I come out against illegal immigrants

No, not generally speaking, but in this case, going by what is described here, I come out against the illegals.

This the first time I found myself siding with the American citizen who rounded them up. A novel experience.

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.

In my view, property owners have far more genuine rights to defend their property than is currently recognized in law.

At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett’s dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, “My dog is hungry and he’s hungry for buttocks.”

Good for him. Trespassers do not deserve any better.

One way this may be reversed: if he has not clearly marked his property. A person can't be blamed for trespassing on property that has not been clearly marked.

If you are upset by what this guy is doing and seriously want to help illegals, you might buy property along the border and then simply turn a blind eye to trespass.

Share this

Agreed. A property owner is

Agreed.

A property owner is entitled to use as much force as needed against trespassers but as little force as necessary.

I suspect letting the dog loose and threatening with a weapon would have been enough, turning the immigrants to the border patrol seems unnecessary and possibly unjust.

Neccesary and Just

"I suspect letting the dog loose and threatening with a weapon would have been enough, turning the immigrants to the border patrol seems unnecessary and possibly unjust."

Seems to me it is both necessary and just. Obviously these are criminals trying to get in the country. People willing to steal, destroy property, trespass, and now bring frivolous suits in an attempt to steal property from its rightful owner.

If you are upset by what

If you are upset by what this guy is doing and seriously want to help illegals, you might buy property along the border and then simply turn a blind eye to trespass.

Or start digging and profit :)
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/30/local/me-tunnel30

Constant, Are you familiar

Constant,

Are you familiar with Hoppe's anti free immigration stance? It is probably the most influential among closed borders libertarians.

Yes I am familiar

I disagree with it, but I was immediately reminded of Hoppe's position by this situation, because here we have a property owner who is defending his property rights and in the process impeding immigration.

Why were your reminded of it

Why were your reminded of it ? This has nothing to do with Hoppe's argument against immigration (as a second-best in a statist society).

Hoppe's argument is based on roughly three ideas

- since owner's can't enter into covenants with their neighbor that prevent foreigners from using nearby property
- since employers and businesses can't discriminate against foreigner
- since public roads are somehow co-owner by taxpayers who desire immigration restrictions

then in a statist society, it's fairer to have some immigration restriction rather than none.

I disagree with this claim

However in no way does Hoppe identifies immigration with trespass, or conflate national borders with property boundaries as some "libertarians" do.

I explained why

And apparently Jacob was reminded as well. To be reminded of something is not to make any specific logical connection. You will notice that until Jacob mentioned it I did not bring Hoppe up even though I was reminded of him. I would have, had I thought of some significant connection between this and Hoppe.

nice scare quotes.

nice scare quotes.