Kamala Harris faces criticism for misrepresenting
Post# of 65629
(Total Views: 100)
Posted On: 03/07/2019 4:15:56 PM
Kamala Harris faces criticism for misrepresenting past support of San Francisco deportation policy
March 6, 2019
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was caught in a bold-faced lie on Sunday while chewing the fat with an Iowa-based political podcast.
When the former district attorney was asked why she supported a controversial San Francisco policy to turn over illegal immigrant minors to federal immigration authorities to be charged, Harris lied, telling her host that the handovers were “an unintended consequence of the policy.”
Even liberal media outlets like CNN and Politifact have questioned Harris’ answer. The latter publication called the California Democrat’s response “false,” and insisted that the deportation of illegal immigrant minors “in fact, was the very purpose of the policy.”
Pants on fire
Appearing on Political Party Live, a live audience podcast in the battleground state of Iowa, Harris was asked by host Misty Rebik about her support for the city’s deportation policy: “Could you kind of give us some insight on how, from that time, when for whatever reason you were supporting this policy that was essentially handing over undocumented people to ICE before they had been convicted to now — kind of what’s changed on that and how you came to those changes?”
Harris responded by completely mischaracterizing the purpose of San Francisco’s policy to turn over juvenile criminal offenders to the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency:
That ended up being an unintended consequence of the policy and I did not support that consequence of that policy. And that policy I believe has since changed because it was not the intended purpose of that policy. I’ll say this, and I feel very strongly about it, and I always have, which is this, my background is as a prosecutor and I want to know that a person, a victim of a rape or a child molestation, or a vicious violent crime, I want to know that that victim will be able to run in the middle of the street and wave down a police officer and receive protection and security without having to worry about if they do that they will be deported.
Nice try, Senator
Unfortunately for Harris, her attempt to punt and change the subject was exposed by Californians who are familiar with San Francisco’s history of sanctuary laws.
Since at least 1989, San Francisco authorities have refused to share arrest records with federal immigration authorities. Three years later, the city amended that policy to remove protections for adult criminal offenders, but juveniles remains covered by the sanctuary status.
In 2008, however, following the arrest of an illegal immigrant serial killer who was escaped deportation at the age of 17 for assault and robbery charges, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city to began reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to ICE who were suspected of committing a felony, regardless of whether they were actually found guilty of a crime.
“Harris’ comments mischaracterized her history on the policy. Reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to ICE was not an ‘unintended consequence’ of the policy, it was the policy,” wrote CNN’s Nathan McDermott and Andrew Kaczynski.
“It was specifically designed by then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to allow local police to report arrested undocumented youth to ICE, according to news reports and those who opposed the policy,” a report from Politifact explained. “Previously, the city did not refer arrested undocumented youth to ICE.”
Wrong again!
Ms. Harris was also wrong on another count, as well; the policy wasn’t changed as the result of an “unintended consequence.”
Newsom fought changes to the policy while he was in office, and the law was only altered after a new mayoral administration changed the policy in 2011 to apply only to unaccompanied minor immigrants.
Harris was a strong supporter of the mayor’s policy, which can be gleaned from her enthusiastic support recorded in contemporaneous news articles. After he left office, Newsom expressed remorse for the policy he once championed, saying: “Looking back, there were things we could have done differently. I’m very honest about that.”
Ian Sams, a spokesman for Ms. Harris, responded to questions from CNN regarding the senator’s record on sanctuary laws, but he did not address her mischaracterization of the 2008 law.
“We have said this policy should have been done differently, but as Senator, Harris is focused on protecting Dreamers, fighting this president’s attempts to build a vanity project on the southern border, exercising more oversight of ICE, reforming our immigration system with a path to citizenship, and reuniting families separated by this administration,” Sams said. “Those will be her priorities should she be elected president.”
If Harris wants to become a Democrat presidential front-runner, she is going to have to answer some serious questions regarding her time as a district attorney for San Francisco and as attorney general for the state of California.
But it won’t be Republican voters she’s appeasing — just the progressive wing of an increasingly liberal Democrat Party.
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/conserv...paign=dc-1
March 6, 2019
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was caught in a bold-faced lie on Sunday while chewing the fat with an Iowa-based political podcast.
When the former district attorney was asked why she supported a controversial San Francisco policy to turn over illegal immigrant minors to federal immigration authorities to be charged, Harris lied, telling her host that the handovers were “an unintended consequence of the policy.”
Even liberal media outlets like CNN and Politifact have questioned Harris’ answer. The latter publication called the California Democrat’s response “false,” and insisted that the deportation of illegal immigrant minors “in fact, was the very purpose of the policy.”
Pants on fire
Appearing on Political Party Live, a live audience podcast in the battleground state of Iowa, Harris was asked by host Misty Rebik about her support for the city’s deportation policy: “Could you kind of give us some insight on how, from that time, when for whatever reason you were supporting this policy that was essentially handing over undocumented people to ICE before they had been convicted to now — kind of what’s changed on that and how you came to those changes?”
Harris responded by completely mischaracterizing the purpose of San Francisco’s policy to turn over juvenile criminal offenders to the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency:
That ended up being an unintended consequence of the policy and I did not support that consequence of that policy. And that policy I believe has since changed because it was not the intended purpose of that policy. I’ll say this, and I feel very strongly about it, and I always have, which is this, my background is as a prosecutor and I want to know that a person, a victim of a rape or a child molestation, or a vicious violent crime, I want to know that that victim will be able to run in the middle of the street and wave down a police officer and receive protection and security without having to worry about if they do that they will be deported.
Nice try, Senator
Unfortunately for Harris, her attempt to punt and change the subject was exposed by Californians who are familiar with San Francisco’s history of sanctuary laws.
Since at least 1989, San Francisco authorities have refused to share arrest records with federal immigration authorities. Three years later, the city amended that policy to remove protections for adult criminal offenders, but juveniles remains covered by the sanctuary status.
In 2008, however, following the arrest of an illegal immigrant serial killer who was escaped deportation at the age of 17 for assault and robbery charges, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city to began reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to ICE who were suspected of committing a felony, regardless of whether they were actually found guilty of a crime.
“Harris’ comments mischaracterized her history on the policy. Reporting arrested undocumented juveniles to ICE was not an ‘unintended consequence’ of the policy, it was the policy,” wrote CNN’s Nathan McDermott and Andrew Kaczynski.
“It was specifically designed by then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to allow local police to report arrested undocumented youth to ICE, according to news reports and those who opposed the policy,” a report from Politifact explained. “Previously, the city did not refer arrested undocumented youth to ICE.”
Wrong again!
Ms. Harris was also wrong on another count, as well; the policy wasn’t changed as the result of an “unintended consequence.”
Newsom fought changes to the policy while he was in office, and the law was only altered after a new mayoral administration changed the policy in 2011 to apply only to unaccompanied minor immigrants.
Harris was a strong supporter of the mayor’s policy, which can be gleaned from her enthusiastic support recorded in contemporaneous news articles. After he left office, Newsom expressed remorse for the policy he once championed, saying: “Looking back, there were things we could have done differently. I’m very honest about that.”
Ian Sams, a spokesman for Ms. Harris, responded to questions from CNN regarding the senator’s record on sanctuary laws, but he did not address her mischaracterization of the 2008 law.
“We have said this policy should have been done differently, but as Senator, Harris is focused on protecting Dreamers, fighting this president’s attempts to build a vanity project on the southern border, exercising more oversight of ICE, reforming our immigration system with a path to citizenship, and reuniting families separated by this administration,” Sams said. “Those will be her priorities should she be elected president.”
If Harris wants to become a Democrat presidential front-runner, she is going to have to answer some serious questions regarding her time as a district attorney for San Francisco and as attorney general for the state of California.
But it won’t be Republican voters she’s appeasing — just the progressive wing of an increasingly liberal Democrat Party.
https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/conserv...paign=dc-1
(0)
(0)