Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
There are areas where state and federal law differ, but immigration is strictly federal.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.
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.
Same for Americans. Its ridiculous.There are too many state laws that are hard to keep track of for a non-US guy like me.
This is the same argument used to put Japanese Americans in interment camps during WW2.
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.
There actually is a lack of Americans willing to take up the badge. Law Enforcement has been dealing with recruitment issues for a while.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.
There actually is a lack of Americans willing to take up the badge. Law Enforcement has been dealing with recruitment issues for a while.
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.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?
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?
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 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.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.
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.
The point by the OP is about non-citizens. People who do not have obligatory loyalty (rightly so) to America. That is a risk.
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?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.
Sounds like you haven't been keeping up on biden's power grab to outlaw household appliances, the latest being light bulbs.Which cities are promoting the social ownership of the means of production?
We'll only be able to buy state-manufactured LEDs?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.Sounds like you haven't been keeping up on biden's power grab to outlaw household appliances, the latest being light bulbs.
If you think it's just those 2 items: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)
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.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?