3 ms·

Isn't straw man. Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders, same with Julian Castro. She literally said during the debate no one gets deported, and cr

by bruceb 7y ago

Isn't straw man. Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders, same with Julian Castro. She literally said during the debate no one gets deported, and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket. You can argue the pros and cons, but clearly she and some of the other candidates are calling for de facto open borders.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Isn't straw man. Yes, it is. Specifically, it's most commonly a strawman applied to people who disagree with the speakers’ preferred methods of enforcing immigration law while still supporting the principle of limited legal immigration. As you demonstrate. > Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders No, she hasn't. She's called for decriminalizing crossing outside of designated border crossings (not “crossing illegally”, as there are other illegal crossings—such as crossing at a designated border crossing with false documentation—which is also criminal and she has not called for decriminalizing), but also for continuing to enforce immigration law with civil rather than criminal process (which includes continued use of deportation, which is itself a civil rather than criminal sanction.) This is not open borders, de facto or otherwise. > same with Julian Castro. Well, it's the same in that the claim is also not true of Castro, who explicitly called for monitoring and retaining civil penalties for illegal entry and presence including the selective use of deportation, alongside supporting decriminalization of crossing outside designated crossings and assuring that asylum seekers get the hearings they are entitled to under the law. > She literally said during the debate no one gets deported No, she literally did not. > and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket. Civil process includes sanctions much more severe than jay walking tickets, including deportation.
- bruceb 7y ago
  You can have your own opinion but doesn't make it a fact. What is a fact is what she said on national TV less than two months ago: "Harris said people should not be deported if their only offense is living in the United States without documents." https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/democratic-debate-results-1386169 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/democratic-debate-... Coming across would not be a crime. So as long as a person did not commit a crime, they get to stay. that is defacto open borders. It can't get much more clear than that. you can argue if that is a good or bad thing, but that is what she is for, she said it very clearly.

by bruceb 7y ago

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Isn't straw man. Yes, it is. Specifically, it's most commonly a strawman applied to people who disagree with the speakers’ preferred methods of enforcing immigration law while still supporting the principle of limited legal immigration. As you demonstrate. > Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders No, she hasn't. She's called for decriminalizing crossing outside of designated border crossings (not “crossing illegally”, as there are other illegal crossings—such as crossing at a designated border crossing with false documentation—which is also criminal and she has not called for decriminalizing), but also for continuing to enforce immigration law with civil rather than criminal process (which includes continued use of deportation, which is itself a civil rather than criminal sanction.) This is not open borders, de facto or otherwise. > same with Julian Castro. Well, it's the same in that the claim is also not true of Castro, who explicitly called for monitoring and retaining civil penalties for illegal entry and presence including the selective use of deportation, alongside supporting decriminalization of crossing outside designated crossings and assuring that asylum seekers get the hearings they are entitled to under the law. > She literally said during the debate no one gets deported No, she literally did not. > and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket. Civil process includes sanctions much more severe than jay walking tickets, including deportation.

bruceb 7y ago
You can have your own opinion but doesn't make it a fact. What is a fact is what she said on national TV less than two months ago: "Harris said people should not be deported if their only offense is living in the United States without documents." https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/democratic-debate-results-1386169 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/28/democratic-debate-... Coming across would not be a crime. So as long as a person did not commit a crime, they get to stay. that is defacto open borders. It can't get much more clear than that. you can argue if that is a good or bad thing, but that is what she is for, she said it very clearly.