MOCO paying illegals layers with our taxes

[Anonymous]

Just wait until you file your 2018 federal taxes with the new cap on SALT. Then your blood will really boil over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many illegals pay taxes, remember.

No they don't.

They are paid cash under the table.

Your problem is you think "illegals" mean the people you see looking for day work at Home Depot.

The majority of out of status foreigners in this country came legally and outstayed their paperwork. The majority have paid their share of state and federal taxes. The majority are decent and hard-working.

As a PP said, it is in your best interest to keep families together so that you can avoid an increase in violence (youth gangs) and the creation of an unproductive underclass which will cost you even more down the road.

All you people frothing at the mouth can't see past your nose. It's the long view that we need.

Just like we pay enormous sums for children with special needs in school, enshrine in the law accommodations for people with disabilities, and ensure there are protections in place for all types of needs and minorities. It's money spent for the stabilization of our society.

The concept isn't "do they deserve it?", but "can we afford not to do it for our long-term development?". Well, many people think the answer to that last question is no.

They're here in violation of the law. Period. Stop lumping special needs children of American parents with people who violate the law and drain American resources. It has had a negative impact on the schools in working class neighborhoods. The wealthy liberals here in DCUM are protected from the consequences of their own policies.

As an example, a poster said she wanted to move to a swing state to try to turn it more blue, but she said there were a lot of "those kids" down there and she'd have to put her little snowflake in a private school to avoid them. Such hypocrisy.

Jaywalking is a civil violation also. So what.

The fact is immigrants are here. Just like the Italians and the Irish and the Jews. Now it's hispanics. We need to educate them. Also, deporting parents of legal children has show to cost the country more money. I rather the father be here working and making money than being deported and the family going on welfare.

1/2 of Undocumented immigrants pay taxes, they don't get to use any write offs but they pay FEDERAL and state taxes.

I think we need to deport criminals, real criminals, not people committing civil violation.

We need a stronger boarder but a Wall is a joke, we need satellite surveillance (which is cheaper than a wall) and we need to stop them before they get into Mexico, which is what we were doing before Trump pissed off Mexico. We stopped 1/2 of the illegal pass through immigrants before they reached Texas.

We all want the same thing, it's just your method cost more and is less effective.

Here is the problem with your logic: criminals are fathers too. Why do they lose their humanity and deserve to be ripped from their children via deportation? You are also making a determination of who 'belongs'here based on your own comfort level. no one has to leave their children here when they are deported. They are welcome to take their children with them and stay together.

Kids can go with them. Yup

No they can't. It's parental kidnapping. You can't just take American citizens to another country. You assume all these kids don't have an Am parent.'many have 1 American parent.

Que the ignorant question: if they are married why isn't the H an American?

Do your research on immigration laws.

It isnt parental kidnapping if the entire family goes. In any case, not our problem. The parents knew they were creating this mess when they A) crossed the border or stayed illegally and B) had a child. They will need to make some decisions about where the children go.

Way to pose a question (that no one but you asked) and answer it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. I don't see the Constitution giving criminal illegal immigrants the right to representation. That's a right given to citizens.

How do you know they are illegal if they aren't given a fair hearing?

BTW, here is the 6th amendment to the US constitution

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

It says the accused. Nowhere does it mention citizenship. If there is any rationale for denying this right in an immigration proceeding, it is the argument that such proceeding is NOT a criminal prosecution, but a civil matter.

But that would seem to contradict the idea that all illegal immigrants are ipso facto criminals.

This is a federal question, immigration proceedings are federal proceedings, and you just quoted the US Constitution, not the Maryland Constitution. Whether detainees have a right to representation in a federal immigration proceeding is irrelevant - if they do, then it is the US government's responsibility to pick up the tab. But nowhere is there a constitutional right to have an attorney in a federal proceeding provided by and paid for with county funds. That's ridiculous.

As one of those high income Montgomery County taxpayers - I can't move right now. But there's a pretty good chance once my kids finish school we're out. And that isn't so far away.

You should move to Louisianna. They keep black prisoners in jail that should be paroled because the "good ones" wash their car.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/louisiana-sheriff-steve-prator-prisoners_us_59dfa0bee4b0fdad73b2cded

You would fit in great there.

Have you ever thought, why are we deporting people that are not criminals. If we didn't deport non-criminals, they would not need lawyers.

Perhaps because they are in this country illegally. In other words, it is against our laws.
And, while the Constitution calls that they have the “assistance of counsel,” nowhere - NOWHERE - does it call for that counsel to be funded by taxpayers.

Not to mention that there is no illegal immigrant who has lived in the US without committing another crime (document fraud; identity theft; using welfare benefits that are disallowed; providing false addresses to creditors like hospitals, etc.); all of which would land citizens in jail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. I don't see the Constitution giving criminal illegal immigrants the right to representation. That's a right given to citizens.

How do you know they are illegal if they aren't given a fair hearing?

BTW, here is the 6th amendment to the US constitution

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

It says the accused. Nowhere does it mention citizenship. If there is any rationale for denying this right in an immigration proceeding, it is the argument that such proceeding is NOT a criminal prosecution, but a civil matter.

But that would seem to contradict the idea that all illegal immigrants are ipso facto criminals.

This is a federal question, immigration proceedings are federal proceedings, and you just quoted the US Constitution, not the Maryland Constitution. Whether detainees have a right to representation in a federal immigration proceeding is irrelevant - if they do, then it is the US government's responsibility to pick up the tab. But nowhere is there a constitutional right to have an attorney in a federal proceeding provided by and paid for with county funds. That's ridiculous.

As one of those high income Montgomery County taxpayers - I can't move right now. But there's a pretty good chance once my kids finish school we're out. And that isn't so far away.

You should move to Louisianna. They keep black prisoners in jail that should be paroled because the "good ones" wash their car.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/louisiana-sheriff-steve-prator-prisoners_us_59dfa0bee4b0fdad73b2cded

You would fit in great there.

Have you ever thought, why are we deporting people that are not criminals. If we didn't deport non-criminals, they would not need lawyers.

Perhaps because they are in this country illegally. In other words, it is against our laws.
And, while the Constitution calls that they have the “assistance of counsel,” nowhere - NOWHERE - does it call for that counsel to be funded by taxpayers.

Not to mention that there is no illegal immigrant who has lived in the US without committing another crime (document fraud; identity theft; using welfare benefits that are disallowed; providing false addresses to creditors like hospitals, etc.); all of which would land citizens in jail.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I am a Democrat and planning to vote in the Democratic primary, who should I vote for to signal some return to common sense?

I'm in the same boat. Planning to vote for Rose Krasnow. Elrich is insanely far left, even for me (and I'm pretty liberal), Leventhal is apparently a truly unpleasant person (according to those who know him), Blair has no experience, Frick is only running cause he wasn't going to win the House seat, which is what he originally filed to run for, and Berliner is . . . more of the same.

Krasnow isn't perfect, but I definitely think she's the best option. She's progressive, but sane. I think she did a decent job as mayor of Rockville.

I'm the PP and appreciate the advice. I'll do my own research of course, but this is a good place to start. I wish there were a better way to signal my displeasure, but my whole neighborhood is in the tank for Reimer and it would be awkward to somehow be the one person breaking ranks.

Reimer just sent an email announcing it unanimously passed. It was beautifully written.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. I don't see the Constitution giving criminal illegal immigrants the right to representation. That's a right given to citizens.

How do you know they are illegal if they aren't given a fair hearing?

BTW, here is the 6th amendment to the US constitution

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

It says the accused. Nowhere does it mention citizenship. If there is any rationale for denying this right in an immigration proceeding, it is the argument that such proceeding is NOT a criminal prosecution, but a civil matter.

But that would seem to contradict the idea that all illegal immigrants are ipso facto criminals.

Are you serious? You used the word illegal PP. So yes, ipso-facto they are criminals. They may not have committed additional crimes but being illegal makes you a criminal.

IF they are criminals, THEN finding them to be illegal (or not) is a criminal proceeding, and the right to counsel applies. IF the right does not apply, THEN the proceeding is not a criminal one, and being undocumented is NOT criminal. Do you understand a conditional?

Pp, the letter from Riemer said these are our neighbors, not criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. I don't see the Constitution giving criminal illegal immigrants the right to representation. That's a right given to citizens.

How do you know they are illegal if they aren't given a fair hearing?

BTW, here is the 6th amendment to the US constitution

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

It says the accused. Nowhere does it mention citizenship. If there is any rationale for denying this right in an immigration proceeding, it is the argument that such proceeding is NOT a criminal prosecution, but a civil matter.

But that would seem to contradict the idea that all illegal immigrants are ipso facto criminals.

This is a federal question, immigration proceedings are federal proceedings, and you just quoted the US Constitution, not the Maryland Constitution. Whether detainees have a right to representation in a federal immigration proceeding is irrelevant - if they do, then it is the US government's responsibility to pick up the tab. But nowhere is there a constitutional right to have an attorney in a federal proceeding provided by and paid for with county funds. That's ridiculous.

As one of those high income Montgomery County taxpayers - I can't move right now. But there's a pretty good chance once my kids finish school we're out. And that isn't so far away.

I am quite sure SCOTUS reads the 6th amendment as applying to the states, based on the 14th amendment.

Yes. And? This is not a situation where a state has been ordered to provide representation. This is a county (not a state) voluntarily providing representation to detainees facing deportation. Not because they have to, because they want to.

Meanwhile, my neighbor had to leave her home because of the increased taxes, and Col Lee MS in Silver Spring has a leaky roof and no sprinkler system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who support this, do you realize there are American citizens in jail who have not yet been convicted of any crime but who are their for the want of a lawyer? So if you are keen on providing lawyers for people who cannot afford them why don't we start with our own citizens.

I'm a public interest lawyer, so I understand what you are saying---and yes, you are correct that citizens languish in lock up for rather innocuous charges. But, I also understand the reasoning behind funding immigration lawyers in MoCo---a county with a high volume of American born children with undocumented parents. In short: our county is more stable and far safer when these families remain intact. Just look at the Latino gang issues we have in our county: they are connected to lack of family stability (more directly: youth without parental supervision).

Thank you. Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many illegals pay taxes, remember.

No they don't.

They are paid cash under the table.

Your problem is you think "illegals" mean the people you see looking for day work at Home Depot.

The majority of out of status foreigners in this country came legally and outstayed their paperwork. The majority have paid their share of state and federal taxes. The majority are decent and hard-working.

As a PP said, it is in your best interest to keep families together so that you can avoid an increase in violence (youth gangs) and the creation of an unproductive underclass which will cost you even more down the road.

All you people frothing at the mouth can't see past your nose. It's the long view that we need.

Just like we pay enormous sums for children with special needs in school, enshrine in the law accommodations for people with disabilities, and ensure there are protections in place for all types of needs and minorities. It's money spent for the stabilization of our society.

The concept isn't "do they deserve it?", but "can we afford not to do it for our long-term development?". Well, many people think the answer to that last question is no.

They're here in violation of the law. Period. Stop lumping special needs children of American parents with people who violate the law and drain American resources. It has had a negative impact on the schools in working class neighborhoods. The wealthy liberals here in DCUM are protected from the consequences of their own policies.

As an example, a poster said she wanted to move to a swing state to try to turn it more blue, but she said there were a lot of "those kids" down there and she'd have to put her little snowflake in a private school to avoid them. Such hypocrisy.

No, most of the elite - Dems and Republicans alike - have their kids in private school or highly segregated schools. Or they did, but given the structure of MoCo, it’s hard to avoid these issues in any public school, so more people are taking note.

[Anonymous]

This sounds like a universally unpopular idea with voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until you file your 2018 federal taxes with the new cap on SALT. Then your blood will really boil over this.

No - it’s all okay because we’re ‘the rich!’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many illegals pay taxes, remember.

No they don't.

They are paid cash under the table.

Your problem is you think "illegals" mean the people you see looking for day work at Home Depot.

The majority of out of status foreigners in this country came legally and outstayed their paperwork. The majority have paid their share of state and federal taxes. The majority are decent and hard-working.

As a PP said, it is in your best interest to keep families together so that you can avoid an increase in violence (youth gangs) and the creation of an unproductive underclass which will cost you even more down the road.

All you people frothing at the mouth can't see past your nose. It's the long view that we need.

Just like we pay enormous sums for children with special needs in school, enshrine in the law accommodations for people with disabilities, and ensure there are protections in place for all types of needs and minorities. It's money spent for the stabilization of our society.

The concept isn't "do they deserve it?", but "can we afford not to do it for our long-term development?". Well, many people think the answer to that last question is no.

They're here in violation of the law. Period. Stop lumping special needs children of American parents with people who violate the law and drain American resources. It has had a negative impact on the schools in working class neighborhoods. The wealthy liberals here in DCUM are protected from the consequences of their own policies.

As an example, a poster said she wanted to move to a swing state to try to turn it more blue, but she said there were a lot of "those kids" down there and she'd have to put her little snowflake in a private school to avoid them. Such hypocrisy.

No, most of the elite - Dems and Republicans alike - have their kids in private school or highly segregated schools. Or they did, but given the structure of MoCo, it’s hard to avoid these issues in any public school, so more people are taking note.

Yes, but they put signs on their lawns in their very undiverse neighborhoods that say ‘hate has no place here’ and that makes them safely liberal.

[Anonymous]

I'm a public interest lawyer, so I understand what you are saying---and yes, you are correct that citizens languish in lock up for rather innocuous charges. But, I also understand the reasoning behind funding immigration lawyers in MoCo---a county with a high volume of American born children with undocumented parents. In short: our county is more stable and far safer when these families remain intact. Just look at the Latino gang issues we have in our county: they are connected to lack of family stability (more directly: youth without parental supervision).

Except the funding isn't limited to parents of American born children who are minors. It would be far more acceptable for the county to offer some type of hardship legal assistance SOLELY to parents of minor children and not take on the legal fees for all non-citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. I don't see the Constitution giving criminal illegal immigrants the right to representation. That's a right given to citizens.

How do you know they are illegal if they aren't given a fair hearing?

BTW, here is the 6th amendment to the US constitution

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

It says the accused. Nowhere does it mention citizenship. If there is any rationale for denying this right in an immigration proceeding, it is the argument that such proceeding is NOT a criminal prosecution, but a civil matter.

But that would seem to contradict the idea that all illegal immigrants are ipso facto criminals.

This is a federal question, immigration proceedings are federal proceedings, and you just quoted the US Constitution, not the Maryland Constitution. Whether detainees have a right to representation in a federal immigration proceeding is irrelevant - if they do, then it is the US government's responsibility to pick up the tab. But nowhere is there a constitutional right to have an attorney in a federal proceeding provided by and paid for with county funds. That's ridiculous.

As one of those high income Montgomery County taxpayers - I can't move right now. But there's a pretty good chance once my kids finish school we're out. And that isn't so far away.

You should move to Louisianna. They keep black prisoners in jail that should be paroled because the "good ones" wash their car.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/louisiana-sheriff-steve-prator-prisoners_us_59dfa0bee4b0fdad73b2cded

You would fit in great there.

Have you ever thought, why are we deporting people that are not criminals. If we didn't deport non-criminals, they would not need lawyers.

This is very disingenuous . This is not racial hatred at all. No one hates these people or hates people from these countries. People just don’t want to support people - on a LOCAL LEVEL- people who are in our country illegally . That is very different wanting to imprison poor citizens and it’s not the issue at all.

Really though people should worry that the illegal immigration and the county and state spending tax payer funds on illegal immigrants while cutting funding for things like parks, schools,& healthcare for citizens will turn to hatred.

We have a county council member named Nancy Navarro who has managed to steer a lot of county funds towards programs benefitting a population with significant number of illegal immigrants - for things like healthcare, special school programs and parks/Rec.
Here is her record - which far eclipses anything done for the other districts in MoCo - why??


http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Navarro/about.html

Remember the teen suicides at Whitman and WJ ? When people requested help for at risk kids kids at those school
they were told that it wasn’t a ‘school issue’ - but you see that Nancy has put a health center in at Bel Pre Elementary and Wellness Center at Wheaton high school? Why have 3 new Rec centers - including one with ‘accelerated approval’ in Wheaton been put in in the Wheaton and Silver Dpring areas whereas other districts have zero?

Why the inequality? Why are we paying taxes through the nose and just getting cuts to programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a public interest lawyer, so I understand what you are saying---and yes, you are correct that citizens languish in lock up for rather innocuous charges. But, I also understand the reasoning behind funding immigration lawyers in MoCo---a county with a high volume of American born children with undocumented parents. In short: our county is more stable and far safer when these families remain intact. Just look at the Latino gang issues we have in our county: they are connected to lack of family stability (more directly: youth without parental supervision).

Except the funding isn't limited to parents of American born children who are minors. It would be far more acceptable for the county to offer some type of hardship legal assistance SOLELY to parents of minor children and not take on the legal fees for all non-citizens.

These types of funds should be solicited through private donations. It should not be coming out of county funds.

And if you think that the politicians are channeling funds as they are because they are liberal and good hearted you are mistaken. The low labor rates of pay offered to the illegal residents benefit local companies who support the politicians ( at campaign time with donations , post political office jobs and who knows how else). The pay rates also benefit the rich who hire household help at low costs. So, the rich benefit or are not deeply affected but citizens who are middle and lower classes are stressed monetarily and due to a lowered rate of services (school programs, health programs, recreational opportunities, etc).