Kamala Harris mocks Trump call for mass deportation of illegal immigrants

[ralliann]

E verify should be a requirement for ALL employers. That would take care of a lot of issues. If the fine was hefty enough and rhe threat existed of loosing your business license.

I honestly don't count on Trump to fix this. He has to get past his own party and there is no way the democrats are going to support fixing this. Neither party has done anything to try and fix it.

The democrats have such a low opinion of anyone but their own elitist people.

Blacks can't succeed without their help. Brown people are only good for cleaning g rooms and gardening or picking crops.

While i honestly believe that black people can succeed greatly without my help and brown people are very welcome here as are any immigrant who comes legally and is vetted properly and doesn't lie to get in.

Trump wants to try. Republicans like Cheneys etc. Can be voted out.,

 

[wing2000]

Yeah, that is why I said they get around E-verify....

And so did the government INCLUDING LIBERALS. But NOW who wants to remedy this?
I have no clue if what your saying about Trump is true or not, but.....who is wanting to fix this????
Nancy Pelosi, flat out, We need them to pick our crops. And of course do our lawns, care for our children and clean our houses.... Similar to the south at one time...huh?

E-Verfiy needs addtional investment (Congress) to make it more effective. And currently, it's a voluntary program for the private sector.

The GOP has no interest in solving illegal immigration. That was evident when they caved to Trump's demands to kill the last Senate bi-partisan bill.

 

[ralliann]

The GOP has no interest in solving illegal immigration. That was evident when they caved to Trump's demands to kill the last Senate bi-partisan bill.

I disagree on some if not many GOP. Neither do the democrats. 3+years after, they opened the border, and millions poured in from all over the globe, they wrote a bad bill.

 

[wing2000]

I disagree on some if not many GOP. Neither do the democrats. 3+years after, they opened the border, and millions poured in from all over the globe, they wrote a bad bill.

Okay, if you're reverting to GOP talking points, our conversation is over.
People have been crossing the border illegally since every adminstration since Reagan.
And no President has "opened the border".

 

[ralliann]

Okay, if you're reverting to GOP talking points, our conversation is over.

I responded to your Dem talkinjg points.

People have been crossing the border illegally since every adminstration since Reagan.
And no President has "opened the border".

Not like this today. And yes, the border was open, wide open. But we know your talking points too.

 

[rjs330]

E-Verfiy needs addtional investment (Congress) to make it more effective. And currently, it's a voluntary program for the private sector.

The GOP has no interest in solving illegal immigration. That was evident when they caved to Trump's demands to kill the last Senate bi-partisan bill.

And democrats had four years and couldn't make it happen. That bill allowed so many people into the country that it would have been completely ineffective. Stop blaming Trump. You have no evidence that he told anyone to kill the bill and no evidence that Republicans supported it.

Also we know as you have pointed out many times rhat there are some Republicans who want the illegals here.

 

[rjs330]

Okay, if you're reverting to GOP talking points, our conversation is over.
People have been crossing the border illegally since every adminstration since Reagan.
And no President has "opened the border".

Biden did.

 

[wing2000]

And democrats had four years and couldn't make it happen. That bill allowed so many people into the country that it would have been completely ineffective. Stop blaming Trump. You have no evidence that he told anyone to kill the bill and no evidence that Republicans supported it.

Also we know as you have pointed out many times rhat there are some Republicans who want the illegals here.

Republicans have been killing bi-partisan immigration bills for over a decade.

 

[Valletta]

Republicans have been killing bi-partisan immigration bills for over a decade.

"While reading thousands of lines of complicated bill text is a challenge for most reporters, actually looking up the Senate vote count on that bill is not.
Lankford was the only Senate supporter of that bill who could objectively be called, as Harris put it, “most conservative” — centrist Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) also voted in favor during that test vote. But notably, opposition was “bipartisan” as well — Massachusetts Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, California Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla, New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez, and even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined 45 Republicans in voting against.
By the time the bill came up for a second vote in May, opposition to it was pouring in from both sides of the aisle, with Sens. Corey Booker (D-N.J.), Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.), and even Lankford and Sinema voting “nay” (Murkowski was the lone GOP holdout still in support).
I seriously question whether progressives like Sanders, Booker, or Warren would even take a call from Trump, and can guarantee that they wouldn’t allow their decision to be swayed by him."

Why Kamala Harris Is Thinking About Going to the Border

Harris might decide it’s best to avoid immigration and the border at every opportunity and change the subject whenever those topics are brought up. Any response she gives with respect to either will just draw attention to them.

cis.org

 

[Valletta]

E-Verfiy needs addtional investment (Congress) to make it more effective. And currently, it's a voluntary program for the private sector.

The GOP has no interest in solving illegal immigration. That was evident when they caved to Trump's demands to kill the last Senate bi-partisan bill.

Killing the bill was a must for anyone who wanted to solve illegal immigration. It would have allowed 5000 illegals A DAY before various provisions kicked in. The bill would have provided work permits for illegals and even taxpayer-funded attorneys for illegals! Catch and release into the U.S. would have been the policy.

 

[ralliann]

Okay, if you're reverting to GOP talking points, our conversation is over.

Yeah just like you give liberal "talking points"

People have been crossing the border illegally since every adminstration since Reagan.
And no President has "opened the border".

The last three years have been above and beyond prior years. We seen it with our own eyes. Cities see it all across America. As the saying goes" dont urinate on me and tell me it's raining"

 

[7thKeeper]

Killing the bill was a must for anyone who wanted to solve illegal immigration. It would have allowed 5000 illegals A DAY before various provisions kicked in. The bill would have provided work permits for illegals and even taxpayer-funded attorneys for illegals! Catch and release into the U.S. would have been the policy.

No, it wouldn't have. This is a lie that's been spread on this forum for a while, even while people have been corrected on it so it's a bit disheartening to see someone still spread it. The 5000 illegals wasn't a number of people somehow "allowed", but the limit when even stricter rules would be applied. And things such as lawyers and other costs are needed, because what part of the government do you think handles what is done with the people arriving? Why it's the judiciary, the courts and one of the biggest problems that is slowing down the handling of immigration, is the lack of resources there.

 

[ralliann]

No, it wouldn't have. This is a lie that's been spread on this forum for a while, even while people have been corrected on it so it's a bit disheartening to see someone still spread it. The 5000 illegals wasn't a number of people somehow "allowed", but the limit when even stricter rules would be applied. And things such as lawyers and other costs are needed, because what part of the government do you think handles what is done with the people arriving? Why it's the judiciary, the courts and one of the biggest problems that is slowing down the handling of immigration, is the lack of resources there.

We have millions to many here after 31/2 years of open borders. We don't need to do anything right now, or for the next several years but close the border and deport.

 

[Valletta]

No, it wouldn't have. This is a lie that's been spread on this forum for a while, even while people have been corrected on it so it's a bit disheartening to see someone still spread it. The 5000 illegals wasn't a number of people somehow "allowed", but the limit when even stricter rules would be applied. And things such as lawyers and other costs are needed, because what part of the government do you think handles what is done with the people arriving? Why it's the judiciary, the courts and one of the biggest problems that is slowing down the handling of immigration, is the lack of resources there.

My statement that the bill "would have allowed 5000 illegals A DAY before various provisions kicked in" is the truth. Please don't misrepresent my statement. The problem is Joe and Kamala, they have refused to go back to the Trump policies. The administration lied when they claimed the border was safe, secure, and closed. They hid the disaster as long as they could. In fact the administration was SECRETLY flying in people from other countries. The horrors these "leaders" have inflicted, the human toll of women and children being sex trafficked, needs to stop now.

 

[wing2000]

"While reading thousands of lines of complicated bill text is a challenge for most reporters, actually looking up the Senate vote count on that bill is not.
Lankford was the only Senate supporter of that bill who could objectively be called, as Harris put it, “most conservative” — centrist Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) also voted in favor during that test vote. But notably, opposition was “bipartisan” as well — Massachusetts Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, California Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla, New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez, and even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined 45 Republicans in voting against.
By the time the bill came up for a second vote in May, opposition to it was pouring in from both sides of the aisle, with Sens. Corey Booker (D-N.J.), Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.), and even Lankford and Sinema voting “nay” (Murkowski was the lone GOP holdout still in support).
I seriously question whether progressives like Sanders, Booker, or Warren would even take a call from Trump, and can guarantee that they wouldn’t allow their decision to be swayed by him."

Why Kamala Harris Is Thinking About Going to the Border

Harris might decide it’s best to avoid immigration and the border at every opportunity and change the subject whenever those topics are brought up. Any response she gives with respect to either will just draw attention to them.

cis.org

What is your point?
A bi-partisan bill will contain compromises which some on both sides will not like.

 

[wing2000]

Killing the bill was a must for anyone who wanted to solve illegal immigration. It would have allowed 5000 illegals A DAY before various provisions kicked in. The bill would have provided work permits for illegals and even taxpayer-funded attorneys for illegals! Catch and release into the U.S. would have been the policy.

....and yet that policy, implemented by an Excutive Order, has effectively reduced the number of illegall immigrants.
You see, Valleta, the far right of the GOP will NEVER be happy with any bill. There's is always some excuse...which they conviently use to make a political argument (and distort the facts)....just as you are doing here. That has been the pattern over the last decade. It's "Our Way or NO WAY" ....and as a result, Congress has done nothing to effectively address our broken immigration system.

 

[Belk]

My statement that the bill "would have allowed 5000 illegals A DAY before various provisions kicked in" is the truth. Please don't misrepresent my statement. The problem is Joe and Kamala, they have refused to go back to the Trump policies. The administration lied when they claimed the border was safe, secure, and closed. They hid the disaster as long as they could. In fact the administration was SECRETLY flying in people from other countries. The horrors these "leaders" have inflicted, the human toll of women and children being sex trafficked, needs to stop now.

Really? So two questions.

One: If it allows 5000 people a day, how are they "illegal"? If we are allowing them are they not legal by definition?

Two: Since illegal immigrants are not coming in via ports of entry how is this provision being enforced? Are they just counting people with satellites and holding off on enforcement?

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes it's going to be difficult, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try

Trump's handlers let him rant about it, but his wealthy backers know better. Here's why it's not going to happen.

A 2012 United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service study used a simulation analysis to estimate the impact a 5.8-million-person reduction in the number of unauthorized workers—agricultural and nonagricultural. This was compared to a base forecast which simulated how the economy would evolve under current laws and policies.

The unauthorized workforce was assumed to decrease by 2.1 million over the first 5 years. In Year 5, the unauthorized workforce in the U.S. economy as a whole would be 4.0 million people smaller than in the base forecast. Growth in the unauthorized workforce was assumed to resume thereafter but at a slower pace than in the base forecast. By Year 15, the projected size of the unauthorized workforce was 8.5 million, compared with 14.3 million in the base forecast, a difference of 5.8 million, or 40%.

Here is a summary of the study’s findings.

The long-run results from the decreased unauthorized labor supply showed a reduction in the labor supply to agriculture with effects on agricultural output and exports. Fruit, tree nuts, vegetables, and nursery production were among the most affected sectors with long-run relative declines of 2.0% to 5.4% in output and 2.5% to 9.3% in exports. These effects were smaller in other, less labor-intensive, parts of agriculture—a 1.6% to 4.9% decrease in output and a 0.3% to 7.4% decrease in exports.

The number of unauthorized workers employed as farmworkers fell by between 34.1% and 38.8 %, relative to the base forecast for Year 15. The number of farmworkers who were either U.S.-born or foreign-born, permanent residents increased by about 2.4% to 4.0% in the long run, compared with the base forecast, and their wage rate increased by 3.3% to 7.5%. However, the increased farm employment of U.S.-born and other permanent resident workers was not sufficient to offset the decrease in unauthorized farmworkers. As a result, the total number of farmworkers decreased by 3.4% to 5.5%.

Model results suggested that wages would rise for U.S.-born and other permanent resident workers, relative to the base forecast, in some lower paying occupations where unauthorized workers are common, decrease slightly in many higher paying occupations, and decrease on average. Several factors accounted for the slight decrease in earnings. First, the decrease in the supply of unauthorized labor lead to a long-run relative decrease in production, not just in agriculture but in all sectors of the economy. This, in turn, reduced incomes to many complementary factors of production, including U.S.-born and foreign-born, permanent resident workers in higher paying occupations. Second, with the departure of so many unauthorized workers, the occupational distribution of U.S.-born and other permanent resident workers necessarily shifted in the direction of more hired farm work and other lower paying occupations, such as food service, child care, and housekeeping, and away from higher paying occupations which is a much larger category. The effect of this compositional change was to reduce the average real wage for U.S.-born and foreign-born, permanent resident workers in all sectors of the economy, even as real wages in many lower paying occupations rose.

In the long term, overall gross national product accruing to U.S.-born and foreign-born, permanent residents would fall by about 1%, compared with the base forecast. This result indicated that the negative economic effects generated by the departure of a significant portion of the labor force outweighed the positive effects on the wages of U.S.-born workers and other permanent residents employed in lower paying occupations.

What if all illegal immigrants were deported?

www.econ.iastate.edu

It would cause economic harm with no observable benefits. You'll hear a lot of talk to keep the racist fringe excited, but it's not going to happen.

 

[The Barbarian]

Round up millions of people and you’re going to get some bad ones regardless of the demographic targeted.

Turns out, if you focus on illegal aliens, you'll get fewer of them than if you just rounded up random U.S. citizens:

Advancing Justice Through Science

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science.

nij.ojp.gov

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's consider this second point: what evidence do you have, and I mean credible evidence from credible sources, that the rate at which immigrants commit "child rape and murder" is any higher than for non immigrants?

Evidence shows that they are less likely to commit such crimes. It's just racists stoking people's fears for their own agenda.