MOCO paying illegals layers with our taxes

[Anonymous]

I'm worried that we are going to drive out all our high income taxpayers and be left with low income illegal immigrants, just sending us in a spiral of higher need and lower revenue

County politicians need to realize that people can edecide to live in VA, HoCo or DC if they don't see the value anymore in MoCo's county services vs benefits......

I already decided to avoid university park In my housing search cause I don't see the value in those high tax rates

And yeah I'm a Democrat

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

This thread gives me hope for this country. I agree - vote them all out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a constitutional issue, yes illegals are allowed due process and the new justice Gorsuch is a literalist so he is not going to help you much.

If we didn't piss off Mexico they would have prevented so many illegals coming, but they have stopped with their effort to help the US.

Also, the # of people moving back to Mexico was greater than the # coming here... which is no longer true. Bummer!

Also, the previous administrations were deporting illegal criminals but the current administration is too busy with the border to do that.

I am all for stopping illegal immigration and deporting criminals, but alas, we are too busy deporting doctors and teachers.

Please don't be disingenuous. There are Democrats now who all but openly advocate for allowing all illegals to stay. You sound like you are one of them with your lie about the "doctors and teachers."

No. The majority of democrats support strict immigration laws. Sorry if most don't want to jail kids that were brought to this country at 2 as soon as they turn 18 because all of a sudden they are "illegal". Get a grip.

The democrats support extremely strict immigration laws and deportation laws against criminals.

I don't think all Republicans are racist so you clearly are not so close minded to know that democrat have historically been very tough on deportation of criminals.

And yes, in the past year teachers and doctors have been deported.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm worried that we are going to drive out all our high income taxpayers and be left with low income illegal immigrants, just sending us in a spiral of higher need and lower revenue

County politicians need to realize that people can edecide to live in VA, HoCo or DC if they don't see the value anymore in MoCo's county services vs benefits......

I already decided to avoid university park In my housing search cause I don't see the value in those high tax rates

And yeah I'm a Democrat

I live in Va, and we sure don't need people who freak out about immigration. Stay in Maryland, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a constitutional issue, yes illegals are allowed due process and the new justice Gorsuch is a literalist so he is not going to help you much.

If we didn't piss off Mexico they would have prevented so many illegals coming, but they have stopped with their effort to help the US.

Also, the # of people moving back to Mexico was greater than the # coming here... which is no longer true. Bummer!

Also, the previous administrations were deporting illegal criminals but the current administration is too busy with the border to do that.

I am all for stopping illegal immigration and deporting criminals, but alas, we are too busy deporting doctors and teachers.

Please don't be disingenuous. There are Democrats now who all but openly advocate for allowing all illegals to stay. You sound like you are one of them with your lie about the "doctors and teachers."

No. The majority of democrats support strict immigration laws. Sorry if most don't want to jail kids that were brought to this country at 2 as soon as they turn 18 because all of a sudden they are "illegal". Get a grip.

The democrats support extremely strict immigration laws and deportation laws against criminals.

I don't think all Republicans are racist so you clearly are not so close minded to know that democrat have historically been very tough on deportation of criminals.

And yes, in the past year teachers and doctors have been deported.

Im sorry but this is total Bull. Democrats do everything under the sun to impede the implementation of existing immigration laws, drag their feet on solutions, turn a blind eye to problems, etc. Hey! If I'm wrong about this, I would be the first to dance for joy. But no. Pretending like you care about Immgration laws and enforcement while sheltering and aiding illegals is just another trick in your book.

And of course, there are doctors and teachers who can't overcome immigration hurdles and end up having to leave. It is so dishonest of you to even suggest that they represent anything CLOSE to a significant percentage of the problems surround the Mexico border.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm worried that we are going to drive out all our high income taxpayers and be left with low income illegal immigrants, just sending us in a spiral of higher need and lower revenue

County politicians need to realize that people can edecide to live in VA, HoCo or DC if they don't see the value anymore in MoCo's county services vs benefits......

I already decided to avoid university park In my housing search cause I don't see the value in those high tax rates

And yeah I'm a Democrat

I live in Va, and we sure don't need people who freak out about immigration. Stay in Maryland, please.

No. It's rabid Liberals like you who've invaded our state with your insanity. You need to leave. Go back to California.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

NP. This kind of insulting response does nothing to further the discussion and makes you look bad.

[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.

Please go look up the definition of non sequitur, because it's apparent you never have heard the term before. My post has nothing to do with who should be deported, or who is a criminal - it simply points out that this is a federal issue, and local governments should not be spending money on it. Try and keep up.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

The Supreme Court had held that accused charged with a felony (among others) are required to be provided counsel at the government's expense.