16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
Another lawyer tries to make it big....
16 illegals sue Arizona rancher
Claim violation of rights as they crossed his land
Jerry Seper
Monday, February 9, 2009
Buzz up!An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/Wow, so someone is being sued because he defended his own property by illegal immigrants who don't even belong in this country? WTF?
The article says he turned over 12,000 in about 10 years. That's a lot for one guy, don't ya think? A hundred a month???
I don't think the fact that they're illegal should even enter into it.
People were trespassing on his land, and it is my understanding that according to your constitution, he has a right to defend his family and property.
That they're illegal immigrants is a whole different issue.
Sounds like he has sustained a lot of damage as they use his place as a super highway to break our laws. At least he was nice enough to carry a radio and call the border patrol when he found the trespassers. They are lucky he just didn't shoot their ass and say it was some drug shoot out or a coyote gone bad.
This is the same vigilante, Roger Barnett, who did something very similar to US citizens:
Today, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the appeal of border vigilante Roger Barnett who was found liable by a jury after assaulting a family of Latino U.S. citizens while they were hunting on state land in southern Arizona. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which represents the plaintiffs in the case, urged the Supreme Court to reject Barnett’s appeal and argued that the jury had rightfully found Barnett at fault for his vicious attack upon the family.
The Morales family and Emma English, a family friend, filed suit after Barnett confronted them on state leased land in November 2004, while they were on a family hunting trip. Armed with a semi-automatic military-style assault rifle, Barnett held the family at gunpoint, cursed and screamed racial slurs at them and threatened to kill them all. The jury heard the testimony of three young girls, all under the age of 12 at the time, that vividly described the event and the trauma they suffered at the hands of Barnett. The jury ultimately awarded the family $100,000 in damages, which Barnett must pay now that the Supreme Court has rejected his appeal.
http://www.maldef.org/news/press.cfm?ID=474&FromIndex=yes
Illegal immigration needs to be controlled....so does vigilantism. Good for the Morales family for suing this guy's self-righteous ass.
This guy is a danger to society, particularly if your skin is brown and you happen to be near the border!
The only society he is a danger to is the one trying to sneak into our country illegally. Good on him. Maybe they will find a new path to use in the future. They guy is way out there on his own for one reason, because the border patrol can't control the border. It is a big joke.
"A vigilante goes out, rounds up people, holds a trial and executes them. I haven't done that yet," Barnett told USA Today that same year. "But bloodshed could happen." - Roger Barnett
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=758
Vigilantism is illegal as well.
"
You a lawyer?" he asked with a sneer. "You're full of shit. I can stop 'em out on the road if I want. Didn't you hear what Bush said? Everybody needs to be vigilant and help the homeland security. I can do whatever I want." - Roger Barnett
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/22/vigilante/index2.html
Contrary to Barnett's interpretation of Bush's "message to the people"...vigilantism is not patriotism.
Yea, so what's the problem? :D
Sure the guy stepped out of line in those cases. But yet we are going to go to bat for the people that violated his rights? I don't think so.
I dont know if you're serious or not...and that is scary!
Stepped out of line?
Damn....He is taking the law into his own hands....a repeat offender.
Stepped out of line?
Damn....He is taking the law into his own hands....a repeat offender.
Yep, people can only take so much of being shat on and ignored by the people who are suppose to be protecting them before they have to do something to protect their property and in some case the fear for their lives.
Vigilantism is NOT patriotism.
You are condoning breaking the law to fight breaking the law.
I dont know if you're serious or not...and that is scary!
In this particular case I support the guy and not the illegals. They need to find another way into the country that isn't through his property. I have no problem with what he did. I guess his peers will sit on his jury and he can make his case to them.
In this particular case I support the guy and not the illegals. They need to find another way into the country that isn't through his property. I have no problem with what he did. I guess his peers will sit on his jury and he can make his case to them.
Sorry..but I dont judge this case in a vacuum....particularly when neither of us know the facts.
Vigilantism is NOT patriotism.
You are condoning breaking the law to fight breaking the law.
I never said a word about patriots. It is about property rights and the ability to prevent illegals from destroying his life, liberty, and ability to make a living. He is protecting it.
Sorry..but I dont judge this case in a vacuum....particularly when neither of us know the facts.
The jury will be asked to do so. The facts of the case and nothing more.
Sorry..but I dont judge this case in a vacuum....particularly when neither of us know the facts.
Sounds like you are judging him from a few google searches. You have no idea what this guy has put up with for years. But of course I am supporting him by that same notion.
I just hope this guy doesnt kill the next time.
Trespassing is not a capital offense.
I think everyone would hope he wouldn't need to kill anyone, but it does sound to me like he's put up with a lot.
Sounds like you are judging him from a few google searches. You have no idea what this guy has put up with for years. But of course I am supporting him by that same notion.
I am judging the one case by an Arizona Supreme Court ruling in favor of the US citizens whose rights he violated.
I just hope this guy doesnt kill the next time.
Trespassing is not a capital offense.
It is in Texas.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-01/msg03177.htmlI am judging the one case by an Arizona Supreme Court ruling in favor of the US citizens whose rights he violated.
It will not be admissible in this trial.
It is in Texas.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2008-01/msg03177.html
Those good ole texas boys!
But this case is a federal lawsuit.
I think everyone would hope he wouldn't need to kill anyone, but it does sound to me like he's put up with a lot.
I've put up with alot from Merc in the last few days.
But I dont wanna kill him. :eek:
Those good ole texas boys!
But this case is a federal lawsuit.
I don't believe that will make a difference, but I am no lawyer. I will be cheering for the property owner.
I've put up with alot from Merc in the last few days.
But I dont wanna kill him. :eek:
I would hope not, not over forum discussion.
We all have to put up with a lot from Merc. ;)
He's just a big scallywag really. :D
Well you are a man of many talents aren't you? lol
Few know the true depths.
And that's probably for the best...
Point made and taken. I can't agree more.
I am judging the one case by an Arizona Supreme Court ruling in favor of the US citizens whose rights he violated.
They were US citizens?
Few know the true depths.
*giggle*
An Arizona farmer who has been waging war on illegals on his properity is now being sued by 16 illegals immigrants
According to the Mexican nationals, Roger Barnett, 64, violated their civil rights when he approached them and held them at gunpoint on his ranch near the U.S. Mexico border.
Bold mine.
OK, so I didn't read any of the links, I am just going by what was written here on the forum, and what I've heard about the border problems with illegals and the damage they do to people's land when crossing it illegally, which is
significant.
I believe people have a right to protect their property. Since the federal government has pretty much tied the hands of border patrol agents, and there are not enough of them anyway, and people are being FORCED to handle the problem themselves, then I side with the property owners. People coming into the states illegally should not be able to sue someone who is protecting their property when they are on it illegally.
I will say this though. It sounds like he is also confronting people on land that does not belong to him. While I support his effort to stop the flow of illegals by calling the border patrol and turning them over, this begins to get more slippery. It is also true though that illegal drug lords are now using our public lands to grow pot. While I believe weed should be legalized and all laws should be repealed, I also recognize that illegals are walking over us and then crying foul when they are the ones breaking the law. To me it is ludicrous. It is like a thief suing their victim because said victim's dog bit the thief while he was burgling their house. WTF...
(for those who want cites...)
http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/article.php?sid=860
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=86acd7298461c568c149043c420677df
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1141346.htmlMy concern with this case is the rush to judgement w/o knowing all the facts...particularly based on this guys previous words and actions.
Beyond that, IMO, vigilantism is not the answer to the serious problems of border enforcement.
They admitted they were on HIS land. How much clearere does it get than that?
Where did they admit that...or is that heresay from him?
What is the law in Ariz, re: threatening to kill alleged trespassers vs the civil rights of "people" (not just citizens) under the Constitution. I dont know.
I'm not condoning the action of the illegal immigrants....I'm just wanting to see such actions ruled by law, not by vigilantism.
Particularly regarding someone with such a questionable past.
Read the link! (post 37)
Lemme say this - as someone who lives in suburbia, it is probably quite difficult to imagine what life is like where he lives.
Read the link! (post 37)
Lemme say this - as someone who lives in suburbia, it is probably quite difficult to imagine what life is like where he lives.
I agree.
But I honestly cant see how this guy's past words and actions wouldnt raise a flag, at the very least.
By many accounts (and his words and actions), he is a hard core militant member of a growing vigilantism movement.
That should concern any law abiding citizens, IMO.
I agree.
But I honestly cant see how this guy's past words and actions wouldnt raise a flag, at the very least.
By many accounts (and his words and actions), he is a hard core militant member of a growing vigilantism movement.
That should concern any law abiding citizens, IMO.
Well, if you had a bunch of land, and people were constantly invading it under cover of darkness, and they were leaving all kinds of trash on it, and killing your livestock, not to mantion all the human waste that would be left, wouldn't you eventually become a little militant, especially if the government was unwilling/incapable of doing anything about the problem? I know I would.
Perhaps I would.
And perhaps if I was a dirt poor Mexican with no future, I might try to sneak across the border for a better life.
Both, illegal immigration and extremists vigilantism, are against the law.
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.
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'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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I am defending the Constitution.
Why? From Who? Who brought that up in this conversation? No one is attacking the Constitution.
Just keep in mind that our Constitution refers to rights of "people" not just "citizens."
Agreed, but ??? [COLOR="White"][SIZE="1"](Long thread about that elsewhere)[/SIZE][/COLOR]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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?
...
The more I think about shit like this, the more I want to move out of this God forsaken place.
Was he doing "what he should have done" in this case:
Today, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the appeal of border vigilante Roger Barnett who was found liable by a jury after assaulting a family of Latino U.S. citizens while they were hunting on state land in southern Arizona....
The Morales family and Emma English, a family friend, filed suit after Barnett confronted them on state leased land in November 2004, while they were on a family hunting trip. Armed with a semi-automatic military-style assault rifle, Barnett held the family at gunpoint, cursed and screamed racial slurs at them and threatened to kill them all. The jury heard the testimony of three young girls, all under the age of 12 at the time, that vividly described the event and the trauma they suffered at the hands of Barnett. The jury ultimately awarded the family $100,000 in damages, which Barnett must pay now that the Supreme Court has rejected his appeal.
http://www.maldef.org/news/press.cfm?ID=474&FromIndex=yes
*****
It was Oct. 30, 2004. Morales, a 37-year-old Department of Defense employee, was deer hunting with his father, Arturo, and three little girls: his daughter, Vanese, who was then 11, her little sister Angelique, 9, and Emma English, a friend who was also 11. All were Mexican-Americans — U.S. citizens since birth.
The way Ron Morales tells the story, around 4 p.m. he and his eldest daughter left the rest of the party at his truck to stalk a buck they had spotted.
Vanese had the deer in her crosshairs when the sound of a distant ruckus in the direction of the truck alarmed her father. Morales took the rifle, slung it over his shoulder, and they hurried back.
They arrived to find another truck parked near their own. Next to it, Morales says, an angry white man with a pistol strapped to his side paced back and forth, shouting obscenities. "You're fucking trespassing! You guys need to get the fuck out of here!"
"I have a hunter's permit, I have a map," Morales protested as he walked to his vehicle, set down his rifle, grabbed a Bureau of Land Management map, and tried to reason with the man.
Morales, a Navy veteran, says he addressed him as "sir" and asked his name. The man reached in the cab of his truck, yanked out an AR-15 assault rifle, and gave Morales his answer.
"My fucking name is Roger Barnett! If you don't get off my property, I'm gonna shoot you and shoot you and shoot you!"
Then, Morales says, Barnett chambered a round and pointed his weapon at Morales' chest.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=758
The more I think about shit like this, the more I worry about extremist vigilantes like Roger Barnett not being willing or able to distinguish between protecting their property rights as opposed to taking the law into their own hands in a violent and illegal manner.
Roger Barnett is an asshole who belongs in jail.
Well, maybe this will be one step further in showing the government how fed up we are about illegal immigrants.
I don't understand why the government is so unwilling to deal with this problem.
...nvm, yes I do. It's because corporate America wants cheap labor, and corporate America gets what they want.
Was he doing "what he should have done" in this case:
No, Morales was not on this guy's private property. Ranch owner was wrong in that case, but not in this one.
I see a slippery slope among some of the vigilantes, including Barnett...perhaps you dont.
This is worth re-posting:
You a lawyer?" he asked with a sneer. "You're full of shit. I can stop 'em out on the road if I want. Didn't you hear what Bush said? Everybody needs to be vigilant and help the homeland security. I can do whatever I want." - Roger Barnett
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/22/vigilante/index2.html
What Onyxcougar said.
Also what Redux said.
:D
I see it like this: the man has good reason to be suspicious of groups of strangers on his property due to the location of his property, past problems with trespassers, and the current violent instability across Mexico. I don't see anything wrong with what he did on his property as long as he wasn't physically abusive (beating, etc.) and immediately notified the authorities as to the situation and promptly turned the people over as they were found (all possessions, no harm done as said before, etc.). However, this is most certainly a slippery slope as evidenced by his misbehavior in this other event with a perfectly legal group of people and their actions. That article is so slanted you couldn't stand on it, but the fact remains he acted inappropriately in that situation on BLM land and should be punished for it. The man needs to learn the legal limits of dealing with these people and put that into practice. If he keeps up this overly aggressive behavior he's going to kill somebody who doesn't deserve it, and then the major shit-storm will kick up.
Hell, with all the violence happening along the border because of Mexican drug cartels, and that violence slipping over the border in some cases into America, I wouldn't really have a problem with a landowner shooting someone illegally on their property, if they posed a threat. Or in containing someone at gunpoint.
If they enter his property he should be able to detain them with whatever means are necessary until the authorities arrive. Trying to round up people not on his property is absolutely idiotic.
Trying to round up people not on his property is absolutely idiotic.
And criminal. This asshole should be in jail.
That article is so slanted you couldn't stand on it....
I cant argue with that...but I did like the part where 11 yr "Vanese had the deer in her crosshairs...!
He was tried for that crime and it is behind him. The current issue is whether or not he can be sued by illegals for detaining them and turning them over to authorities on his private property.
Chances are this guy is not someone I'd like very much, but that is irrelevant.
He was tried for that crime and it is behind him. The current issue is whether or not he can be sued by illegals for detaining them and turning them over to authorities on his private property.
Chances are this guy is not someone I'd like very much, but that is irrelevant.
Trying to round up people not on his property is absolutely idiotic.
I agree with both of those statements.
He was tried for that crime and it is behind him.
It sounds from the quoted text like he was
not tried for that crime. He was sued in civil court by the victims and lost. I think he should have been prosecuted in criminal court. But what do I know? I didn't Google him or anything. Just reading what's posted here.
fair enough glatt. I had assumed that if an actual crime was committed those people would have filed charges against him and the legal process would move on it. I'm too lazy to google the guy because it doesn't really change my opinion. asshole or not, previously should have been convicted or not, he is only being sued over this one incident on his property.
I read in one of the articles that he is leasing the Gov't land where this incident happened. Still doesn't make it right though. I would defend his right to do what is necessary to defend his property, but it seems he is going way overboard.
I'd personally support him if he chose to sit on his property and shoot anyone who enters the property illegally. I might be a little extreme in that though.
reasonable? i don't know, but i'm fairly certain word would get out and his ranch would not be the preferred place of passage anymore.
And if his neighbors would do the same...
The unmitigated gall of these people offends me. If you think this guy's an asshole stay off his property and mind your own business.
I read in one of the articles that he is leasing the Gov't land where this incident happened. Still doesn't make it right though.
Interesting. Well, I don't know what rights a leasor of gov't lands has, but if he lost a civil suit over the incident, they apparently don't include pointing a loaded gun at someone in front of their kids and threatening to kill them.
This one is nothing jinx. It has only been a couple years since someone tried suing arizona because there weren't water stations set up in the desert and the illegals were dying from heat exhaustion.
On the drive from Phoenix to Rocky Point, Mexico it is not uncommon to see a mexican pop up out of the bushes waving an empty water jug in the air. The border patrol checkpoints are at known locations so the illegals go around them and then come back to the roads.
Interesting. Well, I don't know what rights a leasor of gov't lands has, but if he lost a civil suit over the incident, they apparently don't include pointing a loaded gun at someone in front of their kids and threatening to kill them.
I never said they did. Reread my post please.
Interesting. Well, I don't know what rights a leasor of gov't lands has, but if he lost a civil suit over the incident, they apparently don't include pointing a loaded gun at someone in front of their kids and threatening to kill them.
What do kids have to do with it. If you break into my house with your kids you are no less likely to be killed. These illegal aliens are breaking the law everyday and people are just turning their heads. It is bull shit.