Posted on 08/12/2003 7:21:52 PM PDT by Tancredo Fan
Updated 5:54 pm Aug 12, 2003
Immigrant-rights group intensifies fight against civilian patrols on border
The Associated Press
PHOENIX - An advocacy group wants to file a lawsuit on behalf of migrants who say they were victimized by armed civilian groups patrolling the border, and is seeking victims willing to serve as plaintiffs.
The Border Action Network claims the groups operate outside the law and violate the rights of immigrants. They hope to pressure authorities to intervene.
The self-appointed border patrol groups deny they are breaking the law, and said they pass along to authorities information that volunteers collect about illegal border-crossers.
Volunteers for the Border Action Network are stretching their search for alleged victims along the entire border and as far south as the Mexican state of Chiapas. The advocates began asking victims to come forward earlier this year through ads and radio spots in Sonora, Mexico.
Once alleged victims come forward, attorneys plan to sue the people or groups accused of assaulting, robbing, intimidating or illegally detaining border-crossers.
"The purpose of the suit is to get at their pocketbook," said Jesus Romo, a civil rights attorney in Tucson. "Our purpose is to bankrupt these individuals so that they stop their actions."
No lawsuits have been filed thus far.
Border Action Network plans to continue using radio spots and newspaper ads to find plaintiffs, particularly focusing in areas where migrants originate.
Finding plaintiffs for civil lawsuits also could make it easier for prosecutors and other officials to open investigations into the activities of civilian patrol groups, said Zoe Hammer-Tomizuka, a Border Action Network volunteer.
Glenn Spencer, president of American Border Patrol, an organization based in Sierra Vista that monitors illegal border-crossers, says his group operates lawfully and does not interfere with migrants.
Still, he said he's concerned about groups that plan to file lawsuits. "Things are getting a little hairy," he said. "They're heightening feelings on both sides of the border. They are trying to rabble-rouse."
Another group that has patrolled the Arizona-Mexico border was sued in Texas over two incidents of alleged abuse against detained migrants.
A lawsuit filed in May accuses Ranch Rescue and others of assaulting, falsely imprisoning and robbing six people during two incidents in March in rural south Texas.
The Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles joined in filing the lawsuit. The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors the political movements of groups from white supremacist groups to eco-terrorists.
Your statement is far too broad-brush and is emotional not rational.
1. According to the Yuma paper's story, the charges appear to depend on the fact that the encounter occurred on federal not private land. If the encounter had occurred on private property, the illegals would have been committing trespass, which is grounds for arrest.
2. Second point, the formula relied on by the LEO's who made the arrest implicitly claims that since the illegals were arrested on federal land, then therefore no trespass was committed. This is a very weak argument, since the accosted people clearly had no right to be there.
3. The unjustifiable-force argument will get short shrift from any jury that isn't contaminated by the pro-illegal NGO's and rabble-rousers, in view of all the gunfight and murder stories posted above involving illegals and drug smugglers.
At night, you can't tell.
Thanks for the post.
Bratcher said though that statute deals specifically with citizen’s arrests, entering the country illegally is a federal misdemeanor and doesn't qualify as a breach of the peace, meaning the state statute would not apply in this case.
County officials said the state statute can't be used to justify the detention of illegal immigrants, unless it is done on private property, where the illegal immigrants would be trespassing.
Let's be sure not to advocate committing felonies because of misdemeanors, unless we want to earn the title "illegals."
Bump
County officials said...
They don't dispose of these cases, juries do; and they don't dispose of the law; the higher courts do.
Your and their entire case against the two men arrested by the county sheriff rests on two points:
1. Illegally entering the country and standing on federal land isn't trespassing (really?).
2. Trespassing on private property is grounds for citizen's arrest, but trespassing on national property isn't (really?).
Both propositions require us to believe that invasion isn't trespassing, and that citizens don't own the national property. The second proposition, if true, suggests that anyone who wants to can walk into Area 51 or Vandenburg Air Force Base and not be arrested: they're national property, after all -- king's X!
Settling stuff like this is what we build courtrooms for. As a tweak, I would also point out that (ahem) you seem to think that arrest and indictment are tantamount to proven guilt. That's what The Rapist and his Beast Woman said about poor Billy Dale and the other Travel Office employees.
The problem, then, is more that the large numbers of illegals depress wage levels very noticeably; one simple wage comparison I saw years ago showed that people doing janitorial work in Houston, a line of work typically taken by illegals, were earning only 30% of what people in Pittsburgh did, and yet prices of goods in Houston isn't very much below Pittsburgh's levels, if at all.
Moreover, employers in Houston have cynically used immigration law to foil attempts to unionize and negotiate, calling INS themselves on the union leaders and even rounding up their entire workforce to be deported in one case. They had had no idea and were shocked -- shocked! -- to discover, when the picket signs went up, that these people were illegal immigrants from Mexico.
There was a labor study published just a few days ago by an academic group at, IIRC, UCLA or UCSD, that tended to show the same thing.
Of course, that won't be news to the employers who are encouraging people to immigrate illegally for precisely that reason. Their constant refrain about not being able to find anyone to do the work begs the question of whether they are offering First World or Third World wages. I don't blame anyone for turning down work at chump wages. After all, the idea of "negotiation" implies that both parties have the right to say "no" to an inadequate offer.
Unless, of course, you think Americans ought to work for wages that are 30% of what the work is worth elsewhere, just because The Man has rigged the market....illegally.
You pointed out an accusation, and a legal theory about trespass law and citizen's arrest.
It may well be that the Arizona statute is unconstitutional under Arizona's own constitution, in that it restrains citizens unduly from restoring order in certain situations and requires them to become (you pick) either bystanders or victims of lawbreaking, without effective recourse (there's never a cop around when you need one).
A good lawyer, on the facts presented, could make your "Reality" look like Swiss cheese.
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.