16 illegals sue rancher

[FX120]

This story is a about a week old, but I didn't see it posted on here and I found it quite interesting:

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.

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

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

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

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

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

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

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

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

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

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

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

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

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

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

[No1451]

I'm surprised this hasn't been tossed out yet, it's fairly ridiculous.

[ucfgrad93]

I'm surprised this hasn't been tossed out yet, it's fairly ridiculous.

Agreed. There is no way I would ever vote guilty if I was on that jury.

[chrmjenkins]

I see one possible charge there: assault (kicking the woman). Otherwise, he had legal right to hold them under citizen's arrest.

[it5five]

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

What an idiot. I'm glad he is in court and I hope he loses.

Otherwise, he had legal right to hold them under citizen's arrest.

He had no legal right. A citizens arrest can only be made if the guy actually saw them commit a felony. So unless he saw them physically cross the border, he's in a lot of trouble here.

All this guy did was see a group of hispanics, assume they were illegal (typical in Arizona :rolleyes: ), and then hold them at gunpoint. It doesn't matter if he was right about their immigration status, but he didn't see them commit a felony.

The wanna-be cowboy should have just called border patrol and left himself out of it.

[thebassoonist]

What are "illegals?"







Oh... illegal immigrants.

[it5five]

What are "illegals?"







Oh... illegal immigrants.

Yeah, you have to make them less than human to hate them real good.

[chrmjenkins]

What an idiot. I'm glad he is in court and I hope he loses.



He had no legal right. A citizens arrest can only be made if the guy actually saw them commit a felony. So unless he saw them physically cross the border, he's in a lot of trouble here.

All this guy did was see a group of hispanics, assume they were illegal (typical in Arizona :rolleyes: ), and then hold them at gunpoint. It doesn't matter if he was right about their immigration status, but he didn't see them commit a felony.

The wanna-be cowboy should have just called border patrol and left himself out of it.

His word against theirs. If he has binoculars, it's reasonable to assume he could have been looking at the border. If he says he was, it's a stalemate. Since it's proven they were illegals, there's no question they crossed the border at some point, it's just a question of whether or not he was there to witness it, no?

[leekohler]

What an idiot. I'm glad he is in court and I hope he loses.



He had no legal right. A citizens arrest can only be made if the guy actually saw them commit a felony. So unless he saw them physically cross the border, he's in a lot of trouble here.

All this guy did was see a group of hispanics, assume they were illegal (typical in Arizona :rolleyes: ), and then hold them at gunpoint. It doesn't matter if he was right about their immigration status, but he didn't see them commit a felony.

The wanna-be cowboy should have just called border patrol and left himself out of it.

Sorry- I vote that they lose. Throw out the case. This is silly.

[it5five]

His word against theirs. If he has binoculars, it's reasonable to assume he could have been looking at the border. If he says he was, it's a stalemate. Since it's proven they were illegals, there's no question they crossed the border at some point, it's just a question of whether or not he was there to witness it, no?

Although I only went to Wikipedia Law School, it appears that he had to witness the felony to make a citizens arrest. Otherwise, he's in a lot of trouble. But hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject can clear this up.

[jonbravo77]

What an idiot. I'm glad he is in court and I hope he loses.



He had no legal right. A citizens arrest can only be made if the guy actually saw them commit a felony. So unless he saw them physically cross the border, he's in a lot of trouble here.

All this guy did was see a group of hispanics, assume they were illegal (typical in Arizona :rolleyes: ), and then hold them at gunpoint. It doesn't matter if he was right about their immigration status, but he didn't see them commit a felony.

The wanna-be cowboy should have just called border patrol and left himself out of it.

Thanks for insulting Arizonan's, appreciate it. Anyway, to get back to reality here. This guy has been dealing with this for years, they come across the border into his property, trashing the place, causing harm to his cattle. He has every right to defend his property, just like you have the same rights.

I will assume by your stance on this subject that we should just allow people to illegally cross our borders and then automatically have the right to sue you, get healthcare for free, not pay taxes, cause your taxes to go up to pay for what they don't? I hope this guy wins, so it does set the bar even higher when it comes to illegal immigration, because if he loses then illegal immigrants can come over, sue you for god knows what, and take you American dream away from you.

[it5five]

Sorry- I vote that they lose. Throw out the case. This is silly.

Well we disagree then. I guess I hear about things like this more since I live in a border state, but crossing is extremely dangerous for the people doing so, and the last thing they need is some nut-job rounding them up and threatening to shoot them all. Here in Arizona we actually have groups opposing water stations for the immigrants. God forbid we treat people like human beings, but that would require that these people admit that immigrants are not less than human.

[jonbravo77]

Well we disagree then. I guess I hear about things like this more since I live in a border state, but crossing is extremely dangerous for the people doing so, and the last thing they need is some nut-job rounding them up and threatening to shoot them all. Here in Arizona we actually have groups opposing water stations for the immigrants. God forbid we treat people like human beings, but that would require that these people admit that immigrants are not less than human.

Maybe they shouldn't be crossing illegally, there are other ways to get into this country that will benefit them. Sorry, but illegal immigrants should not get the same rights as people who immigrate to this country legally...

[leekohler]

Maybe they shouldn't be crossing illegally, there are other ways to get into this country that will benefit them. Sorry, but illegal immigrants should not get the same rights as people who immigrate to this country legally...

Bingo. Ship them back, end of story.

Well we disagree then. I guess I hear about things like this more since I live in a border state, but crossing is extremely dangerous for the people doing so, and the last thing they need is some nut-job rounding them up and threatening to shoot them all. Here in Arizona we actually have groups opposing water stations for the immigrants. God forbid we treat people like human beings, but that would require that these people admit that immigrants are not less than human.

No- the last thing we need is more illegal immigration and cases like this that make it look easy for people to abuse our system. This lawsuit is wrong- plain and simple.

[thebassoonist]

Thanks for insulting Arizonan's, appreciate it. Anyway, to get back to reality here. This guy has been dealing with this for years, they come across the border into his property, trashing the place, causing harm to his cattle. He has every right to defend his property, just like you have the same rights.

I will assume by your stance on this subject that we should just allow people to illegally cross our borders and then automatically have the right to sue you, get healthcare for free, not pay taxes, cause your taxes to go up to pay for what they don't? I hope this guy wins, so it does set the bar even higher when it comes to illegal immigration, because if he loses then illegal immigrants can come over, sue you for god knows what, and take you American dream away from you.

How on Earth can anyone live in the US and not pay taxes? Do they not buy anything? No food, no clothes? And, if they are using fake Social Security numbers, paying into a program that they will never see anything of, they are directly benefiting the elderly. Not to mention the incredible amounts of money that banks, and therefore the government, make off the backs of these hard working and often invisible people who send money back home.
They should have the right to sue. There are certain rights that ANYONE on US soil should have.
If there was damage done to his property, he should have involved the police. If the police weren't doing enough, he should have petitioned the city/county to have more police force. He shouldn't have threatened and held a group of people at gunpoint.

[it5five]

Thanks for insulting Arizonan's, appreciate it. Anyway, to get back to reality here. This guy has been dealing with this for years, they come across the border into his property, trashing the place, causing harm to his cattle. He has every right to defend his property, just like you have the same rights.

I will assume by your stance on this subject that we should just allow people to illegally cross our borders and then automatically have the right to sue you, get healthcare for free, not pay taxes, cause your taxes to go up to pay for what they don't? I hope this guy wins, so it does set the bar even higher when it comes to illegal immigration, because if he loses then illegal immigrants can come over, sue you for god knows what, and take you American dream away from you.

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. I know full well what the people in this state are like. One only has to look at the reelection of Arpaio in November to see the prevailing attitude in this county.

What was this particular group of people doing, besides walking on his property? You think holding 11 people at gunpoint, threatening to shoot them, is a reasonable response to trespassing? No warnings? It's not likely this group of people knew they were on private land, and the rancher most likely did not see them commit a felony.

I wouldn't have to worry about getting sued by any immigrants, because I'm not dumb enough to kidnap any. But free healthcare, eh? Maybe you'd like to explain that one. I know it's a typical talking point for anti-immigrant Arizonan's, but it's simply not true. Undocumented immigrants do pay taxes if they work. In fact, they pay into the system but get nothing out of it (social security). They pay property taxes if they own a home. They pay sales tax on anything the buy. So maybe you'd also like to explain the tax one to me.



No- the last thing we need is more illegal immigration and cases like this that make it look easy for people to abuse our system. This lawsuit is wrong- plain and simple.

So you disagree with the water stations, or treating everybody like a human being, regardless their country of origin? What was the "no" for?

[jonbravo77]

How on Earth can anyone live in the US and not pay taxes? Do they not buy anything? No food, no clothes? And, if they are using fake Social Security numbers, paying into a program that they will never see anything of, they are directly benefiting the elderly. Not to mention the incredible amounts of money that banks, and therefore the government, make off the backs of these hard working and often invisible people who send money back home.
They should have the right to sue. There are certain rights that ANYONE on US soil should have.
If there was damage done to his property, he should have involved the police. If the police weren't doing enough, he should have petitioned the city/county to have more police force. He shouldn't have threatened and held a group of people at gunpoint.

I guess you don't know the under-the-table tactics that happen with illegal immigration. Most do not get paid through any type of payroll system that will take out the taxes or social security you talk about. They get paid in cash...

And no, just because you are on American soil does not give you all the rights of a citizen of this country, that is the whole meaning by the word "illegal".

[it5five]

I guess you don't know the under-the-table tactics that happen with illegal immigration. Most do not get paid through any type of payroll system that will take out the taxes or social security you talk about. They get paid in cash...


I assume you have data to back that up?

[leekohler]

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. I know full well what the people in this state are like. One only has to look at the reelection of Arpaio in November to see the prevailing attitude in this county.

What was this particular group of people doing, besides walking on his property? You think holding 11 people at gunpoint, threatening to shoot them, is a reasonable response to trespassing? No warnings? It's not likely this group of people knew they were on private land, and the rancher most likely did not see them commit a felony.

I wouldn't have to worry about getting sued by any immigrants, because I'm not dumb enough to kidnap any. But free healthcare, eh? Maybe you'd like to explain that one. I know it's a typical talking point for anti-immigrant Arizonan's, but it's simply not true. Undocumented immigrants do pay taxes if they work. In fact, they pay into the system but get nothing out of it (social security). They pay property taxes if they own a home. They pay sales tax on anything the buy. So maybe you'd also like to explain the tax one to me.

Look- I don't think anyone is anti-immigrant, but I think a lot of people are anti-illegal immigrant. I live in Chicago, BTW- and we have tons of illegal immigrants. I've worked with some when I worked in restaurants. It's not that I don't like them, it's just that they need to come here legally.

I assume you have data to back that up?

I worked at a few places that did exactly that. How could you get data to back up something that isn't being recorded in the first place?

[chrmjenkins]

If there was damage done to his property, he should have involved the police. If the police weren't doing enough, he should have petitioned the city/county to have more police force. He shouldn't have threatened and held a group of people at gunpoint.

It's difficult when it is different offenders every time. The ability to defend one's own home and property recognizes law enforcement cannot always be there in a timely fashion.

[SmartIndianKid]

And no, just because you are on American soil does not give you all the rights of a citizen of this country, that is the whole meaning by the word "illegal".

Then where do you draw the line on rights?

Do legal tourists have the same rights as citizens? How about legal immigrants or green card holders? Do you think that natural born citizens should have more rights than naturalized citizens?

Do you believe that certain groups of people should be able to be assaulted and held at gunpoint with no consequences?

[jonbravo77]

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. I know full well what the people in this state are like. One only has to look at the reelection of Arpaio in November to see the prevailing attitude in this county.

What was this particular group of people doing, besides walking on his property? You think holding 11 people at gunpoint, threatening to shoot them, is a reasonable response to trespassing? No warnings? It's not likely this group of people knew they were on private land, and the rancher most likely did not see them commit a felony.

I wouldn't have to worry about getting sued by any immigrants, because I'm not dumb enough to kidnap any. But free healthcare, eh? Maybe you'd like to explain that one. I know it's a typical talking point for anti-immigrant Arizonan's, but it's simply not true. Undocumented immigrants do pay taxes if they work. In fact, they pay into the system but get nothing out of it (social security). They pay property taxes if they own a home. They pay sales tax on anything the buy. So maybe you'd also like to explain the tax one to me.

I love how you pick one side of the case. Maybe you should move to Mexico since that is who you are supporting. Screw Americans that want to protect their land, right? THEY OBTAIN THE ABILITY TO HAVE A HOME WITH ILLEGAL ACTIONS... What part of this is not understood? If they have a social security number, they obtained it illegally, if they have a home they obtained it illegally.

[thebassoonist]

I guess you don't know the under-the-table tactics that happen with illegal immigration. Most do not get paid through any type of payroll system that will take out the taxes or social security you talk about. They get paid in cash...

And no, just because you are on American soil does not give you all the rights of a citizen of this country, that is the whole meaning by the word "illegal".

Your first point is a problem with the employers. And I too would like to see that backed up with data. And your second point, I'm not talking about ALL rights. I'm not talking about being able to vote, etc. I'm just talking about being protected from, say, being murdered or raped, or being assaulted and held at gunpoint.

[leekohler]

Then where do you draw the line on rights?

Do legal tourists have the same rights as citizens? How about legal immigrants or green card holders? Do you think that natural born citizens should have more rights than naturalized citizens?

Of course they do- they're legal.

Do you believe that certain groups of people should be able to be assaulted and held at gunpoint with no consequences?

Perhaps not. But when those very people were breaking the law to begin with, I don't think they should be able to sue.

[jonbravo77]

Then where do you draw the line on rights?

Do legal tourists have the same rights as citizens? How about legal immigrants or green card holders? Do you think that natural born citizens should have more rights than naturalized citizens?

Do you believe that certain groups of people should be able to be assaulted and held at gunpoint with no consequences?

OMG... we are talking legalities here. And you proved it, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS should not be afforded the same American rights and laws. I am not saying they are less of a human being, but they are not legal citizens of this country.

[it5five]

I love how you pick one side of the case. Maybe you should move to Mexico since that is who you are supporting. Screw Americans that want to protect their land, right? THEY OBTAIN THE ABILITY TO HAVE A HOME WITH ILLEGAL ACTIONS... What part of this is not understood? If they have a social security number, they obtained it illegally, if they have a home they obtained it illegally.

Was this group of 11 in the process of illegally obtaining social security numbers? What does that have to do with the holding hostage of 11 people?

[leekohler]

What does that have to do with the holding hostage of 11 people?

"Holding hostage"? What? Was he asking for ransom? OMG- sorry, you've lost me completely now. :rolleyes:

[jonbravo77]

Was this group of 11 in the process of illegally obtaining social security numbers? What does that have to do with the holding hostage of 11 people?

Do you understand what the word "hostage" means? Let me help you:

hos·tage (hstj)
n.
1. A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party.
2. One that serves as security against an implied threat: superpowers held hostage to each other by their nuclear arsenals.
3. One that is manipulated by the demands of another: "National policies cannot be made hostage to another country" Alan D. Romberg.


This man, held these people until the border patrol could come and get them. You are letting the defense sway you to believe otherwise. I know I am not going to change your view on this, but you are defending an illegal act by people who are coming to this country illegally, and you are affording them the rights which they do not legally get. I will say again, I do not think they are less than a human being, but when you do something illegal you should not have the right to sue. It's the same thing as if a person breaks into your home, do you think he should be able to sue you because he hurt himself getting through the window?

[SmartIndianKid]

Of course they do- they're legal.

Well they are limited in a number of areas of oppurtunity, but that's another discussion altogether.


Perhaps not. But when those very people were breaking the law to begin with, I don't think they should be able to sue.

I agree with you, partially. These people were breaking a law, and that has consequences that should be dealt with appropriately. However, that should in no way make it acceptable to assault them.

OMG... we are talking legalities here. And you proved it, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS should not be afforded the same American rights and laws. I am not saying they are less of a human being, but they are not legal citizens of this country.

But you really are saying that they are less of a person than "citizens" are. Why should they not be able to sue for assault? Just because they are not a citizen, does not mean they are granted exemption our laws. Tourists, immigrants and permanent residents follow our laws, and are able to sue under our laws.

I fully agree that these people should have legal action issued against them for entering the country illegally. But if you are going to subject them to immigration laws, they should also be protected by the laws against assault. You can't use a double standard here.

[jonbravo77]

Well they are limited in a number of areas of oppurtunity, but that's another discussion altogether.




I agree with you, partially. These people were breaking a law, and that has consequences that should be dealt with appropriately. However, that should in no way make it acceptable to assault them.



But you really are saying that they are less of a person than "citizens" are. Why should they not be able to sue for assault? Just because they are not a citizen, does not mean they are granted exemption our laws. Tourists, immigrants and permanent residents follow our laws, and are able to sue under our laws.



I fully agree that these people should have legal action issued against them for entering the country illegally. But if you are going to subject them to immigration laws, they should also be protected by the laws against assault. You can't use a double standard here.

I will agree, to an extent. If in fact it comes out that there was an assault committed (in which everyone is speculating, and no one knows for sure) then yes, that person who the assault was committed upon should be able to have recourse. However, they are allowing all of the illegal immigrants to have recourse, that is not right and they are asking for millions of dollars, that is not right...

And for clarification, you are talking about tourists and people who are legal immigrants or have legal documentation. The issue still remains around the word "illegal"

[SmartIndianKid]

I will agree, to an extent. If in fact it comes out that there was an assault committed (in which everyone is speculating, and no one knows for sure) then yes, that person who the assault was committed upon should be able to have recourse. However, they are allowing all of the illegal immigrants to have recourse, that is not right and they are asking for millions of dollars, that is not right...

Then we agree. Appropriate action should be taken against both parties.

The woman who was assaulted should be able to sue for assault, and the US Government should repatriate the immigrants to their country of origin.

Most likely, the case in its entirety should be thrown out, but hopefully an assault charge stands.

[fivepoint]

I feel bad for the rancher. He's had to spend a huge amount of his time and resources defending simply his land and defending his family from trespassers and illegal immigrants... when apparently the law wouldn't.

Apparently they've taken over 14,000 illegals off of his land in the past 10-15 years. What a freaking headache, not to mention scary for the family who has to live there while complete strangers trounce across their land in the middle of the night. :(

[it5five]

"Holding hostage"? What? Was he asking for ransom? OMG- sorry, you've lost me completely now. :rolleyes:

Did I ever have you?

I was wrong to use the word hostage, you are right.

Now, as for how often undocumented immigrants pay into the system, since you and jon were unable to back up you assertion that most dont:

It is estimated that undocumented immigrants pay $7 billion into Social Security every year. Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ex=1270353600)

From a Congressional Budget Office report titled, "The Impact of Unauthorized
Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments" from December 2007:

-"Although there are no reliable data on unauthorized immigrants’ rate of compliance with tax laws, the IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year."

Their Source: See Paula N. Singer and Linda Dodd-Major, “Identification Numbers and U.S. Government Compliance Initiatives,” Tax Notes, vol. 104 (September 20, 2004), pp. 1429–1433.

They estimate that between 50-75 percent of all undocumented immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes:

-The SSA assumes that about half of unauthorized immigrants pay Social Security taxes.

Source:
Social Security Advisory Board, Issue Brief No. 1, The Impact of Immigration on Social Security and the National Economy (report prepared by Joel Feinleib and David Warner, December 2005), available at http://www.ssab.gov/documents/IMMIG_Issue_Brief_Final_Version_000.pdf

-Several of the states whose estimates CBO reviewed used a model developed by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) to determine state and local taxes paid by unauthorized immigrants. ITEP assumes a 50 percent compliance rate for income and payroll taxes.

Soruce: See Robin Baker and Rich Jones, State and Local Taxes Paid in Colorado by Undocumented Immigrants, Issue Brief No. 3 (Denver: Bell Policy Center, June 30, 2006),available at www.thebell.org/ PUBS/IssBrf/2006/06ImmigTaxes.pdf; Sarah Beth Coffey, Undocumented Immigrants in Georgia: Tax Contributions and Fiscal Concerns (Atlanta: Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, January 2006), available at www.gbpi.org/pub/garevenue/20060119.pdf; Ruth Ehresman, Undocumented Workers: Impact on Missouri’s
Economy (St. Louis: Missouri Budget Project, June 21, 2006), available at www.mobudget.org/newstatebudgetreports.htm; and New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project, Undocumented Immigrants in New Mexico: State Tax Contributions and Fiscal Concerns (Albuquerque: New Mexico Voices for Children, May 2006), available at www.nmvoices.org/attachments/immigrant_tax_report.pdf

-Researchers from the Urban Institute, the Migration Policy Institute, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the Center for Immigration Studies have assumed a 55percent compliance rate for income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes.

Source: See Steve Camarota, The High Cost of Cheap Labor (Washington, D.C.: Center for Immigration Studies, 2004); and Randy Capps and others, Civic Contributions: Taxes Paid by Immigrants in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2006).

-As part of a larger study on migration, the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego conducted a survey of unauthorized immigrants and found that, in 2006, 75 percent had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both.

Source: See Wayne A. Cornelius and Jessica M. Lewis, eds., Impacts of Border Enforcement on Mexican Migration: The View from Sending Communities (La Jolla, Calif.: University of California at San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, 2007).

[leekohler]

Then we agree. Appropriate action should be taken against both parties.

The woman who was assaulted should be able to sue for assault, and the US Government should repatriate the immigrants to their country of origin.

Most likely, the case in its entirety should be thrown out, but hopefully an assault charge stands.

I can agree with this. The illegal immigrants should absolutely NOT be allowed to sue.

[.Andy]

No sympathy at all. If this guy wants to run around and take the law into his own hands in camouflage pants, binoculars, and guns he can do so in the court room as well in a cheap suit.

I can agree with this. The illegal immigrants should absolutely NOT be allowed to sue.
Why shouldn't everyone have the same legal recourse to defend themselves irrespective of their immigration status?

[chrmjenkins]

No sympathy at all. If this guy wants to run around and take the law into his own hands in camouflage pants, binoculars, and guns he can do so in the court room as well in a cheap suit.


Why shouldn't everyone have the same legal recourse to defend themselves irrespective of their immigration status?

Because, presumably, they were witnessed committing a felony, making holding them not a crime. The only claim would be the one of the woman who was assaulted.

[leekohler]

Why shouldn't everyone have the same legal recourse to defend themselves irrespective of their immigration status?

They aren't citizens and obviously have no respect for our legal system. They absolutely should not be able to use the system for which they have no respect for personal gain.

[it5five]

Because, presumably, they were witnessed committing a felony, making holding them not a crime. The only claim would be the one of the woman who was assaulted.

Presumably is the key word. It's more likely the guy didn't see them commit a felony (physically crossing the border). He will have a hell of a time proving he did.

I agree with .Andy. If he wants to play dress up, he has to face the consequences.

[leekohler]

Presumably is the key word. It's more likely the guy didn't see them commit a felony (physically crossing the border). He will have a hell of a time proving he did.



However, it's already been proven that the plaintiffs are illegal immigrants.

[.Andy]

Because, presumably, they were witnessed committing a felony, making holding them not a crime.
Allegedly. Isn't this for the courts to decide? Is everyone that crosses the border an undocumented immigrant? Is none of them entitled to a refugee visa? Does that arbitrary line make them all less human?

The only claim would be the one of the woman who was assaulted.
In my opinion they were all assaulted. Assault doesn't necessary have to be physical. Having a gun shoved in your face and threats of releasing a dog on you are going to be pretty harrowing for a long time for these people. And against women as well. This guy is a prime coward. If it wasn't for the endemic xenophobia (the article stokes these stereotypical fires wonderfully) there would be far less (if any) support for this guy. It wouldn't be acceptable against white people that overstayed a tourist visa.

[leekohler]

It wouldn't be acceptable against white people that overstayed a tourist visa.

Come on .Andy- overstaying a tourist visa is hardly the same thing.

[it5five]

However, it's already been proven that the plaintiffs are illegal immigrants.

That doesn't matter. Unless he saw them commit a felony, he has no right to make a citizens arrest. You can't do it under a presumed felony.

He should have done the adult thing and called the authorities who actually had the right to make an arrest.

[.Andy]

They aren't citizens and obviously have no respect for our legal system.
You cannot possible say this. You have no idea how these people view your legal system or your country or indeed what they entered your country for. This is a blatant attempt to try and demonise them. They don't respect X therefore they aren't worthy or X. That's exactly the kind of logic used to justify all sorts of atrocities throughout history.

They absolutely should not be able to use the system for which they have no respect for personal gain.
As soon as money comes in to it you're looking at it as personal gain? Do you think people lose anything by having a gun pointed in their faces and by being threatened with a dog? How do you think they'll cope psychologically with an experience such as that?

Come on .Andy- overstaying a tourist visa is hardly the same thing.
How is walking across an arbitrary line undocumented somehow worse than overstaying a visa? How come there are never stories posted about canadians that have crossed the border being harassed by vigilante groups?

[leekohler]

You cannot possible say this. You have no idea how these people view your legal system or your country or indeed what they entered your country for. This is a blatant attempt to try and demonise them. They don't respect X therefore they aren't worthy or X. That's exactly the kind of logic used to justify all sorts of atrocities throughout history.

It is NOT an attempt to demonize them. It is illegal immigration, period. They know it's illegal, do they not?


As soon as money comes in to it you're looking at it as personal gain? Do you think people lose anything by having a gun pointed in their faces and by being threatened with a dog? How do you think they'll cope psychologically with an experience such as that?

32 million? Are you serious? Justify that for me please. I'm sorry. This needs to be thrown out completely.


How is walking across an arbitrary line undocumented somehow worse than overstaying a visa? How come there are never stories posted about canadians that have crossed the border being harassed by vigilante groups?

Are there massive numbers of Canadians crossing the border illegally? Seriously?

[chrmjenkins]

How is walking across an arbitrary line undocumented somehow worse than overstaying a visa? How come there are never stories posted about canadians that have crossed the border being harassed by vigilante groups?

It's easy, the circumstances make it much easier to tell. The wager that hispanic people seen near the border might be illegal is more likely to be correct than assuming a Canadian or person from country x is here illegally. That doesn't make the racial profiling correct, but when it is used and it turns out to reveal crime, you can't dismiss it on the premise they profiled unless you can prove they did not follow due course of the law in doing so.

In this case, some sort of crime was a given (trespassing at least). That wouldn't justify him holding them, but if he did witness the felony, his holding them would be justified.

It pains me so much to have these debates because the only reason we are here is that our country won't fix its immigration system.

[.Andy]

It is NOT an attempt to demonize them.
Yes it is. That kind of logic is deserves nothing more. Terrorists don't respect human life therefore we can treat them however we wish and by whatever means necessary.

It is illegal immigration, period. They know it's illegal, do they not?
I don't know do they? Does it matter? Are no immigrants entitled to cross borders? Does escaping poverty or crime not a justification to cross borders? Is no one entitled to refugee visas in your part of the world? Do you just "round them up", and send them back to poverty, crime or their deaths? Can you wash your hands of people that easily.

32 million? Are you serious? Justify that for me please. I'm sorry. This needs to be thrown out completely.
That's not up to me to justify it's for the courts to decide and for the to justify. Other people and money really gets american hackles up doesn't it? It can be thrown out but it's a great wake up call to the vigilante cowards that their actions are not immune from scrutiny.

Are there massive numbers of Canadians crossing the border illegally?
It doesn't matter on the numbers or where they come from. Your argument is that the fact that their "illegals" justifies this horrific treatment with no legal recourse. Think about what you're arguing. You're making them less human.

[fivepoint]

Allegedly. Isn't this for the courts to decide? Is everyone that crosses the border an undocumented immigrant? Is none of them entitled to a refugee visa? Does that arbitrary line make them all less human?


In my opinion they were all assaulted. (Alleged) Assault doesn't necessary have to be physical. Having a gun (Allegedly)shoved in your face and (Alleged)threats of releasing a dog on you are going to be pretty harrowing for a long time for these people. And against women (Allegedly)as well. This guy is (Allegedly)a prime coward. If it wasn't for the endemic xenophobia (the article stokes these stereotypical fires wonderfully) there would be far less (if any) support for this guy. It wouldn't be acceptable against white people that overstayed a tourist visa.

Since you made a point to use alleged only where you saw fit, I fixed the rest for you. Bold is mine.

[leekohler]

I don't know do they? Does it matter? Are no immigrants entitled to cross borders? Does escaping poverty or crime not a justification to cross borders? Is no one entitled to refugee visas in your part of the world? Do you just "round them up", and send them back to poverty, crime or their deaths? Can you wash your hands of people that easily.

If they were trying to claim asylum, there are ways to do that too. As for the rest of your claims, either we have laws here regarding immigration, or we don't-which is it?


That's not up to me to justify it's for the courts to decide and for the to justify. Other people and money really gets american hackles up doesn't it? It can be thrown out but it's a great wake up call to the vigilante cowards that their actions are not immune from scrutiny.

I can tell oyu that I definitely have an opinion on it and that it is NOT justified.


It doesn't matter on the numbers or where they come from. Your argument is that the fact that their "illegals" justifies this horrific treatment with no legal recourse. Think about what you're arguing. You're making them less human.

I didn't say there shouldn't be consequences for the "vigilante" if you will. There should be be. But trying to get 32 million out of it is ridiculous and sets a terrible precedent.

[.Andy]

It pains me so much to have these debates because the only reason we are here is that our country won't fix its immigration system.
Exactly. Also imagine if this vigilante rancher invested all his time, money, and efforts into humanitarian causes on the other side of the border. He'd have done a hell of a lot more good in the long run and prevented far less people crossing the border.

But I guess it's not as fun as riding around in a truck and holding women with a gun and a dog.

Since you made a point to use alleged only where you saw fit, I fixed the rest for you. Bold is mine.
This is a good point. Thanks fivepoint. Even more reason for the courts to hear it out.

[fivepoint]

.Andy,
Please answer this question:

This lawsuit aside... not considering any allegations of this particular event... would you say that the rancher is a victim at all? Does it bother you that he has to put up with this crap on his land each and every day? Would it bother you if his family dealt with this each and every day because illegal immigrants were ILLEGALLY entering into the U.S. and ILLEGALLY trespassing on his land in the middle of the night?

I think it's important to know, because if you think it's just fine and dandy for them to be crossing over, and using his land to do so... then it will help to frame the argument more clearly.

[jonbravo77]

.Andy,
Please answer this question:

This lawsuit aside... not considering any allegations of this particular event... would you say that the rancher is a victim at all? Does it bother you that he has to put up with this crap on his land each and every day? Would it bother you if his family dealt with this each and every day because illegal immigrants were ILLEGALLY entering into the U.S. and ILLEGALLY trespassing on his land in the middle of the night?

I think it's important to know, because if you think it's just fine and dandy for them to be crossing over, and using his land to do so... then it will help to frame the argument more clearly.

Good point, but since it is not happening to Andy or anyone else on this forum then it is very easy to demonize the property owner. And yes, that is what you are doing, you don't want us to demonize the ILLEGAL immigrants but it's ok for you to demonize the property owner and putting a stigma of being a "vigilante" or a "cowboy". The hypocrisy is astounding. And you keep making this a civil rights issue, this is simply about a crime that was committed by people who are in this country ILLEGALLY...

[.Andy]

This lawsuit aside... not considering any allegations of this particular event... would you say that the rancher is a victim at all?
He most certainly is a victim. Albeit he is directly a victim of poverty and your immigration laws just as those who cross the border are. Addressing the causes are what's required here. Just because one lives across an arbitrarily drawn line does not shelter them from the effects of poverty and everything that's associated with it. It's an incredibly naive attitude to have.

Does it bother you that he has to put up with this crap on his land each and every day? Would it bother you if his family dealt with this each and every day because illegal immigrants were ILLEGALLY entering into the U.S. and ILLEGALLY trespassing on his land in the middle of the night?

I think it's important to know, because if you think it's just fine and dandy for them to be crossing over, and using his land to do so... then it will help to frame the argument more clearly.
I don't think it's fine and dandy that people are trespassing. In fact it would be horrible for this guy and his family. However I don't think that in any way it justifies his actions whatsoever. Force should be equal to, or less than required to the threat at hand and avoided at all costs. As I've previously posted his efforts should be concentrated on fixing the problem, not being part of it.

Good point, but since it is not happening to Andy or anyone else on this forum then it is very easy to demonize the property owner.
I'd like to address this. I'm not demonising the property owner, only his actions. But your argument here can easily be used in favour of the people crossing the border. You have absolutely no idea what it's like or them to live in poverty and survive/try and raise their children amidst high crime and lack of healthcare etc. Therefore you've no right to judge undocumented immigrants.

[jonbravo77]

He most certainly is a victim. Albeit he is directly a victim of poverty and your immigration laws just as those who cross the border are. Addressing the causes are what's required here. Just because one lives across an arbitrarily drawn line does not shelter them from the effects of poverty and everything that's associated with it. It's an incredibly naive attitude to have.


I don't think it's fine and dandy that people are trespassing. In fact it would be horrible for this guy and his family. However I don't think that in any way it justifies his actions whatsoever. Force should be equal to, or less than required to the threat at hand and avoided at all costs. As I've previously posted his efforts should be concentrated on fixing the problem, not being part of it.


I'd like to address this. I'm not demonising the property owner, only his actions. But your argument here can easily be used in favour of the people crossing the border. You have absolutely no idea what it's like or them to live in poverty and survive/try and raise their children amidst high crime and lack of healthcare etc. Therefore you've no right to judge undocumented immigrants.

And you know what it's like to live with people constantly trespassing, destroying your property, causing harm to your cattle. You know what it's like to live in poverty? I have no problems with people coming to this country to seek a better life, but go through the process, just like every other immigrant who has come to this country. How dare you tell me what right I have to anything, especially when it comes to the country I live in.... And what about the citizens in America who have to live with the crime that comes with illegal immigrants? The drug smuggling that comes with many of those illegal immigrants, Are we supposed to give up our rights?

[Rt&Dzine]

Does everyone feel the same about it if it were a bunch of homeless American citizens that were trespassing and pooping on his property? Or is it only because they're illegal immigrants that it is so outrageous?

[jonbravo77]

Does everyone feel the same about it if it were a bunch of homeless American citizens that were trespassing and pooping on his property? Or is it only because they're illegal immigrants that it is so outrageous?

Honestly, I would feel the exact same way. If the property owner was having a huge problem with the homeless doing the exact same thing that the illegal immigrants were doing then he should be able to protect his property... However, the homeless American citizens are just that, citizens, not illegal immigrants...

[it5five]

And what about the citizens in America who have to live with the crime that comes with illegal immigrants?

Well, your theory is about to go out the window. My social security number was used three different times by undocumented immigrants to obtain employment and open bank accounts. Granted, this all happened before I was 18 (Social Security numbers of children are used more often since they/their parents have no reason to monitor them), and I don't have any credit problems because of it, but there is some sort of guard/check on my SS number which requires me to jump through a few extra hoops to get things like a credit report. Yet, here I am, arguing that undocumented immigrants should be treated like human beings.

So don't go around telling me how I should feel about immigrants, because according to you, I'm a "victim" of their "crimes".

[FX120]

That doesn't matter. Unless he saw them commit a felony, he has no right to make a citizens arrest. You can't do it under a presumed felony.

He should have done the adult thing and called the authorities who actually had the right to make an arrest.

They were on his land comitting felony tresspass, as they were tresspassing as felons. He had ever right to detain them, and the local law enforcement obviously agrees with him, as does the US border patrol.

[jonbravo77]

Well, your theory is about to go out the window. My social security number was used three different times by undocumented immigrants to obtain employment and open bank accounts. Granted, this all happened before I was 18 (Social Security numbers of children are used more often since they/their parents have no reason to monitor them), and I don't have any credit problems because of it, but there is some sort of guard/check on my SS number which requires me to jump through a few extra hoops to get things like a credit report. Yet, here I am, arguing that undocumented immigrants should be treated like human beings.

So don't go around telling me how I should feel about immigrants, because according to you, I'm a "victim" of their "crimes".

Stop making a human rights argument!!! An illegal act is an illegal act. I don't get how hard this concept is... At no point did I say that these people should be treated as less than human. But they committed a crime, first of which entering this country illegally.....

[glocke12]

I cant believe some of the statements Im reading by supposed U.S. Citizens.

Even if the Rancher did not witness them crossing the border, they were trespassing on his land. I dont know how the law works in this regard, but I would assume that if his land had been clearly marked with no trespassing signs, than he is probably within his right to detain them until LEO's arrive.

I really don't understand how anyone can have any sympathy for these people. The rancher probably works very hard, and has to deal with having people trash his land and property.

I hope the case gets thrown out, and I hope the mexicans are given a nice big kick in the ass on their way back.

BTW, if you want a good dose of irony, look at how mexico treats people entering illegally from their southern border.

[jonbravo77]

BTW, if you want a good dose of irony, look at how mexico treats people entering illegally from their southern border.

They do have some tough laws, looking for reference.

[glocke12]

They do have some tough laws, looking for reference.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back702.html

[rhsgolfer33]

Considering that the rancher could easily make the determination that they crossed at an undesignated border crossing (which I believe is also illegal whether you're an illegal immigrant or not, correct me if I'm wrong) and were trespassing on his property, it would seem that he should be allowed to detain them until authorities could properly sort the situation out. If someone was trespassing on my land I would certainly not hesitate to stop them, notify the authorities, and have them charged, whether they were illegal immigrants or not.

I bet it gets thrown out.

[Consultant]

WTF???

They are illegal.

They are on someone else's property. In some states the owner can SHOOT you if you are on their property.

There are other ways to become a citizen.

[floyde]

Considering that the rancher could easily make the determination that they crossed at an undesignated border crossing (which I believe is also illegal whether you're an illegal immigrant or not, correct me if I'm wrong) and were trespassing on his property, it would seem that he should be allowed to detain them until authorities could properly sort the situation out. If someone was trespassing on my land I would certainly not hesitate to stop them, notify the authorities, and have them charged, whether they were illegal immigrants or not.

I bet it gets thrown out.

Now this is a lot more reasonable. If you think it's ok for any illegal activity (since you guys like to bold this so much) to be handled in such a way, then it's ok. But if it's just illegal mexicans who shouldn't complain if they're held at gunpoint, then that's just plain old xenophobia.

[leekohler]

WTF???

They are illegal.


There are other ways to become a citizen.

Exactly. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept.

[NT1440]

They aren't citizens and obviously have no respect for our legal system. They absolutely should not be able to use the system for which they have no respect for personal gain.

lee- respect has nothing to do with this. Yes they should have charges pressed against them for crossing illegally, but the woman who was assaulted should be able to have some sort of fair shot for justice as well.

[leekohler]

lee- respect has nothing to do with this. Yes they should have charges pressed against them for crossing illegally, but the woman who was assaulted should be able to have some sort of fair shot for justice as well.

I have repeatedly said in here that there should be some sort of consequences for the land owner. But suing for $32 million is certainly not what I consider "justice". It's ridiculous. This case needs to be thrown out.

[Tomorrow]

He had no legal right. A citizens arrest can only be made if the guy actually saw them commit a felony. So unless he saw them physically cross the border, he's in a lot of trouble here.


Not quite true - the article says this happened on his property, which means they were trespassing. And I'm sorry, if I see 16 trespassers on my property and I'm the only one there, I'd be sure they knew I had a gun, too.

This doesn't have to fall under "citizens arrest" in order for him to be in the right - the man was protecting his property.

[it5five]

Considering that the rancher could easily make the determination that they crossed at an undesignated border crossing...

How? They were brown?

That's the thing here. The rancher had no way of knowing if they were illegal or not. He assumed they were, and he was right, but he had no way of knowing that before he had held them at gunpoint.

[atszyman]

Not quite true - the article says this happened on his property, which means they were trespassing. And I'm sorry, if I see 16 trespassers on my property and I'm the only one there, I'd be sure they knew I had a gun, too.

This doesn't have to fall under "citizens arrest" in order for him to be in the right - the man was protecting his property.

And if he deals with all trespassers in a similar manner then I'd agree. But if he was holding them at gunpoint only because he thought they were illegal immigrants then he was acting as a vigilante, instead of protecting his property.

[rhett7660]

He had no legal right. A citizens arrest can only be made if the guy actually saw them commit a felony or misdemeanor (think under cover security at a department store arresting for shoplifting). So unless he saw them physically cross the border, he's in a lot of trouble here.

All this guy did was see a group of hispanics, assume they were illegal (typical in Arizona :rolleyes: ), and then hold them at gunpoint. It doesn't matter if he was right about their immigration status, but he didn't see them commit a felony.

The wanna-be cowboy should have just called border patrol and left himself out of it.


Fixed that for you.

[leekohler]

How? They were brown?

That's the thing here. The rancher had no way of knowing if they were illegal or not. He assumed they were, and he was right, but he had no way of knowing that before he had held them at gunpoint.

Have to correct you here- the article mentions that he has electronic sensors on his property by the border.

[.Andy]

And you know what it's like to live with people constantly trespassing, destroying your property, causing harm to your cattle. You know what it's like to live in poverty? I have no problems with people coming to this country to seek a better life, but go through the process, just like every other immigrant who has come to this country. How dare you tell me what right I have to anything, especially when it comes to the country I live in.... And what about the citizens in America who have to live with the crime that comes with illegal immigrants? The drug smuggling that comes with many of those illegal immigrants, Are we supposed to give up our rights?
I'm not sure what you're on about here :confused:. You tried on the argument that if one doesn't have a specific experience in something they can't argue against it and intrinsically lack empathy. I illustrated that it was an empty argument. Now you've apparently done exactly the same thing.

Exactly. I don't get why this is such a difficult concept.
It's only a simple concept when one is lucky enough to be born into a rich country and isn't faced with poverty and everything that goes along with it. How long would you dedicate to filling out foms if your family couldn't eat properly, weren't getting educated, weren't getting healthcare, were living in a high crime area? If you weren't educated yourself and didn't have an official trade and no wealth what are your chances of being accepted? What other choices do you have.

Trying to reduce immigration issues to the level of they should go through official channels completely ignores what is causing the problem in the first place.

[leekohler]

It's only a simple concept when one is lucky enough to be born into a rich country and isn't faced with poverty and everything that goes along with it. How long would you dedicate to filling out foms if your family couldn't eat properly, weren't getting educated, weren't getting healthcare, were living in a high crime area? If you weren't educated yourself and didn't have an official trade and no wealth what are your chances of being accepted? What other choices do you have.

Trying to reduce immigration issues to the level of they should go through official channels completely ignores what is causing the problem in the first place.

So, let me get this straight- violating another countries immigration laws is OK if you're poor? Are you serious, .Andy? We should just let this go on? Really?

Look- we have immigration laws here. If you don't like them, work to change them, but just because you don't agree ith them, doesn't mean you sweep them under the rug. I understand what you're saying, but I also don't think we should just open up the doors and let just anybody in either. That obviously doesn't work. So what is your suggestion? And honestly, isn't this something Mexico should be working to solve?

[ucfgrad93]

Trying to reduce immigration issues to the level of they should go through official channels completely ignores what is causing the problem in the first place.

A problem that the Mexican government should be trying to fix.

[NT1440]

I have repeatedly said in here that there should be some sort of consequences for the land owner. But suing for $32 million is certainly not what I consider "justice". It's ridiculous. This case needs to be thrown out.

Oh I didnt realize they are suing for that much, the suit can still stand but the amount is ridiculous.

[nbs2]

Just one notation I'd like to make, then I'll get out of your hair. It's something that was pointed out to me elsewhere.

An illegal immigrant would be a kid chasing his dog or a rancher his wandered off cattle over the border without realizing it. A criminal immigrant is someone who crosses intentionally.

[glocke12]

Trying to reduce immigration issues to the level of they should go through official channels completely ignores what is causing the problem in the first place.

So how exactly is this our problem here in the U.S. ? I know that sounds callous, but the problems people face in Mexico are not our fault, nor is it our responsibility to "fix" mexico, or to provide jobs for those people. We are not a welfare state open to the world.

We have enough problems taking care of people who are already U.S. Citizens and are in need of help.

[rhsgolfer33]

How? They were brown?

That's the thing here. The rancher had no way of knowing if they were illegal or not. He assumed they were, and he was right, but he had no way of knowing that before he had held them at gunpoint.

As Lee pointed out, the article says the rancher had sensors near the border on his property, so in all likelihood he knew they had crossed illegally. Regardless, they were trespassing, he certainly could detain trespassers until authorities arrived (regardless of immigration status).

[thebassoonist]

This reminds me of a story that is often used to understand children's development of moral values.

"In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggest that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggest said, "No. I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife."

One question asked to children after they've heard the story is, "Should Heinz steal the drug? Why or why not?" Young school-aged children will say something like yes simply because she needs it. Middle school-aged children will say no, because that's stealing and it is wrong. Older school-aged children typically will respond yes, because it will help his wife.

And I think, when it comes down to saving a life, we would probably agree with the older children.

Replace the druggist with the US. Perhaps Mr. Heinz is parents, trying to get their family out of poverty and trying to buy their family hope. And we should remember that the US is not innocent. The passing of NAFTA really, really hurt Mexico's economy.

Just like stealing, I think illegal immigration is generally wrong. But are there times when it is justified? Absolutely. There is a lot of gray area.

[CorvusCamenarum]

A problem that the Mexican government should be trying to fix.

But why would they? It's apparently much more effective to ship their underclass north.

[NT1440]

But why would they? It's apparently much more effective to ship their underclass north.

Yup, its not people fleeing from an obviously worse off environment in the hopes of a much better one, its just the government exporting people....

[iJohnHenry]

Didn't Castro do the same thing? Empty the jails?

Now they are all living in Miami.

[CalBoy]

He had no legal right. A citizens arrest can only be made if the guy actually saw them commit a felony. So unless he saw them physically cross the border, he's in a lot of trouble here.

I'm not sure about the particulars of a citizen's arrest, but they were trespassing on his property (and by default, committing burglary in this case), which is a felony. If he witnessed that, that would alone be enough reason to hold them under arrest.

Let's remember that he did arrest them on his ranch, which means they had crossed his property line without permission.

All this guy did was see a group of hispanics, assume they were illegal (typical in Arizona :rolleyes: ), and then hold them at gunpoint. It doesn't matter if he was right about their immigration status, but he didn't see them commit a felony.

His intentions might have been (heck, probably are) racist in nature, but he does have legal standing. They were trespassing, and he has a right to defend his property until authorities (whatever authorities that may be) arrive.

Perhaps not. But when those very people were breaking the law to begin with, I don't think they should be able to sue.

I can agree with this. The illegal immigrants should absolutely NOT be allowed to sue.

I'm surprised at you, Lee. Just because someone lacks legal status somewhere doesn't mean their ability to sue is nullified. By that logic, it would be perfectly legal for an illegal immigrant to be enslaved, since the Constitution wouldn't apply to them.
But why would they? It's apparently much more effective to ship their underclass north.

Yup, its not people fleeing from an obviously worse off environment in the hopes of a much better one, its just the government exporting people....

While CorvusCamenarum is being somewhat hyperbolic, his point is true. Mexican presidents have found the problems of rural poverty can be more easily addressed by making it easier to let citizens leave.

Didn't Castro do the same thing? Empty the jails?

Now they are all living in Miami.

Of course Cuban exiles gained legal standing the moment their feet touched American shores as per Federal Law. ;) Not the case here.

[Rodimus Prime]

I am on the ranchers side.

They are crossing his land illeagly and are causing damage.

Might as well put a stop to it. They are not citizens so they should not be granted the same rights plus they where tresspassing (against the law) and here illegally. so they should not have a case.

This might just push the guy to shoot on sight and start killing them.

Hell if I was the rancher and one of illegals tried to break into my house I would shoot him. I am protecting myself and my family.

Lets not forget these illegals are causing a lot of damage to his land.

Some people from over seas and are in countries that are not boarded by ones that are not very well off might have trouble understanding why it is such an issue.

A lot of the illagels cause problems all over the nation. They do not carry insurances on cars get in wreaks, they take jobs from legal citizens. They cause life time problems for some people by stealing there identities.


I will also point out that people who say that the paper work is to hard, I am willing to bet that their home country is by far worse. The US is a lot easier to get into that most European countries. If any one form across the seas says anything my answer is lets open up your boarders and allow these people to flood in.

[CalBoy]

Hell if I was the rancher and one of illegals tried to break into my house I would shoot him. I am protecting myself and my family.

Of course non of the trespassers entered his house; they stepped across his property line. It's not quite the same.

Some people from over seas and are in countries that are not boarded by ones that are not very well off might have trouble understanding why it is such an issue.

The US is not alone in having to address the problem of illegal immigration. Every developed nation has this problem, and every one of them has a racial slur or negative propaganda aimed at that particular group.

[.Andy]

So, let me get this straight- violating another countries immigration laws is OK if you're poor? Are you serious, .Andy? We should just let this go on? Really?
Most certainly. If it increases the overall quality of life for the greatest number of individuals I see no problem with breaking the law in this specific circumstance. And to reiterate what their "crimes" actually are: walking across an arbitrary line and someone else's property to find work. Hardly heinous criminals. Arguably less malevolent motivation than double parking.

A problem that the Mexican government should be trying to fix.
Indeed. But the problem is that all that separates the mexican government and the US government is an arbitrary line in the sand. You'd be crazy to think that there'd be no intermingling of problems in such an area. It's a problem of the entire region and hence both governments. You can either waste billions of dollars+ and trillions of man hours focusing on policing borders. Or focus your efforts on coming up with a solution - which is addressing poverty in other countries. Like all problems focusing on the cause is a far better use of resources in the long term.

So how exactly is this our problem here in the U.S. ? I know that sounds callous, but the problems people face in Mexico are not our fault, nor is it our responsibility to "fix" mexico, or to provide jobs for those people. We are not a welfare state open to the world.

We have enough problems taking care of people who are already U.S. Citizens and are in need of help.
You may consider america (or any country) to be an isolated in the world but a bit of thought shows this to be obviously untrue. It's only a comfy delusion. You're connected in every way.

Helping other people out of poverty is not something that is a negative and a burden. It's a positive for your country. You'll have more trading partners, increased technology, decreased disease burden, a more educated world populace etc etc. You have to stop considering helping people lift themselves out of poverty a burden and begin to think of it as an investment. A long term one granted but an investment none-the-less.

Illegals
This is such a disgusting term to use to refer to people.

[jonbravo77]

Most certainly. If it increases the overall quality of life for the greatest number of individuals I see no problem with breaking the law in this specific circumstance. And to reiterate what their "crimes" actually are: walking across an arbitrary line and someone else's property to find work. Hardly heinous criminals. Arguably less malevolent motivation than double parking.


Indeed. But the problem is that all that separates the mexican government and the US government is an arbitrary line in the sand. You'd be crazy to think that there'd be no intermingling of problems in such an area. It's a problem of the entire region and hence both governments. You can either waste billions of dollars+ and trillions of man hours focusing on policing borders. Or focus your efforts on coming up with a solution - which is addressing poverty in other countries. Like all problems focusing on the cause is a far better use of resources in the long term.


You may consider america (or any country) to be an isolated in the world but a bit of thought shows this to be obviously untrue. It's only a comfy delusion. You're connected in every way.

Helping other people out of poverty is not something that is a negative and a burden. It's a positive for your country. You'll have more trading partners, increased technology, decreased disease burden, a more educated world populace etc etc. You have to stop considering helping people lift themselves out of poverty a burden and begin to think of it as an investment. A long term one granted but an investment none-the-less.

You keep talking about an arbitrary line. this line was agreed upon through several wars, it is not arbitrary. I am going to assume that if you were in the same position of this rancher you would not be feeling the way you are. Also, it's quite easy to assume good intentions on the part of those who are in fact committing a crime when you're on the outside.

We are dealing with a really large problem in the U.S. as concerns to illegal immigration. We are not however dealing with the problem that Britain has in that 52% of that country wants to close it's borders to legal immigration due to jobs dwindling for British citizens example (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=British+Immigration) I am referring to the first three headlines in that link I posted. We do not have a problem with people coming here legally to obtain jobs and whatever else they want. Just tired of people coming here illegally and getting everything for free....

You can have whatever point you want, but until you deal with this first hand anything you say is pure speculation, as the same to what I say. We don't know the particulars in this case, it's been going on for 5 years and has dwindled down the number of defendants that are actually involved in the case.

It's a garbage case aimed to deface our immigration laws. I love how Mexico can do what they want on immigration or anyone else in the world but if America does something to crack down on it we are the bad guys... This is our own fault, if we weren't the policemen of the world and spending so much time defending everyone else against disaster ie: WWII, Vietnam, Iraq etc, etc. we would probably get a better handle on things here.. Rip away, I'm sure you will... :mad:

[mgguy]

Perhaps we need to train and deputize property owners in the border areas to properly apprehend and surrender to authorities illegal immigrants who trespass onto their property. Giving property owners legal authority to do so would eliminate the basis for this type of law suit and also provide the landowner both the knowledge and skill to apprehend and hold in the proper, legal manner without violating the immigrants legal rights. It might also cut down on the number of illegal crossings through those areas as word spreads that trespassers will be detained. This could include the right to use firearms, provided they are given the appropriate training and can pass knowledge and skills tests.

[CorvusCamenarum]

So, let me get this straight- violating another countries immigration laws is OK if you're poor? Are you serious, .Andy? We should just let this go on? Really?

Look- we have immigration laws here. If you don't like them, work to change them, but just because you don't agree ith them, doesn't mean you sweep them under the rug. I understand what you're saying, but I also don't think we should just open up the doors and let just anybody in either. That obviously doesn't work. So what is your suggestion? And honestly, isn't this something Mexico should be working to solve?

I wonder how many of his poor, destitute neighbors .Andy lets live in his house, eat his food, run up his phone bill, etc.

On a related note, other countries have much tougher requirements for immigration than the US, yet it seems to only be the US who takes the flak. I wonder why that is.

[.Andy]

this line was agreed upon through several wars, it is not arbitrary.
The irony of this sentence is wonderful.

I am going to assume that if you were in the same position of this rancher you would not be feeling the way you are. Also, it's quite easy to assume good intentions on the part of those who are in fact committing a crime when you're on the outside.
I've posted my feelings earlier in the thread and I sympathise with the rancher. My argument is that he is as much an indirect victim of the poverty manifest across the border as those who are living in it. Addressing the poverty is the crux of the issue here. It in now way absolves him from his behaviour.

I wonder how many of his poor, destitute neighbors .Andy lets live in his house, eat his food, run up his phone bill, etc.
What I do is neither here nor there. I could give away all my money and donate all my time or do neither. It wouldn't change my argument that addressing poverty is the best intervention in addressing the root cause of undocumented immigration and crime as discussed here. Decreasing ridiculous wars would be another.

One can help make a massive difference by dedicating one's time to charity or through providing education without it costing a cent. One can even donate quite generously to charity without an appreciable loss in quality of life. In fact donating money can increase one's quality of life as I've outlined above.

[jonbravo77]

The irony of this sentence is wonderful.



I concede to your point. In re-reading what I said it's not quite what was intended. But it goes down in the annals of the forum... :o

[chrmjenkins]

Like I've stated before, the only reason we are having to argue these points is because our government hasn't fixed the system. Make it easier to get citizenship, standardize the way employers hire these people so that there aren't loopholes, and reap the benefit of workers who are paying taxes. No one in their right mind is going to complain about people who come here and do honest work and don't bother others, and it won't put an undue strain on resources. Basically, make it financially smart to come here the right way as opposed to illegally.

[.Andy]

I concede to your point. In re-reading what I said it's not quite what was intended. But it goes down in the annals of the forum... :o
:D! It'd be a good one for a forum signature ;)!

Like I've stated before, the only reason we are having to argue these points is because our government hasn't fixed the system. Make it easier to get citizenship, standardize the way employers hire these people so that there aren't loopholes, and reap the benefit of workers who are paying taxes. No one in their right mind is going to complain about people who come here and do honest work and don't bother others, and it won't put an undue strain on resources. Basically, make it financially smart to come here the right way as opposed to illegally.
If you add in ways of fighting poverty that fosters economic independence in mexico I'm all in with you here chrmjenkins. And I'm sure that most undocumented immigrants would be the same. If they had a reasonable choice I'm sure the vast majority would choose to enter your country through official channels rather than be smuggled or walk though a ranch owners property. Or even stay at home and support the economy there. It would be a bonus for both your countries.

[chrmjenkins]

If you add in ways of fighting poverty that fosters economic independence in mexico I'm all in with you here chrmjenkins. And I'm sure that most undocumented immigrants would be the same. If they had a reasonable choice I'm sure the vast majority would choose to enter your country through official channels rather than be smuggled or walk though a ranch owners property. Or even stay at home and support the economy there. It would be a bonus for both your countries.

Unfortunately, I don't know how much of an option that is right now. We've got quite a heap of our own problems. Just as we can't be the moral police, or actual police of the world, we can't be the saviors of it either. Do we only do what is necessary to help our immediate neighbors to eliminate our immigration problem? I don't know that that's necessarily the best way to go about it.

I'd like to think we could strong-arm Mexico into givings its citizens a fairer shakedown, but I've noticed governments are even worse at using money freely given to them as opposed to taxes received from their citizens (see Pakistan's glorious misuse of military funding from us).

Don't get me wrong, I have compassion for people from third world countries, but what is in this country's best interest is to minimize the money it wastes on problems that won't go away (drug war and immigration, for two). Because that way happens to be catering to these immigrants is not necessarily an intended consequence, but it's a side effect that would definitely please me.

[No1451]

Everyone please, step back and be objective.

It doesn't matter if they are illegal immigrants, what really matters is that they are suing because he is defending his property, that he detained them for committing an offense.

Would anyone give this case any thought other than "Damn that's stupid" if it was a legal U.S. citizen? No because we would say that it's stupid beyond belief. They committed a crime and have no right, absolutely NONE to sue him for damages after he defended his property. It doesn't sound as if he abused them(aside from the assault charge) and just seems like he was protecting his property and his livelihood.

As for the illegal immigration situation, I won't even touch that, it's way too tricky as they are acting in rational self interest, but law-breaking is never an answer. Proper channels is always the best method imo.

[glocke12]

You may consider america (or any country) to be an isolated in the world but a bit of thought shows this to be obviously untrue. It's only a comfy delusion. You're connected in every way.

Helping other people out of poverty is not something that is a negative and a burden. It's a positive for your country. You'll have more trading partners, increased technology, decreased disease burden, a more educated world populace etc etc. You have to stop considering helping people lift themselves out of poverty a burden and begin to think of it as an investment. A long term one granted but an investment none-the-less.


This is such a disgusting term to use to refer to people.


I don't think we are entirely isolated from the rest of the world, not like we were in the pre WWII era, yet we are not as connected as you think. We are separated by cultural, class and political differences (and there is nothing wrong with that).

I also agree that we have (or should have) an interest in making sure that the countries that are on our immediate borders are financially and politically stable, but the reality of the situation is that we can only do so much. While I understand what you are saying, we don't exist in some perfect utopia where we are able to take care of everyone. How do you suggest helping an entire country out of poverty???

I do feel for these people, I really do. The conditions in Mexico sound horrible compared to the standard of living we have in the states (widespread poverty, pollution, drug cartel violence), but these are all problems Mexico needs to solve on its own for the most part. I dont think we have been invited down there yet to help fight the drug cartels, help out with poverty down there, or help with the pollution. We are merely expected to take in their unemployed workers who in the long run burden our own system because so many of them are "under the radar" in terms of paying taxes.

BTW, one solution to this would be for a legitimate migratory worker program to be put into place.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Another would be open season on Illegals:Dshoot 1st ask questions in spanish later.:)

[glocke12]

Another would be open season on Illegals:Dshoot 1st ask questions in spanish later.:)

But what if you dont speak spanish???

[Dont Hurt Me]

Step one negates step 2.
We are a country with borders just like anyone else. Forget what the multinational corporations are pushing on our stupid bought off congress. Prostitutes to the corporations is what congress is.

[leekohler]

I'm surprised at you, Lee. Just because someone lacks legal status somewhere doesn't mean their ability to sue is nullified. By that logic, it would be perfectly legal for an illegal immigrant to be enslaved, since the Constitution wouldn't apply to them.

They're already enslaved. Illegal immigration hurts both the US and Mexico.

And if you don't see where this could go, I don't know what to say. If this flies, all of a sudden you'll have illegal immigrants coming over with the express intention to provoke someone. Then they can sue and their problems are over. This is ABSOLUTELY a ridiculous case and should not be heard, at least as a civil case. If there is to be criminal prosecution, fine. But as far as civil stuff goes? No ********** way.

[xUKHCx]

example (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=British+Immigration)

Just a side note: Immigration is to the Daily Mail as petrol is to fire.

I wouldn't take the Daily Mail as any sort of source for any sort of semi-serious news and up, especially immigration.

:)

[Sesshi]

On a Daily Mail, one of the articles in that list -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1109742/Hart-To-Hart-star-Stefanie-Powers-misses-panto-held-immigration.html

I bet that was one hell of a polo match.

[Rt&Dzine]

I think the civil lawsuit should be thrown out regardless of their illegal status. Arizona law may dictate otherwise.


I really don't understand how anyone can have any sympathy for these people.

No sympathy for people born into poverty and trying to survive and do better for their families?

[glocke12]

No sympathy for people born into poverty and trying to survive and do better for their families?

I already said in a previous post that I do feel for the predictament these people are in. What I am meant by the comment of mine that you qouted is that I dont understand how so many people can be sympathetic to people coming into this country illegally. It is just so wrong on so many levels.

1) They cause property damage
2) The border lands are apparently littered with the trash they bring over while crossing, and human waste.

etc..etc..

Also, as I already said it is not our responsibilty to provide for these people, it is the responsibility of the Mexican gov't.

[it5five]

Just tired of people coming here illegally and getting everything for free....



Either come up with any legitimate proof of this or stop saying it. I've already posted evidence earlier in this thread that shows the majority of undocumented immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes.

[CalBoy]

They're already enslaved. Illegal immigration hurts both the US and Mexico.

I don't disagree that they are treated badly, but you implied that their status as illegal immigrants somehow strips them of other rights. That's what I have issue with.


And if you don't see where this could go, I don't know what to say. If this flies, all of a sudden you'll have illegal immigrants coming over with the express intention to provoke someone.

Of course that could happen even with citizens and legal residents. A frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit no matter who files it.

This is ABSOLUTELY a ridiculous case and should not be heard, at least as a civil case. If there is to be criminal prosecution, fine. But as far as civil stuff goes? No ********** way.

I agree with you, but I think the case itself is horrible because people have a right to protect their property with lethal force and the rancher seems to have done almost everything within the bounds of the law.

I don't agree with the notion that this case deserves to be tossed because of the status of the plaintiffs or the possible ramifications.

[jonbravo77]

Either come up with any legitimate proof of this or stop saying it.

Just like you can't come up with legitimate proof that it does not happen. You want to use numbers that are on a Federal level, that's fine. But how about looking at local level where illegals do produce a lot of harm to the economy.

Here you go,

Analysis of the latest Census data indicates that Arizona’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers about $1.3 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to about $1.3 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden borne by Arizonans amounts to more than $700 per household headed by a native-born resident.

And this is just Arizona. Here is the rest of the story (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters5e3f).

The unauthorized immigrant population pays some state and local taxes that go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments might generously be estimated at $257 million per year. And that's being generous. This is not the complete story though. Im sure I can go from state to state especially the border states and find the same if not higher costs due to illegal immigrants. it's nearly $9 billion/year for California. Money that could be used to create jobs for citizens or provide healthcare for citizens.

[chrmjenkins]

Just like you can't come up with legitimate proof that it does not happen.

While I agree that having so many non-documented workers is a great strain on our economy, in this case, the burden of proof is on the one who claims it, not the one who denies it. In general, you can't prove a negative because only a single case ruins your argument.

[jonbravo77]

While I agree that having so many non-documented workers is a great strain on our economy, in this case, the burden of proof is on the one who claims it, not the one who denies it. In general, you can't prove a negative because only a single case ruins your argument.

Ummm, you want to read my post above or you just going to continue taking stuff out of context.. I know it's fun and all, but really....

[CalBoy]

While I agree that having so many non-documented workers is a great strain on our economy, in this case, the burden of proof is on the one who claims it, not the one who denies it. In general, you can't prove a negative because only a single case ruins your argument.

It is a hard thing to proving or even ballparking, but there are several obvious sources of monetary drain for state governments that have to deal with the issue.

The first is education spending. Illegal immigrants typically don't pay all types of state taxes, especially property taxes. This is the primary source of revenue for school districts. Conceivably a single illegal immigrant child that goes to school costs the state anywhere from $7,000-$10,000/year.

Other public services that aren't paid for by consumption taxes will also cost the state severely (like emergency room care) on an aggregate level.

[chrmjenkins]

Ummm, you want to read my post above or you just going to continue taking stuff out of context.. I know it's fun and all, but really....

Actually, following logical rules has nothing to do with context. The burden of proof is always on the one who claims it.

It is a hard thing to proving or even ballparking, but there are several obvious sources of monetary drain for state governments that have to deal with the issue.

The first is education spending. Illegal immigrants typically don't pay all types of state taxes, especially property taxes. This is the primary source of revenue for school districts. Conceivably a single illegal immigrant child that goes to school costs the state anywhere from $7,000-$10,000/year.

Other public services that aren't paid for by consumption taxes will also cost the state severely (like emergency room care) on an aggregate level.

I agree with everything you said. My point was simply to point out he was asking for something logically inconsistent. Of course, the data for these types of things is going to be incomplete and comprised of conjecture, but as long as you show the general trend, you're illustrating the problem.

[it5five]

Give me some time to read the full .pdf of that document. But I'll let you know now, I'm not expecting much honesty from an identified hate group (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate&splcnewsletter=panewsgen-121107/).

That organization isn't just anti-illegal immigration, it is an outright anti-immigration group (according to their own website), whose founder is involved in english-only movements. It also looks like the organization has taken money from the Pioneer Fund, another identified hate group.

[jonbravo77]

Give me some time to read the full .pdf of that document. But I'll let you know now, I'm not expecting much honesty from an identified hate-group (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2007/12/11/fair-crossing-the-rubicon-of-hate&splcnewsletter=panewsgen-121107/).

Just so you know it is not my intention to promote hate groups, just looking at the numbers.

[it5five]

The first is education spending. Illegal immigrants typically don't pay all types of state taxes, especially property taxes. This is the primary source of revenue for school districts. Conceivably a single illegal immigrant child that goes to school costs the state anywhere from $7,000-$10,000/year.



I don't pay property taxes either, nor does any other apartment-dweller I know. If I had children, would they be as much a "burden" as you claim children of undocumented immigrants are?

[jonbravo77]

That organization isn't just anti-illegal immigration, it is an outright anti-immigration group (according to their own website), whose founder is involved in english-only movements. It also looks like the organization has taken money from the Pioneer Fund, another identified hate group.

So I guess we should just dismiss the numbers and continue to accept it and live with it then? I think the numbers prove my point, and so sorry if I got it from what you call a "hate group" but I do think that illegal immigration is a big problem costing tax payers a lot of money. I do not agree with any type of ban on immigration as a whole, just the immigration that costs taxpayers a whole lot of money for people to be here illegally and with most of those people having no intention to become legal citizens.

[it5five]

Just so you know it is not my intention to promote hate groups, just looking at the numbers.

I've read the first few pages, which seem to be the basis of your argument. The article does cite sources, which actually surprised me, but they cite nothing for the first few pages of data. They refer to the latest Census data, but don't cite the Census report. They also have no sources for education costs, health care costs, or incarceration costs. They cite no source for the table on page 2 of the .pdf.

The "study" says: "The unauthorized immigrant population pays some state and local taxes that go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments might generously be estimated at $257 million per year."

Yet, again, cite no information that shows how they arrived at the $257 million figure.

And, showing their founder's roots, they say:

The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost items. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other costs such as special English instruction, school nutrition programs, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were added into the equation.

Again, without any information cited, they claim that English instruction programs are another financial burden on American citizens. I don't get why they said anything about school nutrition programs, as poor nutrition isn't an "illegal immigrant" phenomenon. We'd be paying for those programs, hopefully, even if this group had it's way and cut off all immigration ("legal" or not) to the US.

As if once wasn't enough, they really drive home their overall anti-immigrant stance with this statement later in the "study":


Further outlays accrue from the added expenses that result from Limited English Proficiency (LEP) programs, e.g., staff salaries and foreign language teaching materials.


Especially funny is that they identify that as a "quantifiable" cost, yet offer no sources stating the actual cost of the program, or any extra expenses incurred by undocumented children taking part in it.

Jon, if you show me a source that actually cites "the numbers" (which is what you told me to look at, specifically), and I am proven wrong, I will glady change my tune. But it's not going to happen with a study that cites absolutely no sources for these monetary costs, especially if that study is done by an anti-immigration organization. I mean, they even use "costs incurred by printing PTA newsletters in Spanish" as proof of a financial burden incurred by undocumented immigrants.

[jonbravo77]

Jon, if you show me a source that actually cites "the numbers" (which is what you told me to look at, specifically), and I am proven wrong, I will glady change my tune. But it's not going to happen with a study that cites absolutely no sources for these monetary costs, especially if that study is done by an anti-immigration organization. I mean, they even use "costs incurred by printing PTA newsletters in Spanish" as proof of a financial burden incurred by undocumented immigrants.

To be honest, I'm sure If I find anything you will be able to denounce it. That link you provided to show that my source is a hate group is, in my opinion, no better than the site I provided. There will always be facts that dispute facts and depending on what side of the rail you are on on this subject or any subject there will always be something to dispute it. If I have the time I will continue to look for more empirical data, but I doubt you will accept anything I find.

I am not trying to be on the side of "racists" individuals, just tired of seeing cases like this where people who do something illegal will more than likely win. I again refer back to the guy who breaks into your house and sues you and wins for hurting himself on the window while climbing in. There are just to many and it gets very much overwhelming.

[mactastic]

If you're breaking the law, you shouldn't be allowed to sue someone who stops you. This just seems way to similar to the burgalar who, in the process of breaking into someone's home injures himself and sues the homeowner.

[jonbravo77]

Some interesting reading. Which might clear up a few things. Still looking for what impact it has on a local level...

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.html#Balance

Front page. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html

About the group http://www.cis.org/aboutcis.html

Some more interesting reading from the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

[.Andy]

If you're breaking the law, you shouldn't be allowed to sue someone who stops you.
True but this has to be within reasonable limits. Breaking the law in this case amounts to nothing more than walking across a border and someone's property. Hardly grounds for being held at gunpoint, being threatened to be shot, have a dog released on you, or the alleged physical assault (against a woman nonetheless).

The only justifiable level of force and aggression is one relative to stop the infraction and not above what is required. You should not be absolved from illegal activity merely because you were stopping illegal activity.

Another would be open season on Illegals shoot 1st ask questions in spanish later.
Racist sentiments are never funny or clever.

[imac/cheese]

...It doesn't sound as if he abused them(aside from the assault charge)...

I found that rather ironic.

I already said in a previous post that I do feel for the predictament these people are in. What I am meant by the comment of mine that you qouted is that I dont understand how so many people can be sympathetic to people coming into this country illegally. It is just so wrong on so many levels.

1) They cause property damage
2) The border lands are apparently littered with the trash they bring over while crossing, and human waste.

etc..etc..

Also, as I already said it is not our responsibilty to provide for these people, it is the responsibility of the Mexican gov't.

"They" sure sound like the scourge of the earth. Causing property damage, littering, and pooping. These are your reasons for illegal immigration being "wrong on so many levels"? By that arguement, we should be shipping many high school and college students out of the country. Your next argument is about responsibility to provide for them. Most illegal immigrants are coming to the US to work. They can make more money in the US and then send money home to their families in Mexico. They are trying to take responsibility for themselves and their families. I imagine I would do much the same if I were in their shoes. But I wouldn't litter or poop.


...The first is education spending. Illegal immigrants typically don't pay all types of state taxes, especially property taxes. This is the primary source of revenue for school districts. Conceivably a single illegal immigrant child that goes to school costs the state anywhere from $7,000-$10,000/year.

Other public services that aren't paid for by consumption taxes will also cost the state severely (like emergency room care) on an aggregate level.

They have to live somewhere. I assume that they pay rent to someone who owns property. That property owner has to pay taxes so the illegal immigrants are paying school taxes indirectly. Yes, they might be living in a much more densely populated dwelling in which case they are not paying as much school taxes per child as a rich person would be paying, but that is the way our tax system works.

I don't pay property taxes either, nor does any other apartment-dweller I know. If I had children, would they be as much a "burden" as you claim children of undocumented immigrants are?

Everyone who lives in a loation that charges property taxes pays them either directly or indirectly. Your apartment owner has to pay the taxes which are then passed on to you in your rent.

[jonbravo77]

Most illegal immigrants are coming to the US to work. They can make more money in the US and then send money home to their families in Mexico. They are trying to take responsibility for themselves and their families. I imagine I would do much the same if I were in their shoes.

And this is fine by me if they do the steps to become a legal citizen or have documentation to allow them to stay and work in the U.S. legally just like every other migrant worker who comes to America. This is a land of opportunity, and I do not want to take that away from anyone, but make the effort to show respect to the land that is affording you that opportunity.

[FX120]

True but this has to be within reasonable limits. Breaking the law in this case amounts to nothing more than walking across a border and someone's property. Hardly grounds for being held at gunpoint, being threatened to be shot, have a dog released on you, or the alleged physical assault (against a woman nonetheless).

The only justifiable level of force and aggression is one relative to stop the infraction and not above what is required. You should not be absolved from illegal activity merely because you were stopping illegal activity.


Racist sentiments are never funny or clever.

I am curious as to what you think the proper action should have been.

"Get off my lawn, please."?

You're going on and on about how this guy over acted and acted "above the law", and yet for the thousands of times he has had encounters like this and envolved not just his local law enforcment, but also the US border patrol, he has never been charged with assault or kidnapping.

The fact is that detaning these people at gunpoint till the legal authorities can arrive is not only perfectly legal, it is the correct action to take. Furthermore, the plaintifs couldn't even keep thier story straight about the alleged assault on the woman, and that claim was also thrown out.

Sixteen illegal aliens who sued an Arizona rancher, claiming he violated their civil rights and falsely imprisoned them by holding them at gunpoint on his property along the border, have lost their case.

The federal lawsuit against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett, his wife, Barbara, and his brother, Donald, took place before Judge John Roll in U.S. District Court. A verdict was declared Tuesday. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, represented the five female and 11 male illegal aliens.

Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, said the judge completely dismissed the cases against Barbara and Donald after the illegals claimed conspiracy.

"There was no evidence," he told WND. "The most they could show about Barbara was that she showed up after the incident, and Donald wasn't even there. He did sometimes cooperate with Roger in turning over illegals, but he wasn't there that day. And there was no proof of conspiracy, so the judge chucked it out."

Many of the aliens are residents of Michoacan, Mexico. Four live in Illinois, one resides in Georgia and another in Michigan. All of the plaintiffs currently living in the U.S. listed pseudonyms in the lawsuit due to "fear of adverse action based on immigration status."

Ten of the illegal alien plaintiffs didn't show up to the trial, but the remaining six said they were given permission to re-enter the United States and testify against Barnett.

"That was a shocker to me. All the ones who testified said that they were here legally and that their attorneys had done the paperwork," Hardy said. "There's nothing like your government backing you."

According to the complaint, Barnett, who owns 22,000 acres along the border in southeastern Arizona, approached the group of illegals on an all-terrain vehicle March 7, 2004. He allegedly began yelling at them in English and broken Spanish while aiming his gun at the group. While Barnett's dog barked at the intruders, the illegal aliens accused him of ordering the dog to attack. One of the women said the rancher kicked her because she refused to get up. The jury ruled in favor of Barnett on the battery charge as well.

Barnett detained the trespassing illegals until Border Patrol agents arrived. The lawsuit claimed that the rancher never told the illegals they were trespassing and failed to post a sign notifying them that they were on private property.

MALDEF claimed the family attacked, harassed, threatened and held the illegals against their will, because they were motivated by racial and class-based discrimination. The complaint said the Barnetts allegedly caused the group "severe emotional and mental distress," including fear, anxiety, humiliation, stress, frustration and sadness. Each illegal alien sued for $1 million in actual damages and $1 million for punitive or exemplary damages.

MALDEF and its attorneys lost track of three of the plaintiffs entirely, Hardy said. The organization hired nine attorneys for the illegal aliens. Three were from big commercial firms in New York City.

The group also flew a psychologist to Arizona from Chicago to testify that the illegal aliens suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

"We don't know where they're getting their money, but it's a lot," Hardy said. "They dropped $19,000 on the psychologist for his examination and $150 an hour to show up for trial."

He continued, "We tore him up pretty good, though. We tore up all of the other witnesses, too."

The rancher was held liable for limited damages involving assault and emotional distress. Two illegal aliens were given $1,000 plus $10,000 in punitive damages each. Two more received $7,500, plus $20,000 in punitive damages each.

"It's interesting since most of them don't speak English, but they claim that Roger, who has almost no command of Spanish, was able to use full sentences like, 'If you go, my dog is hungry, and he's hungry for your butt,'" Hardy said. "Roger couldn't put that sentence together."

He said the judge left out one part of instruction to the jury that should have been included, and it will be the basis of their appeal.

"The law is skeptical of infliction of emotional distress because everybody gets their feelings hurt at times," he said. "So one of the requirements was that whatever is done must be so severe that the average person would be physically disabled by the distress – suffer a complete mental breakdown. The judge wouldn't put that in the instruction. That's straight Arizona law."

Also, two of the plaintiffs received $1,400, and two were awarded $1 each for assault. The term "assault" is legally applied when a person has simply put someone in fear of a harmful contact. According to the attorney, Barnett did carry a gun, but the judge did not include their self-defense argument in the instructions to the jury – another basis for appeal.

All together, the illegals received only $77,804 of the $32 million they requested – and Hardy believes that award will be thrown out in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"It was 95 percent victory for us," he said. "What they really wanted were the first two civil rights claims because if they got those, they got attorney's fees. With nine attorneys working on the case, I'm sure their fees were $500,000 to $1 million."

Meanwhile, Hardy said Barnett's ranch is still a hotspot for illegals who want to get into the U.S.

"They all testified that they were going to pay $1,800 per head to get in," he said. "It's right on the other side of the border, across from Douglas, Ariz.

"A guy was telling us that he had seen these dusty cars in Mexico, and they would offer to take you across to the U.S.," Hardy said. "One of them had written in the dust: 'Barnett's ranch.'"

[jonbravo77]

^^ This is good to know. makes me wonder who is going to pay for the illegal immigrants lawyer bills. That law-firm was out to make a buck, that's all this was.

[.Andy]

I am curious as to what you think the proper action should have been.

"Get off my lawn, please."?
That's a completely reasonable place where most normal people would start. Calling the authorities a close second.

You're going on and on about how this guy over acted and acted "above the law"
I never once said that. If you would like to discuss things in PRSI please don't be dishonest.

My point is that in general action to stop illegal activity should be measured. Your actions should not be instantly absolved without question because others were acting illegally. It's something that can, and should be taken into account legally, but it shouldn't be a free pass to absolve or justify one's actions without legal question.

and yet for the thousands of times he has had encounters like this and envolved not just his local law enforcment, but also the US border patrol, he has never been charged with assault or kidnapping.
As I've posted twice before I'm sympathetic with how frustrating this must be for the rancher. However the fact that he's done it "thousands of times before" says loud and clear that what he's doing and what the governments are doing is ineffective in stopping the cause. You can find my thoughts on this issue if you read the thread. It also doesn't mean that he is in any way excused from being questioned over actions that he is accused of that are illegal (of which there doesn't appear to be any from your reference*).

The fact is that detaning these people at gunpoint till the legal authorities can arrive is not only perfectly legal, it is the correct action to take.
The correct action to take is to alert the authorities. The driving around in a camo outfit with a gun and a dog, confronting them, and holding them is far more questionable.

Furthermore, the plaintifs couldn't even keep thier story straight about the alleged assault on the woman, and that claim was also thrown out.
This is good for the rancher. But again has no bearing on what I've said above.


edit: * please post you references when you're quoting an article. In the case of the one you posted is from worldnet daily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89295). They have no qualms in referring to people as "illegals". They're a right wing news source that also goes for global warming denial.


This is good to know. makes me wonder who is going to pay for the illegal immigrants lawyer bills.
It's in the second paragraph of the article that was posted.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, represented the five female and 11 male illegal aliens.

That law-firm was out to make a buck, that's all this was.
They are a non-profit organisation. http://www.maldef.org/

[it5five]

To be honest, I'm sure If I find anything you will be able to denounce it. That link you provided to show that my source is a hate group is, in my opinion, no better than the site I provided. There will always be facts that dispute facts and depending on what side of the rail you are on on this subject or any subject there will always be something to dispute it. If I have the time I will continue to look for more empirical data, but I doubt you will accept anything I find.

I am not trying to be on the side of "racists" individuals, just tired of seeing cases like this where people who do something illegal will more than likely win. I again refer back to the guy who breaks into your house and sues you and wins for hurting himself on the window while climbing in. There are just to many and it gets very much overwhelming.

The SLPC? Seriously? You think they are no better than an anti-immigration hate group? A civil-rights organization that fights intolerance and racism is the same as an anti-immigration group?

I'm not suggesting you're a racist, or on the side of racists. Please, don't think that. I know you're not. It just troubles me that most data and "studies" that you (not just you, but "your side") uses come from racist organizations. If I see empirical data from legitimate (non-racist) sources, I will accept the data and admit I am wrong. But I've yet to see any.



Everyone who lives in a loation that charges property taxes pays them either directly or indirectly. Your apartment owner has to pay the taxes which are then passed on to you in your rent.

I know. I was just arguing that although I (or any renter) does not pay property taxes (directly), we still have a right to public services funded by property taxes. I was trying to make the same argument you did, I just didn't tie it all together.

[jonbravo77]

They are a non-profit organisation. http://www.maldef.org/

Just saying that they spent a lot of money not to get it reimbursed from somewhere. I guess you can call this trying to save face even though it was a completely crap lawsuit. http://www.maldef.org/news/press.cfm?ID=489&FromIndex=yes

And to it5five did you see my links that I posted?

[it5five]

And to it5five did you see my links that I posted?

I did, but I don't have a whole lot of time to go through them today. I have to go to work in about 30 minutes. I'll take a look at them either tonight or tomorrow and respond then.

[jonbravo77]

I did, but I don't have a whole lot of time to go through them today. I have to go to work in about 30 minutes. I'll take a look at them either tonight or tomorrow and respond then.

No, read them now!! :eek: Jut kidding. It's not much, I get pretty emotional when it comes to stuff like this. With all the problems this country and the state I live in has I still wouldn't want to live anywhere else...

[.Andy]

Just saying that they spent a lot of money not to get it reimbursed from somewhere.
No you weren't. You were implicitly claiming that the motivations of the legal firm were to make money with little care for their individuals in question. In fact it's the opposite. It was all done pro bono and organised by a non-profit organisation set up to protect legal rights.

I guess you can call this trying to save face even though it was a completely crap lawsuit. http://www.maldef.org/news/press.cfm?ID=489&FromIndex=yes
You might call it "crap" but it sends a loud and clear message that you can't behave in any matter you like with impunity. No matter who the other individual(s) is/are. It's a great win for justice.

[gothiquegirrl]

I dunno..being from Texas, my first instinct is shoot first, ask questions later.
This is silly... They were TRESPASSING.

He's had trouble in the past with property damage and people breaking into his home... I say he was DEFENDING his property.

Ang/GG

[jonbravo77]

No you weren't. You were implicitly claiming that the motivations of the legal firm were to make money with little care for their individuals in question. In fact it's the opposite. It was all done pro bono and organised by a non-profit organisation set up to protect legal rights.


You might call it "crap" but it sends a loud and clear message that you can't behave in any matter you like with impunity. No matter who the other individual(s) is/are. It's a great win for justice.

Thank you very much for informing me on what I was thinking, but in this case you would be wrong very wrong, I'm sure they had their clients in mind but i still think the intentions were not completely honorable especially with a $32 million price tag. It is very telling of who you are... I do appreciate your view, but there are a lot of groups that do things for the pure intention to collect something from it whether it be money or notoriety. And they had no legal right to trespass nor did they have legal right to sue.

To the second point, It does send a message, but not in the manner you think. This law-suit sent a message that you can not and should not expect the same rights as a legal citizen of these United States has. If you commit an illegal act you will not get what you think you deserve, no matter how many high priced lawyers and psychiatrists you get on your side. And you're right it is a great win for justice, for property owners to be able to defend their property against criminal acts...

[.Andy]

Thank you very much for informing me on what I was thinking. It is very telling of who you are...
It's not what you were thinking at all. You posted it right here:
That law-firm was out to make a buck, that's all this was.
There's no ambiguity at all. You claimed that the law firm was just out to make a quick buck. You were wrong.

I do appreciate your view, but there are a lot of groups that do things for the pure intention to collect something from it whether it be money or notoriety.
So now you're clalming that a non-profit group set up to rally for legal and education rights is out for money and notoriety? That's a stretch to find an argument.

To the second point, It does send a message, but not in the manner you think. This law-suit sent a message that you can not and should not expect the same rights as a legal citizen of these United States has. If you commit an illegal act you will not get what you think you deserve, no matter how many high priced lawyers and psychiatrists you get on your side.
They got their day in court. Even if they had lost that's a boon for them all. To say they lost because they didn't get all the compensation they were after is an incredibly narrow view of the outcome.

And you're right it is a great win for justice, for property owners to be able to defend their property against criminal acts...
Except this case wasn't about the ability of an property owner to protect their property. That's something that's getting conflated time and time again. It was about the actions of a property owner. One can protect their property but should not be absolved of illegal action in doing so.

[jonbravo77]

It's not what you were thinking at all. You posted it right here:

There's no ambiguity at all. You claimed that the law firm was just out to make a quick buck. You were wrong.

Ok, I am man enough to admit that what I wrote does not coincide with what I was thinking. I'm sure they had the best intentions going in. But, $32 million dollars make it look dis-honorable, makes it look like pure and simple greed to me.


So now you're clalming that a non-profit group set up to rally for legal and education rights is out for money and notoriety? That's a stretch to find an argument.

there have been many cases of not-for-profit organizations breaking the law when it comes to their tax-exempt status. The biggest example of this are certain churches and tv evangelists who do have not-for-profit exemptions but use the money that their congregation sends to them for something other than honorable things. And these are groups set up to rally for people's core beliefs even more despicable than legal and education rights.


They got their day in court. Even if they had lost that's a boon for them all. To say they lost because they didn't get all the compensation they were after is an incredibly narrow view of the outcome.

You took the word "compensation" to solely mean money, and that's not what I said. If you commit an illegal act one should not expect to receive anything for that illegal act, no money, no seeing the other person go to jail, no nothing.


Except this case wasn't about the ability of an property owner to protect their property. That's something that's getting conflated time and time again. It was about the actions of a property owner. One can protect their property but should not be absolved of illegal action in doing so.

This is a right to protect the land that is rightfully yours, just like I am sure you have the same right to do in the country that you are a citizen of. The right to make sure that no one causes damage to your property, the right to feel and be safe on your own property. And according to the court, the law and the jury the property owner did nothing illegal, therefore you keep saying that it is an illegal act is not true...

[.Andy]

If you commit an illegal act one should not expect to receive anything for that illegal act, no money, no seeing the other person go to jail, no nothing.
We can all definitely agree that this is a noble concept. No one should profit from crime.

And that's consistent with this case as the claimants didn't pursue, expect or receive anything from their "illegal act" (in this case trespassing and being undocumented). They went to court because of the actions of the rancher in question.

This is a right to protect the land that is rightfully yours, just like I am sure you have the same right to do in the country that you are a citizen of. The right to make sure that no one causes damage to your property, the right to feel and be safe on your own property.
And I have absolutely no problem with this at all nor have I posted anything contrary. However I do have a problem with people thinking that this allows them to do anything they wish to protect their property and be completely absolved from legal action. As I've posted numerous times one should only be allowed to protect their property with force proportional to the level threat. From here my thoughts may differ - I don't think it's acceptable to assault someone at all if the threat is only to material items. But that's for another thread.


And according to the court, the law and the jury the property owner did nothing illegal, therefore you keep saying that it is an illegal act is not true...
I have categorically not said that he has committed an illegal act. What you're claiming here is not true. What I have said numerous times is that one should not be absolved from legal action because of the legal status or actions of other's. To be specific in this case the rancher's actions should not be above legal question because the other individuals were undocumented or were trespassing. That is all.

[CalBoy]

I don't pay property taxes either, nor does any other apartment-dweller I know. If I had children, would they be as much a "burden" as you claim children of undocumented immigrants are?

I hadn't honestly considered that.

I suppose that the Arizona General Fund still puts some money into education, which might affect education since illegal immigrants are less likely to contribute to state income tax rolls or car registrations (depending on how much information is required for the registration).

Nonetheless, on topic to this thread, I'm glad to see the defendant win. The legal merits of the case were poor from the get-go, regardless of legal status.

[it5five]

Some interesting reading. Which might clear up a few things. Still looking for what impact it has on a local level...

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.html#Balance

Front page. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal.html

About the group http://www.cis.org/aboutcis.html

Some more interesting reading from the CBO http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

This refers to the CBO report, since CIS was founded by the same guy that founded FAIR, and is also identified as a hate group by the SPLC.

I'm willing to concede that undocumented immigrants have an effect on state and local budgets, since I myself pointed out that anywhere from 55-75% pay federal, state, and local taxes. So, by my own admission, that means that 25-45% do not pay federal, state, and local taxes. I think where we differ though is the magnitude of this problem, and the solutions to the problem. All of the studies I have read show this to be a relatively minor problem, with the underpayment not being a whole lot in the big picture.

Now, as for solutions, which is where I'm sure we won't find agreement, I think the best way to make sure 100% pay is to make citizenship/residence easier to acquire. No method will stop undocumented immigrants from coming to this country to look for work. And most do come for work and most do pay their taxes. If given the opportunity, most would rather be here legally, I'm sure. Except the US immigration process is long, complicated, and very unfriendly to poor workers with little education. We need a permanent (not temporary) visa that is easy to obtain that will allow otherwise undocumented immigrants to live and stay here legally.

[Rodimus Prime]

I don't pay property taxes either, nor does any other apartment-dweller I know. If I had children, would they be as much a "burden" as you claim children of undocumented immigrants are?

No you do pay property tax like all other apartment dwellers. It is part of your rent payment every month. Remember the Apartment Complexes owners do have to pay property tax.

So if property taxes went up you can bet your rent is going to go up as well.

[it5five]

No you do pay property tax like all other apartment dwellers. It is part of your rent payment every month. Remember the Apartment Complexes owners do have to pay property tax.

So if property taxes went up you can bet your rent is going to go up as well.

We covered this already. I have been corrected. CalBoy was saying that somehow undocumented immigrants don't pay property tax, which didn't make sense to me. I tried to explain, in a roundabout way that was obviously confusing, that I don't pay property tax (directly) either.

[jonbravo77]

This refers to the CBO report, since CIS was founded by the same guy that founded FAIR, and is also identified as a hate group by the SPLC.

I'm willing to concede that undocumented immigrants have an effect on state and local budgets, since I myself pointed out that anywhere from 55-75% pay federal, state, and local taxes. So, by my own admission, that means that 25-45% do not pay federal, state, and local taxes. I think where we differ though is the magnitude of this problem, and the solutions to the problem. All of the studies I have read show this to be a relatively minor problem, with the underpayment not being a whole lot in the big picture.

Now, as for solutions, which is where I'm sure we won't find agreement, I think the best way to make sure 100% pay is to make citizenship/residence easier to acquire. No method will stop undocumented immigrants from coming to this country to look for work. And most do come for work and most do pay their taxes. If given the opportunity, most would rather be here legally, I'm sure. Except the US immigration process is long, complicated, and very unfriendly to poor workers with little education. We need a permanent (not temporary) visa that is easy to obtain that will allow otherwise undocumented immigrants to live and stay here legally.

In reading the documents I provided more I will have to agree that the problem is not as great as i may believe. However, it is easy to become complacent when reading hard statistics as the reality is a much different scenario than statistics.

And actually, surprising enough, I do agree. I do feel that people who truly want to come to America for a better life should be given that opportunity and not have to wait years for citizenship and have to jump through hoops of fire and razor wire to get it. But we do need to be careful, if we loosen the requirements to much then we open ourselves up to making the criminals and those who have no intention to support the country they live in and benefit from the opportunities citizens. I think it's a hard line and is going to take some time to try to figure out.

We all need to remember, this country is less than 300 years old, that is a baby compared to the rest of the world. We can't expect everything to work out just dandy with the blink of an eye.

[it5five]

And actually, surprising enough, I do agree. I do feel that people who truly want to come to America for a better life should be given that opportunity and not have to wait years for citizenship and have to jump through hoops of fire and razor wire to get it. But we do need to be careful, if we loosen the requirements to much then we open ourselves up to making the criminals and those who have no intention to support the country they live in and benefit from the opportunities citizens. I think it's a hard line and is going to take some time to try to figure out.

We all need to remember, this country is less than 300 years old, that is a baby compared to the rest of the world. We can't expect everything to work out just dandy with the blink of an eye.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think people with a serious criminal past should granted visas, and right now, the overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants are people with no criminal history. They're just people or families looking for work and a better life. It needs to be easier for those people to become full-fledged residents/citizens.

[mactastic]

True but this has to be within reasonable limits. Breaking the law in this case amounts to nothing more than walking across a border and someone's property. Hardly grounds for being held at gunpoint, being threatened to be shot, have a dog released on you, or the alleged physical assault (against a woman nonetheless).

The only justifiable level of force and aggression is one relative to stop the infraction and not above what is required. You should not be absolved from illegal activity merely because you were stopping illegal activity.
The fact that I don't feel that those immigrants should be able to sue someone who stops them in the course of the commission of a crime has nothing to do with whether sufficient grounds exist to charge the ranch owner with assault. You have the right to stop trespassers on your land. But you don't have the right to abuse them. Based on the reported account, it would sound like he deserves to face an assault charge. If he can't control himself while armed, he deserves to have the judge throw the book at him.

However, based on his location, I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[maestro55]

Here is another one of those things that I am very mixed about. If his allegations are true than the immigrants who are crossing the property have created hard times for the rancher. And I will agree there is an immigration problem and that the solution is to make it easier for people to come and work in the country.

What is wrong is the violence and down right dirty way the rancher and the sheriff handled the situation. And since this did happen in America should the people who were victimized not have protection?

Well it isn't my job to decide what cases go to the courts, and in this case I hope the immigrants win.

[iJohnHenry]

People breaking the laws of a sovereign country by entering illegally, have little right to expect protection afforded by the laws of said country.

The Geneva Convention should be the only arbitrator.

[leekohler]

You might call it "crap" but it sends a loud and clear message that you can't behave in any matter you like with impunity. No matter who the other individual(s) is/are. It's a great win for justice.

No, it isn't. If this were a criminal trial yes, but this is a load of crap as far as the civil issue goes.

[CalBoy]

No, it isn't. If this were a criminal trial yes, but this is a load of crap as far as the civil issue goes.

I'm with you there; the right to protect property is very clearly outlined in every state's constitution, and that always includes the option of lethal force.

Although I'm confused as to what happened in this case. One person posted something about the jury having found for the rancher, and another a $73,000 award. :confused: What actually happened?

[PcBgone]

This is ridiculous. The rancher has captured 14000 illegals, and turned them over to the Border Patrol for deportation. Over the course of these 14000 illegals, he has run into drug runners who are ARMED. Thus the reason for his gun. On top of this, they damage his property, kill his cows, and you people support these illegals?

That rancher needs to close up shop in Arizona and move to Texas. If it were me, Id shoot ever last one of them who are trespassing. Then hang their bodies along the fence line as a deterrent, much like you do with coyotes.

These people are entering this country ILLEGALLY. They have no rights under our laws as they are not citizens. If they want to enter the country legally, then by that process, they are given the same rights as everyone else.

It is not our place to help Mexico stop their poverty issues. We cant even stop our own poverty issues. And I would much rather help our own citizens first before helping some illegals.

[CalBoy]

If it were me, Id shoot ever last one of them who are trespassing. Then hang their bodies along the fence line as a deterrent, much like you do with coyotes.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.


These people are entering this country ILLEGALLY. They have no rights under our laws as they are not citizens.

Well, that's not true. They do have certain legal rights under the law, as all persons, regardless of legal status, have.

You can't, for example, effigize someone who is an illegal alien anymore than you can effigize someone who isn't.

[jonbravo77]

I'm with you there; the right to protect property is very clearly outlined in every state's constitution, and that always includes the option of lethal force.

Although I'm confused as to what happened in this case. One person posted something about the jury having found for the rancher, and another a $73,000 award. :confused: What actually happened?

The jury absolved the rancher of any and all criminal charges but awarded the 4 women $73,000 in pain and suffering. Which will hopefully be overturned on appeal since the judge did not explain the law when it comes to pain and suffering awards.

[.Andy]

This is ridiculous. The rancher has captured 14000 illegals, and turned them over to the Border Patrol for deportation. Over the course of these 14000 illegals, he has run into drug runners who are ARMED. Thus the reason for his gun. On top of this, they damage his property, kill his cows, and you people support these illegals?

That rancher needs to close up shop in Arizona and move to Texas. If it were me, Id shoot ever last one of them who are trespassing. Then hang their bodies along the fence line as a deterrent, much like you do with coyotes.

These people are entering this country ILLEGALLY. They have no rights under our laws as they are not citizens. If they want to enter the country legally, then by that process, they are given the same rights as everyone else.

It is not our place to help Mexico stop their poverty issues. We cant even stop our own poverty issues. And I would much rather help our own citizens first before helping some illegals.
I'm saving a copy of this on my hard drive. It's just so wonderful :).

[CalBoy]

The jury absolved the rancher of any and all criminal charges but awarded the 4 women $73,000 in pain and suffering. Which will hopefully be overturned on appeal since the judge did not explain the law when it comes to pain and suffering awards.

In all likelihood, the award will be reduced, but not eliminated.

The appeals court will probably send back instructions for the district court judge to cut the award by some percentage, but nothing more.

Or, if the rancher gets 3 liberal justices (and he is in the 9th Circuit, so this is a very great likelihood), he might find no help at the appellate level.

[jonbravo77]

In all likelihood, the award will be reduced, but not eliminated.

The appeals court will probably send back instructions for the district court judge to cut the award by some percentage, but nothing more.

Or, if the rancher gets 3 liberal justices (and he is in the 9th Circuit, so this is a very great likelihood), he might find no help at the appellate level.

True...

[Sun Baked]

Well, look at some of the idiotic bills offered up for vote in AZ (hopefully it doesn't get that far) ... one which would make it illegal to have an illegal alien in you car.

• SB 1177 makes it illegal to give a ride to someone who is in the country illegally. Violators are subject to a $1,000 fine and can have their vehicles impounded.

They already have quite a few gotchas in the state that can place a lien on you license, and take away your right to drive ... wonderful to add another law that can result in loss of your car.

With the number of illegal safe houses in the state, I'd really hate to see what they can come up with relating to having illegals on your land.