BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 06:58 PM

"...the jury must have been told they had to find he acted with spite, malice, and/or (words to the effect that)..."

                   That's probably what the jury was told, and that's probably why his chances of appeal look so rosey.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: heric
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:20 PM

Not much money, to be sure, but in Arizona, to award punitive damges, the jury must have been told they had to find he acted with spite, malice, and/or (words to the effect that) "the evil hand ... was guided by an evil mind which either consciously sought to damage them or acted intentionally, knowing that his conduct was likely to cause unjustified, significant damage."

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: heric
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:03 PM

Extremely unlikely that they could have received an award of attorneys fees for assault or infliction of emotional distress, but they were represented by a nonprofit advocacy group, yes? This jury of Arizonians found that the average person in the group suffered $2,967.33 worth of emotional distress, sharing $10,000 each of the 60K intended to punish and deter him from further such conduct. Also unlikely, but his insurance company could pay some or all of this, and his attorneys' fees as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:24 PM

The $17K is probably the lawyers' fees.   $10K each for the plaintiffs sounds pretty minimal to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 09:54 AM

I said earlier that it "sounds pretty decent".   I have to retract that, in part.

I think the $60,000 punitive damages was uncalled for. $17,804 sounds plenty to me. And that's assuming that the appeal doesn't knock out the two counts on which he lost.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 09:00 AM

By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN
Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. — A federal jury found Tuesday that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who said he detained them at gunpoint in 2004.

The eight-member civil jury also found Roger Barnett wasn't liable on claims of battery and false imprisonment.

But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.

Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said the plaintiffs lost on the bulk of their claims and that Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 08:42 AM

Hopefully, he'll appeal!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 09:51 PM

Actually, it sounds pretty decent. The $34mil was laughable under the circumstances of what happened.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:36 PM

It does when you're being sued for 34Mil...that's about .2%. Please notice the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:29 PM

$77,804 doesn't sound like a victory to me

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:08 PM

I think the decision was basically a victory for Barnett, with a token verdict as a sop to international relations. Oh well!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:47 PM

In a mixed decision, Mr. Barnett was found innocent today of violating the migrants' civil rights and of false imprisonment but guilty of assault and causing emotional distress. [Note: it was actually a civil suit, so "innocent" and "guilty" are technically in error]. He was ordered to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive. An appeal is likely. More here.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 05:49 PM

Ron - My best guess is, people come here because, as bad as our economy is, their economy is a whole lot worse.

                      By educating, I really meant educate the women who live in the poor cultures. I'm no expert, but anthropologists I've heard on news outlets seem to think this is a very important first step. In some Muslim countries, however, the folks in power will not even allow girls to go to school. I can see that I didn't express myself very well, but that's what I was trying to get at.

                      As far as that woman with 14 children--8 of them just born--I think she and her doctor have just created a whole lot of misery. Hopefully other folks won't try that at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:31 PM

I think we are communicating just fine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said that in order to stop population growth in other countries, we need to educate. Obviously we do not do a very good job of educating our own since we celebrate these large families with television series and media exposure. That is not the education we want to give these people.

You also indicated that there are cultural differences, and this country has a long history of problems in learning to respect the culture of others.

Come to think of it, why would anyone want to come here??????

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:24 PM

Ron - It doesn't seem to me like we're communicating too well, but I would agree that conservatives are closed minded, and I wouldn't look to them for guidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:17 PM

"Major stumbling blocks are mostly political--cultural traditions, religious beliefs, and etc"

You are right there. The damn convervatives are so closed minded that we would never be able to tolerate anyone who is different from so-called "norms". We are screwed up.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:13 PM

"But if you're going to put out a fire you have to contain it first. The best way to contain it is to prevent these same ideas from being spread to places that for the most part have moved beyond them"

So did you read the story about the woman giving birth to octuplets? Do you think that a day laborer from Mexico put that idea in her head?   Have you watched the shows on cable about the large families?   Perhaps you are right, bringing these folks into the U.S. will give them really bad ideas. Let's not ruin their education by screwing it up with our ideas!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:00 PM

Well, I would certainly agree with that, Sinsull.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:47 PM

Before we do that in foreign countries we need to do it in our own inner cities. There are schools in Philadelphis that have not been renovated since the 30s and the quality of education follows suit.
M

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 12:28 PM

Well, Ron, the best way to really solve the problem is to provide education to women in poor countries. Along with that, it would make sense to provide family planning programs and facilities to the people in those countries as well.

            Major stumbling blocks are mostly political--cultural traditions, religious beliefs, and etc.

            But if you're going to put out a fire you have to contain it first. The best way to contain it is to prevent these same ideas from being spread to places that for the most part have moved beyond them--i.e. stop runaway migration.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 11:36 AM

I'm not denying that it is a big issue in the environmental community.   Your idea does not solve the problem, nor does it even address it - it simply avoids dealing with it head on.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 11:13 AM

Sorry, Ron, but this problem is a really big issue in the environmental community too.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:42 AM

Sorry Rigin- your isolationist ideas will not solve the problem. I like to think that our country remains a beacon of hope for others, just like your ancestors found.   We have room, we can help. This problem is only an issue on conservative radio.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 10:36 AM

"What happened to them three Quackers?"
             "Oh, they're hangin' around here somewhere."

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: kendall
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 09:30 AM

When the Pilgrims landed at what is now Provincetown, one of the first things they did was to raid the native's store of corn. Tha5tw as before they hanged those three Quakers.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Feb 09 - 10:56 AM

"'Rigin - I agree, the population growth is too much. That is a different issue from so-called "illegal" aliens.'"

             I don't see how one can treat it as a different issue. As I've posted before, it could be treated as a different issue if the population decreased in the country from which the immigrant left. But that is not the case. Some underdeveloped countried have simply turn into incubation centers from which most immigrants come.
             That being the case, populations in industrialized countries must insulate themselves from runaway immigration until some solution can be found for the exploding population growths in other parts of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:20 PM

pdq ....... if they were kidnapped by anglos, would that have made it right? I can tell you this. As I mentioned above, I am not speaking from ad hominem info. I worked organizing among a 95% hispanic population who worked in the slaughter industry. Tough work. I ate in their homes, played with their kids, talked with them about their hopes and dreams. It is fair to say that I have been in several thousand homes over the years. What I saw, primarily, were hard working folks, not interested in the drug trade, with beautiful babies that they were trying, just like you, to give a better life to. Certainly I saw the underbelly as well. But it was a very small percentage. These folks just want a piece of the dream. If it was available where they came from, they would have stayed there.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:17 PM

i thought et and his friends had landed

LMAO, thanks for the laugh Goatfell! I hadn't checked into this thread because I thought the title was about Martians, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:04 PM

"You said "we're ALL here illegal." "

Yep. You are no different from the folks who snuck across the border.

The history you learned in grade school only gave you part of the story.

Rigin - I agree, the population growth is too much. That is a different issue from so-called "illegal" aliens.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:04 PM

pdq, according to multiple cites (or sites...google "phoenix kidnapping"), most of these are of other individuals involved in the drug trade - or their families. Not a good thing, certainly, but not entirely innocent victims, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:00 PM

Ron Olesko:

"Ron, why would you say a thing like
Frankly, we were all here "illegal"? "

Check your invitation

Ron, I was born here, of legal parentage, who sprang of people born here of legal parentage, (who etc. X3), under the laws of the United States. Descended from legal immigrants. I'm legal. I don't need an invitation. Nor did my forebears.   

You said "we're ALL here illegal."

Riginslinger said,

Well, Dave, maybe Kennewick Man was the only legal citizen. Everyone we are aware of showed up after him.

Kennewick man (if indeed the first, and I'll assume that to be true arguendo) did not establish a legal system which made all subsequent comers "illegals". If it did, it would make all subsequent Indian "immigrants" illegals too.

The first "European" explorers and attempted immigrants we can verify, Leif Ericsson and company (seven vessels, if I recall correctly), coming from Greenland on a scouting/colonization mission in about the year 1000, were attacked by a group they referred to as "the Skraelings", and withdrew to the Greenland colony, whence they had come. From the fact of the attack we can assume they were unwelcome in the Markland/Vinland area, but "illegal"? We know of no civil society or law of the Skraelings that made Ericsson's party "illegal". It was merely a territorial skirmish between two groups.

The American Indians did not have the concept of an overarching state that established "ownership" of the continent or even those areas they frequented. Indeed, even the concept of exclusive ownership of land was foreign to them. This is part of why the fabled "purchase" of Manhattan for--what was it, $26 worth of trinkets?--is ridiculous.    In that case, the "sellers" didn't even live and hunt there regularly, but were just passing through, and it was the Dutch who got swindled, because they purportedly were sold land by "non-owners". But even then, the concept of exclusive ownership of lands was foreign to Indian culture.

A number of European settlements on the Eastern Seaboard of what is now the US were subsequently made without friction--at least initially--with the neighboring Indians. Indeed, in several if not many cases they were welcomed. So they were not "illegal immigrants" even if you want to see the neighboring Indian tribes as owners or the sovereign power of the area.

Yes, later there were conflicts, forced and/or fraudulent treaties with the Indians, etc., many if not most later broken on the white side, but wrong as those were they fall into a different category than "illegal immigration". If you want to say that a great deal of the US territory was stolen or extorted from the Indians, I'll agree with you. If you want to point out that there were incidents which today would be considered ethnic cleansing, or biological warfare, or various other war crimes, I'll agree with you.   

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 09:34 PM

Ron - Of course we should all try to help other people, and I think it's disgusting the way the poorest immigrants are treated in the US.
                      But what I meant by my comment was this: some time after Teddy Roosevelt, people began to look around and discovered disappearing forests, dead spots in the oceans, endangered plants and wildlife, and they began to realize, too, that there was a limit to earths resources. Biological scientists and others recognized that more people put greater demands on resources.

                      Your right that the whole world is crowded, but a growing number of us are realizing that it doesn't have to be that way. Western Europe and North America had pretty much stopped their march to greater and greater populations, before migrants from other places began to arrive at those places which still provided a little breathing space.

                      The scenario would be different if the population went down each time an immigrant left his country of origin, but that isn't the way it works. People are moving from places that are already overpopulated to places that are not quite yet overpopulated.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 09:26 PM

Last year, Phoenix had at least 370 kidnappings.

These are violent acts were the victims are held for ransom and threatened with death.

This is common in Mexico City, the kidnapping capitol of the world.

The perps are Mexican-born gangsters with ties to Mexican organized crime.

No, these thugs do not kidnap farmworkers. They kidnap Americans who look like they can pay big bucks.

Of course, this is not a problem in Maine so it does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 09:19 PM

"the concept of being a legal or an illegal immigrant didn't really get to be an issue until we looked around and discovered there were too many people"

Who said there were too many people?

The whole world is crowded, but we always can make room to help each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: kendall
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 07:41 PM

In spite of what so many conservatives think, most people want to work. But, most people don't want to work for scut wages while their Boss Hogg gets filthy rich on their backs.

Migrant workers work their asses off for whatever the boss wants to pay and they have no right to collective bargaining.

Everyone needs a dog to kick.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 04:08 PM

Once again, the concept of being a legal or an illegal immigrant didn't really get to be an issue until we looked around and discovered there were too many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 03:12 PM

"Ron, why would you say a thing like
Frankly, we were all here "illegal"? "

Check your invitation

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 03:02 PM

Plus ça change ....


BRACERO
   - Phil Ochs, 1963/4?

Wade into the river
Through the rippling shallow watter
Steal accross the thirsty border, Bracero
Come bring your hungry bodies
To the golden fields of plenty
From a peso to a penny, Bracero

CHORUS:
Oh, welcome to California
Where the friendly farmers
Will take care of you

Come labor for your mother
For your father and your brother
For your sisters and your lover, Bracero
Come pick the fruits of yellow
Break the flowers from the berries
Purple grapes will fill your bellies, racero

CH

And the sun will bite your body
As the dust will draw you thristy
While your muscles beg for mercy, Bracero
In the shade of your sombrero
Drop your sweat upon the soil
Like the fruit your youth can spoil, Bracero

CH

When the weary night embraces
Sleep in shacks that could be cages
They will take it from your wages, Bracero
Come sing about tomorrow
With a jingle of the dollars
And forget your crooked collar, Bracero

CH

And the local men are lazy
And they make too much of trouble
Besides we'd have to pay them double, Bracero
Ah, but if you feel you're fallin'
If you find the pace is killing
There are others who are willing, Bracero

Oh, welcome to California
Where the friendly farmers
Will take care of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:54 PM

Well, Dave, maybe Kennewick Man was the only legal citizen. Everyone we are aware of showed up after him.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:48 PM

Ron, why would you say a thing like
Frankly, we were all here "illegal"?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:27 PM

Dave - why on earth would there be a difference "in part" of "with the help of" or "contributed by"?   That sounds like the argument from those who deny the Holocaust by claiming there weren't 6 million killed.

Frankly, we were all here "illegal".

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM

Ron Olesko:

Maybe you should re-read the constitution and brush up on American history - this nation was built by illegal immigrants.

"In part", Ron, "In part." "With the help of". "Contributed to by".   Some of the builders were illegal immigrants, but a much larger part were legal.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:14 PM

"What he did was clearly illegal, no question about it."

                Does anyone know what the Arizona law is?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:02 PM

"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"

Maybe you should re-read the constitution and brush up on American history - this nation was built by illegal immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:00 PM

I think I made it clear a few posts back that I don't know if you are a racist, but the general tone of the anti immigrant crowd is.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM

"That's the last thing we want to do. There are too many people in the country now."

So why don't you leave?

I'm really tired of all the conservatives who have been destroying this country for the past 50 years with desires to maintain a world that never existed. Their so-called values hide their hatred and fear of the unknown.   Back in the days when the civil rights movement was taking hold, they claimed "states rights" instead of their outright bigotry. Today, they talk about "immigration policy" instead of admitting the real truth.

There is a big movement in the Northeast to legalize Irish illegal aliens, yet at the same time in the same region you get groups of conservative bozos picketing South American day laborers who gather peacefully to look for work.   I've watched cops harrass these people who are doing nothing more than standing on a corner.

The arguement that they come here to have children so they can obtain public housing and programs is simply not true. More conservative lies.   Many states are not allowed to even ask about immigration states, and most others simply require that one person be of legal status. A child born in this country does not qualify for legal status.    Also, a recent article and story that also appeared on Fox News showed that only a small portion of illegal immigrants are found living in public housing.

Conservative talk shows continue to smear lies and hatred.   They fail to mention that these people buy and spend in our country and they would pay their fair share of taxes and dues if given a chance.

The cretin in Arizona who held these people at gunpoint deserves to be thrown in jail and pay for his assault. What he did was clearly illegal, no question about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: heric
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:55 PM

Fine, I'm a racist. Let's move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: heric
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:55 PM

. . . meant to imply that an influx of people who are NOT lazy is a good thing, fine by me. (In response to Riginslinger's assertion that there are too many people in the US.)

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:53 PM

I did. You introduced it into a thread and discussion of illegal aliens. The implication is clear. Think before you post, about the context of the discussion and you won't have these problems. Or don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: heric
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:51 PM

>>comments like, "too many lazy people anyhow" is one of racism.<<

I don't know how to make this clear to you. That comment was not directed at legal or illegal immigrants of any kind, race, or other classification. It was just a throwaway line about the state of the nation, meant to imply that an influx of people who are NOT lazy is a good thing, fine by me.

Would you please check it again?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:46 PM

I think John refers to the Bracero program. But this solution reeks of me to be implying that it is OK to come work our field for low wages and exposure to pesticides, so we can eat cheap, but just make sure you leave when you are done. I wonder what the Lady in the Bay would say about that one?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:44 PM

No, heric, I am not jumping to conclusions. And I don't know any of you personally. But what I am saying is that the general nature of those that attack the illegal immigrants, and insert into a thread about them comments like, "too many lazy people anyhow" is one of racism. It is the same racism that prevailed during the Know Nothing period about the Irish. It is societal. The only discussion that is germaine, IMO, in a land of immigrants that were almost universally trying to come to this country for the very same reason that these folks want to come, is how do we accomplish this in a way that is good for all parties. But I find that the elephant in the room that you folks don't want to acknowledge is that these are not white Europeans that have a distinct language and culture. Sure they are poor. Every immigrant group that came to this country was. But the ones that are "of color" always have a tougher time because it is harder to blend in. I don't find their story to be any different than your folks or mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:43 PM

John - Yes, I think you're right. I think there was a program during WWII as well, because all the farm boys were off shooting at enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:38 PM

Back in 1963-1965 I worked for the California State Department of Employment. There was a well working, albeit imperfect, system for regularized foreign ((99% probably Mexican) labor in the agricultural fields. Workers were brought in twice a year--planting and harvesting. They would then be returned to Mexico. The incidence of those overstaying was small, not none, but small. Around 1964 the state or the US decided to end the program and use American labor primarily recruited from the rolls of the unemployed.

Perhaps if such programs had remained in effect, the current illegal immigrant influx and concomitant problems would be greatly mitigated.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:29 PM

Thanks for the help, DaveO!

            heric - I agree the term "racist" is used as a weapon. Usually to shut people up when there is no logic to do so. It might not mean as much as it once did, though, now that we have a president of color.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: heric
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 01:10 PM

The thing is, I hate to see so many people being taken advantage of in every country north of the Panama canal. I can't help coming back over and over again to the suspicion that powers-that-be in the U.S. ultimately obtain self serving end results in keeping them legally (and economically) marginalized. At the very, very least, a simple, functioning migrant worker program could have been maintained for the past several decades. Coming at it from that angle, I end up siding with many of those who say that a stable (and civilized) country should be a nation of laws, regardless of where their perspective is placed. People who hold that very simple opinion are frequently called "racists" in this illegal immigration subject, to the point where we can largely tune it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 12:57 PM

. . ."Tabasco. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 12:54 PM

"...sauce..."

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 12:53 PM

Try Tobasco Suace!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: kendall
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 12:26 PM

Ebbie, I've found that rubbing camphor oil on the nipples discourages nursing.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 12:03 PM

Jumping to conclusions, Mick. People who travel thousands of miles to a land without much legal protection to do physical labor are not lazy.

(I never complained about anyone taking jobs.)

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:58 AM

.... ah, and now the racism comes out.

First you complain they are taking the jobs, then you imply they are lazy. Which is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:57 AM

Too many lazy people, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:50 AM

"Provide a path to legal citizenship..."


             That's the last thing we want to do. There are too many people in the country now.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:25 AM

Good man, Greg. Sterling answers there, I could not have done better meself.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:00 AM

Hullo, Dave-

I don't fundamentally disagree with most of what you've said, but I do think your emphasis is a bit off. I don't want to wrangle about this at great length, but would comment on several things :

In your "Consequential and Major" paragraph, below,

RE: #1 Education in the U.S. has been woefully under funded for the last thirty years, since the 'tax cuts at any cost' doctrine gained popular support. That's why the U.S. ranks 36th in math scores behind many third-world nations. Ditto public services on the State and Federal Level ('government is the problem, not the solution')- the public want services, but don't feel they should have to pay for them. The heath care system in the U.S. is a bad joke & getting worse.
ALL of this pre-dates the present illegal immigration hysteria. Illegal immigrants have not caused these problems, and the "strain" they cause is minimal, compared to the root causes.

RE: #2- The 'assimilation' (a.k.a. "Melting Pot Argument") red herring goes back to before the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 ; dire consequences were at different times predicted due to the influx of 'un-assimilable' Germans, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Italians & just about every other nationality or ethnic group in existence (not excepting native-born African Americans). Strangely, these dire consequences never materialized. Again, a minor problem, if a problem at all.

RE: #3- See number 1, above, re: inadequate education funding. Also, as foreign languages have been all but eliminated in many U.S. schools due to funding cuts, there should be lots of language educators looking for work. Plenty of other much poorer counties than the U.S. seem to be able to support bi-lingual education; the so-called "strain" is blown way out of proportion.


RE: #4: ghetto-ization and fluctuating crime levels have been problematical in the U.S. since time immemorial, and while there is no unanimity of opinion as to causes, poverty, lack of employment opportunities, abandonment of certain neighborhoods by municipal authorities, cuts & services, etc all rank much higher than illegal immigration. as causative or contributory factors. Illegal drugs (and alcohol abuse, a much larger problem) are another area entirely & the current U.S. response is largely insane- but that's for another thread.

RE: ...when this[hidden] population is freed to 'come out' it may well be less inclined to seek stoop labor and the like, and compete for other employment ...

To a small degree, perhaps. The loss of jobs / lack of employment opportunities overall in the U.S. is due to corporate greed, export of jobs to starvation-wage countries, idiocies like NAFTA, and domestic demand for ever cheaper and cheaper consumer goods (vide Wal-Mart) and damn the consequences(and the quality). The amount of competition from 'come-outers' would be inconsequential in comparison..

So while I agree that the problems you've identified are real, they're hardly caused by or the result of illegal immigration, nor will they be solved by eliminating illegal immigration. Recognizing and addressing the root causes of these problems might tend towards a solution – not the shibboleth of illegal immigration.

As far as every solution having both negative and positive effects, that's pretty much the way of the world, in my experience. The "win-win situation" is largely a myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:50 AM

As I said above, the answer is fairly easy to accomplish. Provide a path to legal citizenship. I have worked with the immigrant families and I can tell you that they are pro union and would love to organize and raise their wages. Additionally they would be contributing in a much fuller way to the taxes. Also they would go to more standard forms of healthcare, instead of using the emergency rooms. They do this because of fear of deportation.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:46 AM

Dave - You make some good points, but I can remember working on a project in Fresno where these big grape growers had parked their mechanized grape harvesters because the immigrant labor had gotten so cut-throat cheap that it was more cost effective to hire the people. The workers got paid in cash, by the way.

                   And the 14th Amendment was written to guarantee the citizenship of freed slaves after the Civil War. There are more than a few bills that have been written in Congress right now that would modify, or clarify the intent of the law, that the authors say would make things better. The problem they have, however, is up until recently, the Democrats didn't want to talk about it because they wanted the Latino vote, and the Republicans didn't want to talk about it because they wanted the cheap labor. The economic situation we find ourselves in now might create an environment that would allow one or more of those bills to come forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:18 AM

Rig, you said, in part:

There is no shortage of labor in agriculture. The shortage is in people who have better options than to work for nothing.

In your second sentence above, I think you really meant a shortage in "people who have NO better options than to work for nothing."

You are right in part, that higher pay should TEND to supply more labor to agriculture. But the agricultural producers in this country do have a problem, in that they are not operating in an economic vacuum. If they raise wages for agricultural labor prices for their produce will have to be raised, and cheaper-labor, lower-cost foreign sources will gain market share, perhaps to a catastrophic degree. That is clearly a serious question for the agricultural producers in question, but it may also be a problem for the United States in terms of balance of payments, and in terms of potential bad health effects of produce from cheaper-production countries which are not required to conform to this country's food production standards.

There is also the reported phenomenon that, in some cases, even higher wages have not attracted the numbers of American workers necessary for processing of crops. One might say that they didn't raise the wages enough to attract the labor they need, which may be true, but then we get back into the international competitive situation I referred to in the paragraph above.

The other thing that would have to be done to satisfy me would be to put some kind of limitation on "birth-right citizenship." Some illegal aliens cross the border for the sole purpose of having their child become a US citizen, which allows the parents to line up for public assisted housing and other public programs.

This would take a constitutional amendment, which is difficult, slow, politically fraught, and like shooting mosquitoes with a cannon.

I suppose that no one can gainsay that "Some illegal aliens cross the border for the sole purpose" etc. But that statement is not meaningful, because the unquantified "some" could be anywhere from just-more-than-zero to let's say fifty or more percent. Frankly, I seriously doubt that any significant portion of the illegal immigration traffic is so motivated. Having read many of your posts on many subjects over the months, I should expect your take on that is different from mine.

The upshot of all this is that (Greg F. to the contrary) the illegal immigration problem really is a significant and consequential problem, and one not easy of solution.   

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:17 PM

"An amnesty program would tend to defuse the agricultural shortage-of-labor problem in..."

                There is no shortage of labor in agriculture. The shortage is in people who have better options than to work for nothing.

                If the employers had to pay living wages and benefits, most of us who worry about "illegal immigration" would probably sit still long enough to see it it worked out. We would all pay a little more for fruits and vegetables for a while, but the costs of public services would go down.

                The other thing that would have to be done to satisfy me would be to put some kind of limitation on "birth-right citizenship." Some illegal aliens cross the border for the sole purpose of having their child become a US citizen, which allows the parents to line up for public assisted housing and other public programs.

                Employers who hire these people, and do not pay a decent wage, and do not pay payroll taxes, and then threatens the immigrant with deportation for the purpose of keeping him/her in line, is the worst kind of scum-bag as far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:59 PM

The poodle is the employer.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:28 PM

Ebbie, if I understand you correctly, bringing that back to the issue at hand works out something like this: if you catch an illegal migrant working without permission, you deport him or throw him in jail. It is entirely true that that individual won't be working again. However, where is the deterrent for his (former) employer...why wouldn't he hire another illegal worker? Or (I hope) did I misunderstand you entirely?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:24 PM

Greg F, I didn't use the words "insoluble problem, just "problem". It may possibly be that your "arrest the employers of illegal immigrants and put them in jail" approach would be a solution, as you suggest, but I think not a good one. The "just-cut-them-off-and-send-them-back" approach is NOT a solution, partly because of the minor US citizens it would leave behind and partly because of our need for these immigrants' labor. And perhaps for other reasons too.

As long as this population are or fear that they are to be treated as criminals, they will tend to "hide" both from law enforcement and from any beneficent efforts on the part of government, and will suffer thereby.   And "hiding away" will impede cultural and linguistic assimilation, which has helped to ameliorate previous immigrant population "problems".

An amnesty program would tend to defuse the agricultural shortage-of-labor problem in the first instance, but when this population is freed to "come out" it may well be less inclined to seek stoop labor and the like, and compete for other employment which we don't need them for, thus causing friction.

A quick-citizenship program, such as has been suggested, to the extent that it was widely taken advantage of, would have the same drawbacks as an amnesty.

But until it's solved, it's a problem, and not minor, methinks.
That's why it's a problem.

As to "consequential" and "major" (essentially the same thing, I think), I can think of different aspects:
1. The fiscal strain the unsolved problem puts on the states to which the illegals go, by unfunded increased educational, medical, and other public services, because of off-the-books payment and underpayment.
2. The cultural strain that the largely unabsorbed illegal immigrant population causes as long as it is not assimilated or on its way thereto, caused at least in part by fear of apprehension and deportation.
3. Strain on the educational system because of the necessity of maintaining school services simultaneously in multiple languages.
4. Higher than necessary crime levels (both "street crime" and "drug crime), caused or exacerbated by ghettoization and poor education.

And on and on and on. This is a consequential, major problem, and not easy of solution because every proposal (at least that I've heard) has negative as well as positive effects.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:45 PM

Humph. The idea that the problem would be solved if the people doing the hiring were incarcerated or heavily peanlized is nothing new.

I myself have for years been using the analogy of my dog and my kitten to show it clearly.

The story goes like this: My new kitten survived feline distemper but just barely and probably would not have if my poodle had not begun nursing him. The kitten grew strong and active and became almost a full grown cat.

However, after a few months I bred the poodle and wanted the kitten to stop nursing, so whenever I caught him I stopped him. Eventually I found myself yelling at him. My dog would look at me pleadingly as to say, "It's not my fault. He insists on it." He wouldn't stop. In the middle of the night I would wake hearing him slurping away. It became a contest of wills.

Suddenly the light bulb went on: I began punishing her. It took just once.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:12 PM

It is ILLEGAL to point a gun at someone. Check the definition of assault. It doesn't matter if it is your old Aunt Gladys or someone from another country. If you point a gun at someone, you are guilty of assault. End of story.

The Arizona man who did this deserves to rot.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:02 PM

Yeah. Me too!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:54 PM

Start putting those who hire them in jail, and you may be surprised how quickly this supposed "problem" is resolved.

At last. Agreement!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:44 PM

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

OK Dave, since John is tap-dancing all around this, perhaps you can tell me why illegal immigration is, in your opinion, consequential and major.

Dead easy to put this to rest- if there were no jobs for 'em, the Mexicans(which are the particular "illegal immigrants" John is ranting about- wouldn't be heading for the U.S. Start putting those who hire them in jail, and you may be surprised how quickly this supposed "problem" is resolved.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 05:35 PM

You make good points, pdq. The story of California doesn't really begin to heat up until the discovery of gold in 1848.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 05:33 PM

"Arnold doesn't cite (in the article anyway) what authority he is using to justify his assertion that illegal aliens did not create the fiscal mess in California."

               And if he did, nobody could understand him anyway!

    But you're right, of course, I meant to reference Dan Walters.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 05:26 PM

The history of the formation of Texas and California is very interesting. Perhaps people refuse to study it because there are issues that are politically and racially charged.

As for California, the Spanish claim to the area was not challenged because the inhabitants, American Indians, did not have the power to do so. They were threated as free labor and converted the Roman Catholic faith against their will.

When the Spanish abandoned Mexico in 1821, the new Mexican government continued to claim the entire area.

In fact, almost nobody we consider Mexican lived in California. There was the majority, Indians, plus some ethnic Spanish. There were a few Anglos or Mexicans, but not many.

The Mexican claim to California was rather tenuous, and was challenged within 10 years of Mexico's independence...


"California had gone from a neglected, isolated colony of Spain to a neglected, isolated territory in the Mexican Republic. The Spanish Californians, called Californios, grew hateful of Mexico's rule when in 1831 Mexico appointed Governor Manuel Victoria. He attempted to rule California by the heavy hand of Mexican law and opposed the secularization of the Catholic Church's land in California to which the Californios would receive. An Californio army was raised and did battle against Mexican forces under the command of Governor Victoria. The battle was inconclusive but Governor Victoria was wounded and recalled by Mexico. A new Governor, Nicolas Gutierrez, is installed and in 1833 the Californios and the mission indians receive the Church's land and assets. Soon, the indians will sell or abandon their land holdings and the Californios will become in control of vast tracts of land and livestock.

By 1836 the Californios begin to concentrate on politics, again. Californios, under Jaun B. Alvarado's command, marched upon the capitol of Monetery and force Governor Gutierrez to surrender. The Governor and several Mexican officials are deported by the Californios back to Mexico. California is declared a "free and sovereign state" within the Mexican Republic with autonomy in its personal affairs. In 1837 Mexico concedes and Alvardo is officially declared governor of California. For the next 5 years, California does not receive any interference in its affairs from Mexico.

In 1842, Mexico makes one more effort to regain control over the rebellious California, by sending Manuel Micheltorena and an army of cholos (former convicts employed as soldiers). Micheltorena announced his new function as governor and then marched to Monterey. His army commits acts of rape, pillage, and looting against the Californios on the march to Monterey. Governor Alvarado is forced to surrender to Micheltorena, who regains control of California.

By 1845, the Californios-under Alvarado and Jose Castro's command, raise an army and engage in battle with Micheltorena. Micheltorena is defeated and leaves with his army for Mexico. Castro becomes military comandante of California and returns to Monterey and Pio Picos becomes governor of California and governs from Los Angeles."

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 05:20 PM

Actually it was the writer of the article that did what you are saying Rig. Arnold doesn't cite (in the article anyway) what authority he is using to justify his assertion that illegal aliens did not create the fiscal mess in California.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:56 PM

Other problems are, he's using 1994 data and trying to project it forward, and he pays lip-service to children of illegal immigrants who are magically turned into US citizens at birth, but is unclear if he's using those children as part of the burdern, or excluding them because they are citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:47 PM

"Schwarzenegger himself says the problem is not because of the illegal immigrants."


               He's not looking at the facts, however. The moneys paid attributed to the illegal aliens in the form of taxes is wild speculation, and those of us who have seen this operation works at the ground level know that illegal aliens pay very little in taxes. They would, if they were on regular payrolls and the employers were paying reported things properly, but that's rarely the case. The largest incentive to hire illegals is to avoid paying payroll taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:28 PM

The landowner could always build a wall across the southern border of his property to keep the illegals out.

No - that would be just plain silly......

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: kendall
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:28 PM

As that old Quaker said,
"I am not a violent man, but thee are standing where I'm about to shoot."

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: heric
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:16 PM

February, 2006:

"Ray Borane, mayor of the southeastern Arizona border city of Douglas, said the [enhanced crime - class one misdemeanor or felony] trespassing approach would be expensive to enforce and that his community would have to double its police shifts.

"I have never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life," Borane said.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: heric
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:02 PM

Intentional trespass is a crime ("Class 3 misemeanor") in Arizona:

A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 03:11 PM

Interesting read Mick. Schwarzenegger himself says the problem is not because of the illegal immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 03:01 PM

"If you look back in history, you'll see that American settlers legally emigrated to Mexico and legally acquired land there. When they achieved a majority in places like Texas and California, they declared republics and then joined the United States - and the U.S. fought a war with Mexico to confirm that transfer...
    Our Arizona man with his 22,000 acres has no concept of that."


            I suspect that is exactly what concerns our Arizona man. He can see that the property rights can easily go the other way and he doesn't want to see that happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 03:00 PM

Rick, I am not suggesting that we do not have to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Clearly we do, but the answer isn't villifying a whole race of people seeking to do exactly what our forebearers did. We need to find appropriate solutions. I find stories like yours to be much more compelling than the ones that spout economic doom and gloom for the country, such as the California bit. The problems you describe could be handled by bringing these folks into the system. This way taxes would be collected on all income, they would have organizing rights without fear of deportation, and we incorporate them into society just like your family was. The hispanic populations I worked with are very pro union, and would love to organize. But their fear of deportation is a huge hurdle. Eliminate that, and they would not only cease to be a drag on your wages, they would improve them. Take this from a guy who knows these folks, and has worked with them.

As to California's budget problems, I would suggest you read another view that appears to be pretty well thought out. Certainly there is something to deal with, but not nearly the problem that those that seek facts to suit their prejudices assert.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 02:57 PM

"Do you know?"


         KB - No, I don't know, but I suspect they hired illegal aliens to do the math.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 02:43 PM

"California Budget Meltdown Would be Lessened"...

Now, all we have to do is get those unemployed high-tech workers to work in the fields and live in substandard housing. That would fix our economy for sure.

---

I think, though, that maybe we need to consider that there are very few rights that are absolute. If you look back in history, you'll see that American settlers legally emigrated to Mexico and legally acquired land there. When they achieved a majority in places like Texas and California, they declared republics and then joined the United States - and the U.S. fought a war with Mexico to confirm that transfer.

Also, we need to consider that at the time all this took place, indigenous people in Mexico and the U.S. were not considered at all. It's those same people with indigenous roots who are crossing the borders that didn't exist until Europeans took over.

So, whose right is absolute? The same issue is being fought in the Middle East. There are no absolute rights, because history will always prove that somebody else had the right before the more recent occupant did. Rather than arguing about absolute property rights, we have to work out peaceful solutions that take everybody into consideration, and the rights of all creatures to exist with some degree of comfort and safety and dignity. Our Arizona man with his 22,000 acres has no concept of that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,bigrick
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 02:30 PM

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?

minor and inconsequential? i live with this "minor and inconsequential" problem every day, unlike 90% of you. i've lost my small business because of it, and my wages have been steadily going down because of it. at a union class last week, we were told that a wage and benefit package in manhattan was down to $22/hr,@ $7.50/hr for benes, that's 15. then you have to figure in u/c and workers comp. which brings it down to almost minimum wage. have i spent 37 yrs getting to the top of my craft to go back to an unlivable wage?
also, unlike the immigrants that y'all like to compare these people to, they aren't here to "live the american dream". most want to be paid cash, so they don't pay into our tax system or ssi system to maximaize the money they take back home when they go. but we're supposed to give them the benefits of that system?
on the point of we were all immigrants 2 or 3 generations ago. i have genelogical documentation of both sides of my family being here since the late 1600's. that's more like 20 generations. using that logic means even indians aren't "native", since they crossed the land bridge from siberia eons ago.
you know, if they weren't shit on in their countries that we have signed these"treaties" with they wouldn't come here. or if they fought and died to free their countries like my ancestors did in this one, this wouldn't be the problem it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 02:19 PM

Rig - I take it that is a copy and paste so the math is not yours but at the beginning it says the budget deficit is $40 billion then later it says the esimated $13.1 attributable to illegal aliens is over half the shortfall. Perhaps there is info not included in this snippet that would clear this up. Do you know?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 02:03 PM

California Budget Meltdown Would be Lessened by Combating Increases in Illegal Immigration
         

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- California state lawmakers now grappling with a $40 billion budget deficit were advised five years ago of the mounting costs of illegal immigration in the state. In 2004, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) issued a study of the fiscal cost of illegal immigration to Californians. At that time, the cost to the state's taxpayers was $10.54 billion a year. That estimate included the cost of educating the children of illegal aliens - both those illegally in the country and those born here - in K-12 public schools, emergency medical care, and incarceration of criminal aliens.


While these annual costs for illegal immigration have been steadily draining California's budget year after year, the costs have risen and are placing an even greater strain on the state's resources in 2009. The original 2004 cost estimate was based on an illegal alien population estimated at 2,900,000. Today, FAIR estimates California's illegal alien population has grown to 3,200,000, a 10.3 percent increase. As a result of both the continued growth in the illegal alien population and the higher cost of governmental services, the current fiscal cost outlays for the illegal alien population in California are now approaching $13.1 billion annually - more than half the projected shortfall for next year.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: kendall
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:46 PM

What is the source of all that bad stuff about illegals ruining California?

Those people have a nerve don't they? After all, we stole that whole area from them and they are acting like they still own it.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:35 PM

I have to retract something here. I just came back to this thread now, read my last post, and John's response, and I don't like something that is happening. So hang with me for a minute.

I disagree with John, and I have a problem with the way he laid out the predicate of the argument. His attempting to tie the illegal immigrant aspect of this case, and others, bothers me. But he is, IMO, only guilty of what many others are. And that is the ludicrous idea that illegal immigrants are the root of all ills. At least that is the implication to me. I find these folks (and I have worked with them, been in their homes, ate their food, and played with their kids) to be doing nothing more than my own people of two or three generations ago did. And that is to leave a place where their children had no chance, leave all they know, to start anew. The story of the coyotes, border crossing, and people stuffed in trucks today, is the story of the Irish jammed into the holds of coffin ships, or other means. Sneaking across the southern border today is no different than sneaking across northern borders from Canada before.

But ..... and I want to make this very clear ....... I do not believe John is racist or xenophobic personally. He has reasons that are very sound in his mind for his opinions. He was brave enough to put them out there and defend them mightily. My opinion is that he is wrong and I debate these issues fiercely myself. But sometimes we get so into the argument, that we say things that imply something that is not so. While I do find the general attitude on the hispanic immigrants of today to be societally racist and xenophobic, my guess is that John and those like him would treat anyone graciously and doesn't personally wish them ill. Do I find his position untenable? For me, yes. But he is not a racist and their is no need to imply it. I don't know the man 3D, so I have no way of determining that.

So let's continue to debate the case, but every so often it is good to step away and reconsider our words. I did.

Now ...... back to the issue .... if that is OK with everyone.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:27 PM

That's interesting, Rig. I don't know anything about property rights as they pertain to rivers but the rights of the public in regard to ocean shores in Oregon is well established. Then Gov. Tom McCall took care of that.

When I visit California it is quite, quite different.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:07 PM

"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,..."

                   That's interesting. In Oregon, they are trying to make the case that they own the rivers. The state has always owned the land up to the "high water" mark. But the transplants are trying to make the case that they should own the land to the middle of the river.

                   In the end, though, I think it's just a case of too many people.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:13 PM

As to the question of whether or not Mexicans should have a right to sue in US courts, I'm sure that matter was decided by treaty or other binding agreement many years ago. I'm also sure the judge who decided that the case has enough merit to go forward would be sufficiently aware of the provisions of that agreement to know whether or not the plaintiffs' immigration status is relevant.

If Mexicans were denied the right to sue in US courts, then Mexico would have the right to deny the right of US citizens to sue in Mexican courts. Would any US citizen in his right mind even think about setting foot in Mexico if it meant he had to surrender his rights to redress at the border?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:11 PM

"...guess he didn't realize that if he owns 35 square miles of property on the Mexican border, somebody from Mexico might want to cross his property instead of going around."


               Guess he figured as long as it was his property, folks would ask permission to go through...

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:05 PM

Mick-
I said, "...shooting without provocation or attack people people with out provocation is against the laws of the state." Think that says I don't agree with illegal action. Holding trespassers while waiting for law enforcement, to my knowledge, not illegal.

BTW, if you read the story, his dog did not maul or bite any person. He did not shoot any person, so your argument spurious.

Also, while it has been alleged, here, that he has had other run ins with illegals outside of his ranch, and/or has been fined,,but I haven't seen back-up on those assertions; there is nothing in the story about other run-ins with illegals, except on his own land over the years.

And, yes, if anybody or group is constantly trespassing on his land and vandalizing it, and killing livestock, etc. he should be able to hold them for the authorities.

Anyway, Mick I have answered your questions even the ones not geermain to this case...perhaps not to your satisfaction, but I stand by them.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM

You know, I really feel sorry for that guy with his 22,000-acre ranch. guess he didn't realize that if he owns 35 square miles of property on the Mexican border, somebody from Mexico might want to cross his property instead of going around. You don't think he bought the property because he likes hunting illegal aliens, do you?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:47 PM

As human beings those trespassers ought to be afforded human rights. They ought not to be afforded the rights and privileges that are inherent to legal citizens beyond those basic human rights. That means you can't kick 'em, beat 'em up, or shoot them in the butt as they run away (except under some very special circumstances).

In California an initial trespass needs to be reported and the official (peace officer) should respond and inform the trespasser of their illegal act. A case number is generated. the typical scenario is that a mistake was made and it won't happen again. If second act occurs by the same person(s) then it is a criminal trespass and the law has various remedies for such actions.

The initial trespass may fall under the term criminal if criminal intent was involve or if subsequent felony (s) ensued. A person ALWAYS has the right to defend his life or the lives of other innocents in harm's way; with APPROPRIATE force.

Perhaps some legal beagle out there could educate me (us) on this point. I have always understood that a compound criminal act falls under the category of felony, that is, a misdemeanor committed to further the commission of a another crime or a higher crime elevates that act to a felony. The first illegal act was violating the borders of this country for reasons other than to escape political persecution or the accidents of an emergency such as an emergency landing of an international flight bound for some other country. Does anyone know if this is so?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:44 PM

I can not conceive of an adequate punishment for someone crapping on my lawn.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:34 PM

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

Perhaps you could provide a cite for that finding, please?

John, you continue to evade the point. This case isn't about his property rights in any but a peripheral way. It is about the illegal detention of individuals, about the use of excessive force in the protection of his property rights, about assault and battery on a woman. He is guilty in a more proactive way of the same thing you are. And that is the mixing of peripheral facts into the stew of your anger over the issue of illegal immigration. Would you be as angry at this rancher if a bunch of white folks were hiking and littering his property, and he detained them with a gun, had his dog attack them, and threaten them with great bodily harm? And the fact that he has a history and has been fined before tells you that this isn't about his property rights, it is about him using his property rights to carry out a campaign against illegal immigrants.

So I ask you again. In your opinion, is it justifiable to act illegally with illegal immigrants?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
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!

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:31 PM

If someone breaks into my house, I'm within my rights to hold him at gunpoint until authorities arrive. He's already proven himself to be a potential threat to me by committing the felonious act of breaking and entering. But if someone is merely trespassing on my property I have no right to detain him. He's only committing a minor property crime that in no way poses a threat to me or anyone else. I'm probably within my rights to have a gun in my possession when I confront him (since I don't know at that point whether or not he may pose a threat), but after it's been determined that there is no threat, all I can do is call the cops.

In the rancher's case, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. The trespassers were not posing a threat to the rancher and, therefore, he used a level of force that exceeded what is allowable under the circumstances. The fact that the trespassers were also illegal aliens is irrelevent unless the rancher was legally empowered to enforce US immigration law, which he apparently was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:26 PM

MALDEF "charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

1. It appears from my quick reading of the article that the Sheriff was not there when the landowner held them at gunpoint, etc., so unless MALDEF can prove that there was prior agreement between the Sheriff and the landowner to do some of those things, with intent to violate their civil rights, it would appear that the conspiracy charge would fail as to the Sheriff, regardless of the intent of the actions.   Conceivably, a jury might find the Sheriff did not conspire, but that the landowner's relatives did, so the loss of the Sheriff as a defendant/coconspirator would not scotch the case. Depending on the way the case was brought, failure to show that the Sheriff and each of the family defendants were not in a "conspiracy" with the landowner might cause the entire suit to fail.   The landowner could not conspire with himself; there has to be at least one other person, or there's no conspiracy.   

2. There is no law, as far as I know, civil rights or otherwise, against his yelling obscenities at them (assuming that he did that).

3. Now, the action of "kicking one of the women" would be assault and battery, without doubt, and prosecutable as such in State court, if it actually occurred. I don't remember seeing anything in the article that the woman was injured to any significant degree by the alleged kick. By itself, hardly worth the kind of damages sought in the suit, I think, even if that facts of that charge are proved. If there is no conspiracy proved, and/or no intent to violate plaintiffs' civil rights, it would be a matter for State, not federal law.

4. The dogs were said to be present, but there is nothing said about the dogs being sicced on the intruders or their being "mauled" by the dogs. The threat to sic the dogs on them, if actually made, would constitute assault, a State offense.

5. The fact that the judge allowed the case to go forward to trial doesn't establish anything about the facts of the matter or the judge's having any opinion of the merits of the case. That kind of ruling merely means that the claims made in the complaint, if proved as alleged and not rebutted, would be enough to establish a prima facie case under the relevant federal law, so the defendant(s) would then put on their case in defense. The claims could conceivably be pure fiction, groundless bushwah, and still pass that test. In essence the judge said that "There is a controversy here, and the jury will have to resolve it."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:17 PM

I think there are two main arguments that come under the thread heading:

It's the elephant in the room that isn't being discussed that bothers me. That there are so many illegal aliens in the country is due to economic pressures that are not openly acknowledged on the US side of the border by those with money and those in power. Those with money and property have for generations hired cheap illegal labor for cheap agricultural and landscaping and processing purposes. The labor goes where the money is. This has typically got scant political/ governmental response because those in power have wanted it that way. I am not solely blaming those 'in power' because the consumers who vote with their dollars have been all too willing to pay less for lettuce, for apples, for anything that needs to be picked, processed, killed or cleaned by those paid below a normal American living wage yet working in America.

Historical precedence shows that American went where the land was cheap and staked their claims. Americans are now being picky that others are going where their labor is rewarded. We are living in a capitalist environment and unwilling to accept the quite predictable results of it.

This has gone on for generations and now we are witnessing secondary effects, hostility of citizens to the apparent ineffectiveness of their own government, and political/ social/ civil rights activities on the part of those citizens who are descended or related to the illegals.

In my opinion, we're pretty much all guilty of participating in a system which encourages this behavior while hypocritically attempting to denounce the weakest among this whole shoddy facade.

As for the rancher, he COULD get his own lawyer and review with counsel his legitimate rights to seek redress from his own government for exacerbating the misuse of his land by unequal enforcement of its anti-immigration policy at his expense. He could come up with an organized yet humanitarian plan to discourage the misuse of his own land. I wonder if all his ranch-hands have been vetted for green cards/ citizenship. That would be just too perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:56 PM

BTW, I am not defending illegal immigration. I am concerned about basic human rights for all, whoever and where ever they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:43 PM

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

This is the premire reason that immigrants should play "by the rules" and become citizens through the naturalization process. We allow more legal immigration into the US than all other countries combined.

Anyone, legal or ilegal, is due normal courtesy and human rights. The border agents are required to give then a baloney sandwich and speak to them politely. It they turn violent, that will be met with as much force as needed to get the person to behave.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:32 PM

THe legality of an individual's arrival or existence on US soil is not, and never has been, grounds for denial of certain basic legal and civil rights extended by American law and beliefs to all humans. There have been some politicians of a more anti-social bent than others who have tried to eradicate this principle, but unfortunately they couldn't figure out a way to have the Declaration of Independence declared a terrorist screed. There have been extremists who violated this principle, especially since the Reign of Terror began, but the principle will outlive them handily.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: KB in Iowa
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 03:10 PM

Don't give vague hypotheticals...shooting and siccing cover a wide range of activity. From the article (Have you read it? I posted the address) the worst thing he has done is turn them over to the border patrol after holding them at gunpoint on HIS property. For me his actions are perfectly legitimate.

If you want to allow illegal activity from people who do not belong on whatever property you have wherever you are, go for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Megan L
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:48 PM

In York until a couple of years ago it was still legaly permissable to fire and arrow at a Scotsman.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:46 PM

People, whether in the US legally or not, have the basic human right to not have dogs set on them and threatened with death. He has the Border Patrol on speed-dial. This is, BTW, the same guy who paid a settlement of, I think, $100,000, several years ago for similar threatening behavior against several deer hunters on land he leases from the State of Texas (they were there legally).   Coincidentally, they were American citizens, descended from Spanish colonialists.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:42 PM

Whoa there folks. I asked very simple and direct questions which you all are avoiding. You are attempting to shift the premise. You posted about a man on trial. You then seem to imply there is something wrong with him being on trial for protecting his home and property from illegal aliens. I pointed out that he seems to be being tried for exceeding his legal rights in the protection of that property, and that a judge agreed that the case should go forward on the merits. You then attempt to make this about the illegal immigrants when it is not. It is about lawful exercise of rights. So I ask again, and no dodging this time, do you think it is OK to act illegally to stop illegal aliens?

Riggy and John, in your assertion that they have no consitutional rights, are you saying this man could use any means necessary to protect his property? Would it have been alright to shoot them? How about sicking the dog on them and maiming them?

Answer the questions.

I would address this to pdq as well, but I am not sure he has the ability to get the distinctions I am making, based on his responses.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:41 PM

"I'm all right Jack, pull up the ladder..."

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:32 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:31 PM

The immigrants exceeded their legal limits when they snuck into the country. From that point forward, the only civil rights they should have is the right to be deported. They're the ones who should be on trial here, not the rancher.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:31 PM

By the time the illegal aliens are on private property in the United States it is too late.

A reasonable question to anyone who wants to think about the problem is "do you support legal methods by the Federal government to stop the illegal immigration".

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:30 PM

"My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

What a delightful man.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:27 PM

... and btw, John. I don't recall anywhere in Emma Lazarus' work where she restricts her invitation to only legal immigrants either. Once again you attempt to use unrelated items to incite emotion charged support. It doesn't wash.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:24 PM

John, I laid it out very clearly in my first post. This man is not being sued solely because he protected his ranch. A judge listened to the motion to dismiss on that basis and found that there is merit to the suit. What that means is that he may have exceeded the legal limits he is allowed to protect his property. In other words, he may have acted illegally, which will be determined at trial. Given the nature and tone of your opening post, and your subsequent post, which seem to imply support, I ask again. Do you support using illegal means to stop illegal immigration?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:20 PM

What has that to do with this man protecting his ranch?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 02:12 PM

pdq ... perhaps you could tell me which posts are "attempts to squech discussion of this extremely serious topic" ?

John, do you support the use of illegal tactics to stop illegal immigration?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:55 PM

No, Mick and McGrath, I'm just preempting those on the left who always demonize those of us who object to illegal immigration. Please note the operative word is ILLEGAL.

Emma Lazerus spoke about the poor...I don't recall her mentioning the illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:52 PM

So far, four post are "on subject" and nine post appear to be attempts to squech discussion of this extremely serious topic.

People in Maine have about 2% of their population illegal aliens or people whose parents are illegal aliens. In California, such people are now the "majority" population.

Those who have not been impacted by this mass migration north should be trying to learn something, not impede learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:43 PM

pdq ..... perhaps you would be so kind as to point out name calling? As opposed to just responding to the initial post?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:41 PM

The Martians aren't so bad- its those goddamn Tralfamadorians takin' them good, high-paying jobs- like pool boy, lavatory cleaner, chicken-gutter & migrant farm worker, away from honest, red-blooded Americans that'r the real problem.

Good thing Emma Lazarus is long dead.

Guess the BuShite NeoCons don't have anything substantive to concern themselves with.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:15 PM

It's onlyillegal if you are under 21.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Megan L
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:09 PM

Those damned Martians think they can leave thier spaceship wherever they want but I mean is it any wonder enviromental control is suing him the idiot aimed straight for thier fusion reactor drive.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 01:02 PM

Note the usual suspects who start by name-calling before the discussion can really begin. Perhaps they can start a separate thread on the art of sceaming "racist!", "bigot! or "xenophobe" at the first hint of a subject they want squelched.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:52 PM

"I know that by posting this I am xenophobic, racist ethnocentric "

Well, as they say, if the cap fits, wear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:50 PM

OK, let's get the emotion out of this that is so necessary for you to adopt your outraged position. If you really wanted discussion, you would not have used the charged terms you are using, because in your mind you are convinced that you are in the right. I am not so sure.

Does this man have a right to not have his property vandalized, and used for illegal purposes? I don't think there is any doubt that he has this right. But the essential question, in a land that holds respect for the rule of law as a top priority, is what response is an appropriate and lawful one. That, as far as I can tell from the link you provided is what the courts will decide. I certainly empathize with protecting ones family and property, but there are limits to what my response can be under the law. For instance, the fact that someone took a shit on my property is hardly grounds for shooting them.

Your use of, "I know that by posting this I am xenophobic, racist ethnocentric and whatever other adjectives one might choose. But if you thought that, you'd be wrong. I have no beef with those coming through border checks, obeying our laws...including property rights..,and leaving when their visas or other legal documentation expires..." to somehow justify vigilanteism seems to detract from the credibility of your arguments, and is certainly in conflict with any claim of patriotic, red blooded American love of law.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: pdq
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:42 PM

The same thing happened a few years ago in Texas.

Lawyers from the Southern Poverty Law Center were dipatched for free. They coached the aliens to make statements that were focus-group-tested to make the jurors as angry as possible.

I believe that two ranch owners lost all the worldly posessions including the ranches, of course. One ranch was given to an illegal alien who had been coached to lie. Almost sure another of the US ranchers went to jail.

Standing in front of illegal aliens on your ranch and preventing their "freedom of movement" seems to be a form of assault. Go figure.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:39 PM

Who did he conspire with?

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:38 PM

This is correct, but when Maldef gets after you to the tune of $32M you better respond. Apparently the courts take anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:37 PM

Sorry John. I almost forgot to add that you're a xenophobic, racist ethnocentric for being upset about the situation........

Subject: RE: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:31 PM

I can't see how they have a case if they were on private property. My guess is that the landowner has his property posted as such.

Subject: BS: Man being sued; stops Illegal Aliens
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:25 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/

"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."

The rest of the article can be found at the address above.

I know that by posting this I am xenophobic, racist ethnocentric and whatever other adjectives one might choose. But if you thought that, you'd be wrong. I have no beef with those coming through border checks, obeying our laws...including property rights..,and leaving when their visas or other legal documentation expires.

I hope there is some lawyer who will defend the rancher 'pro bono'.
The world is topsy-turvy.