So we have come full circle back to my original point. The first post I responded to (and your responded to my response) was suggesting that republicans should just roll over and acquiesce to democrats now when 5 years ago the democrats were unwilling to relent to republican concerns about the ACA during that shutdown. We can argue about if republicans in 2013 and democrats in 2018 forced shutdowns unnecessarily, but the point is that, ultimately, 2013 republicans didn't accomplish anything by shutting down the government and democrats and 2018 are not accomplishing anything either.  

If we are now going to accept as fact now that republicans were hellbent on shutting down the government in 2013 for political means (probable but not proven). Then we must also accept the fact that democrats are deliberately shutting down the government for their own political scheme of obstruction in 2018 (turning down Trumps offer to give citizenship to 5.8 million via DACA and chain migration is proof of this; this was better than anything Obama ever offered). 

If i was in the democrats shoes I would take the deal ... in their eyes they would be trading some funding for the wall and policy changes on chain migration and diversity lottery etc for roughly 5.8 million democrat voters. Seems like a good deal for them ... but they can't just hand Trump funding for his signature campaign promise either ... so I understand the tension. I am sure they would be absolutely thrilled if people were deported as well ... would be all over the media and would be a boon for them during an election year. 

Stop shifting goalposts.  Your specific claim was that there were "multiple" instances of "Democrats in 2017-18" saying the "equivalent" of "I'm almost giddy thinking about a government shutdown next year. I cannot wait".  The evidence you cited substantiates that they were willing to have a shutdown, not that they were eager to do it or happy about getting the chance to do it. 

If you want to step back from your earlier claim, and instead make a more defensible claim, then this can serve as evidence.  But it does not substantiate the claim you actually made that I challenged you on. 

Could you cite your claim that Trump's offer was "better than anything Obama ever offered"?  I admit I haven't done an exhaustive search, but the information I did find suggests that Trump's DACA proposal is not significantly better than Obama's, and the chain migration offer is just a return to status quo AFAIK, and thus (if I am right) cannot be better than Obama by definition. 

I think settling this question first would make it a lot easier for there to be meaningful discussion of whether Democrats would be smart to take his offer. 

My claim was always that dems wanted and caused the shutdown. What I listed was to show that. I'm not the one shifting goal posts.

Please elaborate.  As far as I know, the KKK is only a "child of the left" in the sense that it was originally formed as a reaction to leftist Radical Republicans crushing the rebellion and freeing the slaves (and other civil rights legislation). 

—The first Klan ... see above.  Often functioned as a paramilitary group targeting blacks and Republicans, with the goal of restoring absolute white supremacy and throwing off the yoke of Northern-influenced rule.  Very pro-Democrat and anti-Republican, with the understanding that Republicans were "left" and Democrats were "right". 
—The second Klan was revived from almost nothing in the aftermath of the movie Birth of a Nation.  Still very anti-black and anti-integration but also extremely anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, and against what it saw as moral decline in a number of areas.  A historian notes that "it was non-partisan in the sense that it pressed its nativist issues to both parties." (Wikipedia) After a decade of extreme growth, it declined in popularity and ceased to be a relevant national organization by the 1930s (arguably) or 40s. 
—The third Klan was not AFAIK a centrally organized movement like the others but more a wave of independent groups calling themselves the KKK, springing up in opposition to civil rights movements (again).  Would be against the Democratic Party as the term is understood today, but possibly pro-"Dixiecrats" (Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation, many of whom left the Democratic Party for third parties and/or the Republican Party). 

I don't see how it's reasonable to call any of that "a child of the left" unless you actually mean "it wouldn't have happened if they just wouldn't keep giving people all those civil rights!"  I'm not saying that is what you mean—please tell me what you do mean. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/trump-daca-deal-is-a-dream-come-true-for-democrats-commentary.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/25/trump-amnesty-cover-18-million-dreamers/

At a glance, those articles repeat the information I cited that Trump's proposal would allow about the same number of people to qualify as Obama's DACA program did.  The "three times as many" claims come from comparing the number of people who could hypothetically enroll against the number of people who have actually enrolled in reality.  Trump's proposal has a qualification total similar to Obama's. 

Of course, that may not be what you are referring to.  Very well, you have cited sources.  Please remind me:  in what way do those sources support the claim that Trump's offer was "better than anything Obama ever offered"? 

The numbers I saw were 1.8 million given citizenship path over 12 year period and up to 4 million more based on chain migration. So potentially around 5.8 - 6 million or so all together given a path to full citizenship ... seems very generous to me considering what little was being asked. 

Obama's DACA protected 1.8 million from being deported while giving work authorization, it did not give full amnesty. Trump is offering a path to citizenship for those 1.8 million as well as an additional 4 million via chain migration ... just from a number standpoint that is a better deal, not to mention legalizing them; saving them from having to worry about DACA being removed in the future. 

Obama didn't offer a path to citizenship, I thought, because it was not within his powers.  I daresay Trump is not more open to the path to citizenship than Obama was.  If Trump could offer it in conjunction with being able to convincingly argue that he is able to do better with passing reform through the Republican-held Congress, then sure, on that basis he can give Democrats a qualitative improvement over what Obama could do without Congress. 

But aside from this arguable qualitative difference, the proposal for the former DACA group would be quantitatively very similar.  So "from a number standpoint", no significant improvement is to be had here based on what you've said for that group.  On the other hand, regarding the additional 4 million you claim from the chain migration, earlier I said "the chain migration offer is just a return to status quo AFAIK, and thus (if I am right) cannot be better than Obama by definition."  Is this correct or incorrect?  Legalization is obviously irrelevant here because we are already talking about legal immigration.  Is the chain migration offer something new, or just "we won't take it away"? 

And while we're at it, is the proposal to remove chain migration even going to reduce quotas, or just redirect the numbers to a different qualification system? 

Correct, it was not within Obama's power to do so. Trump from my understanding is more open to a path to citizenship in relationship to DACA, he even indicated as much in tweets if I recall correctly. The trade off for this would be funding border security and taking steps to control immigration. 

Giving the DACA group a permanent status would allow them to sponsor other family members like parents and siblings. This is different from the status quo ... the status quo is that if you entered the country illegally (which the parents of many of the DREAMers fall in this category) you must leave and apply from abroad). They would now have the DREAMers to sponsor them ... this would lead to a quantitative difference although not immediately. Chain migration is part of the status quo yes ... but that does not apply here since we are talking about a group of people that can not currently utilize it. 

My understanding is that attempts to curb chain migration in general are an attempt to redirect those numbers to a different more stringent qualification system and path to citizenship.