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

[Bob Blaylock]

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

See the Tenth Amendment.

The federal government only has the legitimate authority to make and enforce laws in certain narrow areas, where the Constitution explicitly delegates that power to it.

Outside of those areas, all powers belong to the states or to the people.

The vast majority of the powers the federal government now claims and exercises, it does so illegally.

 

[johnwk]

Let us keep to the subject of the thread which involves hiring non-citizens as police officers, and the argument that doing so may violate the Fourteenth Amendment's "privilege clause".

 

[johnwk]

It is absolutely mind numbing that a United States Governor would embrace arming non-citizens and allow them to police and arrest American 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

 

[johnwk]

I guess those who embraced hiring non-citizens as police officers, have realized the error of their thinking.

 

[struth]

.
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

I have no issue with legal aliens becoming police officers. I certainly have an issue with them making law, through Congress or even at the state level

But serving on the military or riding a beat…no issue at all

 

[pknopp]

Let us keep to the subject of the thread which involves hiring non-citizens as police officers, and the argument that doing so may violate the Fourteenth Amendment's "privilege clause".

So far no one has explained why that is.

 

[pknopp]

I have no issue with legal aliens becoming police officers. I certainly have an issue with them making law, through Congress or even at the state level

But serving on the military or riding a beat…no issue at all

Also, there is a difference between believing it a good idea and it being unconstitutional.

 

[johnwk]

So far no one has explained why that is.

It was explained HERE

 

[struth]

Also, there is a difference between believing it a good idea and it being unconstitutional.

I think it’s a a good idea and it is perfectly ok with the US Constitution

 

[johnwk]

I think it’s a a good idea and it is perfectly ok with the US Constitution

Seems to violate the Fourteenth Amendment's privilege clause.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is absolutely mind numbing that a United States Governor would embrace arming non-citizens and allow them to police and arrest American citizens.

Isn't he one of those filthy anti-American crooks that wants to deny American citizens our right to keep and bear arms?

But he wants to put guns in the hands of aliens, and let the “police” us?

What is wrong with this picture?

 

[Failzero]

Chinese Police Stations ( Like The West Coast of “ The Man in the High Castle “ are on our horizon ...

 

[whitehall]

Should non citizens be armed by the state while citizens are prevented from arming themselves? The world is upside down in the liberal mind.

 

[MinTrut]

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.




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.




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

You’re playing games and dodging my questions.

As expected.

Take care.

 

[MinTrut]

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

.

Yeah - he’s trolling.

Another dishonest liberal.

Good thread, however - it’s shame no liberal will engage with it honestly.

 

[MinTrut]

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.

^ Thread win.

 

[MinTrut]

It is absolutely mind numbing that a United States Governor would embrace arming non-citizens and allow them to police and arrest American 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

Democrats, bra.

 

[pknopp]

You’re playing games and dodging my questions.

As expected.

Take care.

I directly answered your questions. Directly.

 

[Curried Goats]

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...

Globalism...? More like localism when we're talking about legal pot in States.

Also some forms of independence are easier for States to exert than others. Legally growing and selling pot within your State borders is a lot easier than granting citizenship that isn't going to be respected in any other State or by federal border and customs agents.

 

[MinTrut]

I directly answered your questions. Directly.

Nope.

You played games.

But good topic; if only even a single liberal would engage honestly.

But if pigs had wings...