United States Government Shuts Down Over Petty Squabbling

[LDSman]

The issue is that republicans voted with the democrats here against it, and that this very explicitly wasn't just democrats having a tantrum like the republican led, obama era one was.

Saying they deliberately shut down the government over the DACA and Dreamers is kind of misleading, because the intent wasn't to shut down the government with the use of those issues/people as mere pawns in the plan, the government shutting down was a result of a refusal to accept the (really, really bad) deal presented for them.

I lay the blame solely at the feet of the republicans for creating an unworkable situation.

Republicans didn't have enough of a majority to be able to ignore the demands of the Dems. See other comments about the Dems stating they'd shutdown the gov't other it. It doesn't matter that a few Reps went along with it. It still needed Dem votes to pass.

Amusing how if its a Democrat Pres, its the Republicans fault for not going along with demands of the people who voted the Dem Pres in and then when its a Rep Pres, its the fault of the Reps for somehow creating the situation and not the fault of the Dems for not going along with the public that voted the Rep Pres in.

 

[Somewhere_]

I refer you back to the this link in which the judge states that DACA is likely illegal as it directly contradicts a congressional mandate. It's doesn't have to be a law to be illegal.


https://www.numbersusa.com/content/...kely-violates-law-dismisses-ice-agents-suit-t

And how many judges would believe that DACA is legal? Each judge interprets the law differently. The opinion of a judge is very important, but to base your argument on that is weak.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Amusing how if its a Democrat Pres, its the Republicans fault for not going along with demands of the people who voted the Dem Pres in and then when its a Rep Pres, its the fault of the Reps for somehow creating the situation and not the fault of the Dems for not going along with the public that voted the Rep Pres in.

The obama era shutdown was a part of larger petty republican obstructionism, but was also not in response to actions that were part of the budget itself. Repbulicans, out of options as every other legislative and legal attempt to stop Obamacare failed, refused to pass the budget unless obamacare was defunded in what was effectively a dying gasp of a tantrum.

The issue at hand here is very different from an attempt to stop something good that's been legally and legislatively instated

Keeping in mind that DACA is an unconstitutional bypassing of the law and the fact that it continues until March and this is January, there was no reason to cause a shutdown. This wasn't over the entire bill, this was over one program, according to the Dems themselves.

Which.... was part of the bill, regardless of how you want to spin the portion of the bill that it took up. But you're outright wrong that it's unconstitutional bypassing of the law?

It's never been found to be unconstitutional (which is literally the only difference between being unconstitutional and constitutional) and despite legal experts being rather divided on doesn't make illegal or unconstitutional.

Also, many of the Dem congress members are still condemning fact that fhe shutdown ended stating they wanted it to continu until they got what they wanted. This also makes it harder to verify they didn't want a shutdown.

No one is saying that they didn't want a shutdown, just that the shutdown was the inevitable result of putting forward something they wouldn't vote for and attempts to sway them for voting for it by not actually addressing the main issue is neither helpful nor useful

 

[KetsuekiR]

The obama era shutdown was a part of larger petty republican obstructionism, but was also not in response to actions that were part of the budget itself. Repbulicans, out of options as every other legislative and legal attempt to stop Obamacare failed, refused to pass the budget unless obamacare was defunded in what was effectively a dying gasp of a tantrum.

The issue at hand here is very different from an attempt to stop something good that's been legally and legislatively instated

I agree, what the Republicans did in 2013 was a dying tantrum to stop one part of the bill that they really didn't want. How exactly is this different from what the Democrats did a week ago? And yet, in 2013 it was their fault and in 2018, it's still their fault.

As for "something good", DACA is still very much open to discussion. The program hasn't ended and will continue to be open to discussion until March. So in effect, what the Dems did was a dying tantrum to stop one part of a bill they didn't really want but still could be negotiated.

Which.... was part of the bill, regardless of how you want to spin the portion of the bill that it took up. But you're outright wrong that it's unconstitutional bypassing of the law?

It's never been found to be unconstitutional (which is literally the only difference between being unconstitutional and constitutional) and despite legal experts being rather divided on doesn't make illegal or unconstitutional.

It is very much unconstitutional to use executive power to bypass existing, clear immigration laws. President Obama himself stated he could not do it via Congress and thus had to use his power as the President. Even now, it continues as a bypassing of existing laws, not as a one put through Congress. As per the Constitution, Congress has absolute authority on immigration laws and the President has never had the power to grant amnesty at will to an entire society of illegal aliens.

Even if this wasn't the case, how are you comfortable with allocating to a single person the power to overrule immigration laws, completely skipping Congress?

 

[Aliencommander1245]

I agree, what the Republicans did in 2013 was a dying tantrum to stop one part of the bill that they really didn't want. How exactly is this different from what the Democrats did a week ago? And yet, in 2013 it was their fault and in 2018, it's still their fault.

A dying tantrum after exhausting all other options to try and remove a good thing put legally and legislatively in place isn't at all the same as not voting for a bill because it holds parts that you disagree with and isn't acting on a very pressing issue. There's a very clear difference in doing something in what amounts to shutting down the government for pointscoring versus having it be used to be in a position to actually negotiate something related to the bill that they didn't like (that the majority of the population wants, and that was promised to be negotiated about and yet still not) because you've been put in a bad position to start with.

Dreamers having no

As for "something good", DACA is still very much open to discussion. The program hasn't ended and will continue to be open to discussion until March. So in effect, what the Dems did was a dying tantrum to stop one part of a bill they didn't really want but still could be negotiated.

But it wasn't negotiated, which is why they didn't vote for it? How is voting against the bill based on that part of it somehow a dying tantrum?

The program hasn't ended but the position it's in now is progressively cutting people out of it as time goes on, which is why it's such a pressing issue

It is very much unconstitutional to use executive power to bypass existing, clear immigration laws. President Obama himself stated he could not do it via Congress and thus had to use his power as the President. Even now, it continues as a bypassing of existing laws, not as a one put through Congress.

That's not true at all, it's not at all unconstituional and despite going to the courts it's never been ruled as such, and there's no legal consensus if it is or not. Obama didn't state that he "couldn't do it via congress" he said that it was a stop gap until a Dreamers bill could be put through congress (which it still hasn't been).

 

[KetsuekiR]

A dying tantrum after exhausting all other options to try and remove a good thing put legally and legislatively in place isn't at all the same as not voting for a bill because it holds parts that you disagree with and isn't acting on a very pressing issue. There's a very clear difference in doing something in what amounts to shutting down the government for pointscoring versus having it be used to be in a position to actually negotiate something related to the bill that they didn't like (that the majority of the population wants, and that was promised to be negotiated about and yet still not) because you've been put in a bad position to start with.

Dreamers having no



But it wasn't negotiated, which is why they didn't vote for it? How is voting against the bill based on that part of it somehow a dying tantrum?

The program hasn't ended but the position it's in now is progressively cutting people out of it as time goes on, which is why it's such a pressing issue

The issue I'm seeing in your argument is that Obamacare and DACA are both programmes you seem to support. This is not the thread to get into on whether either programme works and how it should happen. That said, it seems to me that you oppose the Republican shutdown in 2013 and support the Dem shut down in 2018 because the former opposed a bill you support and the latter supports a change you oppose.

DACA was brought to the negotiating table multiple times, but did not go through due to unreasonable requirements from one or both sides. To say it was not addressed at all would be false and quite distracting from reality.

I believe both shutdowns are bad and that shutdowns in general - especially when orchestrated (as this has been according to the Democratic party itself) - is a bullying tactic used when you don't get your way.

That's not true at all, it's not at all unconstituional and despite going to the courts it's never been ruled as such, and there's no legal consensus if it is or not. Obama didn't state that he "couldn't do it via congress" he said that it was a stop gap until a Dreamers bill could be put through congress (which it still hasn't been).

A "stop gap" that bypasses congress because it is unable to pass a bill is still bypassing congress. Thus the government being shut down over a stop gap that details a bill that still hasn't passed through Congress years later, given that there are two more months to work on the possibility of a bill.

Whether or not you support Dreamers and the DACA program, Trump, Obama or whatever else, I find it hard to deny the Dems caused the shutdown as a means of taking hostage.

 

[LDSman]

Dreamers having no

Missing words?

But it wasn't negotiated, which is why they didn't vote for it? How is voting against the bill based on that part of it somehow a dying tantrum?

The program hasn't ended but the position it's in now is progressively cutting people out of it as time goes on, which is why it's such a pressing issue

The Dems had six years to work on this.

That's not true at all, it's not at all unconstitutional and despite going to the courts it's never been ruled as such, and there's no legal consensus if it is or not. Obama didn't state that he "couldn't do it via congress" he said that it was a stop gap until a Dreamers bill could be put through congress (which it still hasn't been).

I refer you back to the link with the judge's comments on DACA. It went to court and except for a jurisdictional issue would have been ruled against by that judge.

Obama's own words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw4BIWiWyQg

 

[Nah]

figure I might as well just bump this and see what happens

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...wn-in-fight-over-trumps-border-wall/23624967/

we got another government shutdown again....well, a partial one anyway

 

[Miss Wendighost]

I put the fault on the Democrats. They're fighting to keep an illegal program going.

Which program are you talking about?

 

[Trev]

Honestly, this is the most ridiculous shutdown I've ever experienced. Why the fuck are we still discussing this ridiculous border wall? Even if it was built, there are so many other ways for people to get into the country. Why are we still arguing over this waste of money?

 

[EnglishALT]

Honestly, this is the most ridiculous shutdown I've ever experienced. Why the psyduck are we still discussing this ridiculous border wall? Even if it was built, there are so many other ways for people to get into the country. Why are we still arguing over this waste of money?

The border is I believe the biggest gaping hole in our country's immigration system, the next being people overstaying their VISAs which is a bit harder to control. There is also the problem of drugs and other contraband coming across the border that could be slowed or stopped with a wall.

 

[Trev]

The border is I believe the biggest gaping hole in our country's immigration system, the next being people overstaying their VISAs which is a bit harder to control. There is also the problem of drugs and other contraband coming across the border that could be slowed or stopped with a wall.

You think drug/contraband dealers haven't been circumnavigating every border check in existence since we even began immigration policy? The only people hurt by this wall would be innocent immigrants trying to escape violence and poverty. Drug/contraband dealers can and would find ways around the wall, probably without much effort. Besides, unless we put firing squads on the beaches of every state bordering the Gulf of Mexico - or any body of water, really - people can literally just boat into the country though an unsecure spot. Coast Guard can't be everywhere at once.

 

[EnglishALT]

You think drug/contraband dealers haven't been circumnavigating every border check in existence since we even began immigration policy? The only people hurt by this wall would be innocent immigrants trying to escape violence and poverty. Drug/contraband dealers can and would find ways around the wall, probably without much effort. Besides, unless we put firing squads on the beaches of every state bordering the Gulf of Mexico - or any body of water, really - people can literally just boat into the country though an unsecure spot. Coast Guard can't be everywhere at once.

Well first they are not innocent immigrants, they are illegal immigrants many if not the vast majority of whom are only coming over for money to send back to their families. If you ever want a "liveable wage" or "fight for 15" to succeed you must stop the flow of illegal labor.

As for drugs forcing drug cartels to switch from an open border that goes for thousands of miles, to having to operate out of boats and harbors is a major win. It narrows their ability to transport drugs and people, and makes them far more easier to spot by the coast guard.

 

[Trev]

Well first they are not innocent immigrants, they are illegal immigrants many if not the vast majority of whom are only coming over for money to send back to their families. If you ever want a "liveable wage" or "fight for 15" to succeed you must stop the flow of illegal labor.

As for drugs forcing drug cartels to switch from an open border that goes for thousands of miles, to having to operate out of boats and harbors is a major win. It narrows their ability to transport drugs and people, and makes them far more easier to spot by the coast guard.

The vast majority are escaping violence or poverty. Also, there's literally nothing wrong with wanting to come here to support their family, even if their family is in another country. A lot of immigrants, whether "illegal" or "legal," and regardless of their country of origin, do that. And a person's innocence is not determined by the legality of their immigration. "Innocence" in the method in which I used it refers to whether they break laws that actually matter, like committing violence. Not every immigrant is a drug dealer or terrorist, and "illegal" immigrants do a lot of great work for this country, especially in the farming district.

To be quite honest, my stances on border security begin and end at protecting immigrants who are fleeing horrible situations or trying to support their families. I'm not concerned with policies that "stop drugs" if it puts immigrants back in dangerous situations. You can disagree with that all you want, but that is an unmovable stance and you won't convince me otherwise.

 

[Nah]

Which program are you talking about?

DACA. When this thread was first posted, the government shutdown it was about happened to have some relation to DACA and so was part of the conversation then.

 

[EnglishALT]

The vast majority are escaping violence or poverty. Also, there's literally nothing wrong with wanting to come here to support their family, even if their family is in another country. A lot of immigrants, whether "illegal" or "legal," and regardless of their country of origin, do that. And a person's innocence is not determined by the legality of their immigration. "Innocence" in the method in which I used it refers to whether they break laws that actually matter, like committing violence. Not every immigrant is a drug dealer or terrorist, and "illegal" immigrants do a lot of great work for this country, especially in the farming district.

You can pick and choose which laws you think matter but the fact remains they are breaking the law. Laws that mind you every nation on the planet has. Coming over here for money is not a reason to escape onto America for asylum. There are billions around the world that would love to do that, however they do not have access to a porus border to cross over. They must follow the laws to come here legally.

To be quite honest, my stances on border security begin and end at protecting immigrants who are fleeing horrible situations or trying to support their families. I'm not concerned with policies that "stop drugs" if it puts immigrants back in dangerous situations. You can disagree with that all you want, but that is an unmovable stance and you won't convince me otherwise.

Let me ask do you care about the immigrants who live in say the Middle East? China? North Korea? Russia? Those that cannot easily escape to America and live in far worse locations than central and South America? Those people must follow the law to come here, laws being spit upon by those that skip ahead in line to come here illegally. Shouldn't we treat all immigrants fairly, shouldn't we not favor one group because of their location of birth or skin color? If so then we should punish those that break the law and try to get in this country while others are forced to wait.

 

[Trev]

You can pick and choose which laws you think matter but the fact remains they are breaking the law. Laws that mind you every nation on the planet has. Coming over here for money is not a reason to escape onto America for asylum. There are billions around the world that would love to do that, however they do not have access to a porus border to cross over. They must follow the laws to come here legally.

Again, I genuinely do not care if they break that specific law, nor do I care if other countries have that law as well. If they aren't hurting me (and they aren't) or others, then I don't care and never will. If they break a law that matters and seriously hurt others, then I'll care.

Let me ask do you care about the immigrants who live in say the Middle East? China? North Korea? Russia? Those that cannot easily escape to America and live in far worse locations than central and South America? Those people must follow the law to come here, laws being spit upon by those that skip ahead in line to come here illegally. Shouldn't we treat all immigrants fairly, shouldn't we not favor one group because of their location of birth or skin color? If so then we should punish those that break the law and try to get in this country while others are forced to wait.

Where did I say I was favoring any country's immigrants? Don't put words in my mouth.

A lot of immigrants just don't have the luxury of waiting, even for asylum. Some situations are just that bad, and the immigration processing system takes forever, up to years. So maybe if every single immigrant ever was not in a situation that put them in immediate danger, then I would probably agree. However, many are, and I don't care for the bloated bureaucracy if it puts people in danger because they can't stay in a country where they're safe when applying for immigrant status.

 

[EnglishALT]

Again, I genuinely do not care if they break that specific law, nor do I care if other countries have that law as well. If they aren't hurting me (and they aren't) or others, then I don't care and never will. If they break a law that matters and seriously hurt others, then I'll care.

Except they are hurting you, many businesses hire illegal labor because they are cheap and can be counted on to work hard. That provides an alternative to hiring more expensive American labor. If you live in a border state then you have to pay extra taxes for illegals using the hospitals and the children of illegals using the school system. If you are a driver anywhere really in the US you have to worry about getting into a car crash with an illegal alien as they tend to not have insurance thus you will have to pay for any damages.

In other words it's kind of ignorant to say it is not hurting you.

Where did I say I was favoring any country's immigrants? Don't put words in my mouth.

A lot of immigrants just don't have the luxury of waiting, even for asylum. Some situations are just that bad, and the immigration processing system takes forever, up to years. So maybe if every single immigrant ever was not in a situation that put them in immediate danger, then I would probably agree. However, many are, and I don't care for the bloated bureaucracy if it puts people in danger because they can't stay in a country where they're safe when applying for immigrant status.

By favoring illegal immigration you are favoring those who can cross the border as opposed to those that cannot. People living in Libya or Syria cannot walk across the border into the US, they must wait for their application for asylum to be heard, the same goes for gays living in Russia, or Muslims living in China, or any number of people with actual asylum claims, put in people that are poor and just want to make more money and you can include practically the vast majority of the world. However they must wait for the asylum process, they must wait through the bloated bureaucracy as you called it. So why should those that live in central or South America get special dispensation? Why should they get the benefits of America while those who go through the system don't? To put it simply why are you willing to allow some people to break the rules while everyone else must play by them?

 

[Trev]

Except they are hurting you, many businesses hire illegal labor because they are cheap and can be counted on to work hard.

The jobs that the majority of Mexican immigrants take are not jobs that I would ever apply for. And frankly, if an immigrant who has my same qualifications but works harder and is willing to accept less pay to get the job I want is hired for those reasons, then I'm not pressed. That's an experience that can happen regardless of somone's immigration status.

You'll also like this article. Important quote: "But the raises and new perks have not tempted native-born Americans to leave their day jobs for the fields. Nine in 10 agriculture workers in California are still foreign born, and more than half are undocumented, according to a federal survey."

That provides an alternative to hiring more expensive American labor.

Literally all companies seek to cut down on employee expenses. This is another method they use to do that. The blame lies on the companies abusing a loophole, not the immigrants trying to survive.

If you live in a border state then you have to pay extra taxes for illegals using the hospitals and the children of illegals using the school system.

I don't live in a border state. Also, even if I did, I wouldn't mind paying taxes for either of those things. I believe healthcare and education are a universal rights.

If you are a driver anywhere really in the US you have to worry about getting into a car crash with an illegal alien as they tend to not have insurance thus you will have to pay for any damages.

I have to worry about that regardless, as many native-born citizens also don't have insurance despite the requirement. I don't even drive.

In other words it's kind of ignorant to say it is not hurting you.

Not really. I have different values, morals, and perspectives. I don't consider any of those things harmful.

By favoring illegal immigration you are favoring those who can cross the border as opposed to those that cannot. People living in Libya or Syria cannot walk across the border into the US, they must wait for their application for asylum to be heard, the same goes for gays living in Russia, or Muslims living in China, or any number of people with actual asylum claims, put in people that are poor and just want to make more money and you can include practically the vast majority of the world. However they must wait for the asylum process, they must wait through the bloated bureaucracy as you called it. So why should those that live in central or South America get special dispensation? Why should they get the benefits of America while those who go through the system don't? To put it simply why are you willing to allow some people to break the rules while everyone else must play by them?

Where did I say I wouldn't be okay with those people coming here before they have immigrant status? What i'm saying is that, if you are trying to immigrate from a country where you're in danger, then I don't care if you come here before you have immigrant status because it means you'll be safe. Will people abuse that process were it to exist? Definitely, but as with all systems, there will be abuse. The good in this situation outweighs the bad, to me.

 

[EnglishALT]

The jobs that the majority of Mexican immigrants take are not jobs that I would ever apply for. And frankly, if an immigrant who has my same qualifications but works harder and is willing to accept less pay to get the job I want is hired for those reasons, then I'm not pressed. That's an experience that can happen regardless of somone's immigration status.

You'll also like this article. Important quote: "But the raises and new perks have not tempted native-born Americans to leave their day jobs for the fields. Nine in 10 agriculture workers in California are still foreign born, and more than half are undocumented, according to a federal survey."

I am sure they are jobs most of us would not apply for, then again how long will that lasts? You have people pushing for low wage jobs to have a 'livable wage' if say McDonalds were to continue to expand in illegal labor, because Americans want a 15 dollar minimum wage it would begin to push alot of people out of a job.

Also as we saw with slavery, the abolition of a system will create incentive to create new technology and benefits so that the product can still be provided.

Literally all companies seek to cut down on employee expenses. This is another method they use to do that. The blame lies on the companies abusing a loophole, not the immigrants trying to survive.

Some companies would engage in child labor or slavery if allowed, that does not mean we as a nation should allow it.

I don't live in a border state. Also, even if I did, I wouldn't mind paying taxes for either of those things. I believe healthcare and education are a universal rights.

That is nice but it does not make it any easier for public hospitals where wait times spiral wildly out of control sometimes up to 9 hours, which risks people's lives. Or having classrooms overfilled with students, thus harming the children's ability to learn.

I have to worry about that regardless, as many native-born citizens also don't have insurance despite the requirement. I don't even drive.

The goal should be to reduce the problem not worry about it because some native born citizens do it as well.

Not really. I have different values, morals, and perspectives. I don't consider any of those things harmful.

That does not mean those things do not negatively impact society.

Where did I say I wouldn't be okay with those people coming here before they have immigrant status? What i'm saying is that, if you are trying to immigrate from a country where you're in danger, then I don't care if you come here before you have immigrant status because it means you'll be safe. Will people abuse that process were it to exist? Definitely, but as with all systems, there will be abuse. The good in this situation outweighs the bad, to me.

I am getting the vibe from you that you are for open borders, which I hope you can understand the type of hell that would create in any country.