Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Electrocution prompts lawsuit - Estate of painter sues [non-citizen suing non-profit]
THE NEWS-TIMES ^ | August 1, 2006 | Karen Ali

Posted on 08/01/2006 7:06:01 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough

NEWTOWN - The estate of a man electrocuted while painting the Newtown Meeting House is suing the town and the nonprofit group that controls the local landmark, claiming the work environment wasn't safe.

Virginia Martinez of Port Chester, N.Y., filed a lawsuit against Newtown and the Heritage Preservation Trust of Newtown Inc. on July 19. Martinez, a family friend, claims that the town and the trust were negligent in the July 26, 2004, death of Ivan Patricio Tenecela, a native of Ecuador who lived in Port Chester, N.Y.

Danbury Probate Court appointed Martinez as executrix of Tenecela's estate In April 2005."It was an unsatisfactory work environment we are studying," said the estate's lawyer, Philip Russell of Greenwich.

Martinez claims Newtown and the trust are responsible for Tenecela's death because they did not warn him about the power lines or "hire a competent painting company."

Tenecela, 25, was among a group of seven painters working on the outside of the 18th century Meeting House on Main Street when electricity from a power line shot through an aluminum ladder and shocked him and another man.

The second man, Victor Sesquisela, of Port Chester, N.Y., lived but was severely burned. He also came from Ecuador. He does not have a lawsuit on file in Superior Court, and Russell said he did not know if Sesquisela plans to file one.

Russell said Tenecela came here to work to support his wife, two children and extended family, who are still in Ecuador.

"It's a big blow. A lot of money had been invested in getting him here," Russell said. "He was a financial lifeline. His goal in life was to work hard in America and send money back to his family."

Russell declined to give more details about his client's background, including when his client came to America. When asked if Tenecela had a green card, Russell declined to comment.

Whether he was legally in the United States or not doesn't affect his right to sue, Russell said. "This is America. The rights of humans are the rights of everyone."

Tenecela's estate also filed a lawsuit against Campbell Quality Painting, which hired him and others to paint the house in 2005. John Chaffee of Westport, who is representing Campbell, declined comment Monday. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which investigates worker safety, fined Campbell $3,000, saying Tenecela was not properly trained.

OSHA cited Campbell for tying two ladders together to give them a longer reach, for using the wrong type of ladder near electrical equipment, and for failing to provide a training program for employees who would be using the ladders in a hazardous environment.

Russell said his client went to work that day ill-prepared to paint. He was wearing sneakers that had holes in them.

The Meeting House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is owned by the town, but a private trust maintains it.

Newtown's lawyer, David Grogins, said the case will be referred to CIRMA, or the Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency."The town would be represented by the insurance carrier," said Grogins, of the firm Cohen and Wolf of Danbury.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut; US: New York
KEYWORDS: aliens; danbury; ecuador; illegalalien; immigrantlist; immigration; lawsuit; newtown; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last
This is an example of a story where several different rational judgments could be made.

I wonder what the consensus is here.

1 posted on 08/01/2006 7:06:03 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
If you are an illegal, you may not afford yourself of any public service offered by the government of the United States.

The courts are one, but I would also include hospitals and police.

2 posted on 08/01/2006 7:08:36 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

Yeah - don't hit electrical wires with an aluminum ladder...?


3 posted on 08/01/2006 7:08:48 AM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

I don't know about consensus, but my opinion? Fiberglass ladders please.


4 posted on 08/01/2006 7:09:27 AM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad

I don't know about fiberglass, but our CT electric company sent a brochure recently warning that even a wooden ladder can carry electricity enough to kill ya.


5 posted on 08/01/2006 7:10:58 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Dear Lazamataz,

"If you are an illegal, you may not afford yourself of any public service offered by the government of the United States.

"The courts are one, but I would also include hospitals and police."

So, if someone shoots you, or rapes your wife or daughter (who are both here illegally), you should have no recourse to the law?

Thanks,


sitetest


6 posted on 08/01/2006 7:12:50 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
This is a Catch 22 for small business. If you don't hire illegals (cheap), you go out of business because your competition does hire them. If you hire them, you take additional risks because they are illiterate, not acculturated, and unskilled. This lawsuit should rally be directed at George Bush and the Senate and big businesses that create the demand for illegals.
7 posted on 08/01/2006 7:16:27 AM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The only good Mullah is a dead Mullah. The only good Mosque is the one that used to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Just a question....

If you were in Mexico illegally....

..and someone shot you, or raped your wife or child, what recourse do you think you would have there?

8 posted on 08/01/2006 7:17:35 AM PDT by Guenevere (Israel, our friend and ally.....God bless her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
So, if someone shoots you, or rapes your wife or daughter (who are both here illegally), you should have no recourse to the law?

Absolutely. If you are here illegally you are 100% fair game for any thug, rapist, or bully.

Call it a disincentive.

9 posted on 08/01/2006 7:20:30 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"So, if someone shoots you, or rapes your wife or daughter (who are both here illegally), you should have no recourse to the law?

Absolutely. If you are here illegally you are 100% fair game for any thug, rapist, or bully.

Call it a disincentive.

I believe if you are here illegally, you have NO Constitutional rights, and should NOT be recognized in a U.S. Court or local Court, i.e., you LEGALLY do not exist here.

10 posted on 08/01/2006 7:25:51 AM PDT by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

Dear Guenevere,

"If you were in Mexico illegally....

"..and someone shot you, or raped your wife or child, what recourse do you think you would have there?"

Is your question what recourse I actually would have? Or what recourse I should have?


sitetest


11 posted on 08/01/2006 7:29:44 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
The stoopid Americans should be sued. They broke the law by hiring illegals.
12 posted on 08/01/2006 7:29:57 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (999-TNS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
read it again...

.I said...

..what recourse do you think you would have there?

13 posted on 08/01/2006 7:32:42 AM PDT by Guenevere (Israel, our friend and ally.....God bless her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Dear Lazamataz,

Okay. Just checking.

Here in Maryland, there was an interesting case a few years back. There was this Chinese restaurant (they had a dish called "Hong Kong Steak" - it was very tasty, but it certainly wasn't beef - dog? cat? anyway, it tasted good) that I often frequented for their buffet.

It turned out that they'd "bought" and illegal immigrant from a "coyote" who'd been paid by the illegal immigrant to bring him to the United States. They kept him chained in the basement when not working, and chained to the dishwasher during the day while he worked in the kitchen. Essentially, they'd enslaved him.

To make a long story short, eventually, the authorities caught on, and both owners, an uncle and nephew, went to prison for violation of the 13th Amendment.

So, you wouldn't have prosecuted these two for slavery?

Thanks,


sitetest


14 posted on 08/01/2006 7:33:53 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
Whether he was legally in the United States or not doesn't affect his right to sue, Russell said. "This is America. The rights of humans are the rights of everyone."

Wrong! Non-citizens, and non-resident aliens should have no right to sue, and our Courts should have no lawful jurisdiction to hear cases to which they are a party!

Under Federal law, 28 USC § 1332, Federal District Courts are limited to having jurisdiction only for resident aliens, though Congress has allowed non-resident aliens the ability to "Remove" their case from State to Federal courts,

(a) ...For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.

And to make matters worse, our Courts may be clogged with any specious claim of an "infringed" right:

(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.

Our Congress has allowed non-citizens greater rights than citizens for almost a century now. Why do we continue to allow our Congress to utterly deconstruct our nation, and bow down before the hordes of illegal invaders at our gates?

Wake up, America. Your country needs you now more than ever!

15 posted on 08/01/2006 7:35:31 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere

Dear Guenevere,

"read it again...

".I said...

"'..what recourse do you think you would have there?'"

Just checking.

I asked because "should" is clearly relevant, "would" is less so.

If I say that I might have very little recourse to the law at all (such as it is) in Mexico, that doesn't really tell me what SHOULD be the case in the United States (or even what SHOULD be the case in Mexico).

I already know that Mexico is largely a hell-hole, and have no desire that our country should emulate them, especially in terms of law enforcement or how we run our government or recognize human and civil rights.


sitetest


16 posted on 08/01/2006 7:38:01 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
It turned out that they'd "bought" and illegal immigrant from a "coyote" who'd been paid by the illegal immigrant to bring him to the United States. They kept him chained in the basement when not working, and chained to the dishwasher during the day while he worked in the kitchen. Essentially, they'd enslaved him. So, you wouldn't have prosecuted these two for slavery?

Nope. No prosecution for the couple. If you are an illegal immigrant, you have NO protection under the law whatsoever.

In fact, upon finding this situation, I would rectify it by harshly prosecuting the illegal immigrant, and sending him back to his home country ..... where he would tell the tale of horror of his enslavement, with no penalty to the enslavers, to all of his friends.

And we'd have about 20 less illegal-immigrant-wannabees.

17 posted on 08/01/2006 7:38:51 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

Non-citizen / Non-profit

Two negatives make a positive, right?


18 posted on 08/01/2006 7:40:19 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (War is Peace__Freedom is Slavery__Ignorance is Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

In that situation, had they not broken the law they undoubtedly would NOT have been raped or shot. Staying home would have prevented that crime.

It's almost never that clear, but here it indeed is.


19 posted on 08/01/2006 7:41:36 AM PDT by Xenalyte (I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; Lazamataz
So, you wouldn't have prosecuted these two for slavery?

Caveat emptor. The risk of coming to this country outside of the law is that you, as a person, will be entered into involuntary servitude. We see it with Mexicans crossing the border, we see it with Eastern European women transported here by mafia groups. The government's action is not to allow any kind of jurisdiction to those who are the victims of such activity, but to punish those who committed the crime. The victim of the crime should be cared for enough to testify in the criminal (NOT CIVIL) trial, and then should be graciously handed over to the authorities of their home country, to which they owe their allegiance and from which they should expect service.

There was never any intent in our Constitution to allow non-resident aliens jurisdiction in any of our Courts, State or Federal. We're not the world's "rights" police, and our Courts shouldn't be burdened with any such foolishness—though the reality is, they currently are behaving as both.

Hope this makes sense,
~dt~

20 posted on 08/01/2006 7:43:26 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Are you just looking for a fight?

Nobody is going to call a slave trader a good guy. We put people in jail for hurting cats and dogs.

If an illegal rapes my wife or child., the courts will be looking at me. I hope I get the same kind of jury that the mcD's woman got in her spilled coffee reward.

All of your scenarios are giving rights to the illegal, while apparently taking the recourse away from the victims.

Keep testing those premises, though. Maybe one will work!

21 posted on 08/01/2006 7:44:41 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
In fact, upon finding this situation, I would rectify it by harshly prosecuting the illegal immigrant, and sending him back to his home country ..... where he would tell the tale of horror of his enslavement, with no penalty to the enslavers, to all of his friends.

... though I must admit, your idea does have quite an appeal as well. ;)

22 posted on 08/01/2006 7:44:49 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Wow. This site is host to some disgusting, ugly views. Do you go to church on Sundays and pretend that you are a good, charitable person?


23 posted on 08/01/2006 7:49:46 AM PDT by drb9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
This lawsuit should rally be directed at George Bush and the Senate and big businesses that create the demand for illegals.

Bush, the Senate, and Evil Big Business responsible because one illegal is electrocuted while doing a job for a small painting company? That could have come right off DU.

It's not the big businesses, by and large, that hire illegals, so why are they the ones responsible, instead of the business that actually hired this guy?

24 posted on 08/01/2006 7:50:27 AM PDT by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo; Lazamataz

Dear pageonetoo,

I'm not looking for a fight at all.

In fact, Lazamataz has replied that he's fine with refusing to offer the protection of the law to illegal immigrants who are shot, raped, or enslaved.

I just wanted to see how far Lazamataz took his principle.

He takes it to its logical conclusion, and doesn't flinch from fidelity to it. His is a very consistent approach.


sitetest


25 posted on 08/01/2006 7:52:50 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
Perhaps the painting company has a liability here and may lose a lawsuit. I think naming the non-profit, the town or anyone else is just casting the net to see if they can catch any money.

That having been said the employer should have provided proper equipment for completing the job safely IMO.
26 posted on 08/01/2006 7:55:15 AM PDT by thinkthenpost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte; Lazamataz

Dear Xenalyte,

"In that situation, had they not broken the law they undoubtedly would NOT have been raped or shot. Staying home would have prevented that crime."

Could be. Or they may have taken the risks they took to come illegally to this country because home was even worse. I don't know any individual's circumstances.

However, that really isn't the question. The question is, would you deny the protection of the law to illegal immigrants by refusing to prosecute those who committed grave crimes against them?

That's what Lazamataz posited. Here's what he said:

"If you are an illegal, you may not afford yourself of any public service offered by the government of the United States.

"The courts are one, but I would also include hospitals and police."

To his credit, he's stuck by the principle when I've asked him about different possible circumstances where that might apply.


sitetest


27 posted on 08/01/2006 7:55:49 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I understand your point of view.


28 posted on 08/01/2006 7:56:13 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
It is the power company's fault. It was their electricity that killed. Also, they'll have more money.

[/end humor]

29 posted on 08/01/2006 7:56:37 AM PDT by JohnCliftn (In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Good Will. - Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT; Lazamataz
I set up my travel agency last year, and am looking for a way to increase bizness. I thought about hooking up with a few fedrool judges in NY, MJ, PA, MD, VA, WV, NC, and DC who wish to repatriate illegals. MA can have their illegals to tend their plantations on the Cape, and bring their mint juleps.

I can send clients to the caribbean or South America for as little as a grand apiece on a cruise ship. If you took out the amenities (TV's, nice linens, etc. store them in a warehouse for a few months, and give the cabin stewards a bonus for having to put up with the crap (literally, I am sure). and placed 6-8 to a room, added life rafts to meet regs, and cooked beans and rice along the way, we can cut that to about $500 per, or less. Give the balcony cabins and suites to those that volunteer to go home. Drop them offalaong the way in their home country, with an application to return.

But, they must first pass an english comprehension test, and have a job guaranteed, a place to live (not crowded ten to a room), and absolutely NO PATH TO citizenship, nor any right to our social services.

The law says that a sponsor is "responsible" for their charges. That should include medical care, etc. If the kids want to go to American schools, they should be allowed, but they do not get any services, and they must pay!

Does anybody know any immigration judges? I'll start talking to cruise lines today.

Oh yeah, take those damn anchor babies back with you. They can come back when they grow up, and get in line. maybe we can give them a couple of spaces closer to the front.

30 posted on 08/01/2006 7:57:59 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT

Dear detsaoT,

I think your position is understandable to me.

It appears to offer more protection of the law to illegal immigrants than Lazamataz's view, in that you would at least prosecute those who committed serious crimes against illegal immigrants as part of the process of deporting them after the trial (and all appeals, perhaps?) is concluded.


sitetest


31 posted on 08/01/2006 7:58:25 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: drb9
Wow. This site is host to some disgusting, ugly views. Do you go to church on Sundays and pretend that you are a good, charitable person?

Most of us are good, charitable people who are utterly disgusted at the government's lack of ability to control our borders, and disturbed that illegal immigrants are typically able to get away with crimes scot-free. Would you rather us hand the Treasury over to people who just arrived? Or do LAWFUL CITIZENS not have any say in THEIR government any longer??

32 posted on 08/01/2006 7:59:13 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

It's an approach that is consistently stupid and which would cause untold misery for the rest of us. Imagine that his view that emergency services are to be denied to illegal immigrants. Do you remember when you applied for a job and you had to show various forms of identification to meet the employer's burden? Now imagine that you've been in a terrible automobile accident, and your life is slipping away. The police and ambulance crew stands by, waiting for you to produce your Social Security Card and driver's license before hooking up the heart machine to you. Unfortunately, you left the SSN card at home, so you die. But, Lazamataz is happy because he's stickin' it to the illegals. Boy genius here.


33 posted on 08/01/2006 8:00:20 AM PDT by drb9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
NY, MJ, PA, MD, VA, WV, NC, and DC who wish to repatriate illegals.

Honestly, it was an accident, your honor!

34 posted on 08/01/2006 8:01:05 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough
even a wooden ladder can carry electricity enough to kill ya.

Wet, dense wood, definitely. Light, dry wood is a good insulator.

35 posted on 08/01/2006 8:01:23 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
It appears to offer more protection of the law to illegal immigrants than Lazamataz's view, in that you would at least prosecute those who committed serious crimes against illegal immigrants as part of the process of deporting them after the trial (and all appeals, perhaps?) is concluded.

Right—the significance of my position is that the victim of the crime would not be party to the criminal proceedings, but would rather be a witness to the crime. (This does lead to a quandry, though—How can one be sure that someone who lied to enter the country, would tell the truth on the stand? And how do you prevent a witness of this nature from changing their story under threat or other duress?)

Laz's solution may just be a bit easier, but I'm not sure I'd sign on 100% without trying my way first. ;)

Regards,
~dt~

36 posted on 08/01/2006 8:03:25 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT

If you're disgusted at the government's inaction, take it out on the government. That's what elections are for. If, as a democratic principle, a majority want the borders closed, it'll happen. If not, then admit that you are on the losing side of the vote. Of course, you can keep trying to win a majority for that view. But, don't declare open season on other human beings. Jesus didn't do that with the prostitute. And, the Samaritan didn't ask for a green card first.


37 posted on 08/01/2006 8:04:01 AM PDT by drb9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT

My sensible interpretation, which of course will be different from what the government's is, is with the clear wording with "citizenship."

Of course a resident alien should have full rights short of voting, so saying one doesn't have to be a citizen makes sense. I don't think it should at all apply to illegals.


38 posted on 08/01/2006 8:04:58 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: drb9
The solution to the medical question is simple—Those treated in a public facility who are unable to pay for their medical treatment are entered into a period of mandatory servitude towards the State which paid for their treatment, until such time as their bill has been paid off with labor. (For instance, they could work as a pro-bono janitorial staff in the hospital which provided their services to them, room and board paid.)

I'm starting to think we need to bring back the notion of a Debtor's Prison...

39 posted on 08/01/2006 8:05:35 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: drb9
The solution to the medical question is simple—Those treated in a public facility who are unable to pay for their medical treatment are entered into a period of mandatory servitude towards the State which paid for their treatment, until such time as their bill has been paid off with labor. (For instance, they could work as a pro-bono janitorial staff in the hospital which provided their services to them, room and board paid.)

I'm starting to think we need to bring back the notion of a Debtor's Prison...

40 posted on 08/01/2006 8:05:37 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: drb9; Lazamataz

Dear drb9,

Please don't misinterpret my admiration for Lazamataz's adherence to his principle for approval or acceptance of his principle.

However, lots of bluster about, but when you present them with a specific set of circumstances, all the exceptions, caveats, and reasons why that set of circumstances isn't really what they're talking about come out.

Although many people would consider it barbaric to state that a person who is raped or enslaved has no recourse to the law because they're here illegally, Lazamataz, to his credit, has not flinched from that conclusion, which is consistent with his overall principle.

Give credit where credit is due.


sitetest


41 posted on 08/01/2006 8:05:48 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT; drb9; Lazamataz

(Sorry for the double post :) )


42 posted on 08/01/2006 8:06:02 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: drb9

http://www.romantic-lyrics.com/lf4.shtml


43 posted on 08/01/2006 8:06:05 AM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
If you are an illegal immigrant, you have NO protection under the law whatsoever.

Sorry Darlin'. It doesn't work that way.

Don't get me wrong. If it were left up too me, we'd built a 40 fence and catapult every illegal we caught back over it, toot sweet!

But the Constitution is based on common law where everyone has basic, unalienable rights regardless of their nationality.

44 posted on 08/01/2006 8:06:41 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am NOT a 'legal entity'...nor am I a *person* as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: detsaoT

Dear detsaoT,

"This does lead to a quandry, though—How can one be sure that someone who lied to enter the country, would tell the truth on the stand?"

Of course, the greater quandary is that, knowing that they will be deported as part of the process, most illegal immigrants will not come forward against slavers, murderers, and rapists. Is it fair to say that you're okay with that result?

Thanks,


sitetest


45 posted on 08/01/2006 8:07:15 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: drb9
Wow. This site is host to some disgusting, ugly views.

Don't come into this country illegally, and no one has to get medieval on yer ass.

Do you go to church on Sundays and pretend that you are a good, charitable person?

No, I'm one of those Evil JOOOOooooos so I never go to Church. However, you won't find a kinder, sweeter person than me. I seek to be of service to my fellow man whenever I can.

Sometimes that service is harsh, so that you might benefit from the lesson.

Do things the right way, and you won't get yer weenie whacked.

46 posted on 08/01/2006 8:07:35 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: drb9
Jesus didn't do that with the prostitute.

He did say" go and sin no more"!

47 posted on 08/01/2006 8:08:49 AM PDT by pageonetoo (You'll spot their posts soon enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Of course, the greater quandary is that, knowing that they will be deported as part of the process, most illegal immigrants will not come forward against slavers, murderers, and rapists. Is it fair to say that you're okay with that result?

Yours is a false premise.

If you are an illegal immigrant, and you are faced with the prospect of ZERO protection under the law, would you:

A) Stay and take your chances, or

B) Run For The BorderTM?

I'm choosin' B)

48 posted on 08/01/2006 8:09:47 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: drb9
If you're disgusted at the government's inaction, take it out on the government. That's what elections are for. If, as a democratic principle, a majority want the borders closed, it'll happen. If not, then admit that you are on the losing side of the vote. Of course, you can keep trying to win a majority for that view. But, don't declare open season on other human beings. Jesus didn't do that with the prostitute. And, the Samaritan didn't ask for a green card first. (a) A majority, in poll after poll, DO want the border closed. The goons we send to Washington ignore that. Are we being fairly represented? Your snide "losing side of the vote" comment is meaningless if our representatives are not doing what we're sending them to Washington to do, is it not?

(b) I've never declared "open season" on any individuals. On the other hand, every individual MUST be aware of the ramifications of the decisions they make. Ignorance cannot possibly remove all of the risks from entering this country illegally, and we shouldn't be expected to bend over backwards to do the same.

(c) Jesus also had quite a few thoughts on obeying the law of the land in which you live (Recall "Render unto Cæsar?") as well, but you don't see me trumping those out to try and gain some kind of moral supremacy. The fact that you insist on bringing irrelevancies into this argument to try and make those who disagree with you look inhuman speaks volumes.

You may be happy with this wave of immigrants crossing the border—who's to say? I can easily imagine my life without them, as that's exactly how my youth was spent. I'd love to see this country return to that condition, eventually. As always, you're more than welcome to disagree. Disagreements are one thing we'll always have here on FR.

Most respectfully,
~dt~

49 posted on 08/01/2006 8:11:30 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Sorry Darlin'. It doesn't work that way.

Make me Brigadier Infantry General, Supreme Head Imperial Tyrant (B.I.G.S.H.I.T. for short) and it would would that way within about a week. ;^)

50 posted on 08/01/2006 8:12:10 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson