2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court ("Minutemen" get screwed!)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html?ei=5065&en=5db095bc71c22a3a&ex=1125115200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1124474860-Bf5weit4I9Xu0tVcs3qexQ&pagewanted=print

2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court
By ANDREW POLLACK

DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.

Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally.

The land transfer is being made to satisfy judgments in a lawsuit in which the immigrants had said that Casey Nethercott, the owner of the ranch and a former leader of the vigilante group Ranch Rescue, had harmed them.

"Certainly it's poetic justice that these undocumented workers own this land," said Morris S. Dees Jr., co-founder and chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which represented the immigrants in their lawsuit.

Mr. Dees said the loss of the ranch would "send a pretty important message to those who come to the border to use violence." (more at link)

[Demobrat]

1. OMG I can hear them squealing from here.

Kill all the lawyers!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Take that, racist scum!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Believe it or not I was informed of this in a...

Formula One forum! The poster was fuming, venting about "left wing judges."

[Demobrat]

32. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

THANKS FOR THAT! MADE MY DAY!

[aquart]

2. God protect them.

Because the people who would use violence to "defend" our borders would use violence. Period.

[bliss_eternal]

332. Yup.

Something to think about...

[lonestarnot]

3. Wow Morris Dees Jr.!

[blm]

4. Unfortunately, I'd bet all hell's about to break loose over this judgement

This is gonna get way ugly and these ranchers are going to lead the RW charge against activist judges who steal their land and hand it over to illegal immigrants.

I can hear it already.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. Well, there's an easy way to protect your property:

Don't form illegal militias.

[Kenroy]

46. thank you....

that is the most succinct and salient answer to the question.

[drfresh]

81. 2nd amendment dude

<b>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. </b>

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

So what makes a militia illegal?

[Lexingtonian]

162. If you check your American history

the well-regulated militias have always been those chartered by elements of American government. I happen to live in Lexington, Massachusetts, and we have records showing the Town Meeting creating the militia (termed 'Minutemen' later), chartering it and charging it with conformity with the laws/charter of the colony and reporting to (local) government and regular accountings of all activities and money to town meetings and officials. Town money was given to buy weaponry, volunteers registered with the town clerk and that listing was treated as a public record, etc. The appropriate laws existed then so that towns on the (Indian) frontier could and did form town-associated militias.

That is what "well regulated" means, operationally, at the time the Bill of Rights was written: an agency of local or state/colonial government.

It's basically impossible to muster evidence that the Founders meant anything different. All the pretensions are ahistorical claims and ultimately propaganda originating from after the Civil War, created and energetically pushed by the ex-Confederates who violently crushed black civil rights during Reconstruction. They needed a legal theory to justify the armed lynch mobs they formed against black civil rights activists- the loophole was to claim these gun-wielding mobs exempt from "militias". Reconstruction Era white judges let them slip by with that.

[primavera]

196. Bravo!

So nice to hear someone notice that critical adjective "well-regulated"! I'm always blown away by people who seem to think that the founding fathers intended the 2nd amendment to give everyone for perpetuity some inalienable right to form lawless bands of vigilantes and brigands. Hello? Would you really want to return to the wild, wild west?

[drfresh]

Thanks for the info

That's pretty much what I was looking to hear, thanks for the reply and background info. I still don't see what makes one militia legal or illegal though, you're saying they must be blessed by the state/fed government?

KevinJ, I'm not advocating a return to the wild wild west, but was being devils advocate to the claim the minutemen were an "illegal militia". Seems to me that if the US Border Patrol isn't going to do their job (and all indications say they aren't), then citizens who volunteer to do it for them probably have good intentions and are doing a noble thing.

Except for the ones with swastikas, of course.

[Lexingtonian]

348. the distinction

is well captured in the phrase "well regulated". 'Blessed' is not the word I would use, but if an armed unit is formed via government officials, sees/admits itself as fully accountable to government, and pledges itself to uphold the laws in force in the district comprehensively- that would would be a pretty good meeting of the criteria.

It works well enough for the on-the-spot deputizing of armed people in the Wild West to help hunt down criminals. It works for the U.S. Army units that were sent in to massacre and terrorize Indians. (The laws and orders and officials involved don't have to be particularly moral, sadly.) It doesn't work for lynch mobs or for Shay's rebellion, it doesn't work for the Waco Branch Davidians or Randy Weaver or the Montana Freemen or Tim McVeigh or the 'Republic of Texas', or the Michigan Militia. The Confederate Army would be legal- though the use to which it was put wouldn't be.

[primavera]

365. Reasonable people can differ

I don't doubt that the "minutemen" believe that they are doing a good and noble thing, but they don't have the knowledge or training to step in and responsibly perform the function they're wanting to take on and consequently stand to do more harm than good. Besides, what they're doing is not about maing the border more secure - these idiots wouldn't know an illegal alien if one walked up and bit them on the ass. They're just as likley to apprehend some poor schmuck with brown skin who they think is an illegal alien but who in fact has every right to be here. They're not an effective, organized supplement to the border patrol, and well do they know it. What they're really trying to achieve is calling public attention to what they believe needs to be done, i.e., securing the borders.

But although that sounds intuitively reasonable, it's a vastly more complex question with repercussions they haven't even begun to consider. The reality is that it's bloody hard to seal a border the size of ours totally - ask how much luck the East Germans had and the price they paid to get as close to it as they did. Sure, it's possible, but at what price? How many legal immigrants and US citizen innocent bystanders will pay for it? How do you feel about a national ID card and being asked to present your papers wherever you go? What happens to the billion dollars a day in trade we do with Canada and Mexico?

And even if it were easy to seal up the borders - which it's not - what would the consequences of doing so be? What would happen to the price of produce if labor became a scarce commodity for US agriculture? Are you ready to pay $10/lb for tomatoes? Even if you are, most people aren't, which means that we'll increase imports from places like Argentina and Chile where they can produce tomatoes cheaper. What's that going to do to jobs in this country? How will it affect the trade balance?

See, the reality is, this issue isn't going to go away as long as US companies pay smugglers to bring workers into the country. And US companies will continue to do that as long as the market requires them to produce goods at rock bottom prices. And supermarkets will continue to demand rock bottom prices from their suppliers as long as Americans patronize whichever business offers goods at the lowest prices, regardless of how they get those lower prices.

This stuff isn't easy, and it's definitely not as clear cut as the "minutemen" believe it is.

[liberalhistorian]

377. Perfect!

Couldn't have said it better myself. At the time the Constitution was written, the militias WERE the country's "army", there was no formal standing military at that time. That is why the militias were generally sponsored and paid for by the local governments. They were meant to fill the role the military and law enforcement agencies now fill. There is no need for them now, PERIOD.

[LanternWaste]

199. National Guard is the only "legal" militia in the U.S.

In 1932 (or '39?), the Supreme Court ruled that the National Guard is the only "legal" militia in the U.S.

National Guard is a good enough citizen's militia for me.

[jody]

230. Sorry but the militia consists of the "organized" and "unorganized" parts.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Militia: composition and classes
QUOTE
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the
UNQUOTE

In some states, the unorganized militia includes men up to age 65.

[LanternWaste]

250. I feel safer already

Great. So these knuckle-dragging, half-educated, xenophobes can create thier own army. I feel safer already.

Which recent, historical battles have the unorganized militia been involved in? Which invading countries have they legally fought against and when and where were those conflicts fought?

If the answer is "well, the Minute Men...", then I really, *really* feel safe...

:sarcasm:

[jody]

279. If you are between 17 and 45, and not exempt, you are in the militia. n/t

[LanternWaste]

281. Then...

Then the unorganized militia's are only sponsored by state and/or federal governments and not simply some guy's sittin' around sayng, "Hey... let's form a militia"?

[jody]

328. That's correct. I was responding to the statement "National Guard is the

only 'legal' militia in the U.S."

That is not a true statement.

Most states have some degree of organization for their "unorganized militia". See the State Guard Association of the United States
:hi:

[Gay Green]

361. Well the "Minutemen" were not regulated at all

and totally unregulated militias are worse than unnecessary to the security of a free state.

[Igel]

149. You're right.

We should have huge locks on our property lines.

Because otherwise using force to actually stop somebody from entering illegally is, well, illegal.

Got anything worth stealing?

[Sven77]

119. supreme court says privates can steal your land

so an illegal immigrant, trespasses on your land, could be a drug dealer mercenary, and the court takes your land away for defending yourself from a criminal trespasser ? what the hell is with the courts wanting open borders and stealing our land and jobs.

[Kali]

340. Nethercourt was not from Arizona

and the abuse happened in Texas. The "ranch" isn't being given to the victims it will be sold to pay the reparations/fines/damages just like any judgement against a property owner.

He sure as hell was NOT defending THAT piece of property against the two migrants. If I recall, he was guarding some other persons property in Texas when it happened.

[Kali]

334. "these ranchers"

70 acres is NO ranch in Arizona - its a future subdivision, Cochise county averages 80 acres to to feed ONE cow for a year - think that place has a big herd? Give me a break.

[PittPoliSci]

7. LOL!

This is fantastic news. Vigilantes beware!

[0007]

8. I love it when the "Minutemen" get screwed

[Igel]

151. Not "Minutemen".

I agree with you, though: someone else was screwed.

[Fenris]

9. ...

:rofl:

[Sven77]

10. bushes open border policy

all the minutemen do is inform the border patrol of immigrants. they just sit there in lawn chairs. it is not racist to want to close the borders. these illegals are stealing american jobs. bush could care less because it is good for the corporations. Also the border wars with the drug dealers is getting outa hand. 2 states have declared "state of emergency" due to cops getting killed, people kidnapped, cars blown up, etc.

the Secret border wars
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/140805borderwars.htm

[wli]

14. very interesting and unsurprising

It figures that the drug running would be US-sponsored.

[EVDebs]

146. The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade

by Prof. Alfred McCoy, Univ Wisc. The CIA initially tried to suppress publication.

Also, Newsweek's Robert Samuelson's article

The Hard Truth of Immigration: No society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially when many of them are poor or unskilled workers

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8100266/site/newsweek/

should make DUer's think twice about this issue. Republicans will use it against Dems/liberals bespite the fact that Globalization is the real culprit in all of this. The reason so many Latinos et al are coming into the US is in order to STAY ALIVE.

Mexico is a tinderbox just waiting to explode.

[HEyHEY]

23. What about the Minutemen patrolling the Canadian borders

ARe us Canadian "illegals" stealing US jobs?

[mike_c]

88. doesn't matter-- most of you look like most of us....

And that minor French thing aside, most of you speak the same language. That's what this is really about-- plain old racism and xenophobia.

[Sven77]

113. canadians arent stealing jobs

they are prolly delivering cheap pharmacy drugs

[blondeatlast]

275. Name a single job "stolen" by an undocumented worker that was

done without employer complicity.

You say upthread it isn't about racism; you will have a difficult time convincinng me with your rhetoric.

[Chrisduhfur]

396. Ahem...

I have no issues with legal immigrants. The problem is that the illegal immigrants from Mexico are not registered. When they are not registered they do not pay the taxes needed to sustain the nation. So if we were to simply open the borders to anyone and everyone then we would have to make many changes to how we do things. Many of which I personally believe would screw the country over.

Anyways, how many Canadians do you see coming into the US illegally? I would guess the number is close to zero.

Now I know many people say that illegal immigrants from Mexico do jobs that many Americans refuse to do. Ahem, well in my opinion I don't see why it has to be that way. There are some people out there who simply can not find jobs(whether due to poor job market or in some cases due to laziness) So why not give those people the choice of doing those jobs or losing their social services. If they do those jobs then they can still collect unemployment or welfare as they were before.

And if that doesn't fill up the "unwanted" jobs then we can work on maybe making it easier for these people to legally come into the US.

[StrafingMoose]

44. The plan is also...

to flood the USA with people ready to work for 1$ USD an hour or even less.

[blondeatlast]

274. I live in AZ--it is absolutely racist. You cite "cops being killed,

people kidnapped, cars blown up"--that's nothing compared to what the coyotes do.

Spend some time at the border, as I have, before you assume anything.

[Kali]

342. Its not ALL racist

Try LIVING near the border. Yes there is racism, but for some of us that is not the issue. The policy of fake "closed" border while doing nothing about the migration once it gets beyond a 40 or 50 mile "war" zone, the blind eye turned to employers, the fake "security" the politicians feel when they hire another couple hundred inexperienced kids to "patrol" the "border" - its bullshit. Did you read the last issue of the Tucson weekly? Frigging Mexican military helicopter landed on US soil! - probably protecting smugglers Now let me tell you about dead livestock, cut fences, damage to soil, pumps pipelines, garbage and human waste EVERYWHERE, car wrecks, real criminals moving in because is has now become so lucrative, folks shooting at each other and trying to hijack loads of human cargo etc etc etc. Because we are playing some kind of stupid game and these folks have to run a 60 mile gauntlet or hike a death trail before they can get on a bus or plane and go to their JOBS.

[Mythsaje]

11. Now wait a minute...

as much as I dislike the use of violence to stop illegal immigration, I really don't think I like the idea of giving U.S. property to non-citizens who were breaking the law to begin with. It should have been awarded to the State or to a non-violent group willing to work within the rules to curtail illegal immigration.

[Megahurtz]

15. Yeah, somehow I don't like that either.

Not cool! This is a ruling that could set a precident out of control.:(

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. See #6. (nt)

[Mythsaje]

20. Uh-uh...

See my post. Punishing one group for breaking the law by giving the property to another set of law-breakers is NOT COOL.

[Megahurtz]

24. Put that way it's Definitely Not Cool! n/t

[Megahurtz]

22. I see your point, but

I'm concerned about the precident being set for the Government
to get too grabby with anyone's land for any reason.

I just think they should have given them jail time or whatever.
It just seems like a bizzare ruling to me.:shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. This was a civil tort case not criminal case

The seizure of the land is not a punishment, like a jail sentence. It is the transfer of an asset from the harming party to the harmed party in order to satisfy the award to the plaintiff in civil court.

[Mythsaje]

47. Lawyer talk...

More mumbo-jumbo to justify more stupid shit. Tort shmort. People who are in the process of an illegal action (entering the country illegally, in this particular case) are not entitled to sue for damages resulting from their choices. If they were assaulted they should have been eligible to file criminal charges, but not open a civil case.

If they had've been where they were supposed to be they wouldn't have been injured, now would they?

If a guy breaks into my garage, trips over my rake, and sues me it may sound good to lawyers, but to the average person it's fucking stupid. And it's crap like this that fuels the "tort reform" bullshit from the right. Anyone with any sense who shouldn't explode when sunlight hits them (lawyers, for example) recognizes this for what it is...lawyers sticking it to everyone else.

[Kenroy]

56. "Tort schmort"

That's a good way to discuss legal issues.

Oh wait... no it's not. It's dismissive and sorta stupid.

And don't jump on the anti-lawyer bandwagon. Who benefits when lawyers are shut down? The rich and powerful. Don't be their tool.

[Mythsaje]

66. 95% of all politicians are lawyers

they make the rules, they decipher the rules, and collect huge payouts at the expense of average people more often than not. Now this isn't true of ALL lawyers, but it sure as hell is true of quite a few of them.

Lawyers and insurance companies are running this country and helping to deprive average people out of more freedoms than I can count.

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon...I've been on it since I went through court to determine custody of my oldest son and was dragged kicking and screaming through a barrage of crap thrown at me by my ex's lawyers and a useless Guardian Ad Lidem when I couldn't afford one of my own.

[Kenroy]

70. OK...

you have a personal, emotional history about this issue.

Hate your ex, not her lawyer. He or she was doing the job s/he was hired to do.

Lawyers are all that stand between us and the huge corporations/governments/other powers-that-be.

Can you tell? I want to be a lawyer.

[Mythsaje]

77. Actually my ex and I are friends now...

A lot of this crap ORIGINATED with the lawyers and her boyfriend at the time. Say anything just to win the case seems to be the standard modus operandi, regardless of who it hurts in the long run.

And the Guardian Ad Lidem (what a piece of work HE is) never bothered to contact anyone in order to verify anything THEY told him. I had an ex-wife and step-kids willing to supply affadavits regarding my parenting which were ignored by the GAL and the Judge.

So, yeah, it's personal. Because I couldn't afford a lawyer, I got screwed. And my kids got screwed. And lawyers turned a profit.

[Kenroy]

101. I'm sorry

really, I am. People get screwed all the time, especially men in divorce court. I don't know what the solution is. But I sympathize. My brother went through a very similar situation and I found it horrifying. But I don't blame the lawyers. I blame his ex and the laws/courts.

His ex was.... well, I don't think I can use the right word here. But her lawyer did HER bidding. I presume your ex had some degree of control over what her hired lawyer did.

[Mythsaje]

118. Some control, probably...

but she was confused and under her boyfriend's sway (he was paying for the lawyer) and allowed herself to be talked into quite a few things she probably wouldn't have done on her own.

They can be ruthless and cause a great deal of harm because that's just the way it's done.

The GAL screwed me deliberately because I didn't have the money to hire a lawyer and couldn't borrow the money from someone else to do so...he practically told me that in so many words.

[Kenroy]

173. I'm sorry

really, I am. It must've been very painful.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

71. AAAHHHHH, now I get it.

"I got screwed in court, hence all lawyers are evil."

[Mythsaje]

80. Not all...

but I'm sure suspicious of them.

It's not like my case is an exception...

You know that perjury is ignored in custody cases? It's EXPECTED.

And while this commentary is quite entertaining, it doesn't address the issue of lawyers suing law-abiding property owners because someone who enters their property illegally happens to be injured.

My experiences makes me suspicious...but this sort of stuff makes me angry. The ones who benefit in cases like this are the lawyers and the criminals...where's the logic in that?

[missingthebigdog]

343. Whoa, Nelly!

You said: And while this commentary is quite entertaining, it doesn't address the issue of lawyers suing law-abiding property owners because someone who enters their property illegally happens to be injured.

This case isn't about some illegals falling in a well on the property, or cutting themselves on barbed wire. This is about a group of vigilante morons taking the law into their own hands and assaulting people who were, at most, trespassing. This ranch owner pistol whipped the immigrant. Criminal charges were brought, and a Texas jury didn't find him guilty of the assault, but did convict him for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The immigrant sought redress in a civil court, where the standard of proof is lower, and prevailed. The identical thing happened in the OJ case. . . . The court didn't award this litigant the ranch; the ranch was handed over to satisfy the judgment. Would you be more comfortable if the ranch had been sold to an American, and the proceeds handed over to the victim to satisfy the judgment? Or do you think that the victim's illegal status is sufficient to deny him redress in our civil courts?

Think about this for just a moment. Do we really want to deny this victim access to the civil court system because of his non-citizenship status? Taking that position, no foreign national would ever contract with an American company- the contracts would be unenforceable.

Our system is not perfect, but it does a better than fair job of keeping a very small segment of the population from being in total control of the rest of us. We need to think long and hard before we undermine that.

[Kenroy]

107. My parents hired a guy to build a fence

and it wasn't well done.

All contractors are evil fuckheads.

I don't understand why the everybody, even on the left, buys into the lawyer-hatred. I believe there was concentrated effort by the right-wing for the last 30 years to demonize lawyers.... and why?

Because lawyers fuck up the right. They fuck the corporations. Today Merck got some come-uppance for their horrible practices. And who caused that? Lawyers.

Every valuable tort case was brought by lawyers. They are there to protect us, and thank God for that.

Are there bad lawyers, stupid lawyers, right-wing shill lawyers? Of course. But that doesn't mean the profession is worthy of denigration.

Even the most right-wing republicans hire a lawyer when they need one. Who was the first person to file a lawsuit in the Florida election case in 2000? George W. Bush.

What did George W. Bush do as soon as he learned there was an investigation into the CIA operative leak? He hired a personal lawyer.

Seriously, I thank God that lawyers are available to ALL of us. We need them - they do seriously important work, and I believe the majority of them are sincere, well-intentioned people.

[Mythsaje]

111. Who often make a lot of money

off the suffering of other people.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

120. Yeah, like MDs. Are THEY evil too? (nt)

[Mythsaje]

125. Occasionally...

And I have no problem with those lawyers who put people before profit. In fact, I applaud them. But I distrust a lot of them who seem to go the other way.

[Kenroy]

122. As do doctors

n/t

[Mythsaje]

127. And what's the doctor's primary purpose?

To heal the sick and injured. The Hypocratic Oath is pretty cut and dried.

The legal profession? Not so much.

[Kenroy]

143. And...

what's the "prime directive" of lawyers?

To do what their clients tell them to do, within the limits of the law.

[Mythsaje]

145. Which allows a frighteningly wide

amount of wiggle room, when you get right down to it.

[Kenroy]

150. of course...

Again, I'm sincerely sorry you got screwed. As I said above, I saw my brother get screwd the same way.

But it's not the lawyers' fault. They did what they were hired to do.

I'm glad you're friends with your ex now, because that's healthy and good - especially when children are involved.

But her lawyer did what she told him to do.

[Mythsaje]

161. And the GAL?

This wasn't an isolated incident...it's REAL common for these guys to collect money from the state and do as little work as possible and just rule whichever according to their prejudices.

[Kenroy]

169. I'm sorry...

I'm not following you.

Which gal do you refer to?

And when you say " just rule whichever according to their prejudice", to whom are you referring? Certainly now lawyers, who have no power to "rule". You must mean judges.

My personal feeling is that the right-wing assault on lawyers that began 30 years ago has now become a concerted right-wing assault on the judiciary.

Don't be a tool of the right.

[Mythsaje]

174. GAL= Guardian Ad Lidem

Sorry, I used an acronym some people are familiar with...

They're the court-appointed "attorney" for a minor child or children and can make recommendations to the court based upon the result of their "investigation."

Assuming they first bother to conduct one.

[Kenroy]

219. ah... gotcha

sorry - I shoulda figured it out.

It's pretty clear you had a really sucky experience. I hope I never have to go through such a thing.

But the problem is the system and the laws, not the lawyers. As painful as it might seem, you have to accept that your wife's lawyer did what she told him to do.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

400. Oh, dear

It's "guardian ad litem," so before you continue on with your wrongheaded lawyer-bashing, you really should know the terms you're using.

Check the fees that we earn for working for dependent children whose parents have screwed up. You'll discover that they're poverty wages - we take those cases out of care for kids, and we do them - mostly at our own expense - because we believe kids need protecting.

Forgive me for interrupting your rant with accuracy, but, as one who's been there, let me remind you that no lawyer ever forced people to marry, to have kids, to screw up their marriage, and to end up in divorce court.

My motto has always been: "Stupidity's been really good to me."

Carry on with your bashing. Now you can spell it right. (And, for future reference, no one refers to it as "GAL.")

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

407. You know what?

I'm starting to suspect the wife was the right side in this particular case.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

418. Slowpoke.....................

<heh heh heh>

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

131. Beat ya, sucka!

:P

[mondo joe]

220. That you disagree with the process or outcome does not mean

your ex's lawyer, or the GAL, did anything wrong.

In fact I can already see their side.

[Mythsaje]

229. What--because we having a debate?

And you don't like my stance?

Assume much?

I do know this--you've been a hell of a lot ruder to me than I have been to you. I have yet to descend into personal attacks.

You certainly can't say the same thing.

[mondo joe]

234. This is not an attack. I find you have very questionable judgement

and nurse deep grudges. That's a conclusion, not an assumption.

Or am I to simply take your word for it?

[Mythsaje]

238. I'm friends with my ex again...

if that says anything. AFTER she participated in that farce, even.

No, my issue is with what I see as abuse of authority and negligence on the part of the GAL. I take real exception to abuse of authority and, yeah, I nurse a grudge about that. It served to make me even MORE suspicious of authority than I already was.

[mondo joe]

246. But I have no reason to think it was an abuse of authority, other than

that you didn't like the decision.

Bush didn't like the findings of the weapons incpectors, Bill Frist didn't like the findings of Terri Schiavo's physicians, and it all gets called an abuse of power.

But since in another post you expressed your feeling that the illegal's attorneys shouldn't have thought of the best interest of their clients, I'd say you have a pretty funny notion of how these things should work anyway.

[Mythsaje]

254. I think in the long run

it's not necessarily in their clients' best interest...though I'm sure it's great for THEIR pocketbook.

[mondo joe]

259. Really? So you know better than they do what's in their own best

interest?

In what way does this FAIL to be in their interest?

[Mythsaje]

265. Are they going to apply for a visa

and use the land? Probably not a good idea considering the neighborhood. Now they're going to have to deal with unloading the land, paying off the attorneys, and claiming whatever monies left over rather than simply being able to go on their way with a set amount of cash.

If I couldn't use the land I'd rather have the cash, myself.

[mondo joe]

268. Irrelevant. Why do you think you know better than they do what

is in their own best interest?

And isn't it sort of interesting that for all your posts about elitist doctors and lawyers, you don't think these people are capable of sorting out their own best interests?

[Mythsaje]

289. Maybe...maybe not.

But I'll bet you the lawyers in question make out like bandits...

Why do you assume they act in the best interests of their clients over their own best interests?

[mondo joe]

301. Why do you think the CLIENTS don't know their own best interest

as well as you know it?

Why do you think they are so much less intelligent than you, and so much less aware about their own circumstances?

[Mythsaje]

314. Not at all...

but they might not have a clear grasp of American jurisprudence and could easily fall prey to a unscrupulous attorney.

They sure as heck didn't come up here because it was just like home, now did they?

[mondo joe]

324. So you DO think you know their best interest better than they do.

They can't even do math well enough to understand fees?

How sad.

[Mythsaje]

329. Dude, I'm a writer...

I don't even do my own bills...my wife is the one who handles our finances.

When they start spouting the fees crap, MY eyes roll back in my head and I feel like howling... Red tape confuses the heck out of me. And I LIVE here.

Terrible argument here, man. Just terrible.

[mondo joe]

351. And yet you assume you know better than them what they want.

Very patronizing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

91. Yeah, why discuss the results of a legal case with "lawyer talk"

:eyes:

A bizarre and nonsensical response.

[Mythsaje]

96. Because it's deliberately designed to be confusing

to those who haven't studied law. It's elitist and condescending.

[alcibiades_mystery]

104. Wrong on all counts

It is not "deliberately designed to be confusing." It's deliberately designed to be precise. Of course, you seem to think that precision doesn't matter, since you've made wild and inaccurate claims throughout this thread. It is also not condescending, since I assume that the audience has the wherewithal to understand these terms. Condescending would be "Illegal immigrants caught by rancher guy. Rancher guy hurts illegal immigrants in illegal way. Illegal immigrants sue because they were hurt. The judge or jury agrees that they shouldn't have been hurt, and makes the rancher pay. Rancher doesn't have enough cash, so judge says he has to pay with ranch." Simple enough? That would be condescending. Why you're pretending not to understand the simple premises of civil law is a mystery to me.

[Mythsaje]

108. Are you a lawyer?

You obfuscate like one.

My argument is that I don't believe they're entitled to the land. Period. They are entitled to restitution, yes, because the injury sustained was outside the realm of reasonable expectation of risk carried by their choice to commit the crime of entering the U.S. illegally.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

112. Funny. I understood alcibiades' post with no problems, and I'm no lawyer.

I wonder why.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. By the way

They only got the land because the defendant didn't have money. If he did, they'd get only money.

[Mythsaje]

123. This ruling bothers me

on a very deep level. I'm trying to argue it rationally because I can't just say "I don't like it." I'm trying to figure out and explain why I feel that way.

I think I'm digging a deeper hole for myself but I've gone too far to give up now...LOL

[alcibiades_mystery]

117. If the rancher can't pay the legally determined award

Then his other personal assets are open to seizure. Jut like, say, OJ Simpson. Unless he works out some deal with the court. It's always been as simple as that. The only one obfuscating is you. Before you say that the plaintiffs shouldn't be allowed to sue at all. Now you say that the award should have been determined differenly. This is a clear erosion in your position, which I expect will further erode due to its nonsensical character.

[Mythsaje]

133. Erosion my ass...

I simply resist the idea that this land should be on the chopping block and be handed over to people who shouldn't have been here.

[mondo joe]

139. That they shoud not have been there does not mean the rancher

was within his rights.

A person in danger has the right to use lethal force in self defense.

The rancher did NOT have the right to do what he did.

[Mythsaje]

148. Oh, absolutely...

I just wish they could've got him in criminal court.

[alcibiades_mystery]

160. They did

Did you even bother to read the article?

[mondo joe]

184. Why read the article? It's just factual mumbo jumbo!

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

141. If Mr. Nethercutt had other substanial assets

Then he would pay with those. How do you propose Mr. Nethercutt, our glorious rancher who is currently serving 5-year prison sentence for illegally possessing the firearm that he beat these two men with, pay the judgment against him? How should he pay, if not with his only asset?

[Mythsaje]

154. Asset forfeiture

Sell the land, give the men a reasonable amount to pay damages, and leave it at that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

157. That's not how it works

And never has been. What agency would deal with the property in the interim? Under what doctrine would a third party hold possession of the asset? Would the third party get to decide what is "reasonable" in the sale of the asset? Why? Th judgment is owed directly to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs get to make those decisions about their assets. Why is this difficult for you to understand?

[Mythsaje]

168. Because it doesn't deal with their personal responsibility

for the results of their illegal action.

"Oh, look, we crossed over into the U.S. got the crap beat out of us by a gringo asshole and we got his ranch!"

What does this do to curtail any sort of illicit behavior stemming from either side of the border? It gives these guys a reward they can brag to their friends about and it gives this rancher's friends even more to be pissed about. Now they know if they're going to take them prisoner they can't afford to let them go again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

177. You can pretend all you want tht the judgmnt was a REward

for having crossed the border. That position exists only in your imagination. The judgment was an award - compensation for being beaten. The ranchers should have detained the two, then turned them over to Border Patrol for reprocessing out of the country. Instead, they pistol-whipped them and threatened them with firearms - then they LET THEM GO!!! The only disincentive here is a disincentive to beat illegal immigrants: you harm illegal immigrants in way that goes beyond restraint and legal processing, and you are civilly lible. Period. And if future ranchers capture illegal immigrants and DON'T let them go, and DON'T alert the Border Patrol, then they should be criminally liable for kidnapping and murder, and the families of the victims should be able to sue their ass off for wrongful death in American civil court, and should get their land if it's the only asset.

[Mythsaje]

188. It's a system of little steps...

they crossed the border, ran into Mr. Jackass and his friends, and were "punished." Or whatever whacked out excuse flitted into Jackass's head for what he did.

This guy is probably a racist asshole, with racist assholes for friends...and they've just been told that some "wetback" can get their land if they're caught 'roughing them up a little.'

They're not rational people, you realize...and this will serve to fuel their hatred. It's not as though this guy was tried and convicted of a crime. No, some "liberal activist judge and a bunch of nutzo leftist jurors gave the wetbacks our buddy's ranch because he tried to teach them to stay on their side of the border."

I just think another way might have been better.

[alcibiades_mystery]

197. Huh?

The man was tried in criminal court and sentenced to five-years imprisonment on a firearms charge (the jury hung on the assault). He was tried in civil court and the court found for the plaintiff, and a judgment was lodged against him, in an amount he couldn't pay, save with his only real asset, the ranch.

If this fuels hatred, too bad. The proceedings were legal, as was the judgment. I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. Are you now saying that the judgment was bad because other ranchers will be mad? Too fucking bad for them. If they go out and beat illegal aliens, they too should be subject to legal judgment in civil court. And if they have no substantial assets, then they should lose their ranches too. There's an easy way to avoid losing your land in this way: Don't pistol-whip the illegal aliens you see and detain. Turn them over to border patrol in a controlled and legal manner.

[Mythsaje]

209. I'm saying it can send the wrong message to everyone concerned...

You think ranchers like this guy are the only people aggravated by the illegal immigration problem? I know a nurse in Arizona who gets livid any time the issue comes up. And she's otherwise a very rational person.

Of COURSE this guy should be punished... I'm just not so sure I like the punishment handed out. I think it will inflame people and make the problem worse.

[mondo joe]

223. Once more, the judgement is based on the law, not the incorrect

understanding of the least informed.

Why do you think the judgment should be based on what the least informed people will incorrecly understand rather than actual civil rights?

[Mythsaje]

232. Once again

I think the approach was wrong...It's not the judge or jury's fault that it came out this way. The lawyers could have approached the whole thing from a slightly different angle and made it clear to everyone that neither side was blameless.

[mondo joe]

236. Why should the defendant's attorney not seek compensation for the

crime committed against them?

Because some uninformed person might misunderstand?

[Mythsaje]

241. No--because this issue is bigger than

just the two guys being beaten by an asshole rancher... I don't disagree that they were due compensation. I just don't think they were entitled to property.

[mondo joe]

247. The "issue" is the provence of the policy, hence the law.

That's already been determined.

And the property was the ONLY ASSET. What about that do you fail to understand?

[Mythsaje]

255. Nothing...

I just don't like the way it worked out.

[mondo joe]

260. You don't like the fact that it was the only asset?

That's interesting.

Since you claim to believe they were entitled to compensation, and that was the only asset with which to compensate them, what other compensation would you suggest be used?

[alcibiades_mystery]

333. Oh, he's already suggested remedy there

In a brand new precedent, the land should be deeded over to the state (or the court, or a third party, please dear God anyone but the El Salvadorans!), who would then sell it, then transfer the proceeds to the plaintiffs. This is, of course, a monumental shift in the original position that the plaintiffs should have no standing in civil court full stop! Needless to say, there is no reason that the plaintiffs should need some third party to administer their property, but Myth just doesn't "like" that they get LAND...land, I say!...so we should invent a completely unheard of method of transferring property, specifically for these two plaintiffs, and involve a third party administrator, just so that the plaintiffs get MONEY, but not LAND! A more incoherent and ignorant collection of drivel I have never seen, but it's quite clear that Myth operates through some weird LAND fetishization that has zero basis in logic, property law, or reason.

[mondo joe]

360. No wonder he's so anti-law. Easier to just make up solutions without

any concern for anything.

[Mythsaje]

392. It's a complex problem

they tried to solve with a simple solution...not giving a rat's ass what the long term consequences will be.

I'm done arguing this one.

[Mythsaje]

391. As it's clear you have a problem understanding simple English...

I don't think they are entitled to anything but compensation for their injury, not the value of the land. The land should be sold, they should be compensated, and the rest of the value of the land should be used to benefit agencies serving LEGAL immigrants.

[alcibiades_mystery]

395. They won compensation for their injuries in civil court

And the award was determined to be a specific amount that exceeds the value of the land. Your back to the ridiculous contenion that they shouldn't be able to sue in civil court, a contention you cannot support legally or even reasonably. For example, you never answered whether the raped burglar could collect compenation from the home owner who raped him or her. Should that person only receive compensation equal to the medical bills? What is the home owner cut off the burglar's hand: should the burglar be able to collect compensation on that? In both cases, the initially wronged parties far exceeded what was allowed by law in their treatment of the criminals, and the criminals suffered a material harm tht was unexpected and long-lasting.

I understand your position to be based on "personal responsibility" and causation: if the criminals hadn't done what thy did, the situation would have never occurred. That's fine, but it is not how the law parcels out responsibility, except in the very specific cases of what is called the "clean hands doctrine." (The clean hands doctrine states that if a plaintiff acted wrongly with respect to a transaction, then she could not seek recompense in court for a wrong committed by the defendant. That doctrine is almost exclusively applied in contract law, and would not apply here, since the "transaction" being considered is the beating, not the detention - the fact of the beating exceeds the fact of the trespass, and the crossing of the border would thus be considered what we call an "abominable" act that is external to the case, and therefore not relevant.) The case is about the beating, which is the SOLE responsibility of the defendant. You have to distinguish between general causality and proximate causality: in general, the two men would not have been beaten if they had not illegally entered the country. Proximately, however, the rancher had the OPTION, or freedom, to act within the bounds of the law and the defendant's human and civil rights, or to exceed those bounds. According to the ruling of the court, the general cause was onsidered irrelevant, and the proimate cause egregious: the ranchers were held culpable for their choices. Now, your problem seems to be that the two men weren't held culpable for their choices: that was not the question being addressed by the court. Maybe it should have been, you would then say. Well and good. The defendants probably offered that up as a positive defense for their actions, and they were denied, or the defense was found to be flawed. That's the long and short of it.

With respect to the question that the court DID address, the defendants were found culpable, and a reasonable award for the damage they caused was determined. And this award exceeded the value of this rancher's sole asset. So the asset was transferred to satisfy the judgment. Let me be clear: Whether they should have been here in the first place is IRRELEVANT with respect to the ACTION being considered, to wit: the beating. In other words, while the plaintiffs may be personally responsible for breaking the law by crossing the border, they were not personally responsible for the beating they experienced. The responsibility - that is, the choices, the freedom - of the ranchers was determined to far exceed the general responsibility of the plaintiffs for "being here in the first place." Let's construct another analogy:

Suppose two nineteen year olds get into 21 and over nightclub with fake ID. The club has recently been fined for serving liquor to underage kids, so the owner and bouncers are ultrasensitive about the issue. While they are in the club, the bouncers find out that they are underage (say, someone who knows the kids lets it slip). They tell the owner. Now, rather than simply eject them from the club or call the police, the bouncers and the owners take the kids into a stock room and beat them up, breaking one kid's hand. One general "cause" of the incident could be seen as the act of sneaking into the club. But the more egregious behavior is the behavior of the club owner and bouncers: the proximate cause of the beating and the harm. Under your theory, the kids should be stripped of their fundamntal civil rights to seek equitable compensation for their injuries because they illegally entered the club in the first place. That is simply an unconstituional notion (since any party who considers a wrong to have happened to them has the right to file - but not to win - a suit in civil court; there is no exception here, if we are to live in a free society). There is also no out through the "reasonable expectation of risk" exception, since the owner and bouncers actions were so unreasonable that they couldn't legally have been anticipated. Nor should there have to be any special procedure for turning over any property from a judgment: the kids being reasonable agents, they can dispose of the property as they see fit. Now you might "think" or (probably more precisely) "feel" that the kids should have to give up their rights to sue or their rights to claim the assets determined in a legal judgment because they broke the law by entering the club. But this is simply not the way the law views it, and for good reason.

First, because all people are protected by the law at all time - otherwise, the law is meaningless and arbitrary. Second, because the law parcels responsibility on specific actions; if the law was focused on general causes, nothing would ever get done, since general causes can extend indefinitely (you can always construct a chain of general causes that far exceed the specific ACTS of people, and the law must figure out where to cut this chain if it is to parcel out responsibility - i.e., aren't the people who produced the fake IDs that these kids used to enter the club also partially "responsible" for what happened? If not for them, the kids would have never gotten in, and therefore would never have been beaten...etc, ad infinitum). You have a "feeling" that something's not right, but the law must look at the facts of the case and determine responsibility given those facts. And yes, the law cuts responsibility here and there based on specifics. But that is precisely the job of the judge or jury. In this case, they thought the responsbility of the ranchers outweighed the responsibility of the two men "for being there in the first place." You might diagree, but that was the legally binding and procedurally sound judgment.

[mondo joe]

413. Their compensation EXCEEDED the value of the land so there wouldn't be

any "rest of thhe value".

Do you even try to be informed about topics before you discuss them?

[Megahurtz]

346. I Totally Agree. n/t

[CAcyclist]

368. It Stopped Him Cold

He's now in jail where he can't hurt anyone. Enforcing these laws will make other racists stop and think first,too.

If enforcing these laws just "enflamed" racists, we'd have unholy wars in the South ever since desegregation and we don't. We'd have men going out and raping all women bold enough to walk alone at night without an escort. We'd have bullies drive into SF and beat up gays in the Castro district every night.

It doesn't work that way.

Racists are cowards - they only beat up on people perceived to be society's rejects - people they don't expect society to protect. Once they see people being punished for beating up on these perceived rejects, whether the group is composed of blacks or women or gays or immigrants, they stop.

[LanternWaste]

217. Hmmm

"Now they know if they're going to take them prisoner they can't afford to let them go again."

Or... they could report the trespass to the local authorities and/or the INS.

And while it may not appear to deal the the personal responsibility of the trespassers' actions, it certainly does appear to deal with the personal responsibility of the former ranch-owner' actions.

[Kali]

347. "Or... they could report the trespass to the local authorities and/or the

"Or... they could report the trespass to the local authorities and/or the INS."


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And THAT is why this isn't getting solved. You clearly do not have ANY idea what is going on down here.

[One_of_8]

167. Re the land

My understanding is that the previous owners (the defendants, the ones who were sued and lost), have a money judgment against them that they must satisfy. Since they apparently don't have the actual cash in pocket, they must liquify their assets in order to satisfy (pay) the judgment. Thus, the land that they owned (the ranch) gets turned over to the plaintiffs (the illegals who brought the lawsuit, and who presented evidence that a jury found compelling enough to find in their favor). So the actual award by the jury was not "hand over that land" but rather a monetary amount. The defendants most likely then negotiated after verdict with the plaintiffs and their attorneys, and as part of the deal, deeded over the land in lieu of actual cash payment.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

401. Land IS restitution

You sell the land, it becomes money, it's delivered to the plaintiffs in the form of a check.

Morris Dees pioneered this brilliant use of tort law when he got the Aryan Nation up in Idaho into court after they harmed and harassed a black mother and her son. They coughed up their compound to pay the damages due the mother and son.

You can object all you like. Doesn't change a thing.

Oh, and the Poverty Law Center doesn't work for fees. It works on donations. Like the kind I send them, because I'm a filthy rich lawyer who made tons of $$$ by cheating widows and orphans. The blind, too, if I got close to them, and if I came across a quadraplegic, well, look out, because I was inside that bank account faster than you could say "Oh, my God, I'm busted and I need a lawyer!" from the back seat of the patrol car.

[mondo joe]

136. The chip on your shoulder is a bigger problem than the "legal

mumbo jumbo".

Seriously.

[Mythsaje]

152. Hey

I'm anti-authoritarian. I make no bones about it. I distrust those who make the rules and those who interpret them because they're all too often the same people or the same type of people...and rules should never come before the aspect of humanity they are meant to serve.

[alcibiades_mystery]

155. Your supposed greater humanity

being open season on the "wetbacks," huh?

Some antiauthoritarian! :eyes:

[Mythsaje]

158. Oh now you're just being ridiculous...

I have nothing against Mexicans or anyone else... I just don't like the idea of rewarding people for certain behaviors.

[alcibiades_mystery]

170. Nobody is being rewarded for anything

The two El Salvadoran gentlemen are being compensated for damage caused to them by a half-cocked criminal who pistol-whipped and terrified them.

[Mythsaje]

176. My mistake...

regarding their national origins.

And are you sure the nuances of the situation is going to be clear to those they explain it to and those on this side of the border who are considering the case?

From a distance it sure as hell can look like a reward.

[alcibiades_mystery]

178. From YOUR distance

Look at it clearly, and it has absolutely nothing to do with a reward, except to those previously inclined to see it in that way.

[Canadian Socialist]

349. I think it was

a gentleman and a lady. Just sayin'
" Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva, who are from El Salvador but are not related,"

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

171. "Rewarding".

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think
it means.

[Mythsaje]

179. Okay...

no fair quoting one of my favorite movies.

Okay...let's just take into consideration a wide view of the situation. They cross the border, are captured at gunpoint, and are injured by a freakazoid local rancher.

They go to court and sue him, getting his land. They return home and explain this to their friends...are THEY going to get the point of American law that explains why they were given the land, or are they going to see it as a reward for crossing the border and getting messed up by an American asshole?

Are those who would emulate the rancher going to see it as just compensation for their injuries, or are they going to see it as a giveaway to those "goddam wetbacks who are coming up here smuggling drugs and stealing our jobs"?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

186. Judges don't hand out sentences based on "what people will think."

They hand out sentences based on THE LAW.

[Mythsaje]

192. Yet if the lawyers

approached the whole situation with a clear view of the repercussions of any ruling, the case might've been handled with a lot more finesse.

[mondo joe]

194. Which repercussions are those?

Please be specific.

[alcibiades_mystery]

201. That folks like Mythsaje will be angry

And will feel that they should be allowed to harm people without threat of civil action. :shrug:

[Mythsaje]

207. I have never harmed anyone

who wasn't trying to harm me, nor have I really wanted to...

Legal action isn't a cure-all. And if it's the wrong action it will cause more problems than it solves.

One of the problems I have with the "there ought to be a law" folks is that law has limitations, and enforcement has limitations, and some people view the same laws differently...not to mention the basic fact that too many times laws initiated to protect people end up harming the very people they're supposed to protect. Take the little girl being prosecuted for throwing a rock for example.

This is more than a "yippee" ruling in an area that is generally steamed as hell about a problem they see getting worse with no discernable policy help from the government. I see this ruling as potentially creating more problems than it solves for all the reasons I've already explained.

[alcibiades_mystery]

216. The ruling in any court case must follow the facts of the case

Not cater to the general appetite of angry people. The facts here are simple: Mr. Nethercutt and his cronies detained two illegal aliens, beat them with pistols, threatened them with firearms, then let them go! They didn't even hold them for Border Patrol, who may have been a bit suspicious about the blood and bruises, yeah? With these facts established, the two men are entitled damages in civil court. That's it. End of story. Public opinion be damned. That's how the law works. You an't, as a judge, say, well, these two are entitled to damages under the law, but people might get mad, so I won't force the defendant (who has been found culpable) to pay the damages. That's the system you're proposing now? That's lunacy, and mob rule, and throws out 400 years of progress. Good luck with that.

[Mythsaje]

228. That's NOT what I'm proposing...

Quit with the straw man tactics.

I'm proposing that, rather than a winner take all approach, one deals with the underlying hostility and the issue people have with people crossing the border illegally. Not by giving away the guy's land, but by making sure all sides of the case are examined and dealt with.

Number one. What the rancher did was illegal and caused harm far beyond what one might reasonably expect in similar circumstances. He is liable for damages up to a reasonable amount.

Number two. The two illegals, having knowingly crossed the border into the United States, have acted inappropriately and are not entitled to anything but fair compensation for their damages. They are NOT entitled to land in a country in which they do not even belong as a direct result of them choosing to enter the country illegally, therefore putting themselves in the power of the defendant.

Both sides have responsibility for their actions...one action is far more heinous than the other, but a reasonable effort to deal with the ramifications of the whole problem rather than just one facet of it would go some distance, if not a long way, toward healing part of the rift over the issue.

[mondo joe]

282. The land is the only asset available to compensate them for

damages.

What do you want the court to do, give the ranchers some money so they'll have another asset?

Furthermore, they need not be entitled to enter te US to own land, same as any other aliens. They need not be residents, nor need they ever step foot in the US to own land here.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

402. Underlying it all

Racism.

Dress it up all you want in fancy clothes, but it's racism that's propelling this individual in this inane exchange about "rewarding."

Comes in all kinds of disguises, racism. But, the stench is always the same.

[Mythsaje]

202. I feel like I'm running in circles

with you guys.

A ruling that appears to reward people for illegal actions (and you have to consider who this ruling affects) will inflame passions and incite MORE screwed up behavior by people who don't put the concepts together right.

The fact that these guys were awarded this money because they were injured by a malevolant party doesn't take away from the fact that they weren't supposed to be here in the first place and giving them things like land can easily be seen as some sort of reward for their actions.

I don't have a problem with them getting compensation so much as I have a problem with them being given the land. It WILL inflame more people, in my opinion.

[mondo joe]

204. The misunderstanding of a few people is not a legitimate basis

on which to suspend the rights or compensation to anyone.

It's not the illegal's fault or responsibility that you don't understand it's not a reward.

What a funny legal system you advocate - decisions should be based on what the least informed people perceive rather than legitimate claims or rights.

And the land IS the compensation, silly.

[alcibiades_mystery]

208. LOL

Perfect:

"decisions shuold be based on what the least informed people perceive rather than legitimate claims or rights"

This is, as I can tell, precisely what Mythsaje is advocating now that the other arguments have crumbled.

[Mythsaje]

211. No, actually I'm advocating

a holistic approach to the problem...as I have all along.

[alcibiades_mystery]

221. Policy can be holistic

Law cases look at the specifics of a case. That's your basic misunderstanding, as far as I can tell, with this, your third line of argument.

[Mythsaje]

235. Coming from the same place

It's not my fault that you've constructed straw man after straw man for me to deal with along the path.

[alcibiades_mystery]

249. There are no straw men here

You simply cannot answer the arguments put before you. First you say that people committing a crime shouldn't be able to sue in civil court, and obviously bogus argument. Your lack of any legal reasoning or cogent analogies and your refusal to answer the relevant analogies was the end of that silly argument. Then you say these men are being rewarded for a crime. They are clearly not, so you transition into the perception that they are being rewarded, and the long-term consequences, and all the angry people, etc. Since these have nothing to do with a legal ruling, you have no place to go, so now you pretend that you've been contending with a series of straw man arguments. Name one. I think you just like using the term straw man. You have no argument here.

[mondo joe]

212. It's more George-W-think

"We can't let Terri Schiavo die or people will think they can murder anyone who is sick!"

"We can't let Saddam stay in power or people will think they can terrorize America!"

[Mythsaje]

218. The idea is to heal the rift

not cause it to expand.

[mondo joe]

225. So we should sacrifice people's civil rights so that the least informed

will not have a mistaken understanding?

[Mythsaje]

210. One should consider the complete ramifications

of something one proposes.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.

[alcibiades_mystery]

205. Inflame away

That's beside the point of the legal ruling.

Let's be clear: THE LAND WAS THE ONLY ASSET. Slowly now: O-N-L-Y A-S-S-E-T.

[Mythsaje]

214. So what?

That doesn't negate the point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

187. Easy solution: Don't pistol whip the illegals that you sight and detain

Follow the law and you won't be tried in criminal or civil court. Pretty easy, huh?

[mondo joe]

185. Anti-authoritarian is not the same as anti-knowledge.

Seriously, it's just like George W's dismisive attitude about international law, civil rights, science and more.

[Mythsaje]

195. Don't assume...

And stop comparing me to him.

Read some of my other stuff and get back to me when you get an idea of where I'm really coming from.

This is a hot-button issue connected to a couple things I feel very strongly about...I'm being a little bit of a devil's advocate here and trying to point out potential problems in the midst of something too many people are willing to cheer without due consideration of long term consequences.

[mondo joe]

200. Stop acting like him and you won't be compared.

I see no difference in his disdain for the law and science and yours.

And please don't assume those who disagree with you don't understand the consequences (or more accurately your idea of the consequences). We do. We just know you're wrong.

[Mythsaje]

215. I'm not the one making assumptions about your intelligence and motivations

Now am I?

[mondo joe]

222. I didn't address your intelligence. Just that you adopt W's same

position with regard to law and science.

If I'm incorrect you can point out my error.

[alcibiades_mystery]

203. Oh, now you're just the Devil's Advocate

Your position has eroded down to a hypothetical! It float on air, with no substance to ground it.

[Mythsaje]

243. That's part of my position, yes...

Have you got the idea yet that I just like to debate and was having fun with this one?

[primavera]

206. So every conversation needs to be dumbed down...

...to a level at which the lowest common denominator can comprehend it? Damn, that's going to put one hell of a dent in scientific research. I'm afraid we'd have to return to somewhere around the Iron Age for a discussion on such topics to be basic enough for me to comprehend it.

[Mythsaje]

252. No...though I can see where you'd get that impression...

There are so many straw men standing in this field that it's hard to make out the real humans in the middle.

When one approaches an issue like this that is potentially explosive, where even educated people who are incensed by the massive influx of illegal aliens into their area, one must approach with a little more circumspection.

It's not just about these two guys being beaten, it's about them being somewhere they shouldn't have been in the first place. It's about a whole herd of under-educated morons rushing down there to fill the gap left by our policy makers for whatever reason, with the idea that they're being "patriotic."

It's about people seeking a better life and running up against others who pretty much want the same thing, and seeing the immigrants as part of the reason they can't have what they want.

And this assumption that I want to cater to the lowest common denominator is a straw man indeed...I've seen very rational, educated people turn into fanatics on this deal...they feel betrayed by their government and want to see SOMETHING done about it all.

I have no emotional investment in this at all... I'm trying to come up with alternatives to ruling I see as problematic for a number of reasons. I see no legitimate reason to be subjected to personal attacks (like comparisons to that nitwit in the white house) because I happen to be taking a stance with which you disagree.

[mondo joe]

277. No straw man there. You have indeed consistently catered to

the lowest common denominator: the misunderstanding or the irrational or the enraged.

Apparently you forgot the other understanding to be gleaned from this case: if you kidnap and assault someone - even an illegal alien - you will pay the price.

And that's an especially good lesson for all those lowest common denominators you're so concerned with.

[Mythsaje]

290. Not like going to prison

wouldn't have been a BETTER lesson.

[mondo joe]

298. The civil judge does not have the power to send them to prison.

And it does not address the DAMAGES to the victims of the crime.

More legal "mumbo jumbo" for you.

[Mythsaje]

308. Restitution

does exactly that...

And I know the civil judge doesn't have the power to send him to prison.

The criminal judge that tried the original case would have, had the jury not been sympathetic to him.

[mondo joe]

317. Then don't hold the CIVIL court liable for what the CRIMINAL court

failed to do.

[Mythsaje]

320. It would have been better, in my opinion,

had the criminal court been able to convict.

This ruling is going to raise a fuss that they don't need down there.

[mondo joe]

321. So if it causes a fuss.... what? They shouldn't be compensated?

Funny attitude on a progressive message board.

[Mythsaje]

330. How many times should I say this...

Of course they should be compensated. Within a reasonable limit based on the fact that they were/are contributing to a serious problem for the United States that ISN'T getting any better... They shouldn't have been here in the first place and, while we're sorry they were injured, this doesn't make them entitled to own property in the United States they would never had access to had they not crossed the border illegally.

[alcibiades_mystery]

335. We understand exactly what you're saying

You just happen to be wrong: wrong morally and wrong legally. And your crocidile tears for the real harm these two HUMAN BEINGS incurred is very disturbing, to say the least. In any case, the "larger problem for the United States" is not the purview of the civil court, but of policy makers and legislators. You would strip millions of people of basic civil rights by judicial fiat. That's not just wrong, it's goddamn fucking stupid.

[missingthebigdog]

354. Hmmm. . . . Is the right to land ownership the issue, then?

You seem very hung up on the LAND. Suppose, for a moment, that what you seem to advocate happened- Some party took possession of the land, sold it to a third party, and turned the proceeds over to the victims to satisfy the judgment. Now, what is to keep the victim from simply buying the ranch from whoever has it now? I am aware of no law which prohibits foreign citizens from owning property here; you don't have to be a US citizen to own the land. Do you think that should be changed?

[mondo joe]

355. How can you say they SHOULD be compensated then complain about them

being compensated?

They ARE entitled to compensation which INCLUDES this asset. There is NO legal basis on which to deny thhem this only available asset.

[primavera]

369. Sure, it's an emotional issue

But it's also a very complex one and emotional responses, even on the part of rational and educated people, are not going to solve anything unless they're taking into account the depth and scope of the issues involved. Even as you don't attempt to perform brain surgery on yourself, or represent yourself in court, this too is a fantastically complicated issue and illegal border crossings are but the least consequential symptom of a much greater disease. What these wll-intending idiots are attempting to do is suggest that you can treat brain tumors with band-aids. It may make them feel better, but it doesn't affect the tumor in the slightest. I'm sorry, but this issue is over their heads, they do not have the knowledge and expertise to contribute intelligently to this conversation, and their efforts to enter into it are only making matters worse.

[CAcyclist]

373. There are no straw men

And he was fined for having a firearm in defiance of a court order. The guy was already a felon. If he didn't have the firearm, none of this would have happened.

Are you advocating repealing the laws that restrict felons from carrying firearms as part of their probation?

[CAcyclist]

366. But You Just Did That Yourself

With the GAL referrence - or PAL or whatever it was.

Sounds like projection to me.

If *you* had a better lawyer, maybe you would have made out better, but I'll bet you picked a lawyer based on how cheap they were, not on recommendations.

I love, love ,love lawyers. I got into trouble with the local anti-abortion assholes when I tore down an illegally posted sign. They served me with a citizen's arrest - I had to get a lawyer to handle it and she did an amazing job, then didn't even charge me the full fee. I just wish I had followed up and sued them back for false arrest like she recommended, but I didn't.

[bigluckyfeet]

337. Do You Think the Courts in Mexico

would give a ruling like this to give land to a white man,I don't think so.

[Kali]

350. ahem

Plenty of "white men" in Mexico. Possibly more diverse than here? Courts in Mexico and other political porblems are some of the very reasons so many are migrating.

[alcibiades_mystery]

397. Quite frankly

I don't thinkyou know the first goddamn thing about what a Mexican court would do or what the Mexican law would be on this issue. I'd expect, however, that if a Mexican was found culpable of a tort or liable for an extra-contractual harm under Mexican law, and the plaintiff was an American (white, black, Latino, chicano, Asian, south Asian or otherwise), and the defendant's sole asset to satisfy the judgment was a piece of land, the Mexican court would order that that asset be turned over to the plaintiff. In any case, you certainly don 't have any evidence save your vague presuppositions and prejudice to indicate otherwise. Oh, and these two guys happened to be from El Salvador, not Mexico, but then I suppose that would disturb your - well - disturbing reduction of this question to "white men" and "Mexicans" - a bizarre reading of this issue, to be sure...

[tabasco]

27. Citizens are not immune from committing torts vs. non-citizens.

Non-citizens have the protection of the law in this country.

[Mythsaje]

33. Not the point...

The point is you don't reward someone for breaking the law, citizen or non-citizen.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. They weren't rewarded for breaking the law

They were awarded a sum meant to compensate them for a civil harm committed by the defendants. That is the point. This was a civil case, and the defendants lost. The legal status of the plaintiff with respect to nationality is immaterial.

You do not get to physically or financially harm anybody except within very strict limits. Those limits were obviously exceeded here, resulting in a tort. The harmed party sued, and won, and therefore should receive the award determined in civil court. If the racist rancher can't scratch up enough dough to pay the award, then his unprotected personal assets should be seized to pay the award. This is nothing new.

[PunkPop]

78. Hey, knock off all that legal "mumbo-jumbo".

:sarcasm:

[Mythsaje]

84. You suggest that lawyers can't talk circles around most average people

and that most average people don't resent the hell out of it?

Lawyers have authority the average citizen cannot begin to match...they can play the system so well that anyone who is NOT a lawyer is at a strict disadvantage.

It is mumbo-jumbo if it confuses the issue and the issue is what amount of responsibility a law-breaker retains if he or she is injured during the commission of a crime, whether by deliberate assault or by happenstance.

If it is by deliberate assault and includes such special circumstances such as kidnapping or illegal restraint, for example, the other party should be held criminally responsible, with reasonable restitution set by the overseeing court. But allowing civil cases to be brought by people injured during the commission of a crime, or as a result of illegal behavior makes for a dangerous precedent in terms of public safety and property rights and the point where the two meet.

[alcibiades_mystery]

138. It doesn't "make for dangerous precedent"

It is the law of the land. You can sue for any harm caused if that harm is beyond the limits set for normal restraint of a law-breaker. That's not new precedent. In fact, you're the one proposing new law - the silly idea that if you are harmed while you are committing a crime in a way that goes beyond the recognized standards, your only avenue for compensation is through restitution in the criminal courts. That's completely unheard of and, frankly, crazy. Oh, and unconstitutional. The only dangerous precedent is the one you propose, in which anyone can do anything to someone they believe to be guilty of a crime, without fear of civil action. That's preposterous and nuts.

[Mythsaje]

156. You still haven't addressed my real concern...

Which I've asked in a number of ways in a number of locations along this thread...

If someone breaks into my house and is bitten by my dog, or is injured because his stupid ass trips over something, why is it possible for him to sue me because he injured himself? If he wasn't where he wasn't supposed to be, he wouldn't have been hurt in the first place.

[alcibiades_mystery]

183. These guys didn't injure themselves

Thy were beaten by a cognizant agent. Your analogy is faulty given the facts of the case. If someone breaks into your house and is bitten by your dog, you can't be sued. If someone breaks into your house, and you capture them, lock them in your basement, rape them from time to time, then cut off their fingers, you sure as hell can be sued. See the difference? And I have answered this in numerous posts, so stop pretending that I'm ignoring the issue.

[Mythsaje]

257. The hell you can't be sued...

it happens quite a bit.

Where have you been?

[alcibiades_mystery]

338. Show me one successful legal action of that type

And I mean real ones, not the ones you make up in your twisted understanding of the legal system.

If a burglar breaks into your house and is bitten by your dog, the burglar might FILE a claim, but it would certainly be thrown out. Show me otherwise. Unless this is just your vague understanding and prejudice? Your lack of examples says it all, as does your inability to address the real point: that one should be able to file civil suit against the rapist homeowner, even if one was raped during the commission of a burglary. That is directly analagous to the Texas case, and you can't answer it.

[mondo joe]

142. Doctors "talk circles" around average people as well.

You want imprecise, knee jerk reactions instead of thoughtful, nuanced determinations based in a legal framework.

George W, is that you?

[Mythsaje]

172. LOL

You make too many assumptions here. I know doctors talk down to people...but they usually only do it to ME once. It doesn't take them long to realize that I know something about the way the human body operates and something about both disease and injury.

I don't hold them in superstitious awe, that's for sure. An educated layman today knows as much as a doctor did 70 years ago, if not more.

I think lawyers have a tendency to play word games with the truth (like arguing the meaning of the word "is," for example--very funny, btw). They're experts at semantics and at confusing the issue, where it's usually in a doctor's best interest, and the interest of the patient, NOT to confuse the issue.

[mondo joe]

182. No, doctors don't talk DOWN to people.

They have specialized and considerable knowledge, as do attorneys.

You want a legal system and a medical model so simple an 8th grader can understand them, that's fine. But it is very George w-ish of you.

[Mythsaje]

258. ROFL...

You're obviously male. Ask a woman if she's ever had a doctor talk down to her. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[mondo joe]

263. You say that as if women aren't doctors.

You're just full of funny little prejudices.

And the women I know are quite capable of having an intelligent discussion with their physicians, and regularly do.

[Mythsaje]

269. Now you're just being contrary...

It happens a lot more than you think. I hear it a lot from women with blue collar jobs especially. Being told that their problem, whatever it is, is just "in their heads."

Seriously. It's alarming how many different women have told me similar things.

:shrug: Don't believe me. I don't care.

[mondo joe]

273. Not at all. I'm simply refusing your broad generalization based on a

few extremes.

But since you don't believe in science or law, it doesn't really matter, does it? Why go to a physician at all?

[Mythsaje]

291. I believe in both...

but I also accept the limitations of both.

[mondo joe]

307. It's clear you don't believe in science or law.

Like GW Bush, they're okay until they run up against your emotional biases.

[Mythsaje]

310. You keep saying that

but it keeps not being true. I've never said that yet you keep repeating it like it's some kind of mantra.

I believe in both, but I also recognize the limitations of both, something you don't seem to comprehend.

[mondo joe]

326. Please describe a standard for identifying the limitations of both.

You know, other than "mumbo jumbo" or "talk down to".

[Mythsaje]

331. I've done it with law already...

A law is only as good as its enforcement. If it cannot or is not enforced, it's useless. If it's enforced unfairly based upon racial profiling, it's bad.

[mondo joe]

352. But this law was enforced. In fact your problem with it is that the Court

DID follow the law.

Please make up your mind.

[LanternWaste]

270. Is the resentment valid?

In court, the lawyers know process and precedent and with that knowledge, possibly could talk circles around me (which is why I'm glad that I can either hire my own or allow the court to appoint one for me).

Outside of court, lawyers CANNOT talk circles around someone who has at least attempted to educate himself. I have too many friends who are lawyers and they're as stupid as I am when the suits come off and the Bar-B-Q's grillin'.

However, if by some chance a lawyer could talk Circe's around me on a Sunday afternoon... well, that's on me and it's my responsibility to further educate myself.

Sorry, man. Three close friends of mine are lawyers (one is actually -*gasp*- an immigration lawyer). They do their jobs to the best of their abilities, just like us; and they are people who really have no reason to be resented above and beyond the fact that we are *all* resented by some special interest group out there.

Is the resentment valid or is it simply the "black-and-white, Rush-think" that the lowest common denominators operates from?

[Mythsaje]

286. I know some lawyers too...

And my wife says it's a little unfair of me...but I generally distrust a whole class of people who make and interpret the rules the rest of us are expected to live by.

[LanternWaste]

294. What method do you suggest?

It seems unworkable to allow everyone to interpret the rules. What method do you suggest?

Personally, I base trust or distrust on an individual rather than general level... but that's just me. If distrusting group of people (whether you base it on class, race, religion or even height)is your thing, rock on.

[Mythsaje]

299. I distrust authority...

which is why I don't vote Republican. They seem to thrive on authoritarianism...

I also don't follow organized religion for the same reason.

Law is not the answer to every question regarding human interaction...I would much prefer to see people highly regarded for their ability to judge the circumstances of a situation than the letter of the law, for too often the letter of the law betrays the spirit of the law.

[LanternWaste]

315. But as regard to my specific question...

I think in more instances than not, people are highly regarded for their ability to judge circumstances. Whether we perceive that or not is our responsibility. As for me, I can name numerous instances in which people from my office were highly regarded for their decision regarding a specific circumnstance... and that was just *today*.

But since we are a nation of laws as well as of people (and a nation of so very many other things), what method do you suggest for determining who gets to interpret the law and resolve conflicts that do arise every day in every locale?

[Mythsaje]

319. Interesting question...

I'm not sure I have an answer right off the bat.

Law is pretty cut and dried, but, oddly enough, can be bent any number of ways by someone familiar enough with it. I doubt anyone intended for a little girl to suffer a felony charge for defending herself when the law was written, yet that's exactly what happened.

I'm not even so much certain that anyone else should interpret it, but the law shouldn't be the finally arbiter when circumstances obviously demand an altered view. There should be a point where someone realizes--"okay, this isn't the way this law or rule should work...what's wrong with it?"

But instead more laws get put on the books, so many that the average person has NO idea whether or not he or she may be violating one of those laws, and enforcement is up to the various agencies in charge of such things at their own discretion.

Laws that are not or cannot be enforced for a variety of reasons should be stricken from the books...they're useless and, in my opinion, simply increase contempt for law in general.

What's funny is that I'm almost militant about following laws and rules, personally. I obey every traffic regulation (except very occasionally, the speed limit) and only park in designated spots and do my best not to go against the grain.

I think that's one of the reasons I'm really against arbitrary judgements and abuse of power. I'm one of the people most susceptible to it because I believe in order. But I believe in order from the inside out...if I act rightly, it extends into the universe from me...to my family, to my neighborhood, and to my community. Yes, I realize it doesn't really work that way, but I am, in the end, the only one who can control my own actions and attitudes.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

404. No kidding

That's what we study for, and that's why we're called "lawyers," and people like you are called "clients."

So, you do your own dental work? Or do you bash dentists, too?

[Pithlet]

59. It isn't rewarding them for breaking the law.

It's paying them back for a wrong committed against them. The ranchers that did this don't get off the hook.

If I get a speeding ticket, does that mean I can't receive a judgment if someone later hits me later that day and causes damage? By your reasoning, apparently not.

You don't get off the hook because the person receiving a judgment against you from your negligent acts also broke a law. It's not how it works, and that is a GOOD thing.

[Mythsaje]

68. If you were speeding at the time of the accident

BOTH parties may be at fault and may be subject to criminal charges. But if your mistake helped cause the accident you shouldn't be able to sue the other guy as if you're blameless.

[Pithlet]

87. Nope. Doesn't work that way. And it's good for you and me it doesn't.

I can still collect damages if the person was negligent and caused me damages. Just because I was also breaking the law does not let them off the hook. If they ran a red light, they don't get off the hook just because I was also speeding.

Just as it isn't open season on speeders for anyone to drive recklessly and cause them damages without having to reimburse them,, it isn't open season on border crossers for anyone to cause them damages and not pay them for it. If you hold a person hostage and harm them, you have to pay them for the damage you've caused. Period.

[Mythsaje]

94. Of course

this doesn't count if you're not wearing a seatbelt or don't have insurance...at that point (depending on state law) you could be held totally liable REGARDLESS of the other person's actions.

Which suggests that the real issue here is the profitability of the insurance policies, not the rights of the persons involved.

That's what this is about, in the end. Profits for the lawyers and insurance companies, not benefits to you and me. If it were a 'no-fault' ruling, saying both are equally responsible and neither can claim damages, it wouldn't hurt US as much as it would hurt their profit margins.

And the rancher should be sitting in jail for his actions...not fumbling to pay the tort judgement.

[Pithlet]

100. Nope. You're wrong.

If you cause an accident, it doesn't matter if the other person had no insurance. You are still liable. It doesn't matter if the other person didn't have a seatbelt on. You are still liable. That person will have to face the consequences for not having insurance and not having a seatbelt on. But, it doesn't absolve you of your negligence in the eyes of the law. You ran the red light. You hit the car. You pay for the damages. Any lawbreaking on their part is theirs to deal with and does not absolve you. No one gets a free ride.

Why shouldn't the rancher be fumbling to pay for damages he caused?! He did those things. He owes them money for it. If someone had done this to you, you would be entitled to those damages as well, and I'm sure you'd collect. Even if you'd been dancing in their yard naked and painted red, white, and blue and waiving around sparklers. They have legal recourse to have you removed, but that is all. Any additional steps they take they're responsible for legally and civilly.

[Mythsaje]

129. I think it varies from state to state...n/t

[Pithlet]

159. Yes, they do.

But, we're talking civilly. Few courts are going to rule in favor of the negligent driver just because the person they hit doesn't have car insurance. Sorry, there isn't a state somewhere where people get to drive recklessly and get lucky if their victim happened to lapse on their car insurance or didn't put a seat belt on. That would be ridiculous.

[alcibiades_mystery]

109. So now the illegal immigrants caused the rancher to abuse them?

We have strictly defined limits about how much force you can use to restrain somebody breaking the law. Those limits were obviously transgressed here. The fact of breaking the law is not what CAUSES the transgressing of the limits, at least not proximately. Apparently, for you, it's open season on anyone committing any crime. Anything can be done to that person. Or, you seem to believe that whatever is done can be criminally pursued, but not pursued in civil court, which only throws out an entire history of American jurisprudence. You're so wrong it's not even amusing. Or rathr, it is amusing. You couldn't be more wrong.

[Mythsaje]

130. Straw man anyone?

I said REASONABLE expectation of risk. What part of that don't you understand?

My REAL issue here is one I keep bringing up and you keep ignoring. If a person breaks into someone's home and is injured--perhaps by a dog, or because of an accidental fall--why in the hell should the homeowner be held liable for that injury?

That's my real point and one you've continually ignored.

And I'd still rather see the rancher in jail for his crimes than see his property given away to someone who shouldn't have been in the goddam country in the first place!

[alcibiades_mystery]

147. That doctrine is beside the point

Being injured by a dog or an accidental fall is one thing. Being beaten by fully cognizant agent is another thing. We have specific doctrines that vary by state about what I can do to somebody who breaks into my home. No doubt there are specific doctrines in Texas for what a landowner can do to trespassers or illegal aliens. The limits were obviously breached here, or the prosecutor would not have filed charges against Mr. Nethercutt and friends.

Reasonable risk does not exculpate an agent who goes half-cocked. In my previous example, there are certainly "reasonable risks" for shoplifting. Having your face sliced is not one of them, and it includes an agent who could have done otherwise. There are reasonable risks for crossing the border illegally. Being detained and pistol-whipped by half-cocked ranchers is not one of them. And to suggest that it is the same thing as being bitten by a dog or accidentally falling is absurd. Let's also notice that these ranchers, rather than holding these guys for the border patrol, actually let them go! I wonder why that might be? Maybe because...um...they knew they had breached the limits of what was legal in their treatment of these two. And if their actions WERE beyond those limits, then they are unreasonable risks by definition. You can't say "Oh, such-and-suc broke into a house, and was subsequently captured and raped by the homeowner, but that was a reasonable risk for breaking into the house, la-di-da." No, that's not a risk on could anticipate, an it is certainly no defense for the rapist. So much for that argument.

The rancher is in jail. And the rancher is liable in civil court. And if the rancher had another way to pay, he could pay that way. He does not, so his existing assets must go toward the judgment.

[Mythsaje]

261. I'm not arguing that they are the same thing

though they would necessarily extend from a basic concept of personal responsibility. One is, at least to some extent, always liable for a certain amount of damage sustained as a result of one's own actions. I never said I thought what the rancher did was in any way right or correct. It was messed up and he should pay for it. Since the criminal case failed, I suppose it's only reasonable that he suffer financially.

On the other hand, it doesn't serve the interests of the victims or the community at large, in my opinion, to give them land they cannot or should not use because of the reaction of other people to said ruling...nor should they be compensated above a reasonable amount determined by the severity of the injuries inflicted upon them. They were not a couple of hapless teens out for a stroll when they were snatched up by the asshole. They were illegal immigrants engaged in criminal behavior that put them in harm's way.

[Pithlet]

163. No one is arguing that point

because it has nothing to do with what happened. You don't get to tie up and beat people because they're tresspassing on your land. And, I can assure you that is more than likely true in all 50 states.

[Mythsaje]

271. I don't disagree...

Never did.

[Pithlet]

276. Yeah, you are.

Or, what you're doing is saying that even though the rancher did beat them up and hold them, he shouldn't have to pay them a settlement for doing so. Which is just as bad.

[Mythsaje]

293. Yes he should...

I just don't think they should get the ranch.

[Pithlet]

296. That's what happens

if you don't have the money to pay a settlement. Any unprotected assets go to pay the settlement. It's a good deterrent from beating people up, don't you think? ;)

[Mythsaje]

300. I doubt it.

What if he, like so many people flocking down there right now, had no assets to seize?

[Pithlet]

309. Then he has nothing to lose at that moment.

But the judgment still hangs over him, and if he ever does get anything in the future, he has to hand it over, as long as the plaintiffs keep getting the judgment renewed.

[tabasco]

114. It's exactly the point.

The point is that the law applies equally to all, citizen and non-citizens.

The aliens were not "rewarded for breaking the law." They were compensated for being injured after entering the country illegally. If the defendant had been able to pay damages, he would not have lost his land. Tough luck for stupid people who think they can use violence against people who cross the border illegally.

Committing a crime does not mean someone else can kidnap you, torture you, abuse you. If somebody robs a bank, it does not become legal for me to murder them.

[Mythsaje]

135. Of course not.

and I never suggested it did.

But how much risk should be reasonably expected when one sets out to commit a crime? If someone robs a bank and is shot by the bank guard, that bank guard shouldn't be held liable. He doesn't lose his pension to the guy he shot or his family.

This rancher stepped over the line and should pay for it. But these guys assumed SOME level of risk by crossing the border into someplace they didn't belong.

[mondo joe]

198. There is no expected risk of being held hostage and pistol

whipped by a rancher.

The uillegals risked being caught and sent back. Not this.

[Mythsaje]

295. Right...

Which is why it's way over the extreme...and they deserve compensation for it.

Had the jury not been stacked with people sympathetic to him (hmmm...wonder why that is?--maybe because the policy isn't handling the problem?)he would've been sentenced to prison and been forced to sell of his ranch in order to make restitution anyway.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. They owe money to those who were harmed

You cannot transfer the harmed parties rights to some third party. This was a tort case, and the defendants lost. The plaintiffs have a right to collect regardless of their status. If I brazenly beat a shoplifter who is cooperating when caught, and that shoplifters sues me in civil court, and I lose, I will have to pay that shoplifter for the harm I caused him or her. If I cannot make payment of the award, other means will be used to make sure the plaintiff collects. In this case, the defendants had assets that would allow payment of the award, so those assets were seized. What's the issue?

[Mythsaje]

51. The issue is

that people should be held accountable for their actions. Those responsible for the injury should have been criminally liable and forced to pay restitution, but someone injured because of or in the process of commmitting a crime should not be eligible to pursue civil action.

[Xipe Totec]

55. Confusing illegal and criminal

They are not the same thing.

It is illegal to litter, but it is not criminal.

Entering this country illegally is not criminal; it is simply illegal.

The penalty for illegal immigration is expulsion.

[DixieDem]

62. "The penalty for illegal immigration is expulsion"

So they will have to forfit that land they just won, right?

[Xipe Totec]

64. No, in a free country non citizens can own land.

They just can't live in it.

Americans own property in other countries, and citizens of other countries can certainly own property here.

[Mythsaje]

72. Okay...

I'll give you that. I happen to agree that there is a difference. BUT, on the other hand, a person who, in the pursuit of an illegal activity, is injured by happenstance (oops--tripped over a roll of barbed wire and got torn up trying to sneak across Farmer John's back forty) should not be eligible to sue for damages directly caused by his own behavior.

I'm not even on the side of the anti-immigrants here...I'm just arguing that people should be held accountable for the results of their own choices, and shifting that accountability completely to another person (whether that person is right or wrong themselves) is a mistake.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

83. Dude. What happened there is HARDLY "happenstance." (nt)

[Mythsaje]

86. I realize this...

which is why I say the rancher is CRIMINALLY liable.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

89. So, in short, you're arguing a technicality.

"Legal mumbo-jumbo", I say.

[Mythsaje]

98. I'm arguing against this sort of precedent for a reason...

Hold criminals criminally liable and be very wary of how we address civil matters...

Every time an average citizen is nailed by something like this, which can be addressed in other ways, it gives the RW more ammunition.

[mondo joe]

278. So suspend the civil rights of some unpoular groups so as not

to rile up the far right?

Interesting strategy.

[Mythsaje]

312. No...approach the situation as a negotiation

to try to reach some sort of balancing point that can set precedent for future actions.

[drfresh]

90. You are right, its the "clean hands" doctrine

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c202.htm

CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - Under the clean hands doctrine, a person who has acted wrongly, either morally or legally - that is, who has 'unclean hands' - will not be helped by a court when complaining about the actions of someone else.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=211&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

clean hands doctrine
n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable because they are considered irrelevant.

IANAL, but this sounds like a perfect example. They were breaking the law while crossing the border, so their hands are not clean and they shouldn't be helped by a court.

Sounds like a dumb ruling to me, but I am not a judge nor lawyer..

[Mythsaje]

99. I think they have legal recourse in criminal court

for such things as assault, unlawful restraint, and kidnapping, perhaps, but I think the civil ruling is disturbing.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. Absolute nonsense

We have very specific limits for what you can do to somebody committing a crime. And anyone who is harmed is entitled to file suit. The jury or the judge decide whether the suit has merit. I can't slash the face of a shoplifter with a boxcutter! And if I do, I am open to both criminal charges and civil suit. Your position is ridiculous and unheard of. And stupid.

[Mythsaje]

106. That's ADW...

...and subject to prosecution AS Assault With a Deadly Weapon and/or Assault with Intent. Fair restitution would require that any operation to repair the damage be paid by the person convicted of said assault.

A slash across the face with a box-cutter is NOT a common potential danger of shoplifting and might well allow a tort case...however, accidently running into a door while fleeing reasonable pursuit and suffering a concussion from the impact MIGHT well be a reasonable potential danger and therefore outside the realm of possible lawsuits.

Several years ago a woman who was shoplifting hid inside a trash compactor to avoid being caught and was subsequently crushed...what, if any, would be the company's liability in a case like this?

I'd rather see the rancher in jail for his crimes and the land confiscated and donated to a worthy cause than see it placed in the hands of people who didn't belong here in the first place.

[alcibiades_mystery]

124. Who "ran into a door"? These guys were pistol whipped

And threatened with firearms! What are you even talking about?

Nethercutt was prosecuted for assault and the jury hung. He was then sued. He owes these guys money, and the ranch is his only substantial asset. End of story.

[Mythsaje]

144. You're the one that brought up

the "slashed with a box-cutter for shoplifting" analogy. I was comparing your example of an unreasonable injury to one that might be more reasonably expected by the perpetrator.

Hung jury? Too many sympathizers in the area, I suppose. That sucks. Of course that's like a murderer or child molestor getting off because he has too many fans out there.

<sigh>

It's pretty obvious this rancher was way out of control and should have been punished. I will never like the fact that people who were committing a crime by being somewhere they weren't supposed to be were, effectively, rewarded for it...even though they were subjected to terrible punishment at the hands of someone who didn't have the right to execute ANY punishment.

If they hadn't have been here, they wouldn't have been subject to this asshole's whims. But I'm sure they have plenty of domestically grown assholes in Mexico.

I can't help the fact that the issue bugs me...

[alcibiades_mystery]

166. And your analogy is precisely wrong

In each of your analogies, you premise the law-breaker causing damage to himself in the general commission of the crime - running into a door, or falling acidently, or, in the case where you attrribute some other agency, getting bit by an owners dog. These are all wrong. The rancher committed an act on these two guys. They didn't cause the act themselves, nor was it an accident, nor was it committed by a legally non-culpable agent (a dog).

The fact that you don't "like it" or that it "bugs you" is of no interest to me. Your argument is completely without basis in law, and is actually dangerous when we "think of it in terms of humanity" as you suggest.

[Mythsaje]

305. I've never argued that the rancher wasn't responsible for his actions...

but I have, on several occasions, pointed out that they would have never been endangered by the guy in the first place if they weren't where they weren't supposed to be.

[Don Claybrook]

191. Dude

I'm a disinterested bystander, but I feel compelled to tell you, you're losing points. I think the whole thing about the other guy actually being a real, live attorney is probably what did you in. But your defense has been spirited if nothing else, I'll grant that. Good luck.

[Mythsaje]

313. Oh, probably...

but I'm having a heck of a lot of fun anyway...LOL

I just like a rousing debate on occasion. What worries me is when other people start investing emotion into it. Then it gets a little scary.

[Xipe Totec]

52. Mixing apples and oranges

The legal status of illegal immigrants in this country does not make them fair game for any two-bit vigilante that gets a wild hair up his proverbial.

There are two separate issues, and two separate laws were infracted. It is particularly ironic in this case that the rancher was breaking the law in the name of defending the law. There is no scenario under which a private citizen can take the law into his own hands as this rancher did.

[Mythsaje]

54. And he should have been held CRIMINALLY liable...

I don't believe those who are committing a crime and are injured in the process have any right to sue in civil court.

[Xipe Totec]

58. Crime victims are entitled to compensation

The criminal here is the rancher, not the illegal immigrants. They are the ones entitled to compenstation.

[Mythsaje]

73. That's called restitution and results from criminal proceedings...

If a guy breaks into my house and gets bitten by my dog, he does NOT have the right to sue me. I didn't force him into my house and throw my dog at him. HE made that choice of his own free will.

Legally he may have that right, but this is exactly the source of my displeasure with this sort of stuff.

[mondo joe]

231. Your analogy fails. These illegals did not hold themselves hostage

nor did they pistol whip themselves.

Hard to see what you don't understand about that. The ranchers had NO legal right to do what they did.

[Mythsaje]

316. I've never said they did...

As I've said, oh, how many times now?

[mondo joe]

358. Your fallacious analogy is with people who caused their own harm or

suffered a mishap. These guys were the victims of a criminal act.

But you don't understand the difference.

[Mythsaje]

390. They were the perpetrators AND victims of two separate

criminal acts... one does not cancel the other, either way you slice it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

403. Wrong again

Where DO you get your information?

Restitution is one of the remedies available under contract law, and that's only available in a civil action.

Man, you're dangerously wrong about so much stuff here, it's, well, it's your way.

[blueintenn]

76. Agreed

I don't like that ruling at all. I will try to read the actual opinion before passing judgement - but it looks pretty bad on its face.

BIT
:dilemma:

[DeaconBlues]

12. any actual evidence that this group is related to the Minutemen?

From what I understand, the policy of the Minutemen groups is to observe activity on the border and report to law enforcement.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. I used it as a generic term, hence the double quotes. (nt)

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robert Oak]

36. breaks rules of LBN

You cannot make up titles in LBN...

never mind this is completely inaccurate and there is no connection
to the MinuteMen.

As well as this action was done by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

They have zero credibility in my book,

read an overview here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center

I've read enough reports from them that cannot be substantiated or verified to really question their motives at this point, especially
when dealing with any organization on illegal immigration. It seems to be they insist on an open border concept else "you are a racist" chant, which is absolutely ridiculous and violates labor economics 101 as well.

I'm not sure about this story. I need to know more of what happened.
Did two crazy guys go hunting illegals or what? If so, they deserve
what they got, but is that the real story?

[blondeatlast]

280. Riiiiiiight...

I'm a Zonie with friends in border towns; pardon me, but...

:rofl:

[Kenroy]

16. This story tickles the heck outta me...

Screw the minutemen, and screw their supporters, either on FreeRepublic or here. Racism sucks no matter what side of the spectrum it comes from.

[JesterCS]

18. well....

you realize, we are the only country with an open border policy. other countries dont hav eone for a good reason.

Im sure you're only tickled because you arent seeing the effect on your checkbook.

Would it be different if an illegal came to your house, raped your wife/daughter, and stole your money? You'd be screaming for stricter border control then.

[HEyHEY]

21. Yeah, because only foreigners do that kinda stuff

And what do you call Europe...a closed border?

[TahitiNut]

266. But they only do it to Kitty Dukakis.

:eyes:

What is it with the rape of wives and daughters that makes it so popular?
Advocates of the death peanlty obsess on it.
Advocates of liberal gun laws obsess on it.
Advocates of 'fortress Amrika' obsess on it.
Choice proponents use it to erode the anti-choice position.

(SHeesh!)

[TahitiNut]

38. Traveled much?

:eyes:

[Brooklyn Michael]

41. Welcome to DU....I think....

"Would it be different if an illegal came to your house, raped your wife/daughter, and stole your money? You'd be screaming for stricter border control then."

Ummm....Actually, thinking that the Minutemen are a bunch of racist xenophobe shit-kicking vigilante wannabes who over-simplify the immigration issue has nothing to do with wanting strict border control. Simply put, there is no such thing as a completely secure border - unless your country is the size of Luxembourg, or if you want to go with the East Berlin method. That said, I would like to see the amount of illegal immigration stemmed. If an illegal immigrant broke into my house, raped my money, stole my daughter, yada yada yada (add your conservative paranoid scenario here), I'd either defend my home and kill him, or barring that, have him jailed and deported and get better home security. We have plenty of home-grown psychos running around, I see no reason to differentiate between an illegal immigrant and some violent white, uneducated dirtbag.

In fact, the only reason I can see for a statement like that is a natural affinity for prejudice against immigrants, illegal or not. Suitable for a Freeper, maybe, but surprising for a member of DU.....

[Kenroy]

50. thank youi Michael...

It sort of surprises me to see some of the stuff in this thread. I mean, really.... is that supposed to be an argument? "What if a wetback rapes your daughter?" Pure, raw appeal to emotion, void of any intellectual content.

[Sven77]

132. what if it was Al-Qaeda crossing the border

or a middle-eartner ? would they get to take the property ?
what harm did this rancher do ? hold them until the police arrived ?

[Kenroy]

165. Well

I suppose one could read the court ruling, or even the article in the original post, if one were curious enough to know what we're discussing.

[Kali]

376. HE ISN'T A RANCHER

His property in AZ is NOT A RANCH, despite what the NY times may call it.

The "crimes" - both of them happened in Texas. The two migrants were pistol whipped. They WERE trespassing on privat property and they had crossed illegally, the guy that did it was HIRED by the property owner. He came to Arizona and bought 70 acres to be the headquarters of his little private border patrol operation, he is actually NOT a "Minuteman" but that is a technicality.

My opinion as a local, is that the judgement was sound - they were damaged by this clown and he deserves to lose his property over it, it will send a message that nobody should be abusing these folks. On the other hand, there is a REASON other property owners near the border, INCLUDING some REAL ranchers don't mind having these extra "enforcements" around. See my rant above somewhere for a brief discription of the damages. This is not a situation where a couple of poor families are trecking across the wilderness, there are THOUSANDS crossing EVERY SINGLE DAY. Ever seen the Woodstock movie? Remember the trash and ruined land at the end? That is what it looks like around here. 1000's of human feet and waste and garbage on hundreds of trails. Try to imagine the most beat out worn piece of ground you have EVER seen. Now cover it with human shit, backpacks, food wrappers, water bottles, clothes blankets, tampax, kotex, cans bottles, car seats, abandoned tires - hell whole vehicles, in effect a regular DUMP. Now realize YOU are the ONLY person that is going to clean it up.

That's just the incidental damage. I haven't gone into the intentional stuff. That isn't racism, its environmental degradation pure and simple. So in defence of my neighbors, even the racist ones, that ain't the issue for us. Most who live right on the border are a part of border culture and get along with their nieghbors on the other side. This isn't about Mexicans or El Salvadorans, this is about millions of people moving through an area that isn't designed for it. They need to be able to get on a bus AT the border, or better yet be able to live at home in decent conditions, but then THAT is really complicated isn't it? Who voted for NAFTA?

[blondeatlast]

283. Border policy threads are a lesson in just how incredibly big a tent

the LW is...

:shrug:

[Kenroy]

45. Actually

if somebody came to my house and raped my dog (I have no wife or children), the last thing on my mind would be border control. Why on earth would I care about the assailant's immigration status?

Oh... I know why. Because I'm not a xenophobic racist.

[LanternWaste]

237. I sure was sreamin'

Yup. When I lived in Quintana Roo and three American tourists raped a little Lationo girl outside of her home, I sure was sceamin'...

MX has a pretty liberal border policy by the way...

[DeaconBlues]

25. its been posted here a thousand times before, but here goes again

Just because someone is concerned about the border issue doesn't make them a racist - its about whether a person decides to come to this country in a legitimate way or not. More power to the people who want to come to this country legally. To those who can't bother with coming to this country legally, I hope the door doesn't hit you on the ass on the way out.

[HEyHEY]

49. I think First nations said the same thing once...but no listened

[blondeatlast]

285. Maybe not for you, but I've observed enough of the conflict (in AZ, BTW)

to know that much of the bitching IS racially motivated.

Let's just say the terminology used speaks volumes.

You think the issue is completely untainted by racism?

If so, I call bullshit--or utter ignorance.

[Robert Oak]

26. this isn't the minutemen

I read the article, it isn't that group.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

28. Damned activist judges

:evilgrin: It had to be said :)

[Robert Oak]

29. "racist" mantra rant

Democrats and liberals are never going to win with this sort of insane
ranting that anyone who wishes to discuss illegal immigration and who is not for "open borders" is a racist.

80% of the nation wants closed borders.

If one reads the polls of Hispanics in this country, they want closed and protected borders overwhelmingly.

This strategy to "out shout" anyone who talks about this issue
as a racist will guarantee Dems lose 2006.

Dems have a "nowhere" position on illegal immigration. It's your basic multinational corporate agenda position. ...
which btw, is the same as Bush corporation and the Neocons.

[Jim Sagle]

31. FNA.

[TahitiNut]

40. Is that the current "effin' 'A'" acronym?

:dunce:

[Jim Sagle]

69. I dunno...it's MY acronym, though.

[blondeatlast]

297. FNA to what? "Hispanics overwhelmingly approve of closed borders?"

I need proof, I know hundreds of Hispanics who see the issue as incredibly racist.

The Dems will lose on the issue? WTF (if we are gonna use acronyms( have the Republicans done on the issue?

FNA, indeed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. I'm for open borders worldwide

Free flow of products, free flow of labor. Is it a multinational corporate position? I hardly think so. Because in the long run, it results in a globalized workforce, a workforce which is currently kept in check by setting them against each other. Got outsourced? Too bad? You were being paid too much for your labor. If you like capitalism, you shouldn't complain about outsourcing: a cheaper product of similar quality always wins in a capitalist market.

Are Americans against that? Sure, they want to maintain their privileged status on the world labor market. Too bad. Capitalism doesn't care about America. The market has no nation state. America is like a greedy contractor who's been getting sweetheart deals. Globalization is just the equilibrium of the market. Have to live like everybody else? Too bad. That's what the market demands. Don't like it? Change the system.

[DeaconBlues]

60. Hooray for making 50 cents a hour!

Anyone who has fallen for the open-borders propaganda needs to read this post carefully. It lays out perfectly the consequences of the "free market," whether its a market in goods or human beings. Read it and weep!

[alcibiades_mystery]

128. It's the logical conclusion of free market capitalism

If you like capitalism, you should love open borders. Labor is a service, sold on the market like other services. Why are there artificial constraints on the ability to sell ones labor? Government regulation! Booo! Governmental regulation of a free labor market! Boooo!!!!

[primavera]

227. That's what capitalism is

The tricky thing is getting Americans to acknowledge they can't have their cake and eat it too: we want to preserve well-paying jobs for ourselves, but we also want cheap goods, so we patronize the very businesses which outsource jobs and import goods from less developed countries and cost Americans their jobs. You want to know what's behind America hemorrhaging jobs? If you've shopped at a MalWart or its ilk, look no further than the mirror.

[Robert Oak]

61. Yes it is because you are not looking at it in reality

Unlimited Worker movement is a major agenda item for multinational corporations. Right now there are proposals for unlimited guest worker VISAs in the WTO, gats mode 4.

What this does is make people "tradable commodities". Now please think about what that is...when where people tradable commodities? Could it be the slave trade? Isn't slavery the ultimate profit maker for capitalism?

This also means that the WTO can challenge any nation's immigration policy as a "barrier to trade". This means that nation-states will no longer control who is in their country or who leaves it.

It also put the immigration status under the control of the corporation versus the nation state and by-passes national labor laws.

So, if the worker let's say, tries to organize labor the corporation simply fires that person revokes their VISA and then that person has to pay their own way back to their home country, now with no income.

Why is this opposite world justice or any of the values liberals usually hold dearly? Because nation-states are a collection of laws of a people and also nation-states control the labor supply. This is very important for once one "floods the market" with labor, wages plummet, worker rights are non-existent, exploitation can occur because people are desperate.

By playing nation-states against each other and moving workers whereever they want, this means the worker no longer has any control in their quality of life of standard of living.

This movement creates a mass of serfs, or slaves on a global scale.

So, while you bash American for having a high PPI, think again when the whole world, including Americans return to the time before the middle class existed.

As well, be aware of what equalizes 3rd world and 1st world PPI's does. The equilibrium point is closer to the 3rd world PPI...
in other words, you do not raise up the workers from the 3rd world, you only pull down the workers in the 1st world

An analogy is to save a drowning man you drown yourself.

That is what you are suggesting with open borders. Please read labor economics 101 and the history of labor to understand the real issue here.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. If there still IS such a thing as a visa, and some entity can revoke it...

...and the person is forced to go back to his/her own country, it's hardly "open borders."

Open borders is like the EU. You can't throw an Italian out of Spain even if he's homeless.

[Robert Oak]

116. you're figuring it out

There will never be such a thing as open borders, it's "convenient" borders for multinational corporations.

This isn't Star Trek or some 1970's coca-cola commercial where the world joins hands and sings.

Borders developed for some real cultural, sociological, economic and security reasons.

Even if the goal is the federation or the world is one big happy place...this is not the way to achieve that goal. If one looks at any aspect of economics, open borders will do the opposite of that dream.

One cannot have unlimited movement of workers and not lose what little rights people's of the world have right now. You're playing right into the hands of multinational corporations and the Neocon agenda for reasons previously stated. There are examples throughout history of open borders and what it does economically and it's not bringing prospertity to the people, even in Indian(Am.) cultures.

Remember who coined the phrase, "One world order" and they weren't singing the coca-cola theme song either.

[Pithlet]

65. I know.

Disgusting, isn't it? We should just give up and become Republicans. Much easier that way.

And people should be able to do whatever they want to immigrants and not have to pay for it because they're breaking the law! Stupid immigrants, they deserve it. You're right. Being this way is much easier. And, you don't have to think.

[DeaconBlues]

74. Nowhere in Robert Oak's posts have I read that he believes that

people can do whatever they want to illegal immigrants, nor does he say we should become Republicans. In fact, his opinions reflect the exact opposite of what the free-market Republicans want (and what the free-market DINOS want, as well). And as long as the Democrats shadow the Republicans on the issue of immigration and trade, they will be playing catch-up.

What was that you wrote about thinking?

[DixieDem]

82. Here here!

[Pithlet]

95. Yes. He did say those things.

Look at the post he responded to. It's about two people getting justly compensated. He chose that thread to come in here and whine about the rest of us playing the race card. How dare we be happy for these people who got what they deserved! How dare we be happy that people who held them against their will and harmed them have to pay for it.

Yes. He is saying those things.

[Robert Oak]

134. no, I did not say those things, in fact I said about the story itself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1712760&mesg_id=1712952

I'm not sure about this story. I need to know more of what happened.
Did two crazy guys go hunting illegals or what? If so, they deserve
what they got, but is that the real story?

You are playing the race card. For one, the post is trying to blame the minutemen and these people are not part of that group. False information. Now false information about me.

If one bothers to read any of my detailed posts it's so obvious I am
a bleeding heart liberal and I am also astute on economics and 100%
I believe in reality and the facts of any issue.

Hysteria and falsifying information is something I am against 100% in any organization.

[Pithlet]

140. I haven't brought up anyone's race

Not once. Sorry. That right wing tactic won't work with me. I'm playing the "People get to be compensated when people pistol whip them" card. Just like everyone else in this thread. Knee jerk reactions like yours admonishing us for playing the race card are ridiculous.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

190. I don't know why this was deleted. n/t

[Megahurtz]

75. Also, the last I heard is that Mexico is a country, not a "race".

How can one be racist when the citizens are not a race to begin with?:shrug:

That being said, I think that the illegal immigration issue is not a race issue,
it's a class warfare issue!

Rich versus poor!

You know damn well that if anyone of any color from any country had $$$$$$$$$$
they could legally immigrate in a heartbeat!!!

The New Age issue is $$$$$money$$$$$$ not race!

Who gives a shit what someone's race is anymore anyway?
I don't!:shrug:

The point is, these days you only are respected if you have $$$$$$$$
no matter where you are from, and Bush&Corp. is proving that.
Maybe this is the issue the Dems should focus on.:rant:

The "Racist Mantra Rant" is outdated.

Ooops......sorry to get off subject of thread....:spank:

[blondeatlast]

288. "If one reads the polls of Hispanics in this country, they want closed

closed and protected borders overwhelmingly."

This ain't that site that must not be named, this is DU, and we're smart enough to call bullshit if a statement can't be proved.

Got some handy-dandy linky poos?

Until then, well...

[DixieDem]

318. Don't know about polls...

But, I can speak for my own family. This is VERY true.

My husband's family worked their butts off to get here - LEGALLY. They still have family members that are waiting in line. They resent those that are ILLEGALLY jumping in line in front of those that are willing to go the legal route.

Not only that, but those that do come here illegally are basically treated like low wage slaves. Since they're not documented, the minimum wage, etc. does not apply. Not good for anyone except for their owners.

Then there's the gang and drug running element that ruins the reputation of the hard working folks.

Don't know about ALL legal hispanics, but I do know that my own family wants closed and protected borders.

Now, if we're talking about increasing the legal immigation limits, that's another story. We would like to see that happen. The greedy that want to keep paying slave wages to illegals will fight this option though.

[Robert Oak]

393. simply ask for a poll please, here are the references

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-hispanics-immigration,1,5936661.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines
http://pewhispanic.org/files/execsum/52.pdf

Pew didn't do border security exclusively in this brand new poll above.

Zogby did one 2001 and broke down border security separately from illegal alien or legal immigration questions and this is the one I'm referring to:

68 percent of Hispanics still felt the government was not doing enough to enforce immigration laws and control the border.

http://suppressednews.com/newsitems/national/EppEykpEypVbDSjtuC.html

Please do not assume something isn't true simply because I do not provide a link at every turn.

[blondeatlast]

292. And the Republicans DO have a position on this?

Research what Dem governors in border states have been doing about it and tell me the Dems don't have a way to win with the issue.

[Robert Oak]

394. poll references

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-hispanics-immigration,1,5936661.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines
http://pewhispanic.org/files/execsum/52.pdf

Pew didn't do border security exclusively in this brand new poll above.

Zogby did one 2001 and broke down border security separately from illegal alien or legal immigration questions and this is the one I'm referring to:

68 percent of Hispanics still felt the government was not doing enough to enforce immigration laws and control the border.

http://suppressednews.com/newsitems/national/EppEykpEypVbDSjtuC.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. In other news, Nethercott was sentenced to be their butler

:rofl:

[Xipe Totec]

42. Schudenfreude...

:nopity:

:rofl:

[progmom]

48. wow...that's great.

Maybe some of those Minutemen idiots will think twice now. :shrug:

[DeaconBlues]

63. as mentioned above, this group has nothing to do with the Minutemen

and the actions of the Minutemen have been totally peaceful, so I don't think this will interfere with them one bit.

[Pithlet]

53. Ha! I love it.

:bounce:

[Solly Mack]

57. Exquisite

[Bo]

79. What idiot judge ruled on this?

This is just more ammo for the Radical right...the ruling is insane...

[Pithlet]

97. Okay

So, if somoene detains you against your will and hits you with a pistol, you won't have any problem waiving your rights to a civil trial to compensate for damages? That's nice to know.

If this happened between two US citizens, you'd think the judge was an idiot who ruled against the guilty party? Really?

[Megahurtz]

110. Okay....

I think I'll go over the border illegally and pick a fight with someone on their own property
so that if they fight back to protect what's theirs

I'll just take their land!!!

Like in Canada maybe!!! Hey! What an idea!!!

After all, I'm kinda poor and I need some land!

Like Canada would even put up with shit like this HA!

:sarcasm:

We Americans are looking really fucking stupid on this one!

:rofl:

[Pithlet]

121. "Pick a fight"?

Yeah. I'd equate anyone trying to make a better life for themselves and their family "picking a fight". It's easy to do since I'm sitting here on my computer chatting away on a message board. I was lucky enough to be born in this country.

They had the gall not to be born here. How DARE they try to escape poverty! If someone kidnaps them and beats them, they have it coming! While we're at it, if anyone comes into this country escaping oppression, no matter where they come from, we can do whatever the hell we want, because they deserve it!
And shouldn't get to be compensated. Fuckin' A!!!!!!! This is the USA!

[Megahurtz]

180. I can't blame ANYONE for

wanting to leave the country they live in, where they probably live in a cardbord shack,
with no food, no running water, no money, no medicine, (and no birth control AAAAAAAAA!!!)
and going to another country for a better life!

Hell, if I was in their situation I would leave like, yesterday!

But trespassing is like picking a fight, and if any of us trespassed here we would not escape the consequences.

I do think that the police did not do their job :eyes: (like they don't sometimes) and there should have been assault charges. This should have been a criminal matter!

But taking someone's land in this way? I think it's wrong and this will most likely cause a huge backlash from the Far Right! You will here the G.O.P. screaming "Tort Reform" more than ever!

Things like this are an abuse of the system (in my opinion) so then the people that really need help
do not get the help that they need!

Now come on, these people didn't really need to take this person's land, did they?.:eyes:

[Pithlet]

189. Criminal and civil are separate

This was indeed a criminal matter. AND a civil one. If someone holds you against your will and refuses to let you go and hits you with a gun, you have the right to sue them, regardless of whether they're being held responsible criminally. It doesn't matter where you were born or what your circumstances are or if you were trespassing. You get to sue them. And probably win.

And, yes, they needed to take their land. Absolutely. I couldn't be more thrilled to hear that happened. It's really simple. Don't kidnap border crossers and hold them against their will and beat them. Even if they were trespassing. Because arguments like "trespassers are picking a fight" are childish and have nothing to do with the law, particularly when it comes to kidnap and assault.

[Megahurtz]

224. And it's going to look pretty "childish" when

many other illegal immigrants follow suit to this precident and purposely "pick fights" so they can take someone's land to get into the U.S.!

Think it won't happen?:think:

[DixieDem]

240. It will...

These two trespassers probably weren't just poor farmers looking for a better life. The El Salvador gang MS-13 is getting very, very bold in the Southwest.

I don't agree with the rancher's actions. Violence is never the answer. They should be punished. But, the illegals should not be rewarded either.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

244. See #171 (nt)

[Pithlet]

251. They. Weren't. Rewarded.

It isn't a reward to be held against your will and get beat with a gun and sue that person. Is it a reward if a drunk driver hits me and destroys my car and I get a settlment for it?

And the rest of your post is just speculation based on nothing factual. They're not from here, so they're probably criminals.

[DixieDem]

You have no idea what's really going on at the

border, do you?

[blondeatlast]

302. I'm in AZ, I do. I notice you don't claim a state in your profile.

Just find it curious, that's all.

[DixieDem]

322. Currently NC.

Prior to that I was a Zonie for 12 years. Prior to that the Northwest.

[DixieDem]

325. Oh and I DO know what's going on at the border...

My husband's family is there. They're hispanic (if that matters to ya).

[DixieDem]

253. You have no idea what's really going on at the

border, do you?

[Pithlet]

256. What does what is going on at the border

have to do with the fact that you can't beat up people and hold them and get away with it civilly, no matter where they're from and if they're legally in the country?

Yes. I do know what's going on at the border. And it doesn't excuse what the rancher did. Rancher beats immigrant. Immigrant sues him. He lost. Nothing in the law books says that illegal immigrants are exempt from suing people who beat them up. Pretty basic.

You do know at least a little bit about the law, don't you?

[DixieDem]

264. Did I say that the rancher's actions were okay?

No! I said they should be punished.

You keep saying that the illegals weren't rewarded. I say they were. So, it was a LEGAL reward. Shrug!

[Pithlet]

267. You appeared to be implying

that they were being unjustly rewarded for breaking the law. If that wasn't your intended point, and you really are all for these immigrants getting their legally just compensation, and aren't against that happening at all, then I apologize for misunderstanding.

[LanternWaste]

303. What then is the precise and relevant difference

What then is the precise and relevant difference in this instance between "reward" and "compensation"?

[mondo joe]

415. That's irrelevant to the outcome of this case.

Or do you consider the law disposable when inconvenient?

[Pithlet]

248. How in the hell

are immigrants going to force people to beat them and hold them against their will? I can honestly tell you that no, I don't think that will happen.

Look. The rancher refused to let them go and beat them. They sued him. He lost. Oh, well. He shouldn't have beaten and held them against their will. He loses his ranch because he can't pay the settlement. How you want to twist this around and make this the immigrants' fault is beyond bizarre. I mean, why not stop there? Let's stop awarding settlements to people hit by drunk drivers because then people will start driving around looking for one so they can get hit hoping to score some cash? That argument is just ridiculous!

[Megahurtz]

323. There are plenty of people that HAVE

and will abuse the system just to get $$$$$$$$$.

Ever heard of "Ambulance Chasers?"

Criminal courts offer appropriate restitution to victims.
Sorry but losing someone's land to someone who already broke not just one,
but a few laws coming illegally into the country is not a fair punishment to the crime.
This should have been a criminal matter only.

It's not the immigrants fault that they were beaten, but it is their fault that they were there.

The immigrants need to take some responsibility too.
Looks like they didn't do that.

Seriously, this is the shit that makes the Right-Wing go haywire!

The American people will end up as the losers on this one, especially the people that need help the most.:(

[Pithlet]

344. That is a stupid argument

By your reasoning then, we should just get rid of lawsuits, because people will abuse them. Too bad if you actually deserve a settlement, huh? Don't want to encourage scammers. These immigrants shouldn't get money they legitimately won in the court of law when they ACTUALLY WERE beaten, because other immigrants might get ideas. It's a stupid argument, and also very telling. People trying to escape poverty MUST be nothing but money grubbing scammers, huh? Easy for us to say, sitting at our computers on the ineternet with full bellies.

And, we liberals shouldn't be applauding this because right wingers will laugh at us. :crazy: Yeah, let's just remodel progressive ideals so it won't offend right wingers. That will work.

And, you still haven't explained how one forces another to hold them against their will and beat them. I just don't see how that's possible.

[Megahurtz]

372. That's YOUR opinion,

and little do you know that I myself sit in poverty.
So I feel angry that someone illegal can just come up here and take someone elses $$$$$$$$$$$!!!

If I aquired property for every time that someone had wronged me, I would be a billionaire right now!

No one forced the immigrants to come onto that property either.

Again I will say, it should have been a criminal matter and a criminal matter only.

That's my opinion.

Perhaps I think that your opinion is stupid.:shrug:

[Bigmack]

367. The right wing is already haywire....

Two different callers on the local whacko radio (KVI - Seattle) said the guys should have "SHOT the border crossers and threw them in a hole".

Said the country is being run into the ground by "socialist pricks".

If I met one of those fucking idiots, I could kick their ass, but I certainly would expect to pay for it.

If we don't like the laws responsible for this situation, we should change the laws....isn't that the sheep-like response we always have heard from the rightwingnuts in response to protest of injustice?

[Kali]

379. Please

Yes in this case, and in fact I believe the vast majority of migrants as well, they were probably innocent folks trying to make a better life, but PLEASE be realistic - in ANY population there will be rotton people. I have never personally come across anybody that acted dangerous and I have talked to hundreds crossing this ranch, but a guy that was staying here with us got beat up and his vehicle stolen last year right at the house/headquarters while we were gone and lots of other people have had really bad crimes committed against them and/or thier property.

Don't assume EVERYBODY crossing is as you describe.

[lateo]

85. Too funny...

[genieroze]

102. So now all ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS have to do is sue their way

into the U.S? I don't like what these so called minutemen were doing and they are criminally paying for it that's why I feel the civil penalty is unjust. They gave them the ranch and visas. Why visas? Wait until some terrorists come over the border through Mexico disguised as Mexicans and the freepers will say "I told ya so". These people who got this ranch weren't even Mexicans they were from El Salvador. They went through Mexico to illegally get into the U.S, why not others? This sets a real bad precedent.

[Pithlet]

103. Illegal immigrants have the right to collect civilly

Otherwise, anyone could do anything they pleased to them, and not have to pay. They'd only have to worry about it if the actions were criminal. But, if not, open season on illegals! How in the hell is that fair?

Guess what. If you hold someone against their will and hit them with a pistol, you are liable civilly and criminally. It doesn't change just because the person is an illegal immigrant.

[genieroze]

126. Well if they were are on MY land breaking the law, I would wonder why

they are being rewarded with visas rather then jail cells? I'm not defending the minutemen, I'm wondering how come our laws don't apply to the other law breakers, you know the ones who came here illegally? Did these people get any legal action brought against them?

[Pithlet]

137. If someone is on your land

the only way they're going to be "rewarded" for it is if you pistol whip them and hold them against their will. If you don't do those, you'll be fine.

They aren't being rewarded for it anymore than people are being rewarded for getting cancer handling asbestos.

[Megahurtz]

383. So it's their word vs. the landowner's word...

how the fuck do you know that the immigrants didn't start the actual violence???

Have you ever been in any kind of altercation?

If you don't have any physical evidence and the other party does,
even if you're defending yourself, you are fucked!

It could be very possible that the immigrants "cried wolf!!!"

And FYI, I have actually entered another country illegally for a good reason,

but I would never, ever have THE GALL to take someone's property from them,
and I would never expect to GET THEIR property no matter what!!!

In my opinion they are making fools of us Americans!!!

Wake the fuck up!!!:boring:

[mondo joe]

414. That's what the court is charged with determining, right?

Or should we abandon the legal system in favor of lynching?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

105. Not so easy

You have to be kidnapped by a crazed rogue militia. And crazed rogue militias don't grow on trees.

[Megahurtz]

213. Bad, bad, bad precident. n/t

[primavera]

239. Who ever said they were getting into the US?

They were unlawfully harmed, they were awarded damages for their injuries, they were not awarded citizenship. Simply because they now own property here doesn't entitle them to become a citizen.

[Megahurtz]

306. They obvious did get in, didn't they?

:shrug: First step land ownership, next step visa.
Read up a little on immigration laws!

[primavera]

353. That doesn't mean they get to stay

Land ownership does not entitle one to stay. As for reading up on immigration law, I'm a migration policy analyst and have spent the last fifteen years reading immigration law, so I can assure you with confidence that owning land does not entitle one to citizenship in this country.

[mondo joe]

423. Don't confuse the issue by introducing actual law!

This isn't that kind of thread.

[EVDebs]

153. Now, if the immigrants here illegally wanted 'instant' citizenship'

they would just file a class action suit against all the employers who hired them illegally in the first place. At $10,000 per employee, that would make a Be-UT-Tiffle lawsuit. And you'd put all those businesses outta their misery too.

As a settlement, the former illegal immigrants could then demand ownership interests. Capitalism on the march.

[Robert Oak]

193. interesting idea

class action lawsuit by all illegals for being exploited.

*that* would wake up some corporations real fast and be better at least
than our favorite "guest worker VISA" (let's bypass workers rights and minimum wage laws) program.

[EVDebs]

242. Really up the ante, and file as whistleblowers under False Claims Act

since underreporting on IRS etc federal programs defraud the US taxpayers and govt coffers...these illegal's would be eligible for treble damages awards ! Hmmm. Any lawyers willing to take a piece of that contingency ?

[mondo joe]

416. And what damages would they claim against the employers?

Thank you.

[EVDebs]

421. The wage differential. Simple...what they were paid compared to

what they should have been paid. Many illegal immigrants are paid sub minimum wages. Even sub what native-borns are paid would be clear enough.

Are you a lawyer ?

[mondo joe]

422. Can one sue in civil court for something one is not legally entitled to?

Or can one sue to make someone break the law?

[EVDebs]

425. Short answer is the illegal workers are entitled to that money

The money was stolen from them fair and square by US employers. And I'd say at $10,000 per worker employed with millions of illegals out there, that's the mother of all class action lawsuits ! The funniest thing is that by filing on THEIR behalf, they'll be benefitting all workers in the US. If they win it could be stipulated to that the money be spent only in the US, that way the outcry of 'what will that do to the businesses that hired illegals'? won't be so onerous.

Sure, and you can sue in criminal court too, to answer your question.

[Initech]

164. Immigrants 1, Minute Men 0

[DixieDem]

181. Illegal Immigrants 1, Militant Ranchers 0

[mondo joe]

424. Crime victims 1, Criminals 0

[sniffa]

175. bwahahahahahahaha

:bounce:

[Dark]

226. That's fine. But the Judge had better throw their asses in jail or deport

them.

[primavera]

233. Oh, you can count on that

We're all about deportation these days, we've gotten so zealous about it, we've even deported a fair number of US citizens to Mexico by mistake, to the perplexity of the Mexican government. So I wouldn't worry, anyone with a dark complexion gets thrown on a bus to Mexico post haste these days.

[Dark]

262. They broke the law. They shouldn't be rewarded!

I have no problem with legal immigrants. But people coming here without going through any checkpoints are a risk that we shouldn't be taking. There is a reason those checkpoints exist.

Illegal immigrants are an insult to the immigrants who come here every day legally, who work to live and prosper in America, and to become American citizens.

[Pithlet]

272. So

If a cop beats me with a nightstick when I'm caught speeding, and I sue the department and win a settlment, am I being rewarded for breaking the law? I mean, I was breaking the law, and I shouldn't have been doing that. So, I shouldn't get any money. Even if the cop beat overreacted and beat me sensless. Because that would be a reward for speeding. :crazy:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

284. Egg-ZAKTLEE! (nt)

[mondo joe]

287. By your rationale an illegal woman could be raped and is

not entitled to legal redress because, after all, she's illegal.

These guys were NOT rewarded for illegal entry. They were compensated for a crime and damages committed against them.

[Mythsaje]

327. Now THERE'S a good argument...

Of course two wrongs don't make a right... If she was illegal she should suffer the penalty for it (deportation) and the rapist should suffer the penalties for THAT...

[Pithlet]

345. Not according to the reasoning of some in this thread.

She was breaking the law and shouldn't have been there. That fact trumps just about everything else, apparently.

[mondo joe]

356. So why are you so unhappy about the ranchers sufffering the legal penalty

for harming these illegals?

[Dark]

399. I'm unhappy about the fact that they are receiving property.

The rancher should go to jail, and the ILLEGAL immigrants should receive money to cover their treatment before sending them back across the border. THAT'S IT.

Don't give them the man's land.

[mondo joe]

409. There were no other assets than the property, and they were entitled to

compensation for the damage done to them.

What should the court have done, given the ranchers money to pay with?

[Dark]

398. By YOUR rationale,

A man could break in to your house to rob you. But if you defend yourself and hurt him, then he should get your house.

[mondo joe]

410. Incorrect. Self defense is a LEGITIMATE use of force. Kidnapping someone

and pistol whipping them is NOT.

So: if someone breaks into your house and you stop them using force you are within your rights and have not committed a crime.

But: if someone breaks into your house and you knock them out, keep them prisoner and rape them YOU are guilty of a crime.


What about that do you not understand?

[primavera]

371. They aren't being rewarded

They're being compensated for an injury done them.

As for the risk of people coming here without going through legal checkpoints, fear not, terrorists always go through legal checkpoints with bogus papers, it's much easier and more comfortable to fly to the US in an air-conditioned aircraft with a false passport than it is to struggle for weeks through the burning desert. Or is it your contention that the world trade center wasn't brought down by al Qaeda (all of whom entered the country legally), but was in fact destroyed by irrate migrant farmworkers?

[drfresh]

341. ....

thinking

[jody]

245. A better solution, the Governor of Arizona call out

the state unorganized militia and police the border. Arizona's state militia is covered in Article 2 of the state code and says:

QUOTE
26-121. Composition of militia; persons exempt

The militia of the state of Arizona consists of all able bodied citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years and all residents of the state between such ages who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, except:

1. Persons exempted by the laws of the state or the United States.

2. Idiots, lunatics, totally blind persons and persons convicted of infamous crimes.

3. Judges and clerks of courts of record.

4. State and county civil officers holding office by election, and members of the legislature.

5. Ministers of the gospel.
UNQUOTE

The governor can use the militia under the following conditions.

QUOTE
26-124. Service by members of unorganized militia; volunteers during emergency; enrollment; selection; organizing selectees

A. When the governor proclaims an emergency, and, upon advice of the adjutant general, determines that the national guard does not have sufficient troops to meet the emergency, the governor may authorize the adjutant general to accept for service from the unorganized militia a specified number of volunteers.

B. If the governor deems an emergency of a nature that all or a large portion of the unorganized militia should be called into service of the state, he shall by proclamation order all members of the unorganized militia to enroll with the county recorder of the county in which they reside. The enrollment shall be in triplicate stating the full name, residence, age, occupation and previous service of each person enrolled. The rolls shall be verified by the enrolling officer who shall retain one copy and file one copy with the adjutant general and one with the clerk of the superior court of the county in which the person is enrolled. The persons called into service shall be determined by lot in accordance with a plan devised by the governor and implemented by him. The plan shall be patterned upon the latest selective service act of the United States and executive orders of the president issued to implement the law.

C. Upon mobilization for state purposes members of the unorganized militia shall be organized under the command of the officer the governor designates into units comparable to units of the national guard.
UNQUOTE

[TankLV]

304. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! SUCKERS!

Good for them!

[blondeatlast]

311. First they take the Mexican territory, now they give it back.

I LOVE sweet justice!

As a Zonie, I LOVE this. LOVE it! HA!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Megahurtz]

339. What? I thought it was '"Zoner"!

My husband was a Zoner.....:hide:.......oops...

:silly:

[dejaboutique]

336. Sell the house give them the money then DEPORT

seems simple, sell the ranchers house, give the illegals the money and DEPORT

[DixieDem]

370. ITA! That would be the best solution! n/t

[Daphne08]

357. This is going to backfire

and it's going to backfire in a big way -- against the Democratic Party!

Now, I'm a life-long Democrat, but this is beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned, and I can assure you that the majority of tax-paying American citizens (Republican and Democrat) will feel the same way.

I don't think anyone should be terrorized especially innocent illegals who only wish to improve their lives, but this WILL be used against us.

[mondo joe]

359. Legal decisions should not be based on political gain. n/t

[Daphne08]

362. No they shouldn't, but your average voting American

isn't going to view it legally.

They're going to see this as an assault on their way of life.

[mondo joe]

363. I don't care. When you talk about this "backfiring" it implies the

decision is intended to make us gains, and/or that it should be decided in such a way as to benefit dems.

[Daphne08]

364. I didn't intend anything of the kind!

I'm merely pointing out that the stance most Democrats have taken about the "open border policy" (of this administration) goes against the beliefs of most Americans, including me, and as I have stated, I'm a Democrat!

Even now, I am having trouble separating the legal side of this from the political side, but perhaps, that is because this particular decision angers me.

Sorry, but it just does!

[mondo joe]

417. For something to "backfire" it must have an intended direction to begin

with. What do you believe the INTENT was for this case to BACKFIRE on democrats?

And why are you so angry about people getting compensation for damages illegally inflicted on them?

[CAcyclist]

374. These Are *LEGAL* Immigrants, Too

Not that it matters to me, whether legal or illegal, but these two had permits to be here:

"Mr. Mancía, who lives in Los Angeles, and Ms. Leiva, who lives in the Dallas area, have applied for visas that are available to immigrants who are the victims of certain crimes and who cooperate with the authorities, Ms. Bruner said. She said that until a decision was made on their applications, they could stay and work in the United States on a year-to-year basis"

[DixieDem]

375. Whoa!

>> Not that it matters to me, whether legal or illegal

It sure does matter to me! From this, I can't figure out whether they had applied for Visas before they trespassed on the rancher's land or not.

[Kali]

406. After

[Placebo]

378. This is pretty foolish...

they illegally entered the US and now they're being rewarded?

Welcome to Bizarro America 2005.

[genieroze]

386. That's my gripe, not that the a-holes who got sued didn't deserve jail.

Even the money I can accept, but visas because they were victims of crime, they are criminals too.

[mondo joe]

419. Not rewarded. Compensated for damages done to them illegally.

Or do you think if a cop pulls a woman aside for speeding and rapes her she has no legal recourse because if she wasn't breaking the law she wouldn't have been stopped to begin with?

[raysr]

380. LMAO, how are

the freepers taking this???? Ha

[DixieDem]

381. How are the LEGAL immigrants taking this?

[DixieDem]

382. Okay, I know, I know...

they're taking it as a big ole slap in the face!

[Megahurtz]

385. Ya know, I have to totally agree with you

as so are the hardworking poor in America!!!

[DixieDem]

387. It really pisses me off...

I once listened to a "right wing" radio talk show... one of the caller's asked, "Well, are the liberals for it or not? If so, I'm against it!" I shook my head and giggled thinking, "I'm sooo glad that MY party isn't this stupid." But now, I'm really starting to wonder...

[AlphaCentauri]

384. Let's erect a monument to all immigrants: Camp Thunderbird Memorial

:hi:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

[nomatrix]

388. If this was your property how would you feel?

http://www.desertinvasion.us/invasion_pictures/invasion_barnett.html

[mondo joe]

411. I wouldn't have committed the crime so it wouldn't be an issue.

Would it?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

412. If you can't do the time won't do the crime! HAH!

RW catchphrase turned against itself! Lovely!

[Along the Red Ledge]

427. See my response to this matter (link enclosed)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1712760&mesg_id=1716028

[theearthisround]

389. Bush called the Minute Men Vigilantes, this is about destroying America

This is about enslaving america for the CAFTA/NAFTA pan-american union corporate cronies which have purchased both political parties.
The left/right political paradigm is a distraction the real political paradigm is freedom vs slavery.
"I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery" - Patrick Henry, Domestic Terrorist, 1776


Bush decries border project
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050324-122200-6209r.htm

President Bush yesterday said he opposes a civilian project to monitor illegal aliens crossing the border, characterizing them as "vigilantes."

He said he would pressure Congress to further loosen immigration law.


CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

405. Is the left becoming a magnet for white supremacists?

These people were pistolwhipped. They were not harmed in self defense. Our constitution protects persons NOT JUST CITIZENS.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

408. I'll say. I nominate this for the

"Most Code Talk In a DU Thread Ever Award."

[OldLeftieLawyer]

420. Racism, racism, racism, racism, racism,

racism, and more racism.

Code this ...................

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

429. People defending a racist piece of shit who pistol whipped a guy

for being a mexican is racism whether you approve of the label or not. Pistol whipping is not self defense.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

431. Amazing, isn't it,

to find stuff like this on a place called "democraticunderground.com"?

Racism, racism, racism, racism, racism.

But, in fact, I think that poster had a big hardon for lawyers, and the plaintiffs just got in the way of his hatred for lawyers. Any excuse to rant, no matter how ill-informed or ugly.

Racism, racism, racism, racism, racism.

[Along the Red Ledge]

426. That is a shame...

DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.

Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally.

For instance, let's say you own a house with 6 bedrooms. You see a homeless person on the street. He says he wants to make a better life for himself but all he needs is a chance. Can you help him? Well, you decide that since you have extra space, you will invite him in and let him use a room and have room and board in exchange for helping out around the house so he can earn what he needs to make it on his own.

All cool in the school, right?

Now, suppose, someone breaks into your home through your basement, sneaks into another bedroom and occupies it and you don't learn of this until you come downstairs and see them raiding the fridge and ordering pay-per-view. You tell him he is uninvited and unwanted and to vacate immediately. He refuses and claims he has every right to break into your house, eat your food, use your utilities and refuses to contribute to the house hold, to boot.

People entering our nation illegally should not be rewarded for breaking the law. In my opinion, illegal aliens from any nation should be deported back to their countries of origin, ASAP, with their nation's of origin footing the bill and paying heavy fines with the offenders being barred from immigrating for ten years.

There are proper channels for immigration and for political asylum. Sneaking into a nation illegally is not one of them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

428. Yes..and pistol whipping someone is not the appropriate response

which is why the racist bastard lost his property.

Welcome to DU

[Name removed]

430. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

432. Locking

This thread is a flamefest.