It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher--Claim violation of "rights."

page: 11
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
So it's racist and hateful to disallow strangers on your property?

What if they were white people?
Would it be okay then?

But its not okay because they're mexicans?

Illegal mexicans at that.

So - criminal mexicans > legal tax-paying people (regardless of color)

It's called reverse racism.

Some people think they only way to pay for the sins of slave owners from colonial days is the enslave the white people of today.

It angers me straight to sadness to realize that there are people this inept in the world today.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Fremd]




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
This is absolutly ridiculous! I hope it never goes thru to actual court.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd
So it's racist and hateful to disallow strangers on your property?

What if they were white people?
Would it be okay then?


Pretty sure it's criminal to hold people against their will at gunpoint, regardless of ethnicity.



It's called reverse racism.



Reverse racism would technically be the absence of racism. Racism is racism no matter which ethnicity is the victim.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GTORick
 


Hello, could you please tell me what LE is? Sorry, I have never heard of them and would like to research them. Much thanks!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by salchanra
 


Right on! I wish more people in the country could see this the way you say it.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I live in Pinal county. Here is a pic of what the land looks like from this traffic.
You would want this off your land too:




Here is the story where this pic is posted from :
www.zwire.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by amatrine


I live in SW Arizona - there are lots of areas like this that have nothing to do with illegals.

Arizona's climate attracts many homeless people also. There are also areas like this where teenagers hang out.

There have always been areas people hang out and don't have respect for.

Just the facts.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Annee]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 




But its not okay because they're Mexicans? Illegal Mexicans at that. So - criminal Mexicans



Americans can't get a handle on the fact their habits for heroin and coc aine has destroyed 2 countries, Columbia and Afghanistan. Their coc aine habit is about to destroy Mexico. Wow, we're actually getting interested now but only in how high a wall can we build. Like the old Berlin Wall. But you'll have to leave portholes for your coc aine to come through.

Undocumented workers. Mexican GDP per person is $14,000. American GDP per person - before the 2007-09 Reagan Crash - was $45,800. Numbers off the CIA website. In 1994 the IMF, the WB and the US as Mexico’s major creditor, compelled the bankrupt Mexican government to remove 2-5 million families off small plots of land - about 1 hectare - and combine those plots into mechanized mega-farms. The farms could produce food for the world market so Mexico could tax the corporate farms and then pay the debts the Mexicans owed to foreign inventors. Labor intensive gave way to machine intensive. People were numbers.

The millions of displaced subsistence farmers were supposed to migrate to Mexico's cities, get jobs in factories and the IMF, the WB and the US would live happily ever after. 2 problems no one anticipated. 1) No housing. 2) No jobs.

So, several million Mexicans did the only smart thing open to them. They migrated north to the US of A. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, and God Bless America! You know the ritual.

Follows HOLLOW and MEANINGLESS WORDS

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
“The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus
www.factmonster.com...

[edit on 2/17/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I was getting worried, considering the jury deliberated over the weekend, but it turns out justice has prevailed... well, almost.



Jury: Rancher didn't violate migrants' rights

link






[edit on 17-2-2009 by stevegmu]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
This Country is Nuts!
Jury Awards Illegal Aliens $70k for Detaining Them On His Ranch!

www.reuters.com...

An Federal jury in Arizona awarded four illegal alien women &70,000 in damages after a rancher to have committed assault when he held them at gun point for authorities. He was acquitted of “Civil Rights” violations and battery allegations.

The women were part of a group rancher Richard Barnett had caught crossing his border ranch. Barnett has turned more than 12,000 illegal aliens over to local law enforcement and the ICE/Border Patrol since 1998.

All of the illegal aliens were represented by the non-profit, government supported Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. One of the aliens, Rene Rodriguez, has been identified as a convicted drug trafficker deported in 2003, whose re-entry was itself a new felony!

This system sucks.

Fix It!

TRY THIS PLAN, IT WILL WORK:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Told ya. They (Border Patrol & other law enforcement) do not support the Vigilante mentality. It isn't just them being on his property - - he is out hunting for them. He has a Vigilante mentality/mindset.

No law enforcement agency supports civilians taking the law into their own hands. Because eventually someone is going to get hurt or killed.

There are at least 5 different law enforcement agencies within 30 miles (I think) of the border. Many in unmarked vehicles.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I would love to have someone show me any law or any language in our Constitution that says a citizen does not have the same rights to uphold the law of the land with any less authority than those that are supposed to uphold the law by apointment. Citizens have the absolute right to uphold those laws that are part of our country. No where in our Constitution is there language that even mentions police forces or government entities to uphold laws. That was never part of the federation when it was signed. Police forces where not part of our standing army. They where created by politicians to protect business at their inception. Citizens should never be fooled into thinking that only appointed law enforcement have that right.

Zindo



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


You're absolutely right. This is a travesty and if we Americans had any sense, we would be out marching in the streets. Unfortunately everyone has jobs and kids and worries of their own. We're all too lazy, dumb and bust playing World of Warcraft to worry about it.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Citizens have the absolute right to uphold those laws that are part of our country. No where in our Constitution is there language that even mentions police forces or government entities to uphold laws. That was never part of the federation when it was signed. Police forces where not part of our standing army. They where created by politicians to protect business at their inception. Citizens should never be fooled into thinking that only appointed law enforcement have that right.

Zindo


I did not take sides. I only posted What Is.

I live on the border. Vigilantes are looked at as a problem - not a solution.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


So does that mean if I catch you crossing my lawn I can hold you prisoner at gunpoint? Who's the bigger threat to my country? The guy who ignored the 'keep off the grass' sign, or the guy pointing a shotgun at him?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hellish-D
reply to post by Annee
 


So does that mean if I catch you crossing my lawn I can hold you prisoner at gunpoint? Who's the bigger threat to my country? The guy who ignored the 'keep off the grass' sign, or the guy pointing a shotgun at him?


They come in my yard - turn on my hose to get water. Then they leave.

I've never had to pull out my shotgun or my Glock. Yet.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 




I would love to have someone show me any law or any language in our Constitution that says a citizen does not have the same rights to uphold the law of the land with any less authority than those that are supposed to uphold the law by appointment. Citizens have the absolute right to uphold those laws that are part of our country. Citizens should never be fooled into thinking that only appointed law enforcement have that right. Zindo



For quick reference, see the US Constitution
Article I, Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power (1) to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(2) To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
(4) To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
(5) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
(6) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
(7) To establish post offices and post roads;
(8) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
(9) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
(10) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
(11) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
(12) To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
(13) To provide and maintain a navy;
(14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
(15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
(16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
(17) To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
(18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Article VI. Clause 2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now who here is a SWORN peace officer?


[edit on 2/18/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I think you proved my point. The Federal Government doesn't have the right or does it give them the right to supercede the rights of citizens to uphold the laws of this country, nor does it designate ONLY Federal authorities to do same. If anything those quotes signify the limits of Federal authority.
Zindo



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 




I think you proved my point. The Federal Government doesn't have the right or does it give them the right to supercede the rights of citizens to uphold the laws of this country, nor does it designate ONLY Federal authorities to do same. If anything those quotes signify the limits of Federal authority.
Zindo



I did not learn to read that way in my school. It seems to me the (18) clause of Article 1, Section 8, is pretty much INCLUSIVE of power. And if there is any doubt who is in charge here, Article 6 clears that up. Have you given those 2 items thought?



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Don,
So what you believe is that just because the Federal authorities aren't doing their job to the fullest extent ordered by the COnsitution that Citizens are not entitled to 'take up the slack' and lawfully use those powers vested in them as citizens to help enforce those laws? Its not only being used as jurors that those rights are allowed!
I believe the article you pointed out means that the Government has the power to enforce laws and protections of the government itself untill the states stop relinquishing those powers to the government entity and in so doing the citizenry must be able to use those powers for their own protection. I'm not a lawyer but I was always taught and read that enumerated powers only exist within the boundries of citizenship. Not in any entity produced by government. Citizens have the last word enmase' to the rights they choose to employ!
zindo




top topics



 
26
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join