ILLEGAL aliens awarded man's ranch

[philburger1]

PHOENIX - An Arizona ranch once owned by a member of an armed group accused of terrorizing illegal immigrants has been turned over to two of the very people the owner had tried keep out of the country.

 

The land transfer is being done to satisfy a judgment against Casey Nethercott, a member of a self-styled border-watch group who is serving a five-year prison term for firearms possession.

 

Morris Dees Jr., chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represented the immigrants, said he hoped the ruling would be a cautionary tale to anyone considering hostile measures against border crossers.

 

"When we got into this case, ranchers all along the border were allowing these types to come on their property," said Dees. "Now, they're very leery of it, especially when they see someone loosing their ranch because of it."

 

The ruling comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico declare states of emergency in their border counties, moves designed to free up money for enforcement while drawing more national attention to the problems of illegal immigration.

 

Nethercott was a member of the group Ranch Rescue, which works to protect private property along the southern U.S. border. In March 2003 he was accused of pistol-whipping Edwin Alfredo Mancia Gonzales, 26, at a Hebbronville, Texas, ranch near the Mexico border.

 

A jury deadlocked on the assault charge but convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

 

Mancia and another immigrant traveling with him from El Salvador, Fatima del Socorro Leiva Medina, filed a civil lawsuit last year saying they were harmed while being held by Ranch Rescue members.

 

Named in the suit were Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owners of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe and Betty Sutton. The Suttons settled for $100,000. Nethercott and Foote did not defend themselves, and a Texas judge issued default judgments in April of $850,000 against Nethercott and $500,000 against Foote.

 

Nethercott transferred ownership of his 70-acre Douglas ranch to his sister. But the sister gave up ownership to settle the judgment when challenged by the immigrants' lawyers.

 

The transfer of the ranch outraged border-watch groups.

 

"If the federal government was doing its job, ranchers would not be living in fear," said Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corp., a group that watches for illegal immigrant crossings and reports them to the U.S. Border Patrol.

 

Simcox noted that the Minutemen have a policy against touching the migrants and use video to document their patrols.

 

A message left for Nethercott's family and his attorney were not returned Friday.

 

Dees said his clients plan to eventually sell the property, which Nethercott bought for $120,000, but may allow humanitarian border groups offering aid to immigrants to use it for now.

 

Mancia and Leiva declined through Dees to speak to the media.

[Wacka]

No mention of the fact that the "pistol whipped" illegal aliens had no marks on them and came up with the charges weeks after being caught.

 

Morris Dees, another useful idiot. See Lenin for the meaning.

[philburger1]

No mention of the fact that the "pistol whipped" illegal aliens had no marks on them and came up with the charges weeks after being caught.

 

Morris Dees, another useful idiot. See Lenin for the meaning.

416044[/snapback]

 

 

Eminent Domain now applies to illegals from M-E-H-I-C-O now, I guess.

[blzrul]

The best way to stop them from crossing the borders to find work is...

 

NOT TO HIRE THEM.

 

duh.

[Johnny Coli]

Irony is a dish best served chelated.

[Mickey]

PHOENIX - An Arizona ranch once owned by a member of an armed group accused of terrorizing illegal immigrants has been turned over to two of the very people the owner had tried keep out of the country.

 

The land transfer is being done to satisfy a judgment against Casey Nethercott, a member of a self-styled border-watch group who is serving a five-year prison term for firearms possession.

 

Morris Dees Jr., chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represented the immigrants, said he hoped the ruling would be a cautionary tale to anyone considering hostile measures against border crossers.

 

"When we got into this case, ranchers all along the border were allowing these types to come on their property," said Dees. "Now, they're very leery of it, especially when they see someone loosing their ranch because of it."

 

The ruling comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico declare states of emergency in their border counties, moves designed to free up money for enforcement while drawing more national attention to the problems of illegal immigration.

 

Nethercott was a member of the group Ranch Rescue, which works to protect private property along the southern U.S. border. In March 2003 he was accused of pistol-whipping Edwin Alfredo Mancia Gonzales, 26, at a Hebbronville, Texas, ranch near the Mexico border.

 

A jury deadlocked on the assault charge but convicted him of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

 

Mancia and another immigrant traveling with him from El Salvador, Fatima del Socorro Leiva Medina, filed a civil lawsuit last year saying they were harmed while being held by Ranch Rescue members.

 

Named in the suit were Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owners of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe and Betty Sutton. The Suttons settled for $100,000. Nethercott and Foote did not defend themselves, and a Texas judge issued default judgments in April of $850,000 against Nethercott and $500,000 against Foote.

 

Nethercott transferred ownership of his 70-acre Douglas ranch to his sister. But the sister gave up ownership to settle the judgment when challenged by the immigrants' lawyers.

 

The transfer of the ranch outraged border-watch groups.

 

"If the federal government was doing its job, ranchers would not be living in fear," said Chris Simcox, President of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corp., a group that watches for illegal immigrant crossings and reports them to the U.S. Border Patrol.

 

Simcox noted that the Minutemen have a policy against touching the migrants and use video to document their patrols.

 

A message left for Nethercott's family and his attorney were not returned Friday.

 

Dees said his clients plan to eventually sell the property, which Nethercott bought for $120,000, but may allow humanitarian border groups offering aid to immigrants to use it for now.

 

Mancia and Leiva declined through Dees to speak to the media.

416026[/snapback]

Nethercott is a certifiable lunatic. Oh, and he has also previously served time on assualt and gun charges in California. Maybe you think its a good thing that an ex-con is parading around as a self appointed border avenger whacking illegals on the head with a pistol but I'm not impressed. He shouldn't even have a pistol. He defaulted on the case so it serves him right. A default, a failure to defend yourself is considered an admission of guilt. The FBI has been after him and that is the FBI of George Bush and Al Gonzalez. That guy was an Eric Rudolph in the making.

[philburger1]

Nethercott is a certifiable lunatic.  Oh, and he has also previously served time on assualt and gun charges in California.  Maybe you think its a good thing that an ex-con is parading around as a self appointed border avenger whacking illegals on the head with a pistol but I'm not impressed.  He shouldn't even have a pistol.  He defaulted on the case so it serves him right.  A default, a failure to defend yourself is considered an admission of guilt.  The FBI has been after him and that is the FBI of George Bush and Al Gonzalez.  That guy was an Eric Rudolph in the making.

416125[/snapback]

 

 

Boy, when I see that dog's face I just cringe. talk about conditioning.

 

Doesn't matter if he was Jack the Ripper.

Under no circumstances should ILLEGAL (non-citizens) be awarded land or property from a legal citizen.

 

If he was such a bad guy, put him in jail, then put the land up for auction or something.

This is just another case of Judge trying to be cute and ironic with the ruling.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Boy, when I see that dog's face I just cringe. talk about conditioning.

 

Doesn't matter if he was Jack the Ripper.

Under no circumstances should ILLEGAL (non-citizens) be awarded land or property from a legal citizen.

 

If he was such a bad guy, put him in jail, then put the land up for auction or something.

This is just another case of Judge trying to be cute and ironic with the ruling.

416296[/snapback]

 

Bingo.

[Mickey]

Boy, when I see that dog's face I just cringe. talk about conditioning.

 

Doesn't matter if he was Jack the Ripper.

Under no circumstances should ILLEGAL (non-citizens) be awarded land or property from a legal citizen.

 

If he was such a bad guy, put him in jail, then put the land up for auction or something.

This is just another case of Judge trying to be cute and ironic with the ruling.

416296[/snapback]

I see, so a citizen of Canada can't sue a citizen of the United States in a US Court?

If I am walking down the street, see a hispanic looking person and then shoot him in the head for no reason, under your rules I would be immune from having to pay a judgment obtained by his family in a civil court if it turns out he was here illegally. Makes sense.

 

The Judge wasn't being cute, the guy defaulted on the case. Even the most worthless case in the world can be won if the other side doesn't show.

[Mickey]

Bingo.

416314[/snapback]

I think the on-cue salivating started with the initial post. That post didn't mention that the guy is an ex-convict nor that the FBI has been after him as a dangerous fruitcake. Instead it was billed as yet another "can you believe our government????" kind of post which we see regularly vomited up from right wing web sites. Excuse me for adding a few facts about this lunatic.

 

You seem to agree that there should be some sort of rule that a person illegally in the United States should not be able to collect a judment won in a US court against a US citizen. Before we get into the logic of that position, I want to be clear if that is really the position you are taking. If you aren't, there is no need to discuss it but if you are, lets get it on the record so I am not accused later of putting words in your mouth.

 

Should there be a rule that prevents a foreign born citizen from collecting a judgment against a US citizen won in a US court of competent jurisdiction if that foreign citizen was, at any time prior to the judgment, illegally in the United States?

[philburger1]

I think the on-cue salivating started with the initial post.  That post didn't mention that the guy is an ex-convict nor that the FBI has been after him as a dangerous fruitcake.  Instead it was billed as yet another "can you believe our government????" kind of post which we see regularly vomited up from right wing web sites.  Excuse me for adding a few facts about this lunatic.

 

You seem to agree that there should be some sort of rule that a person illegally in the United States should not be able to collect a judment won in a US court against a US citizen.  Before we get into the logic of that position, I want to be clear if that is really the position you are taking.  If you aren't, there is no need to discuss it but if you are, lets get it on the record so I am not accused later of putting words in your mouth.

 

Should there be a rule that prevents a foreign born citizen from collecting a judgment against a US citizen won in a US court of competent jurisdiction if that foreign citizen was, at any time prior to the judgment, illegally in the United States?

416342[/snapback]

 

 

The illegal aliens shouldn't be awarded US land. If the guy did something wrong to them, sue in civil case for his money. If they don't get any money out of it, well, go talk to O.J. about that.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Should there be a rule that prevents a foreign born citizen from collecting a judgment against a US citizen won in a US court of competent jurisdiction if that foreign citizen was, at any time prior to the judgment, illegally in the United States?

416342[/snapback]

 

If that person is in the country illegally? Yes.

 

These illegals are a meance to the people who live on the border. They should have every right to take any and all actions they please to protect their property.

[Johnny Coli]

If that person is in the country illegally? Yes.

 

These illegals are a meance to the people who live on the border. They should have every right to take any and all actions they please to protect their property.

416451[/snapback]

Last I knew, all they (the latinos who sneak across) want are jobs. Most work as dishwashers, crop labor, janitor services...you know, all the jobs that today's legal american youth refuse to work. Not much of a menace if you ask me. All the ones that worked in the kitchens I worked in had two jobs, and sent all their money home to their families. In fact, it could be said that their work ethic almost surpasses most american's work ethic.

[UConn James]

What about all of those Japanese businessmen that own a lot of U.S. commercial property, those damned capitalists! They aren't citizens, yet they own land here.

 

And philburger, this was a civil court case. The judge set the damages to be paid as the guy's ranch. Last I looked they don't handle monetary, possession, etc. restitution in criminal court....

 

I guess we now know who's going to be the next right-wing whipping boy in the next election. Too bad you're gonna lose a lot of those western states!

[KD in CA]

What about all of those Japanese businessmen that own a lot of U.S. commercial property? They aren't citizens, yet they own land here. Whoops, you're not going to say anything about that, are you. Those damned capitalists!

 

No one said anything about having to be a citizen. It's about being here legally v. illegally.

[Mickey]

If that person is in the country illegally? Yes.

 

These illegals are a meance to the people who live on the border. They should have every right to take any and all actions they please to protect their property.

416451[/snapback]

Need more detail. At what point is their illegal presence to be determined and used to disqualify them from participating in a suit? When suit is filed, when a judgment is issued? When the collection of the judgment is attempted? When the indident which underlies the suit occurred?

 

Lets say I cross the border illegally but buy property legally upon which you later trespass and cause damages valued at $100. If, before suit, I become "legal" can I then sue you for the $100? If I sue you and become "legal" the day before the trial, can the case continue? If I get a judgment and the day before I file the paperwork to garnish your wages to collect my damages I become "legal" is it okay to file the judgment? If I am illegal and later become legal and then you trespass, can I sue then? If I get deported after the trespass, can I sue once I am back on my home soil?

 

How about if the "illegal" is a child. If she is raped by a pedophile who is a US citizen, can the prosecutor add victim's compensation to the sentence when the sicko is convicted or does she forfeit that right because she is in this country illegally?

 

Its easy, out of frustration with a difficult problem, to sit back and issue blanket dictats regarding illegal aliens but once you sit back and think about how such a rule would work, it quickly becomes apparent that it is a ludicrous idea.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No one said anything about having to be a citizen.  It's about being here legally v. illegally.

416486[/snapback]

 

Actually, JSP specifically said "non-citizens" above. Which was pretty stupid, and entirely normal behavior from him.

 

As for the rest of his argument, he'd probably do better calmly pointing out that the predicate act was, in fact, the complainant's illegal entry into the country and trespassing on private property, and it's pretty questionable (wrong, I believe) to hold others responsible for their actions. Seems like a better argument than his typical xenophobic "Keep the damned spics off my land!" nonsense.

[Mickey]

The illegal aliens shouldn't be awarded US land. If the guy did something wrong to them, sue in civil case for his money. If they don't get any money out of it, well, go talk to O.J. about that.

416402[/snapback]

Okay, so now you are reducing your proposed rule to one affecting collections of judgments issued in civil court cases. Such rules are a matter of state law so each state does what it wants.

 

Typically, you can levy against property and force its sale to pay a judgment which is why OJ had to sell his Heisman, don't you recall the auction of much of his porperty? However, a person's primary residence in many states is exempt so it could not be foreclosed upon by a judgement creditor.

 

I don't really see what difference it would make if they satisfied the judgment based on selling this guy's car, his jewelry or his land. I don't understand why, after recognizing a judgment and the right to collect, you somehow see a reason to draw a circle around some assets and not others.

 

If the debtor wants to satisfy the judgment by signing over the land, why have a rule that prevents him from paying off his debt however he sees fit? The property was transferred to the debtor's sister and the creditors sued her based on the transfer being a fraudulent one, ie, done for the purpose off evading the debt. She recognzed that she had no decent defense to that so she settled the matter by forking it over. Why have a rule to stop her from doing what she wanted to resolve it? Why should a judgment debtor be able to evade a judgment just because the judgment creditor has their own legal problems? I just don't see what moral imperative is involved here.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I don't really see what difference it would make if they satisfied the judgment based on selling this guy's car, his jewelry or his land.  I don't understand why, after recognizing a judgment and the right to collect, you somehow see a reason to draw a circle around some assets and not others. 

416603[/snapback]

 

That's horribly disingenious, and you know better than that. The LAW distinguishes between personal property and real property. A car or jewelry is legally not the same as land.

 

And even beyond that...real estate isn't portable. Had they awarded a car or jewelry or even cash, that's one thing. But awarding an illegal immigrant land...that's just a little strange, in that their status as illegal aliens means they can't legally occupy the land they legally own. I don't necessarily think it's wrong (I certainly don't in the xenophobic sense JSP does)...but I do think it's one of those wacky legal contradictions that seems to belong in the new Iraqi Constitution.

[Mickey]

Actually, JSP specifically said "non-citizens" above.  Which was pretty stupid, and entirely normal behavior from him.

 

As for the rest of his argument, he'd probably do better calmly pointing out that the predicate act was, in fact, the complainant's illegal entry into the country and trespassing on private property, and it's pretty questionable (wrong, I believe) to hold others responsible for their actions.  Seems like a better argument than his typical xenophobic "Keep the damned spics off my land!" nonsense.

416577[/snapback]

Right, but you know, I think standard negligence law would take care of that without some sort of national law barring illegal aliens from suing US citizens. Lets say I rob your house one night and in doing so, step on a rusty nail sticking out of the floor boards because you were too busy debating Intelligent Falling theory here to bother fixing. I get an infection and lose my leg and then sue you. The jury could and would find that my illegal act was the sole proximate cause of the injury thereby letting your lazy butt off the hook. I would be left to hobble off into the sunset without a penny.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Right, but you know, I think standard negligence law would take care of that without some sort of national law barring illegal aliens from suing US citizens.  Lets say I rob your house one night and in doing so, step on a rusty nail sticking out of the floor boards because you were too busy debating Intelligent Falling theory here to bother fixing.  I get an infection and lose my leg and then sue you.  The jury could and would find that my illegal act was the sole proximate cause of the injury thereby letting your lazy butt off the hook.  I would be left to hobble off into the sunset without a penny.

416620[/snapback]

 

I agree with you...except that nowadays, a jury'd be just as likely to find me negligent for letting an unsafe condition exist with the potential to cause injury. It has happened. And, of course, the solution there isn't a series of new laws, but educating people on the definition of "proximate cause".

[Mickey]

That's horribly disingenious, and you know better than that.  The LAW distinguishes between personal property and real property.  A car or jewelry is legally not the same as land. 

 

And even beyond that...real estate isn't portable.  Had they awarded a car or jewelry or even cash, that's one thing.  But awarding an illegal immigrant land...that's just a little strange, in that their status as illegal aliens means they can't legally occupy the land they legally own.  I don't necessarily think it's wrong (I certainly don't in the xenophobic sense JSP does)...but I do think it's one of those wacky legal contradictions that seems to belong in the new Iraqi Constitution.

416618[/snapback]

There are a lot of distinctions between the two but in terms of collecting a jugdment, they are both reachable, they just make it harder when it comes to real property. I think the reason it sounds strange is because that isn't what happened. I don't think they were "awarded title" to the property, I think that is how the sister settled it. In collections, you don't get title, you get a lien on the property (lis pendens) which can be foreclosed upon, you force a sale and your lien gets paid from the proceeds. The sister could offer to settle the case by signing over the property but that would be her choice.

 

Maybe we need more detail but even so, I don't see any moral imperative at issue here, just the technical aspects of satisfying judgments. Since I always get my clients off, I have no experience with defending judgments

[erynthered]

Since I always get my clients off, I have no experience with defending judgments 

416626[/snapback]

 

 

 

No ego here.

 

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

There are a lot of distinctions between the two but in terms of collecting a jugdment, they are both reachable, they just make it harder when it comes to real property.  I think the reason it sounds strange is because that isn't what happened.  I don't think they were "awarded title" to the property, I think that is how the sister settled it.  In collections, you don't get title, you get a lien on the property (lis pendens) which can be foreclosed upon, you force a sale and your lien gets paid from the proceeds.  The sister could offer to settle the case by signing over the property but that would be her choice. 

 

Wife's in real estate; I'm more familiar with real estate law than I really care to be. The original post, though, makes it sound like they got the property in full, which I believe is wrong and which, as you say, would be wrong as it's an improper way to collect on a judgement. Ergo, I think we can deduce two things: 1) it was pretty damned stupid of me to take the original post at face value, and 2) certain people in this thread don't know enough to argue about it.

 

Maybe we need more detail but even so, I don't see any moral imperative at issue here, just the technical aspects of satisfying judgments.  Since I always get my clients off, I have no experience with defending judgments 

416626[/snapback]

 

My lawyer never gets me off. I have to resort to Penthouse and hand lotion.

[Mickey]

I agree with you...except that nowadays, a jury'd be just as likely to find me negligent for letting an unsafe condition exist with the potential to cause injury.  It has happened.  And, of course, the solution there isn't a series of new laws, but educating people on the definition of "proximate cause".

416625[/snapback]

That phrase has been eroded. The jury instructions now read in NY say that as long as a cause is a "substantial factor" in bringing about the injury, it can be a "proximate cause".

[Mickey]

Wife's in real estate; I'm more familiar with real estate law than I really care to be.  The original post, though, makes it sound like they got the property in full, which I believe is wrong and which, as you say, would be wrong as it's an improper way to collect on a judgement.  Ergo, I think we can deduce two things: 1) it was pretty damned stupid of me to take the original post at face value, and 2) certain people in this thread don't know enough to argue about it. 

My lawyer never gets me off.  I have to resort to Penthouse and hand lotion.

416645[/snapback]

I can't believe I got blind sided by that one. Now I know how Drew Bledsoe feels.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Actually, JSP specifically said "non-citizens" above.  Which was pretty stupid, and entirely normal behavior from him.

 

As for the rest of his argument, he'd probably do better calmly pointing out that the predicate act was, in fact, the complainant's illegal entry into the country and trespassing on private property, and it's pretty questionable (wrong, I believe) to hold others responsible for their actions.  Seems like a better argument than his typical xenophobic "Keep the damned spics off my land!" nonsense.

416577[/snapback]

 

Right.

 

Let's say you own a nice little house on a sizeable piece of land.

 

Every single night of every single day, groups of people trample across your property, littering, breaking into your house, violating your rights. Let's see how open-minded you are then when you feel your family is threatened.

 

Let's say these people contain a certain percentage of individuals who are violent felons as well. Still feel the way you do? You're a hypocrite and a pompous jackass. At least I'm honest.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That phrase has been eroded.  The jury instructions now read in NY say that as long as a cause is a "substantial factor" in bringing about the injury, it can be a "proximate cause".

416649[/snapback]

 

That's the main reason I'll kill an intruder before I'll injure him. I'd stand a better chance pleading self defense in a criminal trial than I would pleading "proximate cause" in a civil suit.

[Mickey]

That's the main reason I'll kill an intruder before I'll injure him.  I'd stand a better chance pleading self defense in a criminal trial than I would pleading "proximate cause" in a civil suit.

416657[/snapback]

Wrongful death action baby. You lose either way. At least in NY though damages are much less in death cases. Where you really get into big bucks is when they linger for years and years. In Texas the grieving family can recover for their mourning and emotional loss. That is why you see such huge verdicts from there. Same case in NY could be worthless.

[KD in CA]

Wrongful death action baby.  You lose either way.  At least in NY though damages are much less in death cases.  Where you really get into big bucks is when they linger for years and years.  In Texas the grieving family can recover for their mourning and emotional loss.  That is why you see such huge verdicts from there.  Same case in NY could be worthless.

416691[/snapback]

 

 

So that's why Bernie Geotz said "you don't look so bad, have another" before he pluged one of those scumbags a second time. Of course, he still didn't manage to kill him!

[philburger1]

That's horribly disingenious, and you know better than that.  The LAW distinguishes between personal property and real property.  A car or jewelry is legally not the same as land. 

 

And even beyond that...real estate isn't portable.  Had they awarded a car or jewelry or even cash, that's one thing.  But awarding an illegal immigrant land...that's just a little strange, in that their status as illegal aliens means they can't legally occupy the land they legally own.  I don't necessarily think it's wrong (I certainly don't in the xenophobic sense JSP does)...but I do think it's one of those wacky legal contradictions that seems to belong in the new Iraqi Constitution.

416618[/snapback]

 

 

How does being against having your laws and sovereign borders trashed with no respect at all make someone "xenophobic"?

 

I think most Americans have been more than patient enough with this whole issue.

 

Wonder why Mexico feels the need to the Army on their southern border, but when the U.S. wants to put up a fence, Mr. Fox cries to the U.N. about it?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

How does being against having your laws and sovereign borders trashed with no respect at all make someone "xenophobic"?

 

I think most Americans have been more than patient enough with this whole issue.

 

Wonder why Mexico feels the need to the Army on their southern border, but when the U.S. wants to put up a fence, Mr. Fox cries to the U.N. about it?

416735[/snapback]

 

What? The guy was sued, didn't show up, lost the case, and lost his house. Had the plaintiffs been from Colorado, you wouldn't give it a second thought. Since they're from Mexico, you're up in arms about it.

 

Precisely what laws were trashed, and how is that NOT xenophobic?

[philburger1]

What?  The guy was sued, didn't show up, lost the case, and lost his house.  Had the plaintiffs been from Colorado, you wouldn't give it a second thought.  Since they're from Mexico, you're up in arms about it.

 

Precisely what laws were trashed, and how is that NOT xenophobic? 

416741[/snapback]

 

 

The laws being trashed on a daily basis:

 

Trespassing,

loitering,

littering

theft

destruction of property

enter the country illegally

drug smuggling

receiving government benefits that are not for non-citizens

 

what else do you want?

 

I love when liberals jump to their defense with the mantra of

"They just don't like them because they are mexican!"

 

So stupid.....

 

If we start having millions of white, french speaking Canadians sneaking in here every year,

then we will tackle that issue.

 

So with your logic, if you speak out against inner-city gang violence you must hate blacks, huh?

 

Way to duck the issue.

 

By the way, my wife and all my inlaws are hispanics who famliy came here LEGALLY, and they are just as fed up with this behavior as I am, the white faced GRINGO

[Mickey]

The laws being trashed on a daily basis:

 

Trespassing,

loitering,

littering

theft

destruction of property

enter the country illegally

drug smuggling

receiving government benefits that are not for non-citizens

 

what else do you want?

 

I love when liberals jump to their defense with the mantra of

"They just don't like them because they are mexican!"

 

So stupid.....

 

If we start having millions of white, french speaking Canadians sneaking in here every year,

then we will tackle that issue.

 

So with your logic, if you speak out against inner-city gang violence you must hate blacks, huh?

 

Way to duck the issue.

 

By the way, my wife and all my inlaws are hispanics who famliy came here LEGALLY, and they are just as fed up with this behavior as I am, the white faced GRINGO

416887[/snapback]

CTM's a liberal now?

Does that mean we have to start inviting him to our parties?

[KRC]

The LAW distinguishes between personal property and real property.

416618[/snapback]

 

I will let you know in September, whether that holds true in PA.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

CTM's a liberal now?

Does that mean we have to start inviting him to our parties?

416997[/snapback]

 

Just to conservatives. Just like I'm a conservative to liberals.

 

That's how I know I'm right. I piss off all the partisans.

[Mickey]

Just to conservatives.  Just like I'm a conservative to liberals.

 

That's how I know I'm right.  I piss off all the partisans. 

417058[/snapback]

That means we don't have to invite you to our parties. Whew, what a relief. Deb was worried she'd have to hide her bong.