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.

Constitutional rights extend to everyone on this soil.

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What? Give examples. It's in your Miranda rights that you have the right to a lawyer if you cannot afford one.

NP. What matters is that we have SO MANY problems we need to address for which we are short on funding. The last thing we need is for crowds of poor, uneducated people to be flooding in through the border and taking up public resources, and yet that is what is happening. Illegals cost the American taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars a year, and they keep coming because Liberals like you are actually working to keep them here. It is INSANITY.

It needs to stop or at least we need to work together to try to figure out a way to stem the tide, because it's not sustainable.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes I do.

They should receive a speedy process as well. It's not one or another.

Also if we stopped jailing people for civil violations, like being undocumented, and put our effort toward criminals we can hand them over to the federal agents and save the money. We would have more money toward due process for citizens.

It is "one or another" when you have finite resources, which, as adults with life experience, we should all know is the case. In any case, so many wants and needs of our society need to take precedence over helping illegal immigrants stay in this country.

Agree that instead of "jailing" illegal immigrants, we should instead speedily deport them.

Anonymous wrote:What's happening is that the liberal policies in Maryland are so completely crazy that they are driving "less crazy" liberals here to Virginia, and they are bringing their liberal policies with them. We now have big pockets of illegal immigrants just a couple of miles away, with related gang activity and assaults. At the same time, we have schools, now rated at 3 and 4, where half the kids don't even speak English. We are spending a fortune to build a large and expensive new homeless shelter, three times as fancy as my college dorm, next to a library. People are arguing that subsidized housing residents shouldn't be forced to live in units smaller than educated professionals enjoy (and pay for) themselves.

Virginia has gone downhill in the 20 years I've lived here, and it's due to the influx of liberals from Maryland. (And some are delusion. The woman waiting in line at the voting booth said we should just give every American $500, and that would solve a lot of problems.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's happening is that the liberal policies in Maryland are so completely crazy that they are driving "less crazy" liberals here to Virginia, and they are bringing their liberal policies with them. We now have big pockets of illegal immigrants just a couple of miles away, with related gang activity and assaults. At the same time, we have schools, now rated at 3 and 4, where half the kids don't even speak English. We are spending a fortune to build a large and expensive new homeless shelter, three times as fancy as my college dorm, next to a library. People are arguing that subsidized housing residents shouldn't be forced to live in units smaller than educated professionals enjoy (and pay for) themselves.

Virginia has gone downhill in the 20 years I've lived here, and it's due to the influx of liberals from Maryland. (And some are delusion. The woman waiting in line at the voting booth said we should just give every American $500, and that would solve a lot of problems.)

YES!!!

Like locusts.

They ruin what they have then move on to fertile ground to ruin the next place. Northern VA is going to be in this boat in the next decade.

Instead of learning from their mistakes they duplicate them somewhere else.

Anonymous wrote:What's happening is that the liberal policies in Maryland are so completely crazy that they are driving "less crazy" liberals here to Virginia, and they are bringing their liberal policies with them. We now have big pockets of illegal immigrants just a couple of miles away, with related gang activity and assaults. At the same time, we have schools, now rated at 3 and 4, where half the kids don't even speak English. We are spending a fortune to build a large and expensive new homeless shelter, three times as fancy as my college dorm, next to a library. People are arguing that subsidized housing residents shouldn't be forced to live in units smaller than educated professionals enjoy (and pay for) themselves.

Virginia has gone downhill in the 20 years I've lived here, and it's due to the influx of liberals from Maryland. (And some are delusion. The woman waiting in line at the voting booth said we should just give every American $500, and that would solve a lot of problems.)

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.

Elrich is not so insanely far left...yes, he’s progressive but it really comes from wanting to help the community. Ie, he helped neighbors in Bethesda and Chevy Chase when others wouldn’t, lest it damage their progressive chops in East County. He’s the only one not bought and paid for by developers.