As a gamer with a keen interest in politics, I find myself deeply engaged in the discourse surrounding border policies and immigration, especially considering my personal experiences as a child of immigrants. The debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz on CBS’s New York debate has been particularly intriguing, given their contrasting perspectives on this critical issue.
As a follower, I found myself captivated during the recent debate when GOP Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance challenged the immigration and border policies of Vice President Kamala Harris, focusing particularly on her past roles as California Attorney General and within the Biden administration over the past three-and-a-half years. His critique was a hot topic in the exchange with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz that took place on CBS’s New York stage.
During the initial thirty minutes of the discussion, Vance was questioned about whether a second term for Trump would involve separating children from their parents, a practice enacted by the previous president that was halted following widespread criticism. Instead of addressing the question directly, Vance shifted the blame towards Harris, claiming responsibility for the policies of the current Biden administration.
Kamala Harris’s efforts to reverse Donald Trump’s executive orders have led to a significant immigration crisis. This includes halting deportations, decriminalizing illegal immigrants, and increasing asylum fraud, which has essentially opened the floodgates. As a result, our country is seeing an influx of fentanyl.
Vice President Kamala Harris was given responsibility by President Biden to oversee U.S. diplomatic initiatives and collaborate with Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras in addressing the root issues contributing to mass migration towards the United States. During the 2021 political season, Republicans labeled her as the “border czar,” a misconception that she was responsible for managing the southern border. This misunderstanding has resurfaced during this current election cycle.
In his response, Walz, who, as the governor of Minnesota, signed laws granting undocumented immigrants access to driver’s licenses and the low-income health insurance marketplace, endorsed Harris’ efforts during her tenure as California’s attorney general.
As an ardent supporter, I’d rephrase the statement like this: “Kamala Harris served as the attorney general for California, a state bordering other nations. She’s uniquely qualified among us contenders because she tackled transnational criminal networks involved in human trafficking and drug offenses. Now, let me clarify, we all yearn to address these issues. The majority of us aim to tackle this problem – that’s the United States Congress, Border Patrol agents, the Chamber of Commerce, and most Americans like you and me. That’s why she championed a fair and robust immigration bill, one that our nation has yet to surpass.
In this conversation, both candidates avoided answering certain questions directly: Vance declined to address the issue of family separation, and Walz evaded discussing mass deportations – a topic he may prefer not to tackle given that recent polls indicate that Americans are growing more supportive of it as an approach to resolving the border crisis.
In response to Margaret Brennan’s persistent questioning about the potential reinstatement of the child separation policy, I found myself repeating my stance, once more casting blame on Harris for the ongoing border predicament, rather than offering a definitive answer.
Vance argued that our current open border situation leads to large-scale child separations, not that Kamala Harris encouraged the hiring of drug couriers. Instead, he claimed that her policies allow Mexico to operate freely within our country, a fact we know is problematic because they often use children as drug mules. He found this practice appalling and believes it needs to be stopped.
Walz managed to pivot the immigration debate to the topic that emerged from the presidential debate last month of allegations of immigrations eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. This was a story latched onto by Vance and then amplified by Trump while debating Harris. It has been debunked, yet persisted as a story and has grabbed headlines for weeks.
As a gamer, I’d rephrase that statement like this: “If we don’t put aside our differences and focus on finding solutions instead of letting Donald Trump’s divisive rhetoric continue to be the center of attention, we risk repeating the situation in Springfield where the governor had to send state police escorts for kindergartners due to lack of cooperation. This kind of polarization dehumanizes and turns fellow humans into villains.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-10-02 05:54