monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
60% oppose significant new construction on border walls
57% opposed it in June, as the issue heated up ahead of midterm elections
81% support a path to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sixty percent of Americans oppose major new construction of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border -- the goal behind President Donald Trump's budget showdown with Democratic leaders that led to a record 35-day partial shutdown of the federal government.

The shutdown, which ended Jan. 25, and the political battles that preceded it over the past several months have had little apparent effect on public opinion about a wall. Fifty-seven percent opposed major new construction of walls seven months ago, a statistically insignificant three-percentage-point difference from the current number.

Gallup trends offer several signs that immigration has risen in prominence as a national issue in the past year:

Twenty-one percent now name it as the country's most important problem. That is the second-highest total for immigration in the 80-year history of the question, behind last July's 22%.

Seventy-eight percent in November identified immigration as an extremely or very important issue to them in the midterm elections, ranking it among the top three issues in importance to the public.

Perhaps as a result of the heightened political attention given to the issue of immigration, the percentage saying they feel strongly one way or another about expanding the walls has increased since last June's poll -- from 58% to 65%. More of that increase has come in strong opposition (five points) than in strong support (two points).

The issue of a wall was proposed as a way to slow illegal immigration long before Trump made it his signature 2016 campaign pledge. Gallup has asked about it using various question wordings, but all polls have shown a majority opposed. Gallup first asked about it in 1993, when 71% said they opposed "erecting a wall along the border with Mexico." Opposition eased slightly in 1995, when 62% were against erecting a wall. In 2006, opposition to "building a wall along the border with Mexico" was 56%.

Public opposition to a border wall had increased by 2016, when Trump was pushing construction of the wall. Sixty-six percent opposed "building a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border" in June of that year.

The current poll was conducted Jan. 21-27; slightly more than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) were interviewed before Trump ended the shutdown. There is no significant difference in views of the wall between those interviewed during the shutdown and those interviewed after it.

Public Supports Path to Citizenship, More Border Patrol Agents
Clear majorities of U.S. adults in the latest poll support two other actions related to immigration, while rejecting a third.

The vast majority of Americans (81%) favor allowing immigrants living illegally in the U.S. "the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time." In 2016, the year Trump was elected president, 84% were in favor of a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.

Though a majority of Americans reject major expansion of walls on the U.S.-Mexico border, three-fourths of the public favors another method of increasing border security -- the hiring of "significantly more" border patrol agents.

Sixty-one percent oppose deporting all illegal immigrants back to their home country. In 2016, 66% were in opposition.

Since Trump's election, the proportion of Americans wanting to increase immigration levels has grown -- from 21% in June 2016 to a record-high 30% now.

The percentage of Americans who want immigration levels decreased has been higher than those wanting it increased in every one of the 33 polls Gallup has conducted on the issue since 1965. However, the current one-point gap ties with the June 2018 poll for the smallest ever. Before Trump's election, the percentage preferring a decrease in immigration averaged 31 points higher than the percentage wanting an increase.

Republicans, including independents who lean toward the Republican Party, are slightly more likely to favor increasing immigration levels now (16%) than they were in 2016 (11%), but about half (51%) want levels decreased. During the same period, support for increased immigration has risen more among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, from 31% to 41%, with only 13% wanting to decrease levels.

Bottom Line
As a House-Senate conference committee begins discussions on resolving the fight over immigration spending and Trump's border wall, there is little question of where public sentiment stands on such key issues as expanding border walls, treatment of immigrants already in the U.S. illegally and increasing the number of border patrol agents.

Most of the cards at this point seem to be in the hands of the Democratic negotiators, fresh off their victory over Trump on the government shutdown faceoff. The public is solidly against the expansion of the border walls and remains sympathetic toward immigrants in the country illegally. Both of these views seem to match previous Democratic proposals at a time when Republicans are unable to agree on how to handle immigration. Therefore, it is not hard to envision an outcome that will please far more Democrats than Republicans.

fraud and money laundering?

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

The main problem with the Crusades is that we stopped having them.

My cats don't trust hoover.

Feb. 3 (EIRNS)—Former Sen. Sam Nunn and former Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz (2013-17), who are the co-chairmen of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, have a very strong piece that appears on Feb. 1 Politico Magazine, entitled “The U.S. and Russia Are Sleepwalking Toward Nuclear Disaster.” They state “re-engagement with Russia is too important to wait for the Mueller probe to end. That means it’s time for Congress to take the lead,” they argue, steering clear of the entire reason for the Mueller coup operation against President Donald Trump.

At the outset, they frame the context and the need for the INF Treaty, and their major concern that it would be abandoned: “Friday morning’s announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that America will withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty because of Russian violations is the latest wake-up call that relations between the world’s nuclear superpowers are dangerously off the rails.

“The fear of nuclear confrontation was once omnipresent in Washington and Moscow. National leaders recognized the real risk that a military conflict could quickly emerge and escalate, and that they would be forced to calculate in minutes whether survival required ‘going nuclear first,’ with catastrophic consequences.

“The grim horror of this reality was understood. It provided the foundation of decades of nuclear dialogue between the U.S. and Russia, including a mutual recognition of vital interests, red lines and methods to reduce the chance that accidents or miscalculation would lead to conflict.”

The authors state many of the discussion and warning mechanisms have atrophied; that the Mueller investigation and other things have forced a boxed-in situation in which “Donald Trump’s administration is imperiled if it touches anything related to Russia.”

Further, Nunn and Moniz state that “it’s not just the means of managing risk that have withered; it’s the will,” including that “cyberattacks could target nuclear warning and command-and-control systems is ever increasing.... Meanwhile, U.S. and Russian military forces are again operating in close proximity, with increased chances that an inadvertent collision—or deliberate act of aggression, accident, or a terrible miscalculation—could lead to the fatal use of nuclear weapons for the first time in nearly 75 years.”