Can the U.S. be charged with civil right violations with an open border?

[General of Darkness]

I've been think about this for some time now. Here's why I'm thinking this.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety. From what I've read illegal immigrants from south of the border kill about 28 people per day via drunk driving and flat out murder, that translates to just over 10,000 Americans per year. That doesn't even include the rapes, etc.

The guberment is intentionally negligent and should be held accountable and I'd like to sue their ass over it, not for money but for action. Any thoughts?

[Apparition]

They don't give a spit.

Their true masters (the corporations, ethnocentricists, politically correct, Mexican govt. etc.) have likely lobbied enough to ensure that the borders remain open forever.

In addition, I can ensure you that the govt. will spew some bullspit claiming that they consider it to be an 'urgent' issue and are dedicated to addressing the issue as soon as possible.

Your only practical option is to prepare and defend yourself.

[Ponce]

As long as "their" guns are bigger than yours the will do what they want and not what is right.

[Hermie]

I've been think about this for some time now. Here's why I'm thinking this.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety. From what I've read illegal immigrants from south of the border kill about 28 people per day via drunk driving and flat out murder, that translates to just over 10,000 Americans per year. That doesn't even include the rapes, etc.

The guberment is intentionally negligent and should be held accountable and I'd like to sue their ass over it, not for money but for action. Any thoughts?


You will probably be told you do not have "Standing" so you are not allowed to sue.
They've used that on other things, and I don't understand how a citizen can not have "Standing"
about any issue relating to the country.

But there are no regulators any more.
No one who will do their assigned jobs of holding politicians guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance in office.

This is why I think the effort to have County sheriff's come to the front and uphold the States legal rights
is the best/only way to begin to reign in the treasonous scum who hold most government positions now.

Somebody, PLEASE, lock some of these bastards up!!
.

[General of Darkness]

The question I have is there a basis for a law suit? Not defeatist stuff.

CAN THIS BE DONE?

[I am me, I am free]

Who in their right mind would want or desire 'civil rights'?

Of course securing the borders is job 1 for the federal govt. under the Constitution.

[cigarlover]

sounds like you want a redress of grievences. The sc has already said you have a right to that however you have no right to receive an answer

[General of Darkness]

sounds like you want a redress of grievences. The sc has already said you have a right to that however you have no right to receive an answer


Cigarlover come on, seriously? I can file the claim, and look for redress, but they have to rule one way or the other. Right?

[chad]

interesting idea. i will pass this along to my cadre of best friends (4 lawyers and a judge).

[I am me, I am free]

The most common reason for refusing to hear a federal case:

"Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

[cigarlover]

sounds like you want a redress of grievences. The sc has already said you have a right to that however you have no right to receive an answer


Cigarlover come on, seriously? I can file the claim, and look for redress, but they have to rule one way or the other. Right?


This was a ruling by the Supreme court when Bob Shultz filed a lawsuit for redress of grievences. He heads the "We the people foundation" I'm sure theres more info about it on their website but he thought the decision was rediculous as well.
Basically what the SC is saying is the congresscritters can do whatever they like and there is no holding them accountable. I guess they figure thats what elections are for.

[General of Darkness]

sounds like you want a redress of grievences. The sc has already said you have a right to that however you have no right to receive an answer


Cigarlover come on, seriously? I can file the claim, and look for redress, but they have to rule one way or the other. Right?


This was a ruling by the Supreme court when Bob Shultz filed a lawsuit for redress of grievences. He heads the "We the people foundation" I'm sure theres more info about it on their website but he thought the decision was rediculous as well.
Basically what the SC is saying is the congresscritters can do whatever they like and there is no holding them accountable. I guess they figure thats what elections are for.


But CAN WE BUILD A CASE? Timing is everything, and now is the time to demand redress.

Maybe together we can build a case. I know I'm shooting for the f*cking stars but these are the type of people that are on this forum.

Reasons for redress

1 - Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety.
2 - Freedom to work, not to be out bid by illegal immigrants
3 - Freedom to financial equality, not to have illegal immigrants on welfare, healthcare etc
4 - Freedom of representation, not to have illegal immigrants rights under the Census

These are just a few. Hell, if we build it we can make it happen.

[jetgraphics]

Civil rights are privileges granted by government.
"Civil rights violations" are a joke.

Natural rights, like the right to life, are what you want protected.
You might seek a remedy for an injury suffered.

If you want to sue, you had better sue on dereliction of duty or breach of oath - if they have their oath of office on file (many do not).

Reference:

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS - ... which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons...

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

"Civil liberty is the power to do whatever is permitted by the constitution of the state and the laws of the land. It is no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws, and no further, operating equally upon all the citizens, as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public." 1 Black. Com. 125; Paley's Mor. Phil. B. 6, c.5; Swifts Syst. 12
--- Bouvier's Law Dictionary

LICENSE - A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable... The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowed. - - - Black's Law Dictionary

Civil rights / liberties are the permissions (licenses) granted by government to those who have no rights nor natural liberties. That's why all the 1960's Civil Rights cases only involved licensed entities - restaurants, buses, and so forth.

[silverblood]

I've been think about this for some time now. Here's why I'm thinking this.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety. From what I've read illegal immigrants from south of the border kill about 28 people per day via drunk driving and flat out murder, that translates to just over 10,000 Americans per year. That doesn't even include the rapes, etc.

The guberment is intentionally negligent and should be held accountable and I'd like to sue their ass over it, not for money but for action. Any thoughts?


Civil rights are State-sponsored privileges, or government-granted positive rights. They are not natural rights, which are all negative rights. There's no such thing as a right to physical integrity and safety.

Included in the concept of civil rights are anti-discrimination laws, voting rights, political rights, wage laws, freedom of this that and the other granted or withheld as the State sees fit, the right to petition government for redress of grievances (but not the right to receive an answer), etc. Of course, I know you are a staunch supporter of law-backed, government-enforced, gun-to-the-head equality and freedom for all. But those aren't rights.

What sort of right could possibly exist that doesn't apply to everyone without exception? There aren't any. How can rights be dependent on which side of a border you were born on, or your race, the color of your skin, your language, your religion, your sexual preference, and so on? They can't be.

You want to charge the US government with civil rights violations because of an alleged open border, citing unsubstantiated crime statistics? There is no open border, not even for chattel, slaves of the State. Prove it to yourself. Leave the country without a passport, and then try to reenter. Sure, you can cross over in the Arizona desert too, so I guess that makes it an open border, eh?

My thoughts are that you have willingly submitted yourself to a slave status and have adopted an entitlement mentality. You think you are entitled to protection, and now you wish to sue your master (what a ludicrous concept) because he isn't protecting his property (you) to your satisfaction.

[General of Darkness]

My thoughts are that you have willingly submitted yourself to a slave status and have adopted an entitlement mentality. You think you are entitled to protection, and now you wish to sue your master (what a ludicrous concept) because he isn't protecting his property (you) to your satisfaction.


Oh for pete's sake, I just want to mess with them and wake people up to the serfdom. BTW - You're retarded.

[cigarlover]

1 - Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety.
2 - Freedom to work, not to be out bid by illegal immigrants
3 - Freedom to financial equality, not to have illegal immigrants on welfare, healthcare etc
4 - Freedom of representation, not to have illegal immigrants rights under the Census


I see where your trying to go with this. I'm not trying to be negative but here's how I see it.

#1) I have the natural right to protect my personal safety and integrity. I dont see that as a function of government. They are supposed to protect the US from all enemies foreign and domestic but you would have a hard time in court saying that illegals are enemies of the US>

#2) If you lost a bid to an illegal sounds like grounds for a lawsuit to me. If they arent supposed to be working in the first place then they certainly cant be winning bids. If they are then whoever hires them should be sued.

#3) If the feds are paying for the welfare and healthcare of illegals then you do have an issue that they should address. I think a lot of welfare is paid at the state level though. Not sure on that.

#4) Another issue that maybe can be addressed by the feds. Since most of these congresscritters rely on this to get funding and reelected though I would say they arent going to be very receptive to the idea.

The last issue you may face is the cost to get this to the Supreme court. Your probably looking at 75-150k to get it there. Not an easy task and just another reason why congress does whatever it wants. Who can afford to fight them?

[Horn]

3 - Freedom to financial equality, not to have illegal immigrants on welfare, healthcare etc

Taxation without representation, ain't civil.

[Saul Mine]

I know you don't want defeatist stuff, but you do need practical thoughts and advice. The government will do anything you can force them to do. If you don't know how to force the issue, they will ignore you.

And that's the truth.