• 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!

Requiring Citizenship for Deputies? Big Deal? No Big Deal?

Kinda torn on this.

On one hand, I can see where employers should be hiring the very best people that apply for their open positions.

But on the other hand, I can see where requiring citizenship for the role as LEO, and it doesn't strike me as out of line.

Compromise? What if the non-citizen is hired with the binding agreement to become a citizen within a specified time frame?

What do you think?

As long as they're here in the US legally and planning on becoming citizens, I say let em have the position.
 
As long as they're here in the US legally and planning on becoming citizens, I say let em have the position.

Agreed, and I also agree that it seems highly inappropriate for non-citizens to have authority over, and enforce laws on, citizens.

To whit I'd say, before that situation can occur, the non-citizen will have to have become a citizen.

So in this instance, I think excessive PC idiocy has infected Obama's politicized DOJ.
 
Kinda torn on this.



On one hand, I can see where employers should be hiring the very best people that apply for their open positions.

But on the other hand, I can see where requiring citizenship for the role as LEO, and it doesn't strike me as out of line.

Compromise? What if the non-citizen is hired with the binding agreement to become a citizen within a specified time frame?

What do you think?

Sure they should hire non-citizens as cops. Unfortunately they won't be able to arm those non-citizen cops because doing that is a violation of federal gun laws.

Some times these court decisions blow my mind.
 
Why should non citizens of the United States have the power to enforce the laws of the United States.

This.

When I got hired at an unnamed large city in North Carolina, one of the requirements was citizenship. I don't see any reason why we should allow a non-citizen to enforce the laws for us.
 
Sure they should hire non-citizens as cops. Unfortunately they won't be able to arm those non-citizen cops because doing that is a violation of federal gun laws.

Some times these court decisions blow my mind.

I think this would fall under the heading of 'judicial activism' and 'DOJ activism'.
Insane decisions prompted by an insane DOJ policy / position (as dictated by Obama? I wonder).
 
I am a little confused.

Isn't it illegal to hire non-citizens for any job?

If they don't have a social security number, how can they be hired?

Where would the collected taxes be paid to?
 
Kinda torn on this.



On one hand, I can see where employers should be hiring the very best people that apply for their open positions.

But on the other hand, I can see where requiring citizenship for the role as LEO, and it doesn't strike me as out of line.

Compromise? What if the non-citizen is hired with the binding agreement to become a citizen within a specified time frame?

What do you think?

My thought is that decision by the US Justice Department is irksome and absurd. A $10,000 dollar fine??

Any local government should have the right to require their LEOs to be US citizens.

Bizarre ruling....
 
I think this would fall under the heading of 'judicial activism' and 'DOJ activism'.
Insane decisions prompted by an insane DOJ policy / position (as dictated by Obama? I wonder).



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324b


United States Code makes it illegal to discriminate based on citizenship status, there are a few exceptions - but none apply to the Sheriff instituting a departmental policy.


>>>>
 
I am a little confused.

I'll try to help.

Isn't it illegal to hire non-citizens for any job?

No.

As a matter of fact it is against Federal law to discriminate based on a persons citizenship status (meaning, citizen v. legal resident).

It is against the law to hire illegal aliens, but that is not what the case was about. The Sheriff eliminated persons legally able to work in law enforcement because they were non-citizens but legally able to work.


If they don't have a social security number, how can they be hired?

Non-citizens legally allowed to work have a "Green Card" and have a number used for SS purposes.


Where would the collected taxes be paid to?

The Social Security Administration along with everyone else's taxes.




Hope that helps.



>>>>
 
Kinda torn on this.



On one hand, I can see where employers should be hiring the very best people that apply for their open positions.

But on the other hand, I can see where requiring citizenship for the role as LEO, and it doesn't strike me as out of line.

Compromise? What if the non-citizen is hired with the binding agreement to become a citizen within a specified time frame?

What do you think?

If they're going to be policing the US People, probably should be a US Citizen. Though I suppose not being a US Citizen doesn't mean one is here illegally. Still, for these sorts of public servant jobs, I would take US Citizen as a necessity.
 
I don't see the problem with non-citizens working in law enforcement. If a 20 year veteran of the Canadian police moves to the US and wants to continue his law enforcement career...what's the problem? As long as he learns how the US system works and adapts to the differences, I don't see the issue.
 
I am a little confused.

Isn't it illegal to hire non-citizens for any job?

If they don't have a social security number, how can they be hired?

Where would the collected taxes be paid to?

Plenty of green card holders - non-citizen residents - work in the US. It's been that way for decades. My mother-in-law, when she arrived in NY from Bogota in 1955 worked as a seamstress. She didn't become a citizen until the mid 1990s.
 
Those who are vehemently in the "they must be citizens camp" can you explain your reasoning? Is it just that you feel uncomfortable with the idea of a non citizen wielding power over you or is there something more that you object.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other but am really curious about the rationale for being so dead set against the idea.
 
Those who are vehemently in the "they must be citizens camp" can you explain your reasoning? Is it just that you feel uncomfortable with the idea of a non citizen wielding power over you or is there something more that you object.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other but am really curious about the rationale for being so dead set against the idea.

I can't figure it out either. They seem to think the reason is obvious but aren't able to explain it so my guess is that it's just emotional. Though why anyone would be emotionally invested in this makes no sense to me.

I can't imagine why I would care whether the cop handling my case is American or Canadian or whatever. As long as he finds the guy who did it and follows our laws in the process...who cares what country he was born in?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom