Another way for the govt to steal money - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

kutulu · 10-19-2006, 12:57 PM

It is common for immigrants, both legal and illegal, to wire money back home. Wire transfers are also commonly used to pay coyotes for smuggling illegals across the border. Arizona's AG, Terry Goddard started a program that seizes wire transfer funds based only on a profile, precise details about the profile are not given but it has something to do with the amount sent, where it is sent to, and the location of the sender.

According to the article, this has been in place since 2001 and over that time period AZ's AG office has seized over $17M from more than 15,000 transfers. Rather than placing the burden of proof on the government, people who have had their monies stolen by the govt have to prove that the money was sent for legal purposes. Now an immigrant group has filed a class action lawsuit. Good for them, I hope they win a ton of money back.

The govt. keeps coming up with more and more ways to steal money from people.

Quote:

Suit filed over wire transfers
Immigrants group says Ariz. official's crackdown on 'coyotes' also seized innocent people's money

Dennis Wagner
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 19, 2006 12:00 AM

An immigrant rights group is spearheading a class-action suit filed Wednesday against Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, alleging that his office illegally seized millions of dollars in Western Union wires as part of its campaign to shut down money laundering by border smugglers.

The U.S. District Court complaint, lodged in Phoenix by three Western Union customers, claims Goddard's bid to intercept so-called coyote fees violates the Fourth Amendment and due-process rights of thousands of innocent people whose funds were frozen.

The plaintiffs "and others similarly situated" are sponsored by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, or ICIRR, in coordination with Chicago-based Instituto del Progreso Latino. Josh Hoyt, executive director of the coalition, said Goddard has used "sweeping warrants" to seize more than $12 million in wire transactions based on a broad criminal profile, rather than any probable cause.
advertisement

"What this situation requires is targeted rifle-shot action to take out coyotes and drug smugglers," Hoyt said in a news release. "But Attorney General Goddard is practicing a legal drive-by shooting . . . hurting the guilty and the innocent alike."

Goddard said there is no substance to the suit, and he believes it was prompted by Western Union because his assault on smuggling organizations has cut into company revenues. Western Union recently filed a separate action in Maricopa County Superior Court, obtaining a temporary order to stop the attorney general's seizures. Goddard said the company also sent letters to clients, asking those who had funds seized to contact Instituto del Progreso Latino.

"They solicited people" for the federal lawsuit, Goddard said. "It's Western Union trying to protect their profits."

Sherry Johnson, corporate director of media relations for Western Union, said in an e-mail that "while we do have a long-standing relationship with this group, I can assure you that this is a completely independent action by the ICIRR."

In an e-mail last week, she complained that Goddard's task force issued a "grossly unfair and inaccurate representation of Western Union and its customers." She also said the company is diligent in efforts to prevent illicit wire transfers.

The federal action alleges that Western Union clients are not advised that they can challenge the seizures in court, where the state would have to prove illegal conduct. It also says numerous customers have been "interrogated, intimidated and threatened by Goddard's agents when attempting to find out about their money. Still others report making several attempts to recover their money and receiving no response."

Goddard denied those allegations and touted the work of his Financial Crimes Task Force, which claims $1.7 billion in coyote fees has been funneled to Arizona smuggling organizations via Western Union in the past few years. Investigators accuse Western Union of inadequate reporting, an allegation the company denies.

Coyotes charge about $1,600 per immigrant, holding them at drophouses in Phoenix until the fee is sent by wire. An estimated 15,000 transactions have been stopped since 2001, with investigators confiscating upward of $17 million. According to Goddard, not a single seizure was challenged in court.

Hoyt and other representatives of the Illinois coalition met with Goddard earlier this month and asked him to halt the "blanket seizures" and create an independent panel to review all confiscations.

Matt Piers, attorney for the plaintiffs, said more than 450 complaints have been received to date. He said undocumented immigrants often send money via Western Union for legitimate purposes but are too fearful to challenge seizures by law enforcement. "They are not going to be on the phone with a police officer," Piers said.

The complaint says Arizona authorities are now snatching wire transfers of more than $500 "based on nothing more than having originated from one of 26 states." Piers said it is absurd to think that someone from Illinois or any other state would fly to Arizona and file a suit against the attorney general to collect $500 or $1,000.

The class-action suit describes circumstances faced by three named plaintiffs:

• Javier Torres, a legal resident of the United States, sent $1,000 to an Arizona friend in March to pay for a car he had purchased. When the friend did not receive the money, Torres called Western Union and was told that Arizona law enforcement agents would contact him. Investigators subsequently advised Torres that he could not recover the money unless he showed proof of ownership. Because Torres already had sold the vehicle, he could not provide the paperwork and lost the funds.

• Lia Rivadeneyra, a Peruvian maid who has been in the country 30 years, sent $500 to her brother who was visiting friends in Sonora. The money was seized. Rivadeneyra was told by Arizona authorities she could not get her funds back unless they spoke with her brother, who had returned to his home in Peru where there was no phone.

• Alma Santiago sent $2,000 to an Arizona cousin in March 2005. Western Union told Santiago that the money had been frozen. She was contacted by an investigator who said she could not recover the cash unless her cousin, who had no phone, spoke with authorities.

Goddard said his investigators carefully target wires based on criminal profiling and are not taking funds sent innocently by illegal immigrants. He said he asked Piers to identify people whose money was confiscated wrongly but got no response.

stevo · 10-19-2006, 01:08 PM

I would say any money sent by illegal immigrants should be siezed. They are here illegally. They are working illegally, getting paid illegally, not legally paying taxes. Siezing money sent by illegals might be a good way remove the desire to get here illegally.

If someone wants to legally enter the county via the proper channels and works legally, paying taxes like every other person legally allowed to work in the US (you know that I-9 form you have to fill out when you get a job) then they should be able to do whatever they want with the money.

The_Jazz · 10-19-2006, 01:08 PM

For the record, the "government" in question is not the Federal government but the State of Arizona government. Again speaking for the record, I hope that they have to pay back every dime with punitive damages. This is nothing more than an attempt to legally steal from anyone with a Hispanic-sounding name.

kutulu · 10-19-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I would say any money sent by illegal immigrants should be siezed. They are here illegally. They are working illegally, getting paid illegally, not legally paying taxes. Siezing money sent by illegals might be a good way remove the desire to get here illegally.

Nice, but that has abolutely NOTHING to do with this case. The AG's office has no clue whether or not the sender or recipient is legal or illegal. Look at the plaintiffs, all three of them have legal status but that didn't stop the AG office from stealing their money. The money Javier Torres sent didn't even leave the country. Re-read the article.

The_Jazz is correct, do not confuse my reference of 'government' with 'federal government'

This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

Also, you are wrong when you say that no illegals pay taxes. If they paid for it, they can obtain SSN's and appear to be legal citizens. Employers and banks can check it out and they appear to have legal status. They pay taxes and can apply for car loans and mortgages.

Illegals aren't just day laborers that get paid cash at the end of the day. I don't know what the breakdown is but there are a LOT like I decribed above.

The_Jazz · 10-19-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I would say any money sent by illegal immigrants should be siezed. They are here illegally. They are working illegally, getting paid illegally, not legally paying taxes. Siezing money sent by illegals might be a good way remove the desire to get here illegally.

If someone wants to legally enter the county via the proper channels and works legally, paying taxes like every other person legally allowed to work in the US (you know that I-9 form you have to fill out when you get a job) then they should be able to do whatever they want with the money.

Fine, then it should be the Federal government making these seizures, not the AZ Attorney General. According to the Constitution, transactions across state lines are the sole jurisdiction of the Feds. Not that I necessarily agree with what you said, but there's a right and wrong way to go about it.

There's also the issue that they weren't targeting illegals but drug dealers.

magictoy · 10-19-2006, 01:59 PM

The concept of guilty until proven innocent makes me very uncomfortable, since there are probably a slew of legitimate transfers ensnared for years while their owners attempt to get their money back.

As a minor threadjack, this is no worse than the government's (local, state, and federal?) policy of seizing anything they can claim was used in a crime. Examples are a john's car, a drug smuggler's boat, and so on.

To be clear, if the penalty for solicitation of prostitution is $100, the local officials should NOT be allowed to keep a john's $20,000 car, just because he was driving it at the time.

We, the voters, need to wake up.

/threadjack

NCB · 10-19-2006, 03:02 PM

One of the primary conservative principles is to limit govt power. Yes, thay are illegal and I would like to punish those here illegally. However, the fact that the govt is so blatantly stealing $$$ from anyone with a Hispanic sounding name is disturbing, especially considering that the burden of proof seems to be so low

Rekna · 10-19-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I would say any money sent by illegal immigrants should be siezed. They are here illegally. They are working illegally, getting paid illegally, not legally paying taxes. Siezing money sent by illegals might be a good way remove the desire to get here illegally.

If someone wants to legally enter the county via the proper channels and works legally, paying taxes like every other person legally allowed to work in the US (you know that I-9 form you have to fill out when you get a job) then they should be able to do whatever they want with the money.

I think this is a horrible idea. They may be illegally here but that doesn't mean they didn't legally earn their money. They made a contractual agreement with someone for their services and it is their money. Taking it from them would be theft and make illegals nothing more than glorified slaves.

Elphaba · 10-19-2006, 03:19 PM

Imagine this happening during the years of significant immigration from European countries. As merely a third generation American, I wouldn't be here today had funds intended to bring family members from Norway to America were seized.

This is nothing more than state robbery on the basis of a last name, and continues to ignore the source of the problem. Significant penalities assessed upon the employers of illegals would be more effective, but there doesn't appear to be any interest in pursuing that course.

This is a case of having your cake (low cost labor) and eating it too (confiscation of earnings). Disgusting.

roachboy · 10-19-2006, 03:46 PM

i wonder if this kind of idiocy would be happening if the category for referring to these folk was not the far right's preferred "illegal immigrants" but something else--something that is actually accurate--like "undocumented workers"...or migrant laborers.

it is the case that an overwhelming majority of the folk who come into the states without proper documents to work in capitalist firms that hire them (because it is acceptable culturally to hire them--and these firms, regardless of whether they are in agriculture or elsewhere, are the motor of this whole issue and the anything goes in the interest of profit ideology particular to this vast empire of flinstones we call the united states is the primary enabling condition for it)--anyway the vast majority of the folk who come without documentation do so temporarily.
and they send most of their money back.
and why should they not be able to dispose of the income they earn like anyone else?
and if there is a real problem with these folk being in the states, then shut down the motor of the migrant labor market itself--go after the firms. dont dick around the people who come here because there are jobs--they really aren't doing anything wrong, they are just looking for work--so if you have a problem with the migrant labor market, shut down the companies that hire them.

they are migrant workers.
this is a migrant labor issue.
it is not an immigration issue.
and nothing about it is new: this has been the case for any number of groups for the whole of the 20th century--folk who are planning on settling here in the main go the more formal procedural route.
THEY are the immigrants.
the others are undocumented workers.

even if some decision was made at the level of census records to count migrant workers as immigrants--which is a stupid decision---even then the issue is predicated on half the story--the estimations of inflow--and not the rest of it--estimations of reverse migration.

the actions of the state of arizona are simply a logical conclusion to a wholly fucked up way of politically framing this "issue"...it is not much more or less foul than the arguments you see in other areas of the sewer that is this debate about putting landmines on the border.

i find the appeal of the category "illegal immigrant" inexplicable.
i do not know why it is that the myth of the united states being some kind of labor shangri-la appeals to anyone. vanity? an element of some tiresome circle jerk that links ideology to people's sense of who are and where they live with the result that folk can feel like members of some fictional Elect because by accident they were born here and not elsewhere? or maybe it's a device that enables people to imagine their world sparkles just a little more when they dump a bit of reactionary ideology over it?

i dont get it.

dksuddeth · 10-19-2006, 03:47 PM

anyone remember when I said it was now illegal to carry large amounts of money? I guess that amount got lowered in the state of arizona, didn't it?

why some people think i'm an anti-government conspiracy theorist is beyond me.

Elphaba · 10-19-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

anyone remember when I said it was now illegal to carry large amounts of money? I guess that amount got lowered in the state of arizona, didn't it?

why some people think i'm an anti-government conspiracy theorist is beyond me.

dk, based upon the article, wire transfers of comparably small amounts of money are being snagged rather than large carried amounts of money. I remember your thread on this, but carrying large sums of cash between countries has always been an "attention getter".

And, no, I don't consider you a conspiracy theorist.

Gilda · 10-19-2006, 05:38 PM

This is vile. How the hell does sending money home hurt the country in any way whatsoever? Am I harming anybody by sending money to my grandparents in Ukraine every month? It's my money that I earned. I have no objection to paying a fair amount in taxes, but if I want to send that overseas, where does the state get any right to say that they disapprove of where I'm sending it?

Yes, lets stick it to those evil immigrants. It's not like nearly the entire population of the country is descended from immigrants.

Gilda

hiredgun · 10-19-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Nice, but that has abolutely NOTHING to do with this case. The AG's office has no clue whether or not the sender or recipient is legal or illegal. Look at the plaintiffs, all three of them have legal status but that didn't stop the AG office from stealing their money. The money Javier Torres sent didn't even leave the country. Re-read the article.

He said later in his post that he believes that legals should be able to do whatever they want with their money. That means he's in agreement with you on this issue, particularly since you've pointed out that the plaintiffs are legal.

I basically agree with stevo's position. While I sympathize with illegals as human beings, and I'm often disappointed by the kind of vitriolic language used when discussing them... ultimately, if they aren't here legally, the government is perfectly within its rights to seize their funds in this way.

As roachboy points out, though, it's not much of a solution to the problem.

magictoy · 10-19-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i wonder if this kind of idiocy would be happening if the category for referring to these folk was not the far right's preferred "illegal immigrants" but something else--something that is actually accurate--like "undocumented workers"...or migrant laborers.

And Mark Foley loves youngsters. It's intentionally misleading to gloss over the lawbreaking part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Yes, lets stick it to those evil immigrants. It's not like nearly the entire population of the country is descended from immigrants.

LEGAL immigrants.

This thread is easily sidetracked.

Gilda · 10-19-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magictoy

LEGAL immigrants.

Of course, all those European immigrants who came and settled here asked permssion first and followed the rules given them by the people already living here. They also asked nicely and obeyed all the conditions set out for them when settling those four border states before moving in there.

It's a good thing I didn't have my car break down in Arizona last year and have to have money sent to me by wire. A couple thousand dollars going from California to Arizona would be sure to raise a flag. Hmmm. Maybe I'd need to take a bus to New Mexico and get my money there.

I wonder if I'm going to have to start proving that I'm a citizen everytime I send my grandparents money, and that I'm not sending it for illegal purposes. Oh well, I guess getting your money taken is just a chance you have to take when you send it to some foreigners and not to good decent Americans.

Gilda

kutulu · 10-20-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

I basically agree with stevo's position. While I sympathize with illegals as human beings, and I'm often disappointed by the kind of vitriolic language used when discussing them... ultimately, if they aren't here legally, the government is perfectly within its rights to seize their funds in this way.

Great, tell me how the govt. knows beyond a reasonable doubt that a wire transaction is sent or recieved by an illegal alien. Obviously, they don't because legal citizens and immigrants have had their money stolen by the AZ AG office via this method.

_God_ · 10-21-2006, 12:27 PM

A darned silly answer on several levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

Of course, all those European immigrants who came and settled here asked permssion first and followed the rules given them by the people already living here. They also asked nicely and obeyed all the conditions set out for them when settling those four border states before moving in there.

Notwithstanding that you had to go back as much as four hundred years in an attempt to validate your opinion, rolling back all of the laws passed in the intervening years would, among other things, end women's suffrage, end environmental controls, and reinstitute slavery, among other things.

I don't share your opinion, since I believe the US is vastly different now. I am also unable to think of any country that imposes no restrictions on immigration. Can you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

It's a good thing I didn't have my car break down in Arizona last year and have to have money sent to me by wire. A couple thousand dollars going from California to Arizona would be sure to raise a flag. Hmmm. Maybe I'd need to take a bus to New Mexico and get my money there.

I wonder if I'm going to have to start proving that I'm a citizen everytime I send my grandparents money, and that I'm not sending it for illegal purposes. Oh well, I guess getting your money taken is just a chance you have to take when you send it to some foreigners and not to good decent Americans.

Unless I misunderstand, your two points are:

1. The US government should not be allowed to enforce current laws which we, the citizens, have the power to change if we don't like them, and

2. People from other countries are allowed to break our laws at will.

I see an absence of logic, and a surfeit of emotion. In that aspect, it resembles just about every argument presented in favor of continued illegal immigration, except for the ones that are blatantly false.

Gilda · 10-21-2006, 01:35 PM

And an equally silly response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _God_

Notwithstanding that you had to go back as much as four hundred years in an attempt to validate your opinion, rolling back all of the laws passed in the intervening years would, among other things, end women's suffrage, end environmental controls, and reinstitute slavery, among other things.

Did I propose rolling back any laws? No, I'm pretty sure I didn't.

I pointed out that we're nearly all descended from immigrants, and a great many of those didn't ask permission or follow the laws of the existing governments when they settled here.

Quote:

I don't share your opinion, since I believe the US is vastly different now. I am also unable to think of any country that imposes no restrictions on immigration. Can you?

No, you don't share the opinion that you attributed to me that I did not propose and do not hold. That's a straw man, by the way.

Quote:

Unless I misunderstand, your two points are:

1. The US government should not be allowed to enforce current laws which we, the citizens, have the power to change if we don't like them, and

2. People from other countries are allowed to break our laws at will.

No, those were not my points.

Quote:

I see an absence of logic, and a surfeit of emotion. In that aspect, it resembles just about every argument presented in favor of continued illegal immigration, except for the ones that are blatantly false.

I see responses to opinions and arguements I did not make.

I proposed a reasonable scenario. I'm driving through Arizona. My car breaks down, and my wife sends me $2000 for repairs. What's to keep Arizona from just taking the money before it gets to me? How do I know this transfer doesn't fit the profile?

If Arizona can legally take people's money without having to prove that it was sent by undocumented aliens, recieved by undocumented aliens, or sent for illegal purposes, which seems to me to be an obvious warrantless siezure, what would prevent the state where I live from siezing money I send to my mom, who is an immigrant, or my grandparents? Hey, I might be sending it to smugglers or drug dealers or people who are going to use it for illegal purposes.

Gilda

Telluride · 10-21-2006, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i wonder if this kind of idiocy would be happening if the category for referring to these folk was not the far right's preferred "illegal immigrants" but something else--something that is actually accurate--like "undocumented workers"...or migrant laborers.

If they came to this country from somewhere else...they are immigrants. If their method of immigration was in violation of the law...they are illegal. I think "illegal immigrant" is a pretty accurate term.

roachboy · 10-21-2006, 02:12 PM

telluride: if you want to debate this then fine:
but it'd help if you actually took on the argument rather than bite the first sentence. i already addressed such point as there is in your post and if you disagree with that position, then take it on. but try actually addressing the argument. this sound-byte level stuff is worthless.

10-19-2006, 01:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I would say any money sent by illegal immigrants should be siezed. They are here illegally. They are working illegally, getting paid illegally, not legally paying taxes. Siezing money sent by illegals might be a good way remove the desire to get here illegally. If someone wants to legally enter the county via the proper channels and works legally, paying taxes like every other person legally allowed to work in the US (you know that I-9 form you have to fill out when you get a job) then they should be able to do whatever they want with the money. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

10-19-2006, 01:08 PM	#3 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	For the record, the "government" in question is not the Federal government but the State of Arizona government. Again speaking for the record, I hope that they have to pay back every dime with punitive damages. This is nothing more than an attempt to legally steal from anyone with a Hispanic-sounding name. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

10-19-2006, 03:46 PM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i wonder if this kind of idiocy would be happening if the category for referring to these folk was not the far right's preferred "illegal immigrants" but something else--something that is actually accurate--like "undocumented workers"...or migrant laborers. it is the case that an overwhelming majority of the folk who come into the states without proper documents to work in capitalist firms that hire them (because it is acceptable culturally to hire them--and these firms, regardless of whether they are in agriculture or elsewhere, are the motor of this whole issue and the anything goes in the interest of profit ideology particular to this vast empire of flinstones we call the united states is the primary enabling condition for it)--anyway the vast majority of the folk who come without documentation do so temporarily. and they send most of their money back. and why should they not be able to dispose of the income they earn like anyone else? and if there is a real problem with these folk being in the states, then shut down the motor of the migrant labor market itself--go after the firms. dont dick around the people who come here because there are jobs--they really aren't doing anything wrong, they are just looking for work--so if you have a problem with the migrant labor market, shut down the companies that hire them. they are migrant workers. this is a migrant labor issue. it is not an immigration issue. and nothing about it is new: this has been the case for any number of groups for the whole of the 20th century--folk who are planning on settling here in the main go the more formal procedural route. THEY are the immigrants. the others are undocumented workers. even if some decision was made at the level of census records to count migrant workers as immigrants--which is a stupid decision---even then the issue is predicated on half the story--the estimations of inflow--and not the rest of it--estimations of reverse migration. the actions of the state of arizona are simply a logical conclusion to a wholly fucked up way of politically framing this "issue"...it is not much more or less foul than the arguments you see in other areas of the sewer that is this debate about putting landmines on the border. i find the appeal of the category "illegal immigrant" inexplicable. i do not know why it is that the myth of the united states being some kind of labor shangri-la appeals to anyone. vanity? an element of some tiresome circle jerk that links ideology to people's sense of who are and where they live with the result that folk can feel like members of some fictional Elect because by accident they were born here and not elsewhere? or maybe it's a device that enables people to imagine their world sparkles just a little more when they dump a bit of reactionary ideology over it? i dont get it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-19-2006, 03:47 PM	#11 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	anyone remember when I said it was now illegal to carry large amounts of money? I guess that amount got lowered in the state of arizona, didn't it? why some people think i'm an anti-government conspiracy theorist is beyond me. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

10-19-2006, 05:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
Gilda 32 flavors and then some Location: Out on a wire.	This is vile. How the hell does sending money home hurt the country in any way whatsoever? Am I harming anybody by sending money to my grandparents in Ukraine every month? It's my money that I earned. I have no objection to paying a fair amount in taxes, but if I want to send that overseas, where does the state get any right to say that they disapprove of where I'm sending it? Yes, lets stick it to those evil immigrants. It's not like nearly the entire population of the country is descended from immigrants. Gilda __________________ I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that. ~Steven Colbert

10-19-2006, 01:59 PM	#6 (permalink)
magictoy Crazy	The concept of guilty until proven innocent makes me very uncomfortable, since there are probably a slew of legitimate transfers ensnared for years while their owners attempt to get their money back. As a minor threadjack, this is no worse than the government's (local, state, and federal?) policy of seizing anything they can claim was used in a crime. Examples are a john's car, a drug smuggler's boat, and so on. To be clear, if the penalty for solicitation of prostitution is $100, the local officials should NOT be allowed to keep a john's $20,000 car, just because he was driving it at the time. We, the voters, need to wake up. /threadjack

10-19-2006, 03:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Imagine this happening during the years of significant immigration from European countries. As merely a third generation American, I wouldn't be here today had funds intended to bring family members from Norway to America were seized. This is nothing more than state robbery on the basis of a last name, and continues to ignore the source of the problem. Significant penalities assessed upon the employers of illegals would be more effective, but there doesn't appear to be any interest in pursuing that course. This is a case of having your cake (low cost labor) and eating it too (confiscation of earnings). Disgusting.

10-21-2006, 02:12 PM	#21 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	telluride: if you want to debate this then fine: but it'd help if you actually took on the argument rather than bite the first sentence. i already addressed such point as there is in your post and if you disagree with that position, then take it on. but try actually addressing the argument. this sound-byte level stuff is worthless. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite