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: 12
26
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 




Don, So what you believe is that just because the Federal authorities aren't doing their job to the fullest extent ordered by the Constitution 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!



No. I do not believe that at all. I believe your only recourse is to elect people who support that position. Or oppose it as the case may be.




I believe the article you pointed out means that the Government has the power to enforce laws and protections of the government itself until 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 boundaries of citizenship. Not in any entity produced by government. Citizens have the last word encase' to the rights they choose to employ! zindo



Mr Z, I am not unaware of the problems caused by illegal crossings of the US border. And the frustrations caused by the ineptness the Federal government has shown over the past 8 years in addressing it. If it was left to me, I’d send $5 b. a year to CA, $2 b. to Texas and AZ and $1b. to NM to offset the additional costs the illegals bring with them.

My problem comes with the solution some people suggest. Border Patrol agents undergo 6 months of primary training and then are on probation and under the close supervision of a qualified officer for another 6 months.

I understand that prior to the 2007-09 Reagan inspired financial debacle the Border Patrol had difficulty getting new members, more or less like the US Armed Forces. Now I hear there is an overload of applicants for both jobs.

I’m sure - but I do not know for a fact - that the US does not have a law authorizing SELF HELP. I’m equally sure that vigilantism is not approved by any law, state or Federal. Why would we pay a BP agent $60K a year when good ole boys would do the job for the sheer pleasure of the job? You just can’t run a country that way.

The PROBLEM is that millions of Mexican and Central American people are unable to support their families in a world they did not create. They like you and me, love their families and are willing ot risk life and limb to feed their children. We must ACT responsibly IMO. And treat them as our GUESTS.




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Guests are invited. THEY DON'T INVADE.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 



Guests are invited.


And our government and politicians invited many of them from 1986 up until 2001 while they turned a blind eye to the problem. Hell, many of them had illegals working for them. 12-20 million didn't show up overnight.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Humanity vs My Back Porch. It can be a tough call.

Shoot me now - I support a borderless future.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


Don,
I said 'LAWFULLY', I did not say use vigilante justice. To use the power of protection of citizens in a lawfukll manner is not vigilantism. Mearly stopping criminal activity by lawfull means is whats happening in 'MOST' cases. We aren't getting a rope or whip or denying anyone the right to be taken into custody by the authorities. Whats being done is to work in concert with the BP and just because some think they should have free reign to ignore who they want and arrest who they want to the degredation of our laws is just to bad for them. Fifedoms have been the problm with good law enforcement for nearly two centuries here. These tactics by American Citizens will probably be the only way to do something to protect our borders since we have a very real problem with a criminal element comming here to continue with their actions. Open borders will and has exacerbated that problem. I hope my tone here is not taken as antagonistic, its a subject that needs to be addresed and NOT ignored to justify more votes for our congresscritters!
Zindo



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 




Don, I said 'LAWFULLY', I did not say use vigilante justice. To use the power of protection of citizens in a lawful manner is not vigilantism. Merely stopping criminal activity by lawful means is what happening in 'MOST' cases. We aren't getting a rope or whip or denying anyone the right to be taken into custody by the authorities.



I’m sorry Mr Z. My oversight. On “Lawfully.” I think we are engaged in a fencing match. Everyone knows what the problem and what the issues are. The BP does not have the manpower to stop the border crossings by illegals.

I don’t think the Government has any intentions of staffing the BP to the level required to stop 99% of illegal crossings. That is due more to priorities than to politics. The government has not moved to include civilians in any organized effort to stop the illegal crossings. Aside: I think the US border is 1 foot wide. The crime they commit is limited to that 1 foot strip. Only the US Government can enforce Federal law. It is no crime to just BE in Arizona. End.




Fiefdoms have been the problem with good law enforcement for nearly two centuries here. These tactics by American Citizens will probably be the only way to do something to protect our borders since we have a very real problem with a criminal element coming here to continue with their actions.



Now that is new. The criminal element. Those criminals are here ONLY to supply America’s insatiable appetite for drugs. In all the years I have heard complaints about illegal border crossings, I have never heard of ONE al Qaeda operative being arrested! And yes, that criminal problem is a real danger. But it looks like it may be more dangerous to law and order in Mexico than in the US.

I live in Jacksonville FL, and our local police shot and killed THREE people last week! One was shot in the back. That ought to be against the law. Another was either mentally slow or under the influence and he should not have been shot either, but that’s life (or death) in the fast lane.

As I recall the last election in Mexico ended with one guy getting 49.999% of the vote and the other guy getting 50.001% of the vote. Problem was no one knew who got which. As in our own Minnesota, there ought to be a law that if you fail to get enough votes to make you the obvious AND indisputable winner, the election should be re-run in 21 days. They do that in GA and maybe other states too.




Open borders will and has exacerbated that problem. I hope my tone here is not taken as antagonistic, it’s a subject that needs to be addressed and NOT ignored to justify more votes for our congresscritters! Zindo



Right! But I am a history buff. I cannot deal with a problem simply as it looks today. I hold to the belief that nothing of importance happens by accident in politics. So here I am going back to 1846. Even then the very large in numbers Mexican Army was no match for the smaller but more effectively led US Army. We took from Mexico at the Treaty of Guadalupe all of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado. Plus we settled the 1836 border dispute over Texas in our favor. Not a bad day’s work!

We also tricked the Mexicans! The Treaty both sides signed in Guadalupe contained 9 articles. When the paperwork got to Washington for the Senate to approve, it had ONLY 8 articles. Conveniently the 9th article guaranteed Spanish land grants to the owners and gave them access to US courts to enforce the grants. Without that 9th Article, the newly arrived US types TOOK what land they wanted from the legal owners and ran them out of town or shot them. Much akin to the current Arab-Israeli Right of Return imbroglio.

I said a lot to say everything is not necessarily what meets the eye. A lot of Mexicans really believe they have rights “up here.” Don’t worry, we will give back the land at the same time we pay reparations to black people. But it does go to show how some attitudes are formed.

During WW2 when we were so short of workers, we invited all Mexicans to come up here to work. When the war ended and we had too many workers, we thanklessly pushed the Mexicans back to Mexico. They have not forgotten that either. It goes to our credibility.

On illegals, I don’t know what to do. The rich people want them here, the poor people do not. The R&Fs run the country. Rich and Famous. I’d vote YES for more BP but NO to any wall or fence.


[edit on 2/19/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It is a good point to mention - many Mexicans do believe this is their land and they have a right to come here.

Much like the Native Americans.

People are people. Politics is Politics.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




Shoot me now - I support a borderless future.



I have called for Mexico to be the 51st state for a decade! Then we can get back to work.



[edit on 2/18/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by Annee
 




Shoot me now - I support a borderless future.



I have called for Mexico to be the 51st state for a decade! Then we can get back to work.


Its the only natural progression. It just needs to get done - so we can get on with it - and stop all this unnecessary insanity.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Don' chall unerstan'?

Them Mek-see-kans was trespassin' on the man's popurty! Don' nobady trespass on a man's popurty!!!



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellish-D
 

You know, you're probably right.

From now on, tak all the locks off your house and vehicles, leave the doors and windows open.

Put all your valuables and bank deposits, paychecks on the front porch. Family too.

Anybody comes by to see, just tell them to stop. Then you walk away.

jw



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I like how you essentially copy and paste content between threads. Very interesting.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyko45

Originally posted by XTexan
reply to post by jam321
 


Yes but they were also on his property illegally, and as per his history he will stop anyone that is on his property illegally.

I question that someone cannot detain someone for trespassing, from my experience in the retail business a store can detain someone for shoplifting until the police arrive, why can a citizen not do the same to someone who is trespassing?


Because hes not law enforcement. As far as I know a shopkeeper cant hold someone at gunpoint for shoplifting if they retrieved the property. The key is the poor judgement in the use of a firearm.

If someone tries to rob a store with a gun and the clerk shoots and wounds them legally they still cant detain them. Though most judges wont persue this.

The judge is going to see that this guy has basically started a private crusade. Something that I would like to do myself. (against any number of types of criminals)But we dont, because we do have a system.



Have you ever read "posse Commutatus"?????

Not only are citizens allowed to, it is their responsibility to...

Jeez people need to wake up



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a branch of this thread is being created here
www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=438666

please participate as I fear I may go too off topic in this thread

thanks



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
The rancher has well documented proof that he has tried every avenue to keep the illegals off his property in a legal manner. He should be able to sue the US Government for failing to keep him and his property safe. I would like to know what nincompoops sit on these juries.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Snooze]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 

The crime they commit is limited to that 1 foot strip. Only the US Government can enforce Federal law. It is no crime to just BE in Arizona. End.


Yes, it is.

It is a crime to be on someone's property without their permission and"notice" that the illegals do not have permission can be implied by their illegal entry into the Country.
( I've met some people for whom it's a crime just to BE.)

jw



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
a branch of this thread is being created here
www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=438666

please participate as I fear I may go too off topic in this thread

thanks
\

your from NY and have the balls to call americans illegal. get the hell out of this country then if you dont like it.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swatman
your from NY and have the balls to call americans illegal. get the hell out of this country then if you dont like it.


You First!

lol, blind patriotism is your post



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





The crime they commit is limited to that 1 foot strip. Only the US Government can enforce Federal law. It is no crime to just BE in Arizona.


Yes, it is. It is a crime to be on someone's property without their permission and"notice" that the illegal do not have permission can be implied by their illegal entry into the Country. (I've met some people for whom it's a crime just to BE.)



I did not mean anyone could trespass but rather that he or she could be on a public roadway or in any public place and not be in violation of any law of AZ.

Up to that point the non-citizen has broken no laws except the Federal laws relating to undocumented entry.

It seems that most of the confrontations between local citizens and non-citizens takes place in AZ. I suppose that is due to the lay of the land making it easier to cross over there than elsewhere?

As to the case where the rancher was hit with damages, I can only say the JURY heard the case and they found for the illegal person. I would say the rancher has not told us all the truth. As Scooter Liddy can testify, it is against the law to LIE to a Federal officer in the course of an official investigation. The Feds take that suff seriously.

I have also known people who just to BE is irritating!



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
QUESTION: Does anyone even thing about the illegals coming across the Canadian border? Or the drug trafficking on the open wilderness Canadian border? Remember the Saudi's of the 911 attack came through Canada.

I'm just pointing out that this focus only on our southern border - - is kind of racist.


You're absolutely right! We really should do more to stop those pesky Americans from coming here for all their prescription medications!
Seriously, we have seniors coming up by the busload so they don't have to choose between food and their prescriptions. If you like our healthcare system so much, you're welcome to set up your own but quit "borrowing" our OHIP cards for free healthcare, eh? Remember, we only sent troops to Afghanistan to clean up the mess someone else made (you're welcome, by the way).



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join