Reuters poll: Half of Likely Voters favor temporary ban on all Muslim entry into US. 5 day rolling avg., June 10-14, first news of Orlando attack was June 12

Sun. June 12 was first news of Orlando Muslim attack. Reuters poll 5 day rolling average: June 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. The same cronies who decided to massively increase Muslim immigration and refugees from Muslim and Arab countries can simply decide the reverse: "Ever since the 1970s U.S. policy had responded to acts of war and terrorism from the Muslim world by absolving the regimes for their subjects' actions." The source of Muslim terrorism in the US is our ruling class' solicitous relations with Middle East regimes. (subhead, "Whatever it takes") " US elites appear "more solicitous of enemies than of fellow citizens....Again and again, the American people are forced to confront the fact that its ruling class is not on its side." (subhead, "Public Safety")

6/14/16, "Reuters: Half of Likely Voters Back Temporary Ban on All Muslim Entry to United States," Breitbart, Mike Flynn

"New polling data from Reuters  shows a surge in support for a far-reaching temporary ban on any Muslim entry to the United States.

[Partly] In the wake of the terrorist attack in Orlando, 50 percent of likely voters now support a temporary halt on Muslim entry into the United States. Just 42 percent of likely voters oppose a temporary ban.  

That suggested policy is a much harder line than the temporary ban on Muslim immigration, or the long-term ban on immigration from countries with a history of radical Islam, that have been proposed by GOP candidate Donald Trump.
 
The finding represents a 22-point swing since the beginning of the month. At the end of May, just 40 percent of likely voters supported a halt, while 54 percent opposed one.

The Reuters survey, it should be noted, is based on a rolling average over the last 5 days. Even though Tuesday’s average shows a surge in support for a ban, most of the interviews on the question were conducted before the Orlando terrorist attacks. This suggests that support for the ban will rising over the coming days as more interviews conducted after news of the attack are included in the rolling average.

In the survey, voters were asked whether or not they agreed with this statement: “The United States should temporarily stop all Muslims from entering the United States.”
...  
In a campaign speech in the immediate aftermath of the Orlando attack, presumptive GOP nominee Trump reiterated his call for a temporary ban, but modified it by saying that immigration should be curbed from countries with a history is Islamic radicalism.

He also focused his criticism more directly on the Obama Administration’s lax enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. He specifically slammed a proposal by presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton to greatly expand the number of Muslim immigrants admitted into the country.
 
PolitiFact, a news site that ordinarily tries to rebuff conservative attacks on the left, admitted that Clinton’s proposal would dramatically increase the number of Muslim immigrants and refugees admitted into the US. Politifact noted, though, that the screening process to accept refugees ordinarily takes 18-24 months, suggesting that the US would be able to maintain national security under Clinton’s proposal.

The site did not mention, however, that the Obama Administration has recently cut the screening time for refugees from the Middle East to just 3 months.

If support for an outright temporary ban on all Muslim immigration is surging, one can imagine voters would overwhelmingly support efforts to at least increase screening of immigrant hopefuls. Even many of those voters who oppose a complete ban would likely not support expanding Muslim immigration in the wake of the Orlando attacks."...







..................