16 Illegals Sue Arizona rancher

[PhiGam]

Why in the hell are they permitted to use U.S. federal courts? They were committing multiple criminal acts and this man was defending his property. They are going to lose but only after wasting taxpayer money on a trial.
We really need to build a damn wall.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevlar281

Undocumented? That would imply they had a document to lose.

Perhaps non-documented? As in never?

[ThetaDancer]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Why in the hell are they permitted to use U.S. federal courts? They were committing multiple criminal acts and this man was defending his property.[/B]

Seriously. Do any GC lawyers understand this...and if so, can you help me understand this?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What civil right does anyone have to trespass?

This article is VERY unclear (and literally wrong on the facts, as far as I've read) - the aliens were NOT on the rancher's land, and they may have been up to three miles away from any land he actually owned. Thus the right is against false imprisonment/right to interstate travel. Before everyone gets apeshit on this, there's no element of trespass involved, or I'm sure it would have been thrown out right away.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

Seriously. Do any GC lawyers understand this...and if so, can you help me understand this?

Certain rights are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of citizenship - for instance, you can't just murder a person of non-American citizenship.

The way to bring remedy for something that happened on US soil is in US court - it's the same reason a foreign company can sue a US company in US courts.

Whether the claim has merit is up to a jury.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Thus the right is against false imprisonment/right to interstate travel.

I think a claim for false imprisonment may exist even if they were trespassing. I may be wrong, but I think the preferred action to take against trespassers is to eject them OR call the police. I don't think detaining trespassers is looked on particularly favorably.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I think a claim for false imprisonment may exist even if they were trespassing. I may be wrong, but I think the preferred action to take against trespassers is to eject them OR call the police. I don't think detaining trespassers is looked on particularly favorably.

You are correct, at least from everything I know. I know that here where I live, there have been a few "illegals" who trespassed in people's backyards (that is what happens when your backyard is literally on the border), were rounded up by the homeowner and the homeowner was the one who got in trouble for the false imprisonment.

It has been said that if you see "illegals" you call the police and let them handle it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I think a claim for false imprisonment may exist even if they were trespassing. I may be wrong, but I think the preferred action to take against trespassers is to eject them OR call the police. I don't think detaining trespassers is looked on particularly favorably.

Kevin is much better qualified to speak to this in the abstract, but you very well may be right . . . in the OP's case, though, every other source I have notes that trespass is not an issue, as it wasn't on his owned property.

[Kevin]

Rereading the facts as the article presents them, I think there's a viable 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The article is specific (and I'm just guessing the author got this info off of the pleadings) that the defendant here wore camoflauge, carried a walkie-talkie and a gun, and generally carried himself like a law enforcement officer (my conclusion). If the plaintiff can show that his rights were infringed upon by someone acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage. . ." there may be a civil rights action even if that individual is not actually authorized to enforce those norms. Here, arguably, the freedom of movement (an ill-defined, but existant right) was arguably violated while the defendant was playing border patrol. This is why the weekend warriors who go 'play' Border Patrol only call in illegal sightings on their radios rather than attempting to have direct confrontations.

I also see, via pendant jurisdiction, a state law tort claim for false imprisonment.

The defendant is disputing the existance of the rifle because the presence thereof goes to the heart of the case -- if the plaintiffs felt free to leave the scene, their rights and liberties were never effected, end of case. That's going to be a question for the jury, hence the trial.

As to the damages being asked for, it all depends on the jury. If a jury finds this plaintiff guilty, it could just award nominal damages for each of the claims -- probably something on the order of $32.00 total. The stinger for the defendant here is that 42 U.S.C. 1988 is a fee shifting statute which would saddle the defendant with the burden of paying plaintiffs' attorneys fees should he be found to have violated their civil rights. That's something that very easily will be in the six-figure range.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The stinger for the defendant here is that 42 U.S.C. 1988 is a fee shifting statute which would saddle the defendant with the burden of paying plaintiffs' attorneys fees should he be found to have violated their civil rights. That's something that very easily will be in the six-figure range.

There was rumblings on OR about someone's dad from the board talking about doing it pro bono.

If he doesn't, I imagine there will be others doing it.

[ASUADPi]

I live in AZ and I am seriously SO SICK of Illegal Immigrants suing the damn state.

I will probably get so flamed....

The whole point of the term "illegal" is that you have broken a law. These people crossed over the US border and into the state of AZ illegally therefore they should not have the same rights afforded to them as I do, a legal citizen of the United States and of Arizona.

Seriously why do illegals feel they have the right to sue a US citizen or the state of AZ because they broke the damn law.

Illegal immigration is a very contraversial subject in AZ. People have very strong opinions (as you can tell I do).

Just an FYI, I have absolutely no problem with legal immigration, I support it. What I don't support is illegal immigration and the fact that what little money I am making and my tax dollars are going to pay for illegal immigrants to be on welfare and AHCCCS (state healthcare).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

There was rumblings on OR about someone's dad from the board talking about doing it pro bono.

If he doesn't, I imagine there will be others doing it.

I'd like to see that.

I'd also like to see a wall built. This is absolutely ridiculous.

If a wall is too expensive, a minefield will do. A controlled southern border would be a huge plus to our national security. I just don't think the current administration has the political wherewithall to do it.

[CrackerBarrel]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

Seriously why do illegals feel they have the right to sue a US citizen or the state of AZ because they broke the damn law.

The reason illegal immigrants have to be given access to the courts and a right to sue citizens and states is that if they didn't you create a de facto ability for American citizens to do anything they want to illegal immigrants with no repercussions. In a society that views rights as inalienable to all people regardless of status there is a strong public policy need to give those people the ability to protect their rights, as without it the rights might as well not exist. I'm strongly against illegal immigration or any sort of amnesty, but their lack of citizenship or nonresident worker status doesn't give me the right to capture them or subject them to inhumane working conditions or any of the other violations illegal immigrants tend to sue for. At the same time there is still a strong disincentive for illegal immigrants to use the court system because while they might win, coming forward and admitting in sworn pleadings that they are not supposed to be in the US is a good way to get deported.

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

There was rumblings on OR about someone's dad from the board talking about doing it pro bono.

If he doesn't, I imagine there will be others doing it.

I saw that and while I imagine he will be represented pro bono and I'm glad to hear it, if they win their civil rights case the rancher will be responsible for the cost of the immigrants' attorney fees.

[SWTXBelle]

My husband went to the Social Security office.

In 10 - 14 days he will no longer be undocumented.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The defendant is disputing the existance of the rifle because the presence thereof goes to the heart of the case -- if the plaintiffs felt free to leave the scene, their rights and liberties were never effected, end of case. That's going to be a question for the jury, hence the trial.

Have you checked for the current docs on PACER? Because it appears the Times story uses very old information - currently, there is no argument between the parties that the defendant carried and brandished a handgun at the scene, but instead as to whether the use of the handgun constitutes assault and/or an imprisoning gesture.