16 illegals sue Arizona rancher (32million)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hold on... Let me look around here for something... No, nope, I cannot find the BULLSH!T button...

Considering that your study guide for life has been modified by rulers to suit the needs of the ruling class many times throughout history, I have to say that this is Fraud. To imply some kind of divinity because the person holds public office is perverse.


You are the one who first brought God into this thread, I responded with the proper passage.

This passage does not imply any type of divinity. God understands that not everyone belives in God, and because of this rulers that are in place need to be able to address the needs of everyone, not just those of faith.

If the passage was meant to indicate any type of divinity it would have without any doubt made a statement such as "God has placed devine rulers over the people" God would have clearly stated such, but God didnt. so there is no pre-requeset that a ruler be of any faith.


And now you respond by apparently calling the bible B.S. which I believe falls into the catagory of blasphemy. So I am guessing this is now between you and God.

Good luck with that
 
Last edited:
You are the one who first brought God into this thread, I responded with the proper passage.

This passage does not imply any type of divinity. God understands that not everyone belives in God, and because of this rulers that are in place need to be able to address the nees of everyone, not just those of faith.

If the passage was meant to indicate any type of divinity it would have without any doubt made a statement such as "God has placed devine rulers over the people" God would have clearly stated such, but God didnt. so there is no pre-requeset that a ruler be of any faith.


And now you respond by apparently calling the bible B.S. which I believe falls into the catagory of blasphemy. So I am guessing this is now between you and God.

Good luck with that

That's the nice thing about being an atheist. No luck necessary for a non-issue.


On another note, you know better than to latch onto my fishing expeditions around here. :poke:
 
To everyone that is screaming "illegals have rights!", I have a question for you. Have YOU ever been to a foreign country that enforces border protection? I lived for two years less than 20 miles from the East German and Czech borders. There is an area called the 1k zone. Signs at the 1k zone warn that intruders will be shot if they enter illegally. There's no fence, just a row of signs that line the edge of the 1k zone. There is no such thing as human rights to those countries. If you willingly cross into the 1k zone they have the right to shoot and kill you. If you are detained you will be shipped to a prison to wait for a trial that may happen in a few months or years. After you are found guilty you will spend you sentence in prison, then shipped back to the country you were trying to leave. You cannot sue the country that arrested you. It may not be humane, but it is what will happen to you in almost every single country other than the USA.

Here we have the USA. The kinder, more gentle, nation of whiners. When someone illegally enters here we roll out the red carpet. We give the illegals every chance to take advantage of our generosity as a nation. We even give illegals more rights than our own citizens. Why? Because some bleeding heart liberal somewhere demanded better rights for non-citizens. If an illegal citizen in detained in the USA they are required to be fed and give medical care. If a US citizen need food or medical care, and they can't afford it, they are required to stand in line for hours and apply to assistance. Many are denied basic assistance even if they are disabled. Don't tell my otherwise, because my roommate is proof to the facts. He is legally deaf. He has been going to school so he can get a job that will pay more than minimum wage so he can't survive. According to the state he is eligible while he is in school. He has had to ask me several times for help because he got declined for food stamps for more than three months. I know he's no wasting his money. He doesn't have any to waste.

All the rancher legally needs to do is post "No Tresspassing" signs on his property to be well within his rights. They only need to be in English. Nothing in the Constitution requires the USA to provide for other languages. If they want to come here, learn it. If you think different, go to Mexico and demand that they put English on all the signs, menus, safety warnings and legal documents. They will laugh their assess off and tell you to get out of their country.

So in short, we refuse to help our own, but protect everyone else. No wonder why everyone ELSE calls this the land of opportunity.

+100! Well stated.

It may have been as simple as the detention by Joe Rancher who has no authority to do so. I don't know, just thinking out loud.

That's incorrect. By the constitution of the US if he lets them know he's conducting a citizen's arrest, he's fine. By the constitution, NOBODY THAT IS HERE ILLEGALY HAS ANY CIVIL RIGHTS. Far too often the courts don't abide by this, but it is how IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. I've read about 5 or 6 pages of this thread and I'm tired of seeing people saying over and over that he violated civil rights. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY UNLESS THEY'RE LEGAL. Now, if he just held them there and didn't tell them why, or that he was conducting a citizen's arrest, they will probably try to get him for kidnapping. But if he made any statement to inform them that he was holding them till border patrol got there to detain them. . . He's in the clear.
 
+100! Well stated.



That's incorrect. By the constitution of the US if he lets them know he's conducting a citizen's arrest, he's fine. By the constitution, NOBODY THAT IS HERE ILLEGALY HAS ANY CIVIL RIGHTS. Far too often the courts don't abide by this, but it is how IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. I've read about 5 or 6 pages of this thread and I'm tired of seeing people saying over and over that he violated civil rights. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY UNLESS THEY'RE LEGAL. Now, if he just held them there and didn't tell them why, or that he was conducting a citizen's arrest, they will probably try to get him for kidnapping. But if he made any statement to inform them that he was holding them till border patrol got there to detain them. . . He's in the clear.


Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

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. 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

Notice in this there is a distinction between a citizen and "any person"...Citizens can not be deprived of the privledges or immunities... "any person " (no distinction) can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....
 
No but I would think the basis of the civil complaint is going to be that his actions violated the laws.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

No civil and criminal are different, very different.

You are right, but the basis for their claim has to be that some law was broken even if the individual was not charged.
 
Closing the thread since there is no productive discussion. two sides arguing until the server is overloaded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top