16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher

16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher

There are 2226 comments on the Cruel.com story from Feb 9, 2009, titled 16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher. In it, Cruel.com reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cruel.com.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#61 Feb 10, 2009
Facts Are Fun wrote:
<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.
I've been reading your posts and here's what I'm gleaning from them:
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.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inv...

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?
shine4me

Fremont, CA

#62 Feb 10, 2009
Gods warrior wrote:
I want to send this guy some landmines.
Perfect idea!!! Why don't we lay landmines all along the Border??? Our GOVERNMENT does not give a s#$t about protecting "We The People" who pay dearly for OUR RIGHTS with the lives of our
Service Men & Women.
shine4me

Fremont, CA

#63 Feb 10, 2009
Its the EMPLOYERS wrote:
I work in the computer industry and setting up a national database of Social Security numbers that employers can check online would be relatively easy. It would be MUCH LESS complicated than Google Maps... Results could be had in hours, if not sooner. If there are duplicates, you could have the potential employee go to the authorities to straighten it out... Of course, 99% of the time, if there IS a duplicate, it would likely be because of fraud...
You can bet that our "Representatives" know this and won't act on it because THERE'S NO MONEY IN IT for them!!!!!
hick-up

Salem, OH

#64 Feb 10, 2009
Gods warrior wrote:
<quoted text>
"Section 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."
Now that that is out of the way, what law did this man break by brandishing a firearm against possibly hostile trespassers on his own land?
In Florida I could have legally shot them and been fully protected against frivolous lawsuits such as this.
Yea, because Florida is littered with the corpses of rotting refugee's.
I think your interpretation of Fl's Castle Law is a bit askew.
WTF

Aurora, CO

#65 Feb 10, 2009
Facts Are Fun wrote:
U.S. District Court Judge John Roll in March rejected Barnett's efforts to have the charges thrown out, ruling that sufficient evidence of a conspiracy existed, that the Barnetts denied the immigrants' right to interstate travel and that the actions of the three [Barnett, his wife, and brother] were motivated by race.
Judge Roll's ruling came on the heels of another judgment against Barnett in February 2008. At that time, the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to throw out a jury verdict from November 2006 - and a nearly $100,000 monetary award - against Barnett in another civil case where a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas area family.
Post your address. We will send all the illegals to your house for a permanent sleepover.
shine4me

Fremont, CA

#67 Feb 10, 2009
Facts Are Fun wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak on AZ or FL law, but the federal lawsuit seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and "other crimes".
Given the whacko dirt farmer's record, the 16 immigrants might just get that big payday.
What "given record"???

I'd pay to see $32 milliion shoved up the a$$ of each dirt-bag trespasser.
shadow

Avon, IN

#68 Feb 10, 2009
shine4me wrote:
<quoted text>
Perfect idea!!! Why don't we lay landmines all along the Border??? Our GOVERNMENT does not give a s#$t about protecting "We The People" who pay dearly for OUR RIGHTS with the lives of our
Service Men & Women.
i got a better idea lets set up a #$^%& electric fence!
resident

Jamestown, KY

#69 Feb 10, 2009
real information wrote:
<quoted text>
If you trespass on, litter, or damage my property, you can expect to be held at gunpoint.
Section 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.

Section 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.

Section 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.

Section 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.

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

"just currious but where does it mention "anyone inside our borders?"
Facts Are Fun

Tulsa, OK

#70 Feb 10, 2009
paisleyposey wrote:
<quoted text>So, If I am committing a crime, and the cops point a gun at me...
Illegal Presence in the U.S. has always been a civil, not criminal, violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Deportation and the associated administrative processes are civil proceedings.
--
So, if you were committing a civil infraction on private Federal property, and federal authorities (likely military police) pointed a gun at you...

You might have a legitimate reason to sue if the local authorities, or the janitor for instance, holds you captive at gunpoint, kicks you, screams obscenities at you, tortures you mentally and threatens you with physical violence or death.
resident

Jamestown, KY

#71 Feb 10, 2009
"You boneheads should look up the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It grants equal protection under the law to ANYONE inside U.S. borders, not just the "white man", Dave.

The migrants were held hostage at gunpoint. At the very least, Mr. Barnett should be charged with Feloniously Pointing a Weapon. "

I quoted the wrong post sorry ment to respond to this post.
Chaos

Wallingford, CT

#72 Feb 10, 2009
Dave wrote:
The word civil as in civil rights means 'citizen'.
The illegal alien mexican invaders are not citizens of this country and have no rights. Especially rights to trespass on private property.
The bulshevik zionist controlled courts have no legal authority to grant rights to Non citizens.
White people have lost their nation that their four fathers fought, bled and died for to bulshevik zionists.
I do not support the ability to sue under these circumstances and do support illegal aliens being deported and prevented from entering the country. You are incorrect, however, to say that civil rights are only for citizens. Under our jurisprudence due process is required for all that are parties to our court system.

If the illegal aliens are subject to deportation, then that process should proceed and what happens to their civil case is incidental. There are legal aliens here, hoever, and if they have grounds to avail themselves of judical action or are subject to it, the government cannot make them subject to different rules. We do not have a dual set of justice. we have one.

This whole racsist, anti-semitic nonsense you wrote shows that you won't care what I write but someone needs to tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about.
shine4me

Fremont, CA

#73 Feb 10, 2009
USA wrote:
"Revolution" means immaturity, did your parents teach you to be disrespectful towards others? When I see punks going around flashing gang signals I can't help but think of children wearing diapers. There is no life, no honor, no success, no winning in doing what mexicans are doing.
If they're such nice people, so honorable, then why the hell don't they take pride in their own country and build up the place?
They'd rather come into someone else's place, already hooked & wired for their comfort, w/o putting any of their own efforts into it.
Mexicans are worthless buzzards feeding off the hard work of others. They are not to be trusted.
To "revolt" against parental authority is "immature". To revolt against a "blood-sucking" Government (ours) is AMERICAN!!! Gansters are nothing more than dangerous idiots.

And, I do agree with everything else you said:)
shine4me

Fremont, CA

#74 Feb 10, 2009
LAWDOG wrote:
Bless this man, he had the balls to do what not many people would do. I just think he's a fool for not shooting them. I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for shooting an illegal, legally they do not exist :) can't do harm to what doesn't exist. I would leave packaged food outside poisoned, so when the SOB's go grabbing it, they will have their last meal.
You've just said what thousands of people are thinking.
Chaos

Wallingford, CT

#75 Feb 10, 2009
Hold please wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been reading your posts and here's what I'm gleaning from them:
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.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inv...
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?
I'm totally on your side about preventing and deporting illegal aliens. I am in 100% favor of building a secure border system. But you are making assertions that simply are not true.

"You're ignoring the fact that any "Constitutional" rights you mention only apply to US Citizens."

That has never been true since day one of the nation's creation. Courts, conservative and liberal judges alike, all follow one set of jurisprudence. These aliens should be subject to deportation proceedings and deported under that one set, if they have not been already. They do have a right to sue in court and if their claims have merit, a case can go forward. They probably don't have one and they would have a hard time proceeding from outside the country but if they have a reason to participate in our courts, its under one set of rules. The only one there is.
Dave

Atlanta, GA

#76 Feb 10, 2009
Carl wrote:
This is the biggest blunder ever. What part of the phrase "Illegal Immigrants" does not make sense. Illegal means no rights under the US Constitution since it only applies to US Citizens.
The tribe and their controlled legal system believe that substituting the world 'illegal' as in alien, with 'undocumented' as in worker, somehow magically transforms an invading criminal into a citizen.

Ain't these shysters clever?!

shine4me

Fremont, CA

#77 Feb 10, 2009
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that when you start whining about the "white man" losing his country, your argument immediately sounds racist. While I agree we need to stop illegal immigration, I didn't spend 20 years in the military risking my life for only the "white man".
White, brown, black, and every shade in between, it doesn't matter so long as they are citizens. Why do people like you always have to turn this into a racist rant.
I'm hoping that "white man" was metaphoric..
I'd like to thank every military personell for risking their life for the legal citizens of these United States. It is that "price" that's been paid that angers me anytime an "invader" is allowed to live.
Facts Are Fun

Tulsa, OK

#78 Feb 10, 2009
Hold please wrote:
The Constitution does not apply to these "immigrants".
It does apply - to anyone inside U.S. borders.
Hold please wrote:
So my question to you is this - however this turns out, what's your stake in it?
The crux is "abiding by the law". I find it amusing that a lot of people who screech about immigrants following "our laws", actually don't care anything about the law. They don't know the difference between civil and criminal codes and procedures. And, in cases like this one and the one involving border agents Ramos and Campeon, many good ol' "law abiding" American citizens want to throw out the law book altogether - because they "got one of them no good illegals". And, my absolute favorite, is seeing self-proclaimed "patriots" call for ignoring the U.S. Constitution; the most important law of "our" land.
Facts Are Fun

Tulsa, OK

#79 Feb 10, 2009
resident wrote:
...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.
just currious but where does it mention "anyone inside our borders?"
any person within its jurisdiction
Dave

Atlanta, GA

#80 Feb 10, 2009
Chaos wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not support the ability to sue under these circumstances and do support illegal aliens being deported and prevented from entering the country. You are incorrect, however, to say that civil rights are only for citizens. Under our jurisprudence due process is required for all that are parties to our court system.
If the illegal aliens are subject to deportation, then that process should proceed and what happens to their civil case is incidental. There are legal aliens here, hoever, and if they have grounds to avail themselves of judical action or are subject to it, the government cannot make them subject to different rules. We do not have a dual set of justice. we have one.
This whole racsist, anti-semitic nonsense you wrote shows that you won't care what I write but someone needs to tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You trough up a cloud of black ink like a slimy squid evading pray.

Illegal aliens are not citizens, the do not have rights to tresspass on private property. Lawful Citizens have a right to defend their property.

You sir din't know what you're talking about!
Facts Are Fun

Tulsa, OK

#81 Feb 10, 2009
shine4me wrote:
<quoted text>
What "given record"???
A jury verdict from November 2006 - and a nearly $100,000 monetary award - against Barnett in another civil case where a jury concluded he falsely imprisoned members of a Douglas area family.

Please try to keep up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 11 min Jim-ca 53,373
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 12 min Hukt on Fonix 992,493
Got my ex pregnant before break up. What do I do? 33 min onemale1 3
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 38 min Phooey 693,592
Is God a "Bully" sometimes? 1 hr Peter Ross 56
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 1 hr Hatti_Hollerand 2,483
Can Chinese girls date foreign men? 1 hr Puttin Bro 2
Skype gay sex (Dec '14) Mon dirtyguy34 35
More from around the web