To correct what the previous poster was saying, there’s no federal US law about “citizens’ arrests”…every state has its own law.
The provision in Arizona law is A.R.S 13-3884, which says:
Not directly related to this, but here’s an article by Catherine Smith, looking at the situation of Patrick Haab. (Haab made a “citizens arrest” of a group of people he believed to be illegal immigrants at an Arizona rest stop, holding them at gunpoint.)
It looks like Criminal Trespass is a misdeamor in AZ, though my prior quote makes it appear that you can still use deadly force (again - not sure if that has passed or not):
I am quite sure they were not trying to remain on the property at all and were trying to leave as fast as they could. The law does not say you have to leave in the same direction you entered.
It is quite possible the migrants do have a case. It would be even funnier if among them was some American citizen. (Or can he be charged with impersonating a Mexican?)
The article states that in the past Mr. Barnett has had fences and gates destroyed, so I would infer that at least some of the property is posted. Whether these particular immigrants crossed over Mr. Barnett’s fence could be a question.
All this is predicated on the notion that the only crimes being committed were trespass, and illegally entering the country.
Of course, upon rereading the atricle, it becomes pretty clear why MALDEF is suing -
MALDEF doesn’t like it that this guy is stopping so many illegal aliens. I wonder why, if it is illegal to make a citizen’s arrest of illegal aliens/trespassers/vandals, the prosecuting attorney in Mr. Barnett’s county never filed any charges the other 11,984 times.
It might be helpful if someone posted exactly what MALDEF doesn’t like. To that end, I’d still be interested in knowing which specific civil rights are alleged to have been conspired against.
You really can’t think of a reason why prosecutorial discretion might be used in that fashion? Honestly? Try thinking a little harder, and if you are still stuck, let me know. I have a few ideas I could throw your way as a favor.
Perhaps because:
(1) it would be unpopular with the voters in that county to file those charges;
(2) he sympathised with the rancher’s problems with illegal immigrants damaging property;
(3) it would be hard to get a jury to convict.
It’s not that complicated. U.S. citizens enjoy, broadly speaking, only two categories of rights and/or privileges that noncitizens, legally or illegally present in the U.S., do not:
Right of residence on U.S. soil. In our legal system we do not even have exile as punishment for crime; the state can imprison you, can execute you, but cannot, if you are a native-born citizen, deport you.
Right of political participation, including voting and holding public office. Noncitizens, however, still enjoy First Amendment rights and can still participate in a political campaign or movement.
Wrong. The man has a right to expect that his government would have secure borders. and that law breakers wouldn’t routinely show up on his land. I think the federal government should reimburse every land owner for all damage caused by illegal immigrants.
Mr. Barnett’s ranch might be large enough that the only direction to leave is back to Mexico. If I find you in the middle of my ranch:
North - back to National Forest
West - back to National Forest
East - towards the house
South - towards another plot of private property.
Now, if you are on my land and I tell you to leave, you had best head back where you came (odds are, that would be North). If you head East I would hold you, and if you head South I would notify my neighbor that he has someone trying to trespass onto his property.
This is the question I have, too. Not that I care, mind you, because I honestly don’t think there’s much to debate. If this fellow has turned over some 12,000 people for committing the crime of criminal trespass who turned out to also be committing the crime of illegal entry, I say we give him a Hummvee, a badge and set him loose. If the illegals truly have a case, there’s something wrong with the system. I don’t give a fiddlemakers fu*k about the “civil rights” of people attempting to enter the country in that fashion. The only thing he did was stop them and hold them until the authorities arrived. As a shopkeeper, I have the right to hold a shoplifter I catch until the authorities arrive. As a landowner, I fail to see the difference between that misdemeanor and criminal trespass. I can make the justification for the impact both crimes have on their respective victims, if I as a shopkeeper am being pilfered from, that hurts my commerce which hurts my impact on the local economy. If I as a landower am constantly having to fix or repair the damage that criminals do, in truth, MY rights are being violated because you as the criminal are forcing me to fix or repair that which you have broken and costing me money.
While we’re at it, MALDEF can kiss the fattest part of my ass.
None of this trespassing and property destruction would have happened if the US had just let these people walk in the front gate. I still don’t get the irrational fear people have that we might end up with too many Mexicans in this country. What the hell is the big deal with letting people live and work here who want to live and work here? Why do I deserve special treatment just because I got squirted out on US soil?
Stuff like this:
sickens me. Way to make me sympathize with your cause. :rolleyes: Come on! Scare quotes around “Civil Rights”?