Aliens vs Americans

[Daveman]

Uzor was talking in general terms, and he's right, most laws and rights don't apply to citizens, rather "people". The reason for this if I remember was a fear that the goverment may try to revoke citizenship or deny validitiy of someone's citizenship to get around constitutional rights.

Actually no. In the US if you break the laws you lose a lot of your basic rights

"innocent until proven guilty"

While citizens are allowed to make arrests, they must follow basic guidelines (threatening death while pointing a gun in response to trespassing and/or begin an illegal immigrant is likely not okay). They can't use excessive force, and basically have to follow most of the rules a police officer is supposed to follow.

The lawsuit is still stupid though, the real "damages caused" are probably less than what a lawyer would charge. Claiming massive emotional distress is pure bs. And from a criminal standpoint, that type of stuff is worthy of minor community service at worst.

 

[Halifirien]

Fuck a fence that doesn't do a damn thing... What we need is like a mile wide clearing at the border and highly trained snipers in towers... talk about a deterrent.

Yes, because the threat posed to our nation from Mexicans slipping across the border to work is so dire as to require that sort of deterrent. Let's not go overboard. We're not talking about North Korea.

 

[Dejavu]

Yea i probably am overreacting because i do live in one of those states that are actually effected by the immigration and because i love our fucking do nothing ex governor who now happens to be the new secretary of homeland security. Oh wait she did do something she decided to spend tax payer money to put Speeding cameras all over the Freeways here in Arizona.

http://www.fox11az.com/news/topstories/stories/KMSB-20080111-apbp-kidnappings.11aec910.html

People who come here for work dont bother me.. i personally believe that pretty much anyone who wants to come to this country to work should be able to through legal means but what we need to do is get the drug crime problems under control... The first solution for this is to make all drugs legal which is actually the solution I support... this wont happen because people shouldn't be allowed to hurt themselves. The other solution is to make a real border and actually get this shit under control and TBH it is out of control to the point that snipers and landmines should be a considered option.

 

[Keryan]

Did no one pay attention to how MANY illegals he caught? Also he did not use exessive force. Not a single person was shot or bit! Sometimes looking like your willing to is enough to make people back down. It is a show of who has the bigger set of balls. Now if he caught about 1200 people in a 10 year span....How many got through other places?? These people ignore the legal way to get into the country. We wind up paying BILLIONS to care for them because somehow they are given welfare. Basic human rights does not require me to feed every poor stranger I see or require I clothe them and teach them for free. Yet our country is expected to do these things....

California has paid something along the lines of 3+ BILLION dollars a year to care for the illegals. Seriously when is it enough? That state is giving IOU's on the tax returns. I think people not dealing with this issue fail to see what it is doing. Money states could put to expanding health care coverage is going to people who DO NOT pay any taxes. Seriously just how much better could schools be if the state could use that money on schools? How many new jobs would be out there for OUR people. My father could not get a job in construction in California in the 1990's because he did not speak spanish. Odd that WE have to adjust to their language....when in mexico by law all documents are in spanish, if you wish to work there you must learn their language. Hell you should look at their immigration laws. Illegals are shipped out right away. They state Illegals HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS in mexico. no welfare for anyone illegally in mexico. This court battle is very serious as the outcome will effect you basic rights as citizens of the USA.

 

[Dejavu]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/02/18/20090218borderrancher0218.html

Rancher cleared of violating rights of illegal immigrants

TUCSON - A federal jury has found that a southern Arizona rancher didn't violate the civil rights of a group of illegal immigrants who claimed he had detained them at gunpoint in 2004, but has ordered him to pay $77,000 in damages for four claims of assault and causing emotional distress.

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

Barnett declined to comment afterward, but one of his attorneys, David Hardy, said Barnett has a good basis for appeal on the two counts on which he lost because the jury didn't award full damages to the immigrants.

David Urias, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said all six are citizens of Mexico.

Five are living in the United States with visa applications pending, said Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She declined to say where in the United States they're residing. The sixth resides in Mexico but was allowed into the United States for the trial.

Perales called the outcome "a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated."

Urias said his clients were disappointed. "But I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs," he said.

For more than a decade, Barnett has been a controversial figure in southern Arizona. He's known for aggressively patrolling his ranch property and areas along highways and roads, often with his wife and brothers, on the lookout for illegal immigrants.

The plaintiffs alleged that Barnett threatened them with his dog and told them he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

Barnett's lawyers argued that his land was inundated with illegal immigrants who left trash on his property, damaged his water supply and harmed his cattle.

Barnett has been known to wear a holstered 9 mm pistol on his hip and upon encountering groups of migrants, to flash a blue and gold badge resembling that of the highway patrol, with the words: "Barnett Ranch Patrol. Cochise County. State of Arizona."

The Barnetts detain and turn over immigrants to the U.S. Border Patrol. In 2006, Barnett estimated that he had detained more than 10,000 illegal immigrants in 10 years.

His actions have resulted in formal complaints from the Mexican government accusing him of acting as a vigilante, and in several lawsuits, including one stemming from an October 2004 incident.

In that case, a jury awarded a family of Mexican-Americans on a hunting trip $100,000 in damages, later upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Fucking ridiculous... cleared of charges but still has to pay $77,000 in damages for assault and emotional distress... Guy deserves a medal not a fine. In fact i think i may see if i can talk some friends into starting a website for the guy to collect donations to pay the $77,000 for him and maybe buy him some new guns.

 

[Uzor]

They were not tortured... they were detained.

I didn't say they were tortured. I said they were threatened at gunpoint, big difference.

Actually no. In the US if you break the laws you lose a lot of your basic rights and as far as rights are concerned Citizens are allowed to make arrests temporarily as long as the call the proper authorities promptly and do no harm

And yet, thieves are allowed to sue the person they break in to for getting hurt.

Extreme is the fucking lefties that think that Illegals should be allowed to vandalize his property with no recourse and then that they should be allowed to sue him for detaining them. Not to mention he used to be a police officer and is probably still deputized to some extent.

The difference is, you can't prove that those illegals in question vandalized his property. While others did, you can't be certain they in question did.

And ex-police officers do not have the same power as police officers. That'd be like saying the ex-president should have the same power as the current president.

If you want extreme ill tell you how i think that we should manage our borders... Fuck a fence that doesn't do a damn thing... What we need is like a mile wide clearing at the border and highly trained snipers in towers... talk about a deterrent.

No comments...

Additionally, if someone you knew crossed someone's property and got threatened at gunpoint Kery, would they not aim to sue? If, say, your kids were out trick or treating and someone came with a gun and threatened them, would you not sue?

I know its not the exact same situation, but anyway. Best example I could think of 4 min before my buss leaves.

 

[Dejavu]

If he has do not trespass signs up and holds them at gunpoint you know what my response to my friend would be... wtf were you doing on his property then?

Also i think that you misunderstood me... My point wasn't that these illegals were the ones that had trashed his yard but the idea that if they were on his property they should have the right to detain them no matter what until the proper authorities arrive be it police or border patrol.

The lefties comment was to the fact that there are actually people arguing that he shouldnt be allowed to even approach anyone walking through his property.

As for thieves suing those whose houses they broke into ... we have some legal issues with the same people who allowed this guy to be charged 77k. Aka greedy lawyers and poor tort laws.

 

[Khajit]

Yes, it's illegal to leave deadly traps around, even in your own home.

Landmines arent a deadly weapon. they exist to maim, not kill.
That being said, Amnesty international will get very cross at you.

 

[Strid]

Yes, it's illegal to leave deadly traps around, even in your own home.

You certain about this? That would actually conflict with Texas laws that allow you to protect your home, family, and belongings with deadly force unless of course somethin' has changed since the Joe Horn debacle but I haven't heard of any major changes. I know when he shot the two fellas robbin' his neighbor's home it wasn't specified to "your" home, family, belongings, etc. but I'm pretty sure that is the only thing that changed. The only thing I'm certain of on this though is that if you do, do somethin' like this, you have to have proper warning signs up and I'd bet you have to -own-, not rent, the -home-.

 

[Falsey]

i really dont get how the man was found guilty of protecting his home/land. what is wrong with this country sometimes???

 

[Falsey]

and yes dead men tell no tales. he gonna start killing them now and have a mass grave somewhere. good job american civil system

 

[Makelith]

"My dog is hungry, and he is hungry for buttocks." Oh my god, what a line!

What if you don't make traps deadly? Dig a bunch of giant holes and wait form them to be caught.

I don't see how they can plead their case when they are trespassing. You do have the right to defend your property.

 

[Draciot]

You certain about this? That would actually conflict with Texas laws that allow you to protect your home, family, and belongings with deadly force unless of course somethin' has changed since the Joe Horn debacle but I haven't heard of any major changes. I know when he shot the two fellas robbin' his neighbor's home it wasn't specified to "your" home, family, belongings, etc. but I'm pretty sure that is the only thing that changed. The only thing I'm certain of on this though is that if you do, do somethin' like this, you have to have proper warning signs up and I'd bet you have to -own-, not rent, the -home-.

You can shoot/kill someone breaking into your home, but you can't leave booby traps around (at least ones that could harm someone). The difference is that in one situation there is a human being controlling the device and making the decision, the other is automated.

 

[Celvantes]

My solution to the problem:



This is a 20mm M61 Vulcan Autocannon, better known as the Phalanx. For those who can't visualize metric size, a 20mm shell is HUGE and this thing fires them at up to 4500 rounds per minute. It has commonly been used as a point defense weapon for the US Navy, but there is a variant that can shoot down rockets and missiles on land as well. It uses radar to target incoming projectiles and is designed to autonomously track and engage high speed objects like anti-ship missiles.



This is an automatic motion tracking sentry system that a bunch of college students put together designed to track and engage human movement.

Hook system B up to system A and place one every 500 meters along the *both* borders.

Illegal immigration problem solved (assuming you search vehicles coming in and border stations, ships in ports, and aircraft at international airports).


As a side note, if it were legal, I would definitely have a Phalanx on my front lawn. Nothing says 'don't let your dog shit on my grass' like a huge gatling gun.

 

[Georgebobbilly]

I like the way you think Celv... I really really do

 

[Celvantes]

I like the way you think Celv... I really really do

Straight, to the point, and slightly evil? Why thank you! :biggrin:

Seriously though, if you want something not to happen, make the penalty enough such that no one would ever cross the line. If cops were allowed to drag someone out of their car and shoot them for speeding, NO ONE would fucking speed.

Not suggesting that, I dislike speed limits, just illustrating a point.

 

[Eilistrae]

Seems to me these IDIOTS are forgetting what Constitutional Amendment 14 was all about! This severely pisses me off!

 

[Georgebobbilly]

Seems to me these IDIOTS are forgetting what Constitutional Amendment 14 was all about! This severely pisses me off!

which one is that >.> I only know the ones about guns speech press and against self incrimination <.<

 

[Draciot]

which one is that >.> I only know the ones about guns speech press and against self incrimination <.<

It's about the rights to citizens of the United States.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

 

[Eilistrae]

yeah I was mostly referring to the bit saying No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Also, in regard to that $77k in damages he was ordered to pay: "A 2006 Arizona constitutional amendment bars awards of punitive damages to illegal immigrants, and Mr. Barnett's attorneys are expected to argue that the jury was given flawed instructions by the judge, which led to the award of those damages." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/22/rancher-ruling-adds-to-border-debate/