DOJ Strong-Arms Local Law Enforcement
This column by ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Jan LaRue was published November 29, 2016 by American Thinker.
Denver Sheriff Patrick Firman made an executive decision that deputy sheriff applicants should be U.S. citizens.
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice, which claims to employ only U.S. citizens, would have none of it. Thus, the DOJ announced on Nov. 21 that it has shaken down another local law enforcement agency by settling an “immigration-related discrimination claim against the Denver Sheriff Department.”
Perhaps Firman thought that spending significant time and resources to properly train his deputies, who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, Colorado’s Constitution, and local laws, carry firearms, and are authorized to use deadly force, should actually have allegiance to the United States, as opposed to “work-authorized immigrants” whose allegiance is to Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, or Syria, for example, and may return home.
The Lynch mob’s settlement agreement claims that the “largest sheriff department in the state of Colorado” violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), noting that:
“The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from limiting jobs to U.S. citizens except where the employer is required to do so by law, regulation, executive order or government contract. The Denver Sheriff Department was not subject to one of the INA’s exceptions.”
U.S. law codified at 8 U.S.C. 1324b makes it clear that exceptions include “discrimination because of citizenship status which is otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order.” The sheriff issued an executive order. Case closed.
According to President Ronald Reagan’s “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,” he understood that exceptions to the INA included “discrimination based on citizenship status when lawfully required under government authority.”
Nonetheless, DOJ has seized control of the employment policy of a local law enforcement agency, which apparently finds it cheaper to pay a fine than spend limited resources fighting the feds in court:
“Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Denver Sheriff Department will pay $10,000 in civil penalties; identify applicants who may have been disqualified from consideration for deputy sheriff positions due to the citizenship requirement and consider these applicants’ qualifications without regards to their citizenship; train its human resources staff on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and review and revise its policies and procedures to comply with the requirements of the INA’s anti-discrimination provision.”
As an aside, let’s hope that the next U.S. Attorney General dismisses all unwarranted consent decrees against local law enforcement agencies and stops federalizing them.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, expressed the rationale for the ham-handed takeover:
“Eliminating this unlawful citizenship requirement will help ensure that the Denver Sheriff Department hires the best and most qualified individuals to protect and serve. The entire community will benefit from these reforms.”
Ironically, DOJ job openings listed on its website on Nov. 22 clearly state: “Who May Apply? United States Citizens.” Job listings include: Assistant U.S. Attorney, clinical psychologist, secretary, pharmacist, health technician, telecommunications specialist, plumbing worker supervisor, social worker, human resources coordinator, program specialist, safety and occupational health specialist, communications specialist, medical officer, nursing assistant, and vocation training instructor-horticulture.
Horticulture? So only U.S. citizens are employed to plant daisies for the DOJ. And they tell us there are just some jobs Americans won’t do.
FBI job openings are also limited to “qualified U.S. citizens,” including: computer scientist, forensic accountant, mental health assessment specialist, general attorney, financial operations specialist, telecommunications specialist, IT SPEC, mission support analyst, physical analyst, biologist, realty specialist, industrial hygienist, special agent and locksmith.
Here are some questions for Lynch and Gupta:
8 U.S.C. Sec.1324a prohibits hiring or recruiting any alien “knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.” Sec. 7 states: “For purposes of this section, the term “entity” includes an entity in any branch of the Federal Government.” Since the DOJ isn’t enforcing federal law against “sanctuary” states, cities, and counties that harbor “unauthorized aliens,” why should Americans assume that the DOJ and its agencies aren’t hiring “unauthorized aliens” in violation of Section 7?
8 U.S.C. 1324b doesn’t exempt the federal government from hiring and recruiting “work qualified immigrants.” Why isn’t your “citizenship employment requirement” unlawful at the DOJ and its agencies, if it’s unlawful at the Denver Sheriff Department?
If you believe your own press release, that opening government employment to “work authorized immigrants” will “help ensure” that it “hires the best and most qualified individuals to protect and serve” and benefits “the entire community,” why do you “discriminate” against “work authorized immigrants” by excluding them from employment at the DOJ and its agencies? Or do you?
Apparently, Lynch and Gupta don’t believe the adage, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Hiring and recruiting only U.S. citizens is good for the DOJ and its agencies, but not good for the department run by Sheriff Firman.
He got plucked instead.