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
If a citizen actually witnesses the crime, which is illegal entry, then yes, but stopping people 3 miles North of the town of Douglas for being brown-skinned does not constitute witnessing a crime.
Section 1.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.
That defines what constitutes a citizen. Which was only necessary because of slavery.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The second sentence has three distinct part. The first addresses Federal protection of citizens by virtue of their privileges and immunities. The second and third address the more general protections afforded to any person, within its jurisdiction, by the Federal government. If they had meant 'citizens' in the second and third part they would have continued to use the word 'citizen' in order to carry the continuity of their meaning and preserve the clarity of it.
To try to impose the definition of citizen given in the first sentence upon the definitions of protections and who is protected given in the second is 'interpreting into' the straightforward meaning of the Section something clearly not intended. Are you bucking for a spot on the 9th Circus Court? LOL
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.