Posted on 12/10/2003 8:04:34 PM PST by AnimalLover
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO PROPERTY RIGHTS?
A monastery official and a human rights advocacy group sued a southern Arizona ranch family Wednesday, accusing them of impersonating federal agents and violating the rights of undocumented immigrants.
Border Action Network, a human rights organization, and Donald J. Mackenzie, groundskeeper for and vice president of Summerland Monastery Inc., filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Roger Barnett; his wife, Barbara, and his brother, incorrectly identified as Ralph. The lawsuit will be amended to correct the name Ralph to Donald, attorney Jesus Romo said.
The civil action accuses the Barnetts of conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of immigrants and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against them.
Reached at the office of a towing company he operates in Sierra Vista, Barnett said he was unaware of the lawsuit and declined to comment.
For at least four years, the Barnetts have patrolled their 22,000-acre ranch about five miles north of Douglas, apprehending illegal immigrants crossing their property and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol.
Arizona has become a crossing point for hundreds of thousands of migrants annually, and the flood of undocumented people has drawn several armed civilian groups that act as self-appointed border watch organizations.
The groups have come under increasing fire recently. One member of Texas-based Ranch Rescue was arrested last month near Douglas on suspicion of felony flight to avoid prosecution, accused with another person of unlawfully detaining and beating a Salvadoran couple in Texas.
None of the civilian patrol groups was named in the lawsuit.
But Border Action Network announced during the summer that it hoped to sue on behalf of migrants allegedly victimized by organizations patrolling the border - with hopes of bankrupting them. Jennifer Allen, the network's director, called Wednesday's lawsuit a start.
"We have been working with border residents, ranchers, elected officials and with migrants to challenge the growth of the anti-immigrant movement along the Arizona-Mexico border," she said.
"The Barnetts and other vigilante groups have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation for both migrants and community members."
She said many state and federal authorities have ignored border watch groups' activities.
Allen said Roger and Donald Barnett detained a group of 30 undocumented immigrants on Mackenzie's ranch.
Mackenzie said he initially thought Roger Barnett was a Border Patrol agent because of his weaponry and clothing, including a cap that said "U.S. Border Patrol."
Mackenzie said in talking with them, he discovered the Barnetts were not federal agents but did not challenge their presence or report them later. He said he never gave the Barnetts permission to enter the property.
Mackenzie said he got more concerned and angrier as he subsequently researched the issue.
"These vigilantes who have come into southern Arizona from out-of-state don't belong here," he said. "We don't need them here. The Rambo wannabes are not the kind of people that live in Arizona."
Allen and Romo said they did not have identities or statements from any of the 30 people allegedly involved in the Oct. 11 Summerland Monastery incident.
A spokesman for the Border Patrol said the agency does not disclose information on citizen calls that result in arrests.
__
On the Net:
Border Action Network: http://www.borderaction.org
No - as a matter of fact I hiked all over the neighborhood gathering signatures to put a repeal of the license law on the March ballot. However, the Governor got a bill through the legislature to cancel this bill (the one that Davis signed) and Arnold signed it.
If the issue comes up again - back to the neighborhood with the petition!
No comment needed for this one.
You keep stating "false imprisonment" - what is that? They do not have the facilities to "jail" them and as stated, they are turned over to the Border Patrol or proper authorities.
Just out of curiosity, are you a citizen of the U.S.? If so, you should be quite aware of the problems "illegals" are imposing on each and every one of us.
If not a citizen, may I be so bold to ask if you are here legally or illegally? With all due respect, you do seem to have a horse in this race!
Just to clarify - I wrote Tom Ridge along with my representatives about a year ago. Of course, no reply. This new idea of making all of these people legal makes me sick! Rewarding people who break the law will only bring more lawbreakers looking for their rewards.
Quislings who betray their country to foreign invaders deserve hanging.
And just as Vidkun Quisling, who served as the Nazi administrator of Norway and who gave his name to those who betray their homelands for invaders' favour was hanged for his colloboration, so will others like him share the same fate. Vidkun Quisling, by the way, was a former U.S. Army officer.
Have you had a chance to review this site? They are terrible hate mongers. Read some of the articles on how they hate Jews - blame them for every crisis.
I believe they are associated with MECha and some of the other organizations that want to take back Aztlan (Texas Arizona, California, New Mexico and I think Utah). Anyway, I take what they publish with a grain of salt.
Social Security checks could go south of border
Sergio Bustos Gannett News Service Dec. 10, 2003 12:01 AM
WASHINGTON - U.S. and Mexican officials are discussing an agreement that would allow millions of Mexicans to return home and still collect U.S. Social Security benefits.
The controversial proposal that could transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in Social Security payments south of the border has riled some Republican lawmakers. They worry that it could reward scores of undocumented Mexican immigrants with a U.S. pension, draining the country's Social Security trust fund at a time when its future solvency is in doubt.
"Talk about an incentive for illegal immigration," said GOP Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. "How many more would break the law to come to this country if promised U.S. government paychecks for life?"
Supporters of the proposal argue that Mexican immigrants, documented and undocumented, pay millions, if not billions, of dollars in payroll taxes and have the right to claim Social Security benefits.
"Let's be honest, there are millions of Mexican immigrants contributing to the Social Security system and the U.S. economy," said Katherine Culliton, an attorney with the Washington, D.C., office of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "It's only fair they get back a benefit they deserve that will keep them from dying in poverty."
Final approval of any U.S.-Mexican "totalization" agreement is up to the Republican-controlled Congress. The Bush administration supports such an accord as a way to improve U.S.-Mexican relations.
And Mexico is prepared to administer an agreement, Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart told lawmakers at a congressional hearing earlier this year. U.S. officials said they are satisfied that the two countries could exchange information easily on potential Social Security recipients. Details of how to put the agreement into effect still need to be worked out.
Under a totalization agreement between two countries, workers could accumulate enough credits to qualify for Social Security benefits in either country.
20 other accords
The federal government began pursuing such agreements in 1977 to help make Americans sent abroad by their employers eligible for Social Security benefits. Today, the United States has pacts with 20 countries, mostly in Europe. Congress has never rejected an agreement.
In 2001, the federal government paid out $173 million in Social Security benefits to about 89,000 foreigners living abroad, a fraction of the $408 billion distributed the same year to 45 million U.S. residents.
But a U.S.-Mexican agreement would dwarf the accords with other countries, critics of the proposal say. They point out that the combined number of recipients from those 20 countries is tiny compared with the potentially vast number of Mexican citizens who could become eligible for Social Security.
"None of those countries have public policies that encourage illegal immigration to the United States," said Republican Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims.
Social Security Administration officials estimate that about 50,000 Mexicans would collect $78 million in the first year of a U.S.-Mexican agreement. They predict that by 2050, 300,000 Mexicans would collect $650 million in benefits a year.
But a recent General Accounting Office report said those numbers failed to account for the presence of many potentially eligible, undocumented Mexican immigrants and their families.
Census figures show that the United States is home to 9 million Mexican citizens. More than half, about 5 million, reportedly are in the United States illegally, according to federal estimates.
Barnhart assured lawmakers that undocumented immigrants do not get Social Security benefits.
"That's a myth," she said. "As is the case with our existing agreements, a totalization agreement with Mexico would not alter current law on this issue."
Proof of eligibility
That's true, but a provision in the Social Security Act allows undocumented immigrants to get Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement. Those immigrants would have to prove they had paid into the U.S. system.
Former undocumented immigrants also could become eligible if they later become legal residents. A recent investigation by the Office of Inspector General at the Social Security Administration found two such cases.
In one, a Mexican man who used his father's Social Security number for nine years in the 1970s claimed after becoming a legal resident in 1989 that he was owed benefits. He began collecting benefits in 1999.
And a Mexican woman who worked illegally under an invalid Social Security number for six years in the 1990s later petitioned for credit. She began receiving disability benefits in 1999.
"(The agency) does not consider the work-authorization status of the individual when they earned the wages," the inspector general's report said. "It only considers whether the individual can prove he or she paid Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes as part of this work."
To qualify for Social Security benefits, Mexicans must prove they worked in the United States at least 18 months. Payments are made on a prorated basis, depending on years worked in the United States. Those who work at least 10 years automatically would qualify for full benefits. Those who also worked in Mexico for a specific period of time could collect benefits in their home country, too.
U.S. companies and their American employees working in Mexico also would benefit under the agreement. By not having to pay Social Security taxes to the Mexican government, Social Security Administration officials estimate American workers and their employers would save $134 million each year.
David John, a Social Security expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation said he's disappointed the proposed agreement with Mexico has been twisted into an emotional debate over U.S. immigration policy.
"Sadly, this whole thing has been hijacked by people on both sides of an issue that must be resolved in a totally different arena," he said. "It shouldn't be part of the discussion in putting together a boring technical agreement between two countries."
Sergio Bustos is a reporter for The Arizona Republic and Gannett News Service. Reach him at sbustos@gns.gannett.com.
Drudge Report: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1210mexbenefits10.html#
"...rights of undocumented immigrants (criminal aliens)..." ? The RIGHT to commit serial crimes against we citizens of the USA, we citizens of the State of Arizona, and the property owners?
This is RICO pure and simple. The conspiracy to assist dozens to millions of criminal aliens entering the USA, trespassing private property among additional crimes against persons and property, and continuing in a wake of additional crimes makes these domestic actors accomplices: before, during, and after the fact.
This plaintiff gang should be prosecuted by our law enforcement authorities and sued by the ranchers et al. under RICO statutes, federal and state, assuming that Arizona has copied the fed's model. Perhaps the hats should read "Our Border Patrol", but the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The 9th Circus blackrobes are outlaws dangerously playing make-believe without basis in our Constitutional law, bad actors to be impeached and removed from office, pursuant to our ratified Constitution, the only Law of our Land, in writing.
We the People must force the proper enforcement of our laws whuch define our national sovereignty, civil rights affirmed by our Bill of Rights, our personal liberties, and individuals' rights to private property. We face an uphill fight against our governmenty employees because our rogue courts are in open rebellion against our ratified Constitution, the singular social contract from which those employed by our government derive any and all of their lawful authority and limited power. Courts rule as if our ratified Constitution does not exist; this conspiracy is prima facia impeachable because it is nothing if not "bad behavior" mocking the "good behavior" of federal blackrobes' term of office.
If these employees of our federal and state governments act beyond their temporary limited powers, then We the People must treat them as outlaws > BEFORE our sovereign nation is destroyed from within or by islam's Terror War at last recognized 9/11/2001.
We are reaching the violent end of our 'personal liberty' inspired United States of America if we do not reverse what usurpations have been done in the name of transnational socialist libralism. The body of criminal corruptions within our government is fascism, destructive American fascism - We know our would-be ruling class by name. The USSA is our corrupted, doomed Kalifornicated utopia, under sanction of the post-commie UN. This executive passivity and often court ordered, trans-national nullification of our Constitutional Republic will destroy our liberties not to mention any rights to personal property.
Why do We the People do nothing when our employees corrupt our very Republic in the face of tens of millions of criminals and some unknown number of illegal combatants invade our homeland and homes?
From whom do We the People obtain the writ of mandamous ordering our executive branches to do their duty when the courts have both shirked theirs and usurped others. This is our Republic, if we can keep it.
We are at war because we are under attack. 9/11 defined our streets as the front lines. Coming battles amid waves of criminal invasions from the north and south. How many millions of criminal aliens do the elites want to live on Long Island and Martha's vinyard? Malibu? Brentwood? How many billions of criminal aliens will American political elites allow to invade our nation? Will elites let the criminal aliens trespass their own homes and sue criminal aliens' accomplices in acting to defend elites' families and property?
Americans are now in a war of survival because our enemies are at war with you and me and our children's children because we are Americans.
Lock and load or surrender. The choice is stark. This is our Republic, if we can keep it.
We have to develop specific ideas on how to deal with this problems and then promote these ideas. Many Americans are unaware of the problems or what they can do.
Tom Ridge by his very comments shows he is a dangerous man for the position he holds. First step, I would try to get rid of him. Then raise funds to counter-sue those who sue the ranchers.
Is the above an accurate documented quote or statement made by the filers of the suit against the Barnetts? If so, once this statement is firmly documented as a piece evidence as to the intent of the plaintiff, and it can be presented in court, counter suing the plaintiff for something like conspiracy or intentionally crafting a suit with the intent to do economic harm to the defendant would be a recommended tact of defense. Also something related to RICO comes to mind. Accurate documentation and research of the statements, actions, and intentions of the plaintiff is critical.
I wish I could be more precise in my advise but my knowledge is a bit limited in this area. In any case it unfortunately is the burden on the defendant to pull out all the stops and vigorously defend themselves in this matter. They must solicit competent legal council. Not only because they stand to be damaged in the event of a loss of the case, but in the event of a loss, irreparable damage in the establishment of bad case law will be the result.
In addition, I highly recommend that NO ONE present themselves by dress or direct verbal statements as a Federal or local law enforcement officer or agent. It is entirely appropriate for a citizen to make a citizen's arrest as one conducts themselves appropriately. But if the case can be made that one is impersonating an officer, it does not bode well upon judicial review. KNOCK IT OFF.
I'm sure there would be others that would know far more than I and could fill you in further.
Bush's primary campaign pledge was that he would take his "Oath of Office" seriously. If he has an opponent in the Republican primaries, I hope his opponent will ask Mr. Bush to explain his politics as usual positions about open borders, CFR and his expansion of Medicare. When are We the People going to demand more from candidates and the people we elect? Until we stop electing people whose promises are empty, we will continue to get empty suit politicians full of promises.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
