Berkley wants to treat Military Recruiters like Porn Dealers

[SirNitram]

I visited a friend in UCBerekely in Jan of 07. This was 2 months after I left Iraq, and she told me that she didnt care when marines died over seas. I met a national guard guy working at a resturant there, and we stopped to just tell war stories for a few minutes. She became rather peeved.

Anecdotal evidence, admittedly, but I think it allows a certain understanding of the atmosphere down there. I dont really expect the military to get many recruits there, and I think it would almost be more hassle then its worth.

So basically if this pans out as a demographic look, this is in fact a move supported by the voters. So basically that whole 'Democracy' thing is to be fought for except where it offends the ability of the US Military to recruit wherever it damn well likes.

[Havok]

Again I agree, but this should be something for the city as a whole to decide, not just the city council.

Why? You realize we live in a representative democracy and not ancient Athens, right? Not everything needs to be a referendum. If the voters hate the law that much (which you seem to think is unlikely), they'll elect city council members who will reverse it. I don't know what you're so worked up about. I personally hate voting on specific initiatives, because you can bet the question will be printed in legalese and worded in the most confusing way imaginable. Even when I know about the initiative and what it entails beforehand; chances are minimal that information is on the ballot.

Yes a republic.. I know. I'm not worked up at all. I just think that an American city basically banning American military recruitment should be something that the city itself decides and not 9 people. Tell the people why you want to restrict it and let them decide if they agree with you. It is Berkeley, so will win the vote on a landslide, but it should still be done.

[Darth Raptor]

Yes a republic.. I know. I'm not worked up at all. I just think that an American city basically banning American military recruitment should be something that the city itself decides and not 9 people. Tell the people why you want to restrict it and let them decide if they agree with you. It is Berkeley, so will win the vote on a landslide, but it should still be done.

Again, why? What is it about this specific issue that requires a referendum? Why is the city council competent to draw zones and rule on everything else it manages except this?

[Sam Or I]

I am one of those advocate "States Rights". (Granted it is a city in this case.) The Federal government should have to listen to the local laws. And if the city pass a law that forbids the military recruitment, the federal government should respect it.

Do I disagree with the law? Yes, and if I lived in Berekly I would be throwing a hissy fit. I don't, it is their decision, not mine.

[SirNitram]

I am one of those advocate "States Rights". (Granted it is a city in this case.) The Federal government should have to listen to the local laws. And if the city pass a law that forbids the military recruitment, the federal government should respect it.

Do I disagree with the law? Yes, and if I lived in Berekly I would be throwing a hissy fit. I don't, it is their decision, not mine.

....Where did the law forbid recruitment? Or is it time to play 'We have no argument so let's strawman'?

[CmdrWilkens]

Isn't this act unconstitutional underMcCulloch v. Maryland? I mean, didn't that case hold that local governments could not institute especially restrictive regulations on buildings run by the Federal government? I mean, forget the moral issues: aren't there legal issues involved in trying something like this?

Only if the land and/or building is federally owned. If the government is leasing a premise, which is the case with most recruitment offices, then local regulations as to buisness practices have to be adhered to as the land is owned by private persons who cannot be compelled to allow tenancy by the government unless it becomes an eminent domain case and then you'd really have a furor.

[Sam Or I]

I am one of those advocate "States Rights". (Granted it is a city in this case.) The Federal government should have to listen to the local laws. And if the city pass a law that forbids the military recruitment, the federal government should respect it.

Do I disagree with the law? Yes, and if I lived in Berekly I would be throwing a hissy fit. I don't, it is their decision, not mine.

....Where did the law forbid recruitment? Or is it time to play 'We have no argument so let's strawman'?

It is more of a statement of belief, there is not real argument there. If anything, I am agreeing with your main arguement. The federal government should respect the local law of the land.

[CmdrWilkens]

Who said anything about "Basic permits"? The way I read the article the military is being given special treatment.

Why shouldn't they be? They're trying to convince the citizens of your municipality to sign up for a reduction in their civil rights.

So, what exactly makes a recruitment office especially unique here, from a business perspective?

The fact that recruitment of young, able-bodied men and women harms the local economy by reducing the available labour pool?

Do you really find it so hard to understand why anybody would have a problem with recruiters coming in and trying to harvest a region's young people? This is a simple matter of economic incentive. They're already being taxed to pay for the military; why should they make it easy for the feds to extract more?

Because it lowers economic opportunity for the individuals themselves?

If you take someone with no college experience the Census Bureau puts their median income at $26,123 per annum. Living in civlian housing, and drawing some of the allowances tax free, a 2 year E-3 is bringin in just over 28000 per annum of which almost 10,000 is non taxable allowances for housing and food so the effective income level is much higher. Since they get 100% of the 10k and then between 70 and 80% of the remaining 18k wheras the median individual takes home 70-80% of 26k.

Yes it makes sense on for the local economy but it doesn't make sense for the indivdual economy. For this city in paticular it does not appear that they are in any need of paticularly young economic strength. Their median age is three years under the US average, their workforce comprises 65% of the populace with almot as many residents under 18 as over 65. Simply put the community is doing fine as is. In the meantime for those in lower education rungs, and in paticular for the 32% of residents who don't speak English as their primary language at home, the military is a quality economic choice.

Now they already have to meet all the typical permit requirments for any buisness (which for any national brand is likely enough to recruit upwardly mobile young workers and ship them to alternate locations throughout the country). That's certianly fair and moreover I support holding recruiters accountable for the validity of their claims and marketing, just as we should hold any advertising to account for the veracity of its statements, but that doesn't mean there should be exceptional and onerous recuirements for military recruitment which are not applied to any other buisness sector (aside from adult entertainment).

IAll that being said if the citizens vote on the initiative and it passes then such is as it is and the military will have to live with it. My sole point is that I would not support such a measure but I am not the person in a position to decide this paticualr matter.

[Darth Wong]

Because it lowers economic opportunity for the individuals themselves?

Really? In a prosperous university town?

If you take someone with no college experience the Census Bureau puts their median income at $26,123 per annum. Living in civlian housing, and drawing some of the allowances tax free, a 2 year E-3 is bringin in just over 28000 per annum of which almost 10,000 is non taxable allowances for housing and food so the effective income level is much higher. Since they get 100% of the 10k and then between 70 and 80% of the remaining 18k wheras the median individual takes home 70-80% of 26k.

Look, I know I'm not the biggest expert on California's education system, but last time I checked, Berkeley was a college town. Shouldn't that mean that it has an elevated probability of residents being either college educated or in the process of becoming college educated?

Yes it makes sense on for the local economy but it doesn't make sense for the indivdual economy. For this city in paticular it does not appear that they are in any need of paticularly young economic strength. Their median age is three years under the US average, their workforce comprises 65% of the populace with almot as many residents under 18 as over 65. Simply put the community is doing fine as is. In the meantime for those in lower education rungs, and in paticular for the 32% of residents who don't speak English as their primary language at home, the military is a quality economic choice.

Then any such destitute individuals who seek military enlistment can seek out a recruiter on their own, can't they? Why should the city encourage this?

Now they already have to meet all the typical permit requirments for any buisness (which for any national brand is likely enough to recruit upwardly mobile young workers and ship them to alternate locations throughout the country). That's certianly fair and moreover I support holding recruiters accountable for the validity of their claims and marketing, just as we should hold any advertising to account for the veracity of its statements, but that doesn't mean there should be exceptional and onerous recuirements for military recruitment which are not applied to any other buisness sector (aside from adult entertainment).

No, there should be MORE onerous requirements for military recruiting centres than adult entertainment. Adult entertainment generates money for the local economy. Military recruiting centres do not. They do not qualify as a "business" in any sense of the word; the idea that they should be treated like any other business fails on its face.

[Glocksman]

Morals aside, it's been a long accepted legal doctrine that where Federal Dollars go, Federal Rules can follow.
If this kind of thing spreads much beyond Berkeley, look for Congress to alter the Solomon Amendment to include prohibiting treating recruitment offices any different from any other kind of office.

The enforcement mechanism would be the same; violate it and lose any and all Federal funds that you receive.
Somehow I don't see many cities being eager to lose that cash.

[Darth Wong]

What's this "morals aside" bullshit? This entire thread was created to vent moral outrage about how Berkeley could dare ... DARE! ... to treat military recruiters as an unwanted presence, or worse yet, (gasp!) just as badly as they treat adult entertainment businesses. If one concedes that this whole line of thought is bullshit, then one is left bragging that the federal government could probably bully Berkeley into compliance if it so desired. So what? Nobody was denying that.

[Havok]

I have to say, I'm surprised the Marines even opened a recruiting office in the city. I really can't imagine there were enough people going into Oakland and other surrounding cities from Berkeley to garner enough attention of someone that thought putting one there was going to be worthwhile.

I tried to find a breakdown on recruitment numbers by region or city, but all I could find were overall numbers for the whole of the country for 2007 and the telephone contact numbers for further info.

[Nova Andromeda]

-I wonder how much funding Berkeley gets from the Feds anyhow. Perhaps it isn't all that much?

[Havok]

-I wonder how much funding Berkeley gets from the Feds anyhow. Perhaps it isn't all that much?

I think the University gets quite a bit, the city itself probably exists off the parking citations it gives out. I'm serious. They are parking fucking Nazis.

[Nova Andromeda]

-I wonder how much funding Berkeley gets from the Feds anyhow. Perhaps it isn't all that much?

I think the University gets quite a bit, the city itself probably exists off the parking citations it gives out. I'm serious. They are parking fucking Nazis.

-I'm guessing you don't obey the parking signs? Not that I blame you since there is NO parking within 3 miles of UCB.
-Every year for the past decade I hear how funding to the university gets cut and how they need more and more endowments. I wonder what would happen if Harvard kicked out its recruiters. Could the Feds. do something like pull NIH funding? If not, it doubt federal funding counts for much.

[Glocksman]

What's this "morals aside" bullshit? This entire thread was created to vent moral outrage about how Berkeley could dare ... DARE! ... to treat military recruiters as an unwanted presence, or worse yet, (gasp!) just as badly as they treat adult entertainment businesses. If one concedes that this whole line of thought is bullshit, then one is left bragging that the federal government could probably bully Berkeley into compliance if it so desired. So what? Nobody was denying that.

I wouldn't call it 'bragging', as I intended it as a preemption to those who might claim it to be a First Amendment violation by the Feds.
Either way, my sense of moral outrage isn't all that high towards either side.
Berkeley or any other city has the right to regulate (within the limits of established law) what goes on within their limits.
On the other hand, Congress has the right to demand that Federal rules come with Federal money, and if a municipality restricts military recruiting offices, than the Feds can cut off their Federal monies if Congress passes the appropriate laws allowing it to do so.

[Havok]

-I wonder how much funding Berkeley gets from the Feds anyhow. Perhaps it isn't all that much?

I think the University gets quite a bit, the city itself probably exists off the parking citations it gives out. I'm serious. They are parking fucking Nazis.

-I'm guessing you don't obey the parking signs? Not that I blame you since there is NO parking within 3 miles of UCB.
-Every year for the past decade I hear how funding to the university gets cut and how they need more and more endowments. I wonder what would happen if Harvard kicked out its recruiters. Could the Feds. do something like pull NIH funding? If not, it doubt federal funding counts for much.

No, I try not to go there, but if I do, I ride, so I don't have as much trouble as people wit cars.

I think when they are talking about funding being cut, it is a state thing, not a federal one.

[Glocksman]

-I wonder how much funding Berkeley gets from the Feds anyhow. Perhaps it isn't all that much?

I think the University gets quite a bit, the city itself probably exists off the parking citations it gives out. I'm serious. They are parking fucking Nazis.

-I'm guessing you don't obey the parking signs? Not that I blame you since there is NO parking within 3 miles of UCB.
-Every year for the past decade I hear how funding to the university gets cut and how they need more and more endowments. I wonder what would happen if Harvard kicked out its recruiters. Could the Feds. do something like pull NIH funding? If not, it doubt federal funding counts for much.

The Solomon Amendment permits funding from these agencies to be withheld from universities that violate the access requirements.

d) Covered Funds.--(1) The limitation established in subsection (a)
applies to the following:
(A) Any funds made available for the Department of Defense.
(B) Any funds made available in a Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.

(2) The limitation established in subsection (b) applies to the
following:
(A) Funds described in paragraph (1).
(B) Any funds made available for the Department of
Transportation.

From here.

[K. A. Pital]

So people who propose you sign up for killing other people in various regions of the world are treated same as porn dealers? Big deal. Aren't porn dealers really the lesser evil? They sell products which, for all intents and purposes, improve the sex lives of many people, and their mental conditions. Those products aren't the cause of war, or suffering of millions.

What does the military do? Suck people up to be killed in wars all over the world, in the name of U.S. interests? I could understand a city wanting to limit (not forbid!) the influence of the nation's military recruitment.

Before shouting "traitors", one should remember that US military isn't a draft military, and thus people have every moral right to tell this military to fuck off with it's recruitment techniques.

And "morals aside"? Of course you could stop such laws being taken. That will not have any bearing on the moral judgement on this situation.

[Aaron]

I missed this the first time around:

In addition to making it more difficult for future military recruiting centers to be established, Spring also said she would support action that would remove the current office, which is in her district.

"I do want to do something, whatever we can do, to shut down an agency that � offends our public standards," she said. "It's a detriment, it's a danger to the public."

The council wants to restrict the military from building further recruiting centers but they already have one there. Is the town so big and the amount of recruits they gather so large that a second center is even required?

[Beowulf]

It should be noted that recruiting offices are typically fairly small, maybe as small as 1 person. Also, each service has it's own recruiters. Sometimes they share offices, sometimes they don't. I have no clue what the recruiting office in Berkeley looks like.

Distinct from the recruiters offices are the Military Entrance Processing Stations, which actually conduct the physicals and such to ensure that recruits meet medical standards, as well as perform any other necessary testing, like ASVAB, or language tests.

[Civil War Man]

I think it's far more scandalous that Berkeley has such restrictive rules about where an adult video shop can open up. The military wankers have no case; there is far more objective and economical reason to be opposed to military recruiters than porn shops.

But this is America. Horrific violence is okay, as long as nobody sees a nipple.

[Xisiqomelir]

Is the town so big and the amount of recruits they gather so large that a second center is even required?

The population of Berkeley proper is ~100K IIRC.

[Jadeite]

What's the big deal? Do you really need more than two recruiting centers in the state anyways? Some Provinces in Canada only have one or two, meaning that if you live in Northern BC or the Interior you have to drive or fly into Vancouver (could take over a day) but they will pay for your expenses.

One to two per state? Indiana alone has about 40 military recruitment centers according to ServiceLocator.

[Tsyroc]

I missed this the first time around:

In addition to making it more difficult for future military recruiting centers to be established, Spring also said she would support action that would remove the current office, which is in her district.

"I do want to do something, whatever we can do, to shut down an agency that � offends our public standards," she said. "It's a detriment, it's a danger to the public."

The council wants to restrict the military from building further recruiting centers but they already have one there. Is the town so big and the amount of recruits they gather so large that a second center is even required?

I don't see why they would need two unless they are hoping to get more "coverage" by having them in different places in the city.

Even if they got rid of all the recruiting stations in Berkley it's not like it's difficult to get to one of the nearby cities which will probably have one. I imagine that at least one or two offices are close to a BART intersection or on a major bus route.