https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/lincolnbrown/2022/04/07/california-democrats-try-to-remove-citizenship-requirements-for-peace-officers-n1588041

Who needs the Biden regime to repeal Title 42 when he has friends like California Senator Nancy Skinner? Skinner has proposed SB-960. It is full of the usual guv speak, but to cut to the high-speed chase, as it were, the bill states: “This bill would remove the provision that requires peace officers to either be a citizen of the United States or be a permanent resident who is eligible for and has applied for citizenship. citizenship, and would make conforming changes .”

The hammer actually falls in the repeal of Section 1031.5 of the Government Code, which reads:

1031.5.(a)Any person employed by a governmental agency on September 13, 1982, as a peace officer or a peace officer trainee, or who, prior to September 13, 1982, had applied to fill a position as a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, is not subject to the requirement of subdivision (a) of Section 1031 prior to its amendment by Chapter 943 of the Statutes of 1982, provided that any person qualifying for this exemption shall, as soon as legally possible, apply for and meet all of the requirements for United States citizenship specified in existing law, and shall be subject to subdivisions (b) and (c).

(b)Any permanent resident immigrant who is employed as a peace officer shall diligently cooperate with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in the processing of the officer’s application for citizenship and shall be disqualified from holding that position if, three years after the filing of the application for employment, the person has not obtained citizenship due to the officer’s failure to cooperate in the processing of the application for citizenship.

(c)Any permanent resident immigrant who is employed as a peace officer shall be disqualified from holding that position if the officer’s application for citizenship is denied.

(d)For purposes of this section, “immigrant” means a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

It also does away with SEC. 9. Section 2267 of the Vehicle Code:

2267.(a)No person shall be appointed as a member of the California Highway Patrol who is not a citizen of the United States.

(b)A member of the patrol appointed prior to the effective date of this act who is not a United States citizen shall become a United States citizen at the earliest possible time. Inability or failure to comply with this subdivision shall result in termination of employment.

Skinner defended the bill in a March meeting of the Senate, stating: “ This bill only allows those who are living here legally and have the legal ability to work here — through a visa, a green card — to become peace officers. I just want to be clear on that.”

Incidentally, federal law requires the authorization of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for non-citizens to work in this country. No, really. Stop laughing! I’m serious! Okay, it was hard for me to keep a straight face while I wrote that. Federal law. Hee hee hee! Excuse me, I’m going to need a minute.

Civil rights attorney, talk show host and FNC contributor Leo Terrell, another Democrat-turned conservative, had harsh words for the California legislature on Fox News’s America’s Newsroom.

Terrell isn’t alone. According to KION, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department are all opposed to the bill, which was slated for its third reading this week.

Before you start shaking your head at California, it is worth noting that Colorado, Vermont, and West Virginia have all made similar moves in terms of LEO eligibility. With those kinds of examples, one has to wonder why it took the Golden State so long to get on board.

On a related note, The Blaze reports that Los Angeles mayoral hopeful Gina Viola, a community activist no less, wants to abolish the police entirely in that city over time. She argues that if the city is properly “resourced,” people’s needs will be met and crime will eventually become a distant memory. Question: Does looting count as resourcing? I guess that depends on your definition of resourcing.

Okay, now you can shake your head at California.

I know that it is popular to blame these things on a cabal of people who are plotting the demise of the country. And, yes, there is George Soros and gems like George Gascón who provide evidence for that. But as an ex-lib, I can tell you that on the ground level, these things are the results of monstrous egos and a disconnect from reality. Skinner may well believe that there is no way this bill could compromise law enforcement and further endanger (if possible) the safety of the citizens in California. And Viola is likely very earnest in her fantasy that if there is just enough government cheese and housing, crime will evaporate. Except crime doesn’t work like that. I almost said facts don’t care about your feelings, but I don’t need a lawsuit from Ben Shapiro. Although I could say I “resourced” the quote because I had to meet my word count “needs.”

Also read: Democrats’ Possible ‘Dark’ Midterms Strategy

And there is also a case for sheer spite. I wouldn’t rule out the notion that in some instances, in the back of their minds progressives do some things simply because they are the polar opposite of what a conservative would do. I’d almost be tempted to make a bet that if Tucker Carlson came out against drinking antifreeze, lefties would be pouring it on their whole-grain cereal and an entire line of Prestone® cocktails would debut in all the best east and west coast bars by the weekend. Just because conservatives said not to do it. Unfortunately, they are just like that one obnoxious, constantly-drunk friend who won’t let you leave until you do a shot with him.

Go home, California. You’re drunk.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...