16 illegal aliens sue AZ man (and WIN!?!) for $32million for detaining them

[devil21]

I think this is a new low. Mexicans cross the border illegally into the US, get caught by the owner of the land, then sue him ($32 million!) for violating their civil rights, that they aren't legally entitled to if they hadn't have broken the law in the first place. Our own government sure isn't doing anything to protect our borders...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87988



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 by holding them at gunpoint on his property along the border.

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."

Many of the aliens are residents of Michoacan, Mexico. Four live in Illinois, one resides in Georgia and another in Michigan. All of the plaintiffs currently living in the U.S. listed pseudonyms in the lawsuit due to "fear of adverse action based on immigration status."

According to the complaint, Barnett, a resident of Douglas who owns 22,000 acres along the border in southeastern Arizona, approached the group of illegals on an all-terrain vehicle on March 7, 2004. He allegedly began yelling at them in English and broken Spanish while aiming his gun at the group. While Barnett's dog barked at the intruders, the illegal aliens accused him of ordering the dog to attack. One of the women said the rancher kicked her because she refused to get up.

Barnett allegedly detained the trespassing illegals until Border Patrol agents arrived.

But Garza said their testimonies don't add up.

"I saw yesterday that these stories were fabricated," he said. "They were coerced into saying things that would ordinarily not be said by an illegal immigrant with no education."

Garza said Barnett's dog has never been vicious and that Barnett did not kick the woman. He also said one female witness told the court the group had been robbed in Mexico and that the only time they feared for their lives was when Barnett accosted them.

"She said she was not afraid in Mexico because there were only four men, and there was only one gun, and the way that they robbed them was in a very nice, very polite fashion," he said. "But when Barnett came into the picture, she said he was very vicious and he wanted to kill them. So they were more afraid of one American defending his property than four robbers on their side."

The lawsuit alleges that Barnett never told the illegals they were trespassing and failed to post a sign notifying them that they were on private property. Because they detained the group, the Barnett family is accused of depriving the plaintiffs of equal protection and due process under the law.

"What in the world are they doing on anyone's property?" Garza asked. "What are they doing in the United States? It doesn't make any sense."

He continued, "They are here breaking laws. They conspired to come here. What makes anyone believe that they are credible?"

MALDEF claims the family attacked, harassed, threatened and held the illegals against their will because they were motivated by racial and class-based discrimination. The Barnetts allegedly caused the group "severe emotional and mental distress," including fear, anxiety, humiliation, stress, frustration and sadness. Each illegal alien is suing for $1 million in actual damages and $1 million for punitive or exemplary damages.

In March, the same judge refused to have the lawsuit thrown out, because he said he believed the family denied the aliens' right to interstate travel and that the detention was racially motivated.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and Arizonans for Immigration Control have been rallying in support of Barnett in front of the court.

Garza said property owners are forced to deal with the consequences when immigration laws are not strictly enforced. Illegal aliens cross the border and destroy private property every day.

"I wouldn't blame the guy if he told them to leave," Garza said. "I would have done the same thing because of all of their discarded trash. They urinate everywhere. There is feces all over the place, discarded clothing, shoes, backpacks, cans and other things that we're responsible to pick up. They do that, and we're racist?"

In a 2004 interview with Fred Elbel and Frosty Wooldridge, Barnetts said he used to pick up trash from illegals, but he no longer makes the effort.

"I won't pick it up because some day, I think if our government gets up off their a-- and does the job they're supposed to, they're going to quit coming across and I can make one big concentrated effort, if I'm still alive, to get the trash off," he said. "It's going to take 20, 30 or 40 people with garbage bags to carry it off ... of one particular area. Some days, I think what the hell am I doing this for?"

Garza said groups of illegals cross the border and head to Tucson, Phoenix and other staging areas in Arizona.

"From there, they go into Michigan, Idaho and wherever the demand is," he said. "They find jobs in the hotel business, working at golf courses, landscaping, cooking, and washing dishes. It's not because Americans won't do these jobs; it's because they don't want to pay."

While illegals may only earn $7 an hour for such jobs, Garza said they find other ways to compensate for lack of income.

"They don't mind because they go on welfare and use aliases. They get welfare, food stamps, free education, section 8 housing. They don't have to pay taxes. Why not work for $7 an hour?"

Garza told WND he believes politicians need to stop caving into demands for cheap labor so the influx of illegals will stop. They must secure the borders, enforce immigration law, hold people who hire illegals accountable and stop giving social benefits to noncitizens.

He said, "We're inviting them by giving them an appetite for things like jobs, public and social services like welfare, free medical and things that we don't get as taxpayers."

In the interview, Barnett said he has tried to contact his representatives about the wave of illegals coming across his property.

"They won't listen," he said. "They're useless."

[Cowlesy]

What do the libertarians for open borders think about the vandalism and littering on this citizen's private property?

Personally I think this guy should get a medal. He's helped law enforcement capture 12,000 illegal immigrants, has never shot a single one of them (it has to be dangerous) and even put taps on his water tanks (obviously in an effort to keep the immigrants from destroying them).

He must have incredible patience.

[Cowlesy]

Washington Times picked this up too.

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

[Xenophage]

What do the libertarians for open borders think about the vandalism and littering on this citizen's private property?

Personally I think this guy should get a medal. He's helped law enforcement capture 12,000 illegal immigrants, has never shot a single one of them (it has to be dangerous) and even put taps on his water tanks (obviously in an effort to keep the immigrants from destroying them).

He must have incredible patience.

I have met very few libertarians who believe in open borders while there is a welfare state. I'm all for open borders, myself, but not if we're letting these immigrants go on the dole for all sorts of freebies.

[DrRP08]

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


"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."

"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. "


I swear, if the illegals win this lawsuit I lose all faith in this country.

[danberkeley]

Property rights are overrated. :rolleyes:

[Crash Martinez]

I swear, if the illegals win this lawsuit I lose all faith in this country.

Why's it taken 'till now? :(

[bill50]

I have met very few libertarians who believe in open borders while there is a welfare state. I'm all for open borders, myself, but not if we're letting these immigrants go on the dole for all sorts of freebies.


Or an imperialist warfare state that's been pissing of the world for the last 20+ years.

[ryanduff]

This guy was defending his land from trespassers. On top of that, they were foreign nationals which means they have no rights here. I'm amazed that somebody can take this to court on their behalf and have a leg to stand on. I'm even more amazed that the judge allowed it.

This crap makes me sick at night. Its no wonder our country is so F'd up. Nobody wants to do good for fear of being sued. Hell, now if you rescue somebody from a car and make their injuries worse while trying to save them, you're liable [1]. Pretty soon everybody will stay in their house because if they walk down the street and somebody thinks you looked at them the wrong way, they'll sue. Worst part... some judge will probably hear the case!

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1

[Barackistan]

Mike Gallagher was talking about this today on Conservative Radio.

This case shouldn't exist. They trespassed on his land, vandalized his land, all for a "better life." These illegals should not get any American rights. I live in a largely Hispanic neighborhood, and there are people who sell identities and social security cards to let these illegals pick up federal benefits under "legal" status. My county hospital allows healthcare to illegals. Talk about a waste of tax dollars!

My congressman (Gutierrez D-IL 4th Dist.) advocates save havens for illegals. There was once a case where feds attained a warrant to a church housing illegals, but mass protests from the Hispanic majority followed, and no action has been put on these individuals who have BROKEN THE LAW.

Give Barnett a medal. I wish all Americans were just as vigilant as he.

[AutoDas]

What do the libertarians for open borders think about the vandalism and littering on this citizen's private property?

Property rights trump national borders.

[akihabro]

Sounds like a frivilous lawsuit! So if the bank robber sued the bank because he fell on the wet floor and broke his leg should he win? Does non citizens (illegally in the country no doubt) have any right to sue? So when does the government draw the line as to protection of your property and protection of your country? This guy might have responded more favorably than how I would have if I were in his situation in the middle of nowhere with police/INS response slow or nill.

[ChaosControl]

All they are doing is making him and others wish they just shot the scum on sight.

I am for an open border, although only after we abolish the welfare state. However, even with an open border, one is entitled to defend their land.

[DamianTV]

Illegals probably will win this suit because half the people on the jury will probably be illegals.

[Golding]

I've been thinking about this one lately. Important things to note is that the damage described by the land-owner was committed in 1998. My first instinct is that this should be looked at as a citizen's arrest, but nothing the immigrants did were federal crimes (illegal immigration, as of yet, is not a federal crime).

Arizona does have a castle doctrine, which absolves him from any wrongdoing in threatening the immigrants with violence (or actually performing violence). But an argument can be made that the castle doctrine doesn't specify that you may hold a criminal in transition to the police. Arizona House Bill 2629 was passed in May 2008 so that one may brandish a weapon to hold a criminal until the police could come, but it was vetoed by then-governor Janet Nepolitano (now Secretary of Homeland Security, go figure).

Clearly this person is in the right to defend his property. And typically we tend to glorify people who capture people in the act of a crime and turn them over to the police. Seems strange that there's nothing to support the behavior, though, whereas actually killing the person is okay. But maybe that's where the irrationality is. Is the law designed so we're told what we are supposed to do, or is it designed so there is a definition of what not to do...

[Liberty Rebellion]

I've been thinking about this one lately. Important things to note is that the damage described by the land-owner was committed in 1998. My first instinct is that this should be looked at as a citizen's arrest, but nothing the immigrants did were federal crimes (illegal immigration, as of yet, is not a federal crime).



It is a federal crime

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1325

[Cowlesy]

//

[Cowlesy]

He LOST the court case!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[devil21]

He LOST the court case!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Link?

[RideTheDirt]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE51H13820090218

Wow that pisses me off. It's his property!

[Cowlesy]

I wish I didn't have liabilities. I'd love to get down to the border.

I can't fucking believe they awarded those mexicans damages.

[devil21]

That's crazy. Our legal system is getting more out-of-hand by the day. I mean come on. They were trespassing, just broke federal immigration law, and the guy gets hit for $70K to people that are STILL illegally in the country and never appeared at trial due to their illegal status! They aren't even named in the lawsuit! They used aliases. How screwed up is that?!?! So much for the right to confront your accuser.

[libertarian4321]

Illegals probably will win this suit because half the people on the jury will probably be illegals.

Not likely since the jury duty pool typically comes from the state database of registered voters (that is the case in Texas).

Other states include licensed drivers.

In either case, only US citizens are included in the pool.

BTW, the last thing an "illegal" wants to do is waste a day on jury duty for $6/day. They come here to make money, not waste time in court for a few pennies a day (last time I had jury duty, the daily fee didn't even cover what it cost me to park at the courthouse)- in other words, you PAY for the privilege of jury duty.

[RSLudlum]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE51H13820090218

Wow that pisses me off. It's his property!

Yeah, but you wouldn't know it by reading this article. It wasn't mentioned at all (unless I missed it)

[libertarian4321]

That's crazy. Our legal system is getting more out-of-hand by the day. I mean come on. They were trespassing, just broke federal immigration law, and the guy gets hit for $70K to people that are STILL illegally in the country and never appeared at trial due to their illegal status! They aren't even named in the lawsuit! They used aliases. How screwed up is that?!?! So much for the right to confront your accuser.

I think we need to stop getting all of our news from "World Net Daily"- they don't always give you the entire story.

All 6 plaintiffs DID attend the trial- 5 have visas pending, the 6th was given special permission to come into the USA for the trial.

The rancher was found NOT GUILTY on civil rights violations, battery, and false imprisonment.

He was found guilty of assault (all you need to do is pull a gun on someone for that).

BTW, this this rancher has been in court numerous times for similar acts- a few years ago, he lost a $100k settlement for doing the same thing to American citizens of Mexican descent who were on a hunting trip. He's been hunting illegals for years and claims to have turned in thousands.

Originally, there were more than a dozen defendants, but charges against all but the one rancher were dropped.

Folks, this was an AMERICAN jury. They aren't crazy. It sounds to me like they came to the right decision.

Get all the details before going off on a rant. WND wants to get you worked up, so they selectively leave out details- don't get played for a sucker.

[libertarian4321]

Yeah, but you wouldn't know it by reading this article. It wasn't mentioned at all (unless I missed it)

Even on your own property, you aren't allowed to assault someone who poses no threat to you, even if they are trespassing.

Seriously, try it.

Put up a "no trespassing" sign. Then, next time someone comes to your door to sell girl scout cookies or tell you about how great their version of God/Jehovah/Allah/whatever is, pull a gun on them, sic a dog on them, and detain them.

Then wait and see if you get in any trouble with the law, lol.

[The Dan]

A few years ago a man in AZ pulled out the citizens' arrest thing on a man leading illegals into the country. In AZ a citizens' arrest is legal if the offense is a felony. Being in the US illegally is not a felony; human trafficking is.

[devil21]

I think we need to stop getting all of our news from "World Net Daily"- they don't always give you the entire story.

All 6 plaintiffs DID attend the trial- 5 have visas pending, the 6th was given special permission to come into the USA for the trial.

So they are still illegals. What's your point? WND said they didn't appear and used aliases. What is your source otherwise?



The rancher was found NOT GUILTY on civil rights violations, battery, and false imprisonment.

He was found guilty of assault (all you need to do is pull a gun on someone for that).

That's bullshit. If someone is trespassing on your land after illegally entering the country, it's not assault. It's doing your duty as a citizen of a soveriegn nation. So much for wanting to protect America. Would it have been assault if they were Al Qaeda instead? Or does it only matter when it's easy to pull the race card and rely on pro-illegal groups like the one that represented these illegals?



BTW, this this rancher has been in court numerous times for similar acts- a few years ago, he lost a $100k settlement for doing the same thing to American citizens of Mexican descent who were on a hunting trip. He's been hunting illegals for years and claims to have turned in thousands.

I believe it was $10,000, not $100,000, but no matter. Thank god someone actually gives a shit about protecting our borders. It's a shame that you will now be penalized for doing what the government refuses to do, even though it is mandated in the Constitution and the US Code.



Folks, this was an AMERICAN jury. They aren't crazy. It sounds to me like they came to the right decision.

$70,000 for holding illegals at gunpoint while the Border Patrol arrives to *do their job* is the "right decision"? Are you crazy?



Get all the details before going off on a rant. WND wants to get you worked up, so they selectively leave out details- don't get played for a sucker.

There's no special details you are privy to that no one else is. Here's the details that matter:
1. Mexicans crossed the border, thereby breaking the law and trespassing.
2. The landowner stopped them and called the Border Patrol to come do their job.
3. Landowner gets sued for $32m.
4. Landowner must pay $70K to illegals that had no right to be where they were in the first place.

This reminds me of the cases where a crackhead breaks into a house, gets shot by the resident, then has the nerve to sue for assault. It's pure madness.

[GBurr]

People, You are forgetting the words of our founding fathers. The rights that we have in this country are God given. They are human rights. How can we claim that the rights that are expressed in the Declaration and Constitution are God given and inalienable if we don't honor someone's rights just because they are a foreign national. Our rights are not granted to us by government. They are not granted because we are United States Citizens. Rights aren't granted at all. They belong to us from the moment we are conceived. If you believe that the rights that are expressed in the Declaration and Constitution do not belong to a man because of his nationality then you are no advocate for freedom.

However, the illegal immigrants rights were not violated in this case. The owner of the property has the right to secure his property. By using the owners property the illegal immigrants are violating the property owner's property rights, and he has every right to defend his property.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

These idiots are going to get loads of their brethren hurt. How many residents on the border in the future will just shoot first and ask questions later, rather than let these jokers go to sue them for attacking their property?

[phill4paul]

People, You are forgetting the words of our founding fathers. The rights that we have in this country are God given. They are human rights. How can we claim that the rights that are expressed in the Declaration and Constitution are God given and inalienable if we don't honor someone's rights just because they are a foreign national. Our rights are not granted to us by government. They are not granted because we are United States Citizens. Rights aren't granted at all. They belong to us from the moment we are conceived. If you believe that the rights that are expressed in the Declaration and Constitution do not belong to a man because of his nationality then you are no advocate for freedom.

However, the illegal immigrants rights were not violated in this case. The owner of the property has the right to secure his property. By using the owners property the illegal immigrants are violating the property owner's property rights, and he has every right to defend his property.

Quite right. Except that I believe their rights are natural rights. Not rights granted from a diety. They are inherent rights greater than that of god, nation, state and fellow man.

Agreed that these sovereigns did not entreat to cross this mans domain. therefore they are base thugs, no different from our federal government. As such they should be treated.

[JordanL]

On top of that, they were foreign nationals which means they have no rights here.

A false assumption made by many.

The Constitution specifies certain rights reserved to "citizens", and certain rights reserved for all "people" which fall under the jursiprudence of the courts regardless of citizenship.

For instance, the 14th Amendment's granting of abortion rights applies to all people which fall under the jurisprudence of American courts, as does the right to "due process of law" prior to being deprived of their life, (for which there are special exceptions in the case of military summary execution during wartime).

But generally, no, illegal alliens don't have many rights, beyond those negotiated through treaty, which typically only apply to foreign nationals with visas. In this case, it is a civil litigation however, which does not actually require, and never has required, that both partys be American citizens.

For instance, a British citizen can sue in an American court should they feel an American system has caused them financial harm through malicious action. Similarly, these illegal aliens are not suing the state (for which they have no grounds) but rather the person who alledgedly caused them emotional harm.

The lawyer would do well to show that the American citizen was well within his property rights to cause both emotional and physical harm to trespassers, and thus any emotional harm caused is the fault of the trespasser. Additionally, he is allowed to imprison (via a citizens arrest) provided he notified the proper officials, and did no more than prevent the criminals from leaving before the officials arrived.

False imprisonment is only a valid complaint if he 1) did not notify the proper authorities after improsining them and/or 2) they were not actually guilty of any crime.

In which case they have no grounds for false imprisonment either.

If this gets appealed to a Federal Court they will almost surely side with the landowner, as it was private and not public property, and it was not an agent of the state whom the plantiffs are complaining about.

[satchelmcqueen]

cant he do anything to them for trespassing?

not only that, but what judge and jury (american??) would do this to a fellow american?

they should all hang.

[satchelmcqueen]

I think we need to stop getting all of our news from "World Net Daily"- they don't always give you the entire story.

All 6 plaintiffs DID attend the trial- 5 have visas pending, the 6th was given special permission to come into the USA for the trial.

The rancher was found NOT GUILTY on civil rights violations, battery, and false imprisonment.

He was found guilty of assault (all you need to do is pull a gun on someone for that).

BTW, this this rancher has been in court numerous times for similar acts- a few years ago, he lost a $100k settlement for doing the same thing to American citizens of Mexican descent who were on a hunting trip. He's been hunting illegals for years and claims to have turned in thousands.

Originally, there were more than a dozen defendants, but charges against all but the one rancher were dropped.

Folks, this was an AMERICAN jury. They aren't crazy. It sounds to me like they came to the right decision.

Get all the details before going off on a rant. WND wants to get you worked up, so they selectively leave out details- don't get played for a sucker.

were they on his property when hunting? if so he was right.

[Mesogen]

their civil rights, that they aren't legally entitled to if they hadn't have broken the law in the first place.

Why don't these people have the same rights that you have?


These illegals should not get any American rights.

What is an American right?

[heavenlyboy34]

Why don't these people have the same rights that you have?



What is an American right?

Those rights which are specific to American citizens-those under the jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution.

[devil21]

Bump since its the topic of the day.

[angelatc]

http://tucsoncitizen.com/dead/2010/03/31/rancher-and-dog-reportedly-shot-by-illegal-immigrant-robert-krentz-58-and-dog/

This rancher was killed by illegals coming across his land.

[MelissaWV]

I agree about the "shoot first" notion. More people will simply shoot trespassers and stick them 6 feet under. If they're found, one has only to say it was the border drug cartels.

It's idiotic that those guys are getting visas when they have already admitted to crimes against the country. There are a lot of NON-criminals waiting for visas.

[Stary Hickory]

I have met very few libertarians who believe in open borders while there is a welfare state. I'm all for open borders, myself, but not if we're letting these immigrants go on the dole for all sorts of freebies.

Precisely, no illegal imingration until we control how people are able to rob us using governmetn force. The poor imigrants are and will be targeted by a political party determined to exploit them and get them dependent on them and getting them accustomed to looting other people.

It's a terrible scam. I am compltely against illegal imigration until we elimintate or control the welfare state. Without a welfare state anyone who wanted to come here would be a great addition to this country.

[Free Moral Agent]

Hmmm ok, so where are all those open border/property rights advocates now?

*silence*

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Hmmm ok, so where are all those open border/property rights advocates now?

*silence*



The lawsuit alleges that Barnett never told the illegals they were trespassing and failed to post a sign notifying them that they were on private property. Because they detained the group, the Barnett family is accused of depriving the plaintiffs of equal protection and due process under the law.

If you can't use coercion on a citizen you can't do it to an alien. Property owners are well within their rights to trespass people but due process and duty of care until someone is lawfully trespassed must be observed.

Ironic how this case parallels another recent thread about trespassing. This case is not a precedent against advocates of open borders. It is the reverse.

It 100% proves the point there are no national borders to police against illegal aliens otherwise this man would not have been found guilty for preventing crime.

[Vessol]

This story and many others, especially pertaining to crime, are all distractions from the real issue.

The Welfare State.

That is what drives them to commit such acts, that and the Drug War.

Unless you're going to argue because of them being Hispanic, that makes them more inherent to commit crimes.

[Dr.3D]

I'll bet in the future, there will be no illegals to sue the land owner when he catches them trespassing and causing damage. The only thing that may be found will be little piles of dirt in the desert, if that or more likely, bleached bones will be found out there instead.

[dannno]

Hmmm ok, so where are all those open border/property rights advocates now?

*silence*

How many times does it need to be explained that people here don't want an open border until we get rid of the welfare state?

How many times will it take you to realize that ending the welfare state will make protecting our borders a non-priority for everybody? Yes, even you will give a shit less about "illegal immigrants" if the welfare state ended. I mean, you might be 'against' it, but it would be one of those issues so far down on the list to deal with it wouldn't matter. Plus we get to keep our Constitution in tact, which is the entire basis for our movement.

[dannno]

I'll bet in the future, there will be no illegals to sue the land owner when he catches them trespassing and causing damage. The only thing that may be found will be little piles of dirt in the desert, if that or more likely, bleached bones will be found out there instead.

That's a good point. Fuck lawsuits, the private property owners are just going to start murdering them.

This is certainly a bad situation.

[Theocrat]

How many times does it need to be explained that people here don't want an open border until we get rid of the welfare state?

How many times will it take you to realize that ending the welfare state will make protecting our borders a non-priority for everybody? Yes, even you will give a shit less about "illegal immigrants" if the welfare state ended. I mean, you might be 'against' it, but it would be one of those issues so far down on the list to deal with it wouldn't matter.

I agree. Dismantling our welfare system will be a prime bullet that kills the motive for a majority of illegals to come here.

[Vessol]

I agree. Dismantling our welfare system will be a prime bullet that kills the motive for a majority of illegals to come here.

Yet that isn't what is happening though.

[ChooseLiberty]

You know in the US the rancher could probably just get some big f'ing dogs to let loose whenever he sees illegals, put up some warning signs and get off no problemo.

That's not so difficult is it?

[LibForestPaul]

The suit alleged Barnett held them captive at gunpoint, threatening that his dog would attack and that he would shoot anyone who tried to leave.

If someone is trespassing on my land, I am not within my rights to hold them at gunpoint?

[torchbearer]

The suit alleged Barnett held them captive at gunpoint, threatening that his dog would attack and that he would shoot anyone who tried to leave.

If someone is trespassing on my land, I am not within my rights to hold them at gunpoint?

why hold them? either shoot them or let them go with a warning. country rules. someone comes on your property that you don't want there- you either shot them or repel them. you never hold them.

[ChooseLiberty]

Wonder who pays for MALDEF anyway? Mexican Americans?

Doubt it.

[Lord Xar]

Yet that isn't what is happening though.

Exactly. So why would you and all the open border libertarians agree to OPEN BORDERS when a welfare system is solidly in place?

Why advocate for something that would totally create the very thing you hate, big intrusive welfare giving government?

This is what most of us do not understand about you libertarians. The fervor in which you scream for open borders makes NO SENSE when we have a welfare system in place. You have your priorities backwards.

It makes no sense. Try fighting for an end to big government, welfare, handouts, etc.. once there are 40million+ more immigrants who LOVE THAT STUFF, on your dime, living here! Trust me, it ain't gonna happen. And all of us will have to pay the freight for your mucked up priorities.. and zealotry because of an inability in which you can't see the forest behind the trees.

[Lord Xar]

http://tucsoncitizen.com/dead/2010/03/31/rancher-and-dog-reportedly-shot-by-illegal-immigrant-robert-krentz-58-and-dog/

This rancher was killed by illegals coming across his land.

We don't care about that! Those mexicans were just trying for a better life... that stupid rancher was probably out and about like a stupid american... causing trouble. And most of all, did he have signs showing it was private property on non-mexico land? Were those signs in spanish? He had it coming..

[Vessol]

Exactly. So why would you and all the open border libertarians agree to OPEN BORDERS when a welfare system is solidly in place?

Why advocate for something that would totally create the very thing you hate, big intrusive welfare giving government?

This is what most of us do not understand about you libertarians. The fervor in which you scream for open borders makes NO SENSE when we have a welfare system in place. You have your priorities backwards.

It makes no sense. Try fighting for an end to big government, welfare, handouts, etc.. once there are 40million+ more immigrants who LOVE THAT STUFF, on your dime, living here! Trust me, it ain't gonna happen. And all of us will have to pay the freight for your mucked up priorities.. and zealotry because of an inability in which you can't see the forest behind the trees.

Were not for open borders unless the welfare state is ended.

We also are not for expanding the police state under the guise of immigration laws.

[BuddyRey]

What do the libertarians for open borders think about the vandalism and littering on this citizen's private property?

When it comes to anyone (immigrant or not) infringing on an individual's actual, physical property, there's very little difference between my take on the issue and that of a conservative. In fact, the police should be locking these guys up for trespassing, no matter where they came from, IMO.

The major point of contention in the broader immigration debate isn't whether or not the boundaries of private property should be honored, since we all agree that they should be.

[Dr.3D]

We don't care about that! Those mexicans were just trying for a better life... that stupid rancher was probably out and about like a stupid american... causing trouble. And most of all, did he have signs showing it was private property on non-mexico land? Were those signs in spanish? He had it coming..

Yeah.... just trying for a better life.... I've heard thieves say the same thing.... "we just wanted a better life." If they really want a better life, then they should go through the proper channels and get a green card. I don't need a sign on my property telling people not to trespass, I can have them locked up for trespassing anyway. People should know not to go around trespassing on the property of others sign or no sign. I've run off a few hunters in the past and they knew I meant business.

I think other than stopping the welfare to illegals, the best way to stop the illegal border crossing would be to declare it open season on illegals who are trespassing on the land of those who own it along the border in this country. Word would get around pretty fast that crossing the border illegally is a dangerous thing to do.

[Noob]

In Mexico its is ilegal for Non-Mexicans to own land, AKA Americans. With the North American Union they want to set up, with Mexicos laws, Americans would not be able to own land under the North American Union, or Union of the Americas.

[Dr.3D]

In Mexico its is ilegal for Non-Mexicans to own land, AKA Americans. With the North American Union they want to set up, with Mexicos laws, Americans would not be able to own land under the North American Union, or Union of the Americas.

When did they start with that? I personally know a man in Guadalajara who owns a lot of land and he is a retired real estate agent from Chicago. He has been buying buildings in Guadalajara, fixing them up and selling them for years now.

[heavenlyboy34]

What do the libertarians for open borders think about the vandalism and littering on this citizen's private property?

Personally I think this guy should get a medal. He's helped law enforcement capture 12,000 illegal immigrants, has never shot a single one of them (it has to be dangerous) and even put taps on his water tanks (obviously in an effort to keep the immigrants from destroying them).

He must have incredible patience.

Exactly. Private property is how to end illegal "immigration"-not militarizing the border, expanding the police state, or going after brown people. :cool:

[Don't Tread on Mike]

Well the 4 americans that were transporting immigrants illegally can press charges,but i hope lose. what i would have done is call the cops while holding them at gunpoint :)