Kamala Harris mocks Trump call for mass deportation of illegal immigrants

[rjs330]

Reagan had it right....

And that's about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the ``shining city upon a hill.'' The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
Ronald Reagan Farewell Address

This was before the right had lost faith in America and in democracy, and in the transforming power of the American way. Reagan correctly predicted that those immigrants would become good and productive Americans. He knew it didn't matter what race or religion they were, or where they came from; he knew America would take them in and make them Americans.

He would have thrown Donald Trump out of a window.

I would love to hear what Regan would think today.

I love immigrants. I am one and come from a family of immigrants. We came legally. Before the flood of illegals.

Are you aware that the law Regan signed legalized those that came before 1984? The bill was signed in 1986. That means that anyone who came after 1984 were still illegal. The law also made it illegal for companies to.knowingly hire illegals.

So while Regan supported immigration, which i do to, he also recognized that illegals took jobs from Americans and that his law was not a grant in perpetuity for no one to be considered an illegal immigrant ever again.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would love to hear what Regan would think today.

As I said, he'd throw Donald Trump out the window. Not merely for his racist bilge, but for his lack of moral fiber.

I love immigrants.

We are, after all, a nation of immigrants. The hatred seen for immigrants is largely by the descendants of immigrants. Ironic, no?

Are you aware that the law Regan signed legalized those that came before 1984?

Yes. He realized that those illegals were doing essential jobs and boosting the economy, and the vast majority of them were behaving themselves honestly and decently. Pretty much like today.

That means that anyone who came after 1984 were still illegal.

It's time to fix the law. Presently, the law is broken, as it was in the 1980s. So we mostly ignore it. If most people supported immigration laws, there would be no jobs for illegal aliens. So we have the worst situation; we need them and their work, but they are endangered by their illegal status, and are vulnerable to exploitation. Not the only drawback, though. Bad laws tend to make people skeptical of law, and that's a bad thing in itself.

We need a Reagan today, not a Trump.

So while Regan supported immigration, which i do to, he also recognized that illegals took jobs from Americans

No, he never said that. It wasn't true then, as it isn't true today...

However, evidence suggests immigrants help the overall economy. And, at a high level, they aren’t taking jobs from or reducing the wages of U.S.-born (or so-called native) workers, according to economists who study the impact of immigration on the labor market.
“Overall, the consensus is very strong that there are not significant costs to U.S.-born workers from immigration, at least the type of immigration we have historically had in the U.S.,” said Alexander Arnon, director of business tax and economic analysis at the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
There are several reasons why immigrants largely benefit the economy and job market, economists said.
For one, the job market isn’t static.

Immigrants take jobs but they also create new ones by spending in local economies and by starting businesses, economists said. One 2020 research paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found immigrants are 80% more likely to become entrepreneurs than native workers.
A recent “surge” of immigrants to the U.S. is expected to add $8.9 trillion (or 3.2%) to the nation’s GDP over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/28/are-immigrants-taking-jobs-from-us-workers-heres-what-economists-say.html

 

[The Barbarian]

Crime rates in this case are deceiving.

When you think data is deceiving, that's a pretty good clue in itself.

And it's maintain that we still have no real idea how many illegals commit crimes.

Texas keeps record of that, and it's very well-documented. No point in denying the truth.

Those Crimes against Americans would not have occurred had rhe illegal not been here.

And of course, if the great majority of law-abiding illegal workers were not here, the crime rate would be much higher. You see, the actual crime rate is crimes per 10,000 residents. This is why, as you learned, that deporting all illegal immigrants would drive up the crime rate. Thats what matters. The number of crimes is less significant than the risk of any individual American being a crime victim.

The actual NUMBER of these crimes would go down.

Barbardos has a lower actual NUMBER of violent crimes than does the United States. You think people in Barbados tend to be more law-abiding than Americans? In fact, the violent crime rate in Barbados is nearly three times that of the United States. Which do you think is safer? Which statistic really matters?

Are you for open borders?

For most of America's history, we had open borders. It worked fine then. We became a major economic and political power during that time. But today,we need to be more careful. This is one of the reasons you should vote for Harris. She supported the bipartisan bill to provide more border patrol, and more courts to more swiftly determine who should not be allowed to remain in the United States. Trump opposed this, and convinced the republicans in the House to go on record against border enforcement.

If you like open borders, Trump is your guy. So are you for open borders?

 

[The Barbarian]

The majority of asylum seekers are here fraudulently. They are lying about thier status just to get in.

The bipartisan border control bill submitted by Biden would have provided more courts to more swiftly distinguish between legitmate refugees and frauds. Trump ordered the republicans in the House to stop it at all costs. And they did.

If this actually matters to you, you should vote for Harris who favored more swiftly removing the frauds, and Trump who favored delaying their removal.

 

[rjs330]

The hatred seen for immigrants is largely by the descendants of immigrants. Ironic, no?

That's a misnomer. There isn't any hatred of immigrants. The desire to keep illegals out, while allowing legals in can in no way be attributed to hatred of immigrants.

As I said, he'd throw Donald Trump out the window. Not merely for his racist bilge, but for his lack of moral fiber.

Another misnomer. Trump.had said and done nothing to show he is racist.

And Regan might be upset over the way Trump behaves. Regan was quite different. His personality was about the opposite of Trump's.

Yes. He realized that those illegals were doing essential jobs and boosting the economy, and the vast majority of them were behaving themselves honestly and decently. Pretty much like today.

He also did it with an understanding that illegal.immigration would be limited and their employment would be too. But that didn't happen.

We no longer live in 1986. At that time there were about 2 million that were legalized.

Now we have estimated at least 11 million today. And more coming all the time.

It's time to fix the law.

On that wr completely agree. How do we fix it is the issue is suspect.

If most people supported immigration laws, there would be no jobs for illegal aliens.

I don't think that's true. Most employers don't know if the person is illegal or not. Thats why we need to fix the laws. You would still have unethical employers who wouldn't follow the laws, but at least they wouldn't have an excuse.

Immigrants take jobs

See i was correct. If it weren't for illegals we could have a much higher employment rate at least for black people. We could have jobs for those who aren't looking and have dropped out of the labor force. We have about 1.5 million un3mployed in the US who.could be employed except illegals have the jobs. We also have millions more who have dropped out of rhe labor force. Most being able bodied.people who could be working.

To claim that NONE of those people would be working anyway and that is has absolutely nothing to do with illegals is nonsensical.

Immigrants take jobs but they also create new ones by spending in local economies and by starting businesses, economists said.

As i said I am absolutely for legal immigration for those reasons. Legal immigration with properly vetted people who want to come here, work and be productive members of our culture are more than welcome.

 

[rjs330]

When you think data is deceiving, that's a pretty good clue in itself.

How it's used is deceiving. And you used it wrongly to counter my point. Thats because you can't actually counter the point that crime numbers would decrease.

Texas keeps record of that, and it's very well-documented. No point in denying the truth.

I've already shown you how those can't be accurate. They are trying.

And of course, if the great majority of law-abiding illegal workers were not here, the crime rate would be much higher.

Again using statistic incorrectly. Because i am not using crime rates but crime numbers. And I don't think i have to explain the difference to you.

She supported the bipartisan bill to provide more border patrol, and more courts to more swiftly determine who should not be allowed to remain in the United States. Trump opposed this, and convinced the republicans in the House to go on record against border enforcement.

Nope, it was a bad bill.that allowed even more illegals in. It was so bad rhat even some democrats wouldn't vote for it. Obviously more people recognized it was a bad bill than recognized it was a good one.

We've already seen what Trump actually accomished and tried to accomplish during his term. And it wasn't open borders.

I am glad you think we need to be more careful. But I wonder why if you think the crime rate is all that matters. Why do we need to be more careful if we just let everyone in who want to come rhe crime rate goes down. You should absolutely be for open borders.

 

[The Barbarian]

How it's used is deceiving. And you used it wrongly to counter my point. Thats because you can't actually counter the point that crime numbers would decrease.

You missed it the first time, so I'll remind you, again...
Barbardos has a lower actual NUMBER of violent crimes than does the United States. You think people in Barbados tend to be more law-abiding than Americans? In fact, the violent crime rate in Barbados is nearly three times that of the United States. Which do you think is safer? Which statistic really matters?

You tried to use data in a misleading way, but it's so easy to debunk that I'm surprised you tried it again.

As you learned, because illegal immigrants tend to be more law-abiding than native-born Americans, deporting all the illegal immigrants would increase crime rates in America.

Texas keeps record of that, and it's very well-documented. No point in denying the truth.

I've already shown you how those can't be accurate.

You've stamped your foot and insisted they are wrong, but you provided no evidence whatever that the State of Texas is lying about it, or that they are incompetent at keeping records. They know what they are doing, and you have nothing but your denial.

Nope, it was a bad bill.that allowed even more illegals in.

Show us how increasing the number of people patrolling the border "allows even more illegals in." Or how more swiftly determining asylum requests would "allow more illegals in." C'mon. You know better.

We've already seen what Trump actually accomished and tried to accomplish during his term.

The useless "wall" he squandered billions on (which has been breached over 3,000 times, according to the Border Patrol) instead of actually doing something to stop people entering? He might have wanted to do something but he could have funded more Border Patrol people, or moved to more quickly deport those here illegally. But he didn't Maybe he just didn't know how. But as you see, he managed to stop America from doing it now. As I said, there's a big disconnect between what Trump says and what he does.

The Border Patrol Union supported more people guarding the border. They once supported Trump. Why did they break with him on this? I know... "THE BORDER PATROL IS LYING TOO!"

But I wonder why if you think the crime rate is all that matters.

As you just learned from the Barbados example, the crime rate (crimes per 10,000 people) is a much better measure of crime than total number of crimes.

If we deported all illegal aliens, the crime rate would rise because then a bigger percentage of residence would be committing crimes. This is why El Paso has one of the lowest crime rates of any metropolitan area in the United States, even as it has the highest percentage of illegal aliens in the area.

 

[BCP1928]

You missed it the first time, so I'll remind you, again...
Barbardos has a lower actual NUMBER of violent crimes than does the United States. You think people in Barbados tend to be more law-abiding than Americans? In fact, the violent crime rate in Barbados is nearly three times that of the United States. Which do you think is safer? Which statistic really matters?

You tried to use data in a misleading way, but it's so easy to debunk that I'm surprised you tried it again.

As you learned, because illegal immigrants tend to be more law-abiding than native-born Americans, deporting all the illegal immigrants would increase crime rates in America.

Texas keeps record of that, and it's very well-documented. No point in denying the truth.


You've stamped your foot and insisted they are wrong, but you provided no evidence whatever that the State of Texas is lying about it, or that they are incompetent at keeping records. They know what they are doing, and you have nothing but your denial.


Show us how increasing the number of people patrolling the border "allows even more illegals in." Or how more swiftly determining asylum requests would "allow more illegals in." C'mon. You know better.


The useless "wall" he squandered billions on (which has been breached over 3,000 times, according to the Border Patrol) instead of actually doing something to stop people entering? He might have wanted to do something but he could have funded more Border Patrol people, or moved to more quickly deport those here illegally. But he didn't Maybe he just didn't know how. But as you see, he managed to stop America from doing it now. As I said, there's a big disconnect between what Trump says and what he does.

The Border Patrol Union supported more people guarding the border. They once supported Trump. Why did they break with him on this? I know... "THE BORDER PATROL IS LYING TOO!"

The disconnect here is the definition of "illegals." Trump wants to summarily deport Haitian refugees who are regarded by his supporters as "illegals" even though they are here legally. He also wants to deport asylum seekers who we let in so they could make their asylum claims. Did we let in too many? Probably, but they are not here illegally, either.

 

[The Barbarian]

The disconnect here is the definition of "illegals." Trump wants to summarily deport Haitian refugees who are regarded by his supporters as "illegals" even though they are here legally.

That's another issue, of course. But the fact is, legal immigrants are also more law-abiding than native-born Americans. I suppose that's why he and whatsisname (the weird guy) are peddling the "immigrants are eating your pets!" story.

He also wants to deport asylum seekers who we let in so they could make their asylum claims. Did we let in too many? Probably, but they are not here illegally, either.

I notice he used his influence with the republicans in Congress to kill a bill that would have more quickly deported asylum seekers who didn't qualify. So I'm skeptical of that, too.

 

[rjs330]

You've stamped your foot and insisted they are wrong, but you provided no evidence whatever that the State of Texas is lying about it, or that they are incompetent at keeping records. They know what they are doing, and you have nothing but your denial.

Yes i did in the other thread. Maybe you ignored it.

Barbardos has a lower actual NUMBER of violent crimes than does the United States. You think people in Barbados tend to be more law-abiding than Americans? In fact, the violent crime rate in Barbados is nearly three times that of the United States. Which do you think is safer? Which statistic really matters?

Apples to oranges. I guess I will have to explain.

You have two countries.

One with 10 people. One with 100.

In country 1 you have 2 murders. Thats a 20%

Country 2 you have 10 murders. Thats a lot more murders, but it's only 10%.

That sounds great. Country 2 is safer than Country 1 right?

Well now let's say Country 2 had 3 of those murders conducted by people who shouldn't have been there. So had border been enforced it would have caused the number to go down. Even further. It would have been even safer for the citizens.

I guess your claim seems to be we should let in at least 10 million people I to the cou try illegally. It would be great for the crime rate. In the next 10 years our crime rate would be really really low. Sounds like a great plan. It's do it. Why on earth would've Harris Biden plan been good. We actually should.rwmove all border agents instead of having more. This would be a much safer Country if we just had open borders.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbardos has a lower actual NUMBER of violent crimes than does the United States. You think people in Barbados tend to be more law-abiding than Americans? In fact, the violent crime rate in Barbados is nearly three times that of the United States. Which do you think is safer? Which statistic really matters?

You have two countries.
One with 10 people. One with 100.
In country 1 you have 2 murders. Thats a 20%
Country 2 you have 10 murders. Thats a lot more murders, but it's only 10%.
That sounds great. Country 2 is safer than Country 1 right?

Yes. Your chance of being murdered in country 2 is one-half that of being murdered in country 1.

Well now let's say Country 2 had 3 of those murders conducted by people who shouldn't have been there.

Which, if you do apples to apples, would be a group much less likely to commit a murder. Let's say 40% shouldn't be there. (that level would roughly match the Texas data for likelihood of illegal aliens committing crimes; I can look up the specific number if you like)

So had border been enforced it would have caused the number to go down.

There would then be 60 people, and 7 murders. Which would give us a murder rate of about 12%. The murder rate would have been higher, i.e. a person living there would have a higher danger of being murdered than it the illegal aliens were there.

Understand, now?

 

[The Barbarian]

You've stamped your foot and insisted they are wrong, but you provided no evidence whatever that the State of Texas is lying about it, or that they are incompetent at keeping records. They know what they are doing, and you have nothing but your denial.

Yes i did in the other thread. Maybe you ignored it.

And again, all we get is denial. Why not show us a checkable source for that data showing that the State of Texas is lying or incompetent at gathering arrest statistics?

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

The Trump Organization was not using E-Verify at that time.

The Trump's discover E-Verify:

President Trump’s company plans to institute E-Verify, a federal program that allows employers to check whether new hires are legally eligible to work in the United States, in every one of its golf clubs, hotels and resorts, following a Washington Post report that its club in Westchester County, N.Y., employed undocumented immigrants for years.

see also:

Why so few employers are using a U.S. program to screen out undocumented workers​

The program, known as E-Verify, is highly reliable and involves relatively little red tape. If fully utilized, many experts say, it could significantly curb the flow of undocumented immigrants by effectively removing one of the biggest reasons so many come to the United States illegally to begin with — getting a job.

Yet even though E-Verify is free for employers, with more than 98% of those checked being confirmed as work-authorized instantly or within 24 hours, the program is significantly underused.

Nationally the program is voluntary, except for certain businesses such as federal contractors. Most states don’t require employers to use it.

[Efforts to make it mandatory nationwide have failed to gain lawmaker support. A bill introduced by Senator Romney in June sits in committee.]

And one key reason: There are simply not enough “legal” workers to fill all the jobs a healthy, growing U.S. economy generates. And that’s especially so in low-wage industries.

Employers say that requiring E-Verify — without other overhauls to the immigration system, including easier ways to bring in workers — would be devastating.

Even in red states, which are more prone to require and use the program, E-Verify isn’t exactly widely popular in immigrant-heavy states. While Georgia’s participation rate is among the highest, at about 85%, only about 30% of employer establishments in Texas had signed up for it as of last year.

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON
This thread has been moved to a more appropriate forum, the American Politics forum.
ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[rjs330]

Barbardos has a lower actual NUMBER of violent crimes than does the United States. You think people in Barbados tend to be more law-abiding than Americans? In fact, the violent crime rate in Barbados is nearly three times that of the United States. Which do you think is safer? Which statistic really matters?

Then we should ship all the illegal aliens to Barbados and then they'd have a lower crime rate. Thats would be good right?

Understand, now?

Yes i do I've always seen it. Having fewer victims is better. Having fewer crimes is better. Even if you have fewer people.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then we should ship all the illegal aliens to Barbados and then they'd have a lower crime rate. Thats would be good right?

It would lower the violent crime rate, yes. But then it would raise the violent crime rate in the United States. Why would you want that?

Yes i do I've always seen it. Having fewer victims is better. Having fewer crimes is better. Even if you have fewer people.

Actually, having a lower crime rate is better, because you are safer with a lower crime rate. You favor a higher crime rate, which makes no sense. You're still stuck with the idea that one is safer in Barbados, because they have fewer victims than the United States. But they have a much higher crime rate than the United States.

There's help for this condition....

 

[rjs330]

It would lower the violent crime rate, yes. But then it would raise the violent crime rate in the United States. Why would you want that?


Actually, having a lower crime rate is better, because you are safer with a lower crime rate. You favor a higher crime rate, which makes no sense. You're still stuck with the idea that one is safer in Barbados, because they have fewer victims than the United States. But they have a much higher crime rate than the United States.

There's help for this condition....

View attachment 356318

I don't think so. Having fewer deaths a rapes is better than having more people just to make it look like you are having fewer deaths and rapes.

Do you think Barbados would rather have fewer murders ir more people come in just so they can say it looks like they are having fewer murders?

I bet if you asked Sally if she would rather have her rapist not even be here to rape her or have more people here and her odds of being raped in the future would go down, cause there are more people she would pick not being raped.

 

[RDKirk]

Harris is justified in raising these questions.
Trump has yet to address how he would do it nor the implications.

“They have pledged to carry out the largest deportation — a mass deportation — in American history. Imagine what that would look like and what that would be,” the Democratic nominee told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“How’s that going to happen? Massive raids, massive detention camps?” Harris asked in an incredulous tone. “What are they talking about?”

Kamala Harris mocks Trump call for mass deportation of illegal immigrants

Honestly, at this point I would not expect Trump or any president-elect to know exactly how any campaign promise will be carried out. The president-elect can't really know that until in office with full means to research its feasibility. And Harris doesn't fully know either, if the Biden administration hasn't had that particular study done.

 

[RDKirk]

Goods made in countries that are poorer is not the same as having a slave class of workers.

That is true. When I was on active duty and stationed in third world countries, there were always local citizens working on the base, either directly for the US government or for us individual military members. It was written into the Status of Forces Agreements between the US and the host countries that the US government and US military members would not pay those people wages significantly above local wages. No host country wanted that inflation of their wage levels.

 

[expos4ever]

Barbardos has a lower actual NUMBER of violent crimes than does the United States. You think people in Barbados tend to be more law-abiding than Americans? In fact, the violent crime rate in Barbados is nearly three times that of the United States. Which do you think is safer? Which statistic really matters?

You are obviously correct - it is simply absurd to point to the absolute number of crimes. What matters is the rate. This is, frankly, obvious.