The Joker

Stupidest Shutdown in History

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dog said:

If this is what a shutdown does...

"Job growth in January shattered expectations, with nonfarm payrolls surging by 304,000, the Labor Department says".

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/01/nonfarm-payrolls-january-2019.html

I am sure the 800,000 federal employees, along with I don't know how many contractors, who endured the financial hardship of President Trump's tantrum shutdown will be heartened to hear this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

If this is what a shutdown does...

"Job growth in January shattered expectations, with nonfarm payrolls surging by 304,000, the Labor Department says".

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/01/nonfarm-payrolls-january-2019.html

Cause and effect? How many of those "new jobs" were former gov't working taking any possible job to try and make their rent/mortgage?

In any event, 800k down and 300k up leaves us where, exactly?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019 at 5:55 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Expect a renewed and sustained bullshit offensive.  

Abortion! Outrageous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Looks like McConnell is discouraging our stable genius from declaring an emergency. That will be an interesting pill for the faithful, and Trump, to swallow. Another shutdown? 

https://www.axios.com/mitch-mcconnell-warned-trump-national-emergency-border-wall-f90924f9-9aa9-4473-b079-fe5ba6ac2b12.html

While Ann Coulter is ratcheting up the name-calling.  It'll be interesting if President Trump can ignore her slights, this time.

Ann Coulter: 'Lunatic Trump' could be challenged in 2020 - from the right

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYT had an opinion piece that opined that McConnell is the one REALLY running the show by controlling what comes to the floor (consider how many of Trump's priorities were acted on in two years) and Trump's flip on the budget deal was his bid for freedom. The emergency declaration may be the bridge too far for McConnell and he might be willing to join with Pelosi to slap Trump on the nose with a rolled Congressional Record. An overrided of Trump's first veto would be a good hard smack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again -

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sneak-peek-c1216ffb-5529-46db-94ac-f3017e693b8c.html

Bipartisan negotiations to strike a border security deal and to keep the federal government open have broken down over the past 24 hours.

  • "Negotiations reached an impasse on Saturday, primarily over detention beds and interior enforcement, according to four sources familiar with the talks," Politico reports
  • "Democratic negotiators offered a deal to their Republican counterparts, but Republicans are refusing to negotiate until Democrats take back their demand for a cap on the number of beds used for undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, two of the sources said."

 If the talks are dead, Trump is so dug in he has only two options: shut down the government again or use his emergency powers to get the money.

Both options are horrible. The first would herald a return to chaos, depleted government services and federal workers being deprived of pay. The second would mean an instant court fight and a backlash from Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long before essential government workers realize they are more important than politicians?   A few ‘sick’ security screeners ended Trump and McConnel’s recent record breaking incompetence in hours and the public sided with the unpaid workers.  The workers have the power to end any shutdown in a day or two of grounded airports, shut down meat packers and anchored ships as the ports of entry stop allowing freight to clear customs.  

Or just open the borders and ports, let armed passengers screen themself and packers protect the consumer until we remember why we asked for all those pesky regulations in the first place.  Of course international flights will remain grounded by the destination nation, but good Republicans would ever visit and learn from the smarter countries anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sean said:

Here we go again -

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sneak-peek-c1216ffb-5529-46db-94ac-f3017e693b8c.html

Bipartisan negotiations to strike a border security deal and to keep the federal government open have broken down over the past 24 hours.

  • "Negotiations reached an impasse on Saturday, primarily over detention beds and interior enforcement, according to four sources familiar with the talks," Politico reports
  • "Democratic negotiators offered a deal to their Republican counterparts, but Republicans are refusing to negotiate until Democrats take back their demand for a cap on the number of beds used for undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, two of the sources said."

 If the talks are dead, Trump is so dug in he has only two options: shut down the government again or use his emergency powers to get the money.

Both options are horrible. The first would herald a return to chaos, depleted government services and federal workers being deprived of pay. The second would mean an instant court fight and a backlash from Congress.

I believe he'll go for declaring a "National Emergency".  It happens on a Friday.  Most of the country will be more wrapped up in which bar to head to and buying discount chocolate.

He tried it the other way and even he has to realize he will lose, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sean said:

Here we go again -

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-sneak-peek-c1216ffb-5529-46db-94ac-f3017e693b8c.html

Bipartisan negotiations to strike a border security deal and to keep the federal government open have broken down over the past 24 hours.

  • "Negotiations reached an impasse on Saturday, primarily over detention beds and interior enforcement, according to four sources familiar with the talks," Politico reports
  • "Democratic negotiators offered a deal to their Republican counterparts, but Republicans are refusing to negotiate until Democrats take back their demand for a cap on the number of beds used for undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, two of the sources said."

 If the talks are dead, Trump is so dug in he has only two options: shut down the government again or use his emergency powers to get the money.

Both options are horrible. The first would herald a return to chaos, depleted government services and federal workers being deprived of pay. The second would mean an instant court fight and a backlash from Congress.

The D's really need to back down on the 'bed limit" - as the intent is simply to end-run enforcement, and stipulate a number after which we don't have the capacity to prosecute illegal entrants.   Ya do know that CBP isn't running across the line and grabbing people to throw 'em in jail, right? They're only arresting those who enter illegally? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R's really need to back down on the shutdown altogether. They had their two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The D's really need to back down on the 'bed limit" - as the intent is simply to end-run enforcement, and stipulate a number after which we don't have the capacity to prosecute illegal entrants.   Ya do know that CBP isn't running across the line and grabbing people to throw 'em in jail, right? They're only arresting those who enter illegally? 

 

On the surface, I’d agree that the RW talking point makes the Dems position sound absurd, but the issue is more nuanced than that.

From WaPo -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/11/raging-over-looming-loss-his-wall-trump-rolls-out-more-lies/

The core dispute is this: Democrats want to cap the number of beds available to detain undocumented immigrants rounded up in the interior at 16,500. Trump and Republicans claim this would result in the failure to detain “violent” offenders. Democrats say it would force Immigration and Customs Enforcement to choose among who is picked up from the interior, meaning they’d focus more on violent offenders, resulting in fewer detentions of nonviolent longtime residents.

To understand this dispute, we need to step back. As of Sunday, according to an ICE official, there were over 48,000 people in ICE detention. They break down roughly into two categories: those rounded up in the interior, and those picked up crossing the border (this second group is made up of further categories, such as illegal crossers and those seeking asylum).

The primary dispute right now concerns the first group: those rounded up in the interior.

According to a House Democratic aide, ICE has told members of the conference committee that as of early February, there were just over 20,000 such people in detention.

Thus, by proposing to cap the beds for those people at 16,500, Democrats do want to reduce the numbers detained from the interior. The rub is that this would force ICE to prioritize violent offenders and reduce detentions of nonviolent ones.

Trump is lying about this dispute

Trump cannot allow the dispute to be perceived as one over whether to dial down the rounding up of nonviolent longtime residents — who are often sympathetic figures.

So Trump has hit on a new way around this problem. Over the weekend, Trump tweetedthat Democrats “all of a sudden” have declared that they “don’t even want to take murderers into custody.”

Moments ago, Trump raged: “The Democrats don’t want us to detain, or send back, criminal aliens! This is a brand new demand. Crazy!”

The idea that this represents a “new” demand is a lie. The call for a 16,500 cap on detention beds was in the original Democratic offer made in these talks over 10 days ago. That Jan. 31st offer explicitly includes a provision that “statutorily limits” the daily population of people detained from the interior at 16,500 by the end of the next fiscal year, phasing it in over time.

So this isn’t “new” at all. If anything, what’s “new” is the Trump/GOP objection to this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean - thanks for the article.  While I understand that the intent is to establish an "enforcement priority" - in practice?  It would still establish an "enforcement limit" - beyond which additional enforcement is prohibited.  They want to fix this?  Get serious w/a workable revamp of the immigration policy mess that's been continuously kicked down the road since Pres Reagan was in office.  IMHO - Everything that's been done since is nothing more than lip service pandering to the base - on both sides. 

No argument whatsoever that the Whitehouse spin is based in a fallacious understanding and disingenuous spin. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sean - thanks for the article.  While I understand that the intent is to establish an "enforcement priority" - in practice?  It would still establish an "enforcement limit" - beyond which additional enforcement is prohibited.  They want to fix this?  Get serious w/a workable revamp of the immigration policy mess that's been continuously kicked down the road since Pres Reagan was in office.  IMHO - Everything that's been done since is nothing more than lip service pandering to the base - on both sides. 

No argument whatsoever that the Whitehouse spin is based in a fallacious understanding and disingenuous spin. 

 

The chambers of Congress can get the deal done.  They've done it any number of times, and even went for the big kahuna of reform back in the days when Sen. Rubio first got there and had the gang of 12 together working on it, or some name similar to that, indicating the bipartisan nature of the group.  I have no doubt that the legislative branch can come up with something upon which they can grumble and act pissed off about, but agree on.  Such is the nature of our system.  

The problem stems from the Exec branch.  He's for something one minute, against it the next.  The goal posts never stop moving, unless they are on ground that nobody will ever agree on.  I do not see how anyone gets around that.  Even King Orange himself said that they are wasting time negotiating it, though I am quite certain he did not recognize that he is the reason why.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you put a cap on the number of violaters ICE can detain?   Seriously flawed thinking in my mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Why would you put a cap on the number of violaters ICE can detain?   Seriously flawed thinking in my mind.  

That question has already been answered. Read Sean's post & link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Why would you put a cap on the number of violaters ICE can detain?   Seriously flawed thinking in my mind.  

Sean has a good, specific answer.

More generally, every jail or prison has a capacity. Every prosecutor has individuals they want to lock up. But there's a cap on the number they can detain.

Handing a bureaucracy a blank check to lock up as many as they wish isn't a good idea.

"Here's how many you can lock up, figure out which ones" is a better idea.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Sean has a good, specific answer.

More generally, every jail or prison has a capacity. Every prosecutor has individuals they want to lock up. But there's a cap on the number they can detain.

Handing a bureaucracy a blank check to lock up as many as they wish isn't a good idea.

"Here's how many you can lock up, figure out which ones" is a better idea.

Correct and they currently have 20,000  Why reduce it down by 20%    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Correct and they currently have 20,000  Why reduce it down by 20%    

Already answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I heard you the first time  I disagree with the premis  - The argument of forcing them to go after the violent is a straw man.  The goal is to reduce the enforcemnt power oF ICE   If there is lack of space Hire more judges and ship them out quicker

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

I heard you the first time  I disagree with the premis  - The argument of forcing them to go after the violent is a straw man.  The goal is to reduce the enforcemnt power oF ICE   If there is lack of space Hire more judges and ship them out quicker

I’m sure Republicans could get increased funding for this.  Start there.

BTW, if we succeeded in quicker evaluation then we’d have fewer disrupted families and fewer people in detention (which is expensive.)

Donr you think that’s EXACTLY what Democrats want?

Reducing the “enforcement power” of ICE is an opinion. All Democrats want is for ICE to use such powers responsibly and judiciously, and not waste the taxpayer’s $ on unnecessary detentions.

For-profit ICE detention facilities, who have given generously to GOP ICE-ophiles, appreciate your support.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

congress writes the laws that ice enforces.  the laws are out of date and need to be re-written - until policies get put on paper, we won't know what each party wants.  throwing 2020 election rhetoric into funding bills is the lazy path of policy.

what do they 2020 election hacks want?  repubs want some wall built so trump looks good on his promise.  dems want another shutdown or emergency declared so trump looks worse.  there's no nuance in what is happening in washington

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Republicans wanted a fucking wall built they would have funded the fucking wall in the two years they had. They didn't because Republicans don't want the fucking wall.

Trump wants to pick a fight with the wall. You'll never fucking get it, will you? The point is to divide. The point is to be a flipflopping attention whore in chief. If he's not the center of attention and the stumbling block he'll do something so he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, hermetic said:

congress writes the laws that ice enforces.  the laws are out of date and need to be re-written - until policies get put on paper, we won't know what each party wants.  throwing 2020 election rhetoric into funding bills is the lazy path of policy.

what do they 2020 election hacks want?  repubs want some wall built so trump looks good on his promise.  dems want another shutdown or emergency declared so trump looks worse.  there's no nuance in what is happening in washington

Not sure you are right about what Dems want. 

We’d welcome Trump accepting as much for his walls as Republicans gave him the last two years.

A good faith attempt to negotiate sensible border policies, with some funding of physical barriers, but an emphasis on systems that work combined with more emphatic enforcement of policies regarding hiring illegal aliens would probably be acceptable.

Either of those would, to Trump, be considered a defeat. That’s because they are examples of democracy (little d) in action. That ain’t how he rolls.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sean - thanks for the article.  While I understand that the intent is to establish an "enforcement priority" - in practice?  It would still establish an "enforcement limit" - beyond which additional enforcement is prohibited.  They want to fix this?  Get serious w/a workable revamp of the immigration policy mess that's been continuously kicked down the road since Pres Reagan was in office.  IMHO - Everything that's been done since is nothing more than lip service pandering to the base - on both sides. 

No argument whatsoever that the Whitehouse spin is based in a fallacious understanding and disingenuous spin. 

 

I get what you're saying Ches, but it would be a huge mistake not to put some lanes on where Trump can go with this. A blank check in that idiots hands is asking for trouble. He would run up the head count just to "prove" he was right all along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

I get what you're saying Ches, but it would be a huge mistake not to put some lanes on where Trump can go with this. A blank check in that idiots hands is asking for trouble. He would run up the head count just to "prove" he was right all along. 

No argument. I still contend that instead of establishing an arbitrary, artificial enforcement constraint?  That we oughta take the opportunity to actually FIX something, and yeah, the fringes on both extremes will be disappointed, those who advocate "accept everyone unconditionally" and those who say "we're too crowded - kick 'em all out", but, it's been over 30 years that we've been paying lip service to the problem while doing diddly to actually come up with a viable, flexible resolution.   This issue transcends whoever happens to have the right letter behind their name in the WH.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

I’m sure Republicans could get increased funding for this.  Start there.

BTW, if we succeeded in quicker evaluation then we’d have fewer disrupted families and fewer people in detention (which is expensive.)

Donr you think that’s EXACTLY what Democrats want?

Reducing the “enforcement power” of ICE is an opinion. All Democrats want is for ICE to use such powers responsibly and judiciously, and not waste the taxpayer’s $ on unnecessary detentions.

For-profit ICE detention facilities, who have given generously to GOP ICE-ophiles, appreciate your support.

Thanks - I was curious about what was meant by "Abolish ICE".  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, phillysailor said:
36 minutes ago, hermetic said:

congress writes the laws that ice enforces.  the laws are out of date and need to be re-written - until policies get put on paper, we won't know what each party wants.  throwing 2020 election rhetoric into funding bills is the lazy path of policy.

what do they 2020 election hacks want?  repubs want some wall built so trump looks good on his promise.  dems want another shutdown or emergency declared so trump looks worse.  there's no nuance in what is happening in washington

Not sure you are right about what Dems want. 

We’d welcome Trump accepting as much for his walls as Republicans gave him the last two years.

A good faith attempt to negotiate sensible border policies, with some funding of physical barriers, but an emphasis on systems that work combined with more emphatic enforcement of policies regarding hiring illegal aliens would probably be acceptable.

Either of those would, to Trump, be considered a defeat. That’s because they are examples of democracy (little d) in action. That ain’t how he rolls.

i said 2020 election hacks for a reason.  party before country and all that crap.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument. I still contend that instead of establishing an arbitrary, artificial enforcement constraint?  That we oughta take the opportunity to actually FIX something, and yeah, the fringes on both extremes will be disappointed, those who advocate "accept everyone unconditionally" and those who say "we're too crowded - kick 'em all out", but, it's been over 30 years that we've been paying lip service to the problem while doing diddly to actually come up with a viable, flexible resolution.   This issue transcends whoever happens to have the right letter behind their name in the WH.   

It'd be great to fix something. But Trump isn't about fixing things. He's about picking a fight, getting back to where we were, then declaring victory and moving on to the next "issue". He's an entertainer, chaos and drama is the goal. Not governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It'd be great to fix something. But Trump isn't about fixing things. He's about picking a fight, getting back to where we were, then declaring victory and moving on to the next "issue". He's an entertainer, chaos and drama is the goal. Not governance.

Good thing we're not reliant upon him to submit legislation, isn't it?  That's up to Congress - and now, w/the focus on the issue of immigration, is am opportune time IMHO to make some traction.  The center of both parties will have to ignore and quiet the fringe, but, the time is ripe for progress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument. I still contend that instead of establishing an arbitrary, artificial enforcement constraint?  That we oughta take the opportunity to actually FIX something, and yeah, the fringes on both extremes will be disappointed, those who advocate "accept everyone unconditionally" and those who say "we're too crowded - kick 'em all out", but, it's been over 30 years that we've been paying lip service to the problem while doing diddly to actually come up with a viable, flexible resolution.   This issue transcends whoever happens to have the right letter behind their name in the WH.   

 

Is there anybody who advocates that, outside the accusations of Rush/Hannity/&elk?

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

I heard you the first time  I disagree with the premis  - The argument of forcing them to go after the violent is a straw man.  The goal is to reduce the enforcemnt power oF ICE   If there is lack of space Hire more judges and ship them out quicker

That's great, but you didn't say you disagreed with the premise. You simply repeated the question like someone mentally deficient trying to grasp a concept beyond their means.

And the argument isn't a strawman. A strawman is projecting an argument onto someone they are not making. Democrats are explicitly making that argument. You just disagree with the argument they are making because you don't like the technique they're using. That's just disagreement, not logical fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Good thing we're not reliant upon him to submit legislation, isn't it?  That's up to Congress - and now, w/the focus on the issue of immigration, is am opportune time IMHO to make some traction.  The center of both parties will have to ignore and quiet the fringe, but, the time is ripe for progress. 

There's an autonomous center to the Republican party in the Senate? puhleaze. they fall lockstep behind cocaine mitch, and mitch has outsourced to the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Good thing we're not reliant upon him to submit legislation, isn't it?  That's up to Congress - and now, w/the focus on the issue of immigration, is am opportune time IMHO to make some traction.  The center of both parties will have to ignore and quiet the fringe, but, the time is ripe for progress. 

You are reliant on him signing it and executing it faithfully. He's not very good at doing the former unless the Republicans make it veto proof and quite bad at the latter. The issue really boils down to do you want to look like you're getting the right thing done (as your party sees it) or do you want to force a recalcitrant and untrustworthy president into having to do the right thing because they have no other choice? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks - I was curious about what was meant by "Abolish ICE".  

That’s s good FB meme, but not an accurate representation of what most people think.

If we could fold their responsibilities into another department & end up with fewer administrative $ spent? Sure. Go for it.

But “abolishing ICE” was, IMO,  invective used to react against a shift in policy associated with arresting, detaining and deporting law-abiding citizens with gainful employment and ties to the community and politicizing Dreamers rather than solving our immigration problem responsibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are truely wearing blinders 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-calls-to-abolish-ice-says-latinos-must-be-exempt-from-immigration-laws-because-they-are-native-to-us

Published 3 days ago

Ocasio-Cortez calls to abolish ICE, says Latinos must be exempt from immigration laws because they are 'Native' to US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Psst- "truly". ;)

Yep.  One of those pesky mistakes that get the spelling nazis up in arms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's their inability to understand what the red underline means that gets me down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Joker said:

Correct and they currently have 20,000  Why reduce it down by 20%    

I question lots of things, but seldom ask questions if someone wants to cut a government program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, phillysailor said:

That’s s good FB meme, but not an accurate representation of what most people think.

If we could fold their responsibilities into another department & end up with fewer administrative $ spent? Sure. Go for it.

But “abolishing ICE” was, IMO,  invective used to react against a shift in policy associated with arresting, detaining and deporting law-abiding citizens with gainful employment and ties to the community and politicizing Dreamers rather than solving our immigration problem responsibly.

ICE policy is to arrest, detain and deport law abiding citizens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

ICE policy is to arrest, detain and deport law abiding citizens?

The Don speaking to farmers assured them he would protect their workers.  Of course he lies like a rug.  But the reality is they are doing jobs that citizens won't take.  It is only honest to give them legal status.  Of course we deport law breakers.  I recall John Lennon had problems after a marijuana conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasher said:

I recall John Lennon had problems after a marijuana conviction.

I left a little defense lawyer joke for you in the prohibition thread. /hijack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, hasher said:

The Don speaking to farmers assured them he would protect their workers.  Of course he lies like a rug.  But the reality is they are doing jobs that citizens won't take.  It is only honest to give them legal status.  Of course we deport law breakers.  I recall John Lennon had problems after a marijuana conviction.

So if someone enters the country illegally and finds employment and other that the illegal entry itself they obey the law they should be given legal status?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

So if someone enters the country illegally and finds employment and other that the illegal entry itself they obey the law they should be given legal status?

Yes and no.  We need to respect the workers who are here.  We need to provide a legal system for folks to come in as necessary.  There was a time that West Germany imported labor from Turkey.  I think it is Polish workers who come in now.  I am not an expert about immigration (or much of anything).  But I know that people come here to work.  We have one of the youngest populations.  That is healthy and it reflects our immigrants.  For the most part, they are not taking factory jobs.  One exception I was told is of Betsy Prince's father.  He allegedly employed illegals so he could pay less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dog said:

So if someone enters the country illegally and finds employment and other that the illegal entry itself they obey the law they should be given legal status?

Depends on the answer to this question:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565318778/big-money-as-private-immigrant-jails-boom

The main purpose of the ICE beds is being missed.   It’s a method of using taxpayer dollars and debt to finance well connected business.   They don’t care if they are locking up  marijuana smokers or assylum seakers, jails are a profit center.   There is strong incentive to grow them,    

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lark said:

There is strong incentive to grow them,

And it's a bad incentive for a business and why some things shouldn't be privatized. Their budget should not depend on more prisoners for the same reasons police budgets should not depend on looting property from people who are never charged with crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, phillysailor said:

That’s s good FB meme, but not an accurate representation of what most people think.

 If we could fold their responsibilities into another department & end up with fewer administrative $ spent? Sure. Go for it.

But “abolishing ICE” was, IMO,  invective used to react against a shift in policy associated with arresting, detaining and deporting law-abiding citizens with gainful employment and ties to the community and politicizing Dreamers rather than solving our immigration problem responsibly.

It was a campaign statement issued by your darling AOC, and quickly parroted by the D party bots.  Invective or not, it's indicative of the desire to eliminate or at least severely curtail immigration enforcement.  Your party owns that - lock stock and barrel, no amount of quibbling about what IT is is going to change that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It was a campaign statement issued by your darling AOC, and quickly parroted by the D party bots.  Invective or not, it's indicative of the desire to eliminate or at least severely curtail immigration enforcement.  Your party owns that - lock stock and barrel, no amount of quibbling about what IT is is going to change that. 

Oh, I dunno, who exactly was saying it? There's a difference between a lot of Democrats saying something, and Rush/Hannity claiming they said it.

As for ICE it looks to me like a politically controlled Federal police force. There was a time, not that long ago, when conservatives would have been appalled at such a thing

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Oh, I dunno, who exactly was saying it? There's a difference between a lot of Democrats saying something, and Rush/Hannity claiming they said it.

As for ICE it looks to me like a politically controlled Federal police force. There was a time, not that long ago, when conservatives would have been appalled at such a thing

-DSK

Look it up yourself, Steamers - AOC campaigned on it, and has called for it repeatedly after winning the election.   

Do you advocate for ICE to be abolished as well?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Look it up yourself, Steamers - AOC campaigned on it, and has called for it repeatedly after winning the election.   

Do you advocate for ICE to be abolished as well?   

Despite what you see on FOX, AOC is not the whole Democratic Party

Actually, I don't "advocate" for much but if it were up to me, I'd shitcan the whole idea of a "Dept of Homeland Security."

As for a Federal police force that can "detain" people and seperate families without warrants, yeah I'm against that. The Constitution has a few words on the topic. It doesn't say it's OK if you're only doing it to brown people

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Despite what you see on FOX, AOC is not the whole Democratic Party

Actually, I don't "advocate" for much but if it were up to me, I'd shitcan the whole idea of a "Dept of Homeland Security."

As for a Federal police force that can "detain" people and seperate families without warrants, yeah I'm against that. The Constitution has a few words on the topic. It doesn't say it's OK if you're only doing it to brown people

-DSK

So - you're saying that AOC isn't the Dem's darling?   Y'all put her on that pedestal, you can't fuss at me for accepting her comments as being indicative of party sentiment. 

I'm actually with you on the inefficacy of the DHS - though the reason they were brought about, the ineffective information sharing between the other intel/enforcement agencies, was valid.  DHS is a duplicative waste in its current implementation, and I agree, we would be better off forcing the individual agencies to be less territorial and more open with information sharing, disbanding the DHS ( or at least the TSA )  - and instantiating its information clearing house in each of the agencies that previously had those responsibilities. 

I understand your sentiment, but, regardless of your feelings on the topic, if we don't have an agency that's responsible for and empowered to act on immigration enforcement - what do you think will happen? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well while you're all arguing over trivial shit, the shut down part two is about to open.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

steamers should make himself familiar with the immigration and nationality act section 287

if enough people don't like ice enforcing that law, congress should change it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - you're saying that AOC isn't the Dem's darling?   Y'all put her on that pedestal, you can't fuss at me for accepting her comments as being indicative of party sentiment. 

I'm actually with you on the inefficacy of the DHS - though the reason they were brought about, the ineffective information sharing between the other intel/enforcement agencies, was valid.  DHS is a duplicative waste in its current implementation, and I agree, we would be better off forcing the individual agencies to be less territorial and more open with information sharing, disbanding the DHS ( or at least the TSA )  - and instantiating its information clearing house in each of the agencies that previously had those responsibilities. 

I understand your sentiment, but, regardless of your feelings on the topic, if we don't have an agency that's responsible for and empowered to act on immigration enforcement - what do you think will happen? 

I think there are already several agencies doing that. And they still are, one of the problems with ICE is their demands on OGAs to stop what they're doing to help ICE with this or that. It is not just a politically-controlled Federal police force, it is federalizing local police.

It's difficult for me to wrap my head around the 180 in "conservatives" that used to rant against Federal usurpation of rights. I guess it's all dumbed down to InfoWars level now. And of course ICE does publicly beat up brown people, so there's that.

If there needs to be a specific agency to round up immigrant overstays, and take custody of illegals that other agencies have arrested (within the Constitution please.... yes illegals don't have Constitutional rights but you don't know they're illegal when you arrest them), I would not have a problem with that but 1- it needs to have full judicial oversight and 2- the name ICE has become so polarizing that it should be done away with

As for AOC, I think she seems to resonate more for Republicans as a target to hate than idolized for Democrats. I don't have as a big a problem with her ideals than I do with, say for example, VP Dick Cheney, though. And it's funny that so many of TeamR! want to criticise her economic policy suggestions from a standpoint of total economic illiteracy.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - you're saying that AOC isn't the Dem's darling?   Y'all put her on that pedestal

Again - the rightwing, especially rightwing social media, is far more obsessed with AOC than the left. Y'all elevate her to bash her down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Again - the rightwing, especially rightwing social media, is far more obsessed with AOC than the left. Y'all elevate her to bash her down.

You haven't heard me bashing her at all.  I find some of her ideas comical - but, that doesn't mean that I wish her ill, and as I've said every time you silly fuggers try to twist, is that even though she's naive, I hope that she can get conversations started that ultimately result in some positive change.   I want stuff to be better, I really don't care who gets credit for it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dog said:

Reports indicate the bill doesn't contain the $5.7 billion President Trump demands.  And, it does not specify a concrete wall. 

Both of those are demands he has staked as non-negotiable.

Will he cave on those demands and sign the bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Reports indicate the bill doesn't contain the $5.7 billion President Trump demands.  And, it does not specify a concrete wall. 

Both of those are demands he has staked as non-negotiable.

Will he cave on those demands and sign the bill?

And it containes 1.375 billion for a wall.  

Pelosi  stated not one dollar for a wall 

Will she cave and support the bill?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Joker said:

And it containes 1.375 billion for a wall.  

Pelosi  stated not one dollar for a wall 

Will she cave and support the bill?  

Minor detail - not for a wall.

The agreement would allow for 55 miles of new bollard fencing, with some restrictions on location based on community and environmental concerns, according to two congressional aides, who requested anonymity to disclose details of the private negotiations. That is a fraction of the more than 200 miles of steel-and-concrete wall that Mr. Trump demanded — and 10 miles less than negotiators agreed on last summer, before Democrats took control of the House.

and

The funding for 55 miles of new fencing is a figure far lower than the $5.7 billion that Mr. Trump had demanded and marginally less than the $1.6 billion for 65 miles of pedestrian fencing in the bill that the Senate Appropriations Committee had passed last year.

In December, the president, concerned about reneging on his signature campaign promise, refused to sign onto that legislation, forcing the nation’s longest government shutdown.

Linky

President Trump campaigned on a wall.  Will he accept the fencing?  If he doesn't, he will lose.  Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Minor detail - not for a wall.

The agreement would allow for 55 miles of new bollard fencing, with some restrictions on location based on community and environmental concerns, according to two congressional aides, who requested anonymity to disclose details of the private negotiations. That is a fraction of the more than 200 miles of steel-and-concrete wall that Mr. Trump demanded — and 10 miles less than negotiators agreed on last summer, before Democrats took control of the House.

and

The funding for 55 miles of new fencing is a figure far lower than the $5.7 billion that Mr. Trump had demanded and marginally less than the $1.6 billion for 65 miles of pedestrian fencing in the bill that the Senate Appropriations Committee had passed last year.

In December, the president, concerned about reneging on his signature campaign promise, refused to sign onto that legislation, forcing the nation’s longest government shutdown.

Linky

President Trump campaigned on a wall.  Will he accept the fencing?  If he doesn't, he will lose.  Again.

Please do not confuse their fantasy with facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, phillysailor said:

That’s s good FB meme, but not an accurate representation of what most people think.

If we could fold their responsibilities into another department & end up with fewer administrative $ spent? Sure. Go for it.

But “abolishing ICE” was, IMO,  invective used to react against a shift in policy associated with arresting, detaining and deporting law-abiding citizens with gainful employment and ties to the community and politicizing Dreamers rather than solving our immigration problem responsibly.

 

5 hours ago, Dog said:

ICE policy is to arrest, detain and deport law abiding citizens?

Good proofreading dog, thx.

Nope, should’ve used the word “residents” not citizens.

My point being, some illegal residents in our country are problematic whether because of illegal activity or otherwise becoming an economic drain on our resources.

Many, however, are pursuing educational opportunities while working jobs, support their community, are industrious or are entrepreneurs with real ties here and none in their home countries.

To treat all of these categories of undocumented residents as the same strikes many of the neighbors, friends and family as capricious and encourages questions of racism affecting immigration policy. Combined with public statements made by the president and other notables in the GOP, it adds credence to the charge.

One of the jobs of government is to strive to maintain its legitimacy. Ignoring this tenet of good governance is dereliction of duty, or as I have oft stated, maladministration.

It would behoove Republicans to take this issue more seriously, to seriously work towards immigration reform as part of border security and enforcement of undocumented workers.

Addressing the identification needs of our native born but undocumented natives & implications for voting rights is fundamentally linked to this issue & may be causing GOP intransigence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now the Dems are soft on muderers* according to Trump.  Trump's also got the perfect catch 22 - these are all criminals and so must be locked up. Of course the moment they step on US soil without a valid visa they are criminals.

YCMTSU

possible humberder helpers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So at the end of December the house and senate agreed to 65 miles of wall and 1.6B one shutdown later the new deal is for 55 miles and 1.3B.  

He’s such a great deal maker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

So - you're saying that AOC isn't the Dem's darling?

Yeah, actually. She's getting some of the youth excited but she is far from a universally agreed upon figurehead for the party and it's direction.

However, you concede that the Republicans accept & agree on everything that Trump says / does and I'll concede you are being consistent. You continue to maintain your position on Trump not being representative of the Republicans and the Republican Party, and you should to back off your "AOC said something so Democrats believe it" nonsense. For your bothsiderism schtick to work, you have to at least appear even handed.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Joker said:

And it containes 1.375 billion for a wall.  

Pelosi  stated not one dollar for a wall 

Will she cave and support the bill?  

It isn't for a wall. So Pelosi hasn't given one dollar to "a wall". It's also much the same money they were offering before. 

Trump will either cave early or shut down the government & then cave again. Pelosi hasn't given up anything and the public are not behind Trump initiating another shutdown. He fired that one off too early, after bragging he'd own it, and even with their goldfish political memories, the US public haven't forgotten that yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

It isn't for a wall. So Pelosi hasn't given one dollar to "a wall". It's also much the same money they were offering before. 

Trump will either cave early or shut down the government & then cave again. Pelosi hasn't given up anything and the public are not behind Trump initiating another shutdown. He fired that one off too early, after bragging he'd own it, and even with their goldfish political memories, the US public haven't forgotten that yet.

Oh I forgot it’s 55 miles of a 30 foot high steel “barrier”.   The  left can pretend it’s not a wall,  just as easy as Trump can call it a wall.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An oldie, but a goodie. .

Trump insisted that Mexico will "reimburse us" for costs of building a wall on the U.S. -- Mexico border, and insisted that it will be a wall, "not a fence."

Looks like neither will come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quelle surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Joker said:

 Oh I forgot it’s 55 miles of a 30 foot high steel “barrier”.   The  left can pretend it’s not a wall,  just as easy as Trump can call it a wall.  

They don't need to pretend anything. It's $1.3 billion for a fence. Trump said he wanted $5.7 billion for a wall. He got spanked. Now it's time to see if he goes into full meltdown, because he's not going to "win" this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

They don't need to pretend anything. It's $1.3 billion for a fence. Trump said he wanted $5.7 billion for a wall. He got spanked. Now it's time to see if he goes into full meltdown, because he's not going to "win" this one. 

Does it serve as a barrier?   That’s all Trump has been pushing for Months.  

Pelosi is on record saying not one dollar for the same barrier, that is in this bill.  

Both sides caved on some things, it’s how things are supposed to work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how long it takes a sawzall with a bimetal blade to cut through that slat..... Or a plasma cutter..... Or an oxcy-ace torch.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Does it serve as a barrier?   That’s all Trump has been pushing for Months.

No, he and Pence are both on record as stating "No wall, no deal" as late as January this year. So, no - Trump hasn't been pushing that for "months".

 

Quote

Pelosi is on record saying not one dollar for the same barrier, that is in this bill.  

Pelosi is on the record saying not one dollar for the wall. She avoided saying no dollar for barriers because money for barriers was already included in the offer Trump was refusing. The money in the current bill is the same that was in last year's. 

 

Quote

Both sides caved on some things, it’s how things are supposed to work. 

The sticking point that Trump decided to shut down the government on was a $5.7 billion dollar wall. He didn't get that. Democrats stated outright they weren't going to give him the money for his wall. They didn't give that.

Whilst there was horse trading on other features of the bill, all of that could and should have happened without a shut down. Trump tried to force a situation in which Democrats caved on his big campaign promise and, instead, he's had to cave on that. No amount of "but what about this thing that had nothing to do with the shut down" is going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

How about a nice shrubbery?

2000 miles of Mary Jane. Would pay for itself. Except for the irrigation part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

2000 miles of Mary Jane. Would pay for itself. Except for the irrigation part.

We’d be welcomed with flowers, as liberators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

They don't need to pretend anything. It's $1.3 billion for a fence. Trump said he wanted $5.7 billion for a wall. He got spanked. Now it's time to see if he goes into full meltdown, because he's not going to "win" this one. 

Looks like a stalemate to me. I suspect the next election will provide the best barometer of who won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dog said:

Looks like a stalemate to me. I suspect the next election will provide the best barometer of who won.

How so? Trump wanted a $5.7 billion dollar wall. He didn't get it. The Democrats wanted to deny him that wall. They got that. 

ac774315db21fa8cb5423bd29a0d2106b630dd2adbe68890613b5f495020e4e1.jpg.e816e0ee84e2dfe28f835e7875401948.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Joker said:

Oh I forgot it’s 55 miles of a 30 foot high steel “barrier”.   The  left can pretend it’s not a wall,  just as easy as Trump can call it a wall.  

 

if you want to believe that donny got all his little trumpkins 55 miles of wall, then have at at.  You win.  The d's lost and her got what he wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day who actually won this showdown?

Trump and ICE wanted 5.7 billion to build like 250 miles of border barrier, got 1.5 billion from Pelosi and Schumer.

 

Trump and ICE wanted 55,000 "beds" to incarcerate those entering the US illegally who have prior criminal convictions.

Pelosi and Schumer gave them 16,000 beds.

ICE states that last year them caught 135,000  illegals with a criminal background entering the US.

 

So tell us who "won"? It was not Trump. It was not The American People. It was not sovereignty. 

Those who would come to America illegally have won and won in a big way. Sad state of affairs really. Being able to declare one side winning and the other losing being more important to our elected officials than actual results. Dang shame.

And what really disgusts me is how many of you are complicit. Sheepling right along with your elected "heroes". Bleet, bleet, bleet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites