 Roger Barnett and his brother Brent |
An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as “the avenue of choice” for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes.
Attorneys for the immigrants – five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States – have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape…
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
“This is my land. I´m the victim here,” Mr. Barnett said. “When someone’s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands.”
Good enough for me.
American business (especially ag.) wants dirt cheap labor. As long as they are allowed to control the US immigration enforcement, then the federal gov’t will only pay lip service to securing our borders.
It is like the DUI laws. They really don’t want to solve the problem. There is way too much money to be made from it.
These guys are great. They caught 12,000, with nothing but field binoculars, a Chevy and some walkie talkies? Why aren’t they in Afghanistan?
#31,
Fine then, complain about migrant labor then. But these people this guy assaulted had migrant labor status and they were camping when he kidnapped them.
Oh and it was on public land.
It wasn’t even his land!
ROFL!!!!
My pwnage of this thread is now complete.
# 33 GregA said, “Oh and it was on public land.”
Really? Don’t see that…
“The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch,”
“In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish.”
#34,
You dont see it because you are a moron and have only looked at the one article. It is not my responsibility to treat you for your retardation.
#29 Greg,
Very good update. Thank you very much.
I’ve been busy with a bunch of stuff so I haven’t researched it as you have. Thank you again for doing my homework.
BTW, to those who think land mines are a great solution. That definitely is a felony offense to lay a booby trap that could injure some one. As is shooting them with hollow point bullets.
Heard back from MALDEF!!!!
They are suing Glen Beck for his slander on this story!!!!
Expect to hear about him being fired over this pretty soon;)
Yup, it didn’t take me long to find this
# 35 GregA said, “You dont see it because you are a moron and have only looked at the one article.”
I’m sorry, you are the moron. It is land the guy leased. Trespassing laws apply. Learn to read…
“The Morales family and Emma English, a family friend, filed suit after Barnett confronted them on state leased land”
#40
Oh, so he can just trade a trespassing lawsuit settlement for settlement on this matter. Oh wait, no he cant, he only purchased access for his cattle, it is still a park!
Oh wait, you are believing his failed affirmative defense from his last trial exactly like this one that he also lost.
He is gonna lose this, and a dangerous criminal will lose his funding thank goodness;)
Total irredeemable pwnage.
#41 I have no idea if I agree with his defense strat.
Haven’t read the briefs. I do agree that any US citizen has the right to stop non-citizens illegally crossing the border into the US, up to and including using lethal force to prevent it.
#42
You said “I do agree that any US citizen has the right to stop non-citizens illegally crossing the border into the US, up to and including using lethal force to prevent it.”
That is RETARTED, and anyone who thinks that is a RETARD!
#42,
Oh the people in this case, who were on public land, had legal standing to be here.
RETARD!
# 44 GregA said, “Oh the people in this case, who were on public land, had legal standing to be here.”
Where were they coming from and where were they going?
These illegals are lucky. If they tried this crap on my families farm in Tennessee they would be shot. This man and all his family should have nothing but support from are government and the U.S. people.
#45,
Irrelevant. They had legal standing to be in US, and they were on public lands.
GregA said, “Oh the people in this case, who were on public land, had legal standing to be here.”
Well? Where were they coming from and where were they going?
retard,
That reminds me…
Do you remember what McCain said about migrant labor?
# 49 GregA said, “That reminds me…”
Well? Where were they coming from and where were they going?
This case should teach everyone a lesson about trespassers on your land: shoot, shovel, and shut up.
If the case is about him holding people at gun point and threatening them with dogs and they wee on public land then I don’t see how he as much to stand on. If they are on his property its another story and I’d support him 100%.
# 23 jbenson2 said, on February 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am #17 said: “Using a pejorative like ‘illegals’ just shows what insecure bullies you are.”
Using a wussy description like ‘undocumented immigrants’ just shows what an insecure weenie doormat you are.
The correct legal term for the nearly 20 million persons illegally in the U.S. is illegal aliens.
The term “undocumented immigrants” is purposely incorrect in order to sway the public in favor of special interest groups and only clouds the reality of the situation.
Most undocumented border crossers never had a document to lose. The incorrect and understated implication is that legal status can be achieved merely by completing some paperwork. By law the illegal alien must leave the country in order to apply through the proper immigration procedure.
Burglars are not uninvited house guests.
Car-jackers are not under-rated drivers.
Bank robbers are not making unauthorized withdrawals.
Illegal aliens are not undocumented immigrants.
________________________________________
Thank you jbenson2, well put. All put aside, these people are breaking our laws – and by definition are criminals. I’ve lived in the SW for most of my life. The people truely seeking a better life you feel for – however . . . get a visa, enter legally, become a citizen, then welcome.
The real problem is the drug runners, the people smugglers (cayottes), and flow of stolen good from the US to the other side of the border. Mexican Federales participate in many of these activities – especially stolen autos, and looking the other way on drug running – payoffs.
Live for at least 10 years “on the border” and see what it is like. Have you vehicles stolen, vandalized – several times / year. (they need transportation north). Have your property broken into for quick cash . . .
After at least a decade of living on the border, you are then qualified to speak on this issue.
#53 Mike D
I have no doubt that the problems you refer to exist, but they will continue to exist until America as a nation decides what to do with illegal immigration.
I lived in Dallas for 13 years, and I saw another side of the “illegals issue”. I saw and read about them busting their butts for far less than minimum wage on all the sh*ttiest jobs you could find… agriculture, roofing in 130 degree summer weather, clearing tables in restaurants, etc., etc., so us Americans could pay lower prices.
It’s been said over and over again… we have illegals here because we WANT them here, we want to pay lower prices for our fruits and vegetables, for our new houses, for going out to eat. We’d have to pay a lot more for all of these if we paid enough for American citizens to do these sh*t jobs.
So which is it America? Keep looking the other way while the illegals do our sh*t jobs? Or really stop illegal immigration (which would be easy enough if we inflicted heavy penalties on the big corporations that hire them) and accept the accompanying rise in prices?
# 54 Phydeau said, “So which is it America?”
How ’bout we go with what has worked in the past? Reinstate what Eisenhower did…
OK, you want to crack down. Fine. So that means you’re willing to pay more for a whole lot of things in America, because you want to pay Americans enough money to do these sh*t jobs? That’s very noble, and I personally happen to agree with you, but good luck selling that to the American people. Frankly, I think the vast majority of Americans who don’t live near the border don’t give a sh*t about border problems. To them it’s just acceptable collateral damage if it keeps their prices low.
Sad thing is…I’m not sure how Arizona is, but in many states he could have just shot them for trespassing (especially if they were threatening property) and there would be no issue at all.
# 56 Phydeau said, “OK, you want to crack down. Fine. So that means you’re willing to pay more for a whole lot of things in America”
And, a lot less for other things. In CA they are a net drain of several billion/year (covered by my taxes). It all balances out but, the bonus is less crime…
#57 – “Sad thing is…I’m not sure how Arizona is, but in many states he could have just shot them for trespassing (especially if they were threatening property) and there would be no issue at all.”
That’s a common misconception. You can’t harm simple trespassers on your land, especially shooting at them, anywhere in the U.S. If they’re armed/harming property, then you get into defense of property/person, and that gets you into reasonable force territory.
# 59 Alex said, “That’s a common misconception. You can’t harm simple trespassers on your land, especially shooting at them, anywhere in the U.S.”
Try it in Texas. You’ll get shot and the property owner isn’t likely to get convicted of anything.
#57
As I understand that is indeed Arizona law. (“Shoot first ask questions later.”)
A lot of people are saying he just should’ve shot the people dead. There would be no witnesses.