Poll: Majority Support Trump’s Temporary Ban


Um, oops?

From Rasmussen

Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.

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. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

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. (snip)

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.

Perhaps those who approve of it would be willing to take the rapeugees, er, refugees, into their own homes and neighborhoods? They should talk to people in Europe for guidance first.

Along these same lines, the NY Times provides the names of companies who are putting these refugees, who probably do not even speak the language, over US citizens. The biggest among them making a splash is Starbucks, which has stated it will hire 10,000 refugees. I have a couple questions

  1. How many of the 18,000 already let in by Obama have they hired?
  2. If they haven’t hired any, why not?
  3. Why didn’t the NY Times ask Starbucks how many they hired?
  4. Will Starbucks make sure no pork products are served?
  5. Will Starbucks stop dogs from coming in stores?
  6. Will Starbucks require women, both employees and customers, to cover up so as not to incite being sexually assaulted, as they’ve been told in Europe?

Tech companies are big on being opposed to the temporary ban, because they love displacing their citizen workers and hiring foreigners at lower salaries. Of course, they tend to hire people who can speak the language and understand the tech, not those who can put bombs together.

Media and Telcom are rather neutral. It’s retail that’s more vocal. Nike, Coca Cola, Walmart, Target, and Proctor and Gamble are all mentioned. How many have hired the refugees? Or, do they prefer to be all talk and no actiom?

Among the automakers, Ford took the most outspoken stance, coming out against the executive order. Ford has its headquarters in Dearborn, Mich., a suburb of Detroit that has a large Muslim population.

In a joint statement, William Clay Ford Jr., Ford’s executive chairman, and Mark Fields, the company’s chief executive, said: “Respect for all people is a core value of Ford Motor Company, and we are proud of the rich diversity of our company here at home and around the world. That is why we do not support this policy or any other that goes against our values as a company.”

General Motors said it would support its employees who might be affected. Fiat Chrysler said it had no comment.

If they’re here, they aren’t affected. If they’re from those areas, why were they hired over Americans? Was GM and Ford planning on importing refugees with no skills and whom do not speak English to build cars? Does Ford respect women? How about the LGBT community? Because the refugees sure don’t, as we’ve seen from the things going on in Europe.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!