From the DRUDGE REPORT’s red headlines, this deceitful blurb from a deceitful source quoting a deceitful Senator:
Blurb: “Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic; ‘Resistance Fading’…”
Source: Washington Post, “Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic —
Lawmakers Cite Sense of Urgency”
Senator: Jon Kyl (R/Arizona) (who will not be asked to return to the Senate by the people of Arizona).
Congress’s week-long Memorial Day recess was expected to leave the bill in tatters. But with a week of action set to begin today, the legislation’s champions say they believe that the voices of opposition, especially from conservatives, represent a small segment of public opinion. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who led negotiations on the bill for his party, said the flood of angry calls and protests that greeted the deal two weeks ago has since receded every day.
“You just have to recognize you will get 300 calls, you’ll get conflicts at town hall meetings — all of them negative,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who consulted with Kyl and hopes to carry a similar deal through the House in July. “The last few days have really turned things around.”
Public opinion polls seem to support Kyl’s contention that Americans are far more open to the deal than the voices of opposition would indicate. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll released today, 52 percent of Americans said they would support a program giving illegal immigrants the right to stay and work in the United States if they pay a fine and meet other requirements. Opposition to that proposal was 44 percent.
BUT THIS FROM RASMUSSEN:
Initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative. (Emphasis added.)
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Monday and Tuesday night shows that just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent (48%) are opposed while 26% are not sure. The bi-partisan agreement among influential Senators and the White House has been met with bi-partisan opposition among the public. The measure is opposed by 47% of Republicans, 51% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party.
The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters. (Emphasis added.)
Advocates of “comprehensive” reform have taken to arguing that those who want an enforcement-only policy must explain how they would deal with the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the country. The public reaction to that question appears to be “Why?” Only 29% of voters say it is Very Important for “the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States.”
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Democrats believe that legalization is Very Important. Just 22% of Republicans and 27% of unaffiliated voters share that view.
These survey results are consistent with other recent polling data showing that most Americans favor an enforcement-only reform bill. Support drops when a “path to citizenship” is added to the mix. President Bush’s Job Approval ratings dip every time comprehensive immigration reform tops the news.
Among the various other stats reported by Rasmussen (refer to the link above), is the tenuous declaration by the majority of voters polled that they’d support allowing ilegal aliens to remain here permanently if they paid fines, learned English, basically devoted a considerable amount of time to becoming Americans and paying fines and the same taxes that all the rest of U.S. citizens do, IF there was FIRST border security and deportation of criminal illegal aliens (an oxymoron if ever there was one).
What Kyl and Bush and Kennedy and McCain have going is more of the promises-promises type of language that never seems to ever see promises fulfilled afterward after the legislation has enabled the greedy pillage.
If there was going to be enforcement of our borders and immigration laws (existing ones, remain unenforced), it would have happened already. Instead, the track record for these people who are using the Senate toward a counter-national purpose indicates people — and a White House (as also the last three Administrations) — who have done just about everything to avoid doing those jobs: no enforcement of existing laws bodes very badly for hopes of any actual enforcement of future laws.
And, pin these people down even more: what’s the “urgent need” for “comprehensive immigration reform” and why do they continue to declare that “our immigraton system is broken.” What’s broken is enforcement of our immigration system.
Enforce the laws. Deport people in our nation illegally. Penalize those who employ illegal aliens to such an extent that they get the message that employing them is more costly than legitimately employing citizens and legal residents.
THEN discuss a “new” immigration process and “guest workers.” Without enforcement tried and truly working, none of all the other is ever going to be meaningful, nor realistically functioning.
The Washington Post is among the media sources who has consistently and eagerly supported Open Borders and amnesty — but for anyone interested in the truth, have a good read of the plethora of comments that follow that WAPO article, all comments of which utterly disprove what the article (and Senator Kyl) declare.
Looks to an easy view that the “vast majority of Americans” do not support this Amnesty legislation and that a cadre of users have the Senate to do what they will with it, which is not what the American voters support nor want.
Question is, what have they done with United States Senators? Seen or heard one recently? It seems they’ve all been replaced by these people who look like them, try to talk like them, maybe pose and photograph like them, but who are entirely not home.
One thing’s overwhelming clear: whoever these people are in the Senate, they are not listening to the U.S. voters. If they do hear us, they’re pretending not to.
Among the smartest comments I’ve read on the internet, this from “Spurius Ligustinus” on HOT AIR (I’m sure Senator Kyl and his peers are utterly shuttered away from even being ~exposed~ to good ole’ common American voter sense as this):
I’d thought after the drubbing they took in 2006 that the Republican Party leadership would’ve taken heed of what was perhaps the best summation of that election I’ve seen:
“The reason why the Democrats won and the Republicans lost is because both parties distanced themselves from their bases.”
But noooo. Just the opposite it seems. Rather like a restaurant ordering experience:
Customer: “You brought me green eggs and ham. I don’t want this.”
Waiter: “But of course, I understand…what you want is a double order or green eggs and ham! Coming right up!!”
It’s a bad movie set in terms of a deceitful tragedy, masquereding as heroic: “Comprehensive equals incompetence.”