• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Calif. towns challenge feds on military recruiting

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If they limited all companies and businesses from telling teenagers about prospective career choices then these ordinances could be seen as a fair or not some hippy military hating douche bag ordinances.

I bet if the government told them no flag burning, no anti-American trash called art on tax payer funded property, no letting minors have access to porn and no airing classified information these people would be up in arms screaming about 1st amendment rights.

Calif. towns challenge feds on military recruiting
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Two towns nestled in the rugged coastline and the liberal politics of Northern California have fought the federal government by banning the U.S. military from recruiting minors within their city limits. Now the federal government is fighting back.

Arcata—a town known for taking a stand against the USA Patriot Act and repeatedly passing symbolic measures to impeach President George W. Bush—approved in November an ordinance that would limit Armed Forces recruiters' ability to contact people under 18. And so did nearby Eureka, the Humboldt County seat.

The Department of Justice took the towns to court in December over their Youth Protection Acts, alleging they were attempting to interfere with the government's ability to raise an army and protect the country. The department has said the ordinances are believed to be the only ones in the country with such blanket restrictions.

A federal judge is expected to rule on the case in coming days.

"We fully expected a challenge, and we got it," said David Meserve, 60, a builder of environmentally friendly homes and former Arcata City Council member who spearheaded the measure. "But more importantly, people are becoming aware there is a problem—and the problem is the recruiting of minors."

Although people must be 18 to enlist—or 17 with parental permission—recruiting manuals cited in the cities' court filings show that contact with much younger children is encouraged.

"You will find that establishing trust and credibility with students, even seventh- and eighth-graders, can positively impact your high school and post-secondary school recruiting effort," reads The Recruiter Handbook, published in 2008 by the United States Army Recruiting Command.

The push to reach the young makes sense. A 2007 Department of Defense study found that at 16 years old, more than 25 percent of students considered joining the Armed Forces. By the time they were 21, only 15 percent considered joining.

Towns and high school campuses around the country have tried to thwart the military's access to their underage students. Berkeley declared that recruiters positioned within view of its high school were "unwelcome intruders." San Francisco school board members moved to rid public schools of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps but this week restored the program.

Counter-recruiters across the country have sought to inform students of their perspective on military service in times of war. They also tell parents how to opt out of having their child's contact information released to recruiters—a requirement for schools receiving federal funds under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Allen Weiner, a senior lecturer in law at Stanford Law School, said he knows of no other cities besides Arcata and Eureka that have passed ordinances banning military officials within their boundaries from initiating contact with minors with the intent of attracting them to any branch of the military.
 
Last edited:
As a soldier myself I find this very disgusting and unAmerican but I feel that is the right of a city to do this. I think what the GOV should do is withhold all the federal funds that go to that city. No more federal money for schools roads or anything. You dont want to support your country your country shouldt support you.
 
As a soldier myself I find this very disgusting and unAmerican but I feel that is the right of a city to do this. I think what the GOV should do is withhold all the federal funds that go to that city. No more federal money for schools roads or anything. You dont want to support your country your country shouldt support you.

I would also like to add no military to defend your sorry ass town either along with the no federal money for schools roads and etc..
 
The military is an excellent career for many. These towns are doing a great disservice to their youth. I think this is pretty stupid and I agree that federal funding should be pulled...though I don't think it is legal to do that. I hope the judge rules against these stupid towns.
 
Although people must be 18 to enlist—or 17 with parental permission—recruiting manuals cited in the cities' court filings show that contact with much younger children is encouraged.

"You will find that establishing trust and credibility with students, even seventh- and eighth-graders, can positively impact your high school and post-secondary school recruiting effort," reads The Recruiter Handbook, published in 2008 by the United States Army Recruiting Command.

Since it is a recruiter's job to recruit people, this seems only reasonable. If the parents don't want their kids going into the military, they should work to provide them with more appealing alternatives, not attempt to ban recruting altogether.

I wonder, is banning a recruiter from recruiting an infringment on free speach?
 
Un-American trash.
 
I'm a Swede so maybe I just don't understand you American but can't you see it as very pro America and pro military? That you signal that being part of the military is much more serious and important job then working at McDonalds. That you don't want people joining up because it's really cool to go and shot some bad guys in a foreign country like in a videogame. Instead you want grown up professional recruits that knows both the benefits and privileges as well as the challenges, risk and responsiblities with joining the military.
 
If they limited all companies and businesses from telling teenagers about prospective career choices then these ordinances could be seen as a fair or not some hippy military hating douche bag ordinances.

I bet if the government told them no flag burning, no anti-American trash called art on tax payer funded property, no letting minors have access to porn and no airing classified information these people would be up in arms screaming about 1st amendment rights.

Calif. towns challenge feds on military recruiting
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Two towns nestled in the rugged coastline and the liberal politics of Northern California have fought the federal government by banning the U.S. military from recruiting minors within their city limits. Now the federal government is fighting back.

Arcata—a town known for taking a stand against the USA Patriot Act and repeatedly passing symbolic measures to impeach President George W. Bush—approved in November an ordinance that would limit Armed Forces recruiters' ability to contact people under 18. And so did nearby Eureka, the Humboldt County seat.

The Department of Justice took the towns to court in December over their Youth Protection Acts, alleging they were attempting to interfere with the government's ability to raise an army and protect the country. The department has said the ordinances are believed to be the only ones in the country with such blanket restrictions.

A federal judge is expected to rule on the case in coming days.

"We fully expected a challenge, and we got it," said David Meserve, 60, a builder of environmentally friendly homes and former Arcata City Council member who spearheaded the measure. "But more importantly, people are becoming aware there is a problem—and the problem is the recruiting of minors."

Although people must be 18 to enlist—or 17 with parental permission—recruiting manuals cited in the cities' court filings show that contact with much younger children is encouraged.

"You will find that establishing trust and credibility with students, even seventh- and eighth-graders, can positively impact your high school and post-secondary school recruiting effort," reads The Recruiter Handbook, published in 2008 by the United States Army Recruiting Command.

The push to reach the young makes sense. A 2007 Department of Defense study found that at 16 years old, more than 25 percent of students considered joining the Armed Forces. By the time they were 21, only 15 percent considered joining.

Towns and high school campuses around the country have tried to thwart the military's access to their underage students. Berkeley declared that recruiters positioned within view of its high school were "unwelcome intruders." San Francisco school board members moved to rid public schools of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps but this week restored the program.

Counter-recruiters across the country have sought to inform students of their perspective on military service in times of war. They also tell parents how to opt out of having their child's contact information released to recruiters—a requirement for schools receiving federal funds under the No Child Left Behind Act.

Allen Weiner, a senior lecturer in law at Stanford Law School, said he knows of no other cities besides Arcata and Eureka that have passed ordinances banning military officials within their boundaries from initiating contact with minors with the intent of attracting them to any branch of the military.
Hey, did they ever get Bush impeached?
 
I'm a Swede so maybe I just don't understand you American but can't you see it as very pro America and pro military? That you signal that being part of the military is much more serious and important job then working at McDonalds. That you don't want people joining up because it's really cool to go and shot some bad guys in a foreign country like in a videogame. Instead you want grown up professional recruits that knows both the benefits and privileges as well as the challenges, risk and responsiblities with joining the military.

The people who made those ordinances did not do so because they wanted teenagers to think more seriously about joining the military nor did they make those ordinances to improve the ranks or quality of service members in the military. They made these ordinances to cut down on the military's numbers. It is the same reason Berkly California tried to drive out the Marine recruiters and code pink was practically given a license by Berkly to annoy the **** out of the Marines by Berkly. Their reasons for wanting to reduce the numbers of military recruits is because they are against the military,former president Bush, the Iraq war, possibly the Afghanistan war and any other future wars as well.


Its pretty bad when a leftist comedian makes fun of other leftist groups.
[ame]http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163653&title=marines-in-berkeley[/ame]
 
Last edited:
I think this is pretty stupid and I agree that federal funding should be pulled...though I don't think it is legal to do that.

Well they can pull federal funding for highways to a state if the state doesn't adopt the 21 drinking age, so I'm wondering if there is something similar they can do with the towns?

The military is a great career field for some and recruiters should not be banned from a city.
 
Counter-recruiters across the country have sought to inform students of their perspective on military service in times of war.

And if this was the ONLY thing the town did, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It is also free speech as well as allowing the recruiters there.

Police Officers in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods are in more danger sometimes than soldiers, yet I don't see this town banning recruitment of those and other dangerous jobs.

It's hypocritical (and IMO illegal) of this town to ban military recruiters.
 
And if this was the ONLY thing the town did, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It is also free speech as well as allowing the recruiters there.

Police Officers in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods are in more danger sometimes than soldiers, yet I don't see this town banning recruitment of those and other dangerous jobs.

It's hypocritical (and IMO illegal) of this town to ban military recruiters.

I doubt very much they are doing anything actually illegal. it's stupid, and the best thing to do to my mind is ignore them. Don't do anything which will get them any more attention than they already have. It seems to be what they desire, the attention.
 
I doubt very much they are doing anything actually illegal. it's stupid, and the best thing to do to my mind is ignore them. Don't do anything which will get them any more attention than they already have. It seems to be what they desire, the attention.

You might be right in that it is legal, that remains to be seen though as it is being contested. However, even if it is legal for them to do this, there may be consequences to their actions like loss of federal funding.
 
As a soldier myself I find this very disgusting and unAmerican but I feel that is the right of a city to do this. I think what the GOV should do is withhold all the federal funds that go to that city. No more federal money for schools roads or anything. You dont want to support your country your country shouldt support you.

No, cities have zero authority to re-write the First Amendment for their own selfish political brainwashing agenda.

Since those towns are in the confines of the United States of America, they too get to enjoy the opportunity to have their young folk make sound career choice from the full range of options, from Greenie Compost Heap Stirrer to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If individual parents do not want their little darlings joining the military, they need to control their little darlings themselves.
 
I'm a Swede so maybe I just don't understand you American but can't you see it as very pro America and pro military? That you signal that being part of the military is much more serious and important job then working at McDonalds. That you don't want people joining up because it's really cool to go and shot some bad guys in a foreign country like in a videogame. Instead you want grown up professional recruits that knows both the benefits and privileges as well as the challenges, risk and responsiblities with joining the military.

By definition recruits are not professionals, they're trainees.
 
The people who made those ordinances did not do so because they wanted teenagers to think more seriously about joining the military nor did they make those ordinances to improve the ranks or quality of service members in the military. They made these ordinances to cut down on the military's numbers. It is the same reason Berkly California tried to drive out the Marine recruiters and code pink was practically given a license by Berkly to annoy the **** out of the Marines by Berkly. Their reasons for wanting to reduce the numbers of military recruits is because they are against the military,former president Bush, the Iraq war, possibly the Afghanistan war and any other future wars as well.

You forgot the obvious.

Those people are opposed to the United States.
 
Back
Top Bottom