BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:06 PM

I should think the trashing would be extremely easy to show, even if it doesn't fall within the next paragraph.

And vandalism, I think it likely that he will on the various occasions reported the crime to the Sheriff, and probably in some cases have made insurance claims. There may be other ways that he could document such things, too.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:42 PM

Joe, I guess we'll have to find out if his property was always used for trespassing while entering the country illegally. Also we'll have to find out whether he was protecting his property from vandalism and being trashed, and his livestock being killed, all assertions he makes in his defense, and which I think he would offset the right to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:34 PM

You city people may not know this, but the limits of property ownership are quite an issue here in the Sierra Nevada foothills. we have lots of rich city people moving here, with their bright lights and fences and their SUV's, and they think they can fence off square miles upon square miles of property and keep everybody out.

'Tain't so.

If your property was used for passage before it came into private ownership, then trails and roads that pre-existed private ownership must remain open to public use. There are limitations on this, but the general idea is that your right to private property does not allow you free rein to use your property to stop people from getting from one place to another. If this man owns 22,000 acres (35 square miles) of property on the Mexican border, I'm quite sure that some of his property was used for passage, sometime back in history or before history.

In my area, hikers are using this principle to reopen many ancient trails and roads that provide access to rivers and other scenic areas.

This guy isn't out to protect private property - he's waging war on illegal aliens. He thinks it's within his rights to do whatever he wants on his property, but that's not the case.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:05 PM

Whether or not the illegal aliens have any legal rights is relevant to the ranchers case. If they have have none, as you originally stated, then he can have done nothing wrong.

Of course, as has been pointed out, we don't get to decide whether or not they have any legal recourse, that is up to the court.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:00 AM

When I said out of context, I meant the totallity of the six posts I had made before your first post. I know you think you 'gotcha! me', but I think the following exchange, and my acknowledgement of my statements speak for themselves.

From: KB in Iowa - PM
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:20 PM
People who are here illegally (not those here legally), should have no legal rights in the United States.

But you did say this, John. Taking this comment at face value would indicate that if the illegals were shot or mauled by dogs there should be no consequences to the person who did the shooting or commanded the dogs.

From: John on the Sunset Coast - PM
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:30 PM

I did say that. But shooting without provocation or attack people people with out provocation is against the laws of the state. If the state prosecutes, that's one thing, but illegal folks should have no standing to sue.

From: KB in Iowa - PM
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:41 PM

I guess I take broader view of the term "No Legal Rights" than you do. If you mean no right to sue in the US court system then say so. "No legal rights" says much, much more to me.

From: John on the Sunset Coast - PM
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:07 PM

"If you mean no right to sue in the US court system then say so."

I think I did, "...illegal folks should have no standing to sue." Duh!
We are talking about folks inside the US trespassing on private property! I don't think I could be clearer than that!

Now if you want to move the subject forward with something about this rancher's case, great. I'm through responding to side issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:48 AM

"...why is this relatively minor & largely inconsequential problem of illegal immigration such a bug up your ass anyway?"


               Actually, if one reads the polls, the economy has been elected as America's most major problem, and illegal immigration is a very huge part of that.

               You have people working with the employer not paying payroll taxes on most of them. These people send the largest part of their earnings out of the country. Their children overrun local schools, and when they get sick, they overrun local emergency rooms.
               When they learn how to game the system, large numbers of them find their way to food-stamps, unemployment compensation, and welfare.
               They generate massive crime waves in areas where they locate, and demand services to be provided in foreign languages.

                The costs related to these people are endless, and they have run the state of California into aboslute bankruptcy.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:36 AM

Sorry John but I did not take you out of context.

You said "People who are here illegally (not those here legally), should have no legal rights in the United States. That goes for anyone...a Brit, a Ghanan, a Chinese, a Mexican...who is not in the country legally; they should be summarily deported on determining that status." That is you rpost of Feb 9 aty 2:32 PM in its entirety.

When I called you on this broad statement you ammended it to "I did say that. But shooting without provocation or attack people people with out provocation is against the laws of the state. If the state prosecutes, that's one thing, but illegal folks should have no standing to sue." That is your post of Feb 9 at 3:20 PM inits entirety.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:17 AM

"Taking this comment at face value would ..."
That's the statement of one who takes comments out of context.

"If you mean no right to sue in the US court system then say so." You
"'I think I did, '...illegal folks should have no standing to sue.' Duh!" Me
The 'duh' is directed to your either not reading my post, ignoring my comment, or not understanding it.

"I meant say so in the first place." You
???????????????What?
I guess the only answer to that is why didn't you 'say so in the first place?'

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:06 AM

The larger point I didn't make is that even if the order Patrol probably appreciates his work, and accepts these handovers, he may be in trouble upon finer examination of the legalities by a judge.

(P.S. I wouldn't invest too much belief that he kicked a woman on the ground just because someone says he did.)

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:56 AM

I would think that after 750 such events he would have learned quite a bit about the law in that regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:55 AM

Greg F. said:

why is this relatively minor & largely inconsequential problem of illegal immigration such a bug up your ass anyway?

I think your premise is highly questionable, that the illegal immigration is a "minor and inconsequential problem". Although it's not our biggest problem, it's hardly minor or inconsequential.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:51 AM

GUEST, heric said, in part:

But I would also think that after 12,000 such events he would have learned quite a bit about the law in that regard.

Please don't exaggerate or misstate the facts, heric. No one has said "12,000 such events" in 10 years but you.

There was reference in the article to "12,000 individuals". In this one event there were 16 individuals. Assuming this the average number in an event, that might represent 750 events in the ten years, not 12,000 events. That would be 75 events per year, which is extreme enough without going to 1,200 per year.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:51 AM

Yeah, I evade stupid, off point questions. If you have a comment about the topic, I'll respond, or not, depending on how it strikes my fancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:46 AM

I think my question goes right to the heart of the subject at hand, John.

I also note that you didn't answer it. Why is that? Or is answering a question WITH a question one of your standard evasive maneuvers?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:43 AM

I think I did, "...illegal folks should have no standing to sue." Duh!

I meant say so in the first place. Are you 12?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:20 AM

I have one for you GregF--With all the talk of legality, illegality and racism and protection of private property on this thread, why is your only post a question about me instead of something about the subject at hand?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:57 AM

Sorry, but I gotta ask, John - with all of the problems currently besetting the U.S. of A., why is this relatively minor & largely inconsequential problem of illegal immigration such a bug up your ass anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: kendall
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:20 AM

pdq, are you talking about Arizona or Maine?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:11 AM

"...precedence..."

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: goatfell
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:03 AM

i thought et and his friends had landed

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:48 AM

"The legal system has found that they have standing, and that sufficient evidence exists to bring the suit alleging he violated their civil rights, exercised excessive force, and likely is guilty of battery. So..."

                Hopefully he'll win the suit and set a president for future tresspassers.


    "The only difference is that the "illegal aliens" of today are a little more peaceful about it than some of our brutal forebears."

               The big difference is, there are way too many people in the world today and there is shrinking space for survival. The land, any land, has much more value today than it did 200 or 300 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: nager
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:43 AM

This man is very lucky the "illegal" people came on this piece of land today and not 200-300 years ago. Then, the "illegals" would have killed him, raped his wife and children and simply took the land for themselves. What is happening today is simply what has been happening since mankind began - people moving into other areas already occupied by someone else and wanting it for themselves. It was - and still is - the same in Australia and throughout Europe and anywhere else you care to think about. The only difference is that the "illegal aliens" of today are a little more peaceful about it than some of our brutal forebears.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:17 AM

"What I find objectionable, racist, and xenophobic is your tying this to the illegal immigrant issue."

You may find this to be xenophobic...but you'd be wrong. Your problem is that you don't distinguish between people legally in the country, and people who are here illegally. I welcome all who come through regularized channels. I live in area that is largely Armenian/Iranian immigrants, and has a significant Asian immigrant population, and about 50-55% long time, mostly long time residents white of myriad ethnicities, some Hispanics and a few blacks. This is not a problem for me, as they are, as far as one can tell from the voter roles, here legally. Immigrants currently are 40% of the city council.

As to Racism, I have singled out no race. The facts of this particular case happen not to be about race, it is about Mexican illegals. Mexican is not a separate race although MECHA and similar groups use the term 'La Raza' (so who's the racist?). Mexican is a nationality, like Swedish is a nationality. And if the plaintiffs were Chinese coming through Mexico, or Bulgarians, or Jamaicans I would feel the same way about this case.

And illegality works, in my world, both ways. Americans of any ethnic or racial background should not sojourn illegally in other countries.

One last thought, legality and morality are often at at odds, And while the system may give rights to illegal persons, I do not believe that is the moral or ethical choice for the sound functioning of a our country. Or any country for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:13 PM

John, re: your post at 8:06 pm, that is precisely what I have been saying. I found your opening post, and subsequent posts to be laced with the implication that the issue is the illegal immigrants. It is not. The legal system has found that they have standing, and that sufficient evidence exists to bring the suit alleging he violated their civil rights, exercised excessive force, and likely is guilty of battery. So the suit goes on. What I find objectionable, racist, and xenophobic is your tying this to the illegal immigrant issue. Your desire to prove that poor people trying to do better for their families are the root of the problem, has caused you to try and tie everything to that issue.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:40 PM

"...in Maine yelling obscenities at someone is considered simple assault..."

No, yelling obscenities is called "rude behavior" which has no status in civil or crimnal law.

On the other hand, a trespasser should be very careful what he does. The property owner has the right to control what happens on his property.

A trespasser who comes up to me on my back porch and yells obsecnities in trouble. From the law and from me.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: kendall
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:54 PM

Exactly what was this rancher protecting his property from?

I don't know about Arizona, but in Maine yelling obscenities at someone is considered simple assault, and is therefore, a misdemeanor.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:53 PM

I don't know if you would have the right (in AZ) to detain a trespasser who is just passing through. I rather doubt you could engage in a citizen's arrest based on (suspected) residency status violations. (Isn't that the excuse all the government employees use - no jurisdiction except by Homeland Security?) But I would also think that after 12,000 such events he would have learned quite a bit about the law in that regard. Maybe his tract is so large that they will be tresspassing for a long time before they can leave - therefore giving the Border Patrol time to get the job done? Or maybe the extensive trash and vandalism (alleged) was used by him and the BP as a sort of "onging" crime?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:52 PM

Riginslinger said:

Not really. American judges often consider themselves to be part of the political elite--probably mistakenly--and they therefore ignore the realities that should direct their opinions.

Big Mick has commented on this, but here's my own few comments on it.

You refer oh, so confidently to "American judges".   Rig, you're painting with a VERY broad brush.   Are you speaking about US District Court judges? Federal appellate judges? Or State court judges? There's quite a difference.   And what constitutes "often" in your view? And based on what experience and knowledge?

My 36 years of experience in my worklife in the US District Courts have taught me that at least Federal judges and Magistrates are rather thoroughly hemmed in by the rules, and by the appeals process downstream of their decision, on appeal. Yes, I am sure there are SOME exceptions that might fit your pronunciamento. But every one of the US District Judges and Magistrates that I've known and watched in the courtroom over that time was quite capable and not infrequently did make rulings contrary to what (s)he would want out of personal political and philosophical druthers, because the rules and the precedents went against them, and they would rule against attorneys before them who were personal friends or had been political allies before those judges took the bench, and conversely ruling for personal or political or philosophical "enemies"--sometimes gritting their teeth as they did so, I suppose, but ruling according to their understanding of the law, the precedents, and what the appellate courts were most likely to do if the case should be appealed from their rulings and judgments.

I can't say that I know in as much detail about state courts and judges, but most of what I said above would probably apply there, as well.

And remember, this case is in Federal court.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:44 PM

Sorry, the link no longer works, and I am not going to cut-and-paste the entire article. This one is much less complete, or feel free to google "Roger Barnett" and "deer".

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:37 PM

One more time: link.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:33 PM

artbrooks-

"After all, Barnett apparently thought the deer hunters were."
Cite, please. I have mentioned 2X that this has been alleged here without backup.

In this case the immigration status of the Ranch 16 (catchy name, what?) doesn't seem to be in question, whatever he didn't or did in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:24 PM

John on the SC, did you miss my 6:17 post? And, as I'm sure you know, all assertions are only allegations until proven in a court of law...including that these people were "illegal aliens" in the first place. After all, Barnett apparently thought the deer hunters were.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:06 PM

What exactly is his illegal behavior, Mick?

There are only allegations from you and MALDEF and the 16 illegals. He did not sic dogs on people, he did not shoot people, he did not beat people, he did not forceably or enticingly bring them to his property so he could capture them. The only substantive allegation is that he kicked one woman. If he did, let the criminal process adjudicate that complaint. But don't reward her. If you have contrary info, please provide. I notice that other allegations made here about him have not been cited.

As far as I can tell he acted as good citizen, holding lawbreakers for the legal authorities. Sorry you don't like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:05 PM

sirmago, perhaps you could give us some documentary evidence of this? My homefront is doing just fine. I drove around today and didn't see nary the first illegal attacking anyone's homefront. Actually the homefront is being taken away by greedy bankers, wall street CEO's, and those that continue to rob tax dollars to give themselves huge bonuses. That has more veracity than your statement.

As to the question of "why did we go to war...?". I think that is legitimate. What the hell was the reason we went again?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 08:04 PM

It's illegal to drop cigarette butts in the street here.

I don't think the law would look very kindly on me for pulling a knife on somebody about to do it.

And I very much doubt if it's illegal to cross private land without permission, even under the insane private property laws of the US. It's a CIVIL matter. You do not settle civil disputes by pulling a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: sirmago
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:58 PM

Why did we go to war to protect the homefront- when the homefrot is being taken away by illegals?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:57 PM

American judges often consider themselves to be part of the political elite--probably mistakenly--and they therefore ignore the realities that should direct their opinions. - Riginslinger

Didn't you forget to put that this is simply your opinion? Another example of how you, and others like you, make gratuitous assertions. I know any number of Judges, and the great majority of them consider themselves to be servants of the law, and by extension, the rights of the people. Folks like you make these assertions when little things like the rights of people get in the way of the rights of capital. Sorry to disappoint the uber patriots, but this country has as its base philosophy the universal, and inalienable, rights of men and women.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:41 PM

"If the governing agreement stipulates that a Mexican must be in the US legally in order to file suit in US court, don't you think the judge would have tossed the case out?"


                Not really. American judges often consider themselves to be part of the political elite--probably mistakenly--and they therefore ignore the realities that should direct their opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:39 PM

Thanks, BWL. Your last para sums it up nicely.

As to John's outrage at my transgressions, what he isn't getting is that I am responding in kind to his initial post, and then his vague responses. The real issue that I am after him on is the one of his specious linking of the immigration issue to this man's alleged use of excessive means to detain illegal immigrants. The implied predicate that started this discussion is that he should be lionized for his alleged illegal behaviour. He does have a history for which the legal system has already penalized him. I suspect it will happen again.

So next time, John, if you don't want words put in your mouth, and assumptions made, don't use cheap tactics. You were the one that introduced the racist and xenophobic comments, and you are the one that seems to think that use of the legal system in a way consistent with existing law has the world topsy turvy. I think it is a proper use, given the incendiary tactics of someone like this guy, to determine what the proper response is.

See ...... that's how it works in a nation of laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:27 PM

John - I know you didn't say anything about treaties or agreements, but those are the primary legal documents of import in any international case. Whether or not immigration status has any relevance upon a Mexican citizen's ability to sue in US court is something that has been determined by international agreement. A judge, who I presume would be knowledgeable about such matters, has determined that the case can go forward. If the governing agreement stipulates that a Mexican must be in the US legally in order to file suit in US court, don't you think the judge would have tossed the case out?

Whether or not an illegal alien should have the right to sue is debatable. Whether or not he does have that right is not. He either does or doesn't per the provisions of an agreement between his government and ours, and it appears that, in this case at least, he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:24 PM

It's easy to get frustrated when someone ignores the posts in their totality, and then carries the argument to illogical extremes. Nothing you have posited takes place in this case. And you are putting words in my mouth disguised with question marks.

"I mean, could we whip them? Could we lock them up for, say 20 or 30 years? And if you find that excessive, then you say that they have no legal recourse?" These are your inferences...I didn't say any of that.

"People who are here illegally...should be summarily deported on determining that status." This is what I said should happen to people here illegally. This is all I meant, and this is what I think should happen, period!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 07:08 PM

Now, John...... I didn't put words in your mouth. I simply responded to what you said, and told you what I thought it implied. Frustration doesn't make you look good, buddy. Let's have a little respect for decent discourse, and leave the poddy words out of the debate.

Heric .... well done. I did, in fact, contradict myself. My stance is that this person has a right to protect his property, within legal limits. If it is found he exceeded those legal limits, he will find himself having to sell the ranch to pay the assessed damages. The point I was making when I contradicted myself was that for this guy, he is just using the property rights thing to justify his actions.

As to those of you that make gratuitous assertions (look it up so you know what I am referring to) to bolster their position in this discussion, such as the following by pdq:

Rights delineated in the Constuitution of the United States, apply, in full, only US citizens

surely need to understand that they can be just as gratuitously denied. And in this case we have a judge who has moved from gratuitous to legal finding. Looking up and using words like "delineated" don't make you a legal scholar, pdq. In fact they make you look a bit silly when used gratuitously. You might want to be sharp enough, like John, to indicate that in your opinion they shouldn't have legal rights.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:53 PM

Hopefully he'll be sucessful in court, and set a presidence against tresspassing. Where does one donate to his defense fund?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM

Mick- get your f'ing hand out of my back...I,m not your ventriloquist doll so stop putting words in my mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:46 PM

So then you are saying that if a person illegally sneaks across the border, any punishment is OK, correct? Or are their standards they must comply with? What level of punishment is OK, if they have (as you would like) no legal standing? I mean, could we whip them? Could we lock them up for, say 20 or 30 years? And if you find that excessive, then you say that they have no legal recourse?

See, the problem is that this is simply your opinion. And that opinion flies in the face of the law, and in the face of findings of the court in these manners. All those that want to tell the world what a special land it is we live in, and how our system of laws and government are the greatest, usually don't feel that way when it flies in the face of their biases, and yes, their prejudices.

Had you not made the Illegal Aliens the center point in this, you probably would have come off better. But as it is ..... well, like the fella said .... if the bonnet fits, slap it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:42 PM

Mick says: "This case isn't about his property rights . . . "

But Mick says: "he has rights to protect his property. And that is what this case is really about."

So, um.


Well he's turned over 12,000 apparently unharmed. Not such a bad record, considering all the armed coyotes included in the game.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:32 PM

Bee-I didn't say anything about treaties or agreements. I didn't say folks here legally, with documentation that is current, through proper ports of entry, vacationing or going to school or work legally should surrender rights to sue or can't sue. I did say that folks ILLEGALLY in this country SHOULD NOT be able to sue. If an American is in another country ILLEGALLY, Mexico or France etc, he should not have the right to sue there, either. You guys (or gals) gotta read ALL the words, but not add words, or pick and choose the ones that you think bolster your argument.

I'm very consistent on this. I don't care where from or where to...people in a country illegally are there at their legal peril, or should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,PeterC
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:21 PM

I notice that this was in "Cochise County". Presumably this guy "owns" his ranch as a result of ethnic cleansing of native Americans in the 19th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:17 PM

Prior case

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM

Yep, I agree that he has rights to protect his property. And that is what this case is really about. Did he exceed his legal rights in the exercise of that. It has nothing to do with illegal immigration, except as a peripheral issue. It absolutely does demonstrate that folks, including some on this thread, will use the illegal immigration issue to justify about anything. And that is why I find your initial post, Riggy and pdq's supporting posts, to be demagogic. You are using a phoney premise that really isn't related to justify your anger towards these people. They aren't connected.

And this man's history, and the lawful findings against him, show what his real agenda is, as well.

Mick