16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[Cid_B]

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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



...

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


ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________

This group is suing for 32 million dollars. Damn...

[Le Taz Hot]

1. I'm not a fan of unfettered illegal immigration, but . . .

the source is the Moonie Times. Gotta take it with a grain, ya know?

[Dr. Strange]

10. Looks like it's real.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/278558
http://www.kpho.com/news/18629064/detail.html

[EFerrari]

117. The situation is real, the story is spun in the direction of World Nut Daily. n/t

[rurallib]

2. Washington Times. Makes me wonder if it is true.

[endarkenment]

3. everyone has rights

even those who have illegally crossed our borders, they have rights.

[michreject]

6. They don't have a right to trash his property

The owner has right too.

[endarkenment]

8. Yes he does, but those rights do not include

rounding people up at gunpoint and threatening to kill them. Trespassing alone does not constitute a threat that would justify the use of force.

[jmg257]

11. It does when it involves felonies like criminal mischief.

At least it does in NY:

"A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article,
use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third
person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or
criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or
prevent an escape from custody."

[Statistical]

12. Depends on the state law.

Many states have a "Castle Doctrine". While there is no uniform standard and each state statute varies they are general written that you can assume anyone entering your property illegally intends to do you harm and use force (even lethal force) to prevent injury.

The doctrine generally shields the homeowner from civil or criminal liability even if the intruder does not intend harm. The mere action of illegally entering is enough.

The media often wrongly states that the intruder must enter the house but very few states define it that way.

The exact state statute governing self defense and/or property protection is what matters.

[varkam]

157. I think there's a difference between property and domicile.

I don't think that the CD would apply in cases such as this (unless he confronted the group in, say, his kitchen).

[michreject]

16. In the middle of the night

You don't know who is doing what to whom. He has every right to hold intruders at gun point in the middle of the night. For all he knew they were getting ready to cut his throat.

[Justpat]

35. He does have a right to protect his property.

His ranch has become an unofficial highway for illegal immigrants. I do not understand the thought here that someone has no right
to protect their property from the destruction caused by so many people wandering across it at will.

[varkam]

158. Note, though, that he did not use force.

In confronting trespassers, in most (all?) you are not allowed to use deadly force (unless it turns into an altercation and you need to defend yourself) - but you are allowed to threaten the use of deadly force to protect your property.

Though, in this instance, it doesn't seem like he was looking to protect his land. If he were, it would seem the reasonable thing to do would be to order the group off his land. Instead, it seems as though he were trying to detain the group. I'm not very knowledgeable about the laws concerning illegal aliens, but I would think that such action by a private citizen is unlawful.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. I assume he's making it up.

[michreject]

78. And the one's he held at gun point

are telling the truth.

Oh yeah!!!! I get it now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. I'd believe them over him.

:shrug:

[spoony]

123. ....why?

They have a monetary motive for lying.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

161. Because he's a white supremacist.

Because he's been convicted of assaulting U.S. citizens of mexican descent.

Because they probably wouldn't be taking it to trial if they didn't have evidence.

Why? Why do you trust the white supremacist?

[RebelOne]

15. What rights do they have? They are illegally here.

They do not have the same rights as American citizens.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. How are US citizens here illegally?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5021642&mesg_id=5022445

[endarkenment]

67. They actually have almost all the same rights as you and me

but go ahead and list the rights enumerated in the constitution and its amendments that are qualified by citizenship.

Hint: it is a very short list.

[endarkenment]

109. still waiting for that list

but not holding my breath.

turn off the hate radio - it is mind poison

[varkam]

159. They're on US soil. eom

[Deja Q]

63. Hmm, I dare you to go to another country, illegally, and use that as an excuse.

:popcorn:

[XOKCowboy]

122. Go back across that SAME border and tell them that you have rights...

For that matter you can't trespass on private property here in America. Your rights extend to my property line. I don't care where they're coming from, a person has the RIGHT to keep unwanted visitors off of their land.

I know a lot of people back in OK who'll greet strangers with business end of a gun if they catch them trespassing and they have every right to.

[WillieW]

90. Illegals ?

[pnutbutr]

4. Cool

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

:rofl:

I don't have a problem with a property owner protecting his property when it has been vandalized before and is being used to commit a federal crime by trespassers.

[Statistical]

5. Key point is private property

Key point is private property.
Most states allow a home owner to detain a criminal at gunpoint.

It happens everyday. Man breaks into house. Homeowner has a firearm and says get on the ground or I will shoot, calls the police, criminal is arrested. Never heard of a US born criminal suing that their civil liberties were violated when prevented from completing a crime by homeowners actions.

Of course state laws vary.

So *IF* the incident occurred on private property where everyone involved was not only entering the country illegally but also trespassing I don't think they have much of a case.

Just a concept:
If the rancher has really detained 12,000 people over last 20 years you would think the word would get out to avoid that section of the border. Doesn't seem to have a very high success rate.

[aikoaiko]

7. Stupid lawsuit. Poor guy is probably going to have to spend a bundle to defend himself.

Barring any actual evidence of wrongdoing, hopefully it will be dismissed quickly.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. Oh yes, the poor poor racist.

And I'm not throwing the term around lightly. He is a straight up racist:

"The white race is going to be gone. It's going to be a mixture of race. You got to stop and think."
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4805528

Not only that, he has already had to defend himself (unsuccessfully) because he accosted U.S. Citizens who happened to, coincidentally enough, be of Mexican descent.

[aikoaiko]

21. Despite his being racist, he still has every right to keep trespassers off his property

And to follow the law when doing so. Do you not agree?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. He hasn't got the right to kick people.

Do you not agree?

[aikoaiko]

30. Probablly not, but it depends on the reason why. For example, property owners are allowed to use

force when stopping shoplifters. If he was using force to keep someone from escaping, then its conceivably justified, but if it were merely for cruelty then no.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. You can use force to stop shoplifters, sure.

You can't continue to beat them after they've stopped.

[aikoaiko]

36. I agree, and the story does not say what happened either way.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. Problem is that he hasn't always followed the law.

And even if in this case he *is* following the law, in which case the suit should be thrown out, I do *not* feel sorry for him on account of his despicable nature and would never feel sorry for him. There are many other people deserving of sympathy.

[aikoaiko]

33. After reportedly turning in 12000 trespassers/illegal immigants, I have some sympathy for the racist

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Do you believe the racist?

12,000 over ten years is over three people per day.

[Deja Q]

64. Non-sequitur.

You mean one of two things:

1. "After reportedly turning in 12000 trespassers/illegal immigants, I have some sympathy for the law abider"

2. "After reportedly turning in 12000 Mexicans, I have some sympathy for the racist"

Not all illegal immigrants come from Mexico, but a lot of them do.

Whatever else, here's a point: Don't blindly slander people as racist. Legal issues transcend skin color; they apply to us all. That's why I would never go into any other country illegally without a damn good story.

[Zywiec]

25. What were US Citizens doing on his property?

:shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. If children wander into your yard, you do not have the right to kidnap them.

or hold them up at gunpoint.

[Zywiec]

37. Really, they just wandered on to his property?

Sure, just like one of the neighborhood families where I live. They are always sneaking around peoples' property.

:crazy:

[ferrous wheel]

53. Uh, they aren't wandering children. When thugs invade your place should we have sympathy

for them...or for you?

[DrCory]

150. They were ALL children?

Not an adult among the group he detained?

[RebelOne]

41. They were not US citizens. Did you read the story? They are illegals. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

42. He's referring to the case wherein this guy detained a bunch of U.S. citizens at gunpoint.

[ferrous wheel]

59. Yes, a different case. Not this one.

...

[hogwyld]

72. Hopefully, he'll lose the ranch

in the lawsuit, and he will then be able to sympathize with those desperate souls seeking to feed their families.

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. And they can turn his ranch into a refuge for travelers

:)

[cbc5g]

9. It's his private property and they were doing an illegal act

This won't go anywhere and it shouldn't

[tammywammy]

121. Agreed n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. I Hope This Gets Tossed Out Of Court Quickly. Kudos To This Guy.

What a bunch of dumbasses suing him. I hope they get laughed out of court.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. You should really research people before you give them "kudos".

He was convicted of "detaining" U.S. citizens, including three children.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Based On The Article, He Deserves The Kudos.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. Really? Despite his conviction for assault against U.S. citizens? Despite his fears of race mixing

[leftynyc]

48. Precisely why prior acts are not

allowed into a criminal trial. From the article posted, he did nothing wrong and has every right to protect himself and his property.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Yes all hail a man who points guns at children and other US citizens!!

:sarcasm:

[Zywiec]

What were US citizens doing on his property? n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. You'd have to ask them

:shrug:

This guy apparently believes everyone who *looks* Hispanic is not a citizen.

[Statistical]

38. Citizen or not they were tresspassing.

Maybe he just believes anyone illegally on his property is trespassing (Hispanic or not).

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. So pointing a gun at them is the way to get them off his property?

[npk]

51. I agree with Proud2Blib in this instance

There are better ways of dealing with this than how this man went about doing it. I live in a neighborhood where many kids and adults alike use my backyard as a cut through to go here and there. I don't like it, mainly because I have a garden in the back that can from time to time get trampled on. However, I would never point a gun at someone for simply walking onto my property. I don't believe these immigrants legal or otherwise were trying to break into this mans home or otherwise accost him. He could have went about this many other ways. As the poster above me stated, he could have called the BP or local police.

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. He is a vigilante

And that is not okay.

[Statistical]

52. A citizen has no requirement to assist criminals with avoiding the law (i.e flee a crime)

Arizona Revised Statute 13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises
A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

Many states go far beyond that. Some states the assumption is that if someone unlawfully enters your premise you may not just threaten lethal force but use lethal force without warning.

What part of "private property" is difficult for you to understand?

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. So if the kids down the street play in my yard AGAIN

(they do it all the time and they have trampled on my plants too!), I have the right to point a gun at them and take them into custody?

Get real.

[Statistical]

58. It depends.... what does your state's code say.

We live by rule of law not the rule of common sense or the rule of what you think is right.

If the law says you can't then you can't.
If the law says you can and you think it isn't right then lobby to change the law.

Pretty simple concept.

I am not sure what the law in Kansas is. Might be a good civics lesson for you to find out.

I know the law in VA. To detain someone in VA outside of my domicile (like the Rancher did) would not be legal however is someone enters my house unlawfully lethal force could be used without warning even if they are retreating. VA self defense law provides no requirement to determine if someone is a threat only that if the person using lethal force has a lawful right to be there and honestly believes their life is in danger. Someone turning their back could be drawing a concealed weapon, or making a move to another room with a 3rd person in it.

The law can be pretty strange sometimes.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

This is from Texas. Notice the reference to nightime.

If you confront kids committing criminal mischief in the day time (i.e. destroying your property) you could NOT use lethal force.
If you confront kids committing criminal mischief in the night time (i.e. destroying your property) you COULD use lethal force.

Does it make much sense? For me personally no, but what I personally think doesn't matter.
Until someone changes the law it is the law.

If you are in TX and feel the need to vandalize someones property make sure it is daytime, you are less likely to get shot that way.

[Raskolnik]

94. Poor analogy.

Instead, let's say that homeless people use your backyard to camp out on their way through town, and have damaged your property in the process and stolen food out of the refrigerator in your garage.

Now, obviously we would all be sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, but what would you do in that situation? Would you ask the people to leave your property? Would you call the police if they refused to leave? Would you stand by and watch while it happened?

[proud2BlibKansan]

103. I would help them find a shelter

And even offer my own house if that's all that's available.

I am one of those silly people who gives them money and food whenever I see them on the streets. :)

[dustbunnie]

105. You are a good person.

:)

But how many are you talking about. 5..20..1,000? How about 20,000? 50,000? How many thousands using your yard as a footpath can it handle before it goes to sh*t? Do you work or could you stay home all day cleaning up? How many beds you got? How many refugees have you fed lately? How much property damage can you afford out of pocket?

What's more important to you? Universal health care for the millions of Americans who currently don't have it, or the plight of illegal immigrants. Though sad but true, it's either one or the other. As I posted in the other thread concerning this, the burden and rampant abuse incurred by illegal immigration to the potential health care system we all want, would kill it before it even made a dent in lives of poor Americans. Other countries with universal health care have very strict immigration policies.

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. Oh no

I work with the undocumented. It is absolute BULLSHIT that they abuse our health care system. They don't get health care on our dime unless they are dying or critically ill. And when they are admitted to the hospital, ICE is usually standing in the hall waiting to deport them if they recover from their illness.

I spent today on the phone trying to find out what happened to a man's car. He was pulled over yesterday and the cops took his car because he had no license. But of course, since he is not documented, he can't get a license.

So don't give me any crap about these people costing us money. That is complete bullshit.

Oh and no way could 1000 people fit in my back yard. LOL

[dustbunnie]

110. I'm not talking about our current health care system.

I'm talking about Universal Health Care. Do you know how how it works?

Every employed individual is taxed, money goes into a pool and everyone is covered. The poor, the rich, young, old, etc... benefit whether they work or not. Every citizen gets a health care card that you keep in your wallet or purse, and when you go to the doctor it's swiped through a machine and presto... off you go to the examining room. It works because the number of taxpaying individuals contribute enough to cover everyone. The system is based on the greater good concept, so in addition to a focus on preventative measures, it can also mean that less money will be spent in some areas than others. An elderly person with cancer might be made comfortable for his/her last days rather than get a whole lot of treatment to extend life by six months.

That system can most CERTAINLY be abused and it is. If you check out what goes on in countries that do have Universal Health care you'll understand much better perhaps. I can give you some examples of how it's abused as well, if you're interested. That's why those countries have strict immigration policies. And it might surprise you to learn how much citizens of Universal Health Care countries grumble about the legal immigrants they do have to "carry." Maybe they're all right wingers, but still, even so.

At least you could have used the young, 1950's "Aw jeez not this shit again" dude. This one looks as tired as I feel.

[pnutbutr]

61. They were trespassing

The family was hunting on his property without authorization from the property owner. Since they were hunting they also had guns which could potentially pose a threat to the property owner. He did not actually detain them at all, they were asked to leave, not nicely of course which they did. They sued for emotional distress as no criminal charges were filed against Barnett when the police arrived after being called by the family. Barnett's counterclaim was for trespassing. Both sides won their respective cases. The family for emotional distress and Barnett for the trespassing claim.

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. Huh?

Why would a family of undocumented call the police? That makes zero sense.

[pnutbutr]

155. US citizens

That was the case of the US citizens you were referencing with this rancher. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. They're Illegal Immigrants Tresspassing And Damaging His Property.

He absolutely has that right.

And other than an isolated exceptional incident, US citizens they are not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. Why doesn't he call Border Patrol and let them do their job?

Gee, could it be because he KNEW he was pointing a gun at US citizens? Hmmm

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. Because They'd Be Gone, DUH. And He Does Call Border Patrol.

I commend him on his efforts to help secure our not staffed enough borders. 12000 in less than ten years? That's pretty damn good.

Would you want 12000 illegal immigrants and potential drug dealers trashing the hell out of your property, damaging your stuff, and stealing? This is the man's property we're talking about. He isn't some vigilante just going along the border searching for people. It's his fucking property for chrissakes. Try and open your mind a little. Not every issue is always a black and white one. Sometimes, ya know, one actually needs to like, think and stuff.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. Take your own advice, Bucko

Because I HAVE read and understand this issue and (unlike you I am sure) I actually KNOW people who have been accused of being here illegally, and I have heard their horrific stories, I don't believe a maniac with a gun should be going around detaining people who he thinks are not US citizens.

Sorry, but we do have law enforcement PROFESSIONALS in this country and it is THEIR job to detain and deal with these people. Not some angry nutjob with a gun.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. You Just Don't Get It.

You should really try to incorporate pausing, thinking, assessing and then forging and opinion, prior to replying.

THESE PEOPLE ARE TRESPASSING AND DESTROYING HIS PROPERTY. Did you get that? No? Try reading it again. This isn't just a vigilante hunting down immigrants wherever he can find them. Get a grip.

[ferrous wheel]

56. I'm learning that it's dangerous here on DU to criticize a criminal and defend a victim.

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. Which part of him detaining CHILDREN do you not get

And how do you know they are potential drug dealers? Psychotic er I mean psychic much?

[pnutbutr]

77. which part of

federal crime do you not get?

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. What federal crime?

Crossing the border without papers is a civil offense, just like a speeding ticket.

[pnutbutr]

85. It is federal law

it is a fine of up to $250 and up to 6 month in jail for first offense.

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. It is a civil offense

That's not the same as federal law.

[pnutbutr]

96. Yes

but it is a civil offense as stated by FEDERAL LAW!!!

I'm sure you would have no problem with random strangers routinely walking across your property and on occasion stealing shit or vandalizing things, breaking into your home etc.. on their way through while violating a federal law.

[proud2BlibKansan]

102. Happens all the time

Kids in my neighborhood play in my yard and *shocking!* even walk on it. Mess up my plants too. But I have never once turned them into the feds.

As for stealing and breaking in, we have only the word of this property owner in the OP and he is not very credible.

[pnutbutr]

154. huh?

Crossing the border illegally is a federal crime, not trespassing. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. Again: You Just Don't Get It.

That much is clear. Bye now.

[ConcernedCanuk]

47. "12000 illegal immigrants and potential drug dealers" - wow - that's a stretch

.
.
.

and don't forget

The USA elite has been using, and still ARE using, illegals for their servants

They miss the slaves of a few decades ago

USA Nomba Wan

For what??

hmmmm

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Ummmmm, What's A Stretch?

:shrug:

[ConcernedCanuk]

60. "potential drug dealers" - I guess potential prostitutes could go in there too?

.
.
.

"potential"

could be mothers, FATHERS, LAWYERS, DOCTORS, etc., - BUT NO . .

Hadda go for drug dealers

go figure . .

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. Many Drug Dealers Cross The Border Illegally.

Please tell me you aren't ignorant enough to not know that.

And obviously the ones (likely the majority) that aren't drug dealers are mothers, fathers etc.

Get a grip.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. So do people who have never sold a drug in their life

And people who are hard working and just want a job.

And people wanting to see their families.

And (shocking!) people on vacation!!

But if you want to use a broad brush and claim that most of them crossing the border are "potential drug dealers" then go ahead. You are only making yourself look stupid with that comment.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. And They're Illegally Entering Our Country And Trespassing.

The homeowner is completely in the right. Get a clue.

(and I never said most of them are potential drug dealers. So it is not me looking stupid) :dunce:

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. You implied it, Dude

"Would you want 12000 illegal immigrants and potential drug dealers trashing the hell out of your property, damaging your stuff, and stealing?"

As for the border crossers, that's a civil offense, no more "illegal" than driving above the speed limit. You get a clue.

[Statistical]

92. But tresspassing is a crime in all 50 states.

He didn't go out onto public land to prevent people from crossing the border.

He detained people committing a crime on his personal property.
An activity that is legal under AZ law.

No criminal charges filed against him.
No civil suit in state court.
Only a civil suit in federal court against unnamed "civil rights".

Criminals (and yes they became criminals when they committed the crime of trespassing) have no "civil right" to avoid capture by the police (or border control agents).

[proud2BlibKansan]

101. A federal crime?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

95. I Implied Nothing Of The Sort Missy.

"claim that most of them crossing the border are "potential drug dealers""

I said MOST where now? Oh, you mean I didn't? You mean, uhhh, that you just made that up and stuff and over-exaggerated? You? C'mon, not youuuuuuuu. Youuuuuuuu would never do such a thing right? :rofl:

I mean, it's not like I said the EXACT OPPOSITE elsewhere in this thread right? Nahhhhhhh, you must be right! I mean, you're always so spot on!!! :rofl:

"And obviously the ones (likely the majority) that aren't drug dealers are mothers, fathers etc."

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. So how many are potential drug dealers?

Do tell. You seem so well informed on this issue.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. Let's all run and hide from the potential MURDERERS among us

And the car thieves and rapists and bank robbers and crack smokers.

Shit may as well never leave the house. :rofl:

[michreject]

91. I'm not afraid to leave the house

I'm armed where ever I go.

[LanternWaste]

97. Yeah... nothing but the Gruop W bench...

Yeah... nothing but the Group W bench comes across the border according to the "common sense" of many posters.

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

[dustbunnie]

93. Funny how Canadians complain when they get 10,000 refugees coming in.

Cause they'll be taxing the health care system they haven't paid into. ;-)

But are so generously selfless when it comes to the policies of other countries.

[ConcernedCanuk]

135. Last time we had an influx of "refugees" was 911 - when the great USA landed their planes in Canada

.
.
.

because they were too afraid to land them in their OWN country

so yes

Us Canadians can be quite selfless, and put other people's needs and concerns ahead of our own

Not quite sure I can attribute that quality to our southern neighbors . . .

[dustbunnie]

144. Not so, my dear Canucki neighbor.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2007/2007-06-20.asp

You accept many of the world's downtrodden and people in need, yes. Do some of you bitch about it. Yes! I lived there long enough to hear and read opinions as shocking as any you'd find here.

Edited to add: refugees arrive legally and are welcomed (by most). But can you imagine how Canadians would react if poor Americans started drifting up there in droves illegally. Haha. Wouldn't happen. You won't give amnesty to a couple of soldiers, so please!

[ConcernedCanuk]

145. can you imagine how Canadians would react if poor Americans started drifting up there

.
.
.

oh yeah I can

I got one living 150 feet away

and I'm "reacting"

SOON

[dustbunnie]

146. Key word being "one." nt

[ConcernedCanuk]

147. one is more than enuf - believe me

.
.
.

[DrCory]

149. Sometimes, it's necessary...

Years ago, I detained an American citizen, a teenager, at gunpoint...because I caught him sneaking around our farm. Guess what? The local police had no issue with that and later let me know they were quite pleased that I had done so. Turned out he was responsible for a barn burning which killed some livestock.

[Cid_B]

14. Can I just say it again....

32 MILLION!

Scumbags....

[endarkenment]

111. Yeah, but probably not much more than that

see ya

[cbayer]

46. Cid_B

Please be aware that DU posting rules require that copyrighted material be limited to no more that four paragraphs with a link to the original source.

Thanks,

cbayer
DU Moderator

[anonymous171]

50. My original inclination would be to side with the defendant.

However, after reading the article, it is clear that this man is one of those DEYTOOKRJOBS kind of guys. I dislike illegal immigration a lot (I don't like any worker being exploited in America) but I also dislike people like Barnett who enjoy terrorizing poor individuals.

[Romulox]

55. It's dangerous to decide a case based on personal biases rather than facts. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Good for them. Vigilantiism has no place in this country.

[anonymous171]

65. He was defending his property. How is that vigilantiism?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. They don't have cops and courts in Arizona?

[hogwyld]

69. I hope they win and take his whole f*n ranch

There is no business for vigilantism in the 21st century. I'm tired of these racist wackos trying to enforce their interpretation of immigration laws. May he lose everything and become destitute like some of his victims. It might give him a new perspective...

[Cid_B]

70. Just in case you missed it...

"after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home."

You think he should send monogrammed invitations to invade his home and do God knows what to his family and property?

[hogwyld]

73. I don't know the reason for the break in

but if I was in the middle of the burning desert with no water, and saw a house, I'd break in for a drink. How can he prove that they killed his cattle? Still, kidnapping and abusing people over such trivial issues needs to be made an example of.

[Raskolnik]

89. It's pretty easy for you to consider them "trivial issues" when it's not your property, isn't it?

I'm not saying this rancher is a peach of a human being, but if people are tromping across his property and damaging it, that isn't right, regardless of the rancher's politics.

[ferrous wheel]

131. What the fuck ever happened to knocking on the door and asking?

Anybody breaks in MY house is gonna be shot dead. No god damned questions.

[EFerrari]

118. Those are his allegations. What was his excuse for falsely imprisoning

American citizens, progressive?

All I can say is, I hope your women are safe from the Brown Peril!

[DrCory]

148. So, in your view...

Can citizens take ANY active role to protect the integrity of their own national borders? Or, do you require we sacrifice the right to the security of our property to trespassers because they happen to be poorer than ourselves?

[Iktomiwicasa]

71. When I hear...

...white folks squawkin' about illegal immigration to N. America, my irony meter breaks yet again....

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. We have a winner, folks!!

[endarkenment]

112. indeed

[EFerrari]

115. I know. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. The job prospects of native americans are harmed at least as much as white folks.

... by the wage depression which comes from cheap labor.

[EFerrari]

125. Mexican nationals don't get that great color from the Spanish. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

134. I advocate for american labor, regardless of color. n/t

[EFerrari]

136. I respect that, but it won't work for them to globalize management

while we nationalize labor, will it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

137. Are you saying that failure to allow low wage immigration

... simply forces businesses to accelerate offshoring?

I don't think society is helpless in the face of the implacable forces of "free trade".

[EFerrari]

138. I hope we're not. n/t

[JI7]

152. Native Americans know it's not mexicans holding them back

as if they had it so great before the "illegals" came in.

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. You're right, it's not.

It's the white business folks who welcome, encourage, advocate and profit from cheap labor who are holding you back.

[LittleClarkie]

82. Isn't vigilante-ism illegal as well?

They were both at fault. They didn't have the right to traipse through his property and he didn't have the right to turn into the Lone Ranger.

[anonymous171]

84. Yep. I think he crossed the line between defending your property

and taking the law your own hands.

[WillieW]

88. ILLEGALS? WHAT A NERVE!.

[Beacool]

99. Barnett was within his rights, they were trespassing on his property.

Furthermore, some of you should do some research and find out how the Mexican government treats their brothers to the South. Ask anyone from Central America who had the misfortune of having to go through Mexico how they are treated. As much as I don't agree with much of what is done here toward illegal immigrants, it's nothing compared to what Mexico does to their own illegals. There is a lot of hypocrisy from the Mexican government when they cry foul at our policies and yet they continue to criminalize and abuse those who cross their borders illegally.

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

104. So we have to model our policies and the behavior of our citizens after the Mexican govt?

Why does it matter what they do?

[Beacool]

127. It matters because they constantly berate our immigration laws

while the Central Americans that cross their borders are routinely imprisoned, murdered, raped and robbed by the police, let alone the criminals that prey on them while being aided and abetted by the local authorities. In Mexico entering illegally is considered a criminal act with an average prison sentence of 2 years.

[EFerrari]

129. Do you seriously believe that doesn't happen here?

[EFerrari]

114. No. This white supremacist has no right to falsely imprison anyone,

not undocumented Mexicans and not American citizens -- something he has been convicted for in the past.

But, nice work defending this bigot, Beacool!

[Beacool]

124. It's not about defending a bigot, but it IS his property.

How would you like if someone did this to your land?

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

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

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

The guy may be a bigot, and my heart does go out to these people who are desperate enough to leave their homes in search for a better life, but it is still not right what they are doing to his land. The one that should be on trial is the Mexican government, ranked as one of the most corrupt in the continent. Add to that the Catholic church that has a hold of most of the poor in Mexico. It is severely overpopulated. A country that has a land mass smaller than Argentina has almost 107M people (Argentina has 41M).

[EFerrari]

126. Mr. Barnett is a notorius white supremacist and yes, you are defending a bigot.

And you'd think that as this version of the story has been embraced by World Nut Daily, you and other posters to this thread would do a little checking before you swallow it link, hook and sinker.

I've lived and worked around undocumented workers my whole life. Thank goodness I was around them and not around this horrible man who threatened defensless people with dogs and has no problem kicking women to the ground at gunpoint. YMMV

[Beacool]

130. OK, I will do some checking on the guy.

Nevertheless, I can understand his frustration if this kind of trespassing has been going on for 10 years.

I understand perfectly well the immigration problem. These people are first the victims of their own corrupt government, then the coyotes who take advantage of them. When they get here, they are treated like fourth class citizens (forget second) and taken advantage by employers who pay them little, don't provide them with health care insurance and exploit them.

I do get it.

[EFerrari]

133. Their "own corrupt government" was paid for by me and you

when BushCo helped the oligarchy steal the election from the progressives. Do you remember that? Millions of people went into the street but the Court was intimidated into seating the Bush-backed thief anyway.

We can't rail against the corrupt Mexican government WHILE our government is subverting democracy in Mexico. Or, we can, but we'd be wrong.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. He'll win, as he should.

Pity he won't be able to recoup his legal expenses from the plaintiffs.

I think it's kind of ironic how we treat this one kind of crime as deserving of special dispensation. A convenience store owner who detains someone committing a crime would get the universal praise that this guy deserves.

More so, IMHO, because he's apprehending the perpetrators of a crime which harms us. Unlike the convenience store owner, he's not simply acting out of individual self-interest.

Illegal immigrants are entitled to the legal protection and rights which their home governments give them. Here, they're criminals who risk being detained for their crimes.

[EFerrari]

119. Wrong. Illegal immigration is an administrative, not a criminal offense.

Rush and Lou Dobbs disagree, I know, but they don't write the law.

It's too late, anyway. We're already here.

[Xicano]

156. I agree all the illegal immigrants should sent back from where they came from (Europe)

Maybe, also, we can designate small areas within Europe to put all the native Europeans in and call them "reservations", "bantustans", and "reserves". And if any European crosses any border we make in Europe we'll call them "illegal immigrants" and treat them like criminals.


:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

120. Human beings are not "illegal". nt

[EFerrari]

128. I will not (and shouldn't) link to World Nut Daily, but be aware of what you're spreading:

INVASION USA
16 illegals sue rancher who catches them on his land
Aliens claim American violated civil rights, inflicted emotional distress
Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A group of 16 illegal aliens is suing an Arizona rancher, claiming he violated their civil rights, falsely imprisoned them and inflicted emotional distress

The federal lawsuit against Douglas, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett, his wife, Barbara, and his brother, Donald, is taking place before Judge John Roll in U.S. District Court and will run through Feb. 13. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, is representing the five female and 11 male illegals.

Al Garza, National Executive Director for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, attended the first day of hearings on Monday. While the plaintiffs allege that Barnett attacked them because he is racist, Garza, an American of Mexican descent, said Barnett has never shown any hostility toward him.

"There is no racist agenda here, or I wouldn't be a part of it because I am an American of Hispanic descent," Garza said. "We don't hate anyone from any particular country. We just want our laws enforced. This is not about color."

[BlooInBloo]

139. Oooh - this is bound to get the never-racist-immigrant-hating crowd's self-righteous dander up!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

140. Minute Man approved and everything.

It's a natural. :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

141. I miss you!

It's like you're a different person now. :cry:

[EFerrari]

142. Hey, sweetie. It's still the same ornery me.

Just ask the mods.

:pals:

[BlooInBloo]

143. Hah. Wanna see who can get the most posts deleted (for a good cause) in the next 10 min?

Just kidding, mods. :P

[JI7]

151. Barnett is a racist

i'm not sure i believe some of the things he accuses others of.

[Xicano]

153. 16 "pilgrims" sue Arizona rancher?

These law violators who disrespect the borders of another country should be deported back to Europe from where they illegally immigrated from. Really, the nerve of some people.


:eyes:

[Cid_B]

162. Just to be clear...

The main issue here is not whether or not they are illegal. More along the lines they happen to be illegals who are trespassing, damaging his property and invading his home. That is the issue at hand.

Id have the same issue with a group of punk American kids smashing a house in the suburbs and when the owner held them at gun point and turned them into the cops I say more power to him.

[EFerrari]

163. No. The issue here is that this white supremacist is turning his guns

on brown people and to pretend otherwise is mendacity.