> Isn't straw man.
Yes, it is. Specifically, it's most commonly a strawman applied to people who disagree with the speakers’ preferred methods of enforcing immigration law while still supporting the principle of limited legal immigration. As you demonstrate.
> Kamala Harris has called for defacto open borders
No, she hasn't. She's called for decriminalizing crossing outside of designated border crossings (not “crossing illegally”, as there are other illegal crossings—such as crossing at a designated border crossing with false documentation—which is also criminal and she has not called for decriminalizing), but also for continuing to enforce immigration law with civil rather than criminal process (which includes continued use of deportation, which is itself a civil rather than criminal sanction.) This is not open borders, de facto or otherwise.
> same with Julian Castro.
Well, it's the same in that the claim is also not true of Castro, who explicitly called for monitoring and retaining civil penalties for illegal entry and presence including the selective use of deportation, alongside supporting decriminalization of crossing outside designated crossings and assuring that asylum seekers get the hearings they are entitled to under the law.
> She literally said during the debate no one gets deported
No, she literally did not.
> and crossing illegally would be a civil penalty, aka jay walking ticket.
Civil process includes sanctions much more severe than jay walking tickets, including deportation.