Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I'm torn here...

On the one hand, I'm hard pressed to make a practical argument that a non-citizen, otherwise able legally to work in the US (eg: a Legal Permanent Resident, someone carrying a work visa, etc), cannot fulfill the duties of a law enforcement officer.

On the other hand, the Constitution lays out requirements that only citizens may hold the office of the President, or attain membership in Congrefs, but that's it. Everything else regarding requirements that persons be citizens would seem to be a Reserved Power, and I'd thus argue that as a matter of state sovereignty, Colorado can decide whether or not the LEOs working in that state must be US citizens. Non-citizens are not, so far as I am aware, a Protected Class under federal anti-discrimination law.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

This stupid Richard Spencer video that's going around really irritates me. Richard Spencer is a known white nationalist. His publicly stated views are racist enough that he has had to calmly try to explain he's not really a white supremacist (but doesn't seem particularly bothered that some think he is).

It's a video of a racist. Of course he is saying racist things. Of course the audience members are shouting "Heil" and responding with the **** salute. This is not surprising. This is exactly who Richard Spencer has said he is.

It would be like taking a video of a speech from a Marxist leader and then breathlessly proclaiming that "THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON". Well, of course.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

I totally think they should be able to require you to be a US citizen if they want for the job, if that is something they want one of the requirements to be. Same as the ability to eat 6+ donuts in 4minutes or less.

Overall though I don't think that there is any part of being a police officer actually requires you to be a citizen to do the job. IE if a cop from Britain had a valid US workers VISA and wanted to become a Boston cop. As long as they went through the same training as all other cops, it would not bother me at all at the end of the day.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Ok, so for you it's just a racial thing, then. Since, you know, all minorities combined represent only 5.9% of police officers in England (source), whereas the population of the city of Boston is 46% non-white (source).

I'm cool with that.




















(I keed, I keed. )

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

That 'token' thing really made me laugh.

Joe, I was a green card holder/permanent resident status when I was in college. I qualified for federal student loans. I was eligible to hold a job and pay taxes.

I'm not sure why that would preclude you from becoming a cop. I thought permanent residents were allowed to join the military.

Godless Commie

iTrader: (2)

Following serious public opposition, the proposed bill was withdrawn earlier today.
Idiots.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

From a purely functional standpoint, it shouldn't.

That having been said, membership in the US Military is regulated by the Federal government, and so the Fed can set its standards for that.

By comparison, the standards for membership in state / county / city police departments are set at the local level, and are subject by State law, not Federal law. There are certain exceptions (eg: where rules prohibiting employment are based on membership in protected classes, having to do with race, gender, sexual orientation, etc), but so far as I am aware, there is no Federal anti-discrimination law which makes non-citizens a protected class for employment purposes.

Thus, since neither the Constitution nor the US Code of Federal Regulations have anything to say on the matter, the decision should fall to the State, and neither the Federal Courts nor the US Supreme Court should have any authority here.

ridethecliche

iTrader: (2)

Oh, I'm not challenging that at all, but a scenario in which a vet gets back home and is turned away from applying to the police force because he/she isn't a citizen is just bizarre to me.

I completely understand the legality of it, but that would be pretty weird, no? I guess you agree in theory/principle, but are just pointing out that the legality is different because of who is responsible for deciding here.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I do agree in principle, but this is one of the consequences of a national organization in which legal authority is divided between semi-sovereign States and an overarching Federal government.

One could argue that the same conundrum applies to the dichotomy between the Federal rule which requires that all males reaching the age of 18 must register with the Selective Service System (thus becoming eligible to be conscripted into military service), and the State laws which prohibit a person considered sufficiently mature to carry weapons into battle from buying a pint at the local pub.



That having been said, I just read through Title II, Chapter 8, Section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and as is the case with so many areas of the law, it gives rise to an interesting conflict:

Sec. 274B. [8 U.S.C. 1324b]

(a) Prohibition of Discrimination Based on National Origin or Citizenship Status.-

(1) General rule.-It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3)) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment-

(A) because of such individual's national origin, or

(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual's citizenship status.

(2) Exceptions.-Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-

(A) a person or other entity that employs three or fewer employees,

(B) a person's or entity's discrimination because of an individual's national origin if the discrimination with respect to that person or entity and that individual is covered under section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or

(C) discrimination because of citizenship status which is otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order, or required by Federal, State, or local government contract, or which the Attorney General determines to be essential for an employer to do business with an agency or department of the Federal, State, or local government.

According to paragraph a-1-A, discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin is prohibited.

But according to paragraph a-2-C, an exemption is granted when such discrimination is required to comply with State or local laws and regulations.


Putting on my appellate judge hat, I interpret this as meaning that if a law or regulation exists in the State of Colorado and/or the County of Denver, which requires that all Sheriffs Officers be Citizens of the United States, then this discrimination is NOT in violation of the Act, as it is a valid exercise of the exemption granted in § 274B, a, 2, C, provided that said regulation applies equally to ALL non-citizens, rather than differentiating between those of various national origins.


Or, in others words, I'm pretty sure that the DOJ has over-stepped its authority on this one, and it saddens me that Denver has accepted this censure, as I would rather have liked to see this case tried in court.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

pwned her with her exact logic.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

coming out as conservative is harder than coming out as gay.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

:P



host crying at the very end is the best part.

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

It's not just us:

Dutch Hate Speech Trial

Scraped:

The Hague (AFP) - Populist Dutch MP Geert Wilders remained unapologetic as his hate speech trial drew to a close on Wednesday, saying "millions of Dutch citizens will be convicted with me" if he is found guilty.

Wilders, 53, who had previously shunned hearings held at a high-security courthouse near Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, addressed a three-judge bench at the end of the three-week trial which will formally be closed on Friday.

"I am not a racist and my voters are neither. They are people who want their country back and who are sick and tired of not being listened to," said Wilders, dressed in a dark blue suit and with his trademark peroxide hairdo.

"If you convict me, you will convict half of The Netherlands," said Wilders, who added: "Many Dutch will then lose the last bit of trust in the rule of law."

The firebrand far-right politician faces charges of insulting a racial group and inciting racial hatred after comments he made about Moroccans living in the Netherlands.

Set for a verdict on December 9, the trial focuses in part on a comment made at a March 2014 local government election rally, when Wilders asked supporters whether they wanted "fewer or more Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands".

When the crowd shouted back "Fewer! Fewer!" a smiling Wilders answered: "We're going to organise that."

The Netherlands will hold general elections in March and Wilders's far-right Freedom Party (PVV) is riding high in various polls, a close second or even ahead of the ruling Liberal VVD party.

His 2014 statements were met with outrage, including from the small but vocal Dutch Muslim community. An avalanche of 6,400 complaints to police followed.

But Wilders accused prosecutors -- whom he referred to as government "puppets" -- and opposition politicians of directing a "political process" against him.

"The court is being abused to settle a political score," Wilders told the judges.

Earlier, public prosecutor Wouter Bos said Wilders could "say what he wants" but that "the law is clear and applies to everyone -- to Wilders too".

Goran Sluiter, a lawyer representing aggrieved groups and individuals who are demanding compensation from Wilders, told the judges "that only the law can protect minorities" in The Netherlands.

Whereas Wilders says the principle of freedom of expression was on trial, Sluiter told the judges that it was a "criminal process against an evil that's called discrimination".

Prosecutors last week demanded a 5,000 euro ($5,300) fine against Wilders, who has promised to close mosques, ban Muslim immigrants and withdraw The Netherlands from the European Union should he be voted into power next year.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Laws criminalizing various forms of speech are commonplace in Europe, and trace their origins directly back to some stuff that happened in Austria and Germany in the late 1930s / early 1940s. They reflect a desire to be culturally distanced from some of the more egregious ideologies of National Socialism.

This isn't a new thing.

hector

“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

Churchill—House of Commons, 2 May 1935, after the Stresa Conference, in which Britain, France and Italy agreed—futilely—to maintain the independence of Austria

But really, you can apply that to any situation, not just the rise of National Socialism or the Third Reich or accurately setting the oven so you don't burn the Turkey.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Bitch, I will burn that motherfucking turkey TO THE GROUND, and foist cranberries upon its ashes!

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Perhaps it it has something to do with the oath that's taken when one becomes a citizen. I'm also not sure if non-citizens are all OE we'd to carry firearms. Does anyone know?

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Pretty sure carrying a firearm will vary state to state. I'm like 99% positive in VA if you are over 18 and not a felon you can legally open carry.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)