16 illegals sue Arizona rancher

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

[spookyturtle 9,466]

But they'll have to make the sign in Spanish.

[Heracles 417]

But they'll have to make the sign in Spanish.

[panamania79 2]

But they'll have to make the sign in Spanish.

Here's a simple one: Si pisas mi terreno,te mato!=If you step on my land,I'll kill you !

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But they'll have to make the sign in Spanish.

Here's a simple one: Si pisas mi terreno,te mato!=If you step on my land,I'll kill you !

[HAL 9000 96]

So a farmer has to protect their property while the United States government does nothing. Never heard of that happening at Palm island.

When is this country going to grow some balls and get over pandering to a 3rd world country.

When fools quit electing self serving Left wing fruitloops that sh*t all over themselves to pander to every fence hopper and innertube floater that will eventually get amnesty, US citizenship, and a Democratic voter registration card. It's all about party and winning elections. The American people can just suck lemons till they puke. It ain't about what is best for the American people or the country.

Oh I think the only sh!t here is on you.

[Caladan 19]

I'm wondering what the details of the case are, because it sounds outrageous that the suit wasn't dismissed if all he did was call the cops. Maybe his method of "rounding them up" was inhumane, but you'd think details like that would be relevant and reported. (Under U.S. law, there isn't a distinction based on citizenship as to whether a person has basic civil rights, by the way.)

[Heracles 417]

I'm wondering what the details of the case are, because it sounds outrageous that the suit wasn't dismissed if all he did was call the cops. Maybe his method of "rounding them up" was inhumane, but you'd think details like that would be relevant and reported. (Under U.S. law, there isn't a distinction based on citizenship as to whether a person has basic civil rights, by the way.)

Well the law needs to be updated then. What sort of a country allows foreigners to literally invade another persons land and then sue them?

This American citizen's right to freedom in the United States of America should override the civic rights of an illegal immigrant.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Aficionado

[Caladan 19]

There isn't such a distinction under Australian law, either.

[Heracles 417]

There isn't such a distinction under Australian law, either.

Most OECD countries have strict immigration policies where mainly those seeking asylum are granted visa's. I have seen people who lived in Australia for 10 years been sent back to their country. The rules are the rules.

Under English law there is no way an illegal immigrant would be able to sue an Australian citizen for similar reasons. Not going to happen. Then again most people trying to get to Australia have the decency to respect its citizens and want to actually setup a life there rather than profit from a lawsuit.

[panamania79 2]

But they'll have to make the sign in Spanish.

Here's a simple one: Si pisas mi terreno,te mato!=If you step on my land,I'll kill you !

[Jasman0717 9]

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.

Violate their civil rights He was just pointing to them his civil rights. Is the stinking ACLU involved?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I often wonder why anyone chooses to legally immigrate these days. Let's compare the two:

Legal Immigration

1. Spend tons of time apart.

2. Pay tons of money.

3. Provide proof of a relationship (and possibly get told to show more proof later on).

4. Go through the hassle of making trips to see your loved one.

5. Have to deal with Customs, which could turn you away.

6. Once here, you need to still go through a huge roll of red tape.

7. Visas can be difficult to get.

8. Open bank accounts, get credit cards and own property.

9. Get a driver's license.

10. Vote in elections.

Illegal Immigrants

1. Can be together right away.

2. No money necessary.

3. No proof necessary.

4. After crossing the border, no trips are required.

5. No Customs to deal with.

6. No red tape.

7. Visas of all kind are irrelevant.

8. Open bank accounts, get credit cards and own property.

9. Get a driver's license (or drive illegally).

10. Vote in elections (this is due to voter's registration at the DMV).

So what is the benefit to legally immigrating? With illegal immigrants demanding their "constitutional rights" every day, the line between legal and illegal quickly becomes blurred.

[Shad and Dani 3]

He should have finished the job! We need to round up the rest of these criminals and send them back to Mexico!

[Jasman0717 9]

I read the entire story and none of this makes sense. The rancher rounds up illegal aliens -- who are not only trespassing onto his land, but the entire country -- and turns them over to the Border Patrol and is now being sued for it by the illegals themselves?

This has to be one of the most fvcked up cases I've ever seen. As an American citizen, I'd be subject to trespassing laws if I went onto this man's property without permission. Yet it's okay for illegals? This country is really messed up.

i don't know what the law is for arizona, but in texas, if there is livestock on the land, the landowner can hold you at gunpoint for the law to arrive due to suspected livestock theft.

Sounds like a good law to me