• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Officials: Illegal Immigrant Became a Cop in Alaska

So you think giving citizenship to convicted felons is a wise move?

I think people are more than their crimes and that crimes should be viewed individually rather than just as "felonies". He's been here since the 1980s and by all accounts was a well-respected, effective officer. He broke one law in the 1980s that didn't directly affect our safety. On the contrary, he protected citizens.
 
Because people are more than their crimes.

Are we a nation of laws or not?

Should lady justice just take the blindfold off........so she can discriminate the way you feel she should?

.....an AMERICAN CITIZEN could of had that job.......unfortunately the Left loves Illegal Aliens and hates American Workers.
.
.
.
 
Are we a nation of laws or not?

Should lady justice just take the blindfold off........so she can discriminate the way you feel she should?

Context is very important to Lady Justice, and context is favorable in this instance.

.....an AMERICAN CITIZEN could of had that job

Yeah, and American Citizen could have done a not-nearly-as-good job :roll:

Next, you'll be complaining how we should kick out people because our cops can't control them.
 
Context is very important to Lady Justice, and context is favorable in this instance.



Yeah, and American Citizen could have done a not-nearly-as-good job :roll:

Next, you'll be complaining how we should kick out people because our cops can't control them.

I am now convinced that Liberalism is a mental disease.
 
Are we a nation of laws or not?

Should lady justice just take the blindfold off........so she can discriminate the way you feel she should?

.....an AMERICAN CITIZEN could of had that job.......unfortunately the Left loves Illegal Aliens and hates American Workers.
.
.
.

No..................
 
I think people are more than their crimes and that crimes should be viewed individually rather than just as "felonies". He's been here since the 1980s and by all accounts was a well-respected, effective officer. He broke one law in the 1980s that didn't directly affect our safety. On the contrary, he protected citizens.

This is a fantastic precedent to set... Here's a set of laws to uphold. You don't necessarily have to abide by them yourself, as long as you promise to be a good person, we'll let you slide on a few technicalities here and there. You know, don't worry about petty, insignificant crimes like identity theft.
 
This is a fantastic precedent to set... Here's a set of laws to uphold. You don't necessarily have to abide by them yourself, as long as you promise to be a good person, we'll let you slide on a few technicalities here and there. You know, don't worry about petty, insignificant crimes like identity theft.

This comment would be relevant if I hadn't said that he should be charged for identity theft. You lose.
 
This comment would be relevant if I hadn't said that he should be charged for identity theft. You lose.

I lose? What are you, seven? You've been spouting about this man's character and contributions to society for the entire thread. It's relevant.
 
I lose? What are you, seven? You've been spouting about this man's character and contributions to society for the entire thread. It's relevant.
Yeah, I'm seven which makes your nonsense even more embarrassing.

You said this:
This is a fantastic precedent to set... Here's a set of laws to uphold. You don't necessarily have to abide by them yourself, as long as you promise to be a good person, we'll let you slide on a few technicalities here and there. You know, don't worry about petty, insignificant crimes like identity theft.

I have said multiple times that he should be tried for his crimes so your comment is completely, utterly, irrefutably irrelevant because you're implying that I said we should not worry about "insignificant crimes like identity theft." Like I said, too bad I said he should be tried for his crimes. I win.
 
"I think people are more than their crimes and that crimes should be viewed individually rather than just as "felonies". He's been here since the 1980s and by all accounts was a well-respected, effective officer. He broke one law in the 1980s that didn't directly affect our safety. On the contrary, he protected citizens."

What does it matter how long he's been here? Who cares if he's well respected? You're implying that if the crime were more serious - which also implies that you know better than lawmakers - this would be important, but since it's just identity theft, we should look at the man. Not throwing the book at this guy is a bad precedent to set. He didn't steal an identity and become a florist; he stole an identity and became a cop. Who cares if he became a good cop - he's a felon.
 
Liberal spirit? Conservative spirit? It all depends on the criminals, and who they support. Liberals would support an illegal alien. Conservatives would support Ken Lay. It's all about perspective. But, honestly, I am not going to stand by what I just posted, since putting labels on everybody and everything shows only partisan hackery, and little, if any, knowledge of reality.

Do you know that "conservatives" would support Ken Lay?
 
What does it matter how long he's been here? Who cares if he's well respected?
Because people are more than their crimes.

You're implying that if the crime were more serious. - which also implies that you know better than lawmakers.
I consider murder more serious than identity theft. Lawmakers do to. :roll:

- this would be important, but since it's just identity theft, we should look at the man.
We should always look at the man. People are more than their crimes - that's why crimes of passion are tried differently from premeditated murders.:roll:

Not throwing the book at this guy is a bad precedent to set. He didn't steal an identity and become a florist; he stole an identity and became a cop. Who cares if he became a good cop - he's a felon.
Are you illiterate? I keep telling you that I said he should be tried for his crime - i.e. "the book should be thrown at him". Why do keep posting the same irrelevant comment over and over again?
 
Because people are more than their crimes.


I consider murder more serious than identity theft. Lawmakers do to. :roll:


We should always look at the man. People are more than their crimes - that's why crimes of passion are tried differently from premeditated murders.:roll:


Are you illiterate? I keep telling you that I said he should be tried for his crime - i.e. "the book should be thrown at him". Why do keep posting the same irrelevant comment over and over again?

People are more than their crimes? Not in a court of law they shouldn't be. And those of us who choose to uphold the law should be held to a higher standard when they break it. If you believe he should be tried for his crime, what are you arguing for? Leniency?
 
People are more than their crimes? Not in a court of law they shouldn't be.
Exactly, which is why in a court of law he would be tried with identity theft. Although people are more than their crimes there which is why, as I said earlier, murders of passion are tried different from premeditated murders.:shrug:

And those of us who choose to uphold the law should be held to a higher standard when they break it.
Oh, so you agree then that people are more than their crimes.

If you believe he should be tried for his crime, what are you arguing for? Leniency?
I'm arguing he should be tried for identity theft and then given a path to citizenship after he serves his time.
 
Exactly, which is why in a court of law he would be tried with identity theft. Although people are more than their crimes there which is why, as I said earlier, murders of passion are tried different from premeditated murders.:shrug:


Oh, so you agree then that people are more than their crimes.


I'm arguing he should be tried for identity theft and then given a path to citizenship after he serves his time.

Sigh...When he's tried and found guilty of identity theft (felony), he won't be able to become a citizen.
 
And he should be able, just like this woman should be:
Ekaterine Bautista, Iraq War Veteran, May Be Denied Citizenship

He should be tried for identity theft and then given a path to citizenship.

I don't have a problem with a path to citizenship. If and when we set up that program, if it's tied to military service alone (not police and post etc.) I'll be all for it. But it's not about what these people did right; it's about what they did wrong. If you have to rob a bank to fund your charity, you're doing it wrong. So are these people. You may not like the process by which immigrants become citizens, but I'm not necessarily concerned with what you like and neither is the federal government.
 
I don't have a problem with a path to citizenship. If and when we set up that program, if it's tied to military service alone (not police and post etc.) I'll be all for it. But it's not about what these people did right; it's about what they did wrong. If you have to rob a bank to fund your charity, you're doing it wrong. So are these people. You may not like the process by which immigrants become citizens, but I'm not necessarily concerned with what you like and neither is the federal government.

This isn't about what I like or what your ego is concerned with. It's about what these people did wrong either. It's about the totality of their rights and wrongs, the totality of who they are. I consider the whole person, you're focused on the parts you don't like.
 
There already is a path to citizenship.
 
Back
Top Bottom