We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
WSJ Urges Regulators to Approve T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, and cautioned the federal government against any pointless and destructive objection to the deal.  In today's Wall Street Journal, its editorial board encourages the Department of Justice (DOJ) to move forward on the deal:

The Justice Department lost its lawsuit to block AT&T's purchase of Time Warner.  Yet now the antitrust cops are holding up T-Mobile's merger with Sprint even though it could give AT&T more competition in wireless.  What gives?

A year ago, T-Mobile announced plans to acquire Sprint for $26 billion in stock, yet the merger is still stuck in government antitrust purgatory.  The Federal Communications Commission keeps pausing its 180-day shot clock on the merger…[more]

April 22, 2019 • 04:07 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   
How many times in our nation’s history has a presidential election been decided by the U.S. House of Representatives?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"President Donald Trump opened a new flank in his battle against illegal immigration on Monday when he ordered his administration to crack down on 'visa overstays' -- foreigners who legally enter the country but remain in the U.S. after their visas expire.The president signed a memorandum ordering the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to submit plans within four months to crack…[more]
 
 
—Alan Gomez, USA TODAY
— Alan Gomez, USA TODAY
 
Liberty Poll   

How likely are you to read all or a significant part of the Mueller Report?