Deported veteran Hector Barajas-Varela to become a U.S. citizen

[jg121783 3,908]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

I thought this vet got deported for a felony gun charge?  I'm surprised at the folks here who say we need more gun control, yet they are upset that this attempted murderer (possibly, at least reckless discharge of a gun) was deported, as is consistent with current law.

I'm not surprised at all. After all a jury (likely left leaning) in California let an illegal alien off the hook for murder. He did get a gun charge though. Shows where liberal priorities are. Protect an illegal from prosecution no matter what the crime. But at the same time they are so anti gun they had to throw in the gun charge.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Ummm, for about a hundred reasons... No.  Hopefully never.

Which is not an actual answer to "why not".
Just putting that out there.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

36 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Which is not an actual answer to "why not".
Just putting that out there.

Ok. So 100 reasons was an exaggeration.  But why not?  Because I don't see where it would ever be a good idea to allow a foreign citizen to naturalized without the appropriate background investigation.  If my spouse had to jump thru several levels of protection to the US to get to the point of naturalizing, why should she be granted an automatic USC status just because she signed up to join the military?  

 

[Dashinka 23,375]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

I think you forgot the stipulation where they actually serve the country in your rather overly simplistic rhetorical question. 

 

But yeah, why not? 

With no background check?  What if they did something serious prior to serving in the military, should that be forgiven?  I am all for allowing foreigners that serve in the military getting the advantages they are afforded to naturalize while they are serving, but they should still be vetted like anyone else as serving in the military does not automatically make someone a good person.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

4 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Regardless of military service the law says immigtants are subject to deportation when they commit felonies. If he didn't want to be deported he should have followed the law. It's pretty simple.

Like filling out his census questionnaire. 

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

I'm not surprised at all. After all a jury (likely left leaning) in California let an illegal alien off the hook for murder. He did get a gun charge though. Shows where liberal priorities are. Protect an illegal from prosecution no matter what the crime. But at the same time they are so anti gun they had to throw in the gun charge.

Source for the jury being left leaning? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Like filling out his census questionnaire. 

Source for the jury being left leaning? 

CA  

Edited March 31, 2018 by IDWAF

[spookyturtle 9,465]

20 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

CA  

CA leans so far to the left that it is predicted to one day slide into the Pacific. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, spookyturtle said:

CA leans so far to the left that it is predicted to one day slide into the Pacific. 

I left CA about 43 years ago thinking San Andreas would correct the US.  Thus far, it has not.

[jg121783 3,908]

1 hour ago, spookyturtle said:

Like filling out his census questionnaire.

I'm sorry you can't grasp the concept of a subsection but I'm not going to try to explain it again. Besides that's way off topic for this post.

 

1 hour ago, spookyturtle said:

Source for the jury being left leaning?

I can't say it is an absolute fact but logic tells me odds are only a radical left leaning jury would let an illegal alien who is clearly guilty of murdering a US citizen go free with nothing more than a minor gun charge. Also as IDWAF pointed out this is California we are talking about.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

14 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I'm sorry you can't grasp the concept of a subsection but I'm not going to try to explain it again. Besides that's way off topic for this post.

 

I can't say it is an absolute fact but logic tells me odds are only a radical left leaning jury would let an illegal alien who is clearly guilty of murdering a US citizen go free with nothing more than a minor gun charge. Also as IDWAF pointed out this is California we are talking about.

Grasping. That’s what you’re doing.

[jg121783 3,908]

18 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Grasping. That’s what you’re doing.

So a right leaning jury in California would let an illegal alien who is guilty of murder go free? I suppose it's possible but highly unlikely.

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

12 hours ago, jg121783 said:

So a right leaning jury in California would let an illegal alien who is guilty of murder go free? I suppose it's possible but highly unlikely.

You are definitely grasping for straws, calm down the hyper partisanship.
"Guilty of murder" is "guilty of murder", no matter where your geographic location is.

and.. your comment really has nothing to do with this vet's story.
 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

You are definitely grasping for straws, calm down the hyper partisanship.
"Guilty of murder" is "guilty of murder", no matter where your geographic location is.

and.. your comment really has nothing to do with this vet's story.
 

So is “guilty of a felony, and deportable” really “guilty of a felony, and deportable” no matter where your geographic location is?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

6 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So is “guilty of a felony, and deportable” really “guilty of a felony, and deportable” no matter where your geographic location is?

Yes.. 
But i think we already established that he shouldn't have been deportable due to his military service.

 what point are your trying to make?

Edited April 1, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

47 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Yes.. 
But i think we already established that he shouldn't have been deportable due to his military service.

 what point are your trying to make?

You say yes, he was properly deported, and you are correct.  Not all see it that way.

 

He wasn't deported due to his military service; rather, a felony committed by a non-USC.

 

No one "established" that his military service should automatically make him a USC (Some think it should be so, but it's not, currently).  He failed to naturalize, so the judge had no legal recourse other than deportation.

 

Edited April 1, 2018 by IDWAF