Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

205

The article title is somewhat misleading, as you can see from the text:

Immigrants without U.S. citizenship will soon be able to get badges and guns, and authorized to arrest Americans in the nation’s capital, as the city’s Police Department (DC MPD) struggles to recruit and retain police officers. New hires, including non-citizen green card holders, will even be offered up to $25,000 in signing bonuses.

Still, this is just another example of the societal breakdown that we call Washington, DC.

EDIT: I looked into this further. The source for the National Pulse article is The relevant section of the DC Police employment policy is It states:

(c) Section 205(a) (D.C. Official Code § 5-107.04(a)) is amended as follows:

(1) Paragraph (1) is amended by striking the phrase "a citizen of the United States" and inserting the phrase "a citizen or national of, or person lawfully admitted for permanent residence in, the United States" in its place.

So it looks to me like not only is the title of the article misleading, but the article itself is as well. I'm going to leave it up, but will alter the flair.

[Source.](https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/07/12/non-citizens-can-now-arrest-u-s-citizens-in-washington-d-c/) The article title is somewhat misleading, as you can see from the text: > Immigrants without U.S. citizenship ***will soon be able to*** get badges and guns, and authorized to arrest Americans in the nation’s capital, as the city’s Police Department (DC MPD) struggles to recruit and retain police officers. New hires, including non-citizen green card holders, will even be offered up to $25,000 in signing bonuses. Still, this is just another example of the societal breakdown that we call Washington, DC. ------------------------- ***EDIT:*** I looked into this further. The source for the National Pulse article is [here.](https://wtop.com/dc/2023/07/people-with-green-cards-now-eligible-to-be-dc-police-officers/) The relevant section of the DC Police employment policy is [here.](https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/laws/24-345) It states: > (c) Section 205(a) (D.C. Official Code § 5-107.04(a)) is amended as follows: >> (1) Paragraph (1) is amended by striking the phrase "a citizen of the United States" and inserting the phrase "a citizen or national of, or person lawfully admitted for permanent residence in, the United States" in its place. So it looks to me like not only is the title of the article misleading, but the article itself is as well. I'm going to leave it up, but will alter the flair.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (9).
[–] • 0 pt

Someone illegally in the country attempting to exert authority upon citizens is an act of insurrection. It is an act of war. Anyone supporting this are traitors by legal definition (supporting and giving aid to enemies). As militia, arrest and use of deathly force is constitutionally authorized.

Just pointing out what federal law and the US Constitutions actually supports for this situation.

While my own confirmation bias leads me to want to upvote that comment, I don't see anything about that in , nor in the relevant sections of

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Illegals exerting force upon the citizen is an invasion in the sense of warfare. The militia is legally entitled to repel unlawful invaders (foreign and domestic). Likewise, anyone supporting illegal invaders exerting force (by definition unlawful) is aiding and comforting the enemy. This in turn legally defines them as traitors.

This is all permitted by the existing federal laws and the US Constitition.

[–] • 1 pt

This is all permitted by the existing federal laws and the US Constitition.

Again, I am inclined to agree with you. My point is that I can't find the supporting code section or case law.

[–] • 0 pt

What is it you expect to find? This is all very clearly laid out? Are you looking for a specific text which outlays this specific situation?

How do you define invasion? Illegal/unlawful authority/enforcement? SCOTUS has previously ruled law enforcement working as criminals also justifies legal use of militias against law enforcement.

Not sure what you mean that you can't find it as it's all very clearly laid out in law and previous rulings.