Illinois law allowing non-citizen police may violate 14th Amendment

[MinTrut]

.
See: Pritzker defends Illinois bill that allows non-citizens to become police officers

From the article:



Now, keep in mind a fundamental principle of our nation’s founding recognizes and distinguishes citizens from non-citizens, as applied to a number of privileges, e.g., Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . "

Our federal Constitution also commands that:

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2

And, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3. states:

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen”.

And even the Constitution of the State of Illinois declares: “To be eligible to hold the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller or Treasurer, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 25 years old, and a resident of this State for the three years preceding his election.”

In fact, there is no state constitution which specifically declares eligibility for being governor does not require citizenship. Four or five states (as I recall) are silent on this eligibility question. But all the rest, either directly or indirectly, require citizenship to be a governor.

We also find that the privilege of voting is reserved to citizens, and the Fourteenth Amendment makes a distinction between “citizens” and “person” and forbids any state to enforce any law which abridges the “privileges and immunities” of citizens.

Seems to me Illinois law allowing non-citizens to enjoy the privilege of being a police officer with the power to police and arrest citizens of Illinois, may very well violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s text which forbids any state to enforce any law which abridges the “privileges and immunities” of citizens.

By extending the “privilege” of citizens of Illinois to be police officers to non-citizens, the case can be made that in so doing, the privilege of Illinois’ citizens to be police officers is being diluted, and thus being abridged.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - ___ Justice Story

Excellent OP!

 

[MinTrut]

So we are now to assume something is there when the Constitution doesn't actually state it?

A judge should make his opinion law?

States rights should be ignored?

So you’re saying that states should have the right to grant citizenship, or the rights thereof, irrespective of national law?

Legal pot was quite the Trojan Horse for globalism...

 

[MinTrut]

.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue and bring to its knees a prosperous and freedom loving country than by flooding it with deadly drugs, an inflated currency and the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, diseased, disabled, and criminal populations of other countries.

Hey now - there will soon be no countries and no privacy.

Just one global system of, by & for the oligarchy.

Kind of like now, but much, much, much more dystopian.

 

[pknopp]

So you’re saying that states should have the right to grant citizenship, or the rights thereof, irrespective of national law?

Legal pot was quite the Trojan Horse for globalism...

I said no such thing. I asked some questions that so far no is willing to answer. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[johnwk]

Excellent OP!

Of course, our domestic enemies don't think so. Perhaps because I am more creative than the ACLU who has been using the Fourteenth Amendment in a perverted fashion to subjugate our founding principles and destroy the United States from within.

But the Fourteenth Amendment declares “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

And, the fact is, being hired by government as a police officer is a "privileged" type of employment, and is confirmed in an Executive Order which dealt with “Security requirements for Government employment” and begins as follows:

"WHEREAS the interests of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies of the Government, shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States; and

WHEREAS the American tradition that all persons should receive fair, impartial, and equitable treatment at the hands of the Government requires that all persons seeking the privilege of employment or privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies of the Government be adjudged by mutually consistent and no less than minimum standards and procedures among the departments and agencies governing the employment and retention in employment of persons in the Federal service . . . "

And our Fourteenth Amendment forbids State action which abridges the “privileges” of its citizens.

Consequently, the State of Illinois, by extending the “privilege” of being employed as a police officer to non-citizens, an obvious abridgement of the privilege takes place in that for every non-citizen hired by the State of Illinois as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of Illinois to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege for Illinois’ citizens.

So, let the ACLU suck on that!

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - ___ Justice Story

 

[MinTrut]

I said no such thing.

I know; I’m trying to crack the implications of your stance here.

I asked some questions that so far no is willing to answer.

You haven’t really answered my question either - you’re not considering the impact of this.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Possibly ironic, but I’ve generally found you a reasonable poster & hope you’ll consider and answer my question.

 

[pknopp]

I know; I’m trying to crack the implications of your stance here.

You haven’t really answered my question either - you’re not considering the impact of this.

Doesn't work that way. Answer my questions and I'll be happy to answer any follow up questions in return.

Possibly ironic, but I’ve generally found you a reasonable poster & hope you’ll consider and answer my question.

Not until mine are answered first. Ignore mine and I'll ignore yours.

 

[johnwk]

I said no such thing. I asked some questions that so far no is willing to answer.

Big baloney. I answered your absurd question HERE

 

[MinTrut]

Doesn't work that way. Answer my questions and I'll be happy to answer any follow up questions in return.

Follow-up questions?

My question to you answered your questions, and you’re dodging it.

Sad to see someone I respected here behaving this way.

Not until mine are answered first. Ignore mine and I'll ignore yours.

I’ll play along, but it’s clear where this is going...

So we are now to assume something is there when the Constitution doesn't actually state it?

Constitutional interpretation is a thing.

A judge should make his opinion law?

See above, and there’s this entity called SCOTUS.

States rights should be ignored?

Federal law should be ignored in favor of states doing as they please?
____________________

Now you.

 

[MinTrut]

Big baloney. I answered you absurd question HERE

Yeah - he’s playing games.

I respected him, but we’ll see if that was a mistake.

 

[pknopp]

Big baloney. I answered you absurd question HERE

That's a vague reference. People can be policed. You are saying non citizens can not do that. Nowhere does anything state that.

 

[pknopp]

Follow-up questions?

My question to you answered your questions, and you’re dodging it.

Sad to see someone I respected here behaving this way.

I’ll play along, but it’s clear where this is going...

So we are now to assume something is there when the Constitution doesn't actually state it?

Constitutional interpretation is a thing.

Yes, but the arguments during Supreme Court rulings often state it should not be. So you are saying you are
OK with the court making interpretations that are not specifically stated?

If so, then I have no problem with your argument.

A judge should make his opinion law?

See above, and there’s this entity called SCOTUS.

States rights should be ignored?

Federal law should be ignored in favor of states doing as they please?

I've seen no Federal law that would stop this from happening. You are arguing the court should find one. All well and fine as long as you have no problem with them "finding" other things not specifically there.

____________________

Now you.

Is that what you are saying? It's OK for the courts to find things not specifically listed?

 

[johnwk]

That's a vague reference.

There is nothing vague in the Fourteenth Amendment's command that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

There is nothing vague about being employed by a government department or agency as a police officer, is a "privilege."

There is nothing vague about extending the “privilege” of being employed as a police officer to non-citizens, is an obvious abridgement of a privilege in that for every non-citizen hired by the State of Illinois as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of Illinois to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege for Illinois’ citizens.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - ___ Justice Story

 

[pknopp]

View attachment 813411

There is nothing vague in the Fourteenth Amendment's command that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

There is nothing vague about being employed by a government department or agency as a police officer, is a "privilege."

There is nothing vague about extending the “privilege” of being employed as a police officer to non-citizens, is an obvious abridgement of a privilege in that for every non-citizen hired by the State of Illinois as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of Illinois to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege for Illinois’ citizens.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - ___ Justice Story

It's a job. We Hire non citizens to do jobs all the time.

 

[johnwk]

It's a job. We Hire non citizens to do jobs all the time.

So, you once again deflect and avoid at all costs to provide a rebuttal to MY POST

.

 

[pknopp]

So, you once again deflect and avoid at all costs to provide a rebuttal to MY POST

.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Has nothing to do with hiring non citizens for jobs. We do it all the time.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

.
See: Pritzker defends Illinois bill that allows non-citizens to become police officers

From the article:



Now, keep in mind a fundamental principle of our nation’s founding recognizes and distinguishes citizens from non-citizens, as applied to a number of privileges, e.g., Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution states:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . "

Our federal Constitution also commands that:

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2

And, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 3. states:

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen”.

And even the Constitution of the State of Illinois declares: “To be eligible to hold the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller or Treasurer, a person must be a United States citizen, at least 25 years old, and a resident of this State for the three years preceding his election.”

In fact, there is no state constitution which specifically declares eligibility for being governor does not require citizenship. Four or five states (as I recall) are silent on this eligibility question. But all the rest, either directly or indirectly, require citizenship to be a governor.

We also find that the privilege of voting is reserved to citizens, and the Fourteenth Amendment makes a distinction between “citizens” and “person” and forbids any state to enforce any law which abridges the “privileges and immunities” of citizens.

Seems to me Illinois law allowing non-citizens to enjoy the privilege of being a police officer with the power to police and arrest citizens of Illinois, may very well violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s text which forbids any state to enforce any law which abridges the “privileges and immunities” of citizens.

By extending the “privilege” of citizens of Illinois to be police officers to non-citizens, the case can be made that in so doing, the privilege of Illinois’ citizens to be police officers is being diluted, and thus being abridged.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - ___ Justice Story

It is a bit of a stretch.

What you've shown is that there are some positions in government, to which only citizens are Constitutionally eligible.

What you have not shown is that police officers are among those positions.

It does seem an obvious principle to me, that non-citizens in this country should not be put in positions of having certain powers over citizens; and on that basis, it seems highly improper, to me, to allow non-citizens to be police officers, judges, or any other officials who are empowered to enforce and apply our laws against citizens accused of violating the laws.

 

[johnwk]

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Has nothing to do with hiring non citizens for jobs. We do it all the time.

So, you once again deflect and avoid at all costs to provide a rebuttal to MY POST

.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - ___ Justice Story

 

[Bob Blaylock]

DOES THE 2ND in your opinion deny non citizens the right to carry guns ?

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people. I guess a question to ask is whether “the people” includes only citizens, or whether it also includes some non-citizens who happen to be living in this country. Certainly, the Second Amendment does not say that non-citizens, even if they are not counted among “the people”, do not or should not also have this right.

U.S. vs. Cruikshank 1875 held that the right to keep and bear arms is an inherent human right, and at least implies that all people are entitled to this right.

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. — United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)​

 

[johnwk]

It is a bit of a stretch.

Why?

Our Constitution commands: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Being hired by government as a police officer is a "privileged" type of employment and is confirmed in a Executive Order which dealt with “Security requirements for Government employment” and begins as follows:

"WHEREAS the interests of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies of the Government, shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States; and

WHEREAS the American tradition that all persons should receive fair, impartial, and equitable treatment at the hands of the Government requires that all persons seeking the privilege of employment or privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies of the Government be adjudged by mutually consistent and no less than minimum standards and procedures among the departments and agencies governing the employment and retention in employment of persons in the Federal service . . . "

Consequently, the State of Illinois, by extending the “privilege” of being employed as a police officer to non-citizens, is an obvious abridgement of the privilege in that for every non-citizen hired by the State of Illinois as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of Illinois to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege for Illinois’ citizens.

JWK

If the Chinese Communist Party leadership promises to forgive your student loans, would you vote for a Communist Party Leadership?