Not citizen but want to be a LEO? No prob

[since9]

Those serving in the military deserve a fast track to citizenship in my opinion. Once legal immigrants become citizens I have no objection to them serving in law enforcement. There is a difference between military and local civilian law enforcement. The military mission is about actions taking place outside of our borders. Local law enforcement on the other hand is all here on U.S. soil. It is simply my opinion that becoming a citizen first should be required or at minimum given preference in a law enforcement position. The completion of the citizenship process in my mind is a strong indicator of one's desire to abide by and uphold the COTUS. A recent legal immigrant creates a myriad of vetting issues in my opinion. I don't think it is discriminatory to give preference or even require citizenship of those serving in civilian law enforcement. Others may disagree and I won't disparage you for doing so.

I think you stated the matter quite well, and in my readings of hundreds of letters and other ancillary documents written by our Founding Fathers, along with the official documents, I think you nailed their sentiments, exactly.

 

[solus]

Perhaps you're not looking in the right place. Perhaps you should thoroughly re-read our founding document which begins with the following preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Perhaps you might realize that when our Founding Fathers referred to "the people of the United States" they were not referring to everyone in the United States, but to the (added: WHITE MALE colonists) citizens of the United States.

Perhaps you will then recognize that the term "the people" is only mentioned twice, once in the preamble, and once with respect to electing Congressional Representatives (before another amendment gave people the right to elect senators directly).

While you're at it, please remember our Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land," under which all other federal, state, and local law must conform, and that the Constitution itself and the 9th and 10th amendments specifically limit and define both federal and state authority.

Therein, you might realize that until immigrants become naturalized citizens, they were never meant to be eligible to either partake in any election process, much less hold public office in these United States.

If states have let them do so anyway, they're not following the Constitution. If you believe that's "OK," then you're not tracking.

now your statement is factual as women were not acknowledged in the founding father's papers.

ipse

 

[JoeSparky]

Perhaps you're not looking in the right place. Perhaps you should thoroughly re-read our founding document which begins with the following preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Perhaps you might realize that when our Founding Fathers referred to "the people of the United States" they were not referring to everyone in the United States, but to the citizens of the United States.

Perhaps you will then recognize that the term "the people" is only mentioned twice, once in the preamble, and once with respect to electing Congressional Representatives (before another amendment gave people the right to elect senators directly).

While you're at it, please remember our Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land," under which all other federal, state, and local law must conform, and that the Constitution itself and the 9th and 10th amendments specifically limit and define both federal and state authority.

Therein, you might realize that until immigrants become naturalized citizens, they were never meant to be eligible to either partake in any election process, much less hold public office in these United States.

If states have let them do so anyway, they're not following the Constitution. If you believe that's "OK," then you're not tracking.

First, in the context of this thread with the topic of NON-Citizens becoming LEOs I don't know how your post "tracks!" Perhaps, you would care to clarify? Are NON-citizens not able to "swear or affirm" in court as witnesses to give testimony?

AND, I still see NOTHING there restricting one who is NOT a Citizen from swearing an OATH. Being a LEO is NOT an elected post or otherwise called a "public office" And I never said anything supporting one who was not a CITIZEN voting in ANY municipal, city, county, state, or national election.