What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Undocumented Immigrant Thread (5 Viewers)

From twitter (I didn't see this discussed yet) - 

NEW: McConnell and Schumer have agreed to put both the Trump shutdown bill and a Dem proposal, already passed by the House, up for votes on Thursday. Both would reopen government immediately. House bill would extend funding for all shuttered agencies including Homeland Security
I'd like to know more about that agreement because I'm unclear how that works for McConnell. If McConnell can't get Dems to flip, Trump's Senate bill is DOA without need to pass to the house. If the Senate votes on the House bill, then either the Senate takes more heat (flipping from prior unanimity) or else Trump needs to veto (leaving blame with him) and the Senate (if they at that point don't veto-proof it). Seems like only downside. 

 
I'll believe what the GOP says about a vote on the bill when they go on the record with it.  Until then, given what happened before the shutdown, it's a rumor.
Yeah I haven't seen anything else about it from the normal congressional reporters. 

Although I did unearth this gem while checking their recent tweets:

Trump confused several officials when he directed them to, "Get me Tidley." "Who?" puzzled staffers asked. "Tidley," Trump replied. "I want to talk to Hogan Tidley." They informed him that the deputy press secretary's last name was Gidley, not Tidley.

 
Heard from an air traffic controller in my social circle today.

He is not doing well and has indicated that addition stress of not being paid is having a touch of an effect on him and everyone he knows at work.

Not a big fan of hearing that.
Sorry to hear.  I feel the same way.  Have other things going on in my life with my children and ex-wife which doesn't help.  The last couple of years have been hell.   There is no sense of normalcy anywhere.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From twitter (I didn't see this discussed yet) - 

NEW: McConnell and Schumer have agreed to put both the Trump shutdown bill and a Dem proposal, already passed by the House, up for votes on Thursday. Both would reopen government immediately. House bill would extend funding for all shuttered agencies including Homeland Security
I've seen nothing about this in the media.  Link?
CNBC just reported this as well.

 
No - I shouldn't have even mentioned it.  It is one of my great horrors.  Mea.
I dont blame you for worrying about it. Hell, I wonder during takeoff what would happen if we fly through a bunch of geese or something. Its obviously a high risk method of travel.

 
I dont blame you for worrying about it. Hell, I wonder during takeoff what would happen if we fly through a bunch of geese or something. Its obviously a high risk method of travel.
Geese?  That's easy, you just land on the river.

Very high risk, once lift is gone.  ;]

 
Geese?  That's easy, you just land on the river.

Very high risk, once lift is gone.  ;]
Man, we are getting way off topic but that must have been a rush landing that plane! Most of the airports dont have any water near it :lol:

let's hope the ATC professionals can get paid asap, they deserve it like everyone does.

 
From twitter (I didn't see this discussed yet) - 

NEW: McConnell and Schumer have agreed to put both the Trump shutdown bill and a Dem proposal, already passed by the House, up for votes on Thursday. Both would reopen government immediately. House bill would extend funding for all shuttered agencies including Homeland Security
That’s fantastic.

 
I dont blame you for worrying about it. Hell, I wonder during takeoff what would happen if we fly through a bunch of geese or something. Its obviously a high risk method of travel.
Dealing with geese at airports is actually under the purview of the USDA.

 
From a strict legal standpoint, an illegal immigrant is by definition a criminal.
This is not correct. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. Being illegally present in the United States is not a crime, although there are some proposals to make it one. As with getting a parking ticket, overstaying a visa is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. That’s why people accused of those things aren’t entitled to jury trials or other constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants.

(Illegally entering the U.S. is a misdemeanor — i.e., a crime. But most illegal immigrants did not illegally enter. Most entered legally and then stayed illegally.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not correct. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. Being illegally present in the United States is not a crime, although there are some proposals to make it one. As with getting a parking ticket, overstaying a visa is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. That’s why people accused of those things aren’t entitled to jury trials or other constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants.

(Illegally entering the U.S. is a misdemeanor — i.e., a crime. But most illegal immigrants did not illegally enter. Most entered legally and then stayed illegally.)
Thank you. I appreciate the distinction.

Did you also want to address the the larger and (much more important) point I was making in that post where that statement came from?

 
Thank you. I appreciate the distinction.

Did you also want to address the the larger and (much more important) point I was making in that post where that statement came from?
I mostly just wanted to nitpick. I believe the rest of your post stated that you support DACA. I don't have anything to add to that except that I agree with you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not correct. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. Being illegally present in the United States is not a crime, although there are some proposals to make it one. As with getting a parking ticket, overstaying a visa is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. That’s why people accused of those things aren’t entitled to jury trials or other constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants.

(Illegally entering the U.S. is a misdemeanor — i.e., a crime. But most illegal immigrants did not illegally enter. Most entered legally and then stayed illegally.)
Thank you. I appreciate the distinction.

Did you also want to address the the larger and (much more important) point I was making in that post where that statement came from?
Your point is that we need to reconcile two viewpoints to resolve the DACA issue.

However, one of those "viewpoints" is based on incorrect knowledge of the law.

So, while I do agree with the theoretical concept of striking a balance or compromise between two positions....I don't think that such a compromise is warranted when one of the positions is fundamentally incorrect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not correct. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. Being illegally present in the United States is not a crime, although there are some proposals to make it one. As with getting a parking ticket, overstaying a visa is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. That’s why people accused of those things aren’t entitled to jury trials or other constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants.

(Illegally entering the U.S. is a misdemeanor — i.e., a crime. But most illegal immigrants did not illegally enter. Most entered legally and then stayed illegally.)
:goodposting: Just to piggyback, anyone who entered while a minor is also highly unlikely to be a criminal because he or she is unable to form the basic building blocks of intent under current jurisprudence.

 
Michelle Kosinski‏Verified account @MichLKosinski

FollowFollow @MichLKosinski

More

NEW: The State Department has just had to cancel its big international conference on BORDER SECURITY and preventing WMD across borders... due to the shutdown over...yes, BORDER SECURITY

2:29 PM - 22 Jan 2019
:wall: :wall: :wall:

 
This is not correct. A criminal is someone who commits a crime. Being illegally present in the United States is not a crime, although there are some proposals to make it one. As with getting a parking ticket, overstaying a visa is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. That’s why people accused of those things aren’t entitled to jury trials or other constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants.

(Illegally entering the U.S. is a misdemeanor — i.e., a crime. But most illegal immigrants did not illegally enter. Most entered legally and then stayed illegally.)
Serious question. How do we handle the cases of murder by people here illegally? Seems like they are afforded Constitutional protections similar to American citizens.

 
From David Bier at Cato: Senate GOP Bill Doesn’t Extend DACA. It Guts It

"This weekend, President Trump promised to an “extension” of DACA for the “700,000 DACA recipients brought here unlawfully by their parents at a young age many years ago.” But the Senate billthat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced to implement his deal does not extend DACA but rather replaces it with a totally different program that will exclude untold thousands of Dreamers who would have been eligible under DACA. It is important to remember that all of these requirements are for less than 3 years of relief from deportation and work authorization, not a pathway to citizenship.

..."

Bait and switch

 
Serious question. How do we handle the cases of murder by people here illegally? Seems like they are afforded Constitutional protections similar to American citizens.
Yes, murder is a crime, so we try them and (if guilty) hopefully convict them and lock them up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's been the best part of this shutdown the whole time.  The irony of shutting down a sizable portion of the government deemed necessary to protect this country over allegedly protecting this country is #### you just can't make up if you tried.
But it's a national emergency!

 
Michelle Kosinski‏Verified account @MichLKosinski

FollowFollow @MichLKosinski

More

NEW: The State Department has just had to cancel its big international conference on BORDER SECURITY and preventing WMD across borders... due to the shutdown over...yes, BORDER SECURITY

2:29 PM - 22 Jan 2019
Who cares?  Just as long as they're not letting in the job-stealing, rapist, lepers.

 
Your point is that we need to reconcile two viewpoints to resolve the DACA issue.

However, one of those "viewpoints" is based on incorrect knowledge of the law.

So, while I do agree with the theoretical concept of striking a balance or compromise between two positions....I don't think that such a compromise is warranted when one of them is fundamentally incorrect.
This is an awesome response because you did exactly what I was asking opponents of DACA (mainly far-right conservatives, Trump, etc.) to do - which is attempt to understand fundamentally what was driving the resistance from the other side.

To keep in perspective, my entire post was in response to someone who labeled opponents "disgusting." What I suggested was, instead of calling them names, maybe try and understand where they were coming from and try to address that, which is the general illegality of some immigrants and start there.

Personally, if I'm trying to politically persuade someone to pass DACA I don't give really care whether there is a strict legal distinction in the level we're talking about. Absolutely it's important at the policy level but not at the political voter level. When you go to Webster's list of synonyms for criminal you see illegal and that's where most people will operate. 

If someone told me they opposed DACA because they thought recipients were criminals I would immediately pivot to American Dream and go from there. That's all I'm saying.

 
So we get a vote on both Bills. Will be interesting to see if any lack of unity for both parties. 

I could imagine a few votes for both Bills by some of the moderates. Basically just a vote for anything that opens the government. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would not call myself optimistic, but I feel more optimistic than the consensus on the Democratic bill passing the Senate. The Trump plan gets voted on first, so there is room for a GOPer to say that they voted for Trump’s proposal, did what they could, but then held their nose and voted for the Democratic proposal because the Democrats were being obstructionists by voting against Trump’s proposal, but, unlike the Democrats, he had to put his constituents first yada yada yada.

 
Everybody says McConnell can end this, but that’s not exactly true. Even if McConnell were to get a bill passed reopening the government with a veto proof majority, Trump will still veto it if there’s no wall. Which means that Republicans would have to publicly repudiate the President on this issue. They might do that before he issues a veto, but afterwards? I strongly doubt it. 

The only way this shutdown ends is if someone comes up with a way that both sides can claim victory. That will have to be somebody smarter than me because I have no clue how you make that happen. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top