• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Two-Thirds Of New Hampshire Republicans Support Donald Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban

Trump Nixon V

Given Donald Trump’s victory last night, it is perhaps not surprising to find that solid numbers of Republican voters, including many who did not vote for him, support his position on a number of hot button political issues. What’s particularly distressing, though, is the news that two-thirds of New Hampshire Republicans who voted yesterday support Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration to the United States for some unspecified period of time:

Some two-thirds of Republican voters in New Hampshire expressed support for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, an idea espoused by Donald Trump, who was projected to win the state’s primary.

Trump had called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States back in December.

“Mr. Trump stated, without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine,” Trump said in a statement Dec. 7. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Exit polls show that in addition to support for Trump’s proposal, four in 10 say undocumented immigrants should be deported.

From the time that Trump announced his idea to ban Muslim immigration in early December, it proved to be immediately controversial. Not only did it garner nearly universal condemnation from Trump’s opponents for the Republican nomination, but it also garnered commentary and condemnation from Democratic candidates for President, members of the House and Senate from both parties, and even members of the Obama Administration and representatives of foreign nations. Many of these, of course, are groups that tend to remain silent when it comes to commenting on American politics. Many of these individuals noted that, in addition to being a likely illegal and unconstitutional example of religious discrimination, the policy Trump was proposing would confirm exactly what ISIS, al Qaeda, and other militant groups say about the United States and the West, namely that the “War On Terror” is a lie and that the West is actually intending to make war on, and effectively wipe out, all of Islam itself. The most likely result of Trump’s idea, then, would be to create more militants, including potentially from among Muslims already living in the United States who may come to perceive that they are not being treated as equal to their fellow Americans. Unsurprisingly, Trump rejected these criticisms and continues to push for the ban, although it has become a somewhat less common focus of his stump speeches since the focus on international terrorism has lessened now that the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino are further in the past.

Despite this international condemnation, though, and notwithstanding the perfectly rational arguments against the idea, it quickly became apparent that the Republican base though Trump was on to something. One early poll showed that two-thirds of Republicans supported the idea, for example, while another poll showed that a majority of Republicans supported the idea even as most other Americans were vehemently opposed to the idea. Still another poll reported that sixty percent of Republicans surveyed approved of the idea. Perhaps most telling in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s announcement is the fact that few of Trump’s opponents actually attacked him for his idea even though they had spoken out against it in the immediate aftermath of his announcement. No doubt, they too had read the tea leaves that showed that a majority of their party supported an idea that can only be described as profoundly wrong headed, bigoted, and even idiotic.  Now, we have this exit poll showing that the vast majority of the people who actually voted in a Republican primary support the idea, and the man who supports it is the front-runner for the Republican nomination for President. If that doesn’t tell you that something is deeply wrong with the wrong Republican Party right now, I don’t know what will.

Related Posts:

  • None Found

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Mikey says:

    Ezra Klein’s take at Vox: The rise of Donald Trump is a terrifying moment in American politics

    He’s not a joke and he’s not a clown. He’s a man who could soon be making decisions of war and peace, who would decide which regulations are enforced and which are lifted, who would be responsible for nominating Supreme Court justices and representing America in the community of nations. This is not political entertainment. This is politics.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. An Interested Party says:

    But wait a minute! We are told that it is the DemoKKKrat party that is the racist party, the GOP is about equality and freedom for all…how can this be…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. C. Clavin says:

    This is’t even surprising.
    I bet the number nationally is similar.
    You don’t have to be a bigot to be Republican, but if you are a bigot chances are you are a Republican.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. James Pearce says:

    Now, we have this exit poll showing that the vast majority of the people who actually voted in a Republican primary support the idea, and the man who supports it is the front-runner for the Republican nomination for President.

    I’d really like to point my finger and say, “Look at these bigots!”

    But then I’m reminded that on the other side of the aisle, always complaining about how there’s too many white men in any given room.

    America continues to be a bigoted country, and we continue to be in denial about it. At this point, I just can’t be surprised by it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Jenos Idanian says:

    Doug, for an attorney, you really suck at picking up on nuances. You consistently say “immigrants” when you talk about issues that only affect illegal immigrants. And here, you gloss over how Trump said a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants until “we get a handle” on things — as in, how to differentiate dangerous Muslims from non-dangerous Muslims.

    You might have missed it, but in Europe they took in a LOT of Muslim “refugees,” and are experiencing a huge surge in sexual assault, child rape, and other episodes of violence and other undesirable conduct. And while the PC crowd has done yeoman’s work of covering it up, the reports are still trickling out. For example, the 10-year-old Austrian boy raped in a swimming pool by an Iraqi refugee who said that he’d been without sex for 4 months, and couldn’t control himself. In Sweden, an unusually well-developed 15-year-old Muslim refugee stabbed a female humanitarian worker to death. In Cologne, gangs of roaming Muslim refugees sexually assaulted celebrants on New Year’s Eve. And that’s just three examples off the top of my head.

    How about a compromise — some extra scrutiny for able-bodied male Muslims from, say, 16 to 50? We can still take in the women and children, but those statistically more likely to pose a danger get extra attention.

    Sometimes I wonder when the rule that the first priority of the government is to protect US citizens was repealed, because it sure as hell seems like that’s not even on the list of priorities any more.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    how Trump said a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants until “we get a handle” on things — as in, how to differentiate dangerous Muslims from non-dangerous Muslims.

    Actually he said” till our leaders figure out what the Hell is going on” – no mention of differentiating.

    On another occasion, when asked to clarify the conditions of temporary, he said ‘ till we can figure out why they hate us so much’.

    But continue to feel free to out your words in his mouth.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    How about a compromise — some extra scrutiny for able-bodied male Muslims from, say, 16 to 50?

    Justified by some anecdotes?

    Ya know, if a bigot ever failed to come up with extra special reasons to justify their bigotry, there wouldn’t be any bigotry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. MBunge says:

    I’m no law-talkin’ guy but even I know that Trump’s proposed Muslim ban may be stupid, hateful and self-destructive but it can’t be unconstitutional, unless you’re suggesting that foreigners have a Constitutional right to enter the United States.

    Native-born Muslims, of course, being another story.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Jenos Idanian says:

    @James Pearce: What you call “anecdotes,” I call “examples.” Each of those I cited were real incidents that happened in the past couple of months. And I can come up with plenty more if you like.

    How about we just use the standard level of scrutiny that should have been applied to the Jihadette from San Bernardino, but was completely skipped over? How’s that sound?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. al-Ameda says:

    A complete over-reaction.

    I believe that hundreds of thousands of Muslims have immigrated to America both during and following the endless Gulf and regional civil wars. How many of them (those Muslim immigrants) have committed acts of terror on American soil since immigrating?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Tony W says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    What you call “anecdotes,” I call “examples.”

    Is this where we drag out examples of christian terrorists? It feels so overplayed….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Mr. Prosser says:

    @Mikey: Jeez, tell Ezra to change his name to Francis and lighten up. If Il Douchay even got the nomination HRC would slaughter him in debates and the election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Jenos Idanian says:

    @al-Ameda: Try to keep up. The topic at hand is Current Events, not History.

    And I’ve noticed that the relevance of history tends to be a bit… fluid on the left. The Democratic Party’s history of institutionalized racism officially ran from the 1860s for over a century is irrelevant. Christianity’s aggressive, conquering phase that ended a couple of centuries ago? Very relevant. The Israeli aggressive conquest of the Holy Land from a couple of millennia ago is very relevant. Islam’s history of officially sanctioning and practicing slavery — still ongoing — is irrelevant.

    And any alleged wrongdoings by the US become the only relevant factor in many cases. Iran gets carte blanche for any anti-American actions because of our support for the Shah, our support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan forever taints anything in Afghanistan, and that we saw Saddam Hussein as the lesser evil for a while is the only relevant factor in our dealings with Iraq.

    Is there some overarching principle at play here, or is it just simple convenient situational ethics? ‘Cuz that’s sure as hell what it looks like.

    But back to the topic at hand: the first priority of the US government should be the safety and security of Americans. Because that should be the first priority of any government. After that comes the safety and security of our legal guests.

    The ranking of uninvited, illegal guests and would-be guests I’m still weighing, but they have no business in the top two slots.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    What you call “anecdotes,” I call “examples.”

    These terms are not exactly antonyms, Jenos. It’s still “argument by anecdote.”

    And I can come up with plenty more if you like.

    Sure. That’s my point, dude. Of course, you can.

    Like I said earlier: If a bigot ever failed to come up with extra special reasons to justify their bigotry, there wouldn’t be any bigotry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Tony W: s this where we drag out examples of christian terrorists?

    Bring it on. For every anecdote of Christian terrorism you can bring up, I can readily find five.

    But I will ask you to limit yourself to the last 25 years, where at least four people were killed, and there was a direct correlation between the terrorists’ beliefs and the terrorists’ actions.

    I’ll even handicap myself by limiting 9/11 to a single action.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Pch101 says:

    I’m wondering what this Muslim entrance test is supposed to look like: “You WILL eat this bacon cheeseburger if you want to enter the United States!!!”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Jenos Idanian says:

    @James Pearce: So put a number on it: how many refugees do you consider a fair trade-off for a raped 10-year-old boy? Would you recommend taking in 500 refugees for one rape? 1,000? 2,000?

    Come on, put a number on it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    The topic at hand is Current Events, not History.

    Says Jenos before providing a two paragraph history lesson.

    Let’s try this again. You say:

    “the first priority of the US government should be the safety and security of Americans.”

    I agree, but explain to me why emigrating Muslims threaten the safety and security of Americans. (Hint: Failing to distinguish emigrating Muslims from terrorist Muslims is an immediate fail.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Pch101: Here’s one possible way of testing:

    When border officials are interviewing a potential immigrant, they could ask if the applicant belongs to any group that has a written set of rules telling them how to behave. If the answer is yes, they ask which specific leaders are in charge of interpreting the written rules. If the leader is on record – in writing – as recommending that followers obey the law of a nation over the group’s own rules, that applicant goes to the short line for more vetting.

    Under this scenario, any Muslim leader could issue a signed statement advising followers to obey the laws of the United States should they conflict with holy teachings. If a Muslim immigrant has a direct line of worship to the leader who issued the statement – such as regular attendance at a mosque – that person gets into the short line. Everyone gets the same thorough check, but this hypothetical immigrant has not been disqualified by religion. In fact, religion acts as a good reference in this case.

    Not my idea, but I think it has potential.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Pch101 says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    I support a different approach — mocking idiocy like yours and consigning it to the junkheap of history where it belongs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Jenos Idanian says:

    @James Pearce: (Hint: Failing to distinguish emigrating Muslims from terrorist Muslims is an immediate fail.)

    Like the government failed when they admitted the San Bernardino Jihadette? Yeah, that was a Major Fail. That got 14 innocent people killed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. David M says:

    @Pch101:

    Idiocy is probably too kind a word.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Pch101: You sound like you’d fit right in with the idiots who approved the San Bernardino Jihadette’s Visa. Who I am quite comfortable in saying were never disciplined for that screwup that got 14 innocent people killed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Would you recommend taking in 500 refugees for one rape? 1,000? 2,000?

    Come on, put a number on it.

    For something so arbitrary, I can’t put a number on it, Jenos. Do you feel proud that your completely arbitrary number is zero? Do you think that marks you as a guy capable of making trade-offs, of weighing cost-benefit ratios?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    That got 14 innocent people killed.

    No, Jenos. Whoever stamped her passport did not get 14 innocent people killed.

    You have no sense of justice and you ask us to follow it anyway? Yeah, right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. David M says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Linking to the dumbest man on the internet now? That blithering idiot is saying the application should have been denied because she was “likely to overstay her VISA”. Regardless of how good the screening process is, someone who is marrying a US citizen and gaining permanent legal residency is kind of the opposite of someone who is “likely to overstay her VISA”. That unhinged moron is basically an illiterate lunatic, something that should be immediately obvious to anyone capable of independent thought.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Grumpy Realist says:

    @Jenos Idanian: if we REALLY wanted to cut down on rape, we’d institute a curfew against young men being outside after dark. ALL young men. Black white Islamic Christian purple or green. If we’re judging by what subsection of the population carries out the most crime….

    Gonna sign up for that, Jenos?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Grumpy Realist: You wanna start with the non-Americans?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. An Interested Party says:

    …the first priority of the US government should be the safety and security of Americans.

    Our government doesn’t need to practice religious bigotry to keep us safe and secure…rather, it would only need to do that to make scared little people like you and your ilk feel safe and secure…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Bookdragon says:

    @Jenos Idanian: So no devout Catholics or Evangelicals would be allowed to emigrate either?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Tony W says:

    @Jenos Idanian: Why would we start with non Americans? I have to think the VAST majority of crimes against Americans are committed by other Americans.

    I can’t figure out why you think there’s a benefit (much less a technique – “here, spit on this Quran to enter the country)) to banning Muslim immigration? Why is this the battle?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Tony W: Because Jenos’ elevator doesn’t go all the way to the penthouse anymore?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Pch101 says:

    I can’t figure out why you think there’s a benefit (much less a technique – “here, spit on this Quran to enter the country)) to banning Muslim immigration?

    Populist conservatives like to hate and fear people for the sake of it. It’s how they roll.

    I’m sure that if there was an internet during the 1690s, Jenos-type characters would be posting breathlessly about the need to burn witches.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. anjin-san says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Trump said a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants until “we get a handle” on things — as in, how to differentiate dangerous Muslims from non-dangerous Muslims.

    Are you really this stupid? I suppose so. You and many more. It’s very discouraging.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Grumpy Realist says:

    @Jenos Idanian: oh, if you want to try to set up a system where every young man out at night is going to be checked at every entrance and by every official to show that he is a legal American, just go and try it….

    Speaking as a female, I’m FAR more likely to be attacked by someone who happens to be American. Just saying’.

    Didn’t anyone ever teach you math?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. DrDaveT says:

    @James Pearce:

    But then I’m reminded that on the other side of the aisle, always complaining about how there’s too many white men in any given room.

    Can you unpack that for me, James? I really have no idea what you’re talking about, unless it’s people pointing to white male privilege as a symptom of a sick society. Which it is. Did you mean something different?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0