Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

Obama Admin. Approved Contracts Of Over $310M Offering Services

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Liz

Obama Admin. Approved Contracts Of Over $310M Offering Services To Illegal Immigrants

 

HHS under former president appeared to break the law by awarding $$ to a group helping Unaccompanied Alien Children

 

LifeZette

By Kathryn Blackhurst

Friday, December 7, 2018

 

Excerpt:

 

Former President Barack Obama’s administration approved multiple contracts totaling more than $310 million to a nonprofit organization offering legal advice to illegal immigrants during his final two full years in office, according to a report from the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI).

 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Obama awarded the contracts to the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) for the “purpose of providing legal representation to unaccompanied alien children (UACs),” IRLI noted on Thursday.

 

The contracts ensured that Vera would provide “direct legal representation” to these UACs and connect them with sponsors.

 

Christopher Stone, one of Vera’s former directors, also has served as a president of liberal billionaire activist George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

 

The Obama administration, however, appeared to overlook one key factor: The Immigration and Nationality Act stipulates that illegal immigrants facing deportation proceedings “shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the government),” as IRLI noted.

 

“When the federal government pays for illegal alien minors to receive direct legal representation, it does more than flout the law,” Dale L. Wilcox, IRLI’s executive director and general counsel, said in a statement released with the report.

 

“These unauthorized payments have undoubtedly [sped up] UACs’ release from detention facilities to join their families, relatives, or fellow gang members — or help them reconnect with and pay ‘pandillas,’ the criminal cartels that make enormous profits from controlling human trafficking over the southern border,” Wilcox said.

 

“My guess is that average voters would not be pleased to know that such vast amounts of their tax dollars are being spent in aid of this giant criminal enterprise,” Wilcox added.

 

*snip*

 

Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

So the current POTUS should put an immediate stop to it and send the bill for this criminal activity to Ovomit.

 

He and his billionaire friends can dig up that amount from the cushions of their couches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

The legal concept is "clawback".

 

In my best Captain Pickard voice: "Make it so."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SARGE

The legal concept is "clawback".

 

In my best Captain Pickard voice: "Make it so."

 

Eh, that's Picard, as in Jean-Luc Picard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

So the current POTUS should put an immediate stop to it and send the bill for this criminal activity to Ovomit.

 

He and his billionaire friends can dig up that amount from the cushions of their couches.

 

Yes, send a bill. And wrap it tightly so that it is no more than approximately 7.62MM in diameter for delivery.

 

Aw, damn. Probably yet another evening with the feds. I'll put on a pot of coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

??? Per our Constitution legal representation must be provided. This is the first time I hear anyone claim that it must be done for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

??? Per our Constitution legal representation must be provided. This is the first time I hear anyone claim that it must be done for free.

??? To whom, do you know?

 

(Never mind, it’s you.)

Edited by zurg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

"Legal representation must be provided" is a Constitutional right not a courtesy. Non-citizens have no such right under our Constitution nor the majority of nations regardless of their founding and present rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker

??? Per our Constitution legal representation must be provided. This is the first time I hear anyone claim that it must be done for free.

Woke up stupid again this morning? How many days in a row is this now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

So the current POTUS should put an immediate stop to it and send the bill for this criminal activity to Ovomit.

 

He and his billionaire friends can dig up that amount from the cushions of their couches.

 

Some prison time for Barry and Co. sounds good.

 

I can dream....

 

??? Per our Constitution legal representation must be provided. This is the first time I hear anyone claim that it must be done for free.

 

 

How would you know, Skippy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

"Legal representation must be provided" is a Constitutional right not a courtesy. Non-citizens have no such right under our Constitution nor the majority of nations regardless of their founding and present rule.

Meh, semantics. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

??? Per our Constitution legal representation must be provided. This is the first time I hear anyone claim that it must be done for free.

Kinda like welfare, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones

??? Per our Constitution legal representation must be provided. This is the first time I hear anyone claim that it must be done for free.

Well,Kommissar, I guess if you’ve not heard of it, it doesn’t exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

??? Per our Constitution legal representation must be provided. This is the first time I hear anyone claim that it must be done for free.

"Legal representation must be provided" is a Constitutional right not a courtesy. Non-citizens have no such right under our Constitution nor the majority of nations regardless of their founding and present rule.

 

Yes and No.

 

Miranda v Arizona (1966) established the right to counsel, and for free if the person cannot afford it, as part of the 5th amendments "due process" clause. and Zavydas v Davis (2001) extended it to illegals.

 

"...Once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes,
for the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent
."

-Breyer, for the majority, Zavydas v Davis (2001), 5:4 with Rehnquist, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting.

 

HOWEVER, Due Process and Miranda apply only in criminal cases and not all immigration offenses are Criminal. "Illegal Entry" IS a crime but (mere) "Unlawful Presence" is not; it's a civil offense for which the civil remedy is deportation. For this reason, many deportees are deported for (merely) "unlawful presence" so as to avoid the whole due process issue and not clog up the system.

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

??? Per our Constitution legal representation must be provided. This is the first time I hear anyone claim that it must be done for free.

 

 

So if I took residence in your home you'd be okay with having to provide ANYTHING to me at YOUR EXPENSE?

If I am in your home without permission or legal right (much less illegally entered) what should you have to provide for me?

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SARGE

So if I took residence in your home you'd be okay with having to provide ANYTHING to me at YOUR EXPENSE?

If I am in your home without permission or legal right (much less illegally entered) what should you have to provide for me?

 

Oki

 

Since it's his Mom's basement, probably not a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oki

Since it's his Mom's basement, probably not a lot.

 

Good point. But, is really amazing how leftists either shut up or change their tune when it's their money, there security, their livelihood or the like on the line. Reminds of the old cartoon where a General is walking the line inspecting the troops and says: Many of you will not comeback, but it is a sacrifice I am willing to make. As long as it is others who shoulder the burden they are a okay with it, but the moment they are expected to chip in and bear the burden, even when it's something they believe in their tune changes.

 

Oki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...