Local Politics

Poll: More in US favor Trump's travel ban than oppose it

Posted February 1
Updated February 2

— About one-third of Americans feel President Donald Trump's executive order to temporarily freeze immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries will make America safer, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The poll, which was conducted Monday and Tuesday, also found that 49 percent of Americans agree with the travel ban, which also blocks all refugees from entering the U.S. for four months, while 41 percent disagree with it.

Wake County resident Lisa Mahoney said Wednesday that she backs Trump's actions, even though massive protests across the country in recent days have called it racist and xenophobic.

"I think that they misunderstand us and they think that we're hateful, that we just hate people. That's not the case," Mahoney said. "I feel for refugees. I don't want to see people suffer, but we have to take care of our country first.

"One of (Trump's) promises was to protect our country, to make it safer, and in doing so, we need a better vetting process, and that takes time," she said.

Harry O'Neal, the son of an Air Force veteran, said he worries about his family and his country, and he's not surprised more people support the travel ban than oppose it.

"The other countries said that they were going to send in ISIS to infiltrate the people coming in (as refugees or U.S. immigrants)," O'Neal said. "There's no way you can prevent them coming in if you don't have some type of border security."

Still, Sheri Henry said she struggles over whether the president's hard-line immigration stance is the right one.

"I voted for him, and I think we can only go forward, but I think it's interesting as far as the immigrant situation because we're for, America's for everybody," Henry said.

Jeff Sullivan said he sees the protests but argues that those waving signs aren't giving Trump a chance.

"This is just a temporary thing he's putting in place to make sure the people are vetted and secure enough to enter the country without causing harm to American citizens," Sullivan said.

Opponents of the travel ban note that the U.S. already has a vetting process for refugees that includes several background checks, interviews and fingerprinting and can take up to two years to complete.


Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Mary Jones Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar


  • Jeffrey Derry Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    whatever measures the POTUS, any POTUS will take in an effort to protect me and my family, I am all in

  • Sam Hershey Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Great questions. I don't think there is a single person against constant review of the vetting process and how to continually make it more effective. We have to collectively understand that there is never going to be a way to make any vetting process for anything in the world 100% perfect.

  • Sam Hershey Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    What you posted isn't actually a good reason to keep this ban. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If all people had to do was get to central American in order to make it to America, the ban would not stop them from going to these countries.

    As far as the 100,000 you reference, first off by definition that's a limit. Second, I don't even know what you are actually referring so I have no idea if there was vetting or not. Please provide a link or post about it please.

  • Sam Hershey Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    How would there be zero screening compared to European countries? They all have to go through America customs. Plus, if what you said was factual, many of these people going through the vetting process would probably just sneak in anyway. Facts are important here.

  • New Holland Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    it would have been nice in the interviews to ask these folks if they know what the vetting process is already? What are they basing their opinions on? Has the USA had issues with radicals passing through the vetting process already? How about the Military, haven't there been more radicals and killings from active duty military people than people from the 7 countries this ban affects right now?

  • Judy Loftin Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    I could've told you that.

  • Jason Merrill Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    Dissent = Disagreement, decent = lineage...Also all weapons are "assault" weapons. A semi-automatic rifle(AR-15) that looks like an M-4/M-16 is not an assault rifle. The first defining characteristic of an assault rifle is selective fire, meaning that different rates of fire; semi-auto single round, 3 round burst, or fully automatic are needing to be met in order to classify it as an assault rifle. Please stop perpetuating the myth that an AR-15 is an assault rifle.
    Back to the topic at hand, the original disagreement was due to the OP stating that all terrorist acts in the US in recent history have been committed by white racists. That is false. The Boston Marathon bombing, by radicalized Muslim immigrants, granted not from the "ban" list, but immigrants nonetheless. San Bernadino, again not white racists, nor was the Pulse nightclub shooting, nor the Ft. Hood shooting. Please read a statement completely and comprehend it before commenting.

  • Raleigh Rose Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    I don't think the ban is well-thought out and it certainly was not well-executed. I see nothing wrong with re-examining our vetting process. It's probably not needed, but doesn't hurt to review. It just worries me that the roll-out was poorly done, different agencies didn't know what was going on and it caused a good deal of un-needed chaos. I hope that Trump and his administration learn from this and don't repeat these same mistakes in the future. It makes them look inept.

  • John Townsend Feb 2, 2017
    user avatar

    View quoted thread

    This is only a pause while the vetting process is fixed for those countries. Obama did the same exact thing (for a longer time) to Iraq. Other Arab countries with functional governments are not on the list.

    So far as your claim that this helps ISIS recruitment, that has never been substantiated, it is merely a talking point.

    Did Obama pay attention to his security briefings? New reports say he skipped most of his during his first term so what gives? This is a non-issue. Clinton liked his in paper form. Bush wanted daily briefings. Obama preferred his on a digital tablet. Trump, presumably will get his the way he prefers.

    I don't like the guy but I try to be fair. Let us keep our powder dry for when he really does something bad.