In recent months, Google has justifiably suffered heavy criticism for selectively acting as internet…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Google and Other Politicized Organizations Target 2nd Amendment and Consumer Choice

In recent months, Google has justifiably suffered heavy criticism for selectively acting as internet gatekeeper, deciding what Americans can and cannot view online.  Countless examples exist when the liberal Silicon Valley giant leveraged its  market power to censor along ideological lines, including:  banning the conservative blog The New York Conservative, hosted on Google Blogger, for opining on the trial of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed;  demoting pro-Brexit/Euroskeptic websites by pushing them down in search results;  excluding Donald Trump from “presidential candidates” search;  and blocking free speech social network Gab from the Google Play Store, alleging violations of the company’s hate speech policy.

The latest revelation of Google’s partisan bias…[more]

September 19, 2018 • 10:27 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Donald Trump's Mainstream Immigration Policy Print
By Byron York
Tuesday, July 03 2018
Bill Clinton left office in 2001, in the faraway pre-progressive days of the Democratic Party. Today, the party's position on immigration has moved so far left that it is unrecognizable to some old-style Clinton Democrats.

Perhaps no Trump policy has provoked more emotional reaction than the practice of separating illegal border crossers from the children they brought with them to the United States. There's no need to recount the number of times critics have called the president a Nazi, or a fascist, or just plain cruel.

The administration has now stopped the separation policy. But it plans to continue prosecuting illegal border crossers and, when those crossers bring children illegally into the United States, will "detain families together during the pendency of immigration proceedings," according to an administration court filing in California.

That, of course, will not satisfy the critics, and legal challenges are sure to follow. But if a new poll is correct, it appears the Trump administration, after an enormously damaging few weeks, has ended up squarely on the side of the majority of American voters.

The new survey is a Harvard-Harris Poll, by former Clinton pollster and strategist Mark Penn. It was conducted in late June with 1,448 registered voters.

On the issue of separations, Penn began with a threshold question: "Do you think that people who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home? Sixty-four percent said they should be sent home. Thirty-six percent said they should be allowed to stay.

Then Penn asked: "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?" The presence of children made little difference in the result: 61 percent said they should be sent home, while 39 percent said they should be allowed to stay.

The vast majority  88 percent  opposed separating illegal immigrant families while they are in the U.S., and they blamed the Trump administration for the policy. On the other hand, 55 percent said illegal immigrant families should be held in custody "until a judge reviews their case"  essentially the new Trump family detention policy.

Put the numbers together, and a substantial majority said illegal border crossers, and the children they brought, should be returned to their home countries. To that end, 80 percent favored hiring more immigration judges "to process people in custody faster."

"They (poll respondents) rejected family separation while narrowly favoring family detention," Penn said in an email exchange. "Mostly they want people who cross the border illegally to be turned around and returned home efficiently."

Penn's polling found other results broadly favorable to the Trump approach to immigration.

For example, Penn asked, "Do you think we need stricter or looser enforcement of our immigration laws?" Seventy percent said stricter, while 30 percent said looser.

Penn asked whether respondents "support or oppose building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border." Sixty percent supported the barriers, while 40 percent did not. Sixty-one percent said current border security is inadequate.

Penn's polling also found overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities. He asked: "Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required to notify immigration authorities they are in custody or be prohibited from notifying immigration authorities?" Eighty-four percent  a huge number  said that cities should be required to notify immigration authorities. Just 16 percent said cities should be prohibited from doing that.

Penn polled the newest progressive immigration proposal, the "Abolish ICE" campaign to disband U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sixty-nine percent of those surveyed said ICE should not be abolished, while 31 percent said it should.

Finally, Penn found widespread support for the fundamental provisions of the immigration bills, based on Trump's "four pillars," that were recently rejected by the House of Representatives. "Would you favor or oppose a congressional deal that gives undocumented immigrants brought here by their parents work permits and a path to citizenship in exchange for increasing merit preference over preference for relatives, eliminating the diversity visa lottery, and funding barrier security on the U.S.-Mexico border?" Penn asked. Sixty-three percent supported the plan, while 37 percent opposed.

"Overall, Americans want to show compassion for those that are here, but want much tougher enforcement of immigration laws," Penn said.

Reading Penn's questions, and the respondents' answers, it was hard not to think of the presidency of Bill Clinton, for whom Penn worked in the 1990s. Clinton's relatively tough stance on illegal immigration reflected Democratic thinking of the time. Penn's questions still do, at least in the way they are worded. "In these polls I try to be as detailed in the policy questions as I was polling for six years for President Clinton," Penn said, "because public opinion in America is far more nuanced than people realize  small changes in policy make a big difference."

But Bill Clinton left office in 2001, in the faraway pre-progressive days of the Democratic Party. Today, the party's position on immigration has moved so far left that it is unrecognizable to some old-style Clinton Democrats. And if Penn's findings are correct, most Americans are now closer to President Trump than present-day Democratic leaders.


Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2018 BYRON YORK

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following asked “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?”
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Christine Blasey Ford's lawyer has announced that Ms. Ford will not testify until the FBI completes yet another investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh that everyone knows will never happen.It was already highly unlikely she was ever going to testify; this is a convenient excuse, a stalling game. But it is more than the usual cheap political stunt. It's vicious, ugly, and more than slightly sadistic…[more]
 
 
—Roger L. Simon, PJ Media Co-Founder and CEO Emeritus
— Roger L. Simon, PJ Media Co-Founder and CEO Emeritus
 
Liberty Poll   

Which one of the following U.S. Senators do you believe behaved most dishonorably during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court?