Debunking the polling on Obama's Executive Amnesty

[TONY SALAZAR]

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!

[David R Bridge]

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.

[Robert William Velon]

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....

[Anthony Furciniti]

I got a poll for ya

[davidfarrar]

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

[Clark Hamblin,aka ComancheShaman]

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.

[Clark Hamblin,aka ComancheShaman]

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.

[davidfarrar]

Great news.

 

What is your Sept. action?

 

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

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

[Clark Hamblin,aka ComancheShaman]

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.

[Clark Hamblin,aka ComancheShaman]

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."

[Clark Hamblin,aka ComancheShaman]

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

[davidfarrar]

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

[Clark Hamblin,aka ComancheShaman]

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"

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_Native_Americans_get_the_right_v...