Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2019, 11:51 AM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Any chance of a "essential government employee" strike?

Actually looking for a factual answer, but figure it will get GDey anyway....

Given Trump has said he's happy to shut down the government indefinitely. Is it remotely possible that some of the "essential government employees" that are currently working for free could decide, en masse, that they aren't doing so anymore (I am not sure strike is the right word, as they deciding to not to work for free is hardly a strike IMO).

Is this something thats been discussed during this, or other shutdowns? Is there a union that represents a large enough portion of them to make a difference? (TSA agents have apparently been calling in sick during the shutdown). A mass walk out by them alone would shutdown the airline network, and definitely force an end to the shutdown IMO.

Last edited by griffin1977; 01-05-2019 at 11:51 AM.
  #2  
Old 01-05-2019, 12:02 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,641
The AFGE represents federal employees, to answer your question about that, including TSA employees.
  #3  
Old 01-05-2019, 12:12 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin1977 View Post
A mass walk out by them alone would shutdown the airline network, and definitely force an end to the shutdown IMO.
By what mechanism? Even if the every airline is grounded, probably costing billions in GDP every hour, Trump still doesn't have to sign the bill. The Republicans in the Senate still don't have to agree to vote for the bill if the democrats wanted to go for a 2/3 supermajority. If the house holds impeachment proceedings, agrees with a 60% vote that this is basically treason, this doesn't mean sufficient Republican senators will vote to have Trump removed from office.

Last edited by SamuelA; 01-05-2019 at 12:12 PM.
  #4  
Old 01-05-2019, 12:22 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
By what mechanism? Even if the every airline is grounded, probably costing billions in GDP every hour, Trump still doesn't have to sign the bill. The Republicans in the Senate still don't have to agree to vote for the bill if the democrats wanted to go for a 2/3 supermajority. If the house holds impeachment proceedings, agrees with a 60% vote that this is basically treason, this doesn't mean sufficient Republican senators will vote to have Trump removed from office.
If the airline network is shutdown (or even if there is a realistic chance of it shutting down) SOMEONE will fold. Either Trump himself, enough republicans for a supermajority, or the democrats.
  #5  
Old 01-05-2019, 12:22 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,072
I'm pretty certain that federal employees are not allowed to go out on strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ations_Statute

So that's a no, from a legal perspective. They could go out on strike but would not be protected from all being fired by the government for doing so.

I'm pretty certain that what griffin is getting at is would such an action place enough pressure on either the President or both houses of congress to incentivize either to end the impasse. That's an unknown. But moving the stories from 'the National Parks are closed' to 'You can't fly to see grandma' is a whole different level of pressure. It'd be interesting to see.
  #6  
Old 01-05-2019, 12:37 PM
BeenJammin's Avatar
BeenJammin BeenJammin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 557
Had I recently flew away from home on business or pleasure and not returned yet, I'd be concerned at the moment.
  #7  
Old 01-05-2019, 12:45 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
I'm pretty certain that federal employees are not allowed to go out on strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ations_Statute

So that's a no, from a legal perspective.
Likewise there are laws prohibiting involuntary servitude. Every time this situation arises, I mention that if I were not being paid per previous agreement, I'd stay home.
  #8  
Old 01-05-2019, 02:16 PM
ctnguy ctnguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 921
In any sane legal system, an employer would be required to pay employees for work performed. However, any sane system would also not allow leaders to shut down the entire national government because of a fit of pique, so...
  #9  
Old 01-05-2019, 03:00 PM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,000
Federal employees may not be allowed to strike, but there's no law against a sick-out, as the TSA members are doing. Union officials have been careful to point out that the union isn't encouraging members to call in sick, which might be construed as a strike. Instead, word spread among TSA employees at some airports. Now that it's been in the news, it'll be interesting to see if more federal workers call in sick.

I'm really torn on this issue. I have a family member who's been furloughed and one who has to work without pay, and it's a serious hardship. OTOH, the wall would be an extremely expensive and ineffective waste of money. Even if Congress compromised and voted to fund the wall at a later date and only under X circumstances, I can't see Trump acquiescing. What other compromises might there be? Build a very short wall?
  #10  
Old 01-05-2019, 03:15 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Yeah I'm surprised it's not being discussed. It seems like the public would be overwhelmingly in support of the strikers. And whatever the law says the govenrm
  #11  
Old 01-05-2019, 03:18 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Yeah I'm surprised it's not being discussed. It seems like the public would be overwhelmingly in support of the strikers. And whatever the law says the government is not going to lay off the majority of the TSA(or whatever other vital arm of the government), as that would be just as catostophic.

And it would almost certainly work, even the threat would be good enough IMO. For all the tough words, faced with something genuinely catostophic for their constituents, someone will fold.
  #12  
Old 01-05-2019, 03:34 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 4,879
It's times like these that I actually applaud the "gig economy" as a lifesaver--in general, it's just a way for corporations to abdicate their responsibility to pay their employees an adequate living wage and to offer benefits, but having a simple means for a furloughed federal employee to sign up to deliver food or packages or do Uber/Lyft without having to go through an extensive hiring process is pretty damned nice. They can keep the lights on and food on the table while the overpaid assholes in Congress have their fucking pissing contests and send the exact same message as a strike without falling afoul of those disgusting laws that force them into indentured servitude. I really hope the lot of those critically important federal employees get themselves a fantastic case of the "fuck you flu" and actually show the nation what a REAL shutdown looks like. It's way past time we stop it with this constant brinksmanship and take shutdown threats off the table as a bargaining chip. I also think no one in Congress should be either paid for the time the government is shut down over funding fights nor should they be allowed to leave DC. Stay there unpaid until you get the fucking job done, you worthless shits, and no, you do not get retroactive pay when you finally get your shit together. Congress works for free when they play games with everyone else's paycheck.
  #13  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:23 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,999
How is it that the federal government can require some federal workers to work without paying them?

Isn't that a breach of the 13th Amendment?
  #14  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:28 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Also, as of today, the striking government employees can just say "Hey, its what the POTUS said he f*cking wanted"

Quote:
Along with saying the word “fuck” at least three times throughout the meeting, the president bizarrely stated that he did not want to call the partial government shutdown a “shutdown,” according to the source. Instead, he referred to it as a “strike.” (Many of the federal employees affected by the weeks-long shutdown have been working without pay. That is essentially the opposite of a strike.)
ttps://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-referred-to-shutdown-as-strike-in-profanity-laced-meeting-with-democratic-leaders?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
  #15  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:29 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
How is it that the federal government can require some federal workers to work without paying them?

Isn't that a breach of the 13th Amendment?
It's not a 13th Amendment breach because the workers have another option, they can quit. They choose to stay Federal employees in the expectation that they will eventually be paid, and also for the other benefits. (and for the fact that if they quit, getting reinstated would be really difficult)

However there do seem to be laws on this, https://thinkprogress.org/federal-wo...-dee44a7ea97b/ , and it appears that the ones who were forced to work without pay may eventually collect double the wages they were owed.
  #16  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:31 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
It's not a 13th Amendment breach because the workers have another option, they can quit. They choose to stay Federal employees in the expectation that they will eventually be paid, and also for the other benefits. (and for the fact that if they quit, getting reinstated would be really difficult)

However there do seem to be laws on this, https://thinkprogress.org/federal-wo...-dee44a7ea97b/ , and it appears that the ones who were forced to work without pay may eventually collect double the wages they were owed.
I wouldn't bank on it. This case is from 2013 and.....
Quote:
Since this was a recent ruling, even though the lawsuit had been filed years earlier, not all of those employees have received their money yet,
Also as far as I can work out that was just the handful who brought the court case not all the employees

Last edited by griffin1977; 01-05-2019 at 05:32 PM.
  #17  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:35 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin1977 View Post
Actually looking for a factual answer, but figure it will get GDey anyway....

Given Trump has said he's happy to shut down the government indefinitely. Is it remotely possible that some of the "essential government employees" that are currently working for free could decide, en masse, that they aren't doing so anymore (I am not sure strike is the right word, as they deciding to not to work for free is hardly a strike IMO).

Is this something thats been discussed during this, or other shutdowns? Is there a union that represents a large enough portion of them to make a difference? (TSA agents have apparently been calling in sick during the shutdown). A mass walk out by them alone would shutdown the airline network, and definitely force an end to the shutdown IMO.
They could quit. If they did that en masse then it might be a problem, I suppose, though seems a low probability. They aren't allowed to strike, afaik. I think this was resolved during the Carter or Reagan administration, though I might be mis-remembering as I don't know that much about federal labor law to be honest.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #18  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:37 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
It's not a 13th Amendment breach because the workers have another option, they can quit. They choose to stay Federal employees in the expectation that they will eventually be paid, and also for the other benefits. (and for the fact that if they quit, getting reinstated would be really difficult)
That's the other thought I had. They could also just threaten to resign en masse. It would have the same effect. If every TSA agent (or border patrol agent, or corrections officer) said the are going to resign with immediate effect in 72 hours, unless they start getting paid, then the shutdown would be sorted in no time.
  #19  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:41 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
How is it that the federal government can require some federal workers to work without paying them?

Isn't that a breach of the 13th Amendment?
AIUI, they're not working for free, their pay is simply delayed but will eventually be paid in full.
  #20  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:52 PM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,786
Can Congress just find some way to pay them against the President's wishes?
  #21  
Old 01-05-2019, 05:53 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
AIUI, they're not working for free, their pay is simply delayed but will eventually be paid in full.
Don't forget they also aren't being forced to work. They technically still have the right to quit.
  #22  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:58 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Can Congress just find some way to pay them against the President's wishes?
Congress is the one who hasn't sent a bill for the President to sign. They could pass a bill right this minute, wait for Trump's veto, and then override the veto.

That's not going to happen. Nor is there a way to bypass the lack of a law that authorizes that spending. Congress doesn't spend any of the money in the first place, either, so they can't move money around - unless, of course, they pass a law that the President signs. The Executive Branch spends money, but only under the direction of the laws Congress passes. So this is wholly and entirely upon Trump.
  #23  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:05 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
AIUI, they're not working for free, their pay is simply delayed but will eventually be paid in full.
This is not as true as one might think. Following previous shutdowns, congress passed a bill paying workers for their time. But there's no guarantee this will happen during the current or future shutdowns.
  #24  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:21 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctnguy View Post
In any sane legal system, an employer would be required to pay employees for work performed.
That IS, in fact, the law in the US.

However, if the government refuses to follow the law what are you gonna do?
  #25  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:21 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffin1977 View Post
And whatever the law says the government is not going to lay off the majority of the TSA(or whatever other vital arm of the government), as that would be just as catostophic.
In 1981, Reagan fired 11,300 air traffic controllers who went on strike.
  #26  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:23 PM
Tempe Jeff Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
Federal employees may not be allowed to strike, but there's no law against a sick-out, as the TSA members are doing. Union officials have been careful to point out that the union isn't encouraging members to call in sick, which might be construed as a strike. Instead, word spread among TSA employees at some airports. Now that it's been in the news, it'll be interesting to see if more federal workers call in sick.

I'm really torn on this issue. I have a family member who's been furloughed and one who has to work without pay, and it's a serious hardship. OTOH, the wall would be an extremely expensive and ineffective waste of money. Even if Congress compromised and voted to fund the wall at a later date and only under X circumstances, I can't see Trump acquiescing. What other compromises might there be? Build a very short wall?
Bolding mine. I find it laughable that liberals are screeching about Federal spending being wasteful.
"In Fiscal Year 2019, the federal budget will be $4.407 trillion. The U.S. government estimates it will receive $3.422 trillion in revenue. That creates a $985 billion deficit for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019."

26 Billion for the wall is small-potatoes. Why are you HONESTLY opposed?
  #27  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:24 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
They could quit. If they did that en masse then it might be a problem, I suppose, though seems a low probability. They aren't allowed to strike, afaik. I think this was resolved during the Carter or Reagan administration, though I might be mis-remembering as I don't know that much about federal labor law to be honest.
1981 PATCO/Air Traffic Controllers strike under Reagan. He fired 11,000 people. The number of flights per day was halved for some months and it took a decade to fully staff the air traffic control system again.
  #28  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:26 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
AIUI, they're not working for free, their pay is simply delayed but will eventually be paid in full.
While that has been the case in prior shutdowns there is no guarantee that that will happen. Congress has to authorize the back pay every time.
  #29  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:31 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Bolding mine. I find it laughable that liberals are screeching about Federal spending being wasteful.
"In Fiscal Year 2019, the federal budget will be $4.407 trillion. The U.S. government estimates it will receive $3.422 trillion in revenue. That creates a $985 billion deficit for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019."

26 Billion for the wall is small-potatoes. Why are you HONESTLY opposed?
It's probably 70 billion but sure, small potatoes. The main thing is the way this negotiation is done, in public, neither side can afford to compromise.

If Trump budges, he looks like he caves and in every future negotiation with him, the democrats won't believe his threat to shut down the government until the election if necessary.

If the democrats budge, they look like they are giving in to Trump.

Another big flaw is stating in the open what the numbers are. Now it's clear who won when the government reopens. He's a shit negotiator for this deal.
  #30  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:36 PM
Tempe Jeff Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 66
The Uni-Party in Washington wants open borders. Citizens do not.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ld_border_wall

" Most voters (52%) think illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget, and 45% believe illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America.

Voters agree the migrant caravans approaching the U.S. southern border through Mexico are a danger to the country and should be stopped at least temporarily.

Fifty percent (50%) think the U.S. military should be used along the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. "

Just sayin'
  #31  
Old 01-05-2019, 07:42 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post

26 Billion for the wall is small-potatoes. Why are you HONESTLY opposed?
People object far more to spending for something they disapprove of than something they approve of.

They'd approve of $10 trillion being spent on healthcare but not $10 on Zyklon B for Jews (not comparing border wall to Holocaust but you get my point)
  #32  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:00 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
The Uni-Party in Washington wants open borders. Citizens do not.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ld_border_wall

" Most voters (52%) think illegal immigrants are a significant strain on the U.S. budget, and 45% believe illegal immigration increases the level of serious crime in America.

Voters agree the migrant caravans approaching the U.S. southern border through Mexico are a danger to the country and should be stopped at least temporarily.

Fifty percent (50%) think the U.S. military should be used along the border with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration. "

Just sayin'
Which is, of course, completely off topic. People may want border security - though Rassmussen's record on polling is terrible - but they don't want a wall. A Marist poll - a much better outfit - showed the support for the wall to be at 28% as an immediate priority while 50% think it shouldn't be a priority at all.

Even beyond the wall itself, it won't actually answer the issue about illegal immigration. We've pointed this out before but the vast majority of illegal immigrants come through legal points of entry and overstay visas. The only way to control that is to refuse all entry visas of any kind. The moment you let foreign nationals into the USA, you take the risk that they'll overstay their visas. The wall accomplishes nothing concerning that.

Honestly, learn your data sources, will you? Rassmussen's lean is really strong. They only earn a C+ from data aggregators. Either their methodology or their counting is off by a lot on their outcomes.
  #33  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:10 PM
Tempe Jeff Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Which is, of course, completely off topic. People may want border security - though Rassmussen's record on polling is terrible - but they don't want a wall. A Marist poll - a much better outfit - showed the support for the wall to be at 28% as an immediate priority while 50% think it shouldn't be a priority at all.

Even beyond the wall itself, it won't actually answer the issue about illegal immigration. We've pointed this out before but the vast majority of illegal immigrants come through legal points of entry and overstay visas. The only way to control that is to refuse all entry visas of any kind. The moment you let foreign nationals into the USA, you take the risk that they'll overstay their visas. The wall accomplishes nothing concerning that.

Honestly, learn your data sources, will you? Rassmussen's lean is really strong. They only earn a C+ from data aggregators. Either their methodology or their counting is off by a lot on their outcomes.
I appreciate your input however, the main objection I hear repeatedly is the extravagant cost. LOL Perhaps you would explain why baby-steps should NOT be made Jonathan?
  #34  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:14 PM
Tempe Jeff Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 66
Out of a Federal Budget approaching 5 Trillion Dollars; why are some so opposed to 26 Billion spent on 'Infrastructure' ?
  #35  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:20 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,072
As I said earlier, it would be wasted money. We could easily spend it on something that would benefit people or actually promote border security.

Is you position honestly, "It won't work, but the hell with it? Let's spend the money anyway."
  #36  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:21 PM
Tempe Jeff Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Which is, of course, completely off topic. People may want border security - though Rassmussen's record on polling is terrible - but they don't want a wall. A Marist poll - a much better outfit - showed the support for the wall to be at 28% as an immediate priority while 50% think it shouldn't be a priority at all.

Even beyond the wall itself, it won't actually answer the issue about illegal immigration. We've pointed this out before but the vast majority of illegal immigrants come through legal points of entry and overstay visas. The only way to control that is to refuse all entry visas of any kind. The moment you let foreign nationals into the USA, you take the risk that they'll overstay their visas. The wall accomplishes nothing concerning that.

Honestly, learn your data sources, will you? Rassmussen's lean is really strong. They only earn a C+ from data aggregators. Either their methodology or their counting is off by a lot on their outcomes.
Only one more Data point to share. Legal vs. Illegal Immigration; Visa over-stay NOT involved.
Officer Singh is unavailable for comment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/u...immigrant.html
  #37  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:24 PM
Tempe Jeff Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
As I said earlier, it would be wasted money. We could easily spend it on something that would benefit people or actually promote border security.

Is you position honestly, "It won't work, but the hell with it? Let's spend the money anyway."
My position is; that is how Sausage is made in our Capitol. 26 Billion is a rounding error of our Federal Budget. Why would both Parties oppose a Jobs Bill unless they were paid to do so by those who enjoy the fruits of cheap labor?
  #38  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:28 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,072
Again, an irrelevant sidebar argument. Do bad things happen? Sure. But if your standard of measurement is 'nothing bad must happen ever' then all the money on earth won't make that happen.

In addition, the very smart money is that Perez Arriaga arrived in the US through either overstaying a visa OR at a legitimate point of entry. The story does not indicate that he arrived through the desert or via coyote.

Would you rather spend the money stopping crime the 10% who arrive over the desert commit or stop crime the 90% who arrive through points-of-entry or overstaying visas commit? Where would the money be most efficiently spent?
  #39  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:42 PM
Tempe Jeff Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Again, an irrelevant sidebar argument. Do bad things happen? Sure. But if your standard of measurement is 'nothing bad must happen ever' then all the money on earth won't make that happen.

In addition, the very smart money is that Perez Arriaga arrived in the US through either overstaying a visa OR at a legitimate point of entry. The story does not indicate that he arrived through the desert or via coyote.

Would you rather spend the money stopping crime the 10% who arrive over the desert commit or stop crime the 90% who arrive through points-of-entry or overstaying visas commit? Where would the money be most efficiently spent?
Ok, I will concede I cannot prove a criminal shielded by "Sanctuary" laws in California was a visa-overstayer vs. border crosser illegally. I will tell you, here in Arizona, we have to deal with the gangs and criminals crossing the border daily and, $26 Billion to reduce 'Anchor Babies' is a drop in the Bucket. Our Public Schools suffer from a huge amount of illegal children attending for the 'Free Breakfast' and 'Free Lunch' provided by the Feds. If you won't feed your darned kids, get back home. The REAL reason Kids have to eat at School? Illegal Parents use the Food Stamp EBT for their little anchor to feed themselves. My user name shows where I live and I see it regularly. This is my last response to this thread because I do not support open borders so, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
  #40  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:57 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Ok, I will concede I cannot prove a criminal shielded by "Sanctuary" laws in California was a visa-overstayer vs. border crosser illegally. I will tell you, here in Arizona, we have to deal with the gangs and criminals crossing the border daily and, $26 Billion to reduce 'Anchor Babies' is a drop in the Bucket. Our Public Schools suffer from a huge amount of illegal children attending for the 'Free Breakfast' and 'Free Lunch' provided by the Feds. If you won't feed your darned kids, get back home. The REAL reason Kids have to eat at School? Illegal Parents use the Food Stamp EBT for their little anchor to feed themselves. My user name shows where I live and I see it regularly. This is my last response to this thread because I do not support open borders so, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Horseshit. The entire school 'free lunch' program (which is mainly used by US citizens) is not even half a billion dollars for the entire state. Or, to put it another way, care to give a citation demonstrating exactly what the supposed costs of illegal 'anchor babies' actually is so we can do a cost to benefits analysis? Looks to me as if the programs you suggest don't cost the state even $1 billion a year, total...and the majority of those receiving them are US citizens. But even assuming that they are all illegals (), it would be an ROI of 26 years for Arizona alone...and this assumes the freaking wall would actually accomplish a 100% reduction in programs that are actually used mainly by US citizens. Not a good cost to benefit there I'm thinking. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 01-05-2019 at 08:58 PM.
  #41  
Old 01-05-2019, 09:02 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Ok, I will concede I cannot prove a criminal shielded by "Sanctuary" laws in California was a visa-overstayer vs. border crosser illegally. I will tell you, here in Arizona, we have to deal with the gangs and criminals crossing the border daily and, $26 Billion to reduce 'Anchor Babies' is a drop in the Bucket. Our Public Schools suffer from a huge amount of illegal children attending for the 'Free Breakfast' and 'Free Lunch' provided by the Feds. If you won't feed your darned kids, get back home. The REAL reason Kids have to eat at School? Illegal Parents use the Food Stamp EBT for their little anchor to feed themselves. My user name shows where I live and I see it regularly. This is my last response to this thread because I do not support open borders so, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Never said I support open borders, really.

I will offer that my brother - whom I just called - is a Deputy Chief or whatever of a fire station down between Tucson and the border. He would dispute your 'coming over the border everyday' theory.

I'm seeing a lot of argument in your paragraph, above, but little data. Do you have any? I'd be curious to see if there was any truth to it.
  #42  
Old 01-05-2019, 10:00 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Getting back to the OP for a second, its seems ATCs may have join the unofficial "sickout" (a complication for them it seems if they take too many sick days they can lose their certification, just like a pilot can):
https://www.newsandguts.com/shutdown...&ICID=ref_fark
  #43  
Old 01-05-2019, 10:02 PM
griffin1977 griffin1977 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
1981 PATCO/Air Traffic Controllers strike under Reagan. He fired 11,000 people. The number of flights per day was halved for some months and it took a decade to fully staff the air traffic control system again.
The big difference here is the public will be overwhelmingly for the strikers. They aren't after a pay raise, they just want to not have to go to work without getting paid. Almost everyone can sympathize with that.
  #44  
Old 01-05-2019, 11:57 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Bolding mine. I find it laughable that liberals are screeching about Federal spending being wasteful.
"In Fiscal Year 2019, the federal budget will be $4.407 trillion. The U.S. government estimates it will receive $3.422 trillion in revenue. That creates a $985 billion deficit for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019."

26 Billion for the wall is small-potatoes. Why are you HONESTLY opposed?
Is it possible to write that while overlooking that Trump's tax cuts caused the deficit to zoom up to a trillion, after Obama managed to cut the deficit by a trillion dollars? Wouldn't the strain on the cognitive dissonance bone make it too painful to type?
  #45  
Old 01-06-2019, 12:06 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Is it possible to write that while overlooking that Trump's tax cuts caused the deficit to zoom up to a trillion...
'Deficits don't matter. We won the... elections, this is our due.'
  #46  
Old 01-06-2019, 12:27 AM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Bolding mine. I find it laughable that liberals are screeching about Federal spending being wasteful.
"In Fiscal Year 2019, the federal budget will be $4.407 trillion. The U.S. government estimates it will receive $3.422 trillion in revenue. That creates a $985 billion deficit for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019."

26 Billion for the wall is small-potatoes. Why are you HONESTLY opposed?
I find it laughable that conservatives, who normally screech about wasteful spending, are practically lining up to throw tax money at such a dubious enterprise as The Wall. And I stated why I'm honestly opposed. It's a misbegotten waste of money and resources.
  #47  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:09 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,786
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this issue much bigger than any wall?

I mean, we have the executive branch using force to make the legislature to pass a law it doesn't want to pass. Is that how it's supposed to work? Isn't congress supposed to be the one making the laws?

Don't look now, but I think you guys are in the middle of a constitutional crisis.
  #48  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:25 AM
flurb flurb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
This is not as true as one might think. Following previous shutdowns, congress passed a bill paying workers for their time. But there's no guarantee this will happen during the current or future shutdowns.
I can't imagine that Congress refusing to provide backpay to federal workers who actually worked during the shutdown would fly. What I have heard during previous shutdowns is some conservative grumblings over backpay for those employees who were furloughed, with the argument that they were paying bureaucrats for doing nothing. (The fact that they were forced to stay at home gets ignored.) Still, in every previous shutdown Congress had provided backpay for both essential and furloughed employees, and I don't see the Democratic House agreeing to a budget that doesn't do so.
  #49  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:47 AM
asterion asterion is offline
2012 SDMB NFL Salary Cap Champ
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't this issue much bigger than any wall?

I mean, we have the executive branch using force to make the legislature to pass a law it doesn't want to pass. Is that how it's supposed to work? Isn't congress supposed to be the one making the laws?

Don't look now, but I think you guys are in the middle of a constitutional crisis.
That's not really the problem. As bad as Trump has been for the US, the bigger problem for the last decade has been McConnell. There is no reason except for his political scheming that the Senate couldn't have a vote on the various House bills, and if they pass and Trump vetoes see if the houses can get enough votes to override the vetoes.

I'm not saying that McConnell having a fatal heart attack would fix the Senate, but it wouldn't hurt.
  #50  
Old 01-06-2019, 02:01 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 23,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
That's not really the problem. As bad as Trump has been for the US, the bigger problem for the last decade has been McConnell. There is no reason except for his political scheming that the Senate couldn't have a vote on the various House bills, and if they pass and Trump vetoes see if the houses can get enough votes to override the vetoes.

I'm not saying that McConnell having a fatal heart attack would fix the Senate, but it wouldn't hurt.
No, I think this is bigger even than McConnell or Trump. This is about the executive branch of government holding too much power, and Congress having to put it in its place.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017