Arizona Rancher Who Stopped Illegal Immigrants at Border Now Fighting $32 Million Law

[editec]

So where do we send our donation to his legal defence fund?

 

[Care4all]

Shocking innit? All the libwals against the illegals,, kick em to the curb now that you bought their votes..

thats just retarded. I was clear regarding my opinion against rationalized illegal aliens loooooong before the last election. and I'm so fucking liberal that reading this post probably made your vagina pucker.

Shogun, you take this way tooooo personally. Take a chill pill, dude. Whats with all the name calling???

It's an insecurity problem perhaps?? Maybe he doesn't know how to communicate without the vulgarity, because he thinks no one would listen to him, without the shock value being there...?

 

[Care4all]

ASSOCIATED PRESS DEFENDANT: Roger Barnett said he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998

Amazing, and this is such bullshit. He should have all charges dropped ASAP, and those illegals should be deported.
They aren't citizens of this country.

If the judge and state had any common sense; they'd laugh at the lawsuit, send them back over the border and drop the charges.

In 1857, the Supreme Court declared that Dred Scott, a slave, could not bring a lawsuit into a court because he was not a citizen of this country.

Was that ever over ruled by precedent afterwards?

 

[KGB]

here is who represents the illegals.

The illegal aliens are represented by a well-funded, radical open-borders group— Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)—that refers to the U.S. government’s immigration enforcement effort as racist and xenophobic.

MALDEF, which claims there is no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, has sued a state to obtain free public education for illegal aliens and various public colleges nationwide for denying illegal immigrants admission. After the 2001 terrorist attacks the group led a large-scale protest campaign against a federal crackdown on airport workers with immigration violations, claiming it harmed the “civil rights of Latinos.”

I don't believe there is a constitutional basis for their claim. It's a shame that this man has gotten caught in their litigious crossfire.

By the way, here is a possible inadvertent outcome from this suit. In Florida, and several other states, though I'm not sure where Arizona falls, if a person trespasses on your property, and you have a reasonable belief that they mean you harm, you can shoot them, and you have legal immunity from prosecution.

It would be ironic if this had the result of encouraging ranchers in Arizona to SHOOT illegals, rather than rounding them up for ICE.

you are thinking of the Castle Doctrine....I am not sure if Arizona has one on the books....

 

[indago]

Amazing, and this is such bullshit. He should have all charges dropped ASAP, and those illegals should be deported.
They aren't citizens of this country.

If the judge and state had any common sense; they'd laugh at the lawsuit, send them back over the border and drop the charges.

In 1857, the Supreme Court declared that Dred Scott, a slave, could not bring a lawsuit into a court because he was not a citizen of this country.

Was that ever over ruled by precedent afterwards?

Dred Scott

 

[Care4all]

even if illegals did have some civil liberties, this should not exempt them from prosecution for breaking our laws...on trespassing and on illegal entry in to this country....let alone any theft or damages they cause to this man's property....

i can guarantee you if these were LEGAL americans committing trespassing or stealing or damaging this man's property, they would be in a poop load of trouble, with the law....no?

 

[indago]

It is declared, in the fourteenth amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." An ILLEGAL ALIEN is none of these.



-

 

[Meister]

If border crossing were decriminalized, immigrants would use established border crossings and wouldn't engage in conflicts with landowners. Better yet, if American neoliberal expansion were checked and trade liberalization abandoned in favor of fair trade, large segments of the Mexican working class wouldn't be destabilized and forced to emigrate.

That being said, since immigration is often a forced necessity, there should be organized defenses of border crossers in case they encounter unwanted interlopers. I've never advocated wanton destruction of land or property, but landowners who seek to use relatively unprovoked violence against Latin American immigrants must be dealt with swiftly before they begin to labor under the delusion that their ethically suspect actions will go unnoticed.

As I mentioned when the last suggestion of using unnecessary violence against Mexican and other Latin American immigrants arose, I organized at several immigration rallies (including the May Day rallies), with several radical groups, including the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Discontent with neoliberal expansion was obviously high, and immigrants and their sympathizers would be angered at the prospect of being additionaly burdened by undue impositions from Southern hillbillies and their potshots, which is why I've previously advocated organizing MEChA, the Brown Berets, and unions from the revolutionary socialist parties to formed armed defense brigades of border crossers to deal swiftly with interlopers, especially when they trespass upon indigenous Nican Tlaca "migrants" and their mestizo relatives, as this would especially anger many Chicano activists.

Agna Prostate, like I said before, nobody cares.

 

[Tech_Esq]

If border crossing were decriminalized, immigrants would use established border crossings and wouldn't engage in conflicts with landowners. Better yet, if American neoliberal expansion were checked and trade liberalization abandoned in favor of fair trade, large segments of the Mexican working class wouldn't be destabilized and forced to emigrate.

That being said, since immigration is often a forced necessity, there should be organized defenses of border crossers in case they encounter unwanted interlopers. I've never advocated wanton destruction of land or property, but landowners who seek to use relatively unprovoked violence against Latin American immigrants must be dealt with swiftly before they begin to labor under the delusion that their ethically suspect actions will go unnoticed.

As I mentioned when the last suggestion of using unnecessary violence against Mexican and other Latin American immigrants arose, I organized at several immigration rallies (including the May Day rallies), with several radical groups, including the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Discontent with neoliberal expansion was obviously high, and immigrants and their sympathizers would be angered at the prospect of being additionaly burdened by undue impositions from Southern hillbillies and their potshots, which is why I've previously advocated organizing MEChA, the Brown Berets, and unions from the revolutionary socialist parties to formed armed defense brigades of border crossers to deal swiftly with interlopers, especially when they trespass upon indigenous Nican Tlaca "migrants" and their mestizo relatives, as this would especially anger many Chicano activists.

This is just blather. Such a hypothetical does not exist. Further, some immigration is not "forced" it is all the free will of the lawbreakers. Unless you can show me pictures of people being forced over the border at the point of a gun, this is a bullshit claim.

The rest of that sentence makes no sense at all and only indicates a profoundly poor use or understanding of the English language. You do understand that an "interloper" is:

interloper [in-ter-lope-er]
Noun
a person in a place or situation where he or she has no right to be

That describes the criminals that are illegally crossing the border and no one else. Therefore, everything else you said make no sense at all.

I would like to know what these "revolutionary" about. Most folks would say that peaceful change of government would be evolutionary. Revolutionary would be violent change of government. Are you saying that these revolutionary groups are advocating violent change of the US government?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Amazing, and this is such bullshit. He should have all charges dropped ASAP, and those illegals should be deported.
They aren't citizens of this country.

If the judge and state had any common sense; they'd laugh at the lawsuit, send them back over the border and drop the charges.

In 1857, the Supreme Court declared that Dred Scott, a slave, could not bring a lawsuit into a court because he was not a citizen of this country.

Was that ever over ruled by precedent afterwards?

Of course. Dred Scott was the law of the land until overturned by amendment of the Constitution.

Sorry ....misread that. The question was misphrased, "by precedent" is not needed in the sentence. The 13th Amendment prohibiting slavery and the 14th Amendment providing equal protection under the law would have taken care of holdings related to Blacks not being citizens and therefore lacking standing in the courts.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yo.....Angry Prostrate........

What if YOU had a patch of land (that you lived on) somewhere in the Southern Border? And.......what if there were drug and gun runners that used your property as a doorway for this country?

Oh yeah.......they also steal your stuff and damage your property.......

THEN would you be in favor of decriminalizing the illegal border crossing?

They are called laws for a reason, and the penalty for breaking them should be severe.

I'm thinking death would be appropriate. After all, hogs and flowers gotta eat.

 

[Diuretic]

32 million dollars????

Get me a plane ticket to Mexico City - don't worry, I'll walk the rest of the way to Arizona.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You know.....there is a law in Texas called the "Castle Doctrine" law.

What this means, is that if someone is on your property, you have the right to tell them to leave, and if they don't you are authorized to defend your property by any means that you see fit.

If you kill them? Cool......less problems for the courts.

Matter of fact, last year there was a guy who saw 2 men robbing his neighbor's house, and so he called the cops, told them he was going to shoot them, and did. The 911 operator tried to talk him out of it, but, he wouldn't hear of it, and boom......2 dead crooks.

No charges were filed either.

There is a guy in Amarillo who just blew away 1 guy, and shot at another when they robbed his house last week.

No charges are going to be filed against him either.

So.....have the dude put up some no trespassing signs, and next one that shows up on his property?

Target practice, shoot to kill.

I'm sure the city would come and pick up the bodies.

We have the same law in Florida, and I support it 100%.

For those of your in Florida specifically, be careful before you just blast away. The law under the "Stand your Ground" law is very similar to what I stated earlier.

Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is outside of her home. But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others.

Thus, Florida is now joining the large number of states who do not value "life" above the right to stand unmolested wherever one wants. It's unlikely, however, that this change will change outcomes in particular cases.

Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely. Now, she has to argue, instead -- somewhat similarly -- that she reasonably believed that if she didn't use deadly force, Bob imminently would.

Under either standard, Lisa still has the burden of proof to justify her killing. Also, under either standard, the jury may disbelieve her if there are witnesses around to contradict her story.

For full analysis. See here.

 

[Care4all]

You know.....there is a law in Texas called the "Castle Doctrine" law.

What this means, is that if someone is on your property, you have the right to tell them to leave, and if they don't you are authorized to defend your property by any means that you see fit.

If you kill them? Cool......less problems for the courts.

Matter of fact, last year there was a guy who saw 2 men robbing his neighbor's house, and so he called the cops, told them he was going to shoot them, and did. The 911 operator tried to talk him out of it, but, he wouldn't hear of it, and boom......2 dead crooks.

No charges were filed either.

There is a guy in Amarillo who just blew away 1 guy, and shot at another when they robbed his house last week.

No charges are going to be filed against him either.

So.....have the dude put up some no trespassing signs, and next one that shows up on his property?

Target practice, shoot to kill.

I'm sure the city would come and pick up the bodies.

We have the same law in Florida, and I support it 100%.

For those of your in Florida specifically, be careful before you just blast away. The law under the "Stand your Ground" law is very similar to what I stated earlier.

Third, in Florida, Lisa can now "stand her ground" even if she is outside of her home. But to do so, she must "reasonably believe" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" use of deadly force against herself or others.

Thus, Florida is now joining the large number of states who do not value "life" above the right to stand unmolested wherever one wants. It's unlikely, however, that this change will change outcomes in particular cases.

Previously, all Lisa had to do to win her case was argue that she honestly and reasonably believed that she could not retreat safely. Now, she has to argue, instead -- somewhat similarly -- that she reasonably believed that if she didn't use deadly force, Bob imminently would.

Under either standard, Lisa still has the burden of proof to justify her killing. Also, under either standard, the jury may disbelieve her if there are witnesses around to contradict her story.

For full analysis. See here.

thank you, good info....too bad Texas law isn't interpreted in the same manner.... Mr Horn would be in trouble, as he should be, for shooting those next door neigbor's robbers, in the back.

 

[Agnapostate]

Bring the troops home and put them on the Mexican border.

If I was in the military (and I still might be at that), I'd likely refuse such an assignment no matter what court martial I got if others were willing to do the same. And I suspect that significant portions of the armed forces may be willing to do just that.

Agna Prostate, like I said before, nobody cares.

You don't know what you're talking about. Having organized with revolutionary socialist groups and organizations, there are numerous aggravated immigrants and immigrant sympathizers that I've encountered. Many adopt a stance similar to that of activist Armando Navarro, (critically) covered here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2233

We will adjust to the situation," he says, "and obviously some of us have experience in the military . . . so there will be maybe some elements of surprises in terms of activities, and that is a warning to the militias.

Hence, though I don't necessarily support the widespread use of violence, it could theoretically occur if quick tempered individuals are sufficiently provoked.

This is just blather. Such a hypothetical does not exist. Further, some immigration is not "forced" it is all the free will of the lawbreakers. Unless you can show me pictures of people being forced over the border at the point of a gun, this is a bullshit claim.

The rest of that sentence makes no sense at all and only indicates a profoundly poor use or understanding of the English language. You do understand that an "interloper" is:

interloper [in-ter-lope-er]
Noun
a person in a place or situation where he or she has no right to be

That describes the criminals that are illegally crossing the border and no one else. Therefore, everything else you said make no sense at all.

I don't personally view these matters in a racial or ethnic perspective, but some Chicano activists do believe that most Mexicans and other Latin Americans are either indigenous Nican Tlaca or mestizos, and as such, have the right to travel where they wish on their own land, which they regard as having been unjustly conquested and ravaged by Europeans. The majority of immigrants don't advocate a "reconquista" or anything similar, obviously. It's just that some radical elements would be angered by perceived white repression of border crossers, and if actual violence were to occur, they may be sufficiently provoked to respond aggressively.

Moreover, your claim that there is no degree of coercion in Mexican border crossings is inaccurate; trade liberalization has involuntarily uprooted and displaced large portions of the Mexican working class.

I would like to know what these "revolutionary" about. Most folks would say that peaceful change of government would be evolutionary. Revolutionary would be violent change of government. Are you saying that these revolutionary groups are advocating violent change of the US government?

Yes, I believe the Revolutionary Communist Party advocates the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and capitalism, though that's obviously not a feasible goal at the moment. I personally don't favor such tactics, but I would be in favor of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation violently overthrowing the Mexican government if it were possible, especially since the theft of the presidential election from the PRD.

Yo.....Angry Prostrate........

What if YOU had a patch of land (that you lived on) somewhere in the Southern Border? And.......what if there were drug and gun runners that used your property as a doorway for this country?

Oh yeah.......they also steal your stuff and damage your property.......

THEN would you be in favor of decriminalizing the illegal border crossing?

They are called laws for a reason, and the penalty for breaking them should be severe.

I'm thinking death would be appropriate. After all, hogs and flowers gotta eat.

If I had that patch of land on the Southern border, we'd have to assume that the U.S. honored the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo's land concessions, but we all know that isn't true. At any rate, legalizing border crossing is an optimal way of reducing conflicts between immigrants and border landowners since immigrants would have no reason not to use official checkpoints.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Bull shit. I've heard that crap long enough... "just a bunch of people coming over to better their lives"... HORSE SHIT!


rider calm down man.....blood pressure......nice bike by the way.....

 

[catzmeow]

If I was in the military (and I still might be at that), I'd likely refuse such an assignment no matter what court martial I got if others were willing to do the same. And I suspect that significant portions of the armed forces may be willing to do just that.

This presumes that you'd ever serve, which we all know you wouldn't.

You don't know what you're talking about. Having organized with revolutionary socialist groups and organizations, there are numerous aggravated immigrants and immigrant sympathizers that I've encountered. Many adopt a stance similar to that of activist Armando Navarro, (critically) covered here: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2233

Many of us are familiar with Aztlan, the reconquista movement, and MEChA.

Those who aren't should familiarize themselves since they represent the future of dealing with illegal immigration. I consider those groups in the same category as the Aryan Brotherhood and black supremacists organizations, and frankly, our government should be collecting intel on them if we aren't already since they represent a threat to our laws and national security.

I don't personally view these matters in a racial or ethnic perspective, but some Chicano activists do believe that most Mexicans and other Latin Americans are either indigenous Nican Tlaca or mestizos, and as such, have the right to travel where they wish on their own land, which they regard as having been unjustly conquested and ravaged by Europeans. The majority of immigrants don't advocate a "reconquista" or anything similar, obviously. It's just that some radical elements would be angered by perceived white repression of border crossers, and if actual violence were to occur, they may be sufficiently provoked to respond aggressively.

Oh. So, threats of violence by brown pride activists should keep "whites" from protecting their own property. Interesting.

You want to use threats of retaliatory violence against anyone who dares to keep his property unmolested.

Moreover, your claim that there is no degree of coercion in Mexican border crossings is inaccurate; trade liberalization has involuntarily uprooted and displaced large portions of the Mexican working class.

The vast majority of Americans don't support NAFTA anymore than the majority of Mexicans do. However, the vast majority of Americans DO support shutting down our southern border to stop the flow of illegals into this country, just like the vast majority of Mexicans support stopping the flow of illegal central Americans through Mexico's southern border.

IMO, we should be just as aggressive, or more aggressive, in protecting our borders as Mexico is.

If I had that patch of land on the Southern border, we'd have to assume that the U.S. honored the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo's land concessions, but we all know that isn't true. At any rate, legalizing border crossing is an optimal way of reducing conflicts between immigrants and border landowners since immigrants would have no reason not to use official checkpoints.

Mexico lost. Deal. And, were the border crossings not readily accessible at any point and time, these people on the border would still be dealing with trespassers who feel entitled (as you just described) to cross anywhere they wish.

So your argument is not even internally cohesive.

I do envision future armed conflict with these revolutionary groups.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I don't personally view these matters in a racial or ethnic perspective, but some Chicano activists do believe that most Mexicans and other Latin Americans are either indigenous Nican Tlaca or mestizos, and as such, have the right to travel where they wish on their own land, which they regard as having been unjustly conquested and ravaged by Europeans. The majority of immigrants don't advocate a "reconquista" or anything similar, obviously. It's just that some radical elements would be angered by perceived white repression of border crossers, and if actual violence were to occur, they may be sufficiently provoked to respond aggressively.

Guess what natives in this hemisphere need to deal with the conquests and reconquests of territory just like every other group of people in the world. The Greeks lost their empire, they don't get to go back now and claim that Turkey and the middle eastern countries need to let them do what they want because it used to be theirs. Tough shit, it isn't now. If they cannot deal, then we need to make them deal with reality. If they want to be ETA, then let's do it.

Moreover, your claim that there is no degree of coercion in Mexican border crossings is inaccurate; trade liberalization has involuntarily uprooted and displaced large portions of the Mexican working class.

Economic dissatisfaction is no justification for violating the laws of another country. Further, you jokers can't have it both ways. Either NAFTA caused all the jobs to leave the US and enriched Mexico or it had a negative effect on Mexico. It didn't do both. Again, gobbledegook.

I would like to know what these "revolutionary" about. Most folks would say that peaceful change of government would be evolutionary. Revolutionary would be violent change of government. Are you saying that these revolutionary groups are advocating violent change of the US government?

Yes, I believe the Revolutionary Communist Party advocates the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and capitalism, though that's obviously not a feasible goal at the moment. I personally don't favor such tactics, but I would be in favor of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation violently overthrowing the Mexican government if it were possible, especially since the theft of the presidential election from the PRD.

I thought you said you were helping to organize these revolutionaries. Did I misunderstand? I only want you on the record as advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. You can do that for me right?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Agnapostate]

This presumes that you'd ever serve, which we all know you wouldn't.

Please. You don't know what I'm doing or plan to do. Don't pretend that you do.

Many of us are familiar with Aztlan, the reconquista movement, and MEChA.

Those who aren't should familiarize themselves since they represent the future of dealing with illegal immigration. I consider those groups in the same category as the Aryan Brotherhood and black supremacists organizations, and frankly, our government should be collecting intel on them if we aren't already since they represent a threat to our laws and national security.

Feel free to do so. I happen to know that such organizations are well-protected from police infiltration as a result of extensive decentralization. Claims of "reconquista" are exaggerated lies peddled by the mass media, and infiltrations of solidarity groups have typically failed as badly as police attempts to infiltrate anarchist black blocs at rallies. (Which become particularly amusing when they neglect to remove their department issued footwear.) Regardless, I'm not surprised that your solution to political dissent is intrusive spying. It fits well with your general character.

Oh. So, threats of violence by brown pride activists should keep "whites" from protecting their own property. Interesting.

You want to use threats of retaliatory violence against anyone who dares to keep his property unmolested.

I am not a "brown pride activist," nor did I say advocate needless violence by such activists. I said that the degree of hostility in the air was sufficient for such activists to have a For instance, if you attempted to come to this city and advocate shooting border crossers, things wouldn't go well for you because of the hostile political climate here. Similarly, when Nazi groups attempt to assemble, their vehicles are typically vandalized by anarchist black blocs. Moreover, your other claims are false. I said nothing of "retaliatory violence," merely self defense. There's a critical distinction between defending border crossers from interlopers and from returning after the fact to needlessly harass landowners.

The vast majority of Americans don't support NAFTA anymore than the majority of Mexicans do. However, the vast majority of Americans DO support shutting down our southern border to stop the flow of illegals into this country, just like the vast majority of Mexicans support stopping the flow of illegal central Americans through Mexico's southern border.

Do you even know anything about central America, or are you just spouting off again? "Shutting down" the southern border will result in more elaborate means of entrance, and legalization of border crossing would reduce conflicts with Southern landowners, a fact that you failed to sufficiently address.

IMO, we should be just as aggressive, or more aggressive, in protecting our borders as Mexico is.

The ethically suspect Mexican government is not an exemplary model on which to base border policy, which is why I've advocated the overthrow of the Mexican government by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation on numerous occasions.

Mexico lost. Deal. And, were the border crossings not readily accessible at any point and time, these people on the border would still be dealing with trespassers who feel entitled (as you just described) to cross anywhere they wish.

So your argument is not even internally cohesive.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo promised land concessions which were not honored. Moreover, you know little of cohesive argument, as evidenced by your failure and defeat the last time you attempted to contend with me regarding the subject of immigration reform. Regardless, only a fool would deny that legalization of border crossings and establishment of more legal checkpoints would fail to attract Mexican immigrants away from crossing through the barren desert.

I do envision future armed conflict with these revolutionary groups.

There aren't enough Minutemen to successfully defeat them. They would be overwhelmed if they were foolish enough to attempt a first strike. As Armando Navarro has noted, members of the resistance organizations do have military experience, so there are aggressive and assertive tactics that could be pursued if the Minutemen or similar interlopers decided to act up.

Guess what natives in this hemisphere need to deal with the conquests and reconquests of territory just like every other group of people in the world. The Greeks lost their empire, they don't get to go back now and claim that Turkey and the middle eastern countries need to let them do what they want because it used to be theirs. Tough shit, it isn't now. If they cannot deal, then we need to make them deal with reality. If they want to be ETA, then let's do it.

That isn't even relevant to this discussion, since there's an obviously critical distinction in that previous disenfranchisement of this group resulted in inherited poverty from their descendants today. But that's not even the point of my commentary; this issue has far more relation to class than race or ethnicity.

Economic dissatisfaction is no justification for violating the laws of another country. Further, you jokers can't have it both ways. Either NAFTA caused all the jobs to leave the US and enriched Mexico or it had a negative effect on Mexico. It didn't do both. Again, gobbledegook.

Jokers? What is this nonsense? I never claimed that NAFTA had the effect of "enriching" Mexico, unless by "enrichment" you refer to corporate powers in Mexico as opposed to members of the working class and peasantry. As I've mentioned previously, implementation of the North American "Free Trade" Agreement served to displace multitudes of the Mexican working class by eliminating the need for their jobs. (The impact on corn farmers is a perfect example of this.) Mexican manufacturing wages fell by 21% during the 1990's, and other forms of socioeconomic decay, such as increased poverty rates, also set in. (Dear Dr. Dollar | Dollars & Sense) Unemployment has also risen in Mexico since the treaty was signed, and the agricultural and industrial sectors have suffered. (http://cmd.princeton.edu/papers/NAFTA and Mexican Immigration.pdf)

There has been popular dissatisfaction with NAFTA among the lower classes in Mexico, as most clearly manifested through the formation of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, and their declaration of war against the Mexican government. Hence, it is a treaty heavily hyped by American authorities as promoting American interests that has caused wage depression and socioeconomic problems in Mexico that have resulted in a wave of migration. It is disingenuous and dishonest to speak of "national sovereignty" when the U.S. routinely ignores this principle to establish a comfortable zone for transnational corporations to set down roots, which results in devastating effects for the working class.

I thought you said you were helping to organize these revolutionaries. Did I misunderstand? I only want you on the record as advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. You can do that for me right?

No, you're not going to get me on record advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. I'm not naive enough to believe that Obama's Justice Department is any more tolerant of dissidents than Bush's was.

As to the general ethical status of permitting immigrants to enter this country, I've quoted his argument before, but regardless, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer has constructed an interesting analogy for the purpose of illustrating the costs and benefits of accepting immigrants into another country. His scenario involves a nuclear fallout in the Middle East that severely endangers and sickens those exposed to it. Only those who are in fallout shelters can expect to live in a reasonably healthy manner. Those who were farsighted enough to predict the nuclear conflagration in the Middle East, having observed previous international conflicts, have purchased accomodations in the fallout shelters. Each shelter can accomodate about 10,000 people for 20 years, and have elaborate and sophisticated security systems that allow them to admit whosoever they choose and prevent others from entering. Now suppose that word came that the effects of the nuclear fallout would not last as long as was initially anticipated, and will instead last from eight to ten years. Aboveground, a mass of about 10,000 people have gathered pleading to be allowed inside a certain shelter. The 10,000 could be accomodated since the shelter for the 8 to 10 years since the supplies were initially supposed to last for 20 years, and only half would be used should the original 10,000 be the only inhabitants. However, it should be noted that the shelter was designed to function as a luxury retreat when not used for a real emergency, and the current inhabitants are making full use of the tennis courts and swimming pools contained therein. If the 10,000 outsiders were to be permitted inside, the tennis courts and the swimming pools could no longer be used for their intended purpose, as they would instead function as accommodations for the outsiders. However, if the 10,000 are not permitted to enter, they will live a wretched existence aboveground. Many will starve to death, or suffer from excruciating disease and eventually wither away. Would you hold that the 10,000 ought to be permitted inside the shelter, even though they have no "property rights" claim to the shelter? I would say so. It is morally unacceptable to deny the 10,000 admittance to the shelter, because of the consideration of marginal utility that must be taken into account. Permitting the outsiders to enter the shelter would incur a far lesser burden of suffering, in terms of duration and intensity, upon the current inhabitants, than would be incurred on the outsiders were they forced to remain aboveground.

If so, it is curious that one can have a profoundly different opinion on the issue of immigration, especially considering that the analogy represents a worst-case scenario for immigrants. In the analogy, the outsider group intended to represent foreigners was partially responsible for their own plight because they did not invest wisely. In American society, Mexican immigrants (the majority group), are not directly responsible for their plight in the same manner. Quite the opposite, in fact. The treaty that forced them to relocate was passed against their will. It was the callous decisions made by governmental authorities, including American governmental authorities, that forced them to relocate. Moreover, we are assuming that the outsiders will cause at least some degree of suffering to the shelter inhabitants, even if the marginal utility of their suffering pales when compared to that of the outsiders if forced to remain aboveground. As I have attempted to demonstrate with the statistics that I have cited, the very opposite is arguably true. The immigrants may bring increased happiness rather than increased suffering. We also held that the immigrants had no legitimate "property right" whatsoever to the underground shelter. This is untrue in the case of Mexican immigrants descended from indigenous tribes. They have been robbed of their right to land inheritance by past generations. In the same vein, if Jim's grandfather were to steal something from John's grandfather and pass it down to Jim, the fact that Jim had not personally stolen it would not change the fact that the possession should righfully belong to John. This is true for Mexican immigrants both in the sense that their land was stolen from them in the course of European conquest, and in the course of broken promises of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Hence, while considering these additional factors, the denial of the right to emigrate seems especially unjust and brutal, an addition of insult to injury, and it is difficult to conceptualize how any morally just person could oppose it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Angry Prostrate......you're an idiot.