I sincerely doubt you can legally use force on someone who just happens to be crossing your land and just wants to walk away. I am certain you cannot use deadly force and I doubt you can use any kind of force unless that person is threatening you or has commited some major crime. A citizen’s arrest is much trickier than you may think, and a citizens arrst for crossing over a piece of land will probably get the arerester in trouble. I am sure that if you do a citizen’s arrest using physical force on someone who is just crossing your land you can be in very hot water, and rightly so IMHO.
God, I hate being the one to roll over the page. An in this thread I’ve done both pages so far. I better shut up. I guess it’s better than writing a 400 word post only to find out nobody responded and I killed the thread. I often do that too.
You got a swinging participle in there, friend :D.
If you mean, “if they lease the property for most legal purposes,” then you’re right – except that they don’t lease the property, they lease the grazing rights on public property, which is very different.
If you mean, “for most legal purposes, it is their property,” then you’re wrong: if I understand correctly, it’s only their property for the legal purpose of grazing cattle.
of course, the US sells grazing rights on our land for far less than the market value, thanks to corrupt Western politics – but that’s a whole nother skillet of bacon.
Danile
Don’t feel bad sailor, right now you have my thanks also. As for december I see he fell down on DDG points again. december is on record of being a listener of AM radio and other right wing news sources. His points on this debate follow standard boilerplate points from typical right wing radio blowhards. I have to listen sometimes at work because I allow my coworker, who is a Vietnam vet, to listen to AM radio. So yes I say again that those are ignorant sources, specially regarding this subject.
But december is not an ignorant.
He posts here, so there is still hope for him.
>> it’s only their property for the legal purpose of grazing cattle
What about people? Could they graze? 
Really? Amazingly enough, as an uncarded security guard (pronounced not a police officer, just a duly appointed representative of the property owner), I have arrested several people for tresspassing. None of them were very cooperative with the arrest. Amazingly enough I have not been pulled into court once to explain my actions. Some situational judgement is appropriate to the arrest. If I intercept you on my ranch and tell you to leave, I can walk you back out the way you came in. I do not have to let you cross. If you refuse to leave or demand to further violate my property by continuing to cross it against my will. I can arrest you, using the minimum amount of force needed to detain/restrain you. Messing with the rights of a property owner on his property is legally and physically dangerous.
Please remember an illegal alien is committing a crime just by being here. The penalty for this is deportation. So even if I was wrong, oops, bad me, inappropriately detained this poor innocent illegal alien, off to be deported anyway… {wave byebye}
I stand corrected I was under the impression they were leasing the land in its entirety, not just “grazing rights”. I am not aware of what type of permission issues that scenario may or may not entail.
As a matter of fact, DDG, if these white suburban kids are messing with property, the black farm property owners should get out their guns and look somewhat menacing. Notice that I am not saying that they should shoot them at first sight. However, why shouldn’t they be serious about trying to keep hoodlums off their property?
Oh, sailor?
If that mistake involved crossing a fence or other apparatus clearly intended to keep you out, why shouldn’t the landowner be permitted to make a citizens arrest? Maybe under the current laws that is not permissible for littering and trespassing, but why shouldn’t it be?
I’m not saying that illegal immigrants are all bad people out to kill cows. Often it is being out to make a better life for oneself, and often doing very well despite the odds. However, people should still be able to defend their own property against those who would unlawfully trespass on it. Frankly, I feel some sympathy towards Libertarian’s first few clauses:
The property they’re leasing is part of public lands like Coronado National Forest, and Bureau of Land Management Land. It doesn’t matter how much they paid for their grazing rights–all they get for their money is the right to run cattle on those “public” lands.
They have no right to keep people off that land, not campers, not backpackers, not hikers, not birdwatchers, not photographers, not picnickers, and not Mexicans walking through it on their way to somewhere else.
Lel:
So what are you suggesting? That they simply wave the guns around, hope the kids scare off? Or hope the kids die laughing?
Are you suggesting that they give the kids “ten to run” and then shoot them?
If you have hoodlums destroying your property, the correct–legal–thing to do is call the police. That’s their job, Lel. That’s the whole problem with the idea of vigilantes. We live in a society where there are proper procedures set up for law enforcement, both for your own property and for the border with Mexico. It’s a Bad Thing for Joe Citizen to take the law into his own hands, especially if the program includes a pump action 20-gauge. Everybody else understands this. Why don’t you?
From http://aztlan.net/barnettranch.htm
Aztlan.org is hardly in favor of these vigilante groups but even they concede
bolding mine. So according to his lease he can keep people off his land.
>> as long as he doesn’t create a “breach of the peace” in the process.
Going around armed and threatening force seems like a breach of the peace to me.
I realize most Americans do not support this kind of thing but there are enough who do to give that negative image abroad whereby many Europeans see the US as a bad western movie. In Europe, anyone who would go around proposing to resolve things with armed private citizens would be considered a nut, way out on the fringes of common sense.
Ah, nuts, Sailor beat me to it. 
Yes–as long as he doesn’t create a “breach of the peace” in the process, which shooting someone would. He can stand there and wave the gun around as much as he likes, but the minute he actually shoots someone with it, that’s a “breach of the peace”. (And, see below, even waving the gun around might constitute a “breach of the peace”.)
So, no, in actual practice, according to the terms of his lease, he doesn’t have any legal way to physically prevent someone from walking across his leased property. The whole reason this clause is in the “grazing rights” lease is because it involves public land that the lawmakers knew was going to be used for recreation by the taxpayers. So they didn’t want to allow ranchers to be able to keep hikers, birdwatchers, campers, etc. off the land.
So Barnett can build a really big fence–as long as his landlord, the People of the State of Arizona, don’t mind.
If someone tries to climb over the fence, and Barnett drags him off and punches him out, that’s a “breach of the peace”.
He can chain snarling Rottweilers every 20 feet all across the border of his leased property–but the minute one of them bites someone, that’s a “breach of the peace”.
So his hands are basically tied, as far as his leased property is concerned.
And this is precisely why the whole subject of vigilantes has come up. Vigilantes swing into action when the regular law is perceived to be inadequate or hopelessly mired in legal technicalities. If Barnett did have a legal way to physically keep Mexicans off his leased property, he’d have implemented it, and there’d be no need for vigilantes.
Here is a legal definition of “breach of the peace”. It’s from the UK, but I assume that the American usage is similar.
http://www.lemac.co.uk/resources/publication/breach_peace.html
Leave it to a lawyer to take 500 words to say what a dictionary says in 15.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=breach*1%202
So if Barnett shoots someone who trespasses on his leased property, that’s illegal, noisy, and violent, and constitutes a breach of the peace.
Now, if he shoots someone who is standing in the kitchen of the ranch house, that isn’t in a public place, so it’s not a breach of the peace. (It is, however, illegal, noisy, and violent.)
And notice that the UK definition says that the act doesn’t necessarily have to be “noisy” or “violent” to count as a breach of the peace. Sometimes all that’s required is that it cause “alarm” in bystanders. So according to this definition, every time Barnett waves his gun at an illegal and makes a so-called “citizens arrest”, he’s creating a breach of the peace.
And actually, here’s the bottom line for Barnett. From the Aztlan article:
Grazing leases are hard to come by. It’s not like leasing an apartment or a car. There’s a long waiting list, and I had already heard from other sources besides Aztlan that the Good Old Boy network rules in the allotment of grazing leases. Some ranching families have held the same grazing leases for generations, ever since the system was inaugurated.
So what’s at stake here for Barnett is not jail–his whole ranching operation could be jeopardized. If he embarrasses his peer group enough with this vigilante thing, he could fail to get his lease renewed in 2005 and be out of business.
Carrying a loaded or even concealed weapon on your own property is perfectly legal. In the context of ranching even prudent. Shooting predators trying to take down cattle or creatures like rattlesnakes that will kill cattle because they feel threatened by them is perfectly reasonable. IANAL and debating what “breach of peace” is would probably fill another thread. I could hardly see enforcing his property rights as “breach of peace” unless hes going around shooting people for the hell of it. Even then as long as hes not stirring up a shitstorm in the local town most likely the sherrif dosen’t care if he roughs up a few illegals here and there.
Also from the linked article
They aren’t worried about INS. 
They are willing to pay thousands of dollars to smugglers who may rob them and or kill them. :eek:
They fear the ranchers? :rolleyes:
The ranchers are probably being targeted because they have money and are easier to sue. If the fear of armed ranchers prevents illegal border crossing, problem solved. Invest the money you would have spent being smuggled in on proper work visas and a bus ticket.
Actually, they probably don’t fear INS, because the worst a Border Patrol agent is likely to do is send them back. Smugglers may rob or fleece them, but I don’t recall ever hearing about a coyote who actually murdered clients.
And work visas for unskilled labor are not so easy to come by. I do work visas for a living…and among other things, to get one legally, you need to have a job offer first from a U.S. employer, who has to file a petition on your behalf. Plus the employer has to meet a myriad of other conditions re: paying prevailing wage, providing decent housing for agricultural labor positions, etc. (I’d post more detail, because I do work visas for a living, but my office generally handles only ones for professional positions, not unskilled or even semi-skilled labor.) So even if you’re willing to shell out some cash, that isn’t going to make anyone wave a magic legalizing wand over you.
Are you seriously suggesting that it’s a good idea to have unscreened members of the general population, at least some of whom are totally violent loons and/or white supremacists, wave guns and/or shoot people because they’re walking across their land? Legal or illegal, they’re still human beings.
One mans hired security force is another mans vigilante.
If he had committed a criminal act he would be facing jail, this would most likely have a similar effect on his ranching operation and lease.
Neither of us are lawyers or judges and from the sounds of the articles this has been going on for many years with public knowledge that it is happening, and nothing has been done. So is the entire Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas judicial system gone to hell or are these people operating within the law.
Huh? So you mean to tell me the majority of the farm labor is illegal, but thats ok because it isn’t easy to do it legally.
Well everyone ignored my suggestion of hiring legit security people to patrol. Yes I full well realize that criminals have rights too, and no the penalty for illegal entry should not be death. Unfortunately, you play in the mud…you get muddy.
I said no such thing. I merely meant to clarify that one can’t just write a check to INS and get a legal work visa. If it were that simple, many, many more people would be doing it…as things stand now, though, it’s not a viable alternative for the vast majority of people.
Also, what do you propose to do about the large numbers of refuhgees from countries other than Mexico who enter the U.S. across the Mexican border? They do have a right under U.S. and international law to apply for asylum in a country where they are not in danger of persecution. When I worked for the DOJ, most Guatemalans and Salvadorans who applied for asylum had snuck in across the U.S./Mexico border.
I had no delusions that it is an easy process, its probably a freakin nightmare, but I bet it still beats dying in the desert.
Relatively speaking an ok basic job in the US provides a huge improvement in standard of living over the basic job in mexico. Probably similar to comparing an ok basic job here to the opportunities afforded by a college degree here. So as a matter of scale which is more difficult, a degree, or legal US work status. Takes years, yes, takes patience and determination, yes, can it be done legally to provide a better life for your family in mexico, yes.
I would no more expect someone choosing to work in the US for the better jobs here to be granted quickly and easily than I would expect legit degrees to be handed out.
When I worked for the DOJ, most Guatemalans and Salvadorans who applied for asylum had snuck in across the U.S./Mexico border.
[/QUOTE]
Could this not be accomplished more easily, at less risk, by contacting US diplomatic corps in their home country.
**drachillix, ** I think you underestimate what a pain in the ass it is to get an employment-based green card in the U.S.
Reader’s Digest version (again, I normally only do visas for professional positions, so this isn’t really my area of expertise): there are a few work visas available for unskilled temporary or seasonal labor, for which one’s employer has to jump through various hoops and shell out a bunch of cash.
A temporary/seasonal work visa, which is the only option generally available to unskilled or semi-skilled workers, does NOT lead to a green card. For that, one has to go through the joy that is labor certification, i.e. a test of the local labor market to rule out the possibility that there are available U.S. workers for the position. Even for a highly specialized professional position, such as the Ph.D. researchers and such for whom my office handles visas, this means legal and advertising costs that can top $10,000, and a wait of anywhere from 2-5 years, depending on jurisdiction and how many roadblocks INS and the state/federal labor departments throw your way, in processing times alone.
Then we throw in the green card quota factor. A comparatively small number of green cards (10,000 annually) are set aside each year for “other workers” (i.e. unskilled or semi-skilled workers; generally, any person whose permanent residence will be granted based on a job that requires less than a bachelor’s degree). You can find a more detailed explanation of visa categories, plus backlogs, at:
http://www.travel.state.gov/visa_bulletin.html
The “other workers” category is currently considered “unavailable,” because it has been so backlogged for so long. And considering that the other current backlogs listed range up to 20+ years, that’s saying something. So in practical terms, there is no employment-based green card process for unskilled or semi-skilled workers as things stand now.
As for the idea of having asylum seekers apply abroad: if you live in a country as small as Guatemala or El Salvador, and the army or the guerillas are looking for you, and you’re in imminent danger of death or torture, and you have possibly already been kidnapped or tortured or seen family members killed or tortured, are you going to wait around for an Embassy bureaucrat to send you an invitation to an interview? Or are you going to hightail it out of there? With a few exceptions, the asylum process simply doesn’t operate as you have suggested.
We’re hijacking this to hell and back
OK conceded on the part of asylum seekers, bad shit happens. ls asylum available if law enforcement/INS gets them before they can make the formal request? As far as unskilled labor, I understand the delays are huge, the delay does not excuse illegal entry.
back to topic
These “vigilantes” are not stalking through towns rounding up all the mexicans and running them out. They are enforcing their leased property rights to forbid tresspass. Do they have some questionable types doing it, not my first choices for sure. If the ranchers want to arrance impromptu security more power to them. If they are rousting folks off the street in town, problem. I would never approve of them harrassing people not on their property. Could they be seen as major assholes for refusing to grant safe passage across their land, also yes. If they want to be seen as assholes they can do that but branding vigilante on enforcement of tresspass is a precedent nobody in their right minds wants to set.
From the US INS Estimate of Illegal Immigration into the US in 1996 (here):
All countries …5,000,000
- Mexico …2,700,000
- El Salvador …335,000
- Guatemala …165,000
- Canada …120,000
- Haiti …105,000
I guess it depends on how many you consider too many.