POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'll be glad to answer this question on how I would do it if I was President and will do so later today (have an errand to run). Note that I'll not be answering as Trump. I'll reframe the question as "how would President Edward deal with illegal immigration".

Assumptions

1) Using the 80-20 rule, I assume 80% are law abiding and 20% have some sort of ding against them (e.g. felonies, known cartel associate etc.). Using 11M illegals as baseline, that means 8.8M vs 2.2M.
2) We do not need to give path to citizenship for illegals. We only need to give legal status such as renewable guest worker status (e.g. no voting rights). The only exception I can think of is DACA, give them citizenship
3) This is one time program only. Won't ever happen again. Any illegals after X date will be kicked out
4) Members have pointed out question of constitutionality or legal standing of X, Y, Z. Sure, any of these actions will be challenged in courts and SCOTUS will make the final ruling. Shouldn't stop us from trying to get a solution
5) There's always going to be some exception to the rule e.g. I'd probably give DACA citizenship ... even if they've committed felonies. Maybe some extreme hardship cases


As President Edward

6) Implement a holistic immigration reform program (see the Immigration thread for my ideas). This goes hand in hand with the below steps to get rid of illegals.
7) One key reform from #6 is to create/consolidate key pieces of info from all system/databases (social security, visa, immigration, Border Patrol, Homeland security, Prison etc.). I can pick a gun, get a background check done, and out the store in 20 min. If we can do that, we can certainly consolidate all the info to check legal status assuming there is funding and political will. Won't be perfect, but certainly better than what we have now
8) All US citizens/PR get a nice check box on their driver's license or some other card or digital method

9) Ask the 80% to step forward, process them from illegal to guest worker assuming they pass and eligible, see #1. They get ID cards they need to carry around everywhere
10) For the 20% baddies, focus law enforcement on capturing them and tossing them out. Their native country don't want them? I like the idea of paying their one-way ticket to Rwanda (aka the failed UK solution) or giving them an option to join the French/Ukraine Foreign Legion or ask the Vatican to take some since Pope Francis talks a good game. Whatever, given enough time and money, we can probably repatriate vast majority

[Ksyrup]

Why is all this Robinson stuff such a surprise? It's been out there for awhile. I do find it funny that the Ashley Madison stuff is an issue in the age of Trump. Why is this an issue for everybody but Trump? I don't get it. Even my Trumpy SIL wasn't going to vote for Robinson (i assume she was going to leave it blank).

[Edward64]

I've collected your questions and have answered them individually ...

So what you’re saying is you are totally ok with people unconstitutionally being asked for papers, illegally detained, then possibly being deported to a country they are not from who’s job it will then be to figure it out?

Per #1, 80% will be invited to apply for guest worker status. For the remaining 20%, track them down. Expand whatever agency, give them the funds, and tell them to get it done. So no, not stopping people for no reason to ask for papers. But yeah, if you or me or some Latino are stopped for speeding, want to vote, buy a car, open a bank account etc. checking legal status will be part of the process.

A wall wouldn't solve anything and mass deportations on the scale Trump is proposing just isn't feasible without massive costs and violating the rights of Americans. Unless you are in the "have to break a few eggs to make an omelet camp" when it comes to other peoples liberties you can't see this as a realistic solution.

I disagree with you on the Wall. I agree with you on Trump's solution ... we know he's a BS'er.

I don't see how my above solution will be violating the rights of Americans. Sure, there'll be some exceptions but for the most part, most American's will be okay albeit slight inconvenience at times.

But yes, I do believe you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. The initial Obamacare that passed broke alot of eggs to make the omelet. GOP challenged and eventually the individual mandate was found to be unconstitutional. If I propose a program, get it passed by Congress (somehow), I'll let the final constitutionality be determined by SCOTUS.

Same with Joe's student debt forgiveness. He proposed it, got shot down. He went around it, got $100B - $150B forgiven (?) and was recently forced to stop again. Another example of how Presidents break eggs to try get the omelet done.

Logistically what does Trumps proposed mass deportations look like?

I do not speak for Trump. My plan is focused on the 20% or 2.2M. Create or fund an agency to track them down, kick them out. We can spend $100B to $150B on student debt forgiveness, we can spend that money on this specific law enforcement.

Low hanging fruit are the illegals in jail. Should be easy enough to monitor and then eventually toss out.

Their home country don't want them back? The UK plan to send unwanted to Rwanda is a creative option, only stopped by a new political party that came into power. If there is a political will and money, I'm sure we can find some country to take them.

On 15 November 2023, the UK’s Supreme Court declared the policy unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe country to which asylum seekers could be removed. In response to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the government published a new treaty with Rwanda, which provides for additional safeguards, and introduced new legislation, which declares that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers. On 25 April 2024, the UK’s treaty with Rwanda was ratified, and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 became law and is now in force.

Since winning the 2024 general election and forming the new government, the Labour Party has cancelled the Rwanda scheme. It has announced that it will redirect money intended for the scheme to fund a new border agency.

So my question to you is:

You've acknowledged there is an illegal immigration problem. Does it rise to the level where you believe something needs to be done? And if so, what is your proposed solution?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

So being able to deport millions from our country is a sign of American greatness on par with the moon landing?

I honestly don't even understand the point being made there.

You may not understand the point because this is a conversation from the Immigration thread. Some here say it cannot be done because of how many illegals there are in the country.

That may be true, but there are always creative solutions. It may not get 100% but if it gets us 80% there, that's pretty good.

Hence, you cannot start with a vision/objective and say "can't be done, it's impossible" and not even try. You start with the vision/objective and then brainstorm on what the options are, come up with some assumptions, budget, risks etc. then go talk to your boss.

Are you OK with US citizens being detained because they don't have their citizenship papers on them?

So, assuming everyone has a check box on their drivers license (or some other card), and they are asked for it when you and I are normally asked for it (traffic stop, bank transaction, TSA etc.), what is the problem?

I certainly do not expect the bank teller to jump over the counter and perform a citizen's arrest. But yeah, illegal on a traffic stop that don't have a drivers license (or unwilling to present it), sure detain him ... that's what happens to US citizens already (I watch a lot of police YT videos).


Question to you, same one I asked Lathum

On a scale of 1-10 where Dutch and I are probably 8-10, and 0-2 is not a big problem, where you are on illegal immigration?

[GrantDawg]

Erik Erickson says these stories were known by the Republicans in the primary race, but they did not use them. He says they knew that Trump would endorse him, and these stories would not have stopped the endorsement. He also said this is just the beginning. The next group of revelations are financial improprieties.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

The specifics may or may not have been known or public, but the underlying substance has been out there for months - mostly straight from this POS's own mouth.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Erik Erickson says these stories were known by the Republicans in the primary race, but they did not use them. He says they knew that Trump would endorse him, and these stories would not have stopped the endorsement. He also said this is just the beginning. The next group of revelations are financial improprieties.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Eh, Diddy is more compelling. Think of all the important people he's got on tape!

[JPhillips]

The guy is the Lt Gov. He didn't crawl out of the forest.

[Atocep]

This wasn't particularly difficult to find. He used same screen name on this message board that he uses for Youtube and other accounts. It was also tied to an email address that the campaign confirmed is one he uses.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Assumptions

1) Using the 80-20 rule, I assume 80% are law abiding and 20% have some sort of ding against them (e.g. felonies, known cartel associate etc.). Using 11M illegals as baseline, that means 8.8M vs 2.2M.

Is there any data to support the 80-20 rule? I’ve honestly never heard of that in regard to immigration and crime.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Is there any data to support the 80-20 rule? I’ve honestly never heard of that in regard to immigration and crime.

Not that I know of. I often use 80-20 as a generalization.

Do you have an opinion on what the ratio is?

[GrantDawg]

95-5? Maybe 99-1? Considering every study I have seen, says undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rate than citizens, i would think it is pretty low.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

95-5? Maybe 99-1? Considering every study I have seen, says undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rate than citizens, i would think it is pretty low.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Fine, that works great for me. Actually makes the logistics for my plan even easier.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You may not understand the point because this is a conversation from the Immigration thread. Some here say it cannot be done because of how many illegals there are in the country.

That may be true, but there are always creative solutions. It may not get 100% but if it gets us 80% there, that's pretty good.

Hence, you cannot start with a vision/objective and say "can't be done, it's impossible" and not even try. You start with the vision/objective and then brainstorm on what the options are, come up with some assumptions, budget, risks etc. then go talk to your boss.

If you took a plan to your boss that would cost 25-50% of your total annual budget, drop your revenue, and have no viable path to getting it done, you'd be fired and laughed out of the building.

You want to do something extraordinary, it's on you to present how this is somehow doable. Not just say "good ol' American ingenuity will get us through it".

Not a single person, not here, not in the Trump administration, not in Congress, or anywhere else has been able to present a plan on what it would look like. Why do you think that is?

Originally Posted by Edward64

So, assuming everyone has a check box on their drivers license (or some other card), and they are asked for it when you and I are normally asked for it (traffic stop, bank transaction, TSA etc.), what is the problem?

What checkbox? It doesn't currently exist. If you want to create that on an existing form of ID then I suggest you look into the rollout of REAL ID and how that's gone.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I certainly do not expect the bank teller to jump over the counter and perform a citizen's arrest. But yeah, illegal on a traffic stop that don't have a drivers license (or unwilling to present it), sure detain him ... that's what happens to US citizens already (I watch a lot of police YT videos).

You can be detained on reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. Being in the US in violation of immigration laws is not a crime. If you want to move forward on making that a federal crime, what would you consider reasonable suspicion to be that doesn't involve not being white?

[JPhillips]

Driver's license for most doesn't prove citizenship. Are you willing to detain everyone who can't prove citizenship when stopped? What's the process to allow them to get/show citizenship?