Donald Trump suggests ‘one rough hour’ of policing will end theft

posted in: Politics | 0

By MEG KINNARD, Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Donald Trump has suggested that “one rough hour” of law enforcement action would tamp down retail theft, an echo of his longstanding support for more aggressive and potentially violent policing.

“One rough hour — and I mean real rough — the word will get out and it will end immediately, you know? It will end immediately,” Trump said Sunday in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Trump has ramped up his rhetoric with just over a month before Election Day, describing immigrants in the U.S. illegally as criminals intent on harming native-born Americans and suggesting crime has skyrocketed despite national statistics showing the opposite. The former president has a long history of encouraging rough treatment of people in police custody and saying law enforcement should be exempt from potential punishment.

Three weeks ago, as the Fraternal Order of Police endorsed him at an event in Charlotte, North Carolina, Trump pledged unyielding support for police, including expanded use of force: “We have to get back to power and respect.”

At his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey, Trump in August tied the suggestion of amped-up law enforcement activity to the deportation of immigrants. He advocated ensuring that officers “have immunity from prosecution, because frankly, our police are treated horribly. They’re not allowed to do their job.”

Trump was president during the racial justice protests that emerged in the summer of 2020 following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. He posted during the protests, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” At the time, he signed an executive order encouraging better police practices but that was been criticized by some for failing to acknowledge what they consider systemic racial bias in policing.

During a 2017 speech in New York, the then-president appeared to advocate rougher treatment of people in police custody, speaking dismissively of the police practice of shielding the heads of handcuffed suspects as they are being placed in patrol cars. In response, the Suffolk County Police Department said it had strict rules and procedures about how prisoners should be handled, violations of which “are treated extremely seriously.”

In Pennsylvania on Sunday, the former president and current Republican presidential nominee had been speaking about a measure approved by California voters when his Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, was state attorney general. Trump has claimed that the provision — which makes the theft of goods at or below that level a misdemeanor, rather than a felony — allows shoplifting up to $950 in merchandise without consequences.

Asked if his comments Sunday amounted to a policy proposal, Trump’s campaign said that he “has always been the law and order President and he continues to reiterate the importance of enforcing existing laws.” Spokesperson Steven Cheung went on to warn of “all-out anarchy” if Harris is elected, citing her time as California’s top prosecutor.

Harris’ campaign did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Trump’s remarks. Democrats have long noted that dozens of police officers were injured on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to overturn his loss to now-President Joe Biden.

___

Meg Kinnard reported from Columbia, South Carolina, and can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP.

Trump is pointing to new numbers on migrants with criminal pasts. Here’s what they show

posted in: Politics | 0

By REBECCA SANTANA Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are pointing to newly released immigration enforcement data to bolster their argument that the Biden administration is letting migrants who have committed serious crimes go free in the U.S. But the numbers have been misconstrued without key context.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement released data to Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales in response to a request he made for information about people under ICE supervision either convicted of crimes or facing criminal charges. Gonzales’ Texas district includes an 800-mile stretch bordering Mexico.

Gonzales posted the numbers online and they immediately became a flashpoint in the presidential campaign between former President Donald Trump, who has vowed to carry out mass deportations, and Vice President Kamala Harris. Immigration — and the Biden administration’s record on border security — has become a key issue in the election.

Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris talks with John Modlin, the chief patrol agent for the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, right, and Blaine Bennett, the U.S. Border Patrol Douglas Station border patrol agent in charge, as she visits the U.S. border with Mexico in Douglas, Ariz., Friday, Sept. 27, 2024. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Here’s a look at the data and what it does or doesn’t show:

What are the numbers?

As of July 21, ICE said 662,556 people under its supervision were either convicted of crimes or face criminal charges. Nearly 15,000 were in its custody, but the vast majority — 647,572 — were not.

Included in the figures of people not detained by ICE were people found guilty of very serious crimes: 13,099 for homicide, 15,811 for sexual assault, 13,423 for weapons offenses and 2,663 for stolen vehicles. The single biggest category was for traffic-related offenses at 77,074, followed by assault at 62,231 and dangerous drugs at 56,533.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, later clarified that the numbers span decades and those not in its custody may be held by a state or local agency. For example, someone serving time in a state prison for murder could be counted as a criminal not in ICE’s custody. They are not being held by federal immigration authorities but they are detained — a distinction ICE didn’t make in its report to Gonzales.

Millions of people are on ICE’s “non-detained docket,” or people under the agency’s supervision who aren’t in its custody. Many are awaiting outcomes of their cases in immigration court, including some wearing monitoring devices. Others have been released after completing their prison sentences because their countries won’t take them back.

What do both sides say about the numbers?

Republicans pointed to the data as proof that the Biden administration is letting immigrants with criminal records into the country and isn’t doing enough to kick out those who commit crimes while they’re here.

“The truth is clear — illegal immigrants with a criminal record are coming into our country. The data released by ICE is beyond disturbing, and it should be a wake-up call for the Biden-Harris administration and cities across the country that hide behind sanctuary policies,” Gonzales said in a news release, referring to pledges by local officials to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Trump, who has repeatedly portrayed immigrants as bringing lawlessness and crime to America, tweeted multiple screenshots of the data with the words: “13,000 CROSSED THE BORDER WITH MURDER CONVICTIONS.”

Related Articles

National Politics |


What to watch as JD Vance and Tim Walz meet for a vice presidential debate

National Politics |


What is ballot gathering? And what are the laws around this controversial practice?

National Politics |


Conservative Christians were skeptical of mail-in ballots. Now they are gathering them in churches

National Politics |


Kamala Harris turns Biden’s $493 billion climate legacy into a footnote

National Politics |


After a chaotic Congress, lawmakers head home to ask voters: How about another term?

He also asserted that the numbers correspond to Biden and Harris’ time in office.

The data was being misinterpreted, Homeland Security said in a statement Sunday.

“The data goes back decades; it includes individuals who entered the country over the past 40 years or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this Administration,” the agency said. “It also includes many who are under the jurisdiction or currently incarcerated by federal, state or local law enforcement partners.”

The department also stressed what it has done to deport those without the right to stay in America, saying it had removed or returned more than 700,000 people in the past year, which it said was the highest number since 2010. Homeland Security said it had removed 180,000 people with criminal convictions since President Joe Biden took office.

What’s behind the figures?

The data isn’t only listing people who entered the country during the Biden administration but includes people going back decades who came during previous administrations, said Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was the predecessor to ICE.

They’re accused or convicted of committing crimes in America as opposed to committing crimes in other countries and then entering the U.S., said Meissner, who is now director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute.

“This is not something that is a function of what the Biden administration did,” she said. “Certainly, this includes the Biden years, but this is an accumulation of many years, and certainly going back to at least 2010, 2011, 2012.”

A 2017 report by Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General says that as of August 2016, ICE had about 368,574 people on its non-detained docket who were convicted criminals. By June 2021, that number was up to 405,786.

Can’t ICE just deport criminals?

ICE has limited resources. The number of people it supervises has skyrocketed, while its staffing has not. As the agency noted in a 2023 end-of-year report, it often has to send staff to help at the border, taking them away from their normal duties.

The number of people ICE supervises but who aren’t in its custody has grown from 3.3 million a little before Biden took office to a little over 7 million last spring.

“The simple answer is that as a system, we haven’t devoted enough resources to the parts of the government that deal with monitoring and ultimately removing people who are deportable,” Meissner said.

ICE also has logistical and legal limits on who they can hold. Its budget allows the agency to hold 41,500 people at a time. John Sandweg, who was acting ICE director from 2013 to 2014 under then-President Barack Obama, said holding people accused or convicted of the most serious crimes is always the top priority.

But once someone has a final order of removal — meaning a court has found that they don’t have the right to stay in the country — they cannot be held in detention forever while ICE works out how to get them home. A 2001 Supreme Court ruling essentially prevented ICE from holding those people for more than six months if there is no reasonable chance to expect they can be sent back.

Not every country is willing to take back their citizens, Sandweg said.

He said he suspects that a large number of those convicted of homicide but not held by ICE are people who were ordered deported but the agency can’t remove them because their home country won’t take them back.

“It’s a very common scenario. Even amongst the countries that take people back, they can be very selective about who they take back,” he said.

The U.S. also could run into problems deporting people to countries with which it has tepid relations.

Homeland Security did not respond to questions about how many countries won’t take back their citizens. The 2017 watchdog report put the number at 23 countries, plus an additional 62 that were cooperative but where there were delays getting things like passports or travel documents.

What to watch as JD Vance and Tim Walz meet for a vice presidential debate

posted in: Politics | 0

By BILL BARROW Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) — Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz will meet Tuesday in the lone vice presidential debate of the 2024 election, bringing together undercards who have spent two months going after each other and the opposing nominees who top the major-party tickets.

The matchup, hosted by CBS News in New York, might not carry the same stakes as the Sept. 10 debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. But it offers their top lieutenants a fresh opportunity to introduce themselves, vouch for their bosses and fulfill a time-honored role of a running mate: attack dog. It will involve the biggest television and online audience either No. 2 will see before Election Day.

Walz, the 60-year-old Minnesota governor, and Vance, a 40-year-old U.S. senator from Ohio, have previewed potential approaches for weeks. Walz, before Harris selected him, was the Democrat who coined “weird” as a go-to pejorative for the Republican ticket. Vance assails the governor’s progressive record as proof Democrats are too far left for voters.

Vance has mocked his fellow veteran’s military service record. Walz hammers Vance’s opposition to abortion rights and his views on family life. Both men have played up their small-town, middle-America credentials — contrasts to Trump, the billionaire native New Yorker, and Harris, the California Bay Area native.

It sets up a potentially fierce night in Manhattan. Here are the dynamics to consider as the rivals meet face-to-face for the first time:

Is it more Walz vs. Vance or Harris vs. Trump?

Running mates have a balancing act. Their primary job is to make the case for their bosses. But a vice presidential nominee’s credibility and connection with the audience are important factors in reaching that goal. If a voter doesn’t like the messenger, they’re less likely to buy the message.

Going into the debate, a new AP-NORC poll suggests Walz is better liked than Vance, giving the Republican perhaps a steeper challenge.

The poll found that only a quarter of registered voters have a somewhat or very favorable view of the Ohio senator, while about half have a somewhat or very unfavorable view. About a quarter don’t know enough to say. Walz is viewed positively by about 4 in 10 voters and negatively by about 3 in 10; the rest don’t know enough to say.

Still, Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat and the 2016 vice presidential nominee, warned participants against thinking too much about themselves.

“The only advice that matters is to protect the top of the ticket,” Kaine insisted, recalling the 2000 matchup between Republican Dick Cheney and Democrat Joe Lieberman. “Cheney kept attacking (Al) Gore, and Lieberman, instead of defending Gore, tried to make himself likable. … You can’t leave attacks unanswered.”

Abortion rights and views on family will feature prominently

Democrats believe abortion rights and reproductive health care will motivate their core voters and sway swing voters.

Walz has tried to capitalize already by mixing his story into the argument. The governor talks often about how he and his wife, Gwen, required fertility treatments to have their daughter. Democrats have excoriated Vance for his 2021 quip about “childless cat ladies” shaping American life. And Walz has been eager to echo Harris’ emphasis on abortion rights as an anchor of her overall campaign theme: “Freedom.”

Vance and Trump, on the other hand, have struggled for a consistent message on abortion rights — a reflection of how politically fraught the issue is for Republicans since support for abortion access has increased since the 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and end a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Trump brags about appointing conservatives who helped strike down Roe and return abortion regulation to state governments. Many Republicans now want to go beyond state bans and place federal restrictions on the procedure, but Trump has indicated that overturning Roe is enough. He has also waffled on how he’ll vote on a Florida referendum that would expand abortion rights.

Vance said in August that Trump would veto a national ban if it cleared Congress. A couple of weeks later, during Trump’s debate with Harris, the former president demurred on an answer, saying, “I didn’t discuss it with JD.” The Harris campaign has amplified audio of Vance saying as a Senate candidate that he would like to see abortion outlawed nationwide.

Vance and Walz are competing for an advantage on the economy

Vance often offers clearer arguments than Trump about boosting American manufacturing, helping workers and punishing corporations. He regularly attacks the Biden-Harris administration over inflation. If there’s a broad topic where Vance wants to put Walz on the defensive and tether the Democratic ticket to President Joe Biden, it’s the economy.

For her part, Harris declares that “building the middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency.” She acknowledges many consumers’ struggles even as she generally defends Biden’s overall record of economic growth, low unemployment and rising wages since inheriting a COVID-19 freefall.

Both campaigns have competing suites of economic proposals, including varying tax cuts and subsidies for certain sectors. Expect the running mates to spend considerable time trying to convince the dwindling slice of persuadable voters that their ticket is more in tune with most U.S. households’ day-to-day economic concerns.

The two are expected to talk up their middle-America roots

As much as the debate is about Harris and Trump, the running mates got here in no small part because of their respective biographies.

Trump’s choice was a play to further cement the GOP ticket as the choice for middle America. The author of the “Hillbilly Elegy” memoir who grew up in small-town Ohio, Vance has roots to match his economic populism in ways the billionaire Trump does not.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Some states want to make it easier to cancel subscriptions

National Politics |


Wisconsin Supreme Court says Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name will remain on swing state’s ballot

National Politics |


Iranian operatives charged in the US with hacking Donald Trump’s presidential campaign

National Politics |


With an election looming, the US is approving citizenship applications at the fastest speed in years

National Politics |


Trump and Zelenskyy meet in New York amid rising questions about US support for Ukraine

Walz and Harris both grew up middle class, but Walz remains firmly ensconced there, going from his boyhood on a Nebraska farm to the high school classrooms of Minnesota before he ran for office. It’s both a juxtaposition with and reinforcement of Harris’ story as the daughter of an Indian mother and Jamaican father.

Both men have made their families part of their political identities. Each have working spouses. Walz has two children — young adult and teenage. Vance has three young sons. The Walzes and Vances are more traditional political families than those of the presidential nominees: Harris has adult stepchildren from her decade-old marriage to Doug Emhoff; Trump has five children from three marriages.

Expect both running mates, even as they try to keep the spotlight on their bosses, to highlight their own stories.

The fact-checking onus will be on the candidates

CBS announced Friday that it will be up to the candidates to keep each other honest at Tuesday’s debate — a sticking point from earlier debates this year.

In the June debate between Trump and Biden, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash limited follow-up questions and did not fact check either participant. In the September debate between Trump and Harris, ABC’s David Muir and Linsey Davis interjected with matter-of-fact corrections to some of Trump’s most glaring misstatements.

Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

What is ballot gathering? And what are the laws around this controversial practice?

posted in: News | 0

By DEEPA BHARATH Associated Press

Ballot gathering or ballot collecting is a practice in where a voter completes an absentee ballot, places it in a sealed, signed envelope and entrusts it to another person who then drops it off at a mail center or a designated ballot drop-off location. This practice is also sometimes known as “ballot harvesting,” but experts say that is a loaded term and prefer “ballot gathering” or “ballot collecting” instead.

Is ballot gathering legal?

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, ballot gathering is legal in some form in 35 states where a person other than the voter is allowed to return a completed ballot on the voter’s behalf. However, the laws relating to ballot gathering vary significantly from state to state. Most states that allow ballot gathering place limits who can do that to individuals such as a family member, household member or caregiver.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Some states want to make it easier to cancel subscriptions

National Politics |


Wisconsin Supreme Court says Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name will remain on swing state’s ballot

National Politics |


Iranian operatives charged in the US with hacking Donald Trump’s presidential campaign

National Politics |


With an election looming, the US is approving citizenship applications at the fastest speed in years

National Politics |


Trump and Zelenskyy meet in New York amid rising questions about US support for Ukraine

Seventeen states allow a voter to designate someone other than family members or caregivers while 11 states limit how many ballots such an authorized person can return. In Colorado, for example, a designee can return only up to 10 ballots. In states such as California, there is no limit on how many ballots an authorized person can return. California places a condition that a person collecting ballots cannot be compensated. Other states such as Rhode Island or Wyoming do not specify who may or may not return the ballot on a voter’s behalf. These variations leave a lot of room for interpretation.

Alabama is the only state where only the voter is permitted to return the ballot unless there is an emergency situation. According to the Voting Rights Lab, which also tracks ballot gathering laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires all states to allow voters with disabilities who need assistance to receive it. They say that includes assistance applying for, completing, and returning absentee ballots.

Why is ballot gathering controversial?

Those who want to relax the rules on who may return absentee ballots argue that such restrictions don’t prevent fraud, but end up disenfranchising certain groups of voters, particularly communities of color. Those who want such limitations argue that without them, there is opportunity for fraud. Some conservatives who pushed for these restrictions in previous election cycles have changed their stance, saying they need to gather ballots now because it is legal, and not doing so might put them at a disadvantage.

Is there a potential for fraud?

Experts say there is “very low risk” for fraud with ballot collecting by third parties. In a 2018 congressional election in North Carolina, a political operative for the Republican candidate faced allegations of running an illegal “ballot harvesting” operation in Bladen County, with the operative and his helpers illegally collecting absentee ballots before turning them in. The results of that election were thrown out and a new election was held. In 2020, then California Attorney General Hector Becerra ordered Republicans to remove unofficial ballot drop boxes from churches, gun shops and other locations, warning that those behind such “vote tampering” could face prosecution.

What is allowed and not allowed in ballot gathering efforts?

In California, those gathering ballots are allowed to collect them and either mail them or turn them in to the county registrar of voters office in person – within three days of receiving the ballots or before polls close on Election Day. Those authorized to collect ballots are not allowed to place ballot boxes in any location and they may not receive compensation based on the number of ballots returned. In all states, those collecting ballots are prohibited from tampering with ballots, electioneering or coercing someone to vote a certain way or change their vote.

Are churches allowed to gather ballots?

Churches in states like California can collect ballots, issue voter guides and even hold candidate debates, provided they don’t endorse a particular candidate, post all candidates’ positions and invite all candidates to the forum. A 1954 law called the Johnson Amendment, named for its principal sponsor, then Sen. Lyndon Johnson, states that tax-exempt nonprofit organizations including churches are “are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” Doing so could jeopardize a church’s tax exemption status. However, this law does not prevent nonpartisan voter-education activities, voter registration drives and publishing “issue guides” for voters or even arranging transportation for voters to get to polling places — activities that Black churches with members who tend to vote Democrat have engaged in for decades. Pastors are also free to preach on social and political issues that are issues of concerns from a faith perspective.

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.