_update

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Folks want their border secured; about that, there has been a consistent consensus.

There is a debate about policy; not all agree with "Deport them all."  I don't agree with that on a personal level, either.  I think that the "Dreamers" have a case, and should be viewed on a case by case basis.  But I can't agree to an amnesty for the others here illegally, because to grant such an amnesty would give incentive to others to crash the borders, overstay their visas, etc., in the hope that there would be a future amnesty.  I think it's reasonably clear that Reagan's amnesty had exactly that consequence, however unintended.

Is it inhumane to deport "Dreamers", who came here very young, and know nothing other than life in America?  Perhaps; they had no choice and are not here illegally with intent.  But how "humane" was it for parents to bring their young children with them in an illegal border crossing knowing what the consequences would be?  I have a tough time feeling sorry for adults who, knowingly, did the wrong thing, and then are shocked when their kids are adversely impacted by their actions.  Public policy in all spheres is made not only with a desired outcome in mind, but with intent to actively discourage undesirable outcomes, and allowing folks to illegally enter the United States without any real expectation of enforcement of immigration laws is not my idea of a satisfactory outcome of policy.

[Enduro]

I'm pretty sure that Trump gets 67% disapproval ratings for every speech he does.

[Virginiá]

Folks want their border secured; about that, there has been a consistent consensus.

And I don't really disagree with them. I want the amnesty given and for the border to be secured (I'd like a "virtual border" type solution to be honest, physical barriers are not needed for the entire border) as well. This can be added to reform as well. But my original point still stands.

[cMac36]

If 67% of folks really think that badly of Trump's speech for its content, then it begs the question of why immigration reform is such a non-starter in Congress.  Surely, the popular will on an issue with support of this magnitude ought to be manifested in some sort of Congressional action, especially with a sympathetic President (Obama) in office, so why hasn't it happened?

Cheap labor Fuzzy Bear.  Big Business wants cheap labor.

Such is why Paul Ryan won't even allow a vote on eVerify

[Fuzzy Bear]

Folks want their border secured; about that, there has been a consistent consensus.

And I don't really disagree with them. I want the amnesty given and for the border to be secured (I'd like a "virtual border" type solution to be honest, physical barriers are not needed for the entire border) as well. This can be added to reform as well. But my original point still stands.

Democrats say this, but is it reasonable to think that giving amnesty to those folks here would not give incentive to others to continue to try to crash the border in the hopes of a future amnesty?

If I believed that there would be no more waves of illegal immigration, I might be persuaded.  But I cannot believe that any immigration solution that does not provide strong deterrence for crashing the border to folks in other lands is no solution at all. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If I believed that there would be no more waves of illegal immigration, I might be persuaded.  But I cannot believe that any immigration solution that does not provide strong deterrence for crashing the border to folks in other lands is no solution at all. 

Foolish Fuzzy Bear, that is the point.


The alleged reform is never meant to actually fix the problem. It is meant to perpetuate the cycle of illegal immigration followed by legalization, followed by another wave, followed by another legalization. And at every stage, the cry of enforcement will be shouted down by claims "That the system is 'broken" and therefore enforcement must wait until it is "fixed" and those presently here are legalized, lest it be unfair and immoral.

The objective is never to fix the system, the objective is to keep it breaking it over and over again because that is the way that all vested interests want and desire it.

[pbrower2a]

Are we Americans getting sick of meanness? About everything that Donald Trump says contains rhetorical venom. 

[Virginiá]

Democrats say this, but is it reasonable to think that giving amnesty to those folks here would not give incentive to others to continue to try to crash the border in the hopes of a future amnesty?

But the point of continuing on border security (in my mind at least) is to help prevent a future situation where amnesty might be required. Of course, people who overstay their visas need to be considered, too.

We have millions of undocumented immigrants. It needs to be taken care, and not by deporting them all, and I don't really think that means just ignoring them more or less but leaving undocumented.