Amen.
I’m going to come right out and say that I’m one of those people that conservatives hate: liberal, sympathetic to illegal immigrants, and dont consider it a big deal or contributing to the death of America
However, I see this as a trespassing issue. They were going through the guy’s property so he has every right to detain them and summon the authorities. The fact that they are Mexican nationals is of little consequence
Oh no you don’t. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the immigration system is broken and badly so. These aren’t scare quotes, whatever the hell that means, these are “these-folks-can’t-sue-for-something-they-don’t-have” quotes.
Watch the immigration and gumballs speech (google it) if you’ve never seen it and tell me how the math doesn’t work. I don’t think any rational person is scared of a good immigration policy, but if we take in more people than we can care for and our systems become overloaded with that burden, THAT becomes a problem for everyone. And you deserve special treatment because you were born here, just as a citizen of any other country deserves special treatment from whatever THEIR country of origin may be. It’s a long standing and time tested process, citizenship, and one that deserves and requires protecting.
Any country must be a zealous guardian of their own borders, therein lies the protection of all of her residents, friends and guests.
On the contrary, if they weren’t Mexican nationals the crime of Illegal Entry would not apply. Legally the only difference is who the complainer calls, ICE or the County Sheriff.
I forgot this little gem. Are you REALLY saying “I wouldn’t have had to break your window and STEAL the DVD player if you’d only just GIVE it to me?” :rolleyes:
Sure, fix immigration and make it easier, but Christ on a crackerjack box, that’s just dumb.
But in this thread the whole issue is that they deserve to be hanged because they are Mexicans. It is OK to take the law into your own hands if it is with Mexicans.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=597
Federal law specifically prohibits citizen’s arrest of undocumented aliens. So all he has to go on is the trespassing.
Where in the hell do you come UP with this? What if these were Canadians, granted, it’d be a little more amusing, but the spirit would be the same.
I’m not talking about illegal entry into the country, I’m talking about trespassing onto this guy’s private property. I’d applaud him for doing it if it was American citizens doing it too
It is? I thought this thread was about trespassing, false imprisonment, and civil rights?
buttonjockey, you’re unfairly equating entry with theft. Even if everyone who loiters in your store is a shoplifter, not everything that resembles loitering is also theft. False conflation.
Our immigration system is broken, in that it’s been designed by legislators trying to appease popular passions more than to find a workable system. At present, it can take 10 years on a waiting list to enter the country as a resident alien. This is excessive for the large proportion of workers who are not seeking citizenship, & merely want to make some money in a wealthy country & go home by the time 10 years passes.
If we introduced a “shall issue” guest worker visa, dependent simply on proving that one is neither a carrier of exotic infectious disease nor a fugitive from justice; then the supply of marks for the coyotes would dry up, & there would be relatively few persons coming through Mr Barnett’s land–& those that did might actually be as much a menace as anti-immigration types think “illegals” are.
Except that there is nothing within 8 U.S.C. section 1324 (3)(B)(c) that prevents DETENTION of said criminals as opposed to citizens arrest, though the line is rather narrow and such cases likely wouldn’t stand up, but you COULD interpret it that way. That said, though the two crimes are distinctly different, if held for trespassing until the AHJ arrived, the AHJ could hold the violators until ICE arrived and both crimes could be prosecuted concurrently.
The link I’m drawing between the two is merely the level of the crime, I’m comparing misdemeanor to misdemeanor. Still, I stand by my example of the shopkeeper and Mr. Barnett, with stolen, broken or damaged goods for sale or stolen, broken or damaged personal property, both have an unwanted impact on the victim, both deserve redress according to the constitution.
I don’t disagree with you on any of this. I believe there is a fix necessary, until the fix comes though, do we ignore the current law of the land because of the hardship it places on someone from another country, or do our laws and regulations work for citizens of America first?
This is, perhaps, a good idea. Does it mirror other so-called “first world” countries in scope and intent?
No - they deserve to be detained for criminal trespass according to Arizona State Law.
Or in your world is it OK to trespass as long as you are a Mexican?
I have to agree with you. They were trespassing on private property. A person should be able to enjoy and use his/her property in peace. Whether the trespassers are illegals or neighbors, they were still trespassing.
Look, I personally feel that human beings have a fundamental and unalienable right to migration. Hell, if I could not make a living where I live, or feed my family, I would migrate too. Borders of sovereign countries would not stop me, feeding myself and my family is my highest priority. I am all for changing the immigration laws to make it easier, even simple and trivial, for people to work in this country. I would also make it easier for people to become citizens.
But, all that aside, I also believe that a person’s property is sacrosanct. These people were trespassing and the rancher has every right to detain them and arrest them in my book. If they are breaking into his house and threatening his family, he can shoot them. Hell, I would probably even say he could even shoot them if they are damaging his ranch in such a way as to damage his livelihood and he is unable to find another solution. Just because I feel the immigrants have the fundamental right to migrate, does not mean they have the right to damage the ranchers property or livelihood.
here’s my question, the law seems to clearly state that deadly force can be used when someone is commiting criminal trespass. But can deadly force be used in detaing the assumed trespassers?
I mean what if someone is only a yards on his property, dude pulls out a gun and says “Stop! I’m arresting you for trespassing.” If the guy tries to “escape” can he be stopped?
This is Texas. I believe the answer is more or less yes.