> trump need to increase legal immigration another assumption, lol. trump has said we need vetted people to come in legally, not "we need to increase to increase legal immigration" > inb4 b-but he said "we need a lot of people" i could say i need a lot of food because i'm hungry, that doesn't mean i'm setting food eating world records, lmfao. also, "legal" immigration right now is 25 million aliens that "legally" came in via asylum fraud, so no, even under that he's not increasing the legal immigration. under trump's term, legal immigration remained roughly steady and on par with previous presidents. you're just making shit up then whining about it, lol. > >doing mass deportations on top of it > lol yup, don't forget the mass deportations part. we're deporting your cousin first, lmfao. > nice pivot precisely why i said, "and that's not even considering kamala". a bit of reading comprehension would tell you that even without harris' horrendous record, trump is still the superior choice. > so basically your argument is that again back to making shit up lol. lemme simplify it for you: a total immigration ban is unrealistic, we're keeping immigration and vetting people to make sure they don't affect american wages and they're the best of the best, and we're also doing mass deportations to get rid of your cousins, lol. > not interested in voting for trump then. good for you, and good luck! for everyone else with common sense: vote red to get ahead.
United States