Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 2213

Should Law Enforcement, Military Personnel and Veterans be Able to Get Waivers From Border Protection’s Polygraph Requirement?

Argument in favor

The law enforcement officers and members of the military who this bill waives CBP’s polygraph requirement for applicants who’ve already taken one or been thoroughly vetted in their current jobs through a background check, so an additional polygraph test is unnecessary.

Mathew's Opinion
···
06/06/2017
I doubt the effectiveness of polygraphs in recruiting better border patrol. Let's save the money.
Like (13)
Follow
Share
Leon's Opinion
···
06/07/2017
No one should have to take a polygraph if elected leaders do not.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
Jlavs's Opinion
···
06/05/2017
Polygraphs aren't reliable, this is a waste of resources.
Like (7)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Customs and Border Protection has a polygraph requirement in place for a reason — to ensure that only qualified people are hired. There shouldn’t be an option to waive that requirement for law enforcement or military personnel with qualifying experience.

Laura's Opinion
···
06/06/2017
Oh no, absolutely not. The blatant bias of this bill is both astonishing and naive. Intrinsically implied is the idea that someone with a military or law enforcement background is somehow more trustworthy than other citizens. How so? Timothy McVeigh served in the military and so did Micah Xavier Johnson (Dallas, July 2016). Just because someone cleared past scrutiny means nothing. Vet everyone equally and thoroughly. There is virtually no way to know how complete past vetting may or may not have been or what may have changed since then. It is preposterous that the same GOP that supports the Muslim ban and 45's wall in the name of national security would even consider such a bill as this. The bias and hypocrisy are astounding.
Like (311)
Follow
Share
Damian's Opinion
···
06/07/2017
As a Veteran who served in the Army, I understand the entry process. No disrespect to fellow service members, but the vetting requirements for this job are higher than the standards for entering the service, and should not be waived.
Like (180)
Follow
Share
Dan's Opinion
···
06/07/2017
Even though polygraphs don't work, the law should be applied equally to everyone. If you're short staffed, hire more people.
Like (74)
Follow
Share
    I doubt the effectiveness of polygraphs in recruiting better border patrol. Let's save the money.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Oh no, absolutely not. The blatant bias of this bill is both astonishing and naive. Intrinsically implied is the idea that someone with a military or law enforcement background is somehow more trustworthy than other citizens. How so? Timothy McVeigh served in the military and so did Micah Xavier Johnson (Dallas, July 2016). Just because someone cleared past scrutiny means nothing. Vet everyone equally and thoroughly. There is virtually no way to know how complete past vetting may or may not have been or what may have changed since then. It is preposterous that the same GOP that supports the Muslim ban and 45's wall in the name of national security would even consider such a bill as this. The bias and hypocrisy are astounding.
    Like (311)
    Follow
    Share
    As a Veteran who served in the Army, I understand the entry process. No disrespect to fellow service members, but the vetting requirements for this job are higher than the standards for entering the service, and should not be waived.
    Like (180)
    Follow
    Share
    Even though polygraphs don't work, the law should be applied equally to everyone. If you're short staffed, hire more people.
    Like (74)
    Follow
    Share
    No waiver! The military and law enforcement have just as many discipline problems as the average group citizens who never served a day in the armed forces or police. If the applicate is thoroughly vetted any US citizen should have the opportunity to apply for a job. Just because a person served in the armed forces or a police force doesn't make their ethics or morals sparkling clean. I've read the military personnel files, many and they walk and talk just like the rest of us with one exception, they have more knowledge of weapons and have been trained to take orders and kill. Many have troubled pasts and come out of service prepared for troubled futures. Nothing promises good judgement nor that some experience in the past will not surface in the future except thorough vetting by a prospective employer especially when guns and potential violence are involved. Read the news, how many veterans commit crimes that involve guns and how many police officers have killed in the line of duty under questionable circumstances. Do the vetting, do a proper job in hiring, investigate potential hires thoroughly otherwise whatever disasters that occur will be on this Congress and Administration but mostly on us for allowing shortcuts.
    Like (68)
    Follow
    Share
    Assuming that all police officers and all veterans are trustworthy is just as naive, just as contrary to known facts as assuming that all Muslims are terrorists. All applicants for CBP jobs should be vetted thoroughly and equally. Remember: these agents have a great deal more authority and more discretion than civilian police.
    Like (57)
    Follow
    Share
    Everyone is equal, so everyone gets the polygraph. A police officer who quits his job in one city will need to have a poly administered at his new job. Equality under the law.
    Like (39)
    Follow
    Share
    I'd like to have more information on this bill please. Who would be exempt from polygraph tests? Studies and history have shown that polygraph does not work to detect lies reliably and can be set off by random biological stressesor or be fooled by very calm individuals.
    Like (30)
    Follow
    Share
    No. Why is this even a question? Of course they should be subject to the same scrutiny as anyone else! The vetting process for the various agencies undoubtedly differ, not to mention that circumstances change based on one's experiences. Someone who qualified for a completely unrelated position previously isn't necessarily fit to serve in this role.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    Someone prior experience does not automatically qualify them for something. Standards are standards and should be enforced equally.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    Polygraphs should not be used on anyone, period.
    Like (25)
    Follow
    Share
    I don't mind the reasoning of this bill but I don't think waving a polygraph test will make anything run quicker. If anything it will embolden those with sketchy records to apply and possibly slip through. Keep the policy in place as it is and make sure security forces are equipped to serve both physically and MENTALLY.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Those meant to enforce laws and protect the people should be held to a higher standard than the average person, not a lower one.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Law enforcement officials must be held to the same standard as any other applicant.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    NOPE. Good grief...we really need to stop this idea of automatic sainthood if you are police or a military veteran. Given that CBP had one of the worst records for corruption and sexual abuse of both employees and detainees of any government agency I say their hiring process could use a closer look. Maybe some "extreme vetting"?
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    All people should be evaluated equally. If you make a hole, something will slip through that hole.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    No one should be exempt, they can be as corrupt as anyone else.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    So much law enforcement and military worship in this country. The rest of us are NOT second class citizens. Enough.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    No one should have to take a polygraph if elected leaders do not.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Rep. McSally said: "These common sense discretionary tools will give the CBP Commissioner the ability to transition those who have taken an oath and put their lives on the line for us already into these critical positions more expeditiously while continuing to provide safeguards against corruption.” I do wonder, however, why they should be exempted. After all, we just got free of a POTUS, who authorized illegal spying on American citizens! HE LIKEWISE TOOK AN OATH! And several other members of his administration were also corrupt! DIDN'T THEY TAKE AN OATH?! I don't think the fact that someone has taken an oath can be considered PROOF that they will not betray us! It doesn't take such a long time to administer a polygraph test! I've witnessed one. I personally think it is wiser to err on the side of CAUTION! Three years of service to one's country isn't all that long. I'd be more inclined to support this bill if it required a 10 year spotless record of service! I'm going to have to vote NAY! H.R.2213 - Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act of 2017 Sponsor: Rep. McSally, Martha [R-AZ-2] Cosponsors: Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]* Rep. Hurd, Will [R-TX-23]* Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31]* Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28]* Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN-1]* Rep. Vela, Filemon [D-TX-34]* Rep. Messer, Luke [R-IN-6] Rep. Gonzalez, Vicente [D-TX-15] Rep. Arrington, Jodey C. [R-TX-19] Text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr2213/BILLS-115hr2213rh.pdf Related bill: S.595 - Boots on the Border Act of 2017 Sponsor: Sen. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ] Cosponsors: Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ]* Sen. Johnson, Ron [R-WI]* Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] [I'm suspicious of anything that Sen. McCain is in favor of! I'm going to have to go over this bill with a fine-toothed comb!] Text of bill: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s595/BILLS-115s595is.pdf
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE