16 illegals sue Arizona rancher (32million)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah.. His 22,000 acre yard. ???

That doesn't matter...if it's 22 feet or 22,000 miles, it's the mans (any mans)
personal property. At point of size of ownership does it not become yours?

These people crossed over with no regard to the laws of this country, then
crossed this mans property with no regard to HIS RIGHTS...and there is no
out cry for that, because he is rich maybe or better off...or what?
 
It's sheep raper not a goat roper. Get it right:moon:

That doesn't matter...if it's 22 feet or 22,000 miles, it's the mans (any mans)
personal property. At point of size of ownership does it not become yours?

These people crossed over with no regard to the laws of this country, then
crossed this mans property with no regard to HIS RIGHTS...and there is no
out cry for that, because he is rich maybe or better off...or what?

Maybe it is because he exceeded his rights when he assaulted the woman or threatened the use of deadly force?
 
No where that I know of in the constitution is there a distinction between US Citizens and Non-US Citizens in terms of what rights under the constitution are granted.

In the preamble, very first words, "We the people of the United States." Not, the people of Mexico, China, Greece, Timbuktu or Mars. Granted, this could be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean, of course. To me, however, the citizens of a country are afforded rights by their own country. They are not transportable across boundaries.

Additionally if be careful going with human rights if your intent is to show that illegal alieans have a limited selection of rights they can envoke. Accepted definitions of Human Rights parallel the rights granted in the constitution pretty closely and are almost synonymous with civil rights.

Human rights do not necessarily include the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. It is fair to say that the Bill of Rights is not granting rights necessarily but spelling out the rights we all have as human beings. Regardless, within the borders of this country, those rights are spelled out pretty clearly. Given the discussion at hand, the most salient is the right to due process. An illegal alien really doesn't have that right in a criminal trial. They do, however, have the right to sue in civil court, just like anyone else with a hungry attorney.

--Wag--
 
And all this time I thought an individual was innocent until proven guilty... :whistle:

I'll have to confess a touche on that one! :bowdown:

Legal definition, of course. According to the law, a person is, in fact, innocent until proven guilty but even within the bounds of the law, once the person is proven guilty, we know that he became a criminal at the time the crime was committed. Therefore, even if not proven guilty, the person may still in fact be a criminal we just don't know it for certain AND, the bottom line effect of not knowing is that we can extend no punishment and therein lies the rub.

If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around to hear it, did it make a sound?

--Wag--
 
It may not be perfect but it is the best there is.

BULLSH!T, your kidding youself and live in la la land :cheerleader::cheerleader::cheerleader:
....it is a joke and you prove it over and over again constantly.
Just like this lawsuit is a total joke....

The law is nothing but a GAME that is twisted by the liberals and the tree
huggers to benifit the criminals. Anything goes for the criminals at the expense
of the honest man. No one is accountable, unless your honest. If it were me
on his land, I'd be going to jail...
 
In the preamble, very first words, "We the people of the United States." Not, the people of Mexico, China, Greece, Timbuktu or Mars. Granted, this could be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean, of course. To me, however, the citizens of a country are afforded rights by their own country. They are not transportable across boundaries.

The Preamble does not assign any powers to the federal government or provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, it has almost certainly never been relied upon by any court as the decisive factor in deciding a case, except in apparently frivolous circumstances.



Human rights do not necessarily include the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. It is fair to say that the Bill of Rights is not granting rights necessarily but spelling out the rights we all have as human beings. Regardless, within the borders of this country, those rights are spelled out pretty clearly. Given the discussion at hand, the most salient is the right to due process. An illegal alien really doesn't have that right in a criminal trial. They do, however, have the right to sue in civil court, just like anyone else with a hungry attorney.

--Wag--

Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
 
BULLSH!T, your kidding youself and live in la la land :cheerleader::cheerleader::cheerleader:
....it is a joke and you prove it over and over again constantly.
Just like this lawsuit is a total joke....

The law is nothing but a GAME that is twisted by the liberals and the tree
huggers to benifit the criminals. Anything goes for the criminals at the expense
of the honest man. No one is accountable, unless your honest. If it were me
on his land, I'd be going to jail...

Wow!
 
I'll have to confess a touche on that one! :bowdown:

Legal definition, of course. According to the law, a person is, in fact, innocent until proven guilty but even within the bounds of the law, once the person is proven guilty, we know that he became a criminal at the time the crime was committed. Therefore, even if not proven guilty, the person may still in fact be a criminal we just don't know it for certain AND, the bottom line effect of not knowing is that we can extend no punishment and therein lies the rub.

If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around to hear it, did it make a sound?

--Wag--

Your point is well taken, but if it was any one of us in trouble then I think we would be greatful for that principal.
 
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Declaration of Independence

It says it right there:rulez:...there were no border patrol there to take charge, so he needed to step up and do something about what was happening
 
WOW!!!! TOTAL BS!!:banghead:

THERE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE A CASE. IF THEY WEREN'T BREAKING THE LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ENDED UP IN THIS SITUATION.

I NEED TO GIVE THIS GUY A CALL, SOUNDS LIKE SOME GOOD TARGET PRACTICE..... I MEAN TRAINING.... :whistle:

SERVING IN THE U.S. ARMY SINCE 2002:thumbsup:
 
Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which have come to be commonly thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

Although the preamble does not assign powers to the federal government, it does explain clearly from whence they arise. Any other influence is alien and not on equal footing, no matter the humanity of the thing.

Be cautious that you not call things rights which are not rights. We have the right to pursue our own happiness in any way we see fit. Once it infringes on the rights of another, however, it is no longer a right and becomes, at best, a privilege which must be earned.

Having food is NOT a right. It's a privilege which must be earned. Remember the parable of the ant and the grasshopper. Healthcare, education, employment, access to culture, etc. are not rights, they are privileges granted by nature upon earning them.

The lines between rights and privileges have become very blurry as of the last three or four decades. I think it's coming from the belief of many people who believe that equality means people should all be treated the same. Far from it. All people deserve the same opportunities, yes. But no man should be compelled to give of his substance to the sluggard who refuses to become that which he is capable of becoming. By the same token, charity is not the kind of thing which should be made mandatory.

There are those who believe that the men of substance should give of themselves to those who are less fortunate than they. It's easy to be generous with another person's money, eh? As a result of this belief, we are already on the slippery slope of communism wherein we preach the gospel of all people being given sustenance from the same pool of resources and yet, in practice, the elite are still the elite and the poor are slave to an even greater extent than they are already.

Again, recall that treating all people the same does not mean that all people are treated equally. Just because we have a constitution which defends the rights of our U.S. citizens does not automatically extend those rights to all comers regardless of the legal status in this country.

That's a bit convoluted and I let my mind wander overly much but you get the gist.

--Wag--
 
Your point is well taken, but if it was any one of us in trouble then I think we would be greatful for that principal.

I was hoping you would say that. If you or I were incarcerated in Mexico, we would not be given any of those rights. It's only a rare few alien countries where we would be given those rights.

--Wag--
 
Although the preamble does not assign powers to the federal government, it does explain clearly from whence they arise. Any other influence is alien and not on equal footing, no matter the humanity of the thing.

Be cautious that you not call things rights which are not rights. We have the right to pursue our own happiness in any way we see fit. Once it infringes on the rights of another, however, it is no longer a right and becomes, at best, a privilege which must be earned.

Having food is NOT a right. It's a privilege which must be earned. Remember the parable of the ant and the grasshopper. Healthcare, education, employment, access to culture, etc. are not rights, they are privileges granted by nature upon earning them.

The lines between rights and privileges have become very blurry as of the last three or four decades. I think it's coming from the belief of many people who believe that equality means people should all be treated the same. Far from it. All people deserve the same opportunities, yes. But no man should be compelled to give of his substance to the sluggard who refuses to become that which he is capable of becoming. By the same token, charity is not the kind of thing which should be made mandatory.

There are those who believe that the men of substance should give of themselves to those who are less fortunate than they. It's easy to be generous with another person's money, eh? As a result of this belief, we are already on the slippery slope of communism wherein we preach the gospel of all people being given sustenance from the same pool of resources and yet, in practice, the elite are still the elite and the poor are slave to an even greater extent than they are already.

Again, recall that treating all people the same does not mean that all people are treated equally. Just because we have a constitution which defends the rights of our U.S. citizens does not automatically extend those rights to all comers regardless of the legal status in this country.

That's a bit convoluted and I let my mind wander overly much but you get the gist.

--Wag--

Very nicely said, I don't agree with all of it because I believe that adequate health care is a right that should be extended to anyone who needs it. Sure some will abuse it but as a whole I think that in country as great as ours no one should have to worry about falling into unmanageable debt due to illness or injury. Other countries have managed to make it work I think we can figure it out also.
 
Is this something you thought of during your discussions with god?

While none of my previous comments stemmed from "any conversation with God"

It was however placed on my heart to bring to your attention that God has appointed rulers over us and we are to abide by the laws given to us by the rulers God has placed over us.

Entry into the United States illegaly is breaking the law that was made by the rulers that have been placed above us.

So anyone entering into the United States is breaking United States law and is also commiting a sin before God.




BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.


1 Peter 2:13

Submission to Rulers and Masters

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king
 
I was hoping you would say that. If you or I were incarcerated in Mexico, we would not be given any of those rights. It's only a rare few alien countries where we would be given those rights.

--Wag--

That is exactly why this is the greatest country in the world.
 
While none of my previous comments stemmed from "any conversation with God"

It was however placed on my heart to bring to your attention that God has appointed rulers over us and we are to abide by the laws given to us by the rulers God has placed over us.

Entry into the United States illegaly is breaking the law that was made by the rulers that have been placed above us.

So anyone entering into the United States is breaking United States law and is also commiting a sin before God.




BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.


1 Peter 2:13

Submission to Rulers and Masters

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king

Because this is what Jesus did?
 
well, silver, I agree with you. However, I've got to ask, is it wise to extend those rights to some people, and deny our own citizens the right to defend their own property?
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Because this is what Jesus did?


You know, your constant advesarial position on everything is getting old again.

No matter what somone says, you almost always have to disagree with it.

By your comments I would find it hard to believe you are a Christian, and if you are not please do not try and draw me into a religous argument. All you will always do is argue and play devils advocate. There is vert little that can be gained in having a discussion with you because no matter what you always take the oposite postion just to argue

You are faling back into your old ways SJ

Further more my comment was directed towards projekt, so stay out of it
 
Last edited:
"...and is also commiting a sin before God."

BS with a capital BS to boot! Shame on you Thrasher. Can you see Jesus making the claim that people trying for a better life for their family are commiting a sin before God? Oh, and all those LEOs were NOT appointed as 'rulers over us' by God. Man, where do you...no, nevermind, just nevermind...Some people make me ashamed to be a member of the human race.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top