Author Topic: Government Shutdown  (Read 5261 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #90 on: January 21, 2018, 12:15:02 PM »

Offline Yoki_IsTheName

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10190
  • Tommy Points: 1171
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
Quote
This has a point.

One point you're ingnoring and the facebook post does not mention, guess just who voted against CHIP extension.

Quote
WASHINGTON - The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday night approved on a temporary government funding bill that would avert a government shutdown on Saturday while reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program for six years and suspending an Affordable Care Act tax on medical devices that several Ohio manufacturers oppose.

The measure to fund the government through Feb. 16, which was approved in a 230 to 197 vote, now goes before the U.S. Senate, where it faces an uncertain fate. If Congress and President Donald Trump don't approve spending legislation by midnight on Friday, the government will shut down for lack of funds

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/01/house_of_representatives_votes_1.html

Guess who voted in down in the Senate pretty much by party lines.   I like the facebook post but it ignores this fact.  Or should I say it admits it.

Besides we all know that people who get their news from Facebook cost Hillary the election and are misinformed.

https://www.recode.net/2017/9/27/16376502/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-donald-trump-fake-news

Fair point.
"The Boston Celtics are not a basketball team, they are a way of life."

- Red


Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #91 on: January 21, 2018, 12:19:25 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32554
  • Tommy Points: 5351
Its surprising to me that we're debating deporting a DACA or creating a path to citizenship when the initial problem of illegal immigration is still not solved. Do you also clean up the water from the overflowing toilet before shutting off the water? Whatever considerations you give to a DACA needs to be established after securing the border for good as to not have policy fuel more illegal immigration. I'm fine with keeping them here until then.
Not sure what you mean by "securing the border for good".  You're never going to be able to stop all illegal immigration.  DACA and the overall illegal immigration issue needs to be worked together.  There should be no issue with the policy fueling more illegal immigration because it would only apply to illegal immigrants that could prove they were already in the US before a certain date.

If you put an exception for one group of people, it stands a logical test that we'll repeat the same courtesy for the next batch. It's kind of like negotiating with terrorists in the sense that if you do it once you'll do it always. Best case scenario in my opinion is to secure the border as much as possible (shoot to kill if you have to) and then keep the DACAs and their families here, make them pay penalties, whatever taxes they didn't pay over their time but do not ever allow citizenship for them. We're partially to blame for their illegal immigration because we've been soft on it with this catch and release method. Just shoot them dead as you would a trespasser and they'll stop coming. They are not citizens and could be dangerous. We are only protecting our borders so no human rights violations.
Even the shining star of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Wonder what he would think about a shoot to kill policy and not giving DACA and their families a path to citizenship? Of course, Reagan would probably be a Democrat in today's political environment.

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #92 on: January 21, 2018, 12:28:40 PM »

Offline Yoki_IsTheName

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10190
  • Tommy Points: 1171
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
Its surprising to me that we're debating deporting a DACA or creating a path to citizenship when the initial problem of illegal immigration is still not solved. Do you also clean up the water from the overflowing toilet before shutting off the water? Whatever considerations you give to a DACA needs to be established after securing the border for good as to not have policy fuel more illegal immigration. I'm fine with keeping them here until then.
Not sure what you mean by "securing the border for good".  You're never going to be able to stop all illegal immigration.  DACA and the overall illegal immigration issue needs to be worked together.  There should be no issue with the policy fueling more illegal immigration because it would only apply to illegal immigrants that could prove they were already in the US before a certain date.

If you put an exception for one group of people, it stands a logical test that we'll repeat the same courtesy for the next batch. It's kind of like negotiating with terrorists in the sense that if you do it once you'll do it always. Best case scenario in my opinion is to secure the border as much as possible (shoot to kill if you have to) and then keep the DACAs and their families here, make them pay penalties, whatever taxes they didn't pay over their time but do not ever allow citizenship for them. We're partially to blame for their illegal immigration because we've been soft on it with this catch and release method. Just shoot them dead as you would a trespasser and they'll stop coming. They are not citizens and could be dangerous. We are only protecting our borders so no human rights violations.
Even the shining star of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Wonder what he would think about a shoot to kill policy and not giving DACA and their families a path to citizenship? Of course, Reagan would probably be a Democrat in today's political environment.

This has been talked about at work. Everybody agrees here that the solution is just giving immigrants (not just the DREAMERS, but all illegal/undocumented) legal status with eventual path to citizenship. Of course, the conservative base doesn't want that. Some would say they don't want it unless they can secure the borders. Some don't want it, period.

But we focused the debate on the securing the borders thing. Now, we are not politicians, alright, we are just concerned people that wants a fix to the problem. We had an idea about this. . .

There's an estimated 11 million undocumented/illegals (I'm using both terms, I don't want to offend) in the country. Why not legalize them and charge them a fine for breaking the law?

If, say 5 million of the 11 million people pay a $1000 fine to be legalized, that's $5 BILLION the government can get. Whether it's a wall, a fence, more agents to enforce laws, or whatever it is they plan on doing, that should be able to fund it, or at the very least add to it.

Now the terms of legalization needs to be ironed out. They will be legal, but there are some things they can do that US citizens or Green Card holders can. Maybe they can't get Social Security benefits, or unemployment, and maybe some other government funded service except healthcare (we all agreed everyone should be able to get health care). They can't be a convicted felon. They have to learn English. They also have to pay their taxes once they became legal. Something like those, and some other things could be added too.

They did break the law, so we thought that, and paying a fine are a fair compromise. And that doesn't count as amnesty (not to us at least).

And they have to wait 15 years to be qualified for citizenship, and have to renew their legal status every 3 years, which means another $1000 fee, as well as they have to pass said requirements to be legal.

And the fine could be bigger too, if the government sees it as too small for the law that was broken.

Point is, the immigrants are going to pay for the wall, or whatever they want to put in the border. They pay for it, their status become legal.

I don't know. We think it's never going to happen, but we floated that idea at work and we think that's a sensible solution. But we aren't lawyers and politicians, so maybe this idea sucks too.

But I think we all can agree that this needs to be fixed now.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 12:34:29 PM by Yoki_IsTheName »
"The Boston Celtics are not a basketball team, they are a way of life."

- Red


Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #93 on: January 21, 2018, 12:29:27 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10437
  • Tommy Points: 1170
Its surprising to me that we're debating deporting a DACA or creating a path to citizenship when the initial problem of illegal immigration is still not solved. Do you also clean up the water from the overflowing toilet before shutting off the water? Whatever considerations you give to a DACA needs to be established after securing the border for good as to not have policy fuel more illegal immigration. I'm fine with keeping them here until then.
Not sure what you mean by "securing the border for good".  You're never going to be able to stop all illegal immigration.  DACA and the overall illegal immigration issue needs to be worked together.  There should be no issue with the policy fueling more illegal immigration because it would only apply to illegal immigrants that could prove they were already in the US before a certain date.

If you put an exception for one group of people, it stands a logical test that we'll repeat the same courtesy for the next batch. It's kind of like negotiating with terrorists in the sense that if you do it once you'll do it always. Best case scenario in my opinion is to secure the border as much as possible (shoot to kill if you have to) and then keep the DACAs and their families here, make them pay penalties, whatever taxes they didn't pay over their time but do not ever allow citizenship for them. We're partially to blame for their illegal immigration because we've been soft on it with this catch and release method. Just shoot them dead as you would a trespasser and they'll stop coming. They are not citizens and could be dangerous. We are only protecting our borders so no human rights violations.
Even the shining star of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Wonder what he would think about a shoot to kill policy and not giving DACA and their families a path to citizenship? Of course, Reagan would probably be a Democrat in today's political environment.

Yeesh.....shoot to kill?

I mean, come on.

I want illegal immigration ended, like yesterday.  I'm also strongly in favor of a lot of measures that would severely limit peoples from areas of extreme instability, that may not be safe to allow in.

But shoot to kill?  Yeah, no.

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #94 on: January 21, 2018, 12:38:11 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34600
  • Tommy Points: -27842
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Its surprising to me that we're debating deporting a DACA or creating a path to citizenship when the initial problem of illegal immigration is still not solved. Do you also clean up the water from the overflowing toilet before shutting off the water? Whatever considerations you give to a DACA needs to be established after securing the border for good as to not have policy fuel more illegal immigration. I'm fine with keeping them here until then.
Not sure what you mean by "securing the border for good".  You're never going to be able to stop all illegal immigration.  DACA and the overall illegal immigration issue needs to be worked together.  There should be no issue with the policy fueling more illegal immigration because it would only apply to illegal immigrants that could prove they were already in the US before a certain date.

If you put an exception for one group of people, it stands a logical test that we'll repeat the same courtesy for the next batch. It's kind of like negotiating with terrorists in the sense that if you do it once you'll do it always. Best case scenario in my opinion is to secure the border as much as possible (shoot to kill if you have to) and then keep the DACAs and their families here, make them pay penalties, whatever taxes they didn't pay over their time but do not ever allow citizenship for them. We're partially to blame for their illegal immigration because we've been soft on it with this catch and release method. Just shoot them dead as you would a trespasser and they'll stop coming. They are not citizens and could be dangerous. We are only protecting our borders so no human rights violations.
Even the shining star of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Wonder what he would think about a shoot to kill policy and not giving DACA and their families a path to citizenship? Of course, Reagan would probably be a Democrat in today's political environment.

He did, and what happened? Nothing got fixed and illegal immigration is still a huge problem.  Part of that is because Reagan miscalculated, and expected Congress to keep its word related to legislation aimed at punishing employers of illegal immigrants.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #95 on: January 21, 2018, 12:46:56 PM »

Online fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18223
  • Tommy Points: 1962
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Quote
This has a point.

One point you're ingnoring and the facebook post does not mention, guess just who voted against CHIP extension.

Quote
WASHINGTON - The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday night approved on a temporary government funding bill that would avert a government shutdown on Saturday while reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program for six years and suspending an Affordable Care Act tax on medical devices that several Ohio manufacturers oppose.

The measure to fund the government through Feb. 16, which was approved in a 230 to 197 vote, now goes before the U.S. Senate, where it faces an uncertain fate. If Congress and President Donald Trump don't approve spending legislation by midnight on Friday, the government will shut down for lack of funds

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/01/house_of_representatives_votes_1.html

Guess who voted in down in the Senate pretty much by party lines.   I like the facebook post but it ignores this fact.  Or should I say it admits it.

Besides we all know that people who get their news from Facebook cost Hillary the election and are misinformed.

https://www.recode.net/2017/9/27/16376502/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-donald-trump-fake-news
Both sides want CHIP extended and it should have been extended on it's own months ago.  However, it has been turned into a political football.  Much like pay for the military now is being used for political reasons.

CHIP's getting extended either way, just like the military will get paid either way. That's why it serves as poor political leverage outside of appeals to people like us. Nobody's remotely willing to actually kill it and they all know it.

Along with the President's erraticness and lack of clear position, a big obstacle to reaching a compromise is the things the Republicans are offering to give (mainly CHIP and DACA) have broad bipartisan support - though in fairness DACA is very unpopular among a vocal R minority - but the things the Democrats are moving on (mainly border and military $) are much more one-sided. It's a good recipe for resentment and motivation to demand asymmetrical concessions.


Looks like Trump thinks this is a winning issue for him:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nm0vQwO5c

It is unfortunate politics as usual, but it is not the type of ad you release if you want to find middle ground.

Willie Horton lives, I see.

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #96 on: January 21, 2018, 12:50:31 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32554
  • Tommy Points: 5351
Its surprising to me that we're debating deporting a DACA or creating a path to citizenship when the initial problem of illegal immigration is still not solved. Do you also clean up the water from the overflowing toilet before shutting off the water? Whatever considerations you give to a DACA needs to be established after securing the border for good as to not have policy fuel more illegal immigration. I'm fine with keeping them here until then.
Not sure what you mean by "securing the border for good".  You're never going to be able to stop all illegal immigration.  DACA and the overall illegal immigration issue needs to be worked together.  There should be no issue with the policy fueling more illegal immigration because it would only apply to illegal immigrants that could prove they were already in the US before a certain date.

If you put an exception for one group of people, it stands a logical test that we'll repeat the same courtesy for the next batch. It's kind of like negotiating with terrorists in the sense that if you do it once you'll do it always. Best case scenario in my opinion is to secure the border as much as possible (shoot to kill if you have to) and then keep the DACAs and their families here, make them pay penalties, whatever taxes they didn't pay over their time but do not ever allow citizenship for them. We're partially to blame for their illegal immigration because we've been soft on it with this catch and release method. Just shoot them dead as you would a trespasser and they'll stop coming. They are not citizens and could be dangerous. We are only protecting our borders so no human rights violations.
Even the shining star of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Wonder what he would think about a shoot to kill policy and not giving DACA and their families a path to citizenship? Of course, Reagan would probably be a Democrat in today's political environment.

He did, and what happened? Nothing got fixed and illegal immigration is still a huge problem.  Part of that is because Reagan miscalculated, and expected Congress to keep its word related to legislation aimed at punishing employers of illegal immigrants.
Doesn't change the fact it was the right thing to do. This government has never wanted to go after the employers of undocumented workers. They still don't. You never hear anything about it with the current administration. Its all about a wall. Build a wall and guess what? As long as employers are willing to hired illegals, illegals will find a way into this country. You have to target America businesses to stop providing these employment opportunities, but this administration, like every other, won't do that.

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #97 on: January 21, 2018, 01:06:13 PM »

Offline chicagoceltic

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 623
  • Tommy Points: 83
Quote
This has a point.

One point you're ingnoring and the facebook post does not mention, guess just who voted against CHIP extension.

Quote
WASHINGTON - The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday night approved on a temporary government funding bill that would avert a government shutdown on Saturday while reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program for six years and suspending an Affordable Care Act tax on medical devices that several Ohio manufacturers oppose.

The measure to fund the government through Feb. 16, which was approved in a 230 to 197 vote, now goes before the U.S. Senate, where it faces an uncertain fate. If Congress and President Donald Trump don't approve spending legislation by midnight on Friday, the government will shut down for lack of funds

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/01/house_of_representatives_votes_1.html

Guess who voted in down in the Senate pretty much by party lines.   I like the facebook post but it ignores this fact.  Or should I say it admits it.

Besides we all know that people who get their news from Facebook cost Hillary the election and are misinformed.

https://www.recode.net/2017/9/27/16376502/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-donald-trump-fake-news
Both sides want CHIP extended and it should have been extended on it's own months ago.  However, it has been turned into a political football.  Much like pay for the military now is being used for political reasons.

CHIP's getting extended either way, just like the military will get paid either way. That's why it serves as poor political leverage outside of appeals to people like us. Nobody's remotely willing to actually kill it and they all know it.

Along with the President's erraticness and lack of clear position, a big obstacle to reaching a compromise is the things the Republicans are offering to give (mainly CHIP and DACA) have broad bipartisan support - though in fairness DACA is very unpopular among a vocal R minority - but the things the Democrats are moving on (mainly border and military $) are much more one-sided. It's a good recipe for resentment and motivation to demand asymmetrical concessions.


Looks like Trump thinks this is a winning issue for him:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U-nm0vQwO5c

It is unfortunate politics as usual, but it is not the type of ad you release if you want to find middle ground.

Willie Horton lives, I see.
While I agree that nobody wants to actually kill CHIP or keep the military from being paid there are some willing to temporarily do both at the detriment of many for political leverage.  The narrative that the Republicans are pushing is that the Democrats are choosing illegals over health insurance for poor children and pay for the military.  To believe that though you have to turn a blind eye to the fact that CHIP could and should have been extended months ago and that McConnell objected to and killed a bill that would have continued to pay the military though the shutdown (just like what happened in 2013).  Other than political leverage why on earth would McConnell kill that bill?  Politics has become very ugly from both sides.
Pub Draft

Sam N Ella's

At the Bar: The Most Interesting Man in the World
At the Door:  Hugh Hefner
On Stage:  O.A.R., Louis C.K., EDGAR! Special Drinks:  Irish Car Bomb, Martinis On Tap: Lite, Beamish, 3 Floyds Seasonal, Chimay Grand Reserve, Spotted Cow

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #98 on: January 21, 2018, 01:53:26 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34600
  • Tommy Points: -27842
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Its surprising to me that we're debating deporting a DACA or creating a path to citizenship when the initial problem of illegal immigration is still not solved. Do you also clean up the water from the overflowing toilet before shutting off the water? Whatever considerations you give to a DACA needs to be established after securing the border for good as to not have policy fuel more illegal immigration. I'm fine with keeping them here until then.
Not sure what you mean by "securing the border for good".  You're never going to be able to stop all illegal immigration.  DACA and the overall illegal immigration issue needs to be worked together.  There should be no issue with the policy fueling more illegal immigration because it would only apply to illegal immigrants that could prove they were already in the US before a certain date.

If you put an exception for one group of people, it stands a logical test that we'll repeat the same courtesy for the next batch. It's kind of like negotiating with terrorists in the sense that if you do it once you'll do it always. Best case scenario in my opinion is to secure the border as much as possible (shoot to kill if you have to) and then keep the DACAs and their families here, make them pay penalties, whatever taxes they didn't pay over their time but do not ever allow citizenship for them. We're partially to blame for their illegal immigration because we've been soft on it with this catch and release method. Just shoot them dead as you would a trespasser and they'll stop coming. They are not citizens and could be dangerous. We are only protecting our borders so no human rights violations.
Even the shining star of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Wonder what he would think about a shoot to kill policy and not giving DACA and their families a path to citizenship? Of course, Reagan would probably be a Democrat in today's political environment.

He did, and what happened? Nothing got fixed and illegal immigration is still a huge problem.  Part of that is because Reagan miscalculated, and expected Congress to keep its word related to legislation aimed at punishing employers of illegal immigrants.
Doesn't change the fact it was the right thing to do. This government has never wanted to go after the employers of undocumented workers. They still don't. You never hear anything about it with the current administration. Its all about a wall. Build a wall and guess what? As long as employers are willing to hired illegals, illegals will find a way into this country. You have to target America businesses to stop providing these employment opportunities, but this administration, like every other, won't do that.

I agree. Mandatory E-verify should be part of any immigration compromise.

Iím curious: would you support an amnesty bill that granted conditional legal status to long-term immigrants, without a path to citizenship?  But, for those immigrants who have stayed out of trouble and who can support themselves, you take deportation completely off the table and give them a Tax ID number. 



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #99 on: January 21, 2018, 02:08:23 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32554
  • Tommy Points: 5351
Its surprising to me that we're debating deporting a DACA or creating a path to citizenship when the initial problem of illegal immigration is still not solved. Do you also clean up the water from the overflowing toilet before shutting off the water? Whatever considerations you give to a DACA needs to be established after securing the border for good as to not have policy fuel more illegal immigration. I'm fine with keeping them here until then.
Not sure what you mean by "securing the border for good".  You're never going to be able to stop all illegal immigration.  DACA and the overall illegal immigration issue needs to be worked together.  There should be no issue with the policy fueling more illegal immigration because it would only apply to illegal immigrants that could prove they were already in the US before a certain date.

If you put an exception for one group of people, it stands a logical test that we'll repeat the same courtesy for the next batch. It's kind of like negotiating with terrorists in the sense that if you do it once you'll do it always. Best case scenario in my opinion is to secure the border as much as possible (shoot to kill if you have to) and then keep the DACAs and their families here, make them pay penalties, whatever taxes they didn't pay over their time but do not ever allow citizenship for them. We're partially to blame for their illegal immigration because we've been soft on it with this catch and release method. Just shoot them dead as you would a trespasser and they'll stop coming. They are not citizens and could be dangerous. We are only protecting our borders so no human rights violations.
Even the shining star of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Wonder what he would think about a shoot to kill policy and not giving DACA and their families a path to citizenship? Of course, Reagan would probably be a Democrat in today's political environment.

He did, and what happened? Nothing got fixed and illegal immigration is still a huge problem.  Part of that is because Reagan miscalculated, and expected Congress to keep its word related to legislation aimed at punishing employers of illegal immigrants.
Doesn't change the fact it was the right thing to do. This government has never wanted to go after the employers of undocumented workers. They still don't. You never hear anything about it with the current administration. Its all about a wall. Build a wall and guess what? As long as employers are willing to hired illegals, illegals will find a way into this country. You have to target America businesses to stop providing these employment opportunities, but this administration, like every other, won't do that.

I agree. Mandatory E-verify should be part of any immigration compromise.

Iím curious: would you support an amnesty bill that granted conditional legal status to long-term immigrants, without a path to citizenship?  But, for those immigrants who have stayed out of trouble and who can support themselves, you take deportation completely off the table and give them a Tax ID number.
I think some pathway to citizenship should be provided. Maybe make it a long time to get it and make it expensive, but still provide it. They did break the law, after all, so it shouldn't be easy.

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #100 on: January 22, 2018, 09:23:31 AM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41611
  • Tommy Points: 2334
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Lindsey Graham with some strong words about why a deal isn't done:

Quote from: Via The Hill
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) warned on Sunday that the White House staff is undercutting President Trump and Congress's ability to get a deal on immigration.

"Every time we have a proposal it is only yanked back by staff members. As long as Stephen Miller is in charge of negotiating immigration, we're going nowhere," Graham told reporters as he headed into a closed-door negotiation with a bipartisan group of senators.

He added that "the White House staff, I think, is making it very difficult."

Miller, a White House aide, is well known for his conservative views on immigration. He was formerly a staffer for then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who frequently opposed bipartisan immigration deals.

Miller authored the White House's wide-ranging immigration plan, which includes wall funding and cracking down on cities that don't comply with federal immigration law.

Graham said on Sunday that Miller has "been an outlier for years" on the issue of immigration.

The White House fired back at Graham.

"As long as Senator Graham chooses to support legislation that sides with people in this country illegally and unlawfully instead of our own American citizens, we are going nowhere. Heís been an outlier for years," said White House spokesman Hogan Gidley.

Meanwhile Kellyanne Conway, noted liar, is saying:

Quote
Kellyanne Conway says she "can't think of anybody who is more explicit about their position on immigration" than President Trump, who has wavered on DACA, who will pay for the wall, what it will look like, etc.

And finally, lest we forget that our own President, the guy who was put in office via democratic process, is a schoolyard bully playing petty games who only knows how to solve a conflict by being a disingenuous manipulative jerk:

Quote
Democrats have shut down our government in the interests of their far left base. They donít want to do it but are powerless!

Far left? Most Americans are in favor of supporting DACA. By a wide margin. I know Donald Trump doesn't care about anyone who didn't vote for him, but jeez.

Quote from: Via Poltico
Voters overwhelmingly support allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to stay in the country, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, placing President Donald Trumpís decision to wind down the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program at odds with public opinion.

A majority of voters, 58 percent, think these undocumented immigrants, also known as Dreamers, should be allowed to stay and become citizens if they meet certain requirements ó a sentiment that goes well beyond the existing DACA program. Another 18 percent think they should be allowed to stay and become legal residents, but not citizens. Only 15 percent think they should be removed or deported from the country.

...looks like our nation's got a case of the Mondays....


"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #101 on: January 22, 2018, 10:17:06 AM »

Offline Yoki_IsTheName

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10190
  • Tommy Points: 1171
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
One side wants legalization for immigrants, the other wants a wall.

Like we have discussed here at work, why not just let the immigrants pay for the wall? Wouldn't that, in a way, is killing two birds with one stone?
"The Boston Celtics are not a basketball team, they are a way of life."

- Red


Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #102 on: January 22, 2018, 10:20:18 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17639
  • Tommy Points: 1263
I agree. Mandatory E-verify should be part of any immigration compromise.

Iím curious: would you support an amnesty bill that granted conditional legal status to long-term immigrants, without a path to citizenship?  But, for those immigrants who have stayed out of trouble and who can support themselves, you take deportation completely off the table and give them a Tax ID number.
That's a tempting solution, but the million dollar question is what type of status are you giving those people, and what do you actually want to achieve with this measure.

I am not opposed to a solution that provides a path to citizenship for deferred action migrants, and a legal, non-citizen conditional status for their parents (or whoever brought them here). But what is that status taking off the table as compared to full citizenship?
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #103 on: January 22, 2018, 10:22:44 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34600
  • Tommy Points: -27842
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
One side wants legalization for immigrants, the other wants a wall.

Like we have discussed here at work, why not just let the immigrants pay for the wall? Wouldn't that, in a way, is killing two birds with one stone?

If the wall costs $20 billion and there are 800,000 DACA recipients, thatís $25,000 each.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Government Shutdown
« Reply #104 on: January 22, 2018, 10:25:43 AM »

Offline Yoki_IsTheName

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10190
  • Tommy Points: 1171
  • I'm a Paul Heyman guy.
One side wants legalization for immigrants, the other wants a wall.

Like we have discussed here at work, why not just let the immigrants pay for the wall? Wouldn't that, in a way, is killing two birds with one stone?

If the wall costs $20 billion and there are 800,000 DACA recipients, thatís $25,000 each.

We're not talking about just DACA, we're talking all undocumented immigrants as a whole.

There's an estimated 11 million of them, according reports. Assuming 6 million of them pay a, say $1000 fine to get legal status (with restrictions of course), every 2-3 years, that would be at least $6 billion every three years, that would either pay for, if not, add to the funding of the wall.

And there's no way a wall could be built. Too expensive. That money, however, could be used for any other border security measure they can come up.
"The Boston Celtics are not a basketball team, they are a way of life."

- Red