Rancher ruling adds to border debate

Arizona rancher Roger Barnett initially faced the possibility of paying $32 million to compensate several illegal immigrants he stopped at gunpoint on his land. He walked away instead with a verdict that rejected any notion he violated the trespassers’ civil rights and affirmed that U.S. citizens can still detain aliens crossing the border.

What remains to be seen, though, is what impact the $77,800 in damages that a jury Tuesday ordered Mr. Barnett to pay will have on America’s larger immigration debate and the efforts of some illegals to get compensation from a country they aren’t even allowed to enter.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), an immigrant-advocacy group that helped bring the lawsuit, had claimed Mr. Barnett violated the civil rights of 16 illegal immigrants he stopped crossing his border property after they had illegally sneaked into the United States. MALDEF sought $2 million in actual and punitive damages for each of the plaintiffs.

The outcome fell far short of the advocacy group’s wishes.

U.S. District Judge John M. Roll, for starters, dismissed the claims of 10 of the illegals because they did not testify at trial. He then tossed related conspiracy complaints against Mr. Barnett’s wife, Barbara, and his brother Donald, saying illegal immigrants had no constitutionally protected right to travel in the United States.

Judge Roll said the Barnetts, who live in close proximity to the border, could reasonably assume that large groups of people they encountered hiding or trespassing on their property were doing so with the aid of smugglers.

He said entering the United States illegally was a federal felony, for which a citizen’s arrest was authorized under Arizona law.

Ultimately, the jury of four men and four women decided that Mr. Barnett did not violate the civil rights of the remaining six plaintiffs and was not guilty of false imprisonment, battery and conspiracy as charged in the suit.

“Citizens who live along the border, like citizens anywhere in the country, have a right to act in such instances,” said David T. Hardy, one of Mr. Barnett’s attorneys. “The vindication of the Barnetts should clear the way for other Americans to act responsibly without fear of specious and politically motivated lawsuits.”

The jury awarded $17,802 to the six remaining illegal immigrants on their claims of assault and the infliction of emotional distress - $7,500 each to two, $1,400 each to two others and $1 each to the remaining pair. It also ordered Mr. Barnett to pay $60,000 in punitive damages.

MALDEF lawyer David Urias told reporters in Tucson his clients were disappointed with the verdict, “but I think that overall this was a victory for the plaintiffs.” A co-counsel, Nina Perales, called the verdict “a resounding victory that sends a message that vigilante violence against immigrants will not be tolerated.”

But Mr. Hardy saw it differently, describing the verdict as an “80 percent victory” for the Barnetts, adding that he planned to appeal the decision based on what he called “solid grounds.”

A 2006 Arizona constitutional amendment bars awards of punitive damages to illegal immigrants, and Mr. Barnett’s attorneys are expected to argue that the jury was given flawed instructions by the judge, which led to the award of those damages.

Carmen Mercer, vice president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), said the verdict showed that citizens have a right to protect their property. She said she would hardly call the jury verdict a victory since “the plaintiffs are only getting a small fraction of what they were seeking.”

Ms. Mercer, a business owner in Tombstone, Ariz., and a naturalized U.S. citizen from Germany, said those who live on the Southwest border find it “emotionally distressing” to see the daily destruction caused by illegal immigration.

Story Continues →