Despite Majority Of Americans In Favor Of Trump Immigration Policy, 900 State Department Staff Dissent
Posted by Tyler Durden on January 31, 2017 10:15 pm
Tags: American people of German descent, Business, Climate change skepticism and denial, Conservatism in the United States, Department of State, donald trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, federal government, First Amendment, george w bush, George Washington University, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Political positions of Donald Trump, Politics, Politics of the United States, Rasmussen Reports, Reuters, Social Issues, Somalia, supreme court, The Apprentice, UCLA School of Law, united states, US State Department, white house
Categories: American people of German descent Business Climate change skepticism and denial Conservatism in the United States Department of State donald trump Donald Trump presidential campaign Economy federal government First Amendment george w bush George Washington University Iran Iraq Middle East Political positions of Donald Trump Politics Politics of the United States Rasmussen Reports Reuters Social Issues Somalia Supreme Court The Apprentice UCLA School of Law United States US State Department white house
Just yesterday we noted that, according to a Rasmussen poll, while the vocal, and often violent, disaffected Hillary protesters may get a lot of media attention, the silent majority of Americans, men and women who don’t have time to protest 24 hours a day because they actually go to work to provide for their families, support Trump’s temporary immigration ban from 7 mostly-Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa.
Now, Reuters/Ipsos, the pollsters who mastered the application of the Democrat “oversample” in the months leading up to the presidential election last November, is out with another poll that confirms the Rasmussen results, namely that the silent majority of Americans agree with Trump’s immigration ban. Per Reuters:
The Jan. 30-31 poll found that 49 percent of American adults said they either “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed with Trump’s order, while 41 percent “strongly” or “somewhat” disagreed and another 10 percent said they don’t know.
But the responses were split almost entirely along party lines. Some 53 percent of Democrats said they “strongly disagree” with Trump’s action while 51 percent of Republicans said they “strongly agree.”
The Reuters/Ipsos poll found 31 percent of Americans feel “more safe” because of the ban, compared with 26 percent who said they felt “less safe.” Some 38 percent said they felt the United States was setting “a good example” of how best to confront terrorism, while 41 percent said the country was setting “a bad example.”
Of course, popular opinion of the American people didn’t stop 900 Clinton loyalists in the State Department from signing a “dissent memo” in defiance of their new boss.
Roughly 900 U.S. State Department officials signed an internal dissent memo critical of President Donald Trump’s travel ban for refugees and immigrants from six Muslim-majority countries, a source familiar with the document said on Tuesday.
A senior State Department official confirmed that the memorandum in the department’s “dissent channel” had been submitted to management.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on Monday he was aware of the memo but warned career diplomats that they should either “get with the program or they can go.”
Seems these 900 folks may soon suffer the same fate as the acting Attorney General who decided to publicly announce her defiance of Trump’s immigration order just yesterday.
For those who missed it, below is our note from yesterday on the Rasmussen poll.
* * *
While vocal, and often violent, disaffected Hillary protesters may get a lot of media attention, a new Rasmussen poll out today reveals that the silent majority of Americans, men and women who don’t have time to protest 24 hours a day because they actually go to work to provide for their families, support Trump’s temporary immigration ban from 7 mostly-Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa. In fact, per the new poll, 57% of likely U.S. voters actually approve of the ban while only 33% were opposed.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided.
Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.
This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.
Like most issues, support for the immigration ban was heavily split along party lines with 82% of Republicans supporting the executive order versus only 34% of Democrats and 53% of Independents.
The refugee ban is supported by 82% of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democrats are opposed by a 53% to 34% margin. The numbers are nearly identical for the temporary ban on visas from these seven terrorist-plagued nations.
Men and women are in general agreement on both measures. Younger voters are slightly less supportive than their elders are.
Blacks oppose both bans more than whites and other majority voters do.
As we pointed out earlier (see “Is A Constitutional Crisis Imminent In The Wake Of Trump’s Immigration Ban?“), the ACLU, flush with $24 million in donations from just this weekend alone, has vowed to fight Trump’s immigration ban all the way to the Supreme Court on grounds that it targets people of a certain religion, in direct violation of the First Amendment.
That said, many legal scholars have asserted that Trump’s immigration ban will stand up against Constitutional tests, with GWU professor Jonathan Turley saying the ban can’t be viewed as a “Muslim ban” given the “vast majority of Muslims around the world are not affected by the limitations placed on these seven countries.”
Still, some observers said the courts ultimately might uphold Trump’s order. Its alleged anti-Muslim thrust “is not clear to me,” said Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law. Judges might interpret the order as targeting people from countries where “jihadist sentiments” are common, he said. The president generally has broad authority to exclude non-citizens from coming into the country, Volokh said.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, predicted the courts would not interpret the order as a religious ban. “It is not on its face a Muslim ban,” he said. “That dog simply won’t hunt. No judge can look at the order and analyze it as a Muslim ban because the vast majority of Muslims around the world are not affected by the limitations placed on these seven countries.”
But while the ACLU is looking for a Supreme Court battle, Trump continues to fight in the court of public opinion, which, at least according to Rasmussen, is a fight he’s winning.
There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country. This was a big part of my campaign. Study the world!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 30, 2017
If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the “bad” would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad “dudes” out there!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 30, 2017