A dramatic legal battle unfolds in Cobb County, Georgia, as election officials and voters scramble to respond to an unexpected Supreme Court decision affecting thousands of mail-in ballots.
According to HuffPost, approximately 3,400 voters in Cobb County face potential disenfranchisement after the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling that had granted extra time for late-delivered mail-in ballots.
The situation emerged from a confluence of factors, including a surge in last-minute ballot requests and technical issues with county printing equipment. Many voters received their ballots just days before Election Day, while some never received them at all.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Southern Poverty Law Center secured a victory on Friday when a judge ruled that affected voters' ballots would be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received by Friday. This decision offered hope to thousands of voters caught in the administrative delay.
However, the state Supreme Court's Monday afternoon decision, reached in a 5-3 vote, dramatically altered the landscape. The ruling came in response to an appeal from state and national Republican Party organizations, creating immediate confusion among voters and election officials alike.
County officials and political parties, who maintained lists of affected voters, launched urgent efforts to inform people about the changed deadline. The reversal left many scrambling to adjust their voting plans with little notice.
Local residents exhibited varying degrees of awareness about the situation. Some, like Gregory, who received his ballot on Friday, managed to deliver it in person to the elections office. Others learned about the issue through social media platforms.
Sheena Grantz, another affected voter, discovered the situation through a TikTok video. While her own ballot arrived on time, her brother's never materialized, forcing him to make alternative voting arrangements.
The county attributed the delays to multiple factors, including timing issues with a state-approved vendor and problems with county printing equipment. More than 1,000 of the affected absentee ballots were destined for out-of-state voters.
Stacy Efrat, a Democratic Party appointee on the Cobb County Election Board, expressed concern about the rapid change in instructions. She described how volunteers had spent the weekend informing voters about the extended deadline, only to face a complete reversal. As shared by Cobb County Democratic Committee Chair Essence Johnson:
We've got door-knocking, callers, texters — the only thing we don't have is a pigeon.
The situation particularly impacts out-of-state voters who had been advised to express-mail their ballots based on the previous court ruling. These ballots, even if postmarked by Election Day, will now be segregated and potentially discarded if they arrive after the deadline.
The eleventh-hour change has sparked intense debate about voter access and election integrity. Eight of the nine justices on the Georgia Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors, leading some to question the political implications of the decision. Election officials continue their efforts to ensure maximum voter participation despite the compressed timeline. The county has acknowledged its initial mistakes and is working to communicate the new deadline to all affected voters. With the 7 p.m. Tuesday deadline looming, thousands of voters face crucial decisions about how to ensure their votes are counted.
A contentious dispute over thousands of overseas ballots has erupted in Pennsylvania just days before the presidential election, with state officials pushing back against widespread challenges to voter eligibility.
According to the Washington Examiner, more than 4,000 mail ballots across multiple Pennsylvania counties face challenges from what state officials describe as a coordinated effort by right-wing activists.
The challenges target voters who allegedly moved overseas or submitted change-of-address requests. Speaking for the Pennsylvania Department of State, Amy Gulli firmly denounced these challenges as coordinated attempts to question the qualifications of thousands of registered Pennsylvania voters who applied for mail ballots. The state maintains that these challenges contradict established legal precedents.
The 1986 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act specifically allows U.S. citizens living abroad to vote in their last state of residence. This federal protection ensures that Americans overseas can participate in federal elections through absentee ballots.
These voters, classified as "federal only" voters, maintain their right to vote in federal races like the presidential election, though they cannot participate in local contests. The law explicitly preserves their voting rights regardless of their current residence abroad.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania has taken action by sending letters to all 67 Pennsylvania counties, advising them that these challenges lack legal merit. The organization warns counties against impeding overseas voters from casting their ballots.
The scope of these challenges varies significantly across counties, ranging from just twelve contested ballots in Clinton County to over 1,300 in Bucks County. Chester County has already dismissed challenges during its hearing.
Evidence points to involvement from organizations such as the Election Research Institute and PA Fair Elections, led by Heather Honey, who has previously promoted disputed election claims since 2020. Several individuals filing challenges have confirmed their connection to these groups.
Pennsylvania Department of State spokesperson Amy Gulli stated:
Throughout the day on Friday, several bad-faith mass challenges were filed in a coordinated effort in counties across the Commonwealth to question the qualifications of thousands of registered Pennsylvania voters who applied to vote by mail ballot.
Similar attempts to challenge overseas voters have already faced rejection in other states. Courts in North Carolina and Michigan have dismissed comparable challenges from the Republican National Committee.
Marian Schneider from the ACLU of Pennsylvania explained that these challenges stem from a misunderstanding of federal law. The challenges appear to ignore established legal protections for overseas voters.
The timing of these challenges, coming just before the election, has raised concerns about potential voter suppression. County election officials must now navigate these challenges while maintaining fair access to the ballot.
The controversy highlights the complex intersection of federal voting rights and state election administration. Despite the challenges, federal law clearly protects overseas voters' rights to participate in federal elections. These developments mirror similar scenarios in other battleground states, where election procedures face increased scrutiny. Courts have consistently upheld overseas voters' rights, establishing a clear precedent for protecting these ballots.
Mark Longo's cherished pet squirrel with over half a million Instagram followers becomes the center of controversy after a dramatic intervention by New York authorities.
According to Fox News, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) seized and euthanized Peanut the squirrel and a raccoon named Fred from Longo's Pine City animal sanctuary, triggering widespread social media outrage and meme creation.
The incident has drawn attention from notable figures, including Elon Musk, who commented on the situation with both humor and sympathy. The story has also inspired various social media responses, ranging from satirical headlines to emotional tributes.
P'Nut's Freedom Farm, established last year, represented Longo's dedication to animal care. The sanctuary began with Peanut, whom Longo rescued seven years ago after witnessing the death of the squirrel's mother.
The DEC's intervention came after complaints about illegal wildlife possession. State regulations require specific licensing for keeping wild animals, a requirement that became central to the controversy.
Longo had been working toward obtaining certification as an educational facility. This process was ongoing when authorities executed their search warrant.
Mark Longo described the enforcement operation to TMZ, saying:
It's not only torn my family apart, but Peanut was the cornerstone of our non-profit animal rescue. And 10 to 12 DEC officers raided my house as if I was a drug dealer. I sat outside my house for five hours. I had to get a police escort to my bathroom.
The raid involved multiple departments and resulted in a thorough search of the property. Officers prevented Longo from performing basic sanctuary duties during the operation, including feeding rescue horses.
The execution of the search warrant led to the immediate removal of both Peanut and Fred. The animals were subsequently euthanized for rabies testing, as required by state protocol.
The internet's reaction manifested in various forms of expression. The Babylon Bee published satirical content, while others shared memes referencing popular culture, including comparisons to John Wick's revenge narrative.
Peanut's Instagram following of 550,000 demonstrated the squirrel's significant impact on social media. The account regularly featured heartwarming interactions between the rescued animal and his caretakers.
The story has sparked discussions about wildlife regulations and their enforcement. Many supporters have questioned the necessity of such dramatic action against a beloved animal sanctuary.
The loss of Peanut represents more than the end of a social media presence. It marks the conclusion of a seven-year journey that inspired the creation of an animal sanctuary. In his final message to followers, Longo shared an emotional tribute while holding a framed drawing of Peanut. The moment captured the personal impact of losing a companion that had become central to both his family and their mission.
In a surprising turn of events, House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested a potential repeal of the CHIPS and Science Act, only to retract this notion hours later.
Johnson initially hinted at the possibility of repealing the CHIPS Act if Republicans assume full control, but later clarified that it is not on their current agenda, as Newsweek reports.
During a rally in Syracuse, New York, Johnson discussed the possible repeal of the CHIPS and Science Act. This statement arose if Republicans manage to gain a majority in the upcoming election.
His comments initially indicated confidence in the repeal, asserting that the GOP "probably will" pursue it. However, he acknowledged that no official agenda had yet been developed concerning the repeal.
His sentiments at the rally centered around criticism of the CHIPS Act’s incorporation of elements akin to the Green New Deal. Johnson voiced concerns over what he perceived as significant costs linked to these elements. Later that day, he issued a reversal, stating that the CHIPS Act remains untouched for a repeal under current Republican plans.
Johnson's clarification included that future legislation might aim to streamline or remove certain regulatory requirements in the CHIPS Act. This approach would particularly target the costly elements tied to the "Green New Deal.” His quick change of tone sparked reactions from those in attendance, as well as political figures across the spectrum.
GOP Rep. Brandon Williams, present at the Syracuse event, reported that Johnson "apologized profusely" following his initial remarks. Williams highlighted Johnson's immediate clarification at the rally, where he expressed support for bolstering U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. This clarification was an attempt to reaffirm confidence in the CHIPS Act's intentions.
The CHIPS and Science Act, enacted by President Joe Biden in August 2022, aims to strengthen domestic semiconductor production. The legislation has already resulted in major investments, exemplified by Micron Technology's $100 billion pledge for a new facility in New York. Vice President Kamala Harris emphasized its importance, noting semiconductors as foundational to modern technology.
Johnson’s remarks sparked a wider political debate. Former President Donald Trump criticized the CHIPS Act on The Joe Rogan Experience, suggesting tariffs as an alternative to current subsidies. Such comments illustrate a divide within political circles on the best path to support U.S. technological advancement.
Despite earlier statements, Johnson's subsequent comments positioned him not against the CHIPS Act’s primary goals. His focus is seemingly directed towards refining its execution and addressing its regulatory framework. This includes potential opposition to elements he views as extraneous to the Act’s core mission.
Democratic National Committee spokesperson Alex Floyd responded critically to Johnson's shifted stance. Floyd expressed concerns over Republican goals to potentially dismantle various Biden-Harris initiatives aiding in economic growth and innovation across the nation. Such political tension underscores the complexities surrounding the CHIPS Act.
In conclusion, House Speaker Mike Johnson set off a sequence of clarifications following his speculative comments about repealing the CHIPS Act. His later apology and explanations at the rally aim to realign with the Act's intent to rejuvenate U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. Despite this, his initial words opened a broader discussion about this landmark legislation's future and its associated costs.
The CHIPS and Science Act remains a focal point of debate, as seen with varied political stances and economic strategies. While Johnson's initial comments were revised, the discourse they triggered illustrates ongoing conversations about technological policy. The Act’s future implications continue to hold significant importance for the U.S. economy and global competitiveness.
Chris Jacke, a renowned former Green Bay Packers kicker, emphatically denied rumors that he endorsed Kamala Harris for the presidency.
The rumor, suggested as a joke by Wisconsin podcaster John Egan, claimed Jacke supported Harris over Donald Trump, despite Jacke's prior vocal support for Donald Trump, as Breitbart reports.
Jacke, who kicked for the Packers from 1989 to 1996 and was a fan favorite throughout his career, expressed his outrage on social media after the false claims surfaced. The rumor was initiated by podcaster Egan, known in Wisconsin for his political commentary, who posted that Jacke was abandoning his Republican allegiance in favor of Harris. Jacke struck back on X, firmly dismissing the claim and reiterating his allegiance to Trump.
Egan eventually clarified that the post was meant to be humorous. Despite this, the claim circulated for days beyond its initial posting. Egan found it necessary to address the lingering misunderstanding, even as a community note was added to his post explicitly discrediting the claim about Jacke's presidential endorsement.
Egan, who had playfully chosen an unconventional image of Jacke for his tweet, initially thought it would be clear that the nature of the post was satirical. This was part of a broader online trend at the time, featuring humorous takes on political endorsements. However, the tongue-in-cheek nature of Egan's message did not register with everyone, leading to widespread confusion.
Jacke responded forcefully on his social media account, navigating the misinformation swiftly by blocking Egan. He urged his supporters to take similar action against Egan to prevent further spread of false information. Highlighting the satirical intent, Egan defended his post, stating, "It’s insane this is still making the rounds as a serious tweet.”
Despite the attempts to clarify, Egan expressed frustration over the ongoing proliferation of what he intended as a joke. Egan highlighted that he corrected the misunderstanding shortly after the initial post, yet the false narrative persisted far longer than anticipated.
The incident highlights the challenges posed by social media in the circulation of information, particularly when satire is misconstrued as fact. In this case, the viral reach of Egan’s post underscores the potential for miscommunication, even when the original intent is clearly stated.
Jacke's quick rejection of the false endorsement emphasizes his clear political stance. "Obviously, I was born with a brain and have not endorsed that nut job!!!" Jacke exclaimed in reaction to the rumor, directly associating his political identity with support for Donald Trump.
Jacke’s enduring popularity among football fans and his presence in the public sphere make him a figure of interest, worthy of significant media attention. From his storied career in professional football, culminating in reaching the Super Bowl with the Packers, Jacke has successfully maintained his status as a sports icon.
As a member of the Packers Hall of Fame, Jacke is accustomed to being in the public eye and has managed his post-football life with notable diligence. Navigating public and online spaces, however, presents new challenges, as exemplified by his recent experience.
The mistaken endorsement drama serves as a reminder of the swift pace at which information -- and misinformation -- can travel online. Jacke's quick action in countering the rumor reflects his awareness of the power and pitfalls of social media.
In summary, Chris Jacke firmly denied a rumor suggesting his endorsement of Kamala Harris, a claim humorously intended by podcaster John Egan but surprisingly taken seriously by many. Egan's attempt at humor, featuring Jacke, was swiftly clarified but continued to be misunderstood, highlighting challenges in digital communications and the viral nature of social media controversies. Ultimately, Jacke reiterated his support for Donald Trump, affirming his political stance amid the social media storm.
A legal battle over voting rights unfolds in suburban Philadelphia as the Trump campaign challenges mail ballot application procedures.
According to The Guardian, Judge Jeffrey Trauger has extended the deadline for Bucks County voters to apply for early mail ballots until Friday, following a lawsuit filed by Donald Trump's campaign and Republican allies.
The decision came after reports of long queues and turned-away voters at county election offices. Security guards had cut off the growing line at approximately 2:45 pm, sparking widespread criticism on social media platforms.
The lawsuit, jointly filed by the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee, and Senate candidate Dave McCormick, addressed concerns about voters being denied access to mail ballot applications when the Tuesday 5 pm deadline arrived.
Pennsylvania's current voting system differs from other states in that it does not offer designated early voting locations. Instead, voters must visit election offices to request ballots, complete them, and submit them in a process taking roughly 10 minutes per person. This system contributed to the overwhelming crowds at Bucks County's administration building in Doylestown.
Bucks County officials acknowledged a temporary miscommunication that resulted in some voters being told they couldn't be accommodated. The county later corrected this error, ensuring those in line by 5 pm could submit their applications.
RNC Chair Michael Whatley addressed supporters at an Allentown rally, expressing concerns about Democratic election officials' intentions regarding Republican voter turnout.
The former president took to Truth Social to voice his concerns about Pennsylvania's election integrity. Trump posted without evidence:
Pennsylvania is cheating, and getting caught, at large scale levels rarely seen before. REPORT CHEATING TO AUTHORITIES. Law Enforcement must act, NOW!
Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro strongly refuted these claims, drawing parallels to Trump's previous attempts to contest the 2020 election results. Shapiro emphasized his commitment to maintaining election integrity and respecting voter choices.
Pennsylvania's significance in the upcoming election cannot be overstated. The state carries more electoral college votes than any other battleground territory, making it a crucial target for both campaigns.
Current polling data indicates Vice President Kamala Harris maintains a slight advantage over Trump in Pennsylvania. Both candidates have prioritized the state in their campaign strategies, visiting more frequently than any other region.
The extended deadline for mail ballot applications represents a significant development in Pennsylvania's electoral process. Local election officials must now balance accommodating voter access while maintaining security protocols.
The judge's ruling provides additional time for Bucks County residents to participate in the electoral process. This extension aims to address the concerns raised about voter disenfranchisement while maintaining the integrity of the voting system. The situation highlights the ongoing challenges of managing election procedures in crucial swing states. As Pennsylvania moves closer to election day, the attention focused on its voting processes and outcomes continues to intensify.
Fresh from his release after serving time in federal prison, Steve Bannon delivers stark warnings about Hunter Biden's potential incarceration.
According to Daily Mail, the former White House chief strategist believes President Joe Biden's son would struggle to survive in federal prison, suggesting he wouldn't last more than two days.
Released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut, on Tuesday, Bannon immediately returned to the political sphere with provocative statements about the Biden family. The 70-year-old political figure served four months for contempt of Congress related to the January 6 investigation.
Drawing from his recent incarceration, Bannon described federal prisons as violent environments plagued by drug issues, particularly synthetic marijuana known as K2. His experience led him to conclude that Hunter Biden, who has previously struggled with drug addiction, would face significant challenges in such an environment.
The president's son faces potential prison time when he receives his sentence for gun and tax crimes in December. Despite calls for clemency, President Biden has consistently stated he will not use his presidential powers to pardon his son.
Bannon emphasized that surviving in federal prison requires constant vigilance and focus. His military background in the U.S. Navy, he claimed, helped prepare him for the confined environment with numerous other inmates.
Bannon wasted no time resuming his political activities, hosting his War Room livestream show from a Manhattan hotel suite immediately after his release. His return to the public sphere comes at a crucial time, just one week before Election Day.
During a press conference in Manhattan, Bannon, sporting his trademark double-shirt and Barbour jacket, revealed he had already communicated with Donald Trump. However, he declined to provide details about their conversation.
The political strategist maintained his stance on election integrity, warning supporters that the upcoming election results might take time to finalize. He emphasized the importance of ground game operations and voter turnout.
Bannon shared details about his own prison experience, noting how the strict regimen and outdoor exercise contributed to weight loss. His time with fellow inmates, he claimed, energized him for future political endeavors.
Speaking about the prison system, Bannon stated as follows:
I'm 70 years old. I can tell you, there's not many 70-year-olds I know on Wall Street or in the political class that could go to a federal prison for four months. It's extremely difficult. These places are violent places. There's lots of drugs. This drug, K2 is all over these prisons.
His observations about Hunter Biden were equally direct:
I don't think Hunter Biden would last 48 hours in a federal prison. I think that it would be too much for him, particularly with his previous drug addiction.
The former chief strategist's release coincides with a heated political climate, as polls indicate a close race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. Bannon's immediate return to political commentary and campaign activities signals his continued influence in conservative circles. His warnings about Hunter Biden's potential prison sentence add another layer of complexity to the ongoing political narrative surrounding the Biden family. As December approaches, the implications of Hunter Biden's legal troubles continue to cast a shadow over the administration's political landscape.
An actor known for his roles in popular TV comedies has been sentenced to prison for his participation in the Capitol riot nearly four years ago.
On Monday, Jay Johnston, who starred in "Bob's Burgers" and "Arrested Development," received a one-year prison sentence for his involvement in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.
According to The Independent, Johnston was part of the mob that stormed the Capitol, obstructing police officers in their duties. Johnston, 56, from Los Angeles, was seen in videos and photographs engaging with other rioters and using a cellphone to record the chaos. Prosecutors highlighted his actions, noting that he participated in a "heave ho" push against the police guarding a tunnel entrance to the Capitol.
Johnston pleaded guilty in July to interfering with police officers during a civil disorder. The charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Prosecutors recommended an 18-month sentence, citing his conduct and the severity of the crime.
During his sentencing hearing, Johnston expressed remorse for his actions. He told U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols that he regretted making the police's job more difficult and acknowledged his ignorance of the political climate leading up to the riot. He stated:
I never would have guessed that a riot would erupt that day. That was because of my own ignorance, I believe. If I had been more political, I could have seen that coming, perhaps.
Despite his remorse, Judge Nichols sentenced Johnston to one year and one day in prison. The judge acknowledged that Johnston would miss caring for his 13-year-old autistic daughter but emphasized the severity of his actions.
Prosecutors also pointed out that Johnston had joked about his participation in the riot, including dressing up as Jacob Chansley, the "QAnon Shaman," at a Halloween party two years after the incident. This behavior was seen as undermining the seriousness of his crime.
Johnston's career has taken a significant hit since the riot. He was fired from "Bob's Burgers" by the show's creator and lost a role in a movie based on the series. His defense attorney, Stanley Woodward, stated that Johnston has essentially been blacklisted in Hollywood and has been working as a handyman for the past two years.
Woodward argued that the government exaggerated Johnston’s role in the riot because of his status as a well-known actor. However, the court upheld the sentence, recognizing the gravity of the crime.
Johnston attended former President Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally near the White House on Jan. 6 before marching to the Capitol. He used a metal bike rack to scale a stone wall and made his way to the mouth of a tunnel entrance that police were guarding.
Inside the tunnel, Johnston helped other rioters flush chemical irritants out of their eyes and handed a stolen police shield closer to the police line. He also joined in a collective push against the police, which crushed an officer against a door frame.
FBI agents seized Johnston's cellphone during a search of his California home in June 2021. The phone contained evidence of his participation in the riot, including videos and text messages.
The sentencing of Jay Johnston underscores the ongoing legal proceedings related to the Capitol riot. As more individuals face justice for their roles in the attack, the impact on their lives and careers becomes increasingly clear. For Johnston, the one-year prison sentence marks a significant turning point in his life and a stark contrast to his previous success in the entertainment industry. Johnston's case also raises questions about the balance between personal responsibility and the broader societal influences that may have contributed to the riot.
A historic Madison Square Garden rally featuring former President Donald Trump sparked a war of words between the event organizers and New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
According to Fox News, the tension arose after Adams condemned "hateful words" used at the rally despite receiving unexpected praise from Trump during the event.
During the sold-out arena event, Trump offered unexpected support for Adams, acknowledging the mayor's struggles with the ongoing migrant crisis in New York City. The former president specifically highlighted Adams' previous statements about the unsustainable nature of the immigration situation affecting the city.
Trump's remarks at Madison Square Garden struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone toward Adams. The former president emphasized the mayor's candid assessment of New York's immigration challenges, which preceded Adams' recent legal troubles.
Trump referenced Adams' previous statements about the city's capacity to handle the influx of migrants. He specifically mentioned how Adams faced criticism for speaking out about the challenges. Speaking to the crowd, Trump said:
And you know who I want to thank? Mayor Adams. Because Mayor Adams has been treated pretty badly. You know, when he said that this whole thing with the migrants coming into New York, this is not sustainable. You know, we can't do it. We're trying to run a city, we got 100,000 migrants coming. We can't do it, we just can't do it, it's not feasible, it's not good.
The former president also made light-hearted references to Adams' recent legal troubles, comparing their experiences with upgraded airline seats.
The rally faced immediate backlash when comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made controversial remarks about Puerto Rico and Latino immigrants. These comments prompted swift action from the Trump campaign, which released a statement distancing itself from the comedian's words.
Adams' office responded to the event by focusing on the controversial comments rather than Trump's supportive remarks. The mayor took to social media to condemn what he perceived as hate speech at the gathering. Mayor Adams emphasized the need to maintain respectful discourse in the city, directing attention away from Trump's praise and toward the broader issue of inflammatory rhetoric.
The backdrop to this political exchange includes New York City's ongoing struggle with immigration challenges. Adams has previously criticized the federal government's handling of the situation, citing the arrival of nearly 100,000 asylum seekers to the city.
The mayor's stance on immigration has become intertwined with his recent legal troubles, as he faces a five-count indictment on fraud, bribery, and corruption charges. Adams has suggested that his outspoken position on immigration policy may have contributed to his current legal challenges.
Despite the complex political dynamics, Adams has recently defended Trump against comparisons to historical dictators, calling for more measured political discourse.
The interaction between Trump and Adams highlights the intricate nature of New York City politics. While Trump offered praise for Adams' handling of the migration crisis, the mayor's response focused on condemning controversial elements of the rally.
This political development occurs as both figures face their own legal challenges, with Adams dealing with corruption charges and Trump managing multiple legal cases. The situation underscores the complex relationships between political figures across party lines in the face of shared challenges.
A decades-old academic paper written by Vice President Kamala Harris's father reveals a striking contrast between his economic views and his daughter's current immigration policies.
According to the New York Post, Donald Harris, an emeritus professor at Stanford University, expressed significant concerns about mass immigration's impact on Black workers in his 1988 co-authored treatise "Black Economic Progress: An Agenda for the 1990s."
The scholarly work emerged just two years after President Ronald Reagan's 1986 immigrant amnesty law, presenting a perspective that significantly differs from the current administration's immigration policies.
Donald Harris, now 86 years old and a Marxist economist, presented detailed analysis about international trade trends and their effects on American workers. His research specifically highlighted concerns about modifications to U.S. immigration laws that increased low-skilled worker influx.
From the treatise, Donald Harris wrote:
Trends in international trade have moved against U.S. workers. U.S. immigration laws have been modified in ways that increase the influx of low-skilled workers, who compete with native-born youths and low-skilled adult workers for low-skilled jobs.
The academic's residence, just two miles from his daughter in Washington, D.C., adds a personal dimension to their contrasting views on immigration policy. Their relationship has been notably distant since his divorce from Kamala's mother in 1972.
Vice President Harris's current stance on immigration markedly differs from her father's earlier positions. Her support for providing pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants stands in stark contrast to her father's economic warnings.
The Biden-Harris administration's first day in office saw the introduction of the US Citizenship Act of 2021, which proposed granting legal status to millions of unauthorized immigrants currently residing in the United States. Black GOP political consultant Shermichael Singleton states:
The influx of illegal immigrants and thus low-skilled labor advocated by Harris/Walz, exacerbates inequalities by driving down wages and creating competition among those already marginalized, particularly black Americans.
The elder Harris's position aligns with other progressive voices from that era. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders previously expressed similar concerns about open borders, viewing them as potentially harmful to American workers.
The academic paper's timing, published in the aftermath of the 1986 amnesty law, reflects a period of significant debate about immigration's economic impact. These discussions continue to resonate in current political discourse.
Neither the Harris campaign nor Professor Harris provided responses to requests for comment on this matter.
The contrast between Donald Harris's academic warnings and Vice President Harris's current immigration policies illustrates the evolution of Democratic Party positions on immigration over several decades. The 1988 treatise represents a historical snapshot of economic thinking that differed significantly from current progressive positions.
The father-daughter divergence on immigration policy reflects broader changes in political discourse surrounding immigration reform and economic impact. Their contrasting views highlight the complex relationship between academic economic theory and practical political policy implementation in modern America.