What part of ILLEGAL immigration do we not get?

[McPants]

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

I have nothing constructive to add but am laughing my ass off that the guy in question is named Jethro.

Actually, it appears the guy's actual name was Roger. I just couldn't be bothered to look it up when I wrote that post.

Note: I have nothing against guys named Jethro.

[MDPhDWife]

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*.

I have nothing constructive to add but am laughing my ass off that the guy in question is named Jethro.

[Rapunzel]

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.

Well, it is an analogy that I think is pertinant to this topic.

We might find it abhorrent that someone would just take a child without the proper hoops being jumped through. And, I will bet that most here think it SHOULD be hard to obtain a child.

But, there is a double standard when we hit the equally serious subject of citizenship (and, this has direct implications on a nation's sovereignity). There are hoops to jump through - that is a given. And, it is hard to obtain that citizenship. And, the unfortunate reality is that we definitely do have many, many people just stealing it - and usually stealing another human being's identity along the way.

I understand, however, that it is not an anology you might want to tackle since the implications are that there is hypocrisy in how the two analogous situations are viewed/treated. Your desire to brush that analogy aside does not make it any less valid.

So, I want a child. I don't think I should have to jump through all of the legal hoops to get one. And, I would try my hardest to provide said child a good home. What's wrong with me just stealing a child without parents from the government systems in place for their care?

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*.

In the United States we recognize the basic human right to self-defense. The lack of this basic human right has contributed to enormous disasters around the globe where people are literally slaughtered. The right to bear arms is a basic human right and the absence of this basic human right can be felt in genocides and awful dictatorships throughout history. It was a major step forward for human rights when the founding fathers of America included the second ammendment in the world's oldest intact democratic constitution. Part of the right to self defense is the right to defend one's family and one's property. Without this most basic human right life is easily destroyed, stability cannot exist, and anarchy (followed by dictatorship) has been shown to reign.

It's also interesting how you seek to belittle and dehumanize the man who was utilizing a basic human right. That is a common propaganda technique.

[McPants]

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

Well, it is an analogy that I think is pertinant to this topic.

We might find it abhorrent that someone would just take a child without the proper hoops being jumped through. And, I will bet that most here think it SHOULD be hard to obtain a child.

But, there is a double standard when we hit the equally serious subject of citizenship (and, this has direct implications on a nation's sovereignity). There are hoops to jump through - that is a given. And, it is hard to obtain that citizenship. And, the unfortunate reality is that we definitely do have many, many people just stealing it - and usually stealing another human being's identity along the way.

I understand, however, that it is not an anology you might want to tackle since the implications are that there is hypocrisy in how the two analogous situations are viewed/treated. Your desire to brush that analogy aside does not make it any less valid.

So, I want a child. I don't think I should have to jump through all of the legal hoops to get one. And, I would try my hardest to provide said child a good home. What's wrong with me just stealing a child without parents from the government systems in place for their care?

Fine, you seek to equate a child with a passport. Why are we discussing this? We both at least on the surface appear to be in favor of increased immigration. If we make it easier for people to immigrate, we remove their incentive for trying to do so illegally.
In no way am I trying to brush off your analogy. I couldn't care less about it to be honest. The only reason I responded was because I thought the comparison between stealing a child from its parents and stealing an identity was improper and apparently that was not what you meant.

What exactly is this agenda you seem to think I have when you imply that it is in my interest to avoid discussing your analogy? I really have no opinions on identity theft except that it's illegal and it sucks when it happens to someone. I certainly don't *support* it. I'm not in favor of illegal immigration either for that matter.

In the United States we recognize the basic human right to self-defense. The lack of this basic human right has contributed to enormous disasters around the globe where people are literally slaughtered. The right to bear arms is a basic human right and the absence of this basic human right can be felt in genocides and awful dictatorships throughout history. It was a major step forward for human rights when the founding fathers of America included the second ammendment in the world's oldest intact democratic constitution. Part of the right to self defense is the right to defend one's family and one's property. Without this most basic human right life is easily destroyed, stability cannot exist, and anarchy (followed by dictatorship) has been shown to reign.

You choose to put firearms in the hands of your 12-year-old child, whereas I don't even think you should be allowed to have them. Us attempting to debate this issue is a complete waste of time. I believe I've elaborated on my opinions on gun control in a previous thread and I'd advise you to consult that, should they be of interest to you.

I'll leave it up to other readers to consider whether anarchy and dictatorship reigns in the European countries where strict gun control is applied.

It's also interesting how you seek to belittle and dehumanize the man who was utilizing a basic human right. That is a common propaganda technique.

Jethro is a human name so I fail to see how I dehumanized the man. I did belittle him, however, in case we assume that the name in itself carries a negative meaning. I'm sure Roger is touched by your concern for his good name.

[Sheherezade]

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

Simmer down, folks....or this administrator Jethro is going to go get her digital shotgun!

No personal attacks from either of you, please. Argue the merit of your position - not the intentions of your opponent.

Now..... back to illegal immigration AND/OR whether property owners have a right to protect their land from anyone by tthe use of force.

My personal opinion is that the illegal immigration status of the people on his land probably shouldn't enter in to the debate. :huh: This debate holds two separate issues for me. Is someone steals from my shop, it doesn't change my opinion of the crime if they are in this country illegally. If they are using the health care system (ER I guess?) without being a citizen and we all pay for it in higher insurance premiums, that's a government issue that should be dealt with through some type of legislation. (Tough issue, though - health care always is.) Perhaps it would be easier to discuss each separately? Or to debate if the illegal immigration status of the trespassers makes their crime against this man different?

[Sheherezade]

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

Totally unintellectual aside: So many things creep me out about this story.

22,000 acres of land is not a back yard. I can't imagine patrolling that much area. He installed electric sensors to detect when immigrants crossed on to his land and he went after them armed and ready when they did. I can see that this is his right, but I have images of a jerry-rigged alarm system going off and a man jumping out of his bed and into fatigues while his wife yells, "Not again - dinner is just on the table!" He's rounded up 12,000 immigrants since 1998? Sounds like he has a personal war. Maybe the police or border patrol should have been asked to step back in at some point along the last ten years? If they are overextended (as I've read) maybe this guy should have been deputized? Or something more formal? This is an odd situation.

And on the other side....why are the i.i. that are crossing his land killing cows? If they are carrying drugs, why not DEA involvement?

And this

Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

I agree - but I think they do deserve to be protected from assault. I'm not sure what the argument is here. If they were U.S. citizens, would his behavior have been inappropriate but it's OK because they aren't? :huh: I can see that for denying admission to the theoretical ER for free medical care (although that's still questionable to some); I'm not sure the same argument about "lack of rights" applies when you have someone trespassing. Either you can hold them at gunpoint, shout expletives, threaten them with dogs and kick them regardless of citizenship OR you can't. No one uninvited belongs on your land - even if they are just backpacking college kids from Utah. This argument gives me a bad feeling. I think this is where the "dehumanize" part comes in.

Once again, in my "shop" analogy, I'm not sure I'd tolerate policing myself if I'd been "robbed" 12,000 times over 10 years. I'm not sure the law enforcement in the area would be happy if I just kept bringing in people at gunpoint and showing them the tape of the robbery. I think a new patrol would have to be created. :huh:

I think this case highlights a lot of the immigration issues - maybe it is a good thing that it will hit the courts. Those of you in AZ might not realize how strange this whole thing sounds to people living outside the flow of illegal immigration traffic. It's a huge regional difference.

[ladymoreta]

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

I think he was fully within his rights to defend his property. We would (probably) all agree that it is better for the government to protect its people from threats, but if the government is not willing/able to do that, people should be allowed to keep themselves and their property safe. A ranch this size is worth millions of dollars and has probably been passed down for multiple generations. It is his livelihood and probably all he's ever done. If a man enters a bank, destroys bank property, and steals money, you would expect a guard to stop the perpetrator and hold him until the police could arrive. But because the guy in this story is a rancher (and therefore assumed to be some kind of backwoods hillbilly/cowboy), and the perpetrators are illegal immigrants, a lot of stereotypes come into play that muddle the picture of the situation.

I don't think that the lawsuit will go very far. Texas is a Castle Doctrine state, which means that a property owner has "the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack" (Wikipedia). He has plenty of evidence that many people entering his property in this manner carry deadly weapons and drugs, which could lead to a violent attack.

[Sheherezade]

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

Interesting case from a few years earlier. Maybe this case in AZ now isn't open and shut. This was an AZ ranch, event occurred in TX, tried by Texas prosecutors. The judgment went to the illegal immigrants.

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."

The surrender of the ranch comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency because of the influx of illegal immigrants and related crime along the border.

Bill Dore, a Douglas resident briefly affiliated with Ranch Rescue who is still active in the border-patrolling Minuteman Project, called the land transfer "ridiculous."

"The illegals are coming over here," Mr. Dore said. "They are getting the American property. Hell, I'd come over, too. Get some American property, make some money from the gringos."

The immigrants getting the ranch, Edwin Alfredo Mancía Gonzáles and Fátima del Socorro Leiva Medina, could not be reached for comment. Kelley Bruner, a lawyer at the law center, said they did not want to speak to the news media but were happy with the outcome.

Ms. Bruner said that Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva, who are from El Salvador but are not related, would not live at the ranch and would probably sell it. Mr. Nethercott bought the ranch in 2003 for $120,000.

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.

Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Tex., in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Mancía with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.

The Salvadorans testified against Mr. Nethercott when he was tried by Texas prosecutors. The jury deadlocked on a charge of pistol-whipping but convicted Mr. Nethercott, who had previously served time in California for assault, of gun possession, which is illegal for a felon. He is now serving a five-year sentence in a Texas prison.

Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva also filed a lawsuit against Mr. Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owner of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe Sutton. The immigrants said the ordeal, in which they feared that they would be killed by the men they thought were soldiers, had left them with post-traumatic stress.

Mr. Sutton settled for $100,000. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote did not defend themselves, so the judge issued default judgments of $850,000 against Mr. Nethercott and $500,000 against Mr. Foote.

Mr. Dees said Mr. Foote appeared to have no substantial assets, but Mr. Nethercott had the ranch. Shortly after the judgment, Mr. Nethercott gave the land to his sister, Robin Albitz, of Prescott, Ariz. The Southern Poverty Law Center sued the siblings, saying the transfer was fraudulent and was meant to avoid the judgment.

Ms. Albitz, a nursing assistant, signed over the land to the two immigrants last week.

"It scared the hell out of her," Margaret Pauline Nethercott, the mother of Mr. Nethercott and Ms. Albitz, said of the lawsuit. "She didn't know she had done anything illegal. We didn't know they had a judgment against my son."

This was not the first time the law center had taken property from a group on behalf of a client. In 1987, the headquarters of a Ku Klux Klan group in Alabama was given to the mother of a boy whose murder was tied to Klansmen. Property has also been taken from the Aryan Nations and the White Aryan Resistance, Mr. Dees said.

Joseph Jacobson, a lawyer in Austin who represented Mr. Nethercott in the criminal case, said the award was "a vast sum of money for a very small indignity." Mr. Jacobson said the two immigrants were trespassing on Mr. Sutton's ranch and would have been deported had the criminal charges not been filed against Mr. Nethercott.

He criticized the law center for trying to get $60,000 in bail money transferred to the immigrants. While the center said the money was Mr. Nethercott's, Mr. Jacobson said it was actually Ms. Nethercott's, who mortgaged her home to post bail for her son.

Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote had a falling out in 2004, and Mr. Foote left Camp Thunderbird, taking Ranch Rescue with him. Mr. Nethercott then formed the Arizona Guard, also based on his ranch.

In April, Mr. Nethercott told an Arizona television station, "We're going to come out here and close the border with machine guns." But by the end of the month, he had started his prison sentence.

Now, only remnants of Camp Thunderbird remain on his ranch, a vast expanse of hard red soil, mesquite and tumbleweed with a house and two bunkhouses. One bunkhouse has a storeroom containing some camouflage suits, sleeping bags, tarps, emergency rations, empty ammunition crates, gun parts and a chemical warfare protection suit.

In one part of the ranch, dirt is piled up to form the backdrop of a firing range. An old water tank, riddled with bullet holes, is on its side. A platform was built as an observation post on the tower that once held the water tank.

Charles Jones, who was hired as a ranch hand about a month before Mr. Nethercott went to prison, put up fences and brought in cattle to graze. He has continued to live on the property with some family members.

But now the cattle are gone, and Mr. Jones has been told that he should prepare to leave. "It makes me sick I did all this work," he said.

Ms. Nethercott said she was not sure whether her son knew that his ranch was being turned over to the immigrants, but that he would be crushed if he did.

"That's his whole life," she said of the ranch. "He'd be heartbroken if he lost it in any way, but this is the worst way."

[Pollyanna]

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

22,000 acres of land is not a back yard. I can't imagine patrolling that much area

<snip>

Those of you in AZ might not realize how strange this whole thing sounds to people living outside the flow of illegal immigration traffic. It's a huge regional difference.

I AM from ranching territory, and 22,000 acres is a huge ranch. I just checked for comparison on one of the biggest, most successful ranches in the Reno area, and it was 2600 acres (now it's a huge housing development, of course). Another thing worth noting for those not from the west is just how much of the land is government controlled (BLM). I wonder how easy it is to tell when you are on his private property or not.

They are crossing illegally whether or not they are on private or public property. Yes, he has a HUGE ranch but it is HIS property. If someone was injured in even the most remote area of his land he would be responsible.

[McPants]

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

They are crossing illegally whether or not they are on private or public property. Yes, he has a HUGE ranch but it is HIS property. If someone was injured in even the most remote area of his land he would be responsible.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that they crossed illegally. If we agree that their status as illegal immigrants shouldn't affect their rights as human beings, then I think it should be left out of the equation entirely.

The case appears to be about whether that rancher had the right to do what he did to the trespassers - that is, if the force he applied was justified when compared to the infraction. At least that's what I can gather from the information provided. I guess we'll see what the verdict will be, but in any case it appears to be something that merits passage through the legal system.

I think Abigail had a rather detailed post or two about this that she unfortunately appears to have removed for some reason.

[Sheherezade]

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

I read those as well last night, McPants. ) Oh, Abigail! Where did you go?

I agree that they are crossing in to the country illegally. I agree that they are trespassing on his land. (These are separate crimes - IMHO -one is a crime against our government, the other is a crime against this man/his land.) The question is whether his response to the trespassing was fair and reasonable.

As for the size of the property, that's a vast parcel of land. Tara - would you feel the same way if this was a group of college-aged kids backpacking across his land that had been "apprehended" and turned over to authorities?

[Pollyanna]

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

As for the size of the property, that's a vast parcel of land. Tara - would you feel the same way if this was a group of college-aged kids backpacking across his land that had been "apprehended" and turned over to authorities?

My opinion would be that if you don't want to be "apprehended" by a pissed off land owner then don't go on his property without permission. :huh: He didn't shoot any of these people or hurt them. Were they scared? Probably, but then don't cross into our country illegally. It doesn't matter if you own 1 acre or a million acres, you are responsible for your property and what happens on it. Hell, the illegals use his land so often I'm surprised they haven't claimed eminent domain in an effort to take the property for themselves.

[MrsC]

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).

As an immigrant ITA. It's easier to steal an identity or stay in the U.S illegally than it is to immigrate here legally, in recent years anyway. These days, it's hard to get a visa, I know a lot of people are just not bothering. As a country that promotes itself on being a 'melting pot' of cultures I don't think immigration should be so strict. I mean, they know who's legit or not, it's not that difficult to tell. It's disheartening when you do everything legally and might I add that it costs a fortune and you still get the guilty until proven innocent treatment. They need proper procedures of course but right now it's OTT.

I do not condone illegal immigration, obviously! But, if we were to send all the illegal immigrants home, who would do all the crappy jobs??

As for the article, I don't think it's right to point a gun in anyone's face and it doesn't sound like his intentions were harmless. It's for the law to decide. The laws are far too slack for illegal immigrants. You can get better access to healthcare as an illegal than you can holding a valid visa or Green Card.

[diggitydot]

I have no problem with anyone wanting to come to the US. I just think they should go through the proper channels to do so. But those proper channels need some SERIOUS reworking before we'll be able to have any type of meaningful discussions about legal or illegal immigration.

We have some friends who were born in Canada. Friend #1 lived there for only a year and moved to the US as a toddler. Friend #2 lived in Canada for 20+ years but because one of his parents was a US citizen, he had dual citizenship. Both have had kids born in both countries. It took several years and a couple thousand dollars for Friend #1 to finally get his US citizenship. It was a complete mess for him to finally get it. If they filled out 10 forms, 8 were misplaced/denied or just flat-out the wrong form. Of the 8 different people they talked to, 6 gave him different answers to the SAME QUESTIONS.

If we're going to say "Gee, nope...you can't come here. You have to go through 'the system' before we'll allow you to live, work and raise your family in the good ol' US of A," then we'd better do something to fix that system.

Oh, and as to the hillbilly with the ranch, I see his point. I don't even like the neighbor kids playing in my yard when I'm not home, and they're not killing my cats. I can imagine what he and his family have had to endure with the thousands of people traipsing through his land. However, there are legal avenues we all must utilize. That's part of living in a civilized society. If those legal options weren't working, you don't go all vigilante. You work with local lawmakers or law enforcement officials to get things changed.