• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land

Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

Regulating access to your property is completely legal. Threatening to kill someone and kicking a woman while she's down on the ground are not, nor is trespassing on state property and holding US citizens hostage.

The trespassing on state property is a separate issue, though I'm surprised it didn't end in jail time for unlawful arrest or the civilian equivalent. This specific case I'm more willing to lean towards property owner as he has apparently suffered much damage, vandalism, and theft at the hands of illegals. I'd be on edge to. As for the assault charge, well they'll have to prove that I guess. I don't know what sort of laws they have in his state, but in my State I can shoot people for trespassing if I feel they pose a threat to me.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

You know, lots of people like to scream "I have rights", but with rights come responsibility and not violating the rights of others.

Want to know who has the right to do whatever he absolutely wants without having to take responsibility? A baby. He screams when hungry, screams when he needs his diaper changed, etc, etc. But that's OK, and we understand. He is a baby, after all. But by the time a baby reaches adulthood, he has matured enough to understand that, when you want to assert your right to do something, you cannot violate the rights of others in doing it.

At this point, I am not sure who the biggest babies are - The illegals who thought they could violate a man's property rights without being held responsible, the judge who seems to think it is OK for illegal aliens to violate someone else's rights, or those who support the illegal aliens violating someone else's rights.

One last point. There is a difference between rights and privileges. If you want to cross someone's land, you must get his permission. That is known as a privilege, not a right.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

You know, lots of people like to scream "I have rights", but with rights come responsibility and not violating the rights of others.

Want to know who has the right to do whatever he absolutely wants without having to take responsibility? A baby. He screams when hungry, screams when he needs his diaper changed, etc, etc. But that's OK, and we understand. He is a baby, after all. But by the time a baby reaches adulthood, he has matured enough to understand that, when you want to assert your right to do something, you cannot violate the rights of others in doing it.

At this point, I am not sure who the biggest babies are - The illegals who thought they could violate a man's property rights without being held responsible, the judge who seems to think it is OK for illegal aliens to violate someone else's rights, or those who support the illegal aliens violating someone else's rights.

One last point. There is a difference between rights and privileges. If you want to cross someone's land, you must get his permission. That is known as a privilege, not a right.

So often its the HUMAN RIGHTS crowd who will tramp all over others rights. Our government is looking out for our RIGHTS, right ? ...Right ? ...justice for all ? ...Right ? Fair Labor,...Fair Trade,...equal rights,...free speach,...equal houseing, etc. So often those things we all claim to insist on for ALL, we show to not care about, at all, :confused:for SOME... so often.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

You think the lawyer is concerned with justice?

I'm pretty sure the lawyer is a dbag hippie activist who I would be sick of after 30 seconds, but that doesn't change the fact that it at least the first case, they had a strong claim.

The trespassing on state property is a separate issue, though I'm surprised it didn't end in jail time for unlawful arrest or the civilian equivalent. This specific case I'm more willing to lean towards property owner as he has apparently suffered much damage, vandalism, and theft at the hands of illegals. I'd be on edge to. As for the assault charge, well they'll have to prove that I guess. I don't know what sort of laws they have in his state, but in my State I can shoot people for trespassing if I feel they pose a threat to me.

You know, lots of people like to scream "I have rights", but with rights come responsibility and not violating the rights of others.

Want to know who has the right to do whatever he absolutely wants without having to take responsibility? A baby. He screams when hungry, screams when he needs his diaper changed, etc, etc. But that's OK, and we understand. He is a baby, after all. But by the time a baby reaches adulthood, he has matured enough to understand that, when you want to assert your right to do something, you cannot violate the rights of others in doing it.

At this point, I am not sure who the biggest babies are - The illegals who thought they could violate a man's property rights without being held responsible, the judge who seems to think it is OK for illegal aliens to violate someone else's rights, or those who support the illegal aliens violating someone else's rights.

One last point. There is a difference between rights and privileges. If you want to cross someone's land, you must get his permission. That is known as a privilege, not a right.


Again, nobody is defending the actions of the illegals in this case, nor is anyone saying that the guy didn't have the right to defend his property. However, there is a huge difference between stopping some people on your property and calling the cops, and between stopping some people on your property, threatening to kill them, kicking a woman who is down on the ground and not resisting, etc.

The fact that someone trespasses doesn't mean you get to do that.

We don't know all the facts, but going off of what we do know, I can draw some pretty obvious conclusions about the guy. The fact that he says he's turned in over 12,000 illegals over the years, combined with the fact that he has a whole electronic tracking and hunting system set up, combined with the fact that he's reckless and stupid enough to chase after legal citizens on state property and hold them hostage indicates to me that he's a giddy redneck who probably loves this **** and gets off on hunting people down and demonstrating his power over them.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

Again, nobody is defending the actions of the illegals in this case, nor is anyone saying that the guy didn't have the right to defend his property. However, there is a huge difference between stopping some people on your property and calling the cops, and between stopping some people on your property, threatening to kill them, kicking a woman who is down on the ground and not resisting, etc.

The fact that someone trespasses doesn't mean you get to do that.

We don't know all the facts, but going off of what we do know, I can draw some pretty obvious conclusions about the guy. The fact that he says he's turned in over 12,000 illegals over the years, combined with the fact that he has a whole electronic tracking and hunting system set up, combined with the fact that he's reckless and stupid enough to chase after legal citizens on state property and hold them hostage indicates to me that he's a giddy redneck who probably loves this **** and gets off on hunting people down and demonstrating his power over them.

Given the information, it sounds more to me like a man who has had his property trashed, stolen, and livestock killed on multiple occasions and finally had enough. Should he been calmer? Yeah, probably, but I can see why he's upset. I mean, he could have just shot the whole lot of them. Given the damage to his property and livelihood in the past, I would say that they posed serious threat to him.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

While I agree that the immigrants were in the wrong, I think it's asinine to say that they do not have rights. They are human beings, much like you and I.

Sure, they have rights. They do NOT have the right to tresspass on someone else's land.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

:rofl

That is rich coming from you who have several times shown yourself the enemy of private property.

You can't distinguish the difference between Constitutionally protected rights in the United States and the change of regime in the Palestinian Mandate. I am sorry for you and your inability to understand that what is reality is one place simply doesn't necessarily apply somewhere else. Perhaps, if you were to live in a variety of cultures in your life, you would understand this basic concept.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

What are these? Except a load of liberal, abstract bollocks of course.

As Joseph De Maistre pointed out, he had never met a "Man" ie a Human. He'd met Frenchman, Germans, Englishmen and he'd even heard of a Persian but never met a man.

Have you ever heard of the Declaration of the Rights of "Man" and the Citizen? Goes back over 200 years. Ever heard of the Universal Declaration of "Human" Rights? Goes back over 60 years. Perhaps you should get your head out of the sand sometime.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

You can't distinguish the difference between Constitutionally protected rights in the United States and the change of regime in the Palestinian Mandate. I am sorry for you and your inability to understand that what is reality is one place simply doesn't necessarily apply somewhere else. Perhaps, if you were to live in a variety of cultures in your life, you would understand this basic concept.

You believe property rights come from the state, have defended the complete eradication of them several times and seem to be practicing hypocrisy.

Have you ever heard of the Declaration of the Rights of "Man" and the Citizen? Goes back over 200 years. Ever heard of the Universal Declaration of "Human" Rights? Goes back over 60 years. Perhaps you should get your head out of the sand sometime.
What the hell kind of Conservative are you?

You attack property rights again and again and claim they come from the state then you appeal to Jacobinism, which De Maistre was specifically attacking, and the UN as universal law.

Human rights, like the so called rights of man, are abstract liberal bollocks which are contrary to common law principles and about forcing through their universalist, liberal agenda. They deserve the same derision that the great Conservative masters like Burke and De Maistre gave the Jacobin foolishness; "The rights of man".

And again what kind of Catholic has much time for Jacobins? Are you unaware of the history of the French revolution?
 
Illegals attempt to sue rancher for protecting his property

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 when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.


Source: Washington Times - 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

Pictures of a similar illegal immigrant "super highway" showing the kind of debris left behind. You'd think the Border patrol could sit in lawn chairs and wait for the illegals to show up.

Example 1

Example 2

After turning in over 12,000 illegals after 10 years you'd think someone would have given him a medal by now. Even if exaggerated and only half that amount its still a pretty big achievement for a single guy. Not hard to imagine though since many illegals move in large "coyote" groups and not single entities.

Moderator's Warning:
Please do not post entire articles. See the fair use guidelines in the breaking news forum for further information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

You believe property rights come from the state, have defended the complete eradication of them several times and seem to be practicing hypocrisy.

What the hell kind of Conservative are you?

You attack property rights again and again and claim they come from the state then you appeal to Jacobinism, which De Maistre was specifically attacking, and the UN as universal law.

Human rights, like the so called rights of man, are abstract liberal bollocks which are contrary to common law principles and about forcing through their universalist, liberal agenda. They deserve the same derision that the great Conservative masters like Burke and De Maistre gave the Jacobin foolishness; "The rights of man".

And again what kind of Catholic has much time for Jacobins? Are you unaware of the history of the French revolution?

Actually, where I agree most strongly with you is the argument that property rights do not come from the state. Actually our Bill of Rights is based on property rights, so the state (the USA, that is) is actually derived FROM property rights, and not the other way around.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

Property rights are inalienable as stated in the DoI.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

Actually, where I agree most strongly with you is the argument that property rights do not come from the state. Actually our Bill of Rights is based on property rights, so the state (the USA, that is) is actually derived FROM property rights, and not the other way around.

The state is derived from war, historically speaking no modern, or ancient I believe, state has been found to have any other origin.

Property rights derive from society and the necessary autonomy and liberties, in the medieval usage, that intermediate associations like family require. Man has a right, a natural right if you will, to those benefits for which society is meant to provide including the the stable ownership of individual and group property interpreted through convention.
 
Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher Claim violation of rights as they crossed his lan

Sure, they have rights. They do NOT have the right to tresspass on someone else's land.
I do not recall claiming that they had the right to trespass...
 
Back
Top Bottom