• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Poll Says: Send Them Home NOW!!!!

Mike

Well-known member
Thursday, July 17, 2014

Most voters don’t want any of the young illegal immigrants who’ve recently arrived here housed in their state and say any legislation passed by Congress to deal with the problem should focus on sending them home as soon as possible.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the primary focus of any new immigration legislation passed by Congress should be to send the young illegal immigrants back home as quickly as possible. Just 27% say it should focus instead on making it easier for these illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Advocates for the illegal immigrants argue that they are flooding into the country to escape violent situations in their home countries, but just 31% of U.S. voters think they are coming here now for their own safety. Most voters (52%) believe they are coming here for economic reasons. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who last week criticized efforts to deport these illegal immigrants, is now reportedly the latest governor to tell the White House not to house any of them in his state. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of voters disapprove of housing these illegal immigrants in their state. Only half as many (29%) approve, while 14% are undecided.

Voters are more uncertain, however, when it comes to the $3.7 billion in new spending that President Obama has asked for from Congress to deal with these new illegal immigrants. Twenty-six percent (26%) think Congress should approve the president’s request even if it does not provide for quicker deportation of these illegals, but 40% oppose approval if money for sped-up deportation is not included. One-in-three voters (34%) are not sure.

Earlier this month, a plurality (46%) of voters said the Obama administration, through its statements and policies, has encouraged this latest wave of illegal immigration.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Voters are more uncertain, however, when it comes to the $3.7 billion in new spending that President Obama has asked for from Congress to deal with these new illegal immigrants. Twenty-six percent (26%) think Congress should approve the president’s request even if it does not provide for quicker deportation of these illegals, but 40% oppose approval if money for sped-up deportation is not included. One-in-three voters (34%) are not sure.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But they are still going to need funding to handle those already in the country... Do to the ex post facto rulings regarding the Constitution's prevention of you changing the rules midstream-- those already here will have to be handled according to the prior law...

Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.

And so far I have seen no real effort to get together and do a bipartisan supported bill changing the law... Like everything else this do nothing Congress has done- it may have to be put on hold until after the November elections... Politics ahead of Statesmanship !
 

Mike

Well-known member
OT wrote:
Do to the ex post facto rulings

Don't you mean "Due" to the ex post facto rulings?

You're a bright one. "Due" you expect us to believe you know anything about the law? :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Rules of evidence in a Criminal case"? :roll: :roll: :roll:

There are no laws to prevent them from deportation "DUE" to the fact that they do not meet the definition of "Trafficking". :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
OT wrote:
Do to the ex post facto rulings



"Rules of evidence in a Criminal case"? :roll: :roll: :roll:

There are no laws to prevent them from deportation "DUE" to the fact that they do not meet the definition of "Trafficking". :shock:

While the Constitution doesn't directly speak to the fact- over the years the Courts have taken it to cover civil cases where there is a "penalty" involved-- and I would consider getting deported a penalty....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
OT wrote:
Do to the ex post facto rulings



"Rules of evidence in a Criminal case"? :roll: :roll: :roll:

There are no laws to prevent them from deportation "DUE" to the fact that they do not meet the definition of "Trafficking". :shock:

While the Constitution doesn't directly speak to the fact- over the years the Courts have taken it to cover civil cases where there is a "penalty" involved-- and I would consider getting deported a penalty....

Go take a long walk on a short pier. You don't have a clucking fue. :roll: :roll:
 

Brad S

Well-known member
I say deport the hell outta them. If the courts say wrongo wrongo later, just say "ratz" and all is better. Know who's play book i been reading?
 

littlejoe

Well-known member
Mike said:
OT wrote:
Do to the ex post facto rulings

Don't you mean "Due" to the ex post facto rulings?

You're a bright one. "Due" you expect us to believe you know anything about the law? :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Rules of evidence in a Criminal case"? :roll: :roll: :roll:

There are no laws to prevent them from deportation "DUE" to the fact that they do not meet the definition of "Trafficking". :shock:

mebbee it was 'dew', 3k?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
littlejoe said:
Mike said:
OT wrote:
Do to the ex post facto rulings

Don't you mean "Due" to the ex post facto rulings?

You're a bright one. "Due" you expect us to believe you know anything about the law? :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Rules of evidence in a Criminal case"? :roll: :roll: :roll:

There are no laws to prevent them from deportation "DUE" to the fact that they do not meet the definition of "Trafficking". :shock:

mebbee it was 'dew', 3k?

Oh if that's what it takes to feel important and holier than thou- then I don't mind the spelling cops... Its an old trick they use to change the subject or redirect blame when they can't argue the issue.....

And sometimes spelling does matter! :wink:

[/quote]
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
And btw, what's up with all the talk of the constitution lately? You whined about it constantly during the Bush years and then suddenly fell silent about it in 2009....though I don't know why. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
And btw, what's up with all the talk of the constitution lately? You whined about it constantly during the Bush years and then suddenly fell silent about it in 2009....though I don't know why. :roll:

Maybe OT has the dream of Buckwheat massaging his Prostate? :shock:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
As they are sitting on the buses, bring on a judge, and do a "group hearing", not a problem.

I thought Barry already hired all the Border security agents needed, increased $$, as per requested, by the likes of big government advocates, like OT.

Now they need more?????

At what point do they come to realize that it is their policies that are costing the taxpayer money, instead of increasing GDP growth and tax revenue?
 

Latest posts

Top