Connect with us

News

Harris has to dazzle in the debate

Published

on

Harris has to dazzle in the debate

Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

This should be easy. Confirmation that Kamala Harris is sane and sentient would — in an ideal world — be more than enough for her to beat Donald Trump in Tuesday night’s debate.

Trump’s flaws are too well known to need rehearsing. Even Dick Cheney — nobody’s idea of a liberal — has announced that he will be voting for Harris. The former Republican vice-president labelled Trump as the greatest threat to the American republic in its 248-year history.

But the reality is that Harris needs to do much more than give an adequate performance. The last major poll taken before the debate suggested that Trump now has a one-point lead over Harris.

Advertisement

Of course, the New York Times/Siena poll is just one of many. Other polls in recent weeks have tended to suggest that Harris has a slim advantage in the popular vote — with the crucial swing states mainly too close to call. But given the bias against the Democrats in the electoral college system, Harris needs to be several points ahead in the popular vote to be sure of winning. And no polls suggest that she has yet established that kind of lead.

So the Harris camp has reason to be worried. The surge in excitement and support that she generated after replacing Joe Biden at the top of the ticket in July is dissipating.

The hopes that Harris would get a real bounce in the polls after the Democratic convention — and open up a substantial lead over Trump — were not met. Reports of disarray in the Trump camp have not translated into a weakening in support for the Republican.

Could it be that Harris’s campaign has not been the brilliantly executed triumph portrayed by some pundits? One obvious weakness is that Harris has been very reluctant to risk straying off script, by giving interviews to the media. The first television interview that she did was in the company of her running mate, Tim Walz — which suggested a lack of confidence, as if the would-be president needed a chaperone to get through some rather gentle questioning.

Perhaps as a result many voters still feel they don’t know enough about Harris to make a proper judgment. In the recent poll some 28 per cent say they need to learn more about her; compared to just 9 per cent who want to learn more about Trump.

Advertisement

But that information gap also presents Harris with an opportunity. The debate gives her a chance to define herself for the many voters who will be getting their first good look at the Democratic candidate. Harris really needs to seize that opportunity. This Tuesday’s face-off with Trump may be her last real chance to shift the momentum of the race — since no further debates are yet scheduled.

Trump and the Republicans are trying hard to define Harris as a San Francisco liberal and a “DEI” candidate — who has risen to the top because she is a Black woman, rather than on merit. Harris should take the opportunity to underline that she has lived a much less privileged life than Trump, who was born into money and privilege.

Some 61 per cent of the voters say that they want to see “major change” after the Biden presidency. Harris has somehow to convince voters that she can represent that change, despite being Biden’s vice-president. Her proposal for price controls on some goods — while panned by many economists — may be the kind of eye-catching suggestion that actually resonates with Americans who are struggling with inflation.

Yet the history of presidential election debates also suggests that they often turn on a single one-line zinger. Ronald Reagan’s genial riposte to Jimmy Carter — “There you go again” — was retrospectively deemed to be a disarming masterstroke. In the 1988 vice-presidential debate, Lloyd Bentsen memorably squelched Dan Quayle, who had unwisely compared himself to John F Kennedy, by telling him — “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” (Michael Dukakis and Bentsen still lost the election to George HW Bush and Quayle.)

In June’s debate, Trump delivered the killer line that summed up Biden’s shocking deterioration — “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said either.”

Advertisement

Who will win the 2024 presidential election? Join Gideon Rachman and colleagues for a subscriber webinar on September 12 to assess the candidates’ chances after their first debate. Register for your subscriber pass now at ft.com/uswebinar

That moment should serve as a reminder not to underestimate Trump’s abilities as a debater or a television performer. Biden’s debate performance was unexpectedly awful; but Trump also did unexpectedly well. While he delivered the usual stream of lies and non-sequiturs, he also came across as more disciplined and quicker on his feet than in some previous debates.

In keeping with her campaign’s strategy to define Trump as weird — and to come across as joyful, rather than angry — Harris may look for an opportunity to laugh at Trump, rather than to denounce him.

Hoping that Trump will self-sabotage with some horrible outburst — or for the opportunity to deliver a quick put-down — the Harris campaign argued for both candidates’ microphones to remain open throughout the debate. It lost that skirmish. So Harris will have to find another way to win the battle.

The uncomfortable truth is that if the polls do not shift sharply after Tuesday’s debate, Harris is probably heading for defeat and the US is heading for a second Trump presidency.

Advertisement

gideon.rachman@ft.com

News

Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel

Published

on

Under Trump, Green Card Seekers Face New Scrutiny for Views on Israel

For decades, immigrants who have followed the rules and have not broken the law have had hopes of earning a green card, a document that allows them to live legally in the United States and gain a path to citizenship.

But under new guidance issued by the Trump administration, immigrants can now be denied a green card for expressing political opinions, such as participating in pro-Palestinian campus protests, posting criticism of Israel on social media and desecrating the American flag, according to internal Department of Homeland Security training materials reviewed by The New York Times.

The documents, which have not been previously reported, show how expansively the Trump administration is carrying out a directive from last August to vet green card applicants for “anti-American” and “antisemitic” views.

The administration includes criticism of Israel as a potentially disqualifying factor, with the training materials citing as an example of questionable speech a social media post that declares, “Stop Israeli Terror in Palestine” and shows the Israeli flag crossed out.

The materials were distributed last month to immigration officers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and handles applications for green cards and other forms of legal status.

Advertisement

They reflect how U.S.C.I.S. — long considered the gateway agency for legal migration — has rapidly transformed under President Trump into another cog in his administration’s deportation machine. The agency has worked to strip naturalized Americans of their citizenship and has hired armed federal agents to investigate immigration crimes.

The administration is also granting permanent legal residency to far fewer applicants. Green card approvals have fallen by more than half in recent months, according to a Times analysis of agency data.

“There is no room in America for aliens who espouse anti-American ideologies or support terrorist organizations,” Joseph Edlow, the agency’s director, told Congress in February.

Critics of Mr. Trump’s approach say the administration is seeking to restrict legitimate political speech, and has conflated opposition to Israeli government policies with antisemitism.

Basing green card decisions on “ideological screenings is fundamentally un-American and should have no place in a country built on the promise of free expression,” said Amanda Baran, a senior agency official under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Advertisement

Administration officials said they were defending American values.

“If you hate America, you have no business demanding to live in America,” said Zach Kahler, a spokesman for U.S.C.I.S.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration’s policies had “nothing to do with free speech” and were meant to protect “American institutions, the safety of citizens, national security and the freedoms of the United States.”

The administration has moved aggressively against immigrants for expressing political views that officials have deemed anti-American, making ideology a central part of its immigration vetting process. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has revoked the visas of pro-Palestinian student activists, including one who wrote a column criticizing her university’s response to pro-Palestinian demands.

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed reviewing the social media histories of tourists seeking to visit the United States.

Advertisement

Immigration officers have significant discretion in deciding whether to grant foreigners long-term permanent residence. They have long considered a variety of factors, including criminal records, national security threats, family ties to the United States and employment histories.

Ideology has also traditionally been one of those factors. In some cases, U.S. law forbids officers from granting green cards to people who have belonged to a Communist or other “totalitarian” political party, have promoted anarchy or have called for the overthrow of the U.S. government by “force or violence or other unconstitutional means.”

But in the past, immigration officers have focused on statements that could incite or encourage violence, given concerns about infringing on constitutionally protected speech, former U.S.C.I.S. officials said.

The new training materials reviewed by The Times guide immigration officers through the factors they should consider when ruling on green card applications. They discourage officers from granting green cards to people with a history of “endorsing, promoting or supporting anti-American views” or “antisemitic terrorism, ideologies or groups.”

Immigration officers have been told to weigh those factors as “overwhelmingly negative.”

Advertisement

The documents list support for “subversive” ideologies as among other factors that could lead to an application being rejected. As an example, the materials point to someone “holding a sign advocating overthrow of the U.S. government.”

In addition, the guidance describes the desecration of the American flag as a negative factor, citing Mr. Trump’s executive order last year directing the Justice Department to prosecute protesters who burn the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a form of political expression protected by the First Amendment.

Immigration officers have also been told to scrutinize applicants who encourage antisemitism “through rhetorical or physical actions.” They were instructed to “focus particularly on aliens who engaged in on-campus anti-American and antisemitic activities” after the Hamas attacks against Israel in 2023, the documents show.

Further examples in the documents of conduct characterized as antisemitic include a social media post showing a map of Israel with the nation’s name crossed out and replaced with the word “Palestine.” Another illustrative post suggests that Israelis should “taste what people in Gaza are tasting.”

Immigration officers must elevate all cases involving “potential anti-American and/or antisemitic conduct or ideology” to their managers and to the agency’s general counsel’s office for review, according to the documents.

Advertisement

In recent months, the agency has also changed the way it refers to the employees who adjudicate green card applications, long known as “immigration services officers.” In job postings, it now calls them “homeland defenders.”

“Protect your homeland and defend your culture,” one posting says.

Steven Rich contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

News

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

Published

on

America’s bid for energy supremacy is being forged in war

Additional work by Jana Tauschinski

Oil and gas tanker location and destination data are from Kpler. The map shows the latest position for vessels with an active AIS signal on April 19–20, filtered by minimum capacity thresholds: crude tankers of at least 50,000 deadweight tonnage (DWT); oil product tankers of at least 55,000 DWT; oil/chemical tankers of at least 40,000 DWT; LNG carriers of at least 150,000 cubic metres; and LPG carriers of at least 50,000 cubic metres. Net fossil fuel import data by country are based on Ember analysis of the IEA World Energy Balances 2023.

Continue Reading

News

Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students

Published

on

Roommate faces murder charges in deaths of 2 University of South Florida doctoral students

A 26-year-old man is facing two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of two University of South Florida doctoral students who went missing last week, local authorities said Saturday. 

The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in Florida said that evidence presented to the state attorney’s office resulted in the charges against Hisham Abugharbieh, the roommate of Zamil Limon, one of the doctoral students. 

Abugharbieh is accused of premediated murder with a weapon. He was arrested on Friday, the same day Limon was found dead. 

The family of Nahida Bristy, the other doctoral student, told CBS News that police said she is also likely dead. That is based on the volume of blood discovered at Abugharbieh’s residence, which he shared with Limon.

“Police told us she is no longer with us,” Bristy’s brother, Zahid Prato, said early Saturday.

Advertisement

The family was told her body may never be found and police believe she may have been dismembered, according to Prato. 

CBS News has reached out to police for more information.

Authorities said in a statement Saturday they were still searching for Bristy.

Limon’s remains were found on the Howard Franklin Bridge in Tampa Friday morning, Chief Deputy Joseph Maurer with the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office said. His cause of death was pending autopsy results.

Deputies with the sheriff’s office took Abugharbieh into custody on Friday after responding to a domestic violence call at a home in the Lake Forest Community, a neighborhood near USF’s Tampa campus, officials said. He also faces charges of domestic violence and evidence tampering, as well as a charge of failing to report a death to law enforcement.

Advertisement

Limon and Bristy, both 27, had last been seen in the Tampa area on April 16. 

Limon was studying the use of AI in environmental science and was set to present his doctoral thesis this week, his family said. Bristy is studying chemical engineering. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending