Illegal Aliens allowed to be cops ?

[IceJad]

If you're not aware of how working visas are handed out....they're handed out according to the work you've applied to do. It's not just a visa that's for any job any time...

If federal law prevents non-citizens from being police or law enforcement, then there won't be any "police visas" created.

Don't American have state laws that sometimes don't align with federal laws? There are too many state laws that are hard to keep track of for a non-US guy like me.

 

[Arcangl86]

Don't American have state laws that sometimes don't align with federal laws? There are too many state laws that are hard to keep track of for a non-US guy like me.

There are areas where state and federal law differ, but immigration is strictly federal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't American have state laws that sometimes don't align with federal laws? There are too many state laws that are hard to keep track of for a non-US guy like me.

I'm not part of immigration and customs enforcement...but I'm pretty sure they or their parent agency is the one that hands out the visas.

So I don't see them handing out visas for police without changing the federal law against it.

 

[durangodawood]

There are too many state laws that are hard to keep track of for a non-US guy like me.

Same for Americans. Its ridiculous.

 

[IceJad]

This is the same argument used to put Japanese Americans in interment camps during WW2.

That is reaching. I'm not saying round up everyone. I'm say non-citizen shouldn't be allowed to enlist as enforcement because that is a potential risk. Here is where your argument fails, one they are American citizens therefore should be allowed all rights as Americans. Two many of the interned were not in any branch of enforcement therefore limiting the level of security risks.

The point by the OP is about non-citizens. People who do not have obligatory loyalty (rightly so) to America. That is a risk. It doesn't matter if they come from friendly nations like UK or hostile nations like Russia. A risk is a risk.

How about people be allowed to apply after they are naturalized and undergo a thorough vetting? I have no idea why people are so open to unnecessary risks. This is not some discrimination issue. It is an issue about sovereignty and security. Because if it is discrimination why not allow non-citizen to be politicians?

 

[IceJad]

If you're not aware of how working visas are handed out....they're handed out according to the work you've applied to do. It's not just a visa that's for any job any time...

If federal law prevents non-citizens from being police or law enforcement, then there won't be any "police visas" created.

Regardless I still think that it is an unnecessary risk to take. Especially when there are no lacking in Americans willing to take up the badge. The only strange thing about all this is places like Illinois and California are so pro defund the police why allow non-citizen to become police?

 

[Arcangl86]

Regardless I still think that it is an unnecessary risk to take. Especially when there are no lacking in Americans willing to take up the badge. The only strange thing about all this is places like Illinois and California are so pro defund the police why allow non-citizen to become police?

There actually is a lack of Americans willing to take up the badge. Law Enforcement has been dealing with recruitment issues for a while.

 

[IceJad]

There actually is a lack of Americans willing to take up the badge. Law Enforcement has been dealing with recruitment issues for a while.

If that is the case maybe places that demonise police for the acts of the few should start backpaddling. In my longs years in working when an industry finds itself lacking in talents there are a few reasons:

1. Insufficient pay
2. Work fulfillment (personal achievements, work enjoyment)
3. Shrinking opportunity of the industry (sunset services/products)

With defund the police these places might have hit all 3 mains reasons.

 

[IceJad]

There actually is a lack of Americans willing to take up the badge. Law Enforcement has been dealing with recruitment issues for a while.

So let me give you an example in my industry - IT. Here in my country we are facing a shortage of AS400 engineers. A legacy operating system by IBM. The most obvious reason is because AS400 is a sunset product. Not long for obsolescence. Therefore reducing the number of new talents wanting to invest into mastering it. That doesn't mean there are no companies using AS400. Just very limited.

Secondly the jobs that would require AS400 doesn't provide great work fulfillment. The prospect of growth are limited and the work requirements are cumbersome. Everyone else is going to the spanking and shiny tech like cloud containerization.

The only good thing about AS400 is the money, as companies will pay above the market rate for them. But the number of these companies are shrinking year over year. Many have migrated their systems to other technologies. The money will soon dry up too.

So when you find a lack of talent, you must address the causes for it.

 

[Pommer]

That is reaching. I'm not saying round up everyone. I'm say non-citizen shouldn't be allowed to enlist as enforcement because that is a potential risk. Here is where your argument fails, one they are American citizens therefore should be allowed all rights as Americans. Two many of the interned were not in any branch of enforcement therefore limiting the level of security risks.

The point by the OP is about non-citizens. People who do not have obligatory loyalty (rightly so) to America. That is a risk. It doesn't matter if they come from friendly nations like UK or hostile nations like Russia. A risk is a risk.

How about people be allowed to apply after they are naturalized and undergo a thorough vetting? I have no idea why people are so open to unnecessary risks. This is not some discrimination issue. It is an issue about sovereignty and security. Because if it is discrimination why not allow non-citizen to be politicians?

I thank you for your kind opinion of what Americans should and shouldn’t allow based on whatever criteria you imagine but mind your own nation TYVM.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Regardless I still think that it is an unnecessary risk to take. Especially when there are no lacking in Americans willing to take up the badge. The only strange thing about all this is places like Illinois and California are so pro defund the police why allow non-citizen to become police?

We're talking about the state of Illinois but we're really talking about Chicago who is desperate for law enforcement.

They have random "flash mobs" of violent teens robbing and assaulting people.

'Teen takeover' at Bronzeville gas station prompts call for increased police presence in area

A flash mob at a South Side gas station drew hundreds of young people and a large police presence Tuesday night.

www.google.com

You have small businesses closing their doors to theft, national franchises closing and moving, and big corporate headquarters leaving....all due to the massive increases to crime, both violent and property are out of control.


It's sad. Police in Chicago and similar large cities have made changes to bail, crime classification, and responses to crimes. These cities also have woke DAs that seem to treat criminals like victims and victims like criminals. It's tragic really....as the damage done was by organizations claiming to want to help the communities their efforts are literally destroying.

The damage done to these police departments won't be fixed cheaply...or easily.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If that is the case maybe places that demonise police for the acts of the few should start backpaddling. In my longs years in working when an industry finds itself lacking in talents there are a few reasons:

1. Insufficient pay
2. Work fulfillment (personal achievements, work enjoyment)
3. Shrinking opportunity of the industry (sunset services/products)

With defund the police these places might have hit all 3 mains reasons.

I think they hit #1 before the defund the police movement.

I would say #2 was a highly negative media campaign. We need not go into reasons why....but they got a lot of bad press with very little in the way of defense of their actions either in media or from politicians. Despite a very very low wrongful shooting rate....the half dozen to a dozen possible examples every year were singled out and obsessed over.

3. Would be despite the police's willingness to consider ridiculous theories about what was wrong with them and take corrective steps....they were held to a literally impossible standard. You had police doing exactly what they were trained to do....and still forced to resign because people wanted them charged with murder.

Finally, a complete misunderstanding about the effects of police on the black community. Police were arguably doing the most for the black community. The buildup of police was largely responsible for the corresponding drop in crime from the early to mid 90s up until 2020. People wrongly imagined crime wouldn't go up if they defunded police and began funding social workers instead (as if social workers are just doing a perfect job). Some people were praising ideas like paying criminals to not commit crimes in places like Oakland....though I suspect we don't hear about that very often because Oakland is a nightmare now. People had theories about poverty causing crime....though it seems pretty obvious that crime is literally chasing off economic opportunities.

Basically 99% of the theories about police and crime proposed by the left have been proven wrong. They wanted perfect police and ruined very good police....generally speaking.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Yes municipal police will not solve conflicts between nations but as a citizen of another nation they have a national duty to assist their home nation in the event of a conflict. They may not need to fight in the front lines but they can do other things like espionage, fermenting local dissent or recruiting spies. And given that they are allowed to work in the police, will grant them higher access to information not available to the general public.

Security is a game of risk whether you like it or not. If you are will to risk it then risk it. I personally think it is an unjustifiable risk to take. A risk simply means the possibility of danger. It might happen or it might not happen. But when it happens you just need to face the consequences.

BTW your grandfather was given an exception because of exceptional circumstances. Nations take higher risks during crisis like how Ukraine now allows foreign fighters to fight on their behalf. Under normal conditions Ukraine wouldn't allow an other nationalities roaming their borders acting like enforcement.

I think you watch waaaaaaaay too many spy movies if you think that’s how people with ties to other countries will act or are prone to reverting to in the event of conflict.

Secondly, my grandfather was not given an “exception.” Please don’t comment on things you don’t understand related to my personal experience. Thanks.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is reaching. I'm not saying round up everyone. I'm say non-citizen shouldn't be allowed to enlist as enforcement because that is a potential risk.

I never said you were advocating for rounding up everyone, just that the "well, they might still be loyal to their home country" has been around for a while and led to objectively bad public policy.

Maybe this time is different, but so far I haven't seem much evidence that's the case. Lots of handwringing, but no actual evidence.

The point by the OP is about non-citizens. People who do not have obligatory loyalty (rightly so) to America. That is a risk.

What risk, specifically? How can we quantify it? How does that balance against the risk of not having enough police during the vast majority of times when the US won't be openly at war with their specific home countries?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm say non-citizen shouldn't be allowed to enlist as enforcement because that is a potential risk. Here is where your argument fails, one they are American citizens therefore should be allowed all rights as Americans. Two many of the interned were not in any branch of enforcement therefore limiting the level of security risks.

I would ask what the risk is that you're concerned about if someone's here on a work visa and has gone through all the proper checks and paperwork?

As it currently stands, the cohort of people being referred to are allowed to enlist in the military already. (wouldn't that present greater "risks" in terms of a person who's secretly disloyal or "looking to spy on America"?)

Roughly 5,000 green card holders/LPRs enlist every year. In many cases, it's that military service that serves as the stepping stone to naturalization and becoming a full citizen and helps get them in the fast lane to acquiring full citizenship.

Not referring to you here so don't take this as a personal jab, but based on the tone I've seen from others who seemingly have a huge issue with this, it's less about any sincere concern about "weakening the institution", and seems like it's more about "I don't want some foreigner telling me what to do" (like their personal nightmare is having a green card holder give them a speeding ticket or blow the whistle at them for jaywalking)

 

[Aldebaran]

Which cities are promoting the social ownership of the means of production?

Sounds like you haven't been keeping up on biden's power grab to outlaw household appliances, the latest being light bulbs.

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds like you haven't been keeping up on biden's power grab to outlaw household appliances, the latest being light bulbs.

We'll only be able to buy state-manufactured LEDs?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sounds like you haven't been keeping up on biden's power grab to outlaw household appliances, the latest being light bulbs.

Banning certain household items (while seemingly silly for the things they're proposing it for, and unlikely to have any meaningful impact) doesn't really have anything to do with government ownership over the means of production.

Banning certain types of stoves and lightbulbs is no different, in that regard, than when the government banned DDT pesticides and Asbestos insulation (which the exception of the fact that there was a more compelling case for them to do so in those two instances)


Socialism and Communism are ill thought-out ideologies that I vehemently oppose...however, one must be careful not to water down what those words actually mean by using them as a catch-all replacement term for "any form of public spending or policy I don't like", as that could have end up having a counter-intuitive effect in the long run.

 

[Aldebaran]

Banning certain household items (while seemingly silly for the things they're proposing it for, and unlikely to have any meaningful impact) doesn't really have anything to do with government ownership over the means of production.

Banning certain types of stoves and lightbulbs is no different, in that regard, than when the government banned DDT pesticides and Asbestos insulation (which the exception of the fact that there was a more compelling case for them to do so in those two instances)

If you think it's just those 2 items:

The Biden Administration Is Banning Low-Cost Appliances—and Bragging about It

To hear the government tell it, their new energy-efficiency rules are a win for everyone. But if efficient appliances are such a good idea, why aren’t people already buying them?

fee.org

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you think it's just those 2 items:

The Biden Administration Is Banning Low-Cost Appliances—and Bragging about It

To hear the government tell it, their new energy-efficiency rules are a win for everyone. But if efficient appliances are such a good idea, why aren’t people already buying them?

fee.org

Doesn't matter if it's 2,000 items...bans and/or regulatory standards aren't the same thing as centralized government ownership over the means of production or expansion of the public sector.

It should also be noted, that not all of the things listed are actual bans, just efficiency standards.

When the government goes into the headquarters of LG and Maytag by force and says "Sorry, we're taking this over, this company is ours now and will be ran exclusively as public entity...same goes for the other washer/dryer manufacturers", then the socialism/communism will be applicable.