Gallup: Two in Three Americans Disapprove of Obama on Immigration

[UncleBeer 244]

A recent Gallup poll finds that 65% of Americans disapprove of the preznit's handling of immigration.

Nearly two in three Americans disapprove of the way President Barack Obama is dealing with immigration as he pushes for amnesty while illegal immigrant children are flooding across the border.

A Gallup poll found that 65% of Americans disapprove of Obama on immigration, which is up four points from a CNN poll earlier in the month that found 61% of Americans disapproved.

But of course the White House blames Republicans for the flood of illegals.

A White House official said the GOP’s refusal to back the unpopular Democrat-drafted Senate immigration bill has caused the wave of young illegal immigrants that are sweeping over America’s border with Mexico.

The child migration is a symptom of the nation’s broken immigration system, the official said, and the responsibility for not fixing it “lies at the feet of the U.S. Congress,” the official said in a June 9 press call with reporters. The two White House officials on the call asked that they not be identified by name.

This, while the "most transparent administration .... evaaaah" refuses to release figures of how many illegals are being released

Senior U.S. officials directly familiar with the issue, including at the Homeland Security Department and White House, have so far dodged the answer on at least seven occasions over two weeks, alternately saying that they did not know the figure or didn’t have it immediately at hand. “We will get back to you,” the Homeland Security deputy secretary said Friday.

Why is it so hard for this preznit to obey the law he's sworn to uphold?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Surely the question should be why has no President in recent memory made a concerted effort to tackle illegal immigration in a lasting way?. I'd have thought the answer to that was obvious - but hey ho. Apparently not, eh?

Obama isn't doing it. Don't expect the next President to do it either.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Topic title has been changed to the actual title of the article quoted.

[UncleBeer 244]

Topic title has been changed to the actual title of the article quoted.

There were three articles quoted. Why can't I quote three articles under a general subject heading of my own choosing?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

You can if you restrict yourself to a factual statement rather than a baiting statement. If you had posted "President's Immigration policies unpopular" or something along those lines, it would not have been changed.

We have asked members, when quoting news articles, not to do their editorializing in the topic title but restrict it to the body of their post, and use the title of the article or one of the articles quoted as the title, or as you have asked, a non-coloured factual summary of the contents. The title you chose was derisive and obviously meant to bait for a reactionary response, thus it was changed.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

A recent Gallup poll finds that 65% of Americans disapprove of the preznit's handling of immigration.

But of course the White House blames Republicans for the flood of illegals.

This, while the "most transparent administration .... evaaaah" refuses to release figures of how many illegals are being released

Why is it so hard for this preznit to obey the law he's sworn to uphold?

Becuase he seems to be getting by with it nicely, The news media barely reports it. Congress let's it slide. So who is going to stop him.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe immigration isn't as big a topic as everyone thinks.

If it were, wouldn't it be central to the policy platforms of Presidential Candidates?

Noone wants to touch that issue with a 100 foot pole.

[UncleBeer 244]

If it were, wouldn't it be central to the policy platforms of Presidential Candidates?

I was unaware that there are any presidential candidates. Enlighten us: who are they?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I will enlighten you, since you are currently the only participant in the thread. There is no us, unless you are having a party at your house or something.

You may be interested to know that there is this thing called a Presidential election. Happens every four years or so, I believe.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Papa Lazarou

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Neither party has a plan that is anything but pandering to a certain base.

Fine the s**t out of companies and people who hire illegals and have a system to make it easy to report and investigate.. If that is not on an immigration bill I'm going to slap a pandering sticker on it and walk away.

Edited June 25, 2014 by OnMyWayID

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Neither party has a plan that is anything but pandering to a certain base.

Fine the s**t out of companies and people who hire illegals and have a system to make it easy to report and investigate.. If that is not on an immigration bill I'm going to slap a pandering sticker on it and walk away.

Amen. Fine and jail time people that hire illegals into the stone age. Once the flow is stopped, lets figure out what to do with those already here. Don't start that debate until the flow is stopped

[UncleBeer 244]

Fine the s**t out of companies and people who hire illegals and have a system to make it easy to report and investigate..

Build a fence. Oh wait: that was approved back in 2006. Preznit Pinnochio says it's "now basically complete", but even his lapdog media ain't buying that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So who is actively promoting a serious immigration policy then?

[UncleBeer 244]

So who is actively promoting a serious immigration policy then?

Why exactly do we need one? There are already immigration policies in place, but they're only being enforced for law-abiding folks (like peeps at VJ). The rest is ad-hoc, unilaterally choreographed chaos courtesy of the preznit.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You have a short memory if you think this started with Obama. As I said, ask yourself why noone who occupies the office of president seems willing to take a draconian stance on immigration.

Two questions:

1) Why do you think this is?

2) Who do you see as pushing forward on this issue in a meaningful way?