Debunking the polling on Obama's Executive Amnesty

Debunking the polling on Obama's Executive Amnesty

Two polls came out earlier this week showing strong support for the Obama Administration's plan to offer an amnesty to at least 1.4 million people. While the polls from Bloomberg and Rasmussen show 64% and 71%, respectively, support the plan, the results were very misleading. During our Thursday webcast, Roy and I took a closer look at these two polls, and here's what we found.

The Bloomberg poll asked 734 likely voters whether they supported Pres. Obama's plan to halt deportations of individuals who were brought into the country before they were 16; are in school, have a high school diploma or were honorably discharged from the military; and have no criminal record. While 64% of respondents said they support the policy, the question never mentioned that the individuals can be up to 30 years old and would get work permits even though more than 6 million Americans the same age with only a high school degree can't find a full-time job or have given up their job search.

The poll also states "no criminal record" while the actual policy only requires no "significant misdemeanors". Responses to other questions in the poll reveal other major flaws; Roy and I discussed all of this during our webcast. (Watch a replay at http://www.NumbersUSA.tv.)

The Rasmussen Poll asked 1,000 likely voters if they support giving work permits to illegal aliens who were brought here before the age of 16. But, like the Bloomberg poll, the question misled respondents by stating "no criminal record". A staggering 71% said they supported work permits for illegal aliens, BUT the poll question gave respondents only two choices -- work permits or deportation. Again, there were several other flaws with this poll that Roy and I discussed in the webcast.

The GOP Senate Leadership isn't taking the Administration's move lightly. Earlier this week, 20 Senators led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley sent a letter to the President asking for answers. The Senators asked for documentation on the legal basis for the new policy, how much implementation and execution of the policy could cost taxpayers, and how they would handle specific scenarios that aren't addressed by the announced policy.

For instance, the written policy only refers to individuals who "came to the United States under the age of sixteen", but supporters of the policy continuously talk about individuals who were brought here "by their parents". So David North from the Center for Immigration Studies decided to call the hotline set up by the Administration to ask for clarification. What did David find? Six different responses from six different operators, and most of the six weren't very confident with their answers.

As Roy said during the webcast, NumbersUSA will continue to stay out on front on this issue. If one or more of your Members of Congress serve on the Senate or House Appropriations Committees, we've posted brand new faxes on your Action Board. There's an amendment to the House version of the DHS Appropriations bill that prevents the Administration from using deferred action or prosecutorial discretion, and we need the appropriators to keep that clause in the bill! We're also urging support of Rep. Lamar Smith's HALT Act (H.R.2497) that would suspend the Administration's authority to issue an Executive Amnesty. Please check your Action Board and stay tuned for more updates!

Views: 601

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lawlessness, to the point of making Obama more and more resemble a dictator, has become the standard operating procedure for the most calamitous administration in American history. If he gets reelected - which seems almost inconceivable in the circumstances - America is lost.

If he gets re-elected we will be at war....Civil war, revolution, call it what you want but the bullets are going to fly....

I got a poll for ya

As if anybody thought the people in that poll actually support amnesty for illegal aliens. I wonder how many in that poll know an illegal alien can be born within the border of the US and qualify to run for the presidency without ever transferring any allegiance to support and abide by the constitution?

It is not supposed to be that way. It is unconstitutional for the plenary authority of government to 'create' the 'ruling class,' which is what Art. II § I Cls 5 is all about i.e. the qualifications of the presidency. The Founding Fathers knew de Vattel's "natives" or "indigenes" would insure access to the ruling class would remain with the people, while providing for a 'strong check' against foreign influence affecting the ruling class. John Jay, reading de Vattel,  would have seen these terms through the England common law he was familiar with at the time as a natural born subject Citizen. 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Donofrio, on his "natural born citizen" wordpress blog has done a lot of research into the term/phrase by word searching the national archives and found a lot, BUT I TOOK ANOTHER APPROACH , I word searched "Law of Nations" and it is amazing how much I found in support of the Founders and Framers reliance on it which I shall employ in my action in Sept to establish Original Intent.

Interesting side note, US Constitution, Art. I, sect. 8, clause 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;". There are letters and debates as to what exactly "Offences against the Law of Nations;" means. Pre war of Independence and during the Continental and Constitutional Conventions.

Great news.

 

What is your Sept. action?

 

And please keep us informed as to the framer's 'Original Intent.'

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

It may be sooner, but don't hold me to that. Will be an Superior Court of Arizona Special Action for Declaratory Judgment with Jury Demand. "Hamblin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Az. SOS; 2012Az. Presidential Electors for the Az. Dem. Party.

So many people site Vattel Book I at section 212 and never mention the last sentence therein, which is: "I say, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

So much for the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment we have going on!

Yes, de Vattel did say that. But I also find it interesting de Vattel found that those born within their own country's borders and of citizen parents, that is: both mother & father both being citizens of the same country, were natives or part of the indigenous population. 

An English-American, versed in English common law and aware of America's other 'native or indigenous' populations,  would probably have used the term "natural born" to represent the white, European indigenous population of America at that time.

It wasn't until 1924, I believe,  when all native American Indians became American citizens that we all could rightfully call ourselves  'natives' or indigenes.

ex animo

davidfarrar

You are Correct Sir, "The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gave them that right [to vote]. In 1956 the State of Utah became the last State to grant that right.


Many states, including, New Mexicoovertly did not allow Native Americans to vote until 1962. Which is abysmal given that New Mexico has a large Native population"

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service