Announcement

Collapse

Facebook Forum Migration

Our forums have migrated to Facebook. If you are already an iMSN forum member you will be grandfathered in.

To access the Call Room and Marriage Matters, head to: https://m.facebook.com/groups/400932...eferrer=search

You can find the health and fitness forums here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/133538...eferrer=search

Private parenting discussions are here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/382903...eferrer=search

We look forward to seeing you on Facebook!
See more
See less

What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

    I truly cannot believe this was allowed to go to court. It seems the illegals have all the rights. Most ranchers around here cannot even leave their homes for fear that they will be broken into. Imagine having illegals trample through your backyard, destroy your property, break into your home, leave feces and other human waste behind and when you defend yourself suddenly they are the victims.

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/fe ... a-rancher/

    Monday, February 9, 2009
    16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
    Jerry Seper (Contact)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."
    Tara
    Married 20 years to MD/PhD in year 3 of MFM fellowship. SAHM to five wonderful children (#6 due in August), a sweet GSD named Bella, a black lab named Toby, and 1 guinea pig.

  • #2
    Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

    I'm speechless that the case would actually make it to trial. What has happened to common sense. At a minimum, they were trespassing.
    Kris

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

      My initial comment wasn't based on the full story...this whole thing is weird and unfortunate.
      Danielle
      Wife of a sexy Radiologist and mom to TWO adorable little boys!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

        Oh this is one of my dad's biggest issues and we don't even live near a border.

        What happened to the property owner's rights?
        Wife to NSG out of training, mom to 2, 10 & 8, and a beagle with wings.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

          Originally posted by oceanchild
          Three things, before I step out for fear of letting my blood boil too much:

          1. Don't shoot people. That should be a rule regardless of someone's country of origin.
          2. "Illegals" removes personhood from the description in a wholly unnecessary way.
          3. The whole point of a court system is to sort out what the law is, when it is in dispute. What's the problem with letting a case go to court? If no law is violated, then the court is fully capable of deciding as much.
          Ditto.
          married to an anesthesia attending

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

            Originally posted by oceanchild
            Three things, before I step out for fear of letting my blood boil too much:

            1. Don't shoot people. That should be a rule regardless of someone's country of origin.
            2. "Illegals" removes personhood from the description in a wholly unnecessary way.
            3. The whole point of a court system is to sort out what the law is, when it is in dispute. What's the problem with letting a case go to court? If no law is violated, then the court is fully capable of deciding as much.

            1. He did not shoot anyone. He carries the gun for protection as is his right.
            2. Sorry, they are illegal immigrant persons. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
            3. While the point of the court system is to sort out what the law is why should this man have to spend money to defend himself against people who were breaking OUR laws. They should not have even been on his property to begin with.

            So what are his rights? Should he allow these people to continue to violate and destroy his land? Why should ranchers fear for their property, and family every day?
            Tara
            Married 20 years to MD/PhD in year 3 of MFM fellowship. SAHM to five wonderful children (#6 due in August), a sweet GSD named Bella, a black lab named Toby, and 1 guinea pig.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

              Originally posted by Pollyanna
              Originally posted by oceanchild
              Three things, before I step out for fear of letting my blood boil too much:

              1. Don't shoot people. That should be a rule regardless of someone's country of origin.
              2. "Illegals" removes personhood from the description in a wholly unnecessary way.
              3. The whole point of a court system is to sort out what the law is, when it is in dispute. What's the problem with letting a case go to court? If no law is violated, then the court is fully capable of deciding as much.

              1. He did not shoot anyone. He carries the gun for protection as is his right.
              2. Sorry, they are illegal immigrant persons. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
              3. While the point of the court system is to sort out what the law is why should this man have to spend money to defend himself against people who were breaking OUR laws. They should not have even been on his property to begin with.

              So what are his rights? Should he allow these people to continue to violate and destroy his land? Why should ranchers fear for their property, and family every day?


              I'm all for people continuing to immigrate to this country but do it legally and without hurting others or stealing to do so.
              Wife to NSG out of training, mom to 2, 10 & 8, and a beagle with wings.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

                Yes, he can protect his property … within the constraints of the law. Land owners do have the right to protect property through the use of reasonable force. Whether the use of dogs, detention and deadly weapons was reasonable under the circumstances, IMHO, is an appropriate issue for adjudication.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

                  Originally posted by oceanchild
                  I'd be all for legal immigration if there were actual channels for people to legally immigrate.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

                    Originally posted by oceanchild
                    I'd be all for legal immigration if there were actual channels for people to legally immigrate.

                    There are. Thus I have tons of inlaws who are all LEGAL Mexican immigrants (first generation). All of them were/are dirt poor - no real education to speak of and all come from backgrounds of extreme poverty. And ALL of them went through the process of immigration to the United States legally. It is a popular fallacy that it is impossible to immigrate to the United States. That is not true.

                    These people are criminals - pure and simple. Let's just stop calling them "immigrants" and start calling them what they are: U.S. lawbreakers, ie "criminals".

                    As far as the man carrying a gun on his property for use of defense: That is a basic human right recognized in our U.S. Constitution. The right to defend one's self and property is one of the milestones of human rights in history and it was codified as the second most important right in our Bill of Rights for good reason.

                    So, we have a group of criminals suing a man for using his basic human right to protect himself, his family, and his property. These people were in the process of breaking federal laws and were invading his property. He had feared for his safety, the safety of his family, and the safety of his animals (property) for good reason based on many past experiences. That this is going to court is a miscarriage of our court system.

                    Edited for grammar. There are probably a lot more mistakes I missed. I'm just not on my English "A" game today.
                    Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                    With fingernails that shine like justice
                    And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

                      I do think it would help to loosen up some of the immigration regulations. After all, the waves of immigrants we had in the past are what make up our current America.

                      I think immigration may be going the way of adoption as far as regulations are concerned. And, I do agree that is very bad.

                      But, if you look at adoption for a moment: Since it is so expensive and so difficult to adopt a baby in America is it OK to just steal one?

                      It's the same thing with immigration: If it is so difficult to become an American citizen is it OK to just try to "steal" citizenship? (And, that is definitely what these criminals often do - they steal identities of real American citizens - there's a HUGE market for identity theft among people here illegally).
                      Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                      With fingernails that shine like justice
                      And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

                        Originally posted by Rapunzel
                        I do think it would help to loosen up some of the immigration regulations. After all, the waves of immigrants we had in the past are what make up our current America.

                        I think immigration may be going the way of adoption as far as regulations are concerned. And, I do agree that is very bad.

                        But, if you look at adoption for a moment: Since it is so expensive and so difficult to adopt a baby in America is it OK to just steal one?

                        It's the same thing with immigration: If it is so difficult to become an American citizen is it OK to just try to "steal" citizenship? (And, that is definitely what these criminals often do - they steal identities of real American citizens - there's a HUGE market for identity theft among people here illegally).
                        I don't think stealing someone's identity and stealing someone's child are quite the same thing. That line of reasoning makes me think of the RIAA and their unintentionally humorous DVD-warnings.

                        Yes, they're both crimes but the severity differs somewhat, I'd say.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

                          Well, let's examine it:

                          I want a baby. I want a baby who doesn't have a family. But, darn it! It costs too much money and it takes too long and there are just too many stupid hoops to jump through! I know - these babies all need homes anyway. I'm WANTING to give a baby a home and be a loving parent. I'll just go take one and skip over all of those legal requirements! The baby will win and I'll win - who needs the government?

                          Now this:

                          I want into the country. I want to work there. I want the education and healthcare its citizens get. But, darn it! It costs money, takes a long time, and there are just too many stupid hoops to jump through! I know - I'll just cross the border tomorrow and buy one of those numbers that my friend's cousin sells and start working anyway. Who needs to do all of those stupid government things?


                          Now, both of those are ethical conundrums. And, I would say they ARE on par with one another. Both seem to have good intentions. Both have strong desires that don't seem wrong on the surface. But, both are breaking the law - and possibly destroying other people's lives in the process. If anything, the adoption example is LESS morally reprehensible because the person is arguably improving another being's life (the orphan). In contrast the person who steals an identity is ruining another person's life (and, I mean that literally).
                          Who uses a machete to cut through red tape
                          With fingernails that shine like justice
                          And a voice that is dark like tinted glass

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

                            So what you mean by "stealing a child" is to adopt an orphan without going through the paperwork for doing so legally? Not actually physically stealing the child from its parents? Because the latter was the way I interpreted it.

                            This is quickly moving away from the thread topic however.

                            Returning to the topic: No, I don't think Jethro should have the right to hold people at gunpoint because they were trespassing on his land. I don't think he should have the right to bear arms at all for that matter. If it was up to me, he'd be convicted*. Since it isn't, he'll presumably win the case*.

                            That said, the immigrants were obviously trespassing and residing in the country illegally, which is against the law, so they're certainly not without fault either. If they were put on trial, I'd find them guilty of their crimes too*.

                            *) Provided that the article describes the events accurately.

                            Originally posted by Rapunzel
                            Well, let's examine it:

                            I want a baby. I want a baby who doesn't have a family. But, darn it! It costs too much money and it takes too long and there are just too many stupid hoops to jump through! I know - these babies all need homes anyway. I'm WANTING to give a baby a home and be a loving parent. I'll just go take one and skip over all of those legal requirements! The baby will win and I'll win - who needs the government?

                            Now this:

                            I want into the country. I want to work there. I want the education and healthcare its citizens get. But, darn it! It costs money, takes a long time, and there are just too many stupid hoops to jump through! I know - I'll just cross the border tomorrow and buy one of those numbers that my friend's cousin sells and start working anyway. Who needs to do all of those stupid government things?


                            Now, both of those are ethical conundrums. And, I would say they ARE on par with one another. Both seem to have good intentions. Both have strong desires that don't seem wrong on the surface. But, both are breaking the law - and possibly destroying other people's lives in the process. If anything, the adoption example is LESS morally reprehensible because the person is arguably improving another being's life (the orphan). In contrast the person who steals an identity is ruining another person's life (and, I mean that literally).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

                              Originally posted by McPants
                              So what you mean by "stealing a child" is to adopt an orphan without going through the paperwork for doing so legally? Not actually physically stealing the child from its parents? Because the latter was the way I interpreted it.

                              This is quickly moving away from the thread topic however.

                              Returning to the topic: No, I don't think Jethro should have the right to hold people at gunpoint because they were trespassing on his land. I don't think he should have the right to bear arms at all for that matter. If it was up to me, he'd be convicted*. Since it isn't, he'll presumably win the case*.
                              I have nothing constructive to add but am laughing my ass off that the guy in question is named Jethro.
                              Flynn

                              Wife to post training CT surgeon; mother of three kids ages 17, 15, and 11.

                              “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” —Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets " Albus Dumbledore

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X