Mexican illegals sue AZ rancher

[Selena]

Can someone please inform me as to how illegal aliens from Mexico have any sort of legal standing to file suit (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/) against a legitimate US home/landowner from protecting his property???

What the hell?? These fuckers are 'illegal', yet use this US system... our system... to sue someone because they got caught with their illegal activities??

It's nauseating. How dare they use our legal system for something for which they have no legal right to use... considering they were breaking federal law to begin with!


*************

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

As a matter of law, all persons within the US borders are entitled to the same civil rights regardless of immigration status. If what the guy did would have been illegal to do to US citizens, it would similarly be illegal to do to illlegal immigrants.

Now, I'm not defending illegal immigration, I'm just answering your question.

[Selena]

I understand you aren't defending them, Bob... I know this and I accept that.

But can you provide a legal statue for this?

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

I understand you aren't defending them, Bob... I know this and I accept that.

But can you provide a legal statue for this?


How's the US Constitution?

They're pretty explicit about using the word "citizen" in instances where they meant for whatever they were saying to apply only to citizens.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

To extend that thought further, in the Bill of Rights, there are a number of references to "persons", but none to "citizens". It is held that the Bill of Rights apply to all people.

Just like anyone else, an illegal immigrant has, for instance, the right to remain silent, have an attorney, to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizures, etc....

[Selena]

And according to the US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, part VIII, Section 1325: Improper entry by alien


(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who:


1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.


and Title 18 of the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/) Dig through it as you wish.


I still don't see where the Constitution, at least the first few articles and the first few Amendments pertain to this specific discussion. Please provide the statue if I'm wrong.

Really... I'm curious! I need to know these kinds of things.

[Selena]

Oh, nevermind... Amendment 14:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DEPRIVE) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) the equal protection of the laws.


And it mentions persons who are committing various crimes who just happen to be illegally in this country where?

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Oh, nevermind... Amendment 14:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DEPRIVE) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) the equal protection of the laws.


And it mentions persons who are committing various crimes who just happen to be illegally in this country where?

They would be included under "person".

Maybe you don't think of illegal immigrants as people, but the Constitution does. ;)

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

And according to the US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, part VIII, Section 1325: Improper entry by alien


(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who:


1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.


and Title 18 of the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/) Dig through it as you wish.


I still don't see where the Constitution, at least the first few articles and the first few Amendments pertain to this specific discussion. Please provide the statue if I'm wrong.

Really... I'm curious! I need to know these kinds of things.


Everything you've cited there says that the people in question are in violation of the law. And I'm not suggesting that they are not in violation of the law.

However, even people in violation of the law are afforded certain civil rights under the Constitution and if those rights are violated, then they potentially have a valid cause of action to bring before a court.


I think your mistake is that you are trying to apply common sense. In matters of law, there's no place for that. ;-)

[Selena]

I think your mistake is that you are trying to apply common sense. In matters of law, there's no place for that. ;-)

:snarf:
Of fuck I just busted a gut.. You're SO bloody right on that one.
*rotfl*

[Isabelle Warwicke]

I hope the right judge gets the case and send them packing back to Mexico.

So, if the neighorhood kids want to climb my fence and walk across my lawn to get to the other neighbors house, they are fully within their rights to?

I'm calling bullshit. No judge in this country should stand for shennanigans like this. It's sad that they do.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

So, if the neighorhood kids want to climb my fence and walk across my lawn to get to the other neighbors house, they are fully within their rights to?

No. But there are limits as to what you can do in response.

The argument that the plaintiffs are making in this case is that the defendant exceeded those limits.

You seem to be under the impression that they are suing simply over being prevented from entering the country illegally. They aren't.


Let's say, strictly hypothetically, that the rancher came across these illegals trying to enter the country and then tied them up and beat the men and raped the women. Would he be able to use the fact that they were illegals as a defense of his actions?

(For the sake of expediency, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you would answer that question with a "no".)

So now that we've established that there are some things that this rancher is not allowed to do to a bunch of people who happen to be Mexicans illegally entering the country, it's simply a question of where the line is drawn between actions that are legal and actions that are not. The plaintiffs in this case assert that the rancher's actions fell on the illegal side of the line.

The case survived summary judgment, so at the very least there was a finding of law that the actions that the plaintiffs claimed the rancher took would be considered illegal violations of the plaintiffs civil rights (if they actually happened). Now it is up to a jury to make a finding of fact as to whether or not those actions actually took place.

That's really all there is to it. No buillshit, no shennanigans.

[Isabelle Fawkes]

Everything you've cited there says that the people in question are in violation of the law. And I'm not suggesting that they are not in violation of the law.

However, even people in violation of the law are afforded certain civil rights under the Constitution and if those rights are violated, then they potentially have a valid cause of action to bring before a court.

I think your mistake is that you are trying to apply common sense. In matters of law, there's no place for that. ;-)

Please explain....

If these ILLEGAL PEOPLE are in violation of the law why are they then provided civil rights under the Constitution of these United States when they have no legal status as American Citizens?

Why then are these people in violation of the law afforded civil rights!!! Yet not prosecuted for the crimes they are guilty of???

Seems to me that they have NO RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS
unless they can provide proper documentation! Can you say Nazi Germany!!!

Just curious...


Waiting to hear your take on this

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Please explain....

If these ILLEGAL PEOPLE are in violation of the law why are they then provided civil rights under the Constitution of these United States when they have no legal status as American Citizens?

Why then are these people in violation of the law afforded civil rights!!! Yet not prosecuted for the crimes they are guilty of???

Seems to me that they have NO RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS
unless they can provide proper documentation! Can you say Nazi Germany!!!

Just curious...


Waiting to hear your take on this

Well, my take on this was mostly "WTF?!?"

[Isabelle Warwicke]

I'm wondering if this was the self-same rancher who rose a huge outcry because the Illegal persons were cutting his cattle fences to make their way across his property.

If you cut my cattle fences and they got out, you can bet your ass I'd be sitting out on the tailgate of my pickup truck with a whole truck load of ordinance. Rifle, waterballons, paintballs, kush ball slingshot...whatever.

No Tresspassing means exactly that. Just because you WANT to come here doesn't mean you GET to.

[Isabelle Fawkes]

Well, my take on this was mostly "WTF?!?"

Exactly!

Still waiting to hear everyone's take on this issue!?!

[Black Delia]

I can't believe I'm forced to say this *shakes head sadly*

The dependance on whether or not the rancher had the right to use or even threaten deadly force (by leveling a gun at these "people", who were violating the law through trespassing, admittedly), lays on state, local and federal statues and laws.

They WERE wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right.

and, even though he may have been perfectly within his right to express his protection of property in the way he did (or not, depending on the laws that govern the subject, which can vary from county to county and city to city).

These "people" are still, under federal law, entitled to "due process".

A Brief Reference to Due process can be found: HERE (http://www.reference.com/browse/due%20process)

EDIT: My personal opinion.. save the taxpayers some money and just ship them back where they came from till they make enough effort to fill out the "please let me move to your country" papers and there's a big "approved" stamp on it.

[Isabelle Warwicke]

Pulled from FoxNews and the Washington Times:

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals — seeking $32 million in damages — who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border, the Washington Times reported Monday.

The rancher, Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home, the newspaper reported.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally, the newspaper reports.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint."

It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.


A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

[Laurensa]

Exactly!

Still waiting to hear everyone's take on this issue!?!


Because Civil Rights are HUMAN rights. And where did it say they won't be prosecuted, or sent back to Mexico?

Cause it seems to me that Nazi Germany would have gassed or shot them by now, not treated them as people.

If we can refuse to do any sort of business with other countries because we disagree with their human rights record, we'd damn sure better be following our own standards.

[LitlePepito]

They would be included under "person".

Maybe you don't think of illegal immigrants as people, but the Constitution does. ;)

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html%20/%20JURIS) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html%20/%20DEPRIVE) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html%20/%20JURIS) the equal protection of the laws.


Bob I don’t see how you can use the word “person” in the 14th amendment to say that give illegal’s the right to use our legal system when the amendment goes on to specify that a “person” is someone who is “born or naturalized in the United States”. These people are nether, they are illegal’s crossing over a citizens property.

Heck the US government has been arguing over detainees in Guantanamo because they aren’t U.S. citizens and cant figure out how to apply them to the Geneva convention since they weren’t caught in uniforms. They don’t get the same rights as Americans citizens.

[Alluring Alora]

If you cut my cattle fences and they got out, you can bet your ass I'd be sitting out on the tailgate of my pickup truck with a whole truck load of ordinance. Rifle, waterballons, paintballs, kush ball slingshot...whatever.

No Tresspassing means exactly that. Just because you WANT to come here doesn't mean you GET to.

Exactly.

If the guy was rounding them up and torturing them, that's one thing. He's protecting HIS land that he legally purchased as an American citzen. People sneaking into this country ILLEGALLY are breaking laws and damaging his private property. He has the right to protect himself, expecilaay since it looks like this has been an ongoing problem.

Should he bend over and take it?? Hell no! I want stacks of cash, should I be able to walk into a bank and demand anyway, without any repurcussion? Or sue the bank for having an armed guard stop me? No. We have laws.

If you want so bad to be an in this country, don't start by breaking laws. I'm willing to wager that if they're so savvy on the legal system and their "rights" to sue this man, they're probably also aware of your welfare system.

[Tink]

Citizen or not:

MY land....YOU on it without my permission? Meet the end of my gun. Now whether you stay put until the authorities come or not determines whether or not you meet my gun's little friend Mr. Bullet or not.

These people have balls the size of Gibraltar to file this suit. They should be happy the man just held them to hand to the authorities and not a crazy who just shot them on site.

[The Wizard]

Citizen or not:

MY land....YOU on it without my permission? Meet the end of my gun. Now whether you stay put until the authorities come or not determines whether or not you meet my gun's little friend Mr. Bullet or not.

These people have balls the size of Gibraltar to file this suit. They should be happy the man just held them to hand to the authorities and not a crazy who just shot them on site.
Exactly right. If the homeowner was violating the law they wouldn't need to sue him, just have him charged and arrested. The Judge who failed to throw the case out was an idiot of the first water a private citizen can't violate the constitution because the constitution and its amendments are limits on the power of the Government, not on the people. Laws limit the people!

[Hoyden]

This just boggles my mind. A man is protecting his property from damage caused by people crossing the US border illegally on his property and he gets sued? They were trespassing, he held them until Border Patrol could come and get them. What would they have done had Border Patrol used dogs to apprehend them?

The Rancher should be suing the federal government, demanding that they step up border patrol since doing their job has resulted in him being a defendant in a lawsuit.

If that were my property, you can be assured that I would make damn sure that crossing that piece of land was difficult as I could possibly make it.

[Emma]

I don't know about AZ but here in Kentucky citizens have the right to defend themselves AND their property.

~Emma

[Jezebel]

The Bill of Rights says this man has the right to bear arms. Period. Unless he actually shoots the people on his property, nothing he has done is illegal. The Mexicans can go f@#$ themselves!

[Phoenix McHeit]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the thought of illegals searching for a lawyer willing to represent them in suing a US citizen.

Can't you just HEAR that conversation???

[Isabelle Warwicke]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the thought of illegals searching for a lawyer willing to represent them in suing a US citizen.

Can't you just HEAR that conversation???

$20 says ALCU-type La Rasa lawyers were climbing all over each other to get this case.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Well, my take on this was mostly "WTF?!?"

Exactly!

Still waiting to hear everyone's take on this issue!?!

Actually, I was referring to your post, not the issue.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html%20/%20JURIS) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html%20/%20DEPRIVE) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html%20/%20JURIS) the equal protection of the laws.


Bob I don’t see how you can use the word “person” in the 14th amendment to say that give illegal’s the right to use our legal system when the amendment goes on to specify that a “person” is someone who is “born or naturalized in the United States”. These people are nether, they are illegal’s crossing over a citizens property.

You're misreading it. It's not saying that a person is someone who is born or naturalized in the United States, it's saying that a person who is born or naturalized in the United States is considered a citizen. Citizen is a subset of people. People is everyone, some of whom are also citizens.

If we accept your interpretation, even legal immigrants are not being referred to in the 14th amendment. I don't think you think that would be correct.

Heck the US government has been arguing over detainees in Guantanamo because they aren’t U.S. citizens and cant figure out how to apply them to the Geneva convention since they weren’t caught in uniforms. They don’t get the same rights as Americans citizens.
That's a completely different situation because they are not on US soil, so the Constitution does not apply. Note the clause "nor deny to anyperson within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (where the pronoun "it's" is "any State").

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

If the guy was rounding them up and torturing them, that's one thing.

Well, basically that's the question. You've acknowledged that there is a limit to what he could do. The matter before the court is whether or not he exceeded that limit.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Exactly right. If the homeowner was violating the law they wouldn't need to sue him, just have him charged and arrested.
Not all violations of the law are criminal violations subject to arrest.

Some are considered civil torts that are adjudicated in civil trials, like this one.


The Judge who failed to throw the case out was an idiot of the first water a private citizen can't violate the constitution because the constitution and its amendments are limits on the power of the Government, not on the people. Laws limit the people!He's not being accused of "violating the Constitution".

The only reason the Constitution was brought up in this thread was to point out how a person on US soil has rights no matter if they are a citizen, a resident alien, or an illegal alien. There appeared to have been some confusion on that point.


In any case, your assertion that the Constitution does not place limitations on people is not entirely accurate. Amendments 13 and 18 do (well, "did" in the case of #18) exactly that.

[Isabelle Warwicke]

Heck the US government has been arguing over detainees in Guantanamo because they aren’t U.S. citizens and cant figure out how to apply them to the Geneva convention since they weren’t caught in uniforms. They don’t get the same rights as Americans citizens.

That's a completely different situation because they are not on US soil, so the Constitution does not apply. Note the clause "nor deny to anyperson within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (where the pronoun "it's" is "any State").

Yes, and our President want to close Guantanamo. I hope he doesn't think he's going to get to bring them, the terrorists, onto American Soil. Then they would get all the rights and privileges that those rotten illegals, who are abusing our good nature, are getting.

[Black Delia]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html%20/%20DEPRIVE) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law


This amendment doesn't apply to the landowner. He isn't a governmental authority. So the entire arguement of whether he violated anything under the rules of the amendment verbage is pointless.

The ammendment, as written is there to protect "men" from "the government". This is not about a governmental entity violating their civil and humanitarian rights. This is a matter between private individuals. We can all hope that their "due process", when that part of it comes around, will be handled appropriately.

I don't know Az law enough to know whether the man is allowed to protect his home with deadly force, or the threat of deadly force or not.

Since he turned these people over to the authorities, they (the local/state/federal entities involved) become bound to obedience of the law in the above amendment, but that has nothing to do with the case at hand; which is the private suit between this group of *censored* and the landowner.

In SOME states, had he posted no trespassing signs at the border of his property, and then found these people tresspassing and endangering his life and/or property in some instances, (as written in the article posted), he would have been better off had he shot them and then called the authorities to come collect the bodies.


It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.


thats 12,000 illegal immigrants that are not sucking the life out of our country today.. frankly, the man needs a gold star glued to his forehead for going above and beyond the call of his civil duty, instead of being harrassed and tormented by this *censored more*.

[Isabelle Warwicke]

frankly, the man needs a gold star glued to his forehead for going above and beyond the call of his civil duty...*.

I concur. He should be rewarded for standing up, not at the mercy of whackjob lawyers and idiot judges who refuse to protect their own citizens.

[The Wizard]

Not all violations of the law are criminal violations subject to arrest.

Some are considered civil torts that are adjudicated in civil trials, like this one.
We're not talking about the Vehicle and Traffic law or Contract law here, we're talking about a man defending his property against trespassers. Any law that would apply would be a Criminal law, hence Criminal Court and possible arrest.


He's not being accused of "violating the Constitution".
Yes he is. He's accused of violating their civil rights, meaning the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. That only applies to the Government.

The main body of the U.S. Constitution enumerates the powers of all levels and all branches of Government, the 'Bill of Rights' limits the uses of those powers. If the local Sheriff did what the homeowner did then they might have a case but not against a private citizen.

[Black Delia]

If I read it right, what he's actually accused of is "conspiring with the government" to violate their humanitarian and civil rights. That still doesn't mean that Constitutional amendment 14 applies to him.

[LadyLaura]

If I read it right, what he's actually accused of is "conspiring with the government" to violate their humanitarian and civil rights. That still doesn't mean that Constitutional amendment 14 applies to him.

Black Delia, I think you're getting close. I'm betting what they're tring to prove is that he was "acting as an agent" for the government, without proper credentials and authority to hold and detain people using deadly force. He's serrving in the capacity of a border control agent (a government official). If he didn't hold and detain anyone, and just demanded they leave his property, that would be deterring trespassing, something that is within the rights of a private citizen, within reason, of course.

Edited to add: As far as rights for illegals, they have the same rights as anyone else. If you couldn't hold anyone else at gunpoint for trespassing, you can't hold them at gunpoint either. Here where I live, they have started issuing ID cards for illegal aliens, so that they can get bank accounts and access services. There was quite a controversy about that. As in, if we can ID them and issue cards, why aren't we SENDING THEM BACK! However, it is being done. *sigh*

[lavender r dragon]

Black Delia, I think you're getting close. I'm betting what they're tring to prove is that he was "acting as an agent" for the government, without proper credentials and authority to hold and detain people using deadly force. He's serrving in the capacity of a border control agent (a government official). If he didn't hold and detain anyone, and just demanded they leave his property, that would be deterring trespassing, something that is within the rights of a private citizen, within reason, of course.

Edited to add: As far as rights for illegals, they have the same rights as anyone else. If you couldn't hold anyone else at gunpoint for trespassing, you can't hold them at gunpoint either. Here where I live, they have started issuing ID cards for illegal aliens, so that they can get bank accounts and access services. There was quite a controversy about that. As in, if we can ID them and issue cards, why aren't we SENDING THEM BACK! However, it is being done. *sigh*

1) could he, if it wasn't a border issue, hold some one for trespassing until the police arrive - like can you get people arrested for trespassing?

2) maybe they'll wait until they all have id cards and send them back in a huge group?:unamused:

[LadyLaura]

1) could he, if it wasn't a border issue, hold some one for trespassing until the police arrive - like can you get people arrested for trespassing?

2) maybe they'll wait until they all have id cards and send them back in a huge group?:unamused:

Well, he's not holding them for the police, he's holding them specifically for border control, so he's identifying them as illegals, and holding them there on that basis.

As far as the people who are being given the ID cards here, no, they are making a specific point of telling people that the cards are not going to be used to single them out for deportation.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2227446920070722?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

[Gemdrite]

Well, he's not holding them for the police, he's holding them specifically for border control, so he's identifying them as illegals, and holding them there on that basis.

As far as the people who are being given the ID cards here, no, they are making a specific point of telling people that the cards are not going to be used to single them out for deportation.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2227446920070722?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Well, yeah, I'd lie too, nab em all, and then ship em back.

Our government lies to its citizens, why not the ones that aren't citizens?







Wishful thinking, I know, I know.

[Isabelle Warwicke]

Well, he's not holding them for the police, he's holding them specifically for border control, so he's identifying them as illegals, and holding them there on that basis.


As a major highway on the border cossing network, I would think that he could feasibly consider anyone sneaking through his property to be in the county illegally.

And the idea of giving ID to illegal immigrants, :thumbsdo:! I veto that idea.

[Alluring Alora]

Black Delia, I think you're getting close. I'm betting what they're tring to prove is that he was "acting as an agent" for the government, without proper credentials and authority to hold and detain people using deadly force. He's serrving in the capacity of a border control agent (a government official). If he didn't hold and detain anyone, and just demanded they leave his property, that would be deterring trespassing, something that is within the rights of a private citizen, within reason, of course.

Edited to add: As far as rights for illegals, they have the same rights as anyone else. If you couldn't hold anyone else at gunpoint for trespassing, you can't hold them at gunpoint either. Here where I live, they have started issuing ID cards for illegal aliens, so that they can get bank accounts and access services. There was quite a controversy about that. As in, if we can ID them and issue cards, why aren't we SENDING THEM BACK! However, it is being done. *sigh*

Then if this is the case, and they want to be American citizens so bad, maybe he can cover his butt if he yells "citizens arrest" (in Spanish) before detaining them. *rotfl*

[LadyLaura]

The deal is, I don't think that you're allowed to do a citizen's arrest on illegals, or that even the regular police can do that, unless they have committed a crime, either here or in their native country. It's got to be the immigration authorities or border patrol. You can report them, but that's all you're allowed to do.

Not that I think it's right...

[RaevynCait]

Then if this is the case, and they want to be American citizens so bad, maybe he can cover his butt if he yells "citizens arrest" (in Spanish) before detaining them. *rotfl*

And now I have Jim Nabors as Gomer Pyle, running through Mayberry hollering 'CITIZINS AHREYUST' while he's chasing somebody that I can't remember down the street.

[Black Delia]

Then if this is the case, and they want to be American citizens so bad, maybe he can cover his butt if he yells "citizens arrest" (in Spanish) before detaining them. *rotfl*


Ah.. a deeper issue. A bit off topic, but I had to comment:

Most of these people don't want or care to become citizens.. they JUST want to live here.

they want the milk and honey, but they don't want to have to milk the cow or risk putting their hand in the beehive to get it.

[daBaroness]

I think he should countersue them for illegal tresspass, vandalism and whatever other civil law they violate when the step foot on private land. Blame them for all the vandalism that has ever occurred on his property (how's he to know it's not them?) and ask for millions of dollars in repairations.

Maybe he needs to annex the immigrant highway land to the U.S. goverment and make them responsible for law enforcement and patrol.

[Black Delia]

Maybe he needs to annex the immigrant highway land to the U.S. goverment and make them responsible for law enforcement and patrol.

The article mentioned that agents that WERE assigned to monitor and enforce on the ranch's land had been removed to work on other projects in towns that are also subjected to this sort of problem.

It would, of course, have made too much sense for them to return, even periodically, to aid in the protection of the poor frustrated, tortured, yet self-sufficient, resourceful, American citizen.

ADDITIONALLY:

If there had been a well-to-do SoCal type subdivision on the land that the ranch occupies, I'm fairly certain that the outcry would have been loud and the response by authorities decisive and more pro-active, than it was for this one lone rancher.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

This amendment doesn't apply to the landowner. He isn't a governmental authority. So the entire arguement of whether he violated anything under the rules of the amendment verbage is pointless.

I fully agree that the entire argument of whether or not he violated anything under the rules of the amendment verbiage is useless. It's utterly and completely useless.

So useless, in fact, that I never once put forth that argument.

At the risk of repeating myself (yet again) I never said that the 14th amendment applies to the land owner. The 14th Amendment is being cited solely as an offer of proof that the laws that protect people's civil rights protect even the civil rights of illegal aliens who are on US soil.

Some people were under the misconception that an illegal alien in the US who has a possibly legitimate grievance, over something that occurred while on US soil, does not have the right to seek relief in the US court system. Citing the 14th Amendment simply served to disabuse them of that notion.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

We're not talking about the Vehicle and Traffic law or Contract law here, we're talking about a man defending his property against trespassers. Any law that would apply would be a Criminal law, hence Criminal Court and possible arrest.

Well, the trespass in this case is being committed by the illegals, not the rancher, so that doesn't apply when discussing what the rancher might be accused of.

In any case, not even all criminal matters result in arrest; in less serious instances an order to appear is all that's issued. Furthermore, even for criminal cases there is precedent for aggrieved parties to seek redress in civil courts when the criminal justice system is unwilling to seek or unable to secure a conviction (c.f.: Goldman v. Simpson). So your assertion that this is solely a matter for the criminal courts is inaccurate.





Yes he is. He's accused of violating their civil rights, meaning the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

That's not what violating their civil rights necessarily means. (see below)

That only applies to the Government.

That the Constitution applies only to the Government is mostly correct.

However, the codification of civil rights is not limited to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and exposure to being liable for violating someones civil rights is not limited to the Government and its agents. There are Federal Statutes that explicitly provide civil rights protections to people in this country and all the people in this country, not just agents of the Government (except where otherwise specified), are subject to their provisions. The most high profile example of this is when the US puts someone on trial who killed someone else for racial reasons. The charge isn't actually "Murder", which is a crime that rarely occurs within the Federal Government's jurisdiction, but "Violation of Civil Rights", in which the overt act that led to the civil rights violation just happened to be killing someone (c.f.: US v. Lemrick Nelson). Many, if not all, individual states also have laws protecting people's civil rights, and those can and often do apply to ordinary non-governmentally affiliated people.

[letitfly]

However, the codification of civil rights is not limited to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and exposure to being liable for violating someones civil rights is not limited to the Government and its agents. There are Federal Statutes that explicitly provide civil rights protections to people in this country and all the people in this country, not just agents of the Government (except where otherwise specified), are subject to their provisions. The most high profile example of this is when the US puts someone on trial who killed someone else for racial reasons. The charge isn't actually "Murder", which is a crime that rarely occurs within the Federal Government's jurisdiction, but "Violation of Civil Rights", in which the overt act that led to the civil rights violation just happened to be killing someone (c.f.: US v. Lemrick Nelson). Many, if not all, individual states also have laws protecting people's civil rights, and those can and often do apply to ordinary non-governmentally affiliated people.


Hi,

Correct, I was getting ready to post this. The federal government routinely charges people acquitted of state criminal charges in federal court for violating their victim(s) civil rights. That was the primary weapon the federal government used against the KKK. State courts would acquit klansmen of violent crimes, the feds would charge them with civil rights violations. It is clearly, at least to me, double jeopardy but no one seems to mind.

Here is a good example of private citizens being sued for civil rights violations:
http://www.nrtw.org/en/press/2006/01/teamsters-local-hit-federal-charges-violating-ups-workers-rights-unlawful-forced-union

It is interesting that the local prosecutor did not find grounds for charging him with kidnapping if he really held them against their will or for conveying a threat. It sounds like a money grab to me.

And pelosi and reid just struck out provisions in the stimulus bill that would require employers that get our money to verify that their employees are legal (e-verify). Now our tax dollars can be paid to illegal labor hired by giant corporations.

if you can read the print, this is related:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

Hi,

Correct, I was getting ready to post this. The federal government routinely charges people acquitted of state criminal charges in federal court for violating their victim(s) civil rights. That was the primary weapon the federal government used against the KKK. State courts would acquit klansmen of violent crimes, the feds would charge them with civil rights violations. It is clearly, at least to me, double jeopardy but no one seems to mind.

Yeah, I'm not particularly pleased about it either. Apparently the legal reasoning behind considering that to not be a violation of double jeopardy is that the state and federal governments are two distinct sovereign entities and if you engage in an act that is a crime in both jurisdictions, each jurisdiction has a separate and distinct right to bring charges.

Some more detailed info on Double Jeopardy and Dual Sovereignty can be found here: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1016/Double-Jeopardy-Dual-sovereignty.html

[LadyLaura]

I just want to point out on E-Verify: LOTS of companies use it already. Well over 70,000 of them, even though they aren't required to.

The objection to making it mandatory is that the system is flawed, and will give a false "not found" in a lot of cases where the employee is actually authorized to work in the U.S., then puts the burden to prove it back on the employee (to wrangle it out with SSA, etc.). There are also concerns that there will not be enough staff to handle the increase in volume if the program becomes mandatory. Employers want the government to fix the system before making it a requirement, that's all.

E-verify in some form has been around since 1997.

[letitfly]

Hi,
I don't know a lot about e verify. here are a couple of links, one about e verify, one about the recently passed stimulus bill.

http://tinyurl.com/ap2bgc

http://tinyurl.com/djrrd9

[LadyLaura]

Hi,
I don't know a lot about e verify. here are a couple of links, one about e verify, one about the recently passed stimulus bill.

http://tinyurl.com/ap2bgc

http://tinyurl.com/djrrd9

OK, well, the first link I couldn't get to work, and the second one was from the Government defending the capacity of their own system, so that one I take with a gigantic grain of salt...lol.

I am aware of the stimulus bill, and agree that all the recipients should verify that their workers are legal to work, I just don't agree that they should be required to use E-verify at this time.

I don't think the E-verify system should be scrapped, I just think it needs more work.

Oh, and I work in HR, so I do read/hear about this stuff quite a bit. I am a little biased, probably, on the employer side, and I'll freely admit to that. ::whistle::

[letitfly]

Hi,

The link seems to work, it is from NumbersUSA, a anti-illegal immigration lobby and it is their take on the stimulus bill.
$I only know two employers that use e-verify and they say it works will for them.
I am biased also. I am on the taxpayers side, it is bad enough that we have to bail out irresponsible companies but I hope that they are, at a minimum, not allowed to use our tax dollars to hire foreign labor.

[The Wizard]

I wonder why the bothered to sue this guy, check out this info on Arizona:

"State legislators have passed laws barring illegal immigrants from receiving government services, posting bail for serious crimes and winning punitive damages in lawsuits."
(bolding mine)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999166/posts

So if they can't get money, why sue for the damages?

[prospero]

So if they can't get money, why sue for the damages?

Punitive damages are covered by that, actual damages not so much. They can still sue for actual damages under the AZ law if I read that right. I have not seen a breakdown of their claims so I cannot tell how much is punitive and how much is compensatory.
Regardless it will be a nice test of the law.

[Cyranno DeBoberac]

I wonder why the bothered to sue this guy, check out this info on Arizona:

"State legislators have passed laws barring illegal immigrants from receiving government services, posting bail for serious crimes and winning punitive damages in lawsuits."
(bolding mine)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1999166/posts

So if they can't get money, why sue for the damages?

I think the lawsuit is probably a federal one, in which case, AZ law does not apply.