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?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

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?

See above my 2 section reply to Lathum. Let me know what you don't like about my proposed plan?

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.

See above my 2 section reply to Lathum.

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?

Huh? My example was a traffic stop. If a white guy does not have a drivers license or unwilling to present one, that person will be detained until the cop figures out who that person is. What is unreasonable about that?

re: violation of immigration laws is not a crime? Sound like you are only 45% right, see below.

Is the fact of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws a
crime?

No. The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not,
standing alone, a crime. While federal immigration law does criminalize some actions that
may be related to undocumented presence in the United States, undocumented presence
alone is not a violation of federal criminal law. Thus, many believe that the term “illegal
alien,” which may suggest a criminal violation, is inaccurate or misleading.

Entering the United States without being inspected and admitted, i.e., illegal entry, is a
misdemeanor or can be a felony, depending on the circumstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1325.

But many undocumented immigrants do not enter the United States illegally. They enter legally but
overstay, work without authorization, drop out of school or violate the conditions of their visas
in some other way. Current estimates are that approximately 45% of undocumented
immigrants did not enter illegally. See Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entry for the
Unauthorized Migrant Population [May 22, 2006]

I'll re-ask my 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?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by 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?

It's pretty obvious you didn't read my reply to Lathum.

For your first question re: driver's license, start with #7 and #8

I'll ask you same question 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?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

Before any of this stuff, he had posted straight-up Holocaust denial nonsense, said the civil rights moment was “crap,” said that he wished we could go back to when women couldn’t vote, declared that the movie Black Panther was created by the Jews to extract every last shekel from your pockets, had admitted to paying for an abortion, has a porn store worker here in Greensboro claiming that Robinson owes him money for the tab he ran up there, has had serious financial mismanagement revealed (don’t recall all the details…maybe a bankruptcy or two,) and I’m sure I’m leaving out at least one or two other things.

Bottom Line: there’s absolutely nothing revealed today that’s remotely surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to this race and isn’t a hopeless partisan. All of this is consistent with his previously-known words and deeds.

[JPhillips]

We've been trying to implement Real ID that could also serve as proof of citizenship, but we haven't gotten it done for years. In part that's because conservatives won't agree to a national ID. How do you overcome that?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

See above my 2 section reply to Lathum. Let me know what you don't like about my proposed plan?

Number is 6 would never happen. We can't get REAL ID off the ground because you're talking about getting 50 states and multiple agencies on the same page, it would take many many years, drain money, and administrations get tired of the money sink and eventually pull funding. Don't believe it? That's exactly what's been going on with REAL ID. Then you add in the GOP seeing this as government tracking akin to vaccine chips from Bill Gates and good luck.

We're 20 years into REAL ID and you effectively want to start that process all over again with even more challenges. If something ever had a less than zero percent chance of happening, this would be it.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Huh? My example was a traffic stop. If a white guy does not have a drivers license or unwilling to present one, that person will be detained until the cop figures out who that person is. What is unreasonable about that?

You don't think that driving while not being white wouldn't become a crime in significant portions of the country under something like this?

Originally Posted by Edward64

re: violation of immigration laws is not a crime? Sound like you are only 45% right, see below.

I'm not 45% right. In your scenario, if I didn't produce my proof of citizenship I'd be in violation of immigration laws. That's not a crime.

Originally Posted by Edward64

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?

People that are already here? A one, if that. They commit crimes at significantly lower rate than the general population, pay into social security and our tax systems, with either nothing or relatively little in return, and boost production.

People currently entering? Maybe a 5. We should do something, but spending trillions to remove people already here is about dumbest use of money I can think of. Beefing up border security using technology, increasing the number of judges on the border to clear the 3 million backlog there, cleaning up the terrorist watch list, and then increasing legal immigration and create better paths to citizenship would incentivize coming in the right way and be a much better and more effective use of funds.

[bronconick]

Surprised Trump didn't just abuse the 100 mile border enforcement zone for warrantless searches. Probably not enough money.

[cartman]

today's Morning Consult poll has Allred ahead of Cruz in the Texas Senate race

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Atocep

People that are already here? A one, if that. They commit crimes at significantly lower rate than the general population, pay into social security and our tax systems, with either nothing or relatively little in return, and boost production.

People currently entering? Maybe a 5. We should do something, but spending trillions to remove people already here is about dumbest use of money I can think of. Beefing up border security using technology, increasing the number of judges on the border to clear the 3 million backlog there, cleaning up the terrorist watch list, and then increasing legal immigration and create better paths to citizenship would incentivize coming in the right way and be a much better and more effective use of funds.

All of this.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by 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.

So, he's 56, which is contemporary for a lot of us. I theorize that there's an age band of people, which would include most of us, who known enough about anonymity online that we wouldn't have made these kind of mistakes (if we were so inclined to indulge in these activities). I mean, we've had (in the distant past) some doxxing issues on this board.

Clearly Boomers are generally fucked when it comes to this stuff, but I also think a lot of "digital natives" (maybe the generations after millennials) are too naive about online anonymity.

Which, besides the general philosophising I've just indulged in, makes the whole thing extra funny because he really should have known better. Is he just arrogant? Stupid? Both?

[JPhillips]

The NCGOP has gone all in defending Robinson. He's not going anywhere.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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?

Thanks for your detailed response.

You still don't really address how to avoid getting actual citizens caught up in this.

I question the 80-20, I think it is more like 98-2, but regardless what makes you think the 80% trusts our government that they would step up and join the program? Lets say they do and you have to track down the rest. What does that look like? These people are undocumented so it isn't like you can easily find them. It would 100% turn into gestapo like BS where every brown person is harassed by not only law enforcement, but everyday "patriots" who feel it is their duty to defend 'murica.

By all accounts migrants commit crimes at far less than Americans, so I don't think the ones here are an issue. Most of them are doing work Americans will not do for wages Americans will not work for. Can you say it is immoral for the economy to be propped up by cheap migrant labor, perhaps, but it has always been that way, which is why it won't change. You REALLY want to go after illegals, go after the people employing them, which won't happen because those people have the politicians in their pockets. Not to mention these migrants pay into a system they will never benefit from.

As for current crossings use tech, drones, cameras, inferred, etc....hire more agents, and set up a long term plan to help stabilize the nations these people are coming from. That money would be far better spent than rounding up the ones here who will just come back.

And back to my biggest point. It would literally be impossible to do this without violating a significant number of Americans civil liberties. You call it an "inconvenience" but for the people illegally detained and possible deported itis far more than that.

Sorry if that is a bit stream of concious, been a long day.

[GrantDawg]

Oprah looks pretty amazing for her age. She looks just like she did when she was on tv every day.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The NCGOP has gone all in defending Robinson. He's not going anywhere.

Party of family values!!

I am really hoping he drags the ticket down enough Harris has a shot.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I question the 80-20, I think it is more like 98-2,

I'm fine with this. I've used 80-20 as a general rule of thumb in many different discussions, if we want to assume 98-2 (approx 220k baddies), I'm good with that.

but regardless what makes you think the 80% trusts our government that they would step up and join the program?

It'll be up to my team working with the organizations/agencies/advocates for illegals to convince the 98% to join up. Ala Ben Franklin's change management/communication programs.

I'm sure there'll be many who will wait till the tail end of the "signup" period to make sure things are legit. I'd also think bipartisan Congress agreeing on my bill and the stipulation this is the very last time/chance would encourage vast majority of the 98% to buy in.

You still don't really address how to avoid getting actual citizens caught up in this.

Lets say they do and you have to track down the rest. What does that look like? These people are undocumented so it isn't like you can easily find them. It would 100% turn into gestapo like BS where every brown person is harassed by not only law enforcement, but everyday "patriots" who feel it is their duty to defend 'murica.

The rest in this case is the 2% of baddies or 220k. You (and others) are thinking I'm proposing a mass canvassing of all minorities, detain them, and check their background. I'm not.

98% are taken care of. There is a certain % of the 2% already in jail, many of the 220k baddies will have a record. Why can't we send LEOs to track them down? They won't be able to easily buy cars, rent apartments, cash checks, get credit cards etc. They'll get arrested if they commit a traffic violation, shoplift, bar fight (e.g. all the police YT videos) or worse (e.g. shooting, drugs). When we catch them, ship them off.

Over time, the 2% will get less and less. And because we are not allowing any other illegals in after X date, their percent will get smaller and smaller.

By all accounts migrants commit crimes at far less than Americans, so I don't think the ones here are an issue. Most of them are doing work Americans will not do for wages Americans will not work for. Can you say it is immoral for the economy to be propped up by cheap migrant labor, perhaps, but it has always been that way, which is why it won't change.

I agree illegals commit less crimes than Americans (other than entering the country illegally). Keep in mind I'm saying swap the 98% illegals (who are law abiding) into guest workers. They will continue to do what they do. With an increase in guest worker quotas, more will come.

If your point is that when we legalize the 98% into guest workers, they will need to be paid more and therefore costs of fruits, vegetables, chicken etc. will go up? Sure. Heck, Chinese restaurant entrees used to be $12-$14 and now $18-$22. I'm okay with that assuming the illegal immigration problem is fixed and border secured once and for all.

You REALLY want to go after illegals, go after the people employing them, which won't happen because those people have the politicians in their pockets. Not to mention these migrants pay into a system they will never benefit from.

I agree with this. I mentioned in my response to you there needs to be holistic immigration reform also. You'll see I mentioned this here Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Biden's Immigration Reform

As for current crossings use tech, drones, cameras, inferred, etc....hire more agents, and set up a long term plan to help stabilize the nations these people are coming from. That money would be far better spent than rounding up the ones here who will just come back.

I agree on first sentence. The ones that come back is because we have a lousy enforcement.

And back to my biggest point. It would literally be impossible to do this without violating a significant number of Americans civil liberties. You call it an "inconvenience" but for the people illegally detained and possible deported itis far more than that.

I'll refer you to above 3rd paragraph, see start of "The rest in this case is the 2% of baddies or 220k. You (and others) are thinking I'm proposing a mass canvassing of all minorities, detain them, and check their background. I'm not."

I don't see how my plan is violating a significant number of American civil liberties.

For the 98%, if I have a traffic stop or cash a check or vote or buy a car or countless other stuff, I have to show an ID. My proposal is to create a check box on the ID that okays you. Yes, there will be bugs, wrong info etc. but it'll work itself out after several years and data cleanup

For the 2% baddies, have law enforcement focus on them, track them down with our new consolidated database of info and newly funded agency.


Question to you:

Are you okay with legalizing the 98% law abiding illegals with a renewable guest worker visa. Essentially, legal status but no pathway to citizenship or voting in elections?

[Lathum]

Your plan completely falls apart because the GOP doesn't want the 98% to gain any sort of status. It is pie in the sky. The GOP is fueled by hatred of anyone non white so anything that gives them a moniker of rights to be here is a non starter.

[Lathum]

dola- and while I appreciate you outlining what you would do, you aren't candidate for president. Trump is and he is trying to sell a bill of goods that he has zero chance to deliver. It should bother anyone with a brain that a large portion of Americans support this and think it is feasible.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Number is 6 would never happen. We can't get REAL ID off the ground because you're talking about getting 50 states and multiple agencies on the same page, it would take many many years, drain money, and administrations get tired of the money sink and eventually pull funding. Don't believe it? That's exactly what's been going on with REAL ID. Then you add in the GOP seeing this as government tracking akin to vaccine chips from Bill Gates and good luck.

We're 20 years into REAL ID and you effectively want to start that process all over again with even more challenges. If something ever had a less than zero percent chance of happening, this would be it.

#6 is holistic immigration reform. It can happen if there is political will and compromise.

If you are referring to #7 and my proposed super-duper consolidated database, all it takes is political will, funding and the right consulting companies. I'm pretty sure my former company Accenture can implement this if there is political will and funding ... its not a technology problem.

You don't think that driving while not being white wouldn't become a crime in significant portions of the country under something like this?

Nope.

Specifically to driving, no reason for cop to stop you unless you had a traffic violation. In that situation, you are legally obliged to provide driver's license (aka the checkbox), registration, insurance. If you can't, you will be detained until the LEO figures out who you are. If the cop stops you for no good reason, or doesn't follow the law, then get Morgan & Morgan, get the body cam video that every cop has, and sue.

I'm not 45% right. In your scenario, if I didn't produce my proof of citizenship I'd be in violation of immigration laws. That's not a crime.

I did not say that. I said if a cop stopped you and you did not produce a driver's license (aka with the checkbox), then the cop can detain you to figure who you are. Detaining people without a driver's license happens now to anyone.

My quote was me responding to what you said

Being in the US in violation of immigration laws is not a crime.

My quote says below. Since 45% did not enter illegally, this means 55% of illegal immigrants did enter illegally and is a crime.

Entering the United States without being inspected and admitted, i.e., illegal entry, is a misdemeanor or can be a felony, depending on the circumstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1325.

Current estimates are that approximately 45% of undocumented immigrants did not enter illegal

People that are already here? A one, if that. They commit crimes at significantly lower rate than the general population, pay into social security and our tax systems, with either nothing or relatively little in return, and boost production.

People currently entering? Maybe a 5. We should do something, but spending trillions to remove people already here is about dumbest use of money I can think of. Beefing up border security using technology, increasing the number of judges on the border to clear the 3 million backlog there, cleaning up the terrorist watch list, and then increasing legal immigration and create better paths to citizenship would incentivize coming in the right way and be a much better and more effective use of funds.

Okay, good context for where you are coming from.

Question to you:

Are you okay with legalizing the 98% law abiding illegals with a renewable guest worker visa. Essentially, legal status but no pathway to citizenship or voting in elections?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Your plan completely falls apart because the GOP doesn't want the 98% to gain any sort of status. It is pie in the sky. The GOP is fueled by hatred of anyone non white so anything that gives them a moniker of rights to be here is a non starter.

Yes, I know you and others here have made that same argument. I'll just quote myself from back then

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post

It is absolutely fair to say the right wing extremists wanted nothing to do with giving legal status or citizenship to illegals. It is also fair to say the far left wanted nothing to do with a bill that did not legalize the illegals. These are 2 line-in-the-sand stances for the Dem/GOP House.

Or let's put it in another way. If the Dems said let's strip out the legalization of illegals from the Dignity Act, and we'll vote on it in a different bill. I'd predict the Dignity Act will pass quickly.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- and while I appreciate you outlining what you would do, you aren't candidate for president. Trump is and he is trying to sell a bill of goods that he has zero chance to deliver. It should bother anyone with a brain that a large portion of Americans support this and think it is feasible.

I know you know this already but for the benefit of others, my response to Lathum was based on the below caveat

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".

[JPhillips]

Yes, if Dems decided to vote for deportations then they would pass. The problem is that won't happen and the GOP is against most of what you propose, work permits, legalizing anyone, increased legal immigration, etc.

[JPhillips]

RFK Jr. really fits well with Trump.

New York magazine on Thursday said its Washington correspondent, Olivia Nuzzi, is on leave after learning the star journalist had allegedly engaged in a romantic relationship with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The problem for the magazine is that Nuzzi was covering RFK Jr.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Ironically, I am a big fan of the USA’s #1 rank on legal immigration (with our 1,000,000 quota per year being nearly twice that of Germany, the second most generous nation on earth). The majority of legal immigrants are Catholics coming from Mexico, Central & South America and most of the rest are eastern Asia.

As a naturalized citizen who has travelled extensively and lived & visited in many countries, my personal opinion is many Americans do not understand how very fortunate they are.

America is truly the land of opportunity, warts and all.

For anybody to be against securing the border

Seems so common sense to me.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes, if Dems decided to vote for deportations then they would pass. The problem is that won't happen and the GOP is against most of what you propose, work permits, legalizing anyone, increased legal immigration, etc.

Dems don't need to vote for deportation. They just need to say no to pathway to citizenship