Current Topics
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by Jeffery J. Haas
Today at 09:02 PM
The Mueller Report
by Ujest Shurly
Today at 03:22 PM
We Finally Learned What a Year in Space Did to Astronaut Scott Kelly's Body
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 08:50 AM
Leader of armed militia that held migrants arrested on weapons charges
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 08:29 AM
Impeach
by pondering_it_all
04/23/19 07:22 PM
Roundtable for April 2019
by pondering_it_all
04/23/19 07:16 PM
I wonder............
by jgw
04/22/19 06:55 PM
Two for Easter
by Golem
04/22/19 01:07 AM
Late-game fart wreaks havoc on Philadelphia 76ers bench
by pondering_it_all
04/21/19 03:04 AM
Note Dame Cathedral fire
by pondering_it_all
04/19/19 01:13 AM
Responding
by pondering_it_all
04/19/19 01:06 AM
The debate over what Julian Assange’s arrest means for freedom of the press
by Greger
04/18/19 04:29 PM
Justice is coming
by Greger
04/17/19 11:51 PM
Mom says she and 'giggling' son with special needs were asked to leave movie the
by pondering_it_all
04/17/19 03:04 AM
Trump wanted to free illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities
by pondering_it_all
04/16/19 04:57 AM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2019
by Golem
04/15/19 05:12 PM
What is Neoliberalism?
by chunkstyle
04/15/19 02:40 PM
freshman facts
by jgw
04/14/19 07:45 PM
You can help name the largest unnamed world in the solar system
by Greger
04/09/19 08:17 PM
Nancy Pelosi named recipient of Profile in Courage Award
by Golem
04/07/19 07:59 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
58 Forums
16540 Topics
285407 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 11 of 17 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16 17 >
Topic Options
#100226 - 02/13/09 12:14 AM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: SkyHawk]
stereoman Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/30/04
Posts: 15646
Loc: Asheville, NC
 Originally Posted By: SkyHawk
Stereo, you apparently missed my entire point. The members of the Tohono Nation are not "white landed gentry" yet they are having exactly the same problems that Mr Barnett is.

I understand that, Sky. I offer no argument about the difficulties of the situation. I just think it's a bit off topic. This thread is about a lawsuit filed by a specific group of people against a specific person. He is the only person I have suggested is a member of the landed gentry.

And I freely and willingly take all the credit for introducing racism into the discussion. I believe in calling an elephant an elephant.
_________________________
Steve
Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.

(Native American prayer)


Top
#100233 - 02/12/09 11:46 PM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: stereoman]
Scoutgal Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/23/01
Posts: 27583
Loc: CA USA
 Originally Posted By: stereoman
It's not up to you to afford anyone due process of law, since you're neither a lawyer nor a judge and you're not trying the case. You're entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that a jury found Mr. Barnett guilty of assault and intimidation, whereas the plaintiffs in this case have never been found guilty of anything in a court of law.Whether they were in the US illegally, or even whether they were trespassing, has been alleged but not established. So, as I stipulated, they have no record of criminal activity, whereas Mr. Barnett does.

A person who is undocumented is not necessarily breaking the law, as Mellow Julia so illustriously pointed out earlier. And, furthermore, a person is never illegal. Ever. A person may commit an illegal act, a person may be a heinous criminal, but a person is not illegal.


In your opinion.

Mellow pointed out that she doesn't always carry her birth certificate or passport, therefore she couldn't prove her citizenship, but she probably does carry(and so do you and I) a drivers' license or state ID card. The exceptions would be those not having attained their majority.

If a person is here without documentation and is an immigrant, then that person is here illegally, one may use the euphemism "undocumented", but if there is no valid green card, no valid work/student visa, no valid state ID/drivers license, US birht certificate/naturalization papers, then they are here either as tourists, which means they have a passport, or here in the US illegally.
_________________________
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.





Top
#100234 - 02/12/09 11:48 PM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: stereoman]
Mellowicious Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/03/06
Posts: 9573
Loc: The Great American Desert
You know, maybe I should make this point: I'm not saying there is no problem. I'm saying kidnapping people at gunpoint because you think they're illegal is not a solution.

I read some of the Minutemen procedures today, thinking about this thread, and this guy's behavior is way out of line by their standards. Minutemen consider themselves responsible vigilates; they would not -- or they say they would not -- accept this kind of action.

His solution is not lawful. It's dangerous and it's not acceptable in my view.

If he's doing such a grand job on border patrol, and is such a good citizen, I don't understand why ICE or the border patrol haven't recruited him. (If he's busting 3 people a day, he's already spending as much or more time rounding people up and driving to/from the immigration office than he is ranching.) And if the problem is really that bad, and if he's such a fine upstanding citizen, I can't figure out why his government representatives haven't been able to get him a little help. He clearly seems to know exactly where people are crossing.

I'm sorry. I think his story is embellished, and I think he's dangerous. If the problem in his area is that bad - and it might well be - then the border patrol and/or the Minutemen (I do not support the Minutemen, but they're a better solution than this guy running around waving loaded guns/rifles/whatever) need to act.

This man's solution is just plain bad, and that's true if I believe every word of his story.
_________________________
Julia

Curiosity killed the cat - Satisfaction brought it back

Top
#100235 - 02/12/09 11:54 PM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: Scoutgal]
Mellowicious Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/03/06
Posts: 9573
Loc: The Great American Desert
 Originally Posted By: Scoutgal

If a person is here without documentation and is an immigrant, then that person is here illegally, one may use the euphemism "undocumented", but if there is no valid green card, no valid work/student visa, no valid state ID/drivers license, US birht certificate/naturalization papers, then they are here either as tourists, which means they have a passport, or here in the US illegally.


If you do not know where I was born or when, you have no idea whether I'm an immigrant or not, and so far as I can see, no right to demand that I show my papers. What you are saying may or may not be true (it's a fairly complex statement and I'd have to think about the paperwork -- but how does a private citizen know that a) I need papers and b) I don't have them?

Clearly this particular rancher has been mistaken on at least one notable occasion.
_________________________
Julia

Curiosity killed the cat - Satisfaction brought it back

Top
#100239 - 02/13/09 12:16 AM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: stereoman]
Scoutgal Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/23/01
Posts: 27583
Loc: CA USA
 Originally Posted By: stereoman
 Originally Posted By: SkyHawk
Stereo, you apparently missed my entire point. The members of the Tohono Nation are not "white landed gentry" yet they are having exactly the same problems that Mr Barnett is.

I understand that, Sky. I offer no argument about the difficulties of the situation. I just think it's a bit off topic. This thread is about a lawsuit filed by a specific group of people against a specific person. He is the only person I have suggested is a member of the landed gentry.

And I freely and willingly take all the credit for introducing racism into the discussion. I believe in calling an elephant an elephant.


But it seems that you are the one showing racism. reading your posts, I get the feeling that the white landed gentry rancher should just turn a blind eye to the trespassing, loss od income, basically allowing the illegal immigrants who trespass across HIS land to steal the very bread from the mouths of his family, because the illegal immigrants are the poor, downtrodden brownskins and he is white landed gentry. Nevermind that he works like a dog to keep his ranch going, working in all kinds of weather. He is working at the American Dream-something that these illegal aliens want, or they wouldn't be illegally crossing the border to come here, and yet you feel it is alright for them to steal it away from this rancher albeit in bits and pieces.

In this lawsuit, he is being sued by criminals. The 16 illegal aliens were trespassing(misdemeanor or felony, it is still a crime) on his private property. There is no dispute by either side about that. The dispute is only in how Barnett chose to resolve it.

On America's Dumbest Criminals, I watched a segment where a young man tried to steal a six-pack of beer, and was locked in the store by th clerk(who was behind a glass wall). The clerk then called 911. The young thief demanded and then begged the clerk to please unlock the doors and let him go. The clerk refused, and waited for the police to arrive to turn over the trapped thief to them. How is what Rancher Barnett any different from that? The man was held against his will and turned over to law enforcement. rancher Barnett held 16 trespassing illegal aliens against their will and turned them over to immigration. I do not see any difference.
_________________________
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.





Top
#100240 - 02/13/09 12:20 AM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: Mellowicious]
Scoutgal Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/23/01
Posts: 27583
Loc: CA USA
 Originally Posted By: Mellowicious
 Originally Posted By: Scoutgal

If a person is here without documentation and is an immigrant, then that person is here illegally, one may use the euphemism "undocumented", but if there is no valid green card, no valid work/student visa, no valid state ID/drivers license, US birht certificate/naturalization papers, then they are here either as tourists, which means they have a passport, or here in the US illegally.


If you do not know where I was born or when, you have no idea whether I'm an immigrant or not, and so far as I can see, no right to demand that I show my papers. What you are saying may or may not be true (it's a fairly complex statement and I'd have to think about the paperwork -- but how does a private citizen know that a) I need papers and b) I don't have them?

Clearly this particular rancher has been mistaken on at least one notable occasion.


If you are on my property, I certainly do have the right to demand your identity. Even law enforcement has to show me ID and legal cause to be there. The same application is used when one is asked for ID to make a transaction in a bank, store or to buy controlled substances, such as alcohol or tobacco.
_________________________
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.





Top
#100241 - 02/13/09 12:27 AM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: stereoman]
SkyHawk Offline
Admin Emeritus
old hand

Registered: 04/07/99
Posts: 6298
 Originally Posted By: stereoman
.., whereas the plaintiffs in this case have never been found guilty of anything in a court of law. Whether they were in the US illegally, or even whether they were trespassing, has been alleged but not established. So, as I stipulated, they have no record of criminal activity, whereas Mr. Barnett does.

Oops...

 Quote:
Gonzalez was convicted in September 1993 for the possession for sale of a controlled substance and ordered removed to Mexico.
...
While MALDEF acknowledged Gonzalez was previously ordered removed to Mexico and was committing a felony by reentering at the time of the incident, he was also one of the aliens which MALDEF referred to as a “citizen of Pennsylvania.”
_________________________
SkyHawk
.

Top
#100245 - 02/13/09 12:42 AM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: Scoutgal]
stereoman Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/30/04
Posts: 15646
Loc: Asheville, NC
 Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
reading your posts, I get the feeling that the white landed gentry rancher should just turn a blind eye to the trespassing, loss od income, basically allowing the illegal immigrants who trespass across HIS land to steal the very bread from the mouths of his family, because the illegal immigrants are the poor, downtrodden brownskins and he is white landed gentry.

My argument, once again, is that it is a mistake to blame these 16 people for crimes of destruction against Mr. Barnett's property that have been committed by other people in the past. There is no evidence to support that blame except their ethnicity. That's where Mr. Barnett got into trouble before, to the tune of $210,000.

You're entitled to your feelings, of course. But don't put words in my mouth. Your feelings are your feelings, and my words are my words. If it's something I said, please quote it.

Oh wait. Let me.
 Originally Posted By: stereoman
 Originally Posted By: issodhos
Sounds like a rampant case of trespassing to me, stereoman -- as well as illegal entry into the USA.

No doubt.

 Originally Posted By: stereoman
IMHO the plaintiffs don't stand a chance.

 Originally Posted By: stereoman
Just want to point out here, once again, that no one has argued that the plaintiffs ought to be awarded, or will be awarded, any sort of damages. A few of us have pointed out, however, that it is within their rights to file the suit.

I, for one, have conjectured that the jury will find for the defendant. As far as I know, no one has disputed that.

 Originally Posted By: stereoman
My sympathies lie with the rancher and the immigrants.

I hope those quotes are helpful.

 Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
The portrayal here of them being total innocents is a false premise.

Please provide a quote from this discussion in which the plaintiffs have been portrayed as total innocents.

 Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
How is what Rancher Barnett any different from that?

Rancher Barnett was alleged to have threatened the plaintiffs with a rifle, and to have verbally abused them with racial epithets. Also, no evidence has been presented that the plaintiff stole anything from the rancher, or damaged his property. Also, I believe the point has been made that the plaintiffs may not have been aware that they were on his property. Also, it has been noted that Barnett was the one "on the prowl" rather than vice-versa. Also, it has been noted that Barnett had a history of violent behavior and had been found guilty by a jury of his peers of threatening and intimidating behavior. Did the store owner have such a history?

There are some other differences too. But that's a start.
_________________________
Steve
Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.

(Native American prayer)


Top
#100247 - 02/13/09 12:47 AM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: SkyHawk]
stereoman Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/30/04
Posts: 15646
Loc: Asheville, NC
 Originally Posted By: SkyHawk
 Originally Posted By: stereoman
.., whereas the plaintiffs in this case have never been found guilty of anything in a court of law. Whether they were in the US illegally, or even whether they were trespassing, has been alleged but not established. So, as I stipulated, they have no record of criminal activity, whereas Mr. Barnett does.

Oops...

 Quote:
Gonzalez was convicted in September 1993 for the possession for sale of a controlled substance and ordered removed to Mexico.
...
While MALDEF acknowledged Gonzalez was previously ordered removed to Mexico and was committing a felony by reentering at the time of the incident, he was also one of the aliens which MALDEF referred to as a “citizen of Pennsylvania.”

Good find, Sky. Now we know that at least one of the sixteen does have a prior criminal record.

Also from your article:
 Quote:
Last March, Roll denied the Barnetts’ motion to dismiss and stated there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy, denying the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel and the Barnetts’ actions were motivated by race, to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.

Apparently I'm not the only one who recognizes the elephant.
_________________________
Steve
Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.

(Native American prayer)


Top
#100248 - 02/13/09 12:48 AM Re: 16 illegals sue Arizona rancher [Re: Scoutgal]
Mellowicious Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/03/06
Posts: 9573
Loc: The Great American Desert
 Originally Posted By: Scoutgal


If you are on my property, I certainly do have the right to demand your identity. Even law enforcement has to show me ID and legal cause to be there. The same application is used when one is asked for ID to make a transaction in a bank, store or to buy controlled substances, such as alcohol or tobacco.


Identity. But not my citizenship status.

And inability to provide ID is, in itself, not cause for arrest. So if I'm in your yard, you ask for ID, I say "I don't have one," I can turn around and leave. Unless I'm on this rancher's property.


Edited by Mellowicious (02/13/09 12:53 AM)
_________________________
Julia

Curiosity killed the cat - Satisfaction brought it back

Top
Page 11 of 17 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16 17 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 27 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2