« Unmet expectations | Main | wifi PodCast MP3 player? »

November 24, 2006



If you commit a crime, such as assault, and kidnapping, you don't have any legal defenses in a civil case resulting from the crime. The fancy legal term is collateral estoppel. By losing the criminal case, Nethercott could not legally claim that he didn't do the crime, which would have been his only possible defence in civil court.

Illegal immigration will dry up if they cannot get jobs here in the US. The cure for illegal immigration is to make it a crime to hire them.


SPLC has been active in identifying racist and extreme right wing elements in the so-called Minuteman movement for several years. Their suit against this group is similar to the tactics it succeeded with against the Aryan Nations compound in the Idaho Panhandle. In that incident one of the groups's so-called security guards shot up the car of a single mother and her teenage son which had broken down near the neo-nazi compound in Hayden, ID. The resulting lawsuit bankrupted the Aryan Nations group. The compound was bought by Idaho philanthropist Greg Carr, leveled, and turned into a park.
Anyone see any similarities here?

The way to limit the influence of racist anti-immigration groups is for COngress to create a legal guest worker program that mediates the flow of people from other countries into jobs in this country and also gives them protection against exploitation and physical harm.

Account Deleted

A disturbing case, and an example of why it is dangerous to allow illegal immigrants to file civil suit.

The flow of people into the United States is better handled through a guest worker program than in the grey market.

However, it is poor demagoguery & a misunderstanding of history to argue that nativism is racist.

James Bowery

It's obvious that anyone who knowingly employs illegal aliens is engaging in the economic equivalent of treason and should not only be executed but should have their estates' assets seized and distributed to their law abiding competitors.

Turning state's evidence or otherwise acting in the interests of the Union are to be considered mitigating factors in these cases of treason as they are in others.



For one thing, 2 of the claimants were Mexican-American hunters, presumably in the country legally.

For another, anyone can file a claim in US court. Even people who are citizens of another country, if they were harmed in the US, it's a slam dunk--the court has juridisction.

And actually, aliens (legal or not) can also sue in Federal court for torts committed outside the US.

As to your comments about nativism not being racist, it sure felt racist everytime someone has told me to "go back to my own country." Which is the US , because I was born here. Yet somehow, they seeemed to think I was a foreigner.

Probably the slanty eyes and buck teeth.


dan, if you think that nativism isn't a cover for racism and bigotry, then you're wrong. I'm going to refer you to http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ . David Neiwert has been keeping an eye on the "militia" movement and now the "minuteman" movement.

Account Deleted


I take it buying products made in China are the "economic equiavelent of treason" as well?


For those claimants here legally, of course they should have the full & appropriate protection of the judicial system. However, the headline and topic of discussion concern illegal Salvadorans.

Anyone can file. Not everyone will be heard, or should be. That's what's under consideration.

Your third paragraph appears to contradict itself. If someone assumed that you were a foreigner, and wished you to leave (as you said happened to you), they were a nativist.


One thing may or may not cover for another -- certainly some branches of the Social Democrats were covers for Communism. However, it's still a mistake to conflate the two.

The past & present are full of descendants of immigrants turning nativist, defining "us" not as an ancestral group but as a present citizenry.

David's blog is interesting. Thanks for the link.


I think the underlying issue for the Minutemen is rarely, if ever discussed. Why is it that the Minutemen formed in the first place? They began to see illegal immigrants sneak into the country via their private property. Many of the Minutemen were complaining that their property was being damaged by illegals. I think the heart of this movement arose from private property concerns and was taken over by nativists (whether racist or not) vs. pro-immigration/liberal (both classical and modern liberals) for political benefit. I do not think people talk about the private property issues enough and I believe that this is where this issue stems from.


The comments to this entry are closed.