House declines DOJ request for funding (Page 2): It is true that the protections under the constitution are not limited to only citizens, legal visitors or legal residents. I think...

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

mwalsh wrote:

That would be in the laws. Constitution and laws wake no disclaimer that the laws don't apply to illegal aliens.

It would be hard for them to be here illegally if the laws did not apply to them.

It is true that the protections under the constitution are not limited to only citizens, legal visitors or legal residents. I think this needs to be addressed though. Not sure of a perfect solution but the House does have the power of the purse. Let the DOJ sue the house if they don't readily bend over for funding requests from an AG that picks and chooses which laws he chooses to abide by.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

pounder35 wrote:

I disagree. We have laws against illegal immigration. While not in the Constitution they are stills laws. Not many "laws" are in the Constitution. "Rights" are, that apply to American citizens. Big difference. The criminal invaders are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. They are are criminals because they broke our immigration laws. :thumbup:

I understand you want to believe that, but you might want to research it a little more. Even criminals have rights.
Convicted felons lose some but not all of theirs.

Not to broach an old controversy, but, illegal aliens are not criminals under our laws. Federal Civil Code governs immigration issues. You have to violate Federal Criminal Statutes to be a criminal. Illegal aliens are violaters of civil law, under the terms of our laws.

Further, even if you don't want to parse the words above, nobody is a criminal (innocent until proven guilty) until due process has been executed and a guilty verdict rendered.

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

pounder35 wrote:

I disagree. We have laws against illegal immigration. While not in the Constitution they are stills laws. Not many "laws" are in the Constitution. "Rights" are, that apply to American citizens. Big difference. The criminal invaders are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. They are are criminals because they broke our immigration laws. :thumbup:

>
They get covered when they are a citizen, legal that is.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

idaholover wrote:

>
They get covered when they are a citizen, legal that is.

Try again

pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

mwalsh wrote:

I understand you want to believe that, but you mig... (show quote)

That's not the way I interpret it. Illegal means breaking the law. I don't care if it's a criminal law or civil law. I don't believe foreign invaders are due protection under our Constitution. Drop the word "illegal". A foreign enemy has invaded our country. Do you think they should have the same Constitutional rights you enjoy? And these invaders not being in uniform and part of a military recognized by the Geneva Convention are the same as Al-qaeda and Hamas. :shock:

BigWahoo Loc: Kentucky

bcheary wrote:

http://unfilteredpatriot.com/house-declines-to-fund-dojs-lawyers-for-illegals-request/

Good for the House. All Obummer wants to do is spend money. Where does it say in the Constitution that illegals are entitled to free legal representation? They should be deporting their sorry asses as soon as they catch them. :hunf: :XD: :XD:

"A 2008 law makes it nearly impossible to repatriate unaccompanied minors to Central America without letting them appear before an immigration judge. And so now the president is seeking to change that law. Obama sent a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, last week saying he would ask Congress to give the Homeland Security secretary more flexibility to send minors back to Central America.

Just before leaving office, on Dec. 23, 2008, George W. Bush signed into law the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. This bipartisan measure, named for a 19th century British abolitionist, was aimed at extending and beefing up efforts to prevent and prosecute human trafficking and protect the victims of trafficking. More importantly, it described exactly how unaccompanied children crossing the border must be treated."

idaholover Loc: Nampa ID

mwalsh wrote:

Try again

By Constitutional law.

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

Uh, just hauling them away in a bus takes some level of legal involvement. You don't know who is who, what documents they may or may not have, or things like their place of birth, marital status etc.. Better do all this in a legal way or you will have a mess.

ardenweiss Loc: Maryland

Bottom Line -- Money Rules -- We have the demand for cheap labor and they have the supply -- and US citizens are willing to break the law to get access to this cheap labor.

The supply and demand scenario also applies to the drug traffic.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Specious argument. How do you know they are illegal unless you provide them due process to learn their status?

pounder35 wrote:

I disagree. We have laws against illegal immigration. While not in the Constitution they are stills laws. Not many "laws" are in the Constitution. "Rights" are, that apply to American citizens. Big difference. The criminal invaders are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. They are are criminals because they broke our immigration laws. :thumbup:

dfran Loc: Dallas, Pa

pounder35 wrote:

I disagree. We have laws against illegal immigration. While not in the Constitution they are stills laws. Not many "laws" are in the Constitution. "Rights" are, that apply to American citizens. Big difference. The criminal invaders are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. They are are criminals because they broke our immigration laws. :thumbup:

Well said!!!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Yes, denied the funds and then said OBama you solve the problem because we cannot! Boehner and the house are useless and hurting the country.

Regarding spending, the projected deficit just went down again to almost a rounding figure. Look it up. OBama seems to be doing a very good job managing the government.

As it usually does each spring, CBO has updated the baseline budget projections that it released earlier in the year. CBO now estimates that if the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit in fiscal year 2014 will be $492 billion. Relative to the size of the economy, that deficitat 2.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)will be nearly a third less than the $680 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2013, which was equal to 4.1 percent of GDP. This will be the fifth consecutive year in which the deficit has declined as a share of GDP since peaking at 9.8 percent in 2009 (see the figure below).http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45229

gmcase wrote:

It is true that the protections under the constitution are not limited to only citizens, legal visitors or legal residents. I think this needs to be addressed though. Not sure of a perfect solution but the House does have the power of the purse. Let the DOJ sue the house if they don't readily bend over for funding requests from an AG that picks and chooses which laws he chooses to abide by.

Billbobboy42 Loc: Center of Delmarva

pounder35 wrote:

I certainly hope you're right. Lawyers are a necessary evil but when you open the yellow pages looking for "lawn care" and have to flip through 50 pages of lawyer ads (full page ads) something is wrong. And I'm talking smaller towns. Pop. 250,000. :shock:

I live on the outskirts of a town of 32,000. And our yellow pages are chocked full of lawyer adds. Especially the ambulance chasers :roll: (tactfully called "wrongful injury").

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Deficit & the Federal debt are 2 entirely different animals. The Federal Debt is still ballooning. The deficit contributes to the debt when the outlay of funds exceeds the funds coming in but we are still paying interest on the outstanding debt..... Obama is useless (just look at our foreign policy).... Obama is responsible for the influx of children from Central America by his executive "Dreamer" action... They are flocking to this country in hopes of getting in before anything changes.

ole sarg wrote:

Yes, denied the funds and then said OBama you solv... (show quote)

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

The law was regarding Human trafficking. These kids & some parents are not in the same position. They are fleeing violence & crime, if you believe the news,not trafficking. They are causing a lot of problems in the Border States that isn't getting the attention it deserves. It's easy for those in Northern States to pontificate about what needs to be done when they are not exposed to the situation firsthand. The money Obama requested does nothing to stop the flow of these people. All it does is pay to care for them.

BigWahoo wrote:

"A 2008 law makes it nearly impossible to rep... (show quote)