Post: #1

http://news.yahoo.com/court-teen-mexico-...37772.html

Court: Teen in Mexico shot by US agent had rights

Associated Press By JUAN CARLOS LLORCA

EL PASO, Texas (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a Mexican teenager killed by a Border Patrol agent was protected by the U.S. Constitution, even though the teen was on Mexican soil when he was shot.

The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals means the family of 15-year-old Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca can move forward with a civil lawsuit against the agent.

"This recognizes human rights belong to everyone. Not just American citizens," or human beings standing on U.S. soil, said Bob Hilliard, one of the lawyers representing the family.

The original lawsuit was filed against the Border Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, agent Jesus Mesa and the U.S. Department of Justice. But part of the ruling relieves the agent's supervisors and the agencies from responsibility.

"The appellants (do not point to) any other evidence that would suggest that the supervisors were personally responsible for the alleged constitutional violation," the ruling says.

Hilliard said the family will likely appeal that part of the ruling.

Both the government and Mesa can also appeal the ruling. The Border Patrol said they would not comment on the matter as it opens the possibility of litigation. Mesa's attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.

Mesa shot Hernandez in 2010 near a border bridge between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez while trying to arrest immigrants who crossed illegally into the United States. Mesa said he was attacked by rock throwers. Border Patrol agents are allowed to shoot at rock throwers if they feel their lives or those in their custody are at risk.

U.S. District Judge David Briones found in 2011 that the family could not sue because the shooting's effects were "felt in Mexico." But the appeals court said that "territorial approach" would allow agents to establish "zones of lawlessness."

It "would establish a perverse rule that would treat differently two individuals subject to the same conduct merely because one managed to cross into our territory," the appeals court ruling said. It also said that giving people standing on Mexican soil protection from "conscience shocking" actions by border agents, such as the shooting of Hernandez Guereca, is not a new policy. Immigrants who are inside the U.S., even those who are to be removed from the country, "are entitled to feel free of gross physical abuse by federal agents," it says.

Extending that right to people injured across the border by U.S. agents standing on U.S. soil, would inform the officials that they are not allowed to arbitrarily inflict harm in this "new, but similar, context," the court said.

"Today the Fifth Circuit helped ensure that CBP agents are held accountable for shocking and outrageous abuse, even when their victims aren't inside the U.S. ... The Fifth Circuit clearly signaled that Border Patrol cannot operate with impunity," American Civil Liberties Union senior staff attorney Adriana Pinon said in a statement. The ACLU was not directly involved in the case, but filed a friend of the court brief.

Post: #2

I'm so glad I didn't become a Border Patrol agent. I was at step two in the application process when Brian Terry was killed and realized that it was the most thankless job ever.

Your government hates you, the Mexican government hates you, the cartels hate you, and a lot of the time you're by yourself dealing with 30+ people (most of whom are coming to your country because drug policies have ****ed up theirs) in the middle of the desert.

Post: #3

Not much anyone can do about this. He threw rocks and got shot. I could see a problem if he went into Mexico soil just to shoot him, but he did not. He followed the rules of engagement as well.

Post: #4

Terrible situation...... I have an idea to curb illegal immigration.

This idea will never fly for many reasons but it will solve many issues. Simply put, whoever hires an illegal to do any job will be fined $5000. Once the border jumpers realize they cannot work in any shape way or form, MANY won't come. Lots of jobs will become available for inspectors and jobs will become open for the Americans on welfare or unemployment benefits. Whether or not they will do those jobs is another story. But, if you are on unemployment or welfare, you should have to work for that check by doing dome job. Cleaning the street, working on a farm, etc.

Post: #5

(07-01-2014 10:50 AM)tomtud Wrote:  Terrible situation...... I have an idea to curb illegal immigration.

This idea will never fly for many reasons but it will solve many issues. Simply put, whoever hires an illegal to do any job will be fined $5000. Once the border jumpers realize they cannot work in any shape way or form, MANY won't come. Lots of jobs will become available for inspectors and jobs will become open for the Americans on welfare or unemployment benefits. Whether or not they will do those jobs is another story. But, if you are on unemployment or welfare, you should have to work for that check by doing dome job. Cleaning the street, working on a farm, etc.

uh huh.

And they wont fall into gangs or drugs? People will go above and beyond to do things to get what they want.

Post: #6

Some will, some won't. Gangs will always exist.

Post: #7

There is already a fine system in place. It just doesn't reach the possibility of 5000 till second offense.

Post: #8

The border and immigration problem could be solved very simply.

1) Deploy National Guard units on the southern border with orders to shoot anyone crossing illegally.

2) Minimum three year prison term for any employer who knowingly hires illegals.

The fact that the solution to the problem is so simple tells you that the problem only exists because those in power aren't actually interested in solving it. They don't want to fix immigration. They don't want to reduce the flow of immigrants whatsoever. The Democrats want more Hispanics for election purposes, and the Republicans are beholden to their corporate base that wants more low-cost illegal labor. The entire political spectacle about immigration is, like so much else in Washington, just theatre. It's a tough pill to swallow that those in power are not simply incompetent, but actively and intentionally working to destroy the country. But it is what it is.

Post: #9

(07-01-2014 01:46 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The border and immigration problem could be solved very simply.

1) Deploy National Guard units on the southern border with orders to shoot anyone crossing illegally.

2) Minimum three year prison term for any employer who knowingly hires illegals.

The fact that the solution to the problem is so simple tells you that the problem only exists because those in power aren't actually interested in solving it. They don't want to fix immigration. They don't want to reduce the flow of immigrants whatsoever. The Democrats want more Hispanics for election purposes, and the Republicans are beholden to their corporate base that wants more low-cost illegal labor. The entire political spectacle about immigration is, like so much else in Washington, just theatre. It's a tough pill to swallow that those in power are not simply incompetent, but actively and intentionally working to destroy the country. But it is what it is.

Scorpion is correct as usual.

They don't care about illegal immigration. They care about cheap slave labor. If they wanted to solve it, they could solve it.

And this is why I keep saying that we've been sold out and betrayed. Nearly everything we bitch about here--even feminism--all boils down to the inescapable fact that the older generation (aged between 65 and 80) sold us out for their own enrichment.

They destroyed the country, took everything for themselves, and left us with nothing.

Those who should have kept the stewardship of the ship of state abandoned their responsibilities, starting in the late 1970s. All this shit we see is the end result of decades of abuse, sloth, laxity, indulgence, and comfort.

Post: #10

Don't understand the problem with this.
People think border agents should be allowed to shoot people and get away with it if theyre across the border? The rock throwing excuse is fucking weak, no ones life was endangered from rock throwing.

Post: #11

(07-01-2014 02:14 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  The rock throwing excuse is fucking weak, no ones life was endangered from rock throwing.

Why are they throwing rocks in the first place? And more importantly, why are they throwing rocks at US Agents with guns?? Go to the border of another country and start throwing rocks at their armed guards and see what happens.

Post: #12

(07-01-2014 02:14 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Don't understand the problem with this.
People think border agents should be allowed to shoot people and get away with it if theyre across the border? The rock throwing excuse is fucking weak, no ones life was endangered from rock throwing.

So what should be the response of armed border agents to hostile foreign nationals attempting to intrude upon US soil and throwing rocks at those who would stop them? Should the guards go full-Jesus and turn the other cheek? Or maybe, the correct response would be to use "proportional force" and just chuck rocks back at the offending intruders? While not being effective, such a response would at least provide the true level of tragicomedy inherent to the US border situation: the mightiest superpower in the world, defending its borders by use of a handful of rock-throwing peace officers.

In 50 years when the USA is Mexico Norte the bards will sing about the famous victory at the Battle of Rio Grande, when the victorious invading Mexican hordes defeated the wicked, rock-wielding forces of the decadent Amerikkkan Empire.

Post: #13

(07-01-2014 02:14 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Don't understand the problem with this.
People think border agents should be allowed to shoot people and get away with it if theyre across the border? The rock throwing excuse is fucking weak, no ones life was endangered from rock throwing.

Tell it to these guys, chief.

Post: #14

(07-01-2014 01:46 PM)scorpion Wrote:  ...and the Republicans are beholden to their corporate base that wants more low-cost illegal labor.

Actually, corporations probably hire fewer illegal immigrants than anyone. Smaller, private businesses are more likely to harbor undocumented employees.

Corporate HR firms are getting more and more stringent with verifying the authenticity of ID cards, resident cards, passports, and social security cards.

Whether they're Democrat or Republican, rich folks don't want to be giving up their cheap nannies, gardeners, produce pickers, construction crews, and dishwashers.

I'd love to hear plausible solutions. Because as it is, even if you implement a mandatory living wage, employers are still going to find a way to outsource cheaper labor.

Post: #15

(07-01-2014 04:14 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 01:46 PM)scorpion Wrote:  ...and the Republicans are beholden to their corporate base that wants more low-cost illegal labor.

Actually, corporations probably hire fewer illegal immigrants than anyone. Smaller, private businesses are more likely to harbor undocumented employees.

Corporate HR firms are getting more and more stringent with verifying the authenticity of ID cards, resident cards, passports, and social security cards.

Whether they're Democrat or Republican, rich folks don't want to be giving up their cheap nannies, gardeners, produce pickers, construction crews, and dishwashers.

I'd love to hear plausible solutions. Because as it is, even if you implement a mandatory living wage, employers are still going to find a way to outsource cheaper labor.

This is both true and false. It's not widely reported (or known for that matter), but illegal Mexican workers make up a large percentage of low-skilled factory workers in this country. This is especially prevalent in food processing plants in rural South and Midwest. It's very easy for illegals to get those types of jobs, with the companies straight up turning a blind eye to their status or else having them work with obviously fraudulent papers. Alabama passed a law cracking down on illegals a couple of years back and they started pouring out of the woodwork fleeing the state. They aren't just mowing lawns. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/alab...story.html

But you are correct that most of the Fortune 500 is not clamoring to officially hire illegal Mexican immigrants. They still support immigration, however. They want to increase the number of H1-B and other foreign worker visas. Sheldon Adelson, the owner of Las Vegas Sands and GOP mega donor even wrote an op-ed favoring immigration: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...08065.html . He personally benefits from being able to employ illegals for cleaning his hotels and maintaining his properties, and can bring in Chinese dealers from his Macau casinos to work in Vegas for cheaper wages as well.

The bottom line is that there's absolutely no benefit to continued immigration at this point, and anyone claiming otherwise is simply trying to exploit the presence of additional immigrants for their personal political or economic benefit.

Post: #16

Right, when you say corporations I'm thinking large business corporations. I would imagine that many processing or manufacturing plants are saturated with illegal immigrants and get contracted for their services by larger companies and corporations. The benefits go right up the supply chain.

When you say "there's no benefit to continued immigration", there's no benefit to the average national citizen, but there is absolutely benefit to those who perpetrate the cycle, obviously.

Despite my previous posts extolling the virtues of hiring hardworking foreigners over lazy and entitled Americans, I'm still in favor of implementing much more stringent laws regarding illegal immigrants. It would be interesting to see what happens to the American marketplace when basic goods that we take for granted are no longer subsidized by artificially depressed labor costs, but I've always felt this way about other subsidized items like grain and beef. What would happen if people had to pay the actual price of a hamburger? It would be interesting...

Didn't mean to derail this into yet another immigration thread. I think it's completely horseshit that a lawsuit can proceed against this agent. Assault on any officer should be expected that he'll respond with deadly force. Imagine if you went to Mexico or South America and started assaulting police there. Wouldn't be pretty.

Although, after searching for this article online, it appears there are differing accounts whether or not the boy that was killed actually threw any rocks. It'll be interesting to see what gets presented in court.

Post: #17

Illegal immigration is a complicated issue without a simple solution.

Don't forget that the bedrock of American political culture is a feeling of liberty and mobility. The idea of working hard to start a new, better life in America is deeply ingrained into our national identity.

This is, I think, why nobody dares to take a draconian approach to illegal immigration. It may be illegal, but immigrants have a special place in the collective heart of America.

To address the topic directly, I would argue that agents of our government ought to be held to a high and consistent legal standard.

Post: #18

(07-01-2014 02:14 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  Don't understand the problem with this.
People think border agents should be allowed to shoot people and get away with it if theyre across the border? The rock throwing excuse is fucking weak, no ones life was endangered from rock throwing.

Yeah, thrown rocks never hurt anybody.

You are ignorant of the real world effects of violence. A rock the size of a baseball can easily blind, shatter teeth, or kill. I suppose you think the border control agents should just accept losing an eye or dying from intracranial bleeding as part of the job?

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Throwing rocks at people with guns is pretty damn stupid. I'm not a huge fan of law enforcement and I think they use way too much force for stupid reasons on a regular basis, but I also don't expect them to get maimed or killed without defending themselves.

Post: #19

Hmm would it not be easier for America just to take possession of Mexico, at least then there would be no border to jump.

I don't really see why the US needs border patrol agents at all, why not just use Drones and the new Terminator type robots that the military is cooking up.

Post: #20

(07-01-2014 09:01 PM)BadWolf Wrote:  Hmm would it not be easier for America just to take possession of Mexico, at least then there would be no border to jump.

I don't really see why the US needs border patrol agents at all, why not just use Drones and the new Terminator type robots that the military is cooking up.

Practical military solutions aren't the problem, it's the politics behind it that is. The U.S. has to tread a humanitarian fine line here because it's beholden to a two party system that feels that it has a lot to gain short term in pandering to the illegal immigrant masses. None of them seem to consider importing a permanent underclass from a different country as a big problem for America's future.

If the country REALLY wanted to "secure" the borders all it would have to do is scatter cluster mines all over the no man's land area. Erect electrified fences in the more frequented areas and have roving border patrol with shoot to kill orders for anyone that makes it through. That would be much cheaper than what we have now but also pretty high on the morally despicable scale as well as being politically non feasible.

Post: #21

http://news.yahoo.com/mother-slain-mexic...39900.html

Mother of slain Mexican teen sues U.S. Border Patrol agents

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Lawyers for the mother of a Mexican teenager fatally shot by U.S. border police filed a U.S. federal civil rights lawsuit on Tuesday, calling the killing "brazen and lawless" and the latest example of agents using excessive force.

The lawsuit says unnamed U.S. Border Patrol agents violated the constitutional rights of Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, who was 16 years old when he died in the cross-border shooting from Arizona into Nogales, Mexico, in October 2012.

An autopsy by Mexican authorities found the teen was shot seven times from behind.

"I want to know who assassinated my son and why?" Araceli Rodriguez, the slain boy's mother, said in a statement released by her attorney. "I want to know why they have not been brought to justice. Isn't that why there are laws?"

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Tucson by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others seeks unspecified damages against an undetermined number of agents. It also seeks a jury trial.

A border patrol spokesman said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

The border patrol has said agents were responding to reports of drug trafficking on Oct. 10, 2012, when they opened fire on a group that began throwing rocks at them from across the border on Mexican territory.

The incident was condemned by the Mexican government.

News reports showed Elena Rodriguez's apparently lifeless body lying face down on a sidewalk just a few yards south of the steel border fence.

The lawsuit said he had been "peacefully walking down the street by himself" when he was killed.

"He was not committing a crime, nor was he throwing rocks, using a weapon, or in any way threatening U.S. Border Patrol agents or anyone else," it said.

The complaint said the shooting was the latest in a string of "unjustified deadly shootings and physical abuses along the U.S.-Mexico border over the past several years."

Attorney Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's immigrants' rights project and a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the case has broader legal implications, such as the whether the court will allow a lawsuit for a killing on Mexican soil.

Border Patrol agents have been criticized for allegedly being too quick to open fire after a number of agent-involved shootings on the frontier in recent years.

In March, the border patrol directed its agents to try to take cover, or to move away, when confronted by rock throwers, rather than immediately firing.

Post: #22

"assassinated?" Bitch please....


Funny how she wants to talk about laws when there is illegal crossings and drug trafficking involved.

I bet she also wants "justice" I.E. more of tax payers money for illegal immigrants' education. She wants better laws for anchor babies and wants more money that should be going to vets and American citizens. Lets bring more immigrants here so they can turn more low income housing complexes into ghettos. Yes bring more so crime and violence against Americans can sky rocket.

"the border patrol directed its agents to try to take cover, or to move away, when confronted by rock throwers, rather than immediately firing"

Yes, let our citizens risk being injured ...

Post: #23

Good to know that a mexican kid on Mexican soil is protected by the constitution but it's OK to kill an American citizen outside of the US with a drone without due process.

Post: #24

I'm just glad I live far in the north, far, far, away from all of this shit. Thankfully the decline isn't coming here anytime soon. The collapse is coming to the southwest and midwest, first.

Post: #25

(07-01-2014 09:01 PM)BadWolf Wrote:  Hmm would it not be easier for America just to take possession of Mexico, at least then there would be no border to jump.

I don't really see why the US needs border patrol agents at all, why not just use Drones and the new Terminator type robots that the military is cooking up.

Actually James K. Polk,the U.S. president at the time of the Mexican American war didn't want to stop after acquiring New Mexico, Arizona, California, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, but he wanted to go as far as Mexico City and take over the whole country and many of his advisers were pushing him to do so. He decided not to because of American public opinion which was tired of war and because the Treaty of Guadalupe had been ratified.

Had Polk chosen to drive all his forces all the way to Mexico City and take all of Mexico, Mexico would have seized to exist and we would be talking about a U.S./Guatemala border instead.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-conte...rian/22205