Topic: [BET] Trump or Harris 2024, Poker Player vs suchmoon - page 7. (Read 2359 times)

That's correct, and I have dealt with USCIS and other agencies enough to know that what Trump/Vance say about immigration is mostly bullshit. I don't know if my personal experience affects my position on immigration as a whole - I had this view that immigration should be mostly merit-based with sensible quotas for refugees from dangerous places since before I came here or even thought of coming here - but I certainly appreciate the complexity of the issue a lot more now.

The fact that they blatantly say they would deport people who are legally residing in the US (just because they don't like the law) is so absurd that it shouldn't be acceptable in a political campaign but here we are. If they can do that, they can then say "this green card you have was obtained using the law we don't like so we'll deport you too", and also "this citizenship you got is based on the law we don't like so off you go", and also "don't matter that you're born here because we don't like your parents so go to Mexico", and you can tell from the current attitude among their supporters that all of that would be perfectly normal and valid to them.

Well, that would be for starters assuming the official statistics are correct. Statistics can be used to debate but they are far from being firm, not only because some statistics contradict others, but because I am sick and tired of seeing debates in which opponents use the same statistics to defend the opposite position.

Before I also wrote an answer about what you argue about legal status that among the quotes I do not know why in the end it has not been published (I must have made some mistake) but I came to say that the legal status thing is very funny, in the end what Kamala does is to facilitate that you can get a legal status by applying as a refugee even if you do not come from a country at war but if you are a plumber who comes to seek a better economic future.

By the way, I don't want to personalize too much but it sounds to me that you said in a comment (years ago) that you had lived in a communist country. Is that so? If you are an immigrant in the USA I would understand your position more, although you don't have to answer this if you don't want to, of course.

AFAIK the app allows appointment scheduling and/or pre-screening, doesn't really provide legal status, and likely helps CBP itself more than anything else (otherwise they'd have to staff more phone lines etc). It's just a catchy soundbite like 99% of immigration rhetoric from Trump/Vance campaign... "you can use an app as a magic wand"... no, you can't. If it wasn't an app, they would say "there is a website", or "you can call a phone number", etc with some sort of ominous context, even though none of these things would be illegal.


This was in response to the chart of border apprehensions that you posted and claimed or at least implied that it shows rapid growth of illegal immigration. It doesn't, and I provided three reasons why. I didn't say illegal border crossings don't exist, it's just nowhere near the scale that the political noise may insinuate.

I also didn't say anything about racism, you made the link between my earlier comment about "racist rhetoric" and southern border crossings on your own. "Racist rhetoric" that I'm thinking of is the implication that someone disliked by GOP candidates is "illegal", even though they're not breaking any laws an have legal status, e.g. Springfield Haitians. It may be tempting to think "this is a gray area, matter of opinion, no big deal" but it creates a growing perception that immigrants are often or mostly illegal, which couldn't be further from the truth and creates real dangers, such as the recent bomb threats in Springfield. It's rooted in misunderstanding of how immigration works and exploited by scumbags like JD.

Re-watching I think you're probably right, he was talking about the laws put into place in the 90s, which Vance was saying are being streamlined through an app created in 2020 and it seems like they are now able to grant this status at a higher/faster rate.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-cbs-cuts-vances-mic-during-fact-check-on-immigration

CBS essentially made the statement that they are legal immigrants in Springfield after Vance (and I think Walz as well) had discussed them, Vance interjected to explain why they are called legal, and the explanation was the CBP one app and how it was being used to streamline the parole/asylum status, to which Walz said the "laws" were established in the 90's, Vance then says the app has not been in the books since the 90s and that Kamala created it, then mic is cut.

It's hard to say who is responsible for this app, I don't know how the organization itself runs but there were changes in commissioners for the US Customers/Border while this app was apparently being developed, I'd have to guess whoever is in control of it at any given time can pick and choose how easily they want to approve applications.

Yes of course, but if they go up a lot it is usually a clear indication that those who enter without being caught also go up a lot.


You mean the following, don't you?



As far as I know here we are talking about Kamala vs Trump, and what you see in that and other charts that only go to 2022 is a change in trend. According to you we will have to see if this is a long term trend but I am quite clear that this trend will continue upwards until 2024. It is not much over the total? That's where I don't comment.


So, you are surprised that those who cause alarm are those who cross the Rio Grande, according to you because of racism... To begin with, those who have entered with a visa have already passed some formalities and we know that they are mostly students or skilled workers, of the others we know nothing.

Don't be surprised if I don't put much effort in discussing these points from now on because it is tiring to argue when you know that it is very difficult to reach points of agreement. Normally in these debates, instead of looking for points of agreement, what people do is to look for arguments to reinforce their position, and it can end up in endless discussions.

Border apprehensions include those that have been turned back for example.

I'm looking at the number of illegal immigrants living in the US. It's a decreasing number and ridiculously low to begin with, considering how much noise is being made about it. Around 11 million, or about 3.4% of population in 2022, down from a peak of 12m/4% in 2006-ish. There was an increase from 10.5 million in recent years but it remains to be seen if that's a long term trend.

Source - DHS: https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/unauthorized-immigrants/estimates-unauthorized-immigrant-population-residing

Most of those people are not swimming across Rio Grande. They come with a tourist visa or some other valid paperwork and stay after it expires.


If the law says you can apply for asylum then you can apply for asylum. The law that was going to be changed (to reduce the asylum backlog) until Trump killed it so that he could milk the issue for the campaign. So Vance can BS all he wants but facts show that (1) this is the law and (2) he (or at least the campaign he's part of) is against changing it.

And BTW the number of people with this temporary status is ~2 million or so. Clearly defeating the absurd implication that anyone can just apply through an app and become legal.


I think he said the law (or this particular asylum provision or whatever) has been in place since 1990s, but I may be wrong, I wasn't really listening to the debate just saw some clips here and there.

I'm not sure where Vance was ultimately going, but Vance started off saying the CBP one app was created in 2020 before his mic was cut (CBS == lame!), this was to counter the lie that Walz had shouted out about the CPB one app being created in the 90's, which is not accurate.

The fact is, weirdly enough, that the CBP one app apparently began development in 2018 (under Trump's reign) and was released in 2020, also under Trump. I've gotten the impression from reading that Biden/Kamala may have modified it to make it easier for people to come through who use it, but I found it interesting that it appeared to be created under Trump. Either way, it does seem to have created a more streamlined process to get people quick asylum access to the country.

I think you have slipped up here, if you are going to question this basic point we are not going to be able to debate this point. ibminer has posted a link to a graph that combines all types of immigrants and we can see that the trend is clearly up. I have looked and I see in several sources that there has been a clear increase in illegal immigration but I will give you the BBC, which is something like CNN, it is not usually accused of being a right-wing nut:



In Europe what happens is that politicians also deny or minimize the problem that we can all see.


Well, there we would have to see what Vance said when his microphone was cut off. If having legal status can be achieved by illegally crossing the border and applying for status with CBP one app for sure, all the millions coming in will be legal asylum seekers.

I think that's what would happen if Trump croaks between January 6 and January 20. I'm not sure about the period before Congress "counts" the votes, i.e. before January 6. It may go up to the supreme court, which tends to pick the most absurd medieval interpretation when faced with ambiguities in the constitution, so maybe they will declare George III the president.

I could consider Trump the best candidate under such circumstances... or wait, it would be Vance? Does this work the same before the president is elected? I mean, someone out there sends Trump to feed the worms, then he is still wins the electoral college and then ... well the constitution of the US does not state anywhere that the president has to be alive??

So, he gets elected and succession automatically goes to that weirdo guy Vance?

Seems about right, since AFAIK the last substantial immigration law was passed in 1960s.

Exactly.. probably none of them, and maybe they would have similar reasons on why we shouldn't want it happening at this scale in the US. Although, idk, maybe there could be ways to incentivize countries to take asylum seekers in until they've been correctly vetted.


https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time
* appeared to be a good combination of sources, but if there are better, lmk!
Overall, it seems like we've continually been going up in % no matter who it is?

Not sure about Europe but in the US illegal immigration has been on a steady decline and mostly consists of people overstaying their visas. That's obviously not sufficient for media fearmongering so the new favorite angle of attack in right-wing media seems to be calling any immigrants they don't like "illegal". Asylum seekers? Illegal even though the law says they're legally here. Haitians? Very illegal because cats and dogs. Etc.

I don't know how that helps anything. At best it dilutes and confuses any potential argument that could be made on the topic.

Not really because what would be the last straw, and no one in the USA would buy it, would be to talk about facilitating the process for illegal immigrants but not for legal ones. Also, in the same article it talks about facilitating their access to benefits sooner, which is an important point of what we are talking about. The massive illegal immigration promoted by leftist politicians both in the USA and in Europe treats them as benefit recipients from the very first moment, something that would have been unheard of several decades ago.

Also, this is the Dems, so we can see where this is going.

California Dems want to help undocumented immigrants buy homes – during presidential race

In other words, these are not wonderful reforms that will bring only talented people and will make the country much better, here it is about filling the country with illegal immigrants very quickly, facilitating the naturalization process, giving them aid from the first moment and thus turning them into happy customers who will always vote Democrat (the same can be applied to Labor in the UK or other socialist parties in Europe).


Despite our differences of thought, I am quite sure of this.


Well, I don't live in the USA but for preference I think I would have preferred almost any other candidates than Kamala and Trump.


I agree 100%.


Well, at least you admit that immigration brings problems, lol, it's not an imigration of only talented people and students that all it does is improve the country.

GOP may not solve the problems, but it certainly won't make them worse, because if Harris wins, no matter how much she is saying now, she will leave the border wide open and many more millions will continue to enter than theoretically needed. Pretty sure Trump is going to close the border.

Among other things (like which country would agree to this?), there are laws that establish due process for asylum. And Trump killed the immigration reform bill, which would have reduced the asylum case backlog with a combination of more resources to process those cases and more authority for the CBP to turn people away at the border. Trump should know that immigration laws have to followed (or changed) because his own executive order attempting to circumvent the law was shot down by courts in 2017... or 2018 or whenever that was.

The bottom line is, regardless how you feel about immigration, Trump and GOP are not going to solve any of the problems with it. They will milk the publicity as much as they can and then forget it until the next election when they can use it again.

I may have been disappointed with that election too, I wasn't born yet but I'd guess it was also a different time and the left/center/right lines of the country may have been different in terms of what they tolerated. Trump has occasionally been closer/more tolerant to white supremacy groups than any president in 2024 should ever be, plus has said some pretty crazy shit about people in general which doesn't line up to American values. Then the other side seems to want to destroy the economy through spending and taxing the rich, who then just seem to pass their additional costs onto the middle class and we all get so broke we start needing free food programs, free housing, and then we're heading into communism. They also don't seem to have any clue on how to handle conflicts in the middle east, so the only thing I feel like I can agree with them on these days is "Trump isn't a good choice", which he's not, nor is Kamala, and that's why this election sucks.

After watching the VP debate, I'd rather see both of these guys running for president, but I'd probably vote Vance there because he just makes more sense to me. I think Trump (cleverly) picked a VP who is more centered, but the reality is Trump will still make the decisions and Vance will have to go along with it. It's sad because I kinda feel like both of the VP's are more passionate about the country than either presidential candidate.



I feel like this somehow has to be done before they come into the country. I'm all for immigration and agree the country was built on it, and many immigrants have helped the country, but it feels like these days many are inside of the country (without being vetted at all) and posing a burden on local resources without contributing to taxes or otherwise, at a much higher rate than ever before, while all of this is happening for (at least) 5 years?   This is assuming they apply and don't just find ways to make it on their own on the streets, which also isn't what we want. When people get background checks just to work somewhere, they're usually not living in the building until they are cleared... there must be other safe places (maybe ally countries?) we can have them go until they are cleared?

AFAIK it's past the deadline to add someone new to the ballot in most states (keep in mind that mail-in voting has already started; ballots are likely being printed in states/counties; etc). So Trump would stay on the ballot even if he's dead.

Also I wouldn't be so sure that if it was possible for Trump to drop out, Kamala would automatically win. Seems like many Kamala voters are energized by anti-Trump feelings.

At any rate, if such an improbable thing were to happen, maybe involving courts / SC, I think we would find an amicable solution. Probably call it a draw.

Not at all, it is just my interpretation of what you contract says. Let's say Trump is successfully removed from the gene pool of humanity violently, then another candidate will take his place. In this case, either Kam wins and Suchmoon wins the bet provided all goes without unexpected events or the other Rep candidate wins in which case another candidate got the majority of the votes an it is a draw (impeded the others to reach 277).


There is no free meal in foreign politics. Trump can stop the war just like I could stop the war if elected for President. All you need to do is give half of Ukraine to Putin and ensure that it cannot join NATO nor have a proper army so that Putin takes the other half after licking his wounds from this war.

Everyone has a peace plan, it is that some of these guarantee a war in a few years.

I am not sure this is communism, socialism or capitalism, all I know this is a kleptocracy, people in power use their position of power as leverage to steal as much money as possible from income coming from both oil fields and gold mines, which is already against the basic rules of classic capitalism and socialism.
The former head of our national petroleum industry (basically the minister of petroleum) was caught red-handed with 30 billion dollars in cash, cryptocurrency and literal gold bars in his property...

I am expecting some people to come back if Trump wins in November, specially those who are there undocumented Even some who are there legally thanks to the Humanitary parole program will reconsider to come back after earning some money, nobody wants to live and work in a country in which they are going to be considered aliens and unwanted.

This country is literally kidnapped by crooks.

The quote you posted literally refers to skilled workers, students, etc. Exactly the kind of migrants any country needs. So this would be a sensible immigration reform that republicans would be vehemently against just because it takes away their talking points, not because it's somehow bad for the country. They would rather launder money through the pointless wall construction and threaten mass deportations and other PR bullshit, keeping the base energized with the migrant flow through the southern border instead of actually trying to solve the issue.