Poll: Overwhelming Support For President Trump Immigration Positions….

Earlier today in response to questioning about the current Democrat platform to abolish ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), President Trump said he hoped his political opposition would run on that issue because they are out of touch with the American voter.

A Harvard Harris poll (full pdf below) shows President Trump’s instincts are spot-on.  1,448 polled voters. [Poll ideology: Democrat 37%, Republican 32%, Independent 29%]

An overwhelming majority of American registered voters, 70 percent, support tougher immigration enforcement to include a border wall (60% support), deportation (64% support), and repatriation of all illegal border crossers including families with Children (61% support). Additionally 69% of voters do not support the position of disbanding I.C.E.

♦ Page #67 – Do you think current border security is adequate or inadequate? 61% Inadequate / 39% Adequate

♦ Page #69 – Do you support or oppose building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border?  60% Support / 40% Oppose

♦ Page #72 – Do you think that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, known as ICE, should be disbanded or not?   31% Disbanded / 69% Not Disbanded

♦ Page #68 – Do you think we should have basically open borders or do you think we need secure borders?  76% Secure / 24% Open

♦ Page #73 – Do you think we need stricter or looser enforcement of our immigration laws?  70% Stricter / 30% Looser

♦ Page #74 – Do you think that people who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home?  64% Sent Home / 36% Stay Here

♦ Page #75 – Do you think that parents with children who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home? 61% Sent Home / 39% Stay Here

♦ Page #78 – Do you think that people who illegally cross into the country should be allowed into the country and given a ticket to see a judge in the future or held in custody until a judge reviews their case?  55% Held in Custody / 45% Given Ticket

♦ Page #89 – Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required notify immigration authorities they are in custody or be prohibited from notifying immigration authorities?   84% Require to Notify / 16% Not Required to Notify

Here’s The Full Poll Response:

.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, DHS, Donald Trump, Economy, Education, Election 2018, Legislation, media bias, Mexico, Notorious Liars, Political correctness/cultural marxism, President Trump, Uncategorized, Voter Fraud. Bookmark the permalink.

335 Responses to Poll: Overwhelming Support For President Trump Immigration Positions….

  1. Cathy M. says:

    The pollster left out 2 other important questions.

    Do you think that an infant born in the U.S. of a woman who entered the U.S. contrary to law should be a U.S. citizen?

    Do you think that an infant born in the U.S. of a woman who entered the U.S. via a non-immigrant visa should be a U.S. citizen?

    Liked by 33 people

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      Would be interesting to see what the immigration laws of the illegals’ countries of origin say. I believe Mexico’s laws on the subject are quite strict, and violation thereof results in rotting away in a Mexican jail…

      Liked by 15 people

      • Cathy M. says:

        Here ya go.

        The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens.
        The rest are in this link
        https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

        Liked by 5 people

        • kroesus61 says:

          although I like NumbersUSA for the most part they are WRONG on this issue…there is no such thing as “birthright citizenship” in the US….the Leftist/commies pretend it is so but it is not according to 14A US Constitution

          Liked by 7 people

          • Cathy M. says:

            I agree with you.
            I believe giving citizenship to anchor babies started in 1982 based solely on a Dicta (not a holding) of 1 judge in the Pyler v/ Doe case unrelated to the birthright issue.

            “Why did we need an amendment if that was already the law — since “the founding of the republic”!”
            (Ann Coulter referring to the 14th amendment for the slaves.)

            Liked by 1 person

          • fred5678 says:

            The 14th amendment is pretty clear to me and any reader of plain English – there is a giant and unmistakable ‘AND’ in the following sentence:

            “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

            That’s not IF, BUT, MAYBE, or SOMETIMES — it is ‘AND’.

            If mere physical birth were required, the authors would have had no need for the ‘AND’ and the words following.

            Like

          • G. Combs says:

            …. anchor babies….

            Cairco org — Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment

            Publius-Huldah — Babies Don’t Provide Anchors!

            There have been several Supreme Court cases and NO babies born of illegals are NOT Americans.

            From the Cairco article.

            “The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

            […]Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

            Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

            The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

            The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

            Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called ‘Slaughter-House cases’ [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ excluded from its operation ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.’ In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be ‘not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.’ […]”

            Liked by 2 people

        • Cathy M. says:

          Correction: The U.S offers Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens “in Practice.”

          Like

      • dd_sc says:

        Very strict, especially coming across illegally from Guatemala. Friend of mine did some work down there; said it was common that prisoners had to arrange for someone to bring them food because the jailers were negligent about feeding prisoners.

        Liked by 1 person

      • frankie says:

        Another interesting post “Doxing and You; Immigration Profiteers; Capital Gazette’s Shooting Fiasco” on howtobeyourowndetective.com

        The author lays out the story about leftists doxing our law enforcers to try to scare them into not doing their jobs, and how to figiht it.

        He said the Capital Gazette and law enforcement in Maryland, thru collective cowardice and unconcern, made it possible for the shooter to strike. Interesting analysis because they wouldn’t protect the shooter’s stalking victim.

        Author also gives love to Conservative Treehouse to turning him on to the website he needed to find out who is profiteering from illegal immigration.

        All are topics of concern to Treepers …. doxing especially. Many of us are vulnerable.

        He finishes with a pic of Maria Bartiromo in some urban camo you’ll not forget soon.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Hangtown Bob says:

        Regarding immigration laws and Mexico, we should strive for RECIPROCITY…..

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe Collins says:

      I am convinced this anchor baby issue will make it to the Supreme Court as soon as that court is appropriately configured.

      Liked by 7 people

      • frankie says:

        There were 500 babies born on Ellis Island to alien monters. Only one got citizenship because her father was a =n Amierican.

        The Ellis Island people knew there was not baby blanket bingo for American citizenship.

        Liked by 14 people

      • Cathy M. says:

        Gosh I hope so.
        And a bill is already being drawn up.

        according to this linked article, a SCOTUS holding concerning birthright citizenship last year might pave the way for Congress to change laws governing birthright citizenship.
        http://www.gopusa.com/supreme-court-decision-on-birthright-citizenship-further-clouds-issue/

        Liked by 2 people

        • kroesus61 says:

          again….NO change is necessary….READ the 14A in its originalist’s content with notes from the authors saying it was SPECIFICALLY for children of SLAVES

          Liked by 7 people

          • Cathy M. says:

            I know. But
            Since the libs contort into knots to purposely misconstrue statements made by those involved with passing the 14th,
            I think the best argument yet that that the 14th was for the slaves is:

            “Why did we need an amendment if that was already the law — since “the founding of the republic”!” (A. Coulter)

            Like

          • fred5678 says:

            Senator Harry Reid, when he was sane in 1993, introduced a strict enforcement immigration bill that had specific language to clarify the 14th:

            “TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

            https://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/12/1993-flip-flop-senreid-introduced-bill-clarifying-/

            Liked by 2 people

            • sha44ss says:

              Since we’re talking about * born in USA…I need some clarification on this …I was born 1953…we learned History back then. ALL I remember being taught is that in order to eligible to be POTUS BOTH parents had to be born and raised in US (for allegiance issues) otherwise eg a American Mother going to Russia on vacation could have an affair w Putin and then come back and live here and then Putins baby could be President?? I see arguaments all the time claiming that only ONE parent needs to be born here…Doesnt make sense to me!

              Like

              • kroesus61 says:

                tricky but no where does it stipulate you must be “raised in the US”…….your parents must be US citizens at the time of your birth AND you must be born ON the soil……what you state means PDJT is ineligible and this is not the case….HIS mother was Scottish I believe and moved here during WWII and was naturalized previous to his birth…..of his five children however only Tiffany is NBC eligible since only Marla was a citizen at the birth of her child…..not so with Ivana (Don Jr, Erik and Ivanka) or Melania (Barron)

                Like

                • lokiscout says:

                  What you are saying is the original intent of John Jay and George Washington when it was written into the Constitution as a requirement for the Presidency. The definition is based on “The Law of Nations” a respected legal volume of the day used by the Founders during the writing of the Constitution. Unfortunately the definition has never been codified into US Citizenship Law. A responsibility delegated to the US Congress by the Constitution.

                  The SCOTUS will not rule on it until a suit is brought after an “ineligible” candidate is actually President. The Court can’t act until the case is “Ripe” in legal terms (the crime has been committed).

                  Any takers on what SCOTUS would have the hustpa to rescind a presidential election based on an 18th century definition of citizenship that no congress has seen fit to clarify since 1789?

                  A non Natural Born Citizen has been elected 6 times in our history.

                  Like

    • kinthenorthwest says:

      Do believe that the law that says one cannot benefit from a crime should apply to the illegals too.
      “Kids” don’t get to benefit from a parent’s crime. Remember Madoff’s wife & kids lost a slew of stuff too.
      Dad robs a bank, kids don’t get to live off the proceeds.
      Illegal means illegal.
      It’s called. Forfeiture of “ill-gotten gain” !!

      Liked by 12 people

      • Cathy M. says:

        Exactly!
        I’ve posted the same thing likely 100 times on other sites the last few years.

        Illegals aliens are allowed to profit from their crimes but citizens can’t??

        14th Ammendment- Equal Treatment under law, baaaby!

        Liked by 2 people

        • kinthenorthwest says:

          Be posting that since about 2012 or so..Had to dig for the what the law was.
          it was in my other computer file actually which I retired about 4 years ago and finally put it on one of those thingys (brain fart LOL).

          Like

          • Cathy M. says:

            Since 2013 for me (when I retired).

            Liked by 1 person

            • kinthenorthwest says:

              Maybe I stole it from you LOL
              I will have to say I had a hard time finding it in my mess — I now have like 4 or 5 files from 2008 with over 70 pages each

              Liked by 1 person

              • Cathy M. says:

                Ya couldn’t steal it. I urged people to take it & re-post it far & wide!

                Like

                • kinthenorthwest says:

                  One day I will try and organize my stuff..
                  Sometimes when I look at some of the really older stuff I wonder how naive we could be.

                  Like

                • G. Combs says:

                  “…. I wonder how naive we could be.”

                  BOY! Isn’t that the TRUTH. I had a friend trying to educate me for YEARS. It wasn’t until NAIS (Livestock ID) came up and I had a computer that the light finally went ON.

                  Liked by 2 people

    • Sunshine says:

      AKA Anchor Babies.

      Liked by 2 people

    • kroesus61 says:

      Unnecessary….the answer is already in the 14A and it is NO…..just b/c they want to interpret some nonexistent “birthright citizenship” for their agenda does not make it so

      Like

      • Cathy M. says:

        I know it is a purposeful misinterpretation of the 14A And the Constitution.

        POTUS Trump could just put it into practice. Thank goodness SCOTUS will have another judge that believes in the Constitution.

        Like

    • Turranos says:

      We must use our language as a powerful tool. Everyone is getting so PC that I hardly ever see the word “illegals”. Let call a spade a spade and use the word “illegals” constantly where it is appropriate. The libtards have squashed that word and it is up to us to bring it back!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Cathy M. says:

        Yep
        And “Illegal Alien” is the legal term as per the definitions in the INA.
        I have not seen the terms “Undocumented Alien”, “Undocumented Immigrant”, etc anywhere in the INA.

        And these Illegal Aliens are not “undocumented”. They are “documented” out of their ying-yangs: false U.S. birth certificates, false Social Security cards, false drivers licenses, false Employment Authorization Cards, false Legal Permanent Resident cards, . . .

        Like

    • Tom C says:

      The President’s border policies are going to gain much more support once the new Marxist Mexican President’s views are heard.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. spren says:

    And these poll numbers were produced despite the typical over-sampling of Democrats (37% vs 32% for Republicans.)

    Liked by 6 people

  3. Oren V says:

    THe other question left out for those who favor issuing a ticket.
    “Would you favor holding people in custody if on average 90% of those given a ticket never show up for the court date?”

    Liked by 10 people

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      Hmmm. Then do a before/after using Mutti Merkel’s homeland’s (DDR) approach: line ’em up and shoot ’em down. That’ll put a stop to it right quick…

      Like

  4. treehouseron says:

    Before Ann Coulter went full never-Trump (to hell with her)… she made this exact point over and over again . The immigration positions President Trump keeps are overwhelmingly popular.

    Liked by 1 person

    • singingsoul says:

      treehouseron says:
      “Before Ann Coulter went full never-Trump (to hell with her)… she made this exact point over and over again . The immigration positions President Trump keeps are overwhelmingly popular.”
      ___________________________________________
      The hot and cold so cooled conservatives in my mind are only money grubbing individuals. Their for Trump anti Trump is all business for him. I have written them off as soon as they started to berate POTUS what he does what he does not do.
      Culter in one
      Shapiro is another
      Savage
      Sometimes Levin
      I am sue there are others I am not aware off and do not forget the so called republican Rinos.
      These people run hot and cold who needs them.>??

      Like

      • singingsoul says:

        Correction: So called conservatives. ( Not cooled)

        Like

      • Deplorable_Vespucciland says:

        Wouldn’t put little Benny Shapiro and Michael Savage in the same boat. One is neverTrump as often as possible while the other was the first radio guy to jump on the Trump Train during the campaign and is still onboard.

        Build the wall and M A G A.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Victor Laszlo says:

          Savage practically built the platform that PT ran on. He may call the president out at times, but IMO (as a listener from his begining) some of his disagreement is because he doesn’t understand what’s really going on in a situation (applying old rules to uncharted territory), and some of it is him just trying to take a position that no other hosts have taken. Regardless, Savage is the only sincere, genuine conservative talker out there.

          Liked by 1 person

          • singingsoul says:

            I used to listen to Savage but his on and off was agitating. I do not like to be on his roller coaster and got off.

            Like

          • George Hicks says:

            It’s interesting how people can come away with such differing opinions…
            I can only take Savage in small doses, he seems to think he is much more important than he is. He is less supportive of Trump since the election and that appears to be because Trump has not given him complete recognition for his self-perceived idea that he was the #1 reason Trump was elected.

            Like

          • Robert Smith says:

            “some of it is him just trying to take a position that no other hosts have taken”

            That and to engineer in some drama to his show. But, I’ll still take what I can get from him.

            Like

    • I don’t think Coulter is never-Trump. Although she’s kind of annoying now, she’s still on Trump Train. In fact, she is still one of Trump’s 47 followings.

      Liked by 2 people

      • kroesus61 says:

        some people are neurotic and call you that if you try to hold PDJT to his promises…..all I have heard AC hammer PDJT on is keeping his DACA and deportation promises…..guess treehouseron thinks that is a bad thing to INSIST that the promises to reduce the influence of illegals in our country be kept

        Liked by 1 person

        • treehouseron says:

          Ann Coulter is a nutcase. Your fidelity to her, instead of President Trump, shows me you’re a nutcase.

          Liked by 1 person

          • kroesus61 says:

            I see your rantings often here…..because you get passionate about an issue does not give you any form of certainty and in your case clarity on the issue……I am not blindly loyal to any MAN….PDJT said to keep him honest and hold his feet to the fire as needed….your failure to heed this sound advice is your loss not mine…….HE said (not me) that DACA and Bammy’s other unconstitutional EOs would end on day ONE……HE said (not me) if you are in the country illegally you HAVE to go home and come back LEGALLY…..selective memory or selective enforcement is what we have operated under for the last 30 years……FOLLOW THE LAW

            Like

          • Alligator Gar says:

            Why do you have “fidelity” to any MAN? That is so unmanly. Jeesh. Going full-on SamFrank’sDisco are we?

            And this calling people “nutcase” all of the time is DEFAMATION. You cannot diagnose someone as crazy/mentally unstable without a personal interview. If you were a shrink, you’d know better. Since you aren’t a shrink, but pretend to diagnose mental illness, that’s practicing medicine without a license—unlicensed practice can be a felony in some jurisdictions. And affirmatively calling people crazy on a public forum is DEFAMATION.

            You need to be more adult in how you handle yourself on a public forum. You embarrass yourself and degrade the Treehouse.

            Like

  5. darren says:

    The left are playing a dangerous game with their crazy rhetoric. If (when) they gain control again, desperate migrants are going to storm the border thinking they will get citizenship. Likely they want this outcome to occur. But it is batshit crazy for any American to want this.

    Here we have the left wanting non-ending welfare and at the same time to swing open the gates for third world migrants from the south. I would have no problems allowing completely open immigration if we did not have a cradle to grave welfare system that is literally bankrupting us to death. The left can not have it both ways…. They will destroy us with this insanity.

    Liked by 4 people

    • nimrodman says:

      There’s a phrase:
      “Welfare state … Open borders … choose one”

      Actually, I’d choose “neither”, but the point is made.

      Liked by 5 people

      • wheatietoo says:

        Neither!

        When leftists say “We are a nation of immigrants”…they are being willfully dishonest.

        Immigrants of old, did not come here to prey on our ‘free-stuff’ programs.
        Those programs didn’t exist back then!

        These welfare programs were put in place to help our Citizens…not the new-comers who have no history of paying into our system.

        It’s outrageous that we allow people to come in and immediately start gorging themselves at the public trough.
        This invites Predators.
        It is insane to let this go on.

        Liked by 5 people

        • nimrodman says:

          Exactly, wheatie

          At the time we were becoming “a nation of immigrants” (TM),
          immigrants had to pay their own way.

          And if they fell, they had to rely on family.

          Not on coerced payments from their neighbors.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Dennis Leonard says:

      That long post to say this,
      ” I would have no problems allowing completely open immigration if we did not have a cradle to grave welfare system that is literally bankrupting us to death.”
      I sure hope you have a big house for all of them to stay in.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. fleporeblog says:

    The great thing about this poll is that the pollster, Mark Penn, use to be the number one pollster for Bill Clinton when he was President. Also the Party Affiliation is skewed more heavily for Democrats versus Republicans and yet the data is devastating for the Democrat Party.

    Mark’ Party Affiliation was as follows:

    Democrats – 37%
    Republicans – 32%
    Independents – 29%

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

    Gallup’s Party Affiliation for June was as follows:

    Democrats – 29%
    Republicans – 27%
    Independents – 43%

    According to Mark’s poll Democrats have a +5 advantage against Republicans when in reality the difference is only +2 according to Gallup.

    Our President is going to make sure that the November Election is a National Election where Immigration will be the number one issue for voters.

    That will have an incredible effect for Republicans running against Democrats in the House as well as the Senate.

    Lou Barletta will win the Senate race in Pennsylvania against Incumbent Democrat, Bob Casey if immigration is the number one issue at the ballot box come November.

    We will also win the following Senate races:

    Florida – Rick Scott will beat Incumbent Democrat, Bill Nelson
    West Virginia – Patrick Morrisey will beat Incumbent Democrat, Joe Manchin
    Ohio – Jim Renacci will beat Incumbent Democrat, Sherrod Brown
    Montana – Matt Rosendale will beat Incumbent Democrat, Jon Tester
    Missouri – Josh Hawley will beat Incumbent Democrat, Claire McCaskill
    North Dakota – Kevin Cramer will beat Incumbent Democrat, Heidi Heitkamp
    Indiana – Mike Braun will beat Incumbent Democrat, Joe Donnelly
    Minnesota – TBD will beat Incumbent Democrat, Tina Smith who took over for Al Franken

    I do think we will lose either Arizona or Nevada. If I had to pick today, Republican Incumbent, Dean Heller will lose.

    I think we will be very competitive in Michigan against Incumbent Democrat, Debbie Stabenow and in Wisconsin against Incumbent Democrat, Tammy Baldwin.

    I also think we will be competitive in New Jersey against Incumbent Democrat, Bob Menendez and in Virginia against Incumbent Democrat, Tim Kaine.

    My prediction is that we will have 59 Republicans after the November Election. It could easily reach 60 to 61 Republican Senators.

    Liked by 3 people

    • treehouseron says:

      Independent means “Yee Haw Trump all the way but I’m not going to tell you that because you might key my car”

      Liked by 7 people

    • darren says:

      I’m a little worried about the SCOTUS pick. If the repubs play this wrong, this may energize the left in November. If the pick gets stalled until after November, the right may benefit. If the pick occurs before, this really could benefit the dem cadidates.

      Liked by 1 person

      • fleporeblog says:

        The opposite will happen! Republicans will be so motivated knowing that having the majority in the Senate will guarantee replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg who could move on to greener pastures as soon as tomorrow.

        The process will be completed by October 1st so that the person selected is seated when the Court starts up again in early October.

        Here is who I think our President will select and why if your interested.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Ryan Workman says:

          I agree, Amy will be the pick and the Senate has already voted for her current appointment. Anyone wishing to change their vote this time will look like a hypocrite…not that that has ever stopped Demonicrats before. Plus she is Catholic and the Dems had a conniption over her faith last time. Good way to motivate conservative Catholics (the ones who actually care about their faith and vote Republican) to go out and vote in places like PA, OH, IN, MI, WI, & FL.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Amy2 says:

            I would like to thank everyone for the nomination and their support.

            Like

          • Sentient says:

            Collins and Murkowski will vote against Amy Barrett, but Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly (Indiana) will probably vote for her. Hopefully McCain’s appointed replacement will be in office to vote yes. Let’s all pray about McCain’s health.

            Like

        • NoJuan Importante says:

          “greener pastures” lol. bless her heart

          Liked by 1 person

    • Rawkstar says:

      Chirp

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sunshine says:

      It’s great news for the Trump team that more and more Democrats agree with him.
      Take a screenshot of your predictions. No mention of the big one: California which might become a swing state.

      Liked by 1 person

      • fleporeblog says:

        I wrote a thread on Twitter so that I can reference it at a later date.

        Like

    • Auntie Lib says:

      I don’t know where you’re getting your information on Montana, but I’m not ready to bet on that one yet.

      Liked by 2 people

      • fleporeblog says:

        What Jon Tester did to Admiral Jackson will never be forgotten by the people of Montana. Don Jr. was there a few days ago and our President will be their shortly. Montana is personal for our President.

        That is why I am so confident!

        Like

    • fred5678 says:

      Dean Heller is a weather vane. He had a A rating from NumbersUSA before becoming a Senator, then Harry Reid showed him the casino graft he could have by voting Democrat and open borders. He will have lukewarm support from conservatives.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Morgan957 says:

      I am from Ohio and pray you are right. Sherrod Brown has been in there too long. When you write to him he ignores your perspective and responds by telling you why he is right!

      Liked by 1 person

    • lokiscout says:

      Fle, you have me smiling again with that prediction! Only one I would take issue with is WVa. Manchin will be tough to beat. I know WVa has gone bright red lately mainly because the coal miners and steelworkers have been screwed so bad but Joe is well liked and if there is one thing I remember about my Hillbilly brethren they are loyal until you screw them and I don’t think Joe has.

      Hey if that’s the only one you lose out of that list I can live with a Joe Manchin and a 59 or 60 Republican majority.

      Liked by 1 person

      • fleporeblog says:

        The latest approval poll out of WV had our President at 66%. Joe Manchin lied to our President and the people of WV by twice voting NO when it seemed he would vote yes. Repeal and Replace and Tax Reform Bill.

        It won’t even be close!

        Liked by 1 person

        • lokiscout says:

          See ya back here on the President Thread on 11/7/18 and we will compare notes.
          BTW I have no on site info on either WVa or Ohio since I moved West 41 years ago. In those days there wasn’t much need for Electrical Engineers in Ohio and the LA Times had whole sections of Help Wanted. I don’t care for the current politics in my adopted state but the career decision was a royal flush winner.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. darren says:

    It is shocking that such a high percentage can’t see that there way of life will be unsustainable if the left forces open the border. This kind of stupidity is shocking.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. Akindole says:

    Poof…And, just like that…radio silence.
    Bring on the next ‘splodey head narrative for the Bolsheviks.

    I can’t wait for Bill Hemmer to roll out Jessica Tarlov, Marie Harf, and the great has-been Judith Miller tomorrow. It’s like clockwork…just watch.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. IMO says:

    Illegal Immigrant Song, by The Cigar Wrappers

    Liked by 3 people

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      Seehofer appears to have “offered up his seat”…

      AfD and the CSU are livid… as are many in the CDU… Baltics and the former east europeam nations are telling her to sit on a pinecone and twist…

      Merkel is the devil’s daughter… but, like him, her days are numbered. And the numbers are getting lower and lower…

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jenny R. says:

        She’ll split her own party and run straight up the center/left, picking up die Linke, SDU, and the Greens, taking a chunk of her party with her…and make a coalition. That’s my prediction — I hope it’s wrong, but we’ll see.
        She’s been very adept at destroying upandcomers within her own party before whom she thought would be a threat to her position. She won’t have a problem trying to take her party down to remain in power (and don’t think some of the idiots on the German left wouldn’t go for the opportunity to use her as a means to take out that party as well).

        Liked by 1 person

      • lokiscout says:

        ” sit on a pinecone and twist…”
        Gotta remember that one! 🙂

        Like

  10. Susan Bolle says:

    Daily Mail’s article re Merkel still attempting to coax Hungary and Czech Republic to take immigrants quotes Hungary’s Prime Minister Orbin as stating that any ‘immigrant’ that has crossed another country’s border before attempting to breech their border will be refused entry. He is not relenting. There’s a similar situation in the US. Central Am asylum seekers are being shuffled through many countries before showing up at US Customs by enablers rather than to the first bordering country from origin, as agreed upon between the North American countries.

    Liked by 5 people

    • sunnydaze says:

      Merkel’s such an idiot. The “immigrant’s” don’t even WANT to go to Hungary.

      They’ve opted all along for the countries with the highest bennies.

      She’s have better luck pawning ’em off on places like Sweden, now that she’s decided – 3 years too late – that Germany’s full up.

      They’re all yours, Merkel….unless you can force ’em on the Swedes.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. SR says:

    PTrump will be announcing his pick for supreme court soon. I think there will be few MOAB after July 4th week and will not be surprised with DAG resignation.

    Like

  12. During the Vietnam war, an estimated 40,000 deserters and draft dodgers elected to emigrate to Canada, which welcomed them with open arms. Having established this generous precedent Perhaps Canada, the United States, and Mexico could work out an arrangement whereby:

    1) All job-seeking immigrants who enter Mexico illegally from countries south of the border will be denied entry. 2) All asylum-seeking immigrants will be shipped at Canada’s expense directly to Canadian ports of entry, no other questions asked.

    2) All job-seeking immigrants who enter the United States illegally from countries south of the border, including Mexico, will be denied entry. 2) All asylum-seeking immigrants will be shipped at Canada’s expense directly to Canadian ports of entry, no other questions asked.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Just Fair says:

    The left wants to spend other people’s money to buy their own votes. Their problems begin when they run out of other’s money. Sanctuary cities are fine to them as long as the illegals do not live next to them. These demons never care about anyone even for those they use to get their votes’

    It cracks me up that there are leftist liberals who proclaim that they are socialists and communists and yet they have never lived a single second of their lives under such a system, and they do not even bother asking those who have. Just ask these North Korean soldiers for once why they have risked their lives to escape their wonderful country to the south. First amendment guarantees free speech but it does not mean much if ones always proclaim to brag and support something that they do not know anything about……That is dangerous to a free society’

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Binkser1 says:

    After seeing this poll, I’m sure the Left is getting ready to either recycle one of their previous delusions (would not be surprised to see Mulehead drop a couple of indictments) or to try and create a new crisis. Either way, it will fail spectacularly.

    Liked by 3 people

  15. kinthenorthwest says:

    Illegals is the one issue that I see every single forum with numerous people wanting to just ship them back, even on Yahoo where many posters love to just tromp all over Trump.
    I’ve had it with them…They feel America owes them and they can do whatever they want to do in our country regardless of our laws. On top of that they have NO respect for our country or people.

    Liked by 4 people

  16. Convert says:

    Beep! Beep! Beep! What’s that? Oh, that’s the sound of the Democrat garbage truck trying to back up! Lol 😂😂😂

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Terry Clark says:

    Other interesting tidbit. The Democrat party has many more “moderates” than “liberals”. Yet they so-called base is far-left loons. Once again they fail to see the disaster that approaches them. #walkaway

    Like

  18. JAS says:

    Those are amazing numbers! MAGA!!

    Like

  19. sunnydaze says:

    It’s wonderful to have the Illegal issue front and center.

    And I love that the MSM and Dem Party chose to use the Exact.Same.Propaganda. that was used on the Europeans in 2014/15/16.

    Because by now, many Americans have woken up to the BS.

    And to have a Prez who’s been as outspoken as Trump’s been…

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Blessed!

    Liked by 3 people

  20. sunnydaze says:

    Brilliant! At a Dem Abolish ICE Protest!

    Liked by 7 people

  21. chuckyschmucky says:

    The next time the extremist Democrat Party is on the side of popular opinion will be the first time.

    Like

  22. cliffaheadwolvesbehind says:

    Thank you for the optimistic responses because I admit I get worried at how hard, nasty and devious the left will go now.
    For eight years, we really didn’t mount an active defense against Obama and I just hope we can stay strong. Because now they will really throw the kitchen sink!
    If any can stay standing it’s President Trump, but I’m going to be honest enough to admit I’m worried about the next attack.
    Yet, let me thank this website and every one of you responders for letting us all know we are not alone.
    Can you imagine going through this without the treehouse?
    Lol I cant!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrick S says:

      I’m just glad we don’t play the “Guess the next outrage” drinking game here. We’d all have cirrhosis of the liver.

      Liked by 3 people

    • wheatietoo says:

      “For eight years, we really didn’t mount an active defense against Obama…”
      ____

      That’s because any opposition to Ozero was declared “racist!!”.
      And he weaponized all the govt agencies to punish anyone who dared to speak out against him.

      So our ‘defense’ was to lay low and survive.

      Under the O…we got a good dose of what it would be like under a Marxist Dictator.

      The only thing that kept him from going ever farther than he did…was the fact that Hillary was declaring that it was ‘her turn’…and she had to go through the motions of getting elected, before her coronation.

      Hillary would have completed the takeover that O started.

      Thank God for Donald J. Trump!

      Liked by 1 person

  23. StanH says:

    It looks like the Commie Amlo is winning in Mexico. I would bet a 5-10% jump in Mr. Trumps position on Immigration. Always follow Mr. Trumps lead, he’s got this. This Marxist weasel essentially promised an invasion. Army on the border?

    That was a devastating poll, and Mark Penn at that, long time Clintonista.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. jeans2nd says:

    Hmmm…
    We had poll after poll after poll during the primaries and the election.
    Poll after poll, day in, day out, every.single.poll say Mr. Trump did not stand a chance. Candidate X was going to beat Mr Trump hands down.
    And yet…

    Mightn’t we assume that the approval numbers for Pres Trump’s immigration and wall positions are actually much higher than those recorded?

    After all, how many of YOU actually answered those poll questions, or, if actually answering the poll, did not lie to the pollster?
    Heck, how many actually answered the phone? If you had a phone at all, that is? (full disclosure – did not even have a phone till after joining Mr Trump’s Campaign Aug 2015)

    For the record, I.Know.Nothing…Say.Nothing…

    Liked by 2 people

    • wheatietoo says:

      Yep, I agree, Jeans.
      These percentages in this Harvard poll are probably even higher than they are showing.

      ‘Higher’…as in, an even higher number of responses were ‘for’ border control/enforce immigration laws/deport all illegals.

      The fact that they showed these higher numbers, at all, makes me wonder if the pollsters themselves, secretly agree that we need stronger enforcement.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Boots says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm?noredirect=on

    Industrial Society and it’s Future
    By Theodore John Kaczynski, a/k/a “The Unabomber”.

    Excerpts from the manifesto he sent to the NY Times in 1995. For the point of this section about modern leftism, scroll down to item #22.
    —————————————————————————–

    THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

    6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

    7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like.

    FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

    11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities.

    15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

    16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

    18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior).

    22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Ditch Mitch says:

    Gotta love that picture of the corrupt/mad/frustrated anti-American cartel. Maybe add a picture of MeAgain Kelly crying and pulling her hair out (election night when all was lost).

    Like

  27. Marielle says:

    Over 1/3 basically support open borders. That’s a horrible result.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. daizeez says:

    They didn’t say that all the people polled were legal citizens of the US.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. Golfbro11 says:

    If the GOPe would make a clean break with the Chamber of Commerce and their constant desire for unlimited cheap labor and fully endorse President Trump’s Immigration agenda, we could put the Democrat party into the dustbin of history. And maybe one day pigs will fly, but a guy can dream, right?!

    Like

  30. Anonymous says:

    Secure the borders, ensure folk come here legally!

    Like

  31. HowIsItWeAreHere says:

    22(?)% of Republicans who support disbanding ICE? Wow. As ‘Golfbro11’ said, separating the GOPe from the Chamber of Commerce …would be a start. These globalists are NOT the friends of the American people and likely have no real allegiance to this country. Sad!

    Liked by 1 person

  32. dallasdan says:

    The poll’s internal stats indicate it is a legitimate sampling of the general voting population. Particularly noteworthy, IMO, is that only 31% of respondents identified as conservatives. The results are HIGHLY encouraging! The Dems are going to have to do something genuinely extraordinary to distract the voters from voting their minds on these very important issues.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. pnj01 says:

    THIS IS INDEPENDENCE WEEKEND. America became independent and remains independent not just from a king but from everyone who wished to control our country except for ourselves. If our laws say you have to follow certain procedures to become an American, it is a blow to our independence and sovereignty for liberals to claim that people can come into this country while flouting our law.

    So, if liberals want to foist Immigration Anarchy on the American Taxpayer, the Second American Revolutiopn led by POTUS needs to be prosecuted and the best way to do that is through a RED WAVE during this November’s elections AMERICA THE INDEPENDENT..

    Like

  34. AH_C says:

    Truth will out.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. WSB says:

    “Poll ideology: Democrat 37%, Republican 32%, Independent 29%.”

    Dang, we have been all over this for almost three years now. If I am not mistaken, independents rose to 42%, which left Dims and RepubIicans in the 20’s. This year, the Republicans may be around 27%, if not higher.

    This would leave the Dims at 31%. But now, I even doubt that. I was under the inpression that Republicans had surpassed the Dims. SD posted an article right after the 2016 election that clarifies the breakdown.

    However, this year will not be honestly traceable.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. fred5678 says:

    Only good news about Mexico election — all the Hollywood celebrities who promise to move to Canada because of Trump now have a much shorter trip to their chosen promised land — communist Mexico.

    And there will be “muchas lágrimas liberales” in November with the Red Wave.

    Curious? http://www.spanishdict.com/translation

    Like

  37. Watcher says:

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez primary win over Joseph Crowley is a BIG crisis for the dems.
    No more nans, rahms, finstiens, madmax, any old guard dems.
    The plantation is shrinking, moderate dems, left leaning independents are leaving.

    The party is splitting before our eyes. They know 2018 is lost. But 2020 is after.
    So thry play stupid, change the narrative, and hope for a crisis.(what have you got to lose)
    Nobody is paying attention to the fbi/doj crimes, only ICE and children.
    After the 2018 elections, you may see a democrat and Democratic party emerge.

    Like

  38. jello333 says:

    Overall this poll is good. But a couple parts I just don’t get… like this:

    ♦ Page #74 – Do you think that people who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home? 64% Sent Home / 36% Stay Here

    So over 1/3 of the people taking that poll think that it’s just fine to let anyone who manages to sneak in STAY here? Let’s take that to its logical conclusion. Let’s say that becomes law… if you make it across the border, no matter how, you’re safe, you get to stay. Now let’s look at how many people in the world — not just from Mexico, but ANYWHERE in the world — would just LOVE to try to start a new life in the U.S. Any estimates? I don’t know, but I’d guess that number is easily in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

    If someway or other they ALL manged to make it here, and get across the border, WELCOME HOME! Is that what the idiot 36% in this poll want? Right now the official U.S. population is about 330 million. Is there any doubt that if everyone who wants to come here was ALLOWED to come here, that our population would easily double or triple? And apparently 36% of the people taking this poll are okay with that?!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s