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

[pknopp]

Nope.

You played games.

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

But if pigs had wings...

You can't provide anywhere that it says non citizens can not be police officers and stomp your feet when it's pointed out to you.

You want the courts to make it up.

 

[johnwk]

You can't provide anywhere that it says non citizens can not be police officers and stomp your feet when it's pointed out to you.

You want the courts to make it up.

Once again you ignore how hiring non-citizens as police officers apparently violates the Fourteenth Amendment's "privilege" clause.

As I noted elsewhere, 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, or Tennessee, by extending the “privilege” of being employed as a police officer to non-citizens, is an obvious abridgement of the "privileges" mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment in that for every non-citizen hired by either State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of those States to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege for their 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." - Joseph Story

 

[MinTrut]

You can't provide anywhere that it says non citizens can not be police officers and stomp your feet when it's pointed out to you.

You want the courts to make it up.

The OP made a good argument, and I asked a good follow up to your early reply.

That’s where we are.

 

[MinTrut]

Once again you ignore how hiring non-citizens as police officers apparently violates the Fourteenth Amendment's "privilege" clause.

As I noted elsewhere, 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, or Tennessee, by extending the “privilege” of being employed as a police officer to non-citizens, is an obvious abridgement of the "privileges" mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment in that for every non-citizen hired by either State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of those States to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege for their 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." - Joseph Story

You know what would be hilarous?

If this goes to SCOTUS, and they strike it down using this argument.

Then you’d win the forum.

 

[pknopp]

Once again you ignore how hiring non-citizens as police officers apparently violates the Fourteenth Amendment's "privilege" clause.

As I noted elsewhere, 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, or Tennessee, by extending the “privilege” of being employed as a police officer to non-citizens, is an obvious abridgement of the "privileges" mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment in that for every non-citizen hired by either State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of those States to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege for their 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." - Joseph Story

You can say it's "apparent" all you want but the facts are, it is NOT there. If you want judges interpreting things, fine, but don't ***** when they interpret something not to your liking.

 

[pknopp]

The OP made a good argument, and I asked a good follow up to your early reply.

That’s where we are.

There is nothing to follow up. You want the courts to interpret something not explicitly stated. If you support that, fine. It's not a non valid position to take. Just don't complain when those interpretations don't go your way. (RvW)

 

[johnwk]

You can say it's "apparent" all you want but the facts are, it is NOT there. If you want judges interpreting things, fine, but don't ***** when they interpret something not to your liking.

How is it not an apparent violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's privilege clause when the 14th states in crystal clear language, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”?

Is it not a privilege to be employed by government as a police officer? If it is a privilege, then the 14th has been violated since every non-citizen hired by the State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of that State to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege meant for its citizens.

 

[pknopp]

How is it not an apparent violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's privilege clause when the 14th states in crystal clear language, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”?

Is it not a privilege to be employed by government as a police officer? If it is a privilege, then the 14th has been violated since every non-citizen hired by the State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of that State to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege meant for its citizens.

It's a simple job. No more a privilege than working a field.

 

[johnwk]

It's a simple job. No more a privilege than working a field.

Your naysaying does not make it so. Even former Mayor Bill de Blasio disagrees with your absurd notion, that being hired by government as a police officer is not a privilege":

“There is no greater privilege than serving the people of New York City, and that privilege comes with a responsibility to keep yourself and your community safe," de Blasio said in a statement.” ___ See: New York City requiring COVID vaccine for police officers, firefighters and other city workers: “Privilege comes with a responsibility”


Seems to me all you do is naysay, and never substantiate your naysaying.

 

[pknopp]

Your naysaying does not make it so. Even former Mayor Bill de Blasio disagrees with your absurd notion, that being hired by government as a police officer is not a privilege":

“There is no greater privilege than serving the people of New York City, and that privilege comes with a responsibility to keep yourself and your community safe," de Blasio said in a statement.” ___ See: New York City requiring COVID vaccine for police officers, firefighters and other city workers: “Privilege comes with a responsibility”


Seems to me all you do is naysay, and never substantiate your naysaying.

I'm sure he'd say the same about trash collectors.

 

[MinTrut]

There is nothing to follow up.

Still dancing/duncing/densing I see.

You want the courts to interpret something not explicitly stated.

Straw man.

If you support that, fine.

See above.

It's not a non valid position to take.

See above.

Just don't complain when those interpretations don't go your way. (RvW)

RvW was a horrible decision - as RBG articulated - but if you were paying ANY attention here, you’d know I support reproductive freedom, and am not a conservative.

If at some point you wish to approach this conversation with integrity, I’d be happy to have a real discussion with you.

Otherwise, I know you’ll feel free to continue playing games.

 

[MinTrut]

Your naysaying does not make it so. Even former Mayor Bill de Blasio disagrees with your absurd notion, that being hired by government as a police officer is not a privilege":

“There is no greater privilege than serving the people of New York City, and that privilege comes with a responsibility to keep yourself and your community safe," de Blasio said in a statement.” ___ See: New York City requiring COVID vaccine for police officers, firefighters and other city workers: “Privilege comes with a responsibility”


Seems to me all you do is naysay, and never substantiate your naysaying.

He’s playing games; I wouldn’t waste too much more time on him.

I get what you’re saying, and it’s a good argument.

 

[Curried Goats]

How is it not an apparent violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's privilege clause when the 14th states in crystal clear language, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”?

Is it not a privilege to be employed by government as a police officer? If it is a privilege, then the 14th has been violated since every non-citizen hired by the State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of that State to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of this privilege meant for its citizens.

Yeah. Again, that's a giant stretch. The same could be said about any jobs and thus all immigrant, green card work, would be ruled a violation of the 14th and that's not likely to happen is it?

 

[pknopp]

Yeah. Again, that's a giant stretch. The same could be said about any jobs and thus all immigrant, green card work, would be ruled a violation of the 14th and that's not likely to happen is it?

He's just playing games.

 

[johnwk]

Yeah. Again, that's a giant stretch.

And yet, you offer no rebuttal to the question, how is hiring non-citizens, by a state as a police officers, who are then armed and there to police American citizens, not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s privilege clause, when the 14th states in crystal clear language, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”?

Is it not a privilege to be employed by government as a police officer? If it is a privileged occupation created by government with unique attributes, benefits and vested powers to be exercise which are not available to ordinary citizens, then the 14th seems to be violated since, for every non-citizen hired by the State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of a State to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of a privileged occupation for its citizens.

JWK

“There is no greater privilege than serving the people of New York City, and that privilege comes with a responsibility to keep yourself and your community safe," Mayor Bill de Blasio LINK

 

[Curried Goats]

And yet, you offer no rebuttal to the question, how is hiring non-citizens, by a state as a police officers, who are then armed and there to police American citizens, not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s privilege clause, when the 14th states in crystal clear language, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”?

Do I have to rebutt a question? Is that how that works?

It kind of seems like it's on you to answer this question to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court, it being your petition and not mine.

Is it not a privilege to be employed by government as a police officer? If it is a privileged occupation created by government with unique attributes, benefits and vested powers to be exercise which are not available to ordinary citizens, then the 14th seems to be violated since, for every non-citizen hired by the State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of a State to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of a privileged occupation for its citizens.

JWK

“There is no greater privilege than serving the people of New York City, and that privilege comes with a responsibility to keep yourself and your community safe," Mayor Bill de Blasio LINK

I don't think the question is if it's a privilege to be a police officer. I think the question is whether that privilege can be said to be denied just because someone beat you out on a job. In this case the privilege is referring to the employer. It's their job, not your job. You don't have a right to any job you want.

 

[johnwk]

Do I have to rebutt a question? Is that how that works?

It kind of seems like it's on you to answer this question to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court, it being your petition and not mine.

I don't think the question is if it's a privilege to be a police officer. I think the question is whether that privilege can be said to be denied just because someone beat you out on a job. In this case the privilege is referring to the employer. It's their job, not your job. You don't have a right to any job you want.

If it [being hired by the state as a police officer] is a privileged occupation created by government with unique attributes, benefits and vested powers to be exercise which are not available to ordinary citizens, then the 14th seems to be violated since, for every non-citizen hired by the State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of a State to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of a privileged occupation for its citizens.

JWK

“There is no greater privilege than serving the people of New York City, and that privilege comes with a responsibility to keep yourself and your community safe," Mayor Bill de Blasio LINK

 

[Curried Goats]

If it [being hired by the state as a police officer] is a privileged occupation created by government with unique attributes, benefits and vested powers to be exercise which are not available to ordinary citizens, then the 14th seems to be violated since, for every non-citizen hired by the State as a police officer, there is one less employment opportunity for the citizens of a State to be hired as a police officer, thereby creating an abridgment of a privileged occupation for its citizens.

JWK

“There is no greater privilege than serving the people of New York City, and that privilege comes with a responsibility to keep yourself and your community safe," Mayor Bill de Blasio LINK

Again, the fact that it is a privilege should yell you that you don't have a right to it.

 

[johnwk]

Again, the fact that it is a privilege should yell you that you don't have a right to it.

Of course! And?

 

[Curried Goats]

Of course! And?

So it's a privilege when you earn it, not before. Until then it isn't your privilege. How can an immigrant be said to have denied you something that was never yours to begin with?