If the shutdown lasts two more weeks, the cost to the economy will exceed price of Trump's wall

Just recognize that the pain is being felt all over the country. If it makes you feel better, you are free to believe that 90% of your fellow us citizens being harmed by the shutdown all live in the capital city of our country, but I dont know why that should be of any comfort to them or you.

 

because no dollar amount was given it could be as low as a couple of hundred dollars if that
so what you gave is meaningless

 

You're so right ! Trump is making the USA look like GE stock.

Adding to it After Trump ill conceived Tariffs damaged Farmers ............ now they can't get their money from our government.

 

Those that support Trump are compelled to cut their noses to spoil their faces in perpetuity until they wake up, if ever.

 

Absolutely!!!.... Let's get him some bills to sign (or veto).... The House approved several this week... Those balls should be put in Trump's court, but Mitchy is holding his balls (so to speak)...

Do your job, Mitchy.... Let go of Trump's balls!!

 

Belgium had no goverment for 500days back in 2013-2014 i believe

Turned out we did better during that then before and after

 

There’s no such thing as a shutdown. If president believes the budget serves the best interests of America, he signs it: otherwise, he does not sign it and sends it back to the congress to improve.

Is it not so?

 

In the context of doing his actual job for the American people or to play partizan distract politics?

 

Glad to hear both the president and Senate are working together to convince the Dems to do what’s right.

 

There’s no context. Trump is doing what he believes is in the best interest of United States. The Dems are trying to prevent him from doing so.

 

And vice versa

 

It has no meaning if you refuse to accept any meaning. But let's ignore the distribution of the harm for a moment and let me ask you, why does the notion that most of the harm from the shutdown is concerned in citizens who reside in the DC area, why is that comforting to you?

 

No. The Dems are not doing what is in the best interests of the United States; they're only doing what's in their best interests.

Wanna discuss sanctuary cities with me? Who's interests are best served by the concept?

 

There is always context. It relevant for critical thinking. The GOP controlled the house and senate for almost two years, why did they not pass Trump's $6B whan they had control? Because neither Trump nor the GOP congress really intended to ever do a new wall, so now their demands are pure partizan distraction politics to vilify the house democrats and setup an false flag issue again.

 

You want some context, sure - Hillary lost, Trump won. Dems are not happy about it and doing all they can to delegitimize Trump's presidency and deny him anything and everything that can be viewed as a success of his administration.

In a nutshell...

 

Why not address the rest of my post first with the point being that the GOP congress had two years to pass this $6B when they were in control but did not feel it was necessary then or ever but now they want to use it as a distract divisive issue once again against the house dems? Thanks!

 

No.. 2 different things, and I'm generally opposed to that concept, so it would be a boring discussion..

Thanks for the offer though..

 

Mine, yours, Law enforcemnt's


From Politifact:

Albany Mayor Kathy M. Sheehan said in a national television interview that it’s not a crime for immigrants to live in the U.S. without documentation.

Sheehan, a Democrat, was defending her city’s status as a so-called "sanctuary city" to Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The city's law enforcement officials do not report undocumented immigrants to federal authorities unless they commit a serious crime.

"Simply being in this country without documentation is not a crime," Sheehan said. "The U.S. Supreme Court has said that."

Carlson was left baffled.

"You just said that being here illegally is not illegal? I’m not aware of that Supreme Court decision," Carlson said. "How is that true?"

Sheehan cited a court ruling.

"In Arizona v. the United States, the Supreme Court said simply being here undocumented is not a crime," she said. "There are civil violations and then there are criminal violations."

So, who’s right? Sheehan or Carlson?

What’s Sheehan talking about?

The Supreme Court case Sheehan cited involved a 2010 challenge to an Arizona immigration law from the Obama administration.

The law required that immigrants carry documents proving their status in Arizona. Police were also instructed to stop and seek documents from anyone they suspected of being undocumented. Those without documents faced a state criminal charge.

The Obama administration contended Arizona could not create a state level criminal charge for the violation because it’s already regulated by Congress.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration and struck down that section of the Arizona law, among other parts.

Civil or criminal

Experts supported Sheehan’s claim by pointing out how the U.S. legal system works.

People who break the law in the U.S. have committed either a criminal or civil violation depending on how the law defines it and how prosecutors choose to proceed.

Being in the U.S. without documentation is considered a civil matter, said Nancy Morawetz, professor of clinical law at New York University School of Law.

"Being present in the U.S., that status, is not a crime," Morawetz said.

That doesn’t mean undocumented immigrants can live in the U.S. without consequence, said Rick Su, a professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law. Federal authorities can deport them.

A criminal violation comes with a punishment, like time in prison. Civil cases come with penalties instead. Deportation is considered a penalty under federal law, not a punishment.

"Congress can decide what they want to make a crime and what they want to make a civil violation," Su said. "What they’ve decided is that immigration violations by themselves are civil violations."

The Supreme Court confirmed that decision in Arizona v. United States.

"What the Supreme Court said in Arizona v. U.S. is that generally being unlawfully present in the U.S. is not a crime, and that’s definitely true," Su said. "What the court did, is say Congress had made these civil violations and Arizona is trying to make them criminal violations."

Why a civil matter?

It’s easier to deport undocumented immigrants through civil proceedings, Su said.

In deportation proceedings, immigrants face a special immigrant judge. The government does not have to provide a public attorney to immigrants who cannot afford one in these cases.

The burden is then entirely on the immigrant to show they are in the country lawfully. They are also not entitled to any kind of due process.

There are some immigration laws that can land an immigrant in criminal court. Entering the U.S. illegally is a crime, for example, but staying after a temporary visa has expired is a civil violation. As much as two-thirds of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. entered legally with a visa, according to the Center for Migration Studies.

Our ruling

Sheehan said "simply being in this country without documentation is not a crime."

It may be semantics, but Sheehan is right. Living in the U.S. without documentation is a civil violation, not a crime.

PolitiFact Florida rated a similar claim Mostly True earlier this year. As its fact check noted, however, those in the U.S. without documentation may have committed a crime by entering the country illegally.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that generally opposes loosening immigration laws, told PolitiFact Florida that "it's easy for such individuals to run into separate criminal problems even beyond their method of entry, such as filling out an employment eligibility form to get a job when they aren’t eligible to work."

But their illegal presence is not a crime.

Sheehan's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.

Share The Facts

Kathy Sheehan
Albany Mayor


"Simply being in this country without documentation is not a crime"
Thursday, November 16, 2017

• SHARE
  
• READ MORE

Please note that the MAIN reason it is still not even a Crime is because that would make it HARDER to deport people. You certainly dont want to do that, do you ?

 

Sounds like all the more reason to just go ahead and give Trump the $5.7 for the wall.

Democrats are going to have a hard time trying to justify losing $6+ billion to avoid paying $5.7 billion.

 

I just read a graph that confirmed the OP

Shutdown currently has cost 3.8 Billion.. Expected to reach 7.2 Billion in two weeks

We are weak stupid and dumb like Trump.. Our idiotic Commander in Chief

Someone needs to put a pitchfork next to Schumer in the conjoined politician Pelosi/Schumer (look like parents mad at their kid staying out until 4 AM) picture,, Looks like classic American Gothic to me
I say don't give in.. We have to break the idiot of his bad habits.. Spend 30 Billion to prove it.. I don't care

 

Lol.. he tweets at 4am... is that the same thing??

 

Clearly it’s not about the money to the left...it’s about Trump. They are still bitter the American people rejected them in 2016

 

The re-opening of the government is directly in the hands of Nancy and Chucky who previously voted FRO this request by the president.

 

Yes I do. I want to make it harder to deport Illegal Aliens while also make it harder for them to get here illegally in the first place.

Otherwise, what do we have? Easy to get in —-> not a crime, no worries about being caught —-> easy to deport, so what —-> easy to get back in again. Rinse, repeat.

 

Republicans previously voted FOR the funding bill that McConnell now refuses to even bring up for a vote.

But I know why you want to blame the Democrats for the shutdown.

You are smarter than Trump.