Apparently lawyers for 11 people who died trying to cross the border think so.
From this this story in the Tuscon Citizen and this story in the Arizona Republic.
Two Yuma lawyers filed suit on behalf of 11 illegal Mexican immigrants who died crossing an Arizona desert. They are seeking $41.25 million dollars from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in damages.
Their claim: A civic group wanted to set up a water station in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The government either turned them down or never got the request (depending on whose story you choose to believe).
But, in any event, is the government responsible for this? These people were coming into the country illegaly! They should not have been in the desert to begin with.
Even if you claim that they had the “right” to be there, is the government responsible for maintaining the person safety of everyone in hazardous environments? Does the government have to install heaters at the top of Mt. McKinley so people don’t freeze to death climbing the mountain? Are water stations required in the middle of Death Valley? Should Florida have to put up alligator repellant kiosks in the Everglades? Exactly to what extent is the government required to protect it’s citizen (or illegals) from hazardous environments?
The lawyers are loonies. (Or, more likely, goldbricking)
Putting aside the issue of the illegal aspects of hopping the border, the government is not AFAIK obligated to make its parks and wildlife refuges safe for anyone who happens to be in the area. Otherwise, we’d have to muzzle the bears at Yellowstone.
Perhaps this belongs in the Pit. Will any poster argue in favor of this lawsuit?
However, the plaintiffs might win. There have cases where criminals injured while robbing a house successfully sued the homeowner for damages, because the house was unsafe.
I certainly don’t agree with the lawsuit, nor do I think the government has the responsibility to have water available out there.
A better question for a GD might be: should the government put water out there?
On the one hand, the thought of the long, treacherous journey with no more water than you can carry is not an appealing one, so it might discourage a lot of illegals from trying. On the other hand, I’d rather have someone living illegally in this country than dead in the desert. So even though the government doesn’t have the responsibility to put the water out there, I think they should.
Well, just to help out Zev’s thread, I’ll play devil’s advocate, strictly from an ethical perspective.
Hypothetical One: Suppose the a Border Patrol agent, driving through the desert, comes across a couple of illegal aliens who have collapsed from dehydration. Putting aside legal duty, would it be ethical for the agent simply to drive on? The illegal aliens are breaking the law and the agent has done nothing to contribute to their plight.
Hypothetical Two: The Border Patrol agent, out for a drive on the weekend with a friend, comes across a couple of illegal aliens who have collapsed from dehydration. The border patrol agent intervenes to prevent the friend from helping the illegal aliens.
Hypothetical Three: The Border Patrol, knowing that illegal aliens are dying in the desert from dehydration, prevents a private group from helping them.
I think this is an ethically nuanced situation. Illegal immigration shouldn’t be encouraged. At the same time, it doesn’t merit the death penalty.
So basically, we now have to see whether the government was negligent in not allowing the water station to have been built.
The elements for negligence are
A duty on the part of the defendant,
A breach of that duty by defendant,
breach was the actual and proximate cause of the injury, and
damage
Here, it seems that the issue is whether the government had a duty to allow the water station to be built. AFAIK, a private landowner owes a trespasser no duty of care for natural conditions on his land.
The immigrants death was unfortunate and sad, but their survivors have no case.
**Truth Seeker ** , in all three of your hypotheticals the officer would be obligated to take the illegal alien into custody, not simply ignore him. I’m not sure what policy is for the treatment of illegals once they are in custody, but I’m pretty sure it allows for food and water. And I think that most of our agents are humane enough to help these people so that they wouldn’t die before they got them to a containment facility where they would wait to be sent back across the border.
We routinely pick up Cuban refugees whose boats are so overloaded that they are sinking. That is the humane thing to do. But should we be required to set up a ferry service to shuttle them over safely? Hell no.
Next we’ll be setting up refueling stations for our enemies long range bombers. It just wouldn’t be fair if they ran out of fuel before they got to deliver their payload. The pilots would crash and die.
I hope that the judge makes a laughing stock out of those attorneys. I hope that their reputations are ruined by the case. Money-hungry bastards. Maybe the judge will order them to stand in the desert handing out water to any passers-by.
Truth Seeker, whoops missed your “Putting aside legal duties” bit. Still, I think it would be unethical for the agent to respond in any of the ways you proposed.
That’s pretty far off from what the OP is about though. No one witnessed these poor guys out there until it was too late, did they?
Sorry, this sort of case was disussed in a law for non-lawyers book that I studied in 1970. I have also seen a couple of articles in the insurance press many years ago.
Maybe one of the hotshot lawyers on this panel can help brujo.
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to illegal aliens. Having seen where many of them are coming from I can say I’d cross the border as well. Despite my sympathy I cannot see how they’re holding the US government responsible for the deaths of anybody trying to cross a desert on foot. The US government has no obligation to make breaking laws safe. The US government has no obligation to ensure that citizens or non-citizens will not be harmed in the natural environment.
Even in December’s example we can easily imagine a situation where the homeowner would be ethically responsible – at least under most ethical systems – even if the crimimal injured himself through no fault of the homeowner.
Suppose a burglar breaks into your home while you are away. He trips and falls down the stairs. You return to find him severely injured, bleeding and unconscious in the corner of your living room. He will die unless he receives prompt medical care. The burglar has committed a crime and the injury was in no way your responsibility. Is it ethically permissible to simply turn out the lights and go upstairs to bed?
Loki
Is it really that far off? Does it matter so much that you haven’t seen specific people dying? What if you know that over the course of a year, on average, fifty people will die?
Dr.J: Do you have any idea how big the freaking Arizona desert is?
I agree with Marc: It is impossible that this government, hell, any government, can protect all of its residents, citizens and aliens alike, from the natural environment.
IMO, the suit is simply another case of pure greed. Some shysters see a chance to get rich and have no scruples about means.
I have a vague memory of a case where the burglar fell through the roof and was injured.
Another one may have involved the homeowner harming the burglar, although I cannot recall the spring gun case. Unfortunately, my memory is foggy after all these years.
The spring gun case was where a man who owned two properties set up a spring gun to catch burglars who were breaking into the abandoned house. The court held for the burglar because a homeowner cannot use unreasonable force to protect his property. minor hijack
I think there is nothing the government could have done in this situation. The blame lies with the coyote who chose the route that killed them.
Truthseeker
But this example would be more analogous to the Border Patrol finding the dying immigrants and doing nothing.
Has anyone found anymore information on this suit?
Then I would inform the Mexican govt of that fact. I would suggest that they put water fountains on** their **side of the border. Jesus, these people live in an arid environment, I’m pretty sure they realize that crossing a desert without water is suicide.
But I’m confused about this line from the first link in the OP…
What?!?!? By protecting our borders we are forcing people to cross the border illegally and march through a desert without proper equipment? Are we going in to Mexico, putting guns to these peoples heads, and starting ‘cattle drives’ across Arizona?:rolleyes:
These must be the same attorneys that turned that fucking moron who spilled hot coffee on herself into a millionaire.
The analogies about the border guard have no standing unless you can prove that the US government knew they were there and refused help.
A better analogy would be that if a chimney-sweep told a homeowner that his chimney was too small for someone to fit down, he offers to widen it and the homeowner refuses. Comes back from a vacation or whatever and finds a dead burgler in his chimney.
Is he liable to the family of the burgler because he refused to widen his chimney?
