Poll data on illegal immigration

[Smash255]

NBC Poll

When it comes to the immigration bill, the Senate and the House of Representatives disagree with one another about what should be done on the issue of illegal immigration.
     
"Many in the House of Representatives favor strengthening security at the borders, including building a seven-hundred-mile fence along the border with Mexico to help keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States, and they favor deporting immigrants who are already in the United States illegally.
     
"Many in the Senate favor strengthening security at the borders, including building a three-hundred-and-seventy-mile fence along the border with Mexico to help keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States, and they favor a guest worker program to allow illegal immigrants who have jobs and who have been here for more than two years to remain in the United States.
     
"Which of these approaches would you prefer?"
 
      .
 
  House 33%  Senate 50%

[Smash255]

I did a little reading up on that Zogby pol you mention.  For starters the poll was from April which was before the Senate bill.  The poll also only tries to give the implication that border security is only part of the House bill, it mentions fortyfing the border in the question on the house bill, but does not mention border security in regards to the Senate Bill.  Which is completley & utterly wrong as border security is part of BOTH the House AND Senate Bills

[CARLHAYDEN]

Smash,

Eveeryone who has closely followed the matter knows that the house bill has real border security while the Senate bill has emplty promises of maybe doing something, sometime, maybe.

In fact, the Senate bill would reduce border security by prohibiting state and local law enforcement from arresting illegals.

The amnesty provision is merely a rider on border security, and could not pass on its own.

[Smash255]

Both bills deal with border security first & foremost.  the Senate Bill is nopt filled with Empty Promises.  the felony provision in the House bill is an absolute disgrace.

Both bills main focus is Border Security. the Senate bill also offers answers of what to do with those already here.  But to suggest only one bill actually deals with border secuirty is absolute horse crap.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Both bills deal with border security first & foremost.  the Senate Bill is nopt filled with Empty Promises.  the felony provision in the House bill is an absolute disgrace.

Both bills main focus is Border Security. the Senate bill also offers answers of what to do with those already here.  But to suggest only one bill actually deals with border secuirty is absolute horse crap.

The Senate bill erodes border security (I gave a specific example).  So, that's how it 'deals' with border security.

That you cannot deal with the fact that the Senate bill is hostile to border security (they don't want a real physical barrier, but rathat a theoretical 'virtual wall' which they can quickly dismantle).

I notice that you have to resort to foul language instead of citing facts.

Hmm.

[Smash255]

Both bills deal with border security first & foremost.  the Senate Bill is nopt filled with Empty Promises.  the felony provision in the House bill is an absolute disgrace.

Both bills main focus is Border Security. the Senate bill also offers answers of what to do with those already here.  But to suggest only one bill actually deals with border secuirty is absolute horse crap.

The Senate bill erodes border security (I gave a specific example).  So, that's how it 'deals' with border security.

That you cannot deal with the fact that the Senate bill is hostile to border security (they don't want a real physical barrier, but rathat a theoretical 'virtual wall' which they can quickly dismantle).

I notice that you have to resort to foul language instead of citing facts.

Hmm.

Your the one who twists around all the polls to make it seem like the polls equate with your views when n fact it doesn't.  Regarding the wall, building a wall is going to do no more than a virtual wall as you state (peole can go around it, dig around it, climb it, etc).  The Bottom line is BOTH Bills deal with border security as their main focus.  they may have differnt ways of how border security should be applied, but it doesn't change the fact both bills deal with border security.  Suggesting otherwise is just false.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Did you get anything of what I said!

First, a 'virtual barrier' can be turned off, and will be as soon as Bush can do so, whereas you cann't turn off a physical barrier.

Second, the Senate bill prohibits local and state law enforcement from enforcing laws against illegal entry/ presence in the United States.  This is a step down from the current situation.

These are facts.

[Smash255]

The border is not going to be turned "off".  What the Senate bill does is offer a regulated way of dealing with those who are crossining, instead of a who knows what everyone make up your own way of handling it.


Now you are entitled to your opinion if you think the House Bill will be better for border security.  I disagree, but that is our opinions and we are each entitled to our opinions on the issue.  However to simply say the Senate Bill doesn't deal with border security is completley and absolutley false.  the way each bill handles the border security and the approach might be different, but that doesn't mean only one bill actually deals with border security, because both bills do.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The border is not going to be turned "off".  What the Senate bill does is offer a regulated way of dealing with those who are crossining, instead of a who knows what everyone make up your own way of handling it.


Now you are entitled to your opinion if you think the House Bill will be better for border security.  I disagree, but that is our opinions and we are each entitled to our opinions on the issue.  However to simply say the Senate Bill doesn't deal with border security is completley and absolutley false.  the way each bill handles the border security and the approach might be different, but that doesn't mean only one bill actually deals with border security, because both bills do.

You can believe the moon is made of green cheese, but it isn!

You alledge that the Senate bill deals with security.  Yes, it degrades it!

The House bill enhances it.

I gave two examples.

Note, you have not denied that the Senate bill would prevent state and local law enforcement from arresting illegals because you know that is one of the provisions in the Senate bill.

Now, no the border will not be shut off by Bush, but he will turn off the 'vitual fence' at the first opportunity.

[Smash255]

The Senate bill also calls for increases in the amount of border security agents, something that needed.  Moe border security agents will do more than a fence that ould be climbed over, around, etc.  Saying Bush will turn off the virtual fence is insane.  I hate the guy, and can't stand everything the right wing nutcase is for, but to suggest that the virtual wall will be shutoff is insane with no backing.  What that part of the bill does is actualy gets more people to watch the actual border rather than leaving it up to a fence. 

Again it is one thing to feel that the House bill's solution is more effective.  that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.  However, its compeltley different to simply make accusations that only one bill actually deals with border security because THEY BOTH DO. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Senate bill also calls for increases in the amount of border security agents, something that needed.  Moe border security agents will do more than a fence that ould be climbed over, around, etc.  Saying Bush will turn off the virtual fence is insane.  I hate the guy, and can't stand everything the right wing nutcase is for, but to suggest that the virtual wall will be shutoff is insane with no backing.  What that part of the bill does is actualy gets more people to watch the actual border rather than leaving it up to a fence. 

Again it is one thing to feel that the House bill's solution is more effective.  that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.  However, its compeltley different to simply make accusations that only one bill actually deals with border security because THEY BOTH DO. 

I have repeatedly cited examples of where Bush has (informed the government of Mexico which parts of the border are being closely watched so that illegals can cross in other areas) refused to prosecute coyotes (smugglers) if the smuggle no more than five illegals at a time, has ordered release of illegals held by state/local agencies.

Further, I know by talking with members of the border patrol that they have been ordered to ignore certain areas of the border from time to time, and from officers, ncos and enlisted personnel at Fort Huachuca that they have received orders to 'shoo' illegals off the installation an NOT report them to the border patrol.

It has been further established that in the first five years in office internal enforcement has virtually ended (less than under Clinton).

In short, Bush has consistenly taken actions to hender border enforcement.  Based on his record, he will turn off any vitual fence as soon as he thinks he can get away with it.  Further, adding to the border patrol will do no good if they are prohibited from doing their job.

Indeed, if you look at prior record, Bush refused to hire for the positions previously appropriated by Congress for the Border Patrol.