I've been reading your posts and here's what I'm gleaning from them:<quoted text>
The pejorative term "anchor baby" refers to American citizens. They can't be deported. Besides, why would you want to deport your fellow U.S. citizens?
Again, you're trying to bypass the Constitution.
Geez, such devoted nativists should know this.
1. For you, this isn't about illegals or citizens, it's a personal issue with the fact that he used a gun to "hold" these people.
2. You're ignoring the fact that any "Constitutional" rights you mention only apply to US Citizens. As these people clearly were not citizens, those rights do not apply to them.
3. Pejorative or not, the concept of the "Anchor Baby" is a valid one. We have designed a law that has a built-in loophole to allow people who don't care about the United States, just what the United States can give them, a reason and right to stay here.
The fact is that, for some reason, you're siding with the invaders. And yes, they're invaders.
These people fit the every aspect of this definition.
And you're also missing the point that citizens or not, under the law in that state, this Rancher has a right to deny anyone access to his land as long as he has erected clearly worded signage. These people were clearly trespassing.
So my question to you is this - however this turns out, what's your stake in it? Are you the progeny of "immigrants"? Or are you so incredibly Ultra-Liberal that even Obama would look at you and say, "Wow."?
I cannot understand your motives here. This Rancher is supported by both State and Federal law. The Constitution does not apply to these "immigrants". Surely you recognize that?