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

reply to post by donwhite



SEQUEL to Post Above. R&Fs = Rich and Famous. A/k/a Movers and shakers. A/k/a PTB. Powers that be. And etc.

This post above does not mean I am unaware of the real problems faced by people who live along the border with Mexico. The problem however, is more complex than a young man sneaking across a line drawn in the sand.

For one, illegal workers are a UNION busting tactic that Republicans have always favored. Look at the 2007 ICE raid - Immigration and Customs Enforcement - on 5 Swift and Co., meat packing plants in the Midwest. 7,000 workers, 1,500 undocumented. Did ICE ever prosecute Swift and Co?

The ICE offered the excuse they were looking for 75 illegals using stolen social security cards, as if the USERS were the THIEVES. They could have picked them up at the factory gate if that was their real reason.

In fact, the 75 illegals had themselves been ripped off by thieves. The real reason for the RAID was to keep the undocumented workers - Mexicans predominantly - under FEAR and to keep thee UNION organizers OUT of Swift and Co. property! Hey, what to you think the R&Fs pay for anyway, when they send 1000s of dollars to the candidates. PROTECTION! Bush43 was merely making a pay-back.

[edit on 2/11/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by badgerprints

You couldn't be more right. I've been across the border
dozens of times, and each one it's been more death-defying than the last.

reply to post by donwhite


It isn't just Swift and Co. doing this IBP (Iowa Beef Processors) has been doing this for at least three decades.You mention union, suddenly your replaced by an undocumented worker and he/she is threatened with all manner of crap! At one time they cleaned house of 360 men and women in one plant over union representation over a three month period. Immigration and Naturalization showed up when the new employees tried to get representation!


Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone

At one time they cleaned house of 360 men and women in one plant over union representation over a three month period. Immigration and Naturalization showed up when the new employees tried to get representation!

I suppose you knew that Ms. Elaine Chao who was Secretary of Labor all 8 years under Bush43 is the wife of GOP Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader? Her assignment was to WRECK the Labor Department and she has nearly succeeded what with the help of a Republican Congress through January, 2007. As you may also know the right to organize was not guaranteed until passage of the Wagner Act of 1933. The RISE of labor was short lived as when the GOP regained control of the Congress in 1946, the first thing they did was pass the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, over President Truman's veto. For labor it has been downhill ever since.

[edit on 2/12/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by nixie_nox

reply to post by FewWorldOrder

Originally posted by nixie_nox

These are hardly viable websites. Any disgruntled employee could of made that info up.

I see what you mean...

How about this source?,

www-sul.stanford.edu...

Department of Special Collections
Stanford University

RESEARCH GUIDE TO THE RECORDS OF
MALDEF
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(1968 - 1983) at Stanford University

MALDEF began in 1968 with a Ford Foundation grant; their main office was in San Antonio and there was a branch office in Los Angeles. In 1970 the Ford Foundation recommended that the main office be relocated from Texas; the MALDEF Board of Directors then opened a national headquarters in San Francisco, and made the San Antonio office a regional office.

I'd like to note that I'm all for any truly charitable organization that assists whatever group of Americans, regardless of ethnicity or heritage.

What is staring me right in the face in this particular incident though is that an american non-profit organization, which also happens to be funded greatly, if not exclusively, by supposed American philanthropic organizations, is representing a foreigner against a sovereign.


[edit on 11-2-2009 by FewWorldOrder]

reply to post by FewWorldOrder

RESEARCH GUIDE TO THE RECORDS OF
MALDEF
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (1968 - 1983) at Stanford University

The report says it covers the time period 1968 to 1983. What do you think about 26 year old information? Does the MALDEF even exist in 2009? I'm not quite sure what to make of this unless someone is writing a history paper.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
I wish I could talk to this man and thank him.

If these damn illegal immigrants think they have rights by just "being" in the country, then they should NEVER be allowed here in the first place.

Ah! But there you are wrong. This is America. Here, we allow illegal immigrants to become POTUS. And if you don't want that job, you can get Social Security benefits, or just unemployment. And for those looking to the courts for justice, come on! You still think those bureaurats are the good guys? The law has no relevance in court. They do what they please, exactly like the cops, and the elected, and the entire government. It's a new form of despotism, and this one puts on a charade of being 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Get over it. Its a scam, just like the other big scams today; banking, medicine, oil, organized religion. I previously suspected that the Biblical Tribulation was beginning in 2012, with the coming of Sol's twin star. Now, I don't think things are bad enough yet. Maybe in 2019.

reply to post by donwhite


donwhite, I was replying to nixie_nox.

Originally posted by donwhite

Does the MALDEF even exist in 2009?

From the OP's second post

Originally posted by jdub297
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)

Originally posted by donwhite

The report says it covers the time period 1968 to 1983. What do you think about 26 year old information?

I only think that its still accurate. The fact that the Ford foundation provided the 'seed' money for MALDEF will not change as time passes.

Why can't we put a "citizen's arrest" on illegal aliens? This is so wrong for criminals to sue when caught in the commission of a crime.

My advice to the rancher is counter-sue for land and livestock damages including filing for false and inappropriate lawsuit. Remember, the basic premise is "A man's home is his castle" and therefore immigrants were trespassing to boot.

reply to post by FewWorldOrder

I only think that its still accurate. The fact that the Ford foundation provided the 'seed' money for MALDEF will not change as time passes.

I went to their website. MALDEF is alive and well. Like the Southern Poverty Law Center, they have more work that needs doing than any 2 organizations could do in a lifetime.

Here's from their website showing the kinds of things they are doing.

US v Texas:
Latino civil rights organizations file legal action to improve bilingual education programs in Texas.

MALDEF Files Segregation Suit:
Lawsuit alleges ESL used as a proxy to discriminate against minority students in Dallas public school.

Voting Rights Victory In The U.S. Supreme Court:
High Court strikes down redistricting map, upholds Latinos' right to vote.

Federal English-Only Laws:
MALDEF Testified Before House Committee Against Federal English-Only Laws. Testimony At Congressional Hearing Underscores Harm Of Official English.

MALDEF and the DeAnda Family have established the Judge James DeAnda Fund at MALDEF to support our litigation.
Contributions may be sent to:
MALDEF
634 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90014
www.maldef.org...

The Ford Foundation has done outstanding work in the area of public education.

[edit on 2/12/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by groingrinder

Why can't we put a "citizen's arrest" on illegal aliens? This is so wrong for criminals to sue when caught in the commission of a crime.

We have 2 sets of laws. Federal and state. Each state sets its own rules regarding citizens arrests. I am only familiar with 2 states. KY and FL. In both cases, a citizen cannot arrest for a misdemeanor or minor traffic violation. Only felonies committed in the presence of the citizen can be the cause or justification for making an arrest. If a citizen makes a false arrest he is liable for damages.

The Federal laws do not allow citizen enforcement.

reply to post by jdub297



I would not want any illegals on my land either and this man has EVERY right to tell them to leave. If they have entered his land without permission, which they clearly have, and killed livestock and stole or did other damage, they are CRIMINALS. I am 100 percent AGAINST illegal immigration and they need to get rid of ALL of them, and with the overcrowding if you are not born here, you have absolutely NO right to be here period!

Originally posted by donwhite

Each state sets its own rules regarding citizens arrests. . . . a citizen cannot arrest for a misdemeanor or minor traffic violation. Only felonies committed in the presence of the citizen can be the cause or justification for making an arrest. If a citizen makes a false arrest he is liable for damages.

What about detainment?

What about detainment by force until law enforcement arrives?

reply to post by Annee

What about detainment? What about detainment by force until law enforcement arrives?

I have not been in the law business since 1990. That's nearly 20 years. A lot of changes happen in the law over time. In fact, one time I was working on just such a project. I did that by counting 300 individual ANNOTATED statues, which shows when the statute was the subject of a court decision. Over 80% of those statutes had been “to court” in 7 years or less. Most laws are revisited at least once every 7 years by state or Federal supreme courts. I admit that was a very small sample.

It has always been an issue “when is a person under arrest?” I am of the opinion that today, when a person is no longer free to go on his on volition and he knows that, then he is “under arrest.” He does not have to be handcuffed or locked in a room.

So, IMO “detained” is equal to “arrest.” Now some confusion may exist because some states allow a suspect to be held 24 hours on suspicion. However, that warrant - arrest on suspicion - has to be approved by a judge BEFORE the detention begins, not afterwards. That - prior judicial review - is the ordinary citizen’s protection against police or prosecutor’s abuse. I hope this helps.

False imprisonment

* An "Act". The act must be physical and volitional.
* An Intent to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor
* Confinement actually occurs
* The act caused the confinement
* The person confined is aware of their confinement or harmed by it

Both sides are at fault.

donwhite - yes thank you - I value your posts.

I live on the border so this discussion comes up frequently - locally.

There's law - then there's interpretation of law - - then there is "emotions". That's when things go bad.

Basically - KNOW your state laws.

I have not read a single post in this thread nor do I intend to.

The simple fact that 16 illegal aliens can file a lawsuit in the US against a law abiding AMERICAN land owner is an atrocity and a further example of our failed judicial system.

This rancher has handed over at least 12,000 illegal aliens over the years and now he faces this treatment. I think this is wrong. This man is a patriot who is protecting his land and his country.


[edit on 12-2-2009 by jibeho]

Originally posted by jibeho
This man is a patriot who is protecting his land and his country.

Tell that to the Native Americans. I know the ones where I live do not stop illegals from coming onto their land. But they do stop the vigilantes.

reply to post by jibeho


But can one truly protect his country while violating the laws his country values? Do his country's laws apply to everyone but him?

Personally, I think its a poor way to 'defend' one's country.