16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

And perhaps if I was a dirt poor Mexican with no future, I might try to sneak across the border for a better life.

That is fine, just do it legally and we'll welcome you with open arms.

Detain illegal immigrants legally and I have no problem either.

[classicman]

nor do I - In fact lets detain them all then ship their asses right the eff outta here. It would certainly free up some jobs for legal residents.

[sugarpop]

I'm not against immigration, I'm against illegal immigration (and I'm a raging liberal).

Maybe we should be working with Mexico to make it a better place for their people, so they will want to stay there. The truth is, Mexico has MUCH stricter immigration policies than we do, and much worse punishment for breaking their laws.

It's also true that Mexico's elite support those people coming here, because they don't want them there.

It's also true that illegals send hundreds of billions of dollars back home every year. Money they earned here, illegally, using someone's SS# illegally. We NEED that money here. Especially now. And wouldn't that be identity theft?

Originally Posted by classicman

nor do I - In fact lets detain them all then ship their asses right the eff outta here. It would certainly free up some jobs for legal residents.

I am not defending illegal immigration....it is a serious national problem.

I am defending the Constitution.

Just keep in mind that our Constitution refers to rights of "people" not just "citizens."

While the courts have limited the civil rights of illegal immigrants, there are still rights that apply...so if you want to "detain them all and ship their asses right the eff outta here"..do it legally and not with vigilante justice.

Or just acknowledge that if you dont follow the rule of law, you are also wiling to ship out the Constitution

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

nor do I - In fact lets detain them all then ship their asses right the eff outta here. It would certainly free up some jobs for legal residents.

We could never do it. It would cost too much. The best way to do it is just make it impossible for them to get work here. They will leave on their own. PUNISH people who hire them. Like, SERIOUSLY punish them.

I think every job created by the stimulus should ONLY go to American citizens, or people who are here legally. NO ILLEGALS. Otherwise, what's the point?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Just keep in mind that our Constitution refers to rights of "people" not just "citizens."

Wrong. "We the people" is the people of the United States, not the people of Mexico, the Sudan, Cambodia, Iceland, or anywhere else you want to throw in. It was written by and for people who are legal citizens. No one else. If that were the case why don't we just go to Iraq and apply it there? We can't because it does not apply to them.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Wrong. "We the people" is the people of the United States, not the people of Mexico, the Sudan, Cambodia, Iceland, or anywhere else you want to throw in. It was written by and for people who are legal citizens. No one else. If that were the case why don't we just go to Iraq and apply it there? We can't because it does not apply to them.

The right of habeus corpus is extending to persons in the US and not limited to citizens....unless you share Alberto Gonzales' interpretation of the Constitution.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That doesn't change the fact that criminals on private property can be legally detained by the property owner for the authorities.

If he frightens them, or hurts their feelings, but doesn't use unnecessary force, fuck 'em.

[Bullitt]

The concept of habeaus corpus applies to all human beings, but the problem is how or should the U.S. enforce adherance to it on those who are not U.S. citizens?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I am defending the Constitution.

Why? From Who? Who brought that up in this conversation? No one is attacking the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Redux

Just keep in mind that our Constitution refers to rights of "people" not just "citizens."

Agreed, but ??? (Long thread about that elsewhere)

Originally Posted by Redux

While the courts have limited the civil rights of illegal immigrants, there are still rights that apply...so if you want to "detain them all and ship their asses right the eff outta here"..do it legally and not with vigilante justice.

Absolutely - Oh, and by the way - Lets put some more Americans to work and build a nice wall to stop the uncontested flow from the Mexican border. We can also build a nice facility to welcome and process those that would like to enter legally. That will create more jobs. Additionally, I'd be in favor of setting up a medical facility on the Mexican side of the border as well so that those who are about to have children can have a clean,safe & modern facility with qualified personnel in their own country.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The right of habeus corpus is extending to persons in the US and not limited to citizens....unless you share Alberto Gonzales' interpretation of the Constitution.

I am not talking about one part of habeus, which is not listed in our Constitution, but implied by collective parts of it. There is nothing that says our Constitution applies to anyone other than US Citizens, the writ of hc is an important aspect of our judicial system. No one is saying that these individuals are being denied that writ.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

The concept of habeaus corpus applies to all human beings, but the problem is how

Completely

or should

Yes.

the U.S. enforce adherance to it on those who are not U.S. citizens?

The Constitution applies to the US government, wherever it operates. The Bill of Rights is not a list of things US citizens can do, it's a list of things the US government can't do. If it happens on US soil, they don't even have the flimsy Guantanimo excuse.

On the other hand, the guy was probably within his rights while on his property. Especially in Texas, there is a lot of latitude when it comes to protecting your property. He's not the US government, but he handed the people over to them. Any habeas issues would come up with how they handled it.

On the gripping hand, what he did on US government land was illegal, and would have been illegal even if the family he terrorized had turned out to have been illegal immigrants.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

On the other hand, the guy was probably within his rights while on his property. Especially in Texas, there is a lot of latitude when it comes to protecting your property. He's not the US government, but he handed the people over to them. Any habeas issues would come up with how they handled it.

On the gripping hand, what he did on US government land was illegal, and would have been illegal even if the family he terrorized had turned out to have been illegal immigrants.

I would agree with that much. Although I would think that the writ of hc is more about what the state can and cannot do, not what someone can or cannot do to others on their own property. I would guess they could try to charge him with unlawful detention or something along those lines.

[OnyxCougar]

These illegal immigrants were on private property, trespassing, and the owner of the land has a legal right backed by precedence to detain them until law enforcement arrives. Once LE arrives is when Habeas comes into the argument. Habeas only comes into play when we're talking about government authorities detaining people.

Habeas Corpus does not apply to non-citizens. The US Constitution is a contract between US citizens and the federal government. Regardless of what "case law" may imply, non-US citizens, especially known enemies captured during wartime and held outside of US territorial jurisdiction, are not protected by the US Constitution.

More info about Habeas here.

Now, when we're talking about detaining people for purposes of calling the US Border Patrol, that falls under Citizen's Arrest statutes.

Today, citizens arrests are still legal in every state, although state laws pertaining to citizens arrests are not uniform. In general, all states permit citizens arrests if a criminal felony (defined by the government as a serious crime, usually punishable by at least one year in prison) is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or if a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police.

Once the suspect has been taken into custody (by the citizen), it is the citizens responsibility to deliver the suspect to the proper authorities in a timely fashion.

In other words, this guy was doing what he should have done. IMO, vigilante-ism would have come into play if he'd have shot them on sight. And if he loses this case, and has to pay illegals millions of dollars, do you really think he *won't* do that in the future?

Secondary question: how is it that illegal immigrants are ALLOWED to sue US Citizens for infringing on their civil rights, when they don't have US civil rights to begin with? They have Mexican civil rights, but the incident didn't happen in Mexico, and isn't against a Mexican.

The more I think about shit like this, the more I want to move out of this God forsaken place.