Posted on 10/19/2006 5:15:46 PM PDT by ellery
PHOENIX — An immigrant rights group wants a federal judge to block Arizona from using a tactic Attorney General Terry Goddard says is necessary to block human- and drug-smuggling rings.
Legal papers filed in U.S. District Court contend warrants issued by Goddard's office to seize wire transfers of $500 or more violate federal constitutional requirements that government must have probable cause before taking the money.
Those warrants have resulted in what plaintiffs contend is the illegal seizure of more than $12 million in interstate transfers of money involving in excess of 11,000 transactions.
The actual number may be larger: Goddard said Wednesday his agency has taken in $17 million from the warrants and arrested more than 100 people smugglers.
Josh Hoyt, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said he understands Arizona's desire to bust smuggling rings. But he said the state's use of warrants to take every transaction in excess of $500 — and then make senders prove the money is legal — is both unfair and illegal.
"Where this process needs targeted rifle-shot prosecutions, he's committing a legal drive-by shooting with automatic weapons," Hoyt said. "And he is taking out lots of innocent people while he's taking out a few bad guys."
Goddard defended the warrants, saying, "Our investigations and seizures are helping us disrupt human smuggling, secure Arizona's border and make our neighborhoods safer."
He also said the lawsuit — filed under the names of three individuals — isn't about protecting the right to send money without fear of government seizure but to protect the profits of money transmitters.
"If it is successful, our human-smuggling investigations would be crippled, and Western Union and other money transmitters would continue to profit from illegal activity," he said.
Hoyt acknowledged his organization has received grants in the past from Western Union, and confirmed that some of the information for the lawsuit came from the company. But he said the interest of his group is solely to protect the rights of individuals.
Goddard, however, said, Western Union specifically sought out plaintiffs for the lawsuit.
At the heart of the dispute are what the state calls "damming warrants." The name comes from the procedure that allows state prosecutors to get a court order to "dam" up all wire transfers meeting certain criteria until the person to whom the money is being sent can show that the money is for a legal purpose.
Assistant Attorney General Cameron Holmes said prosecutors use a computer algorithm to review every money transfer sent into Arizona. He said these tend to be in amounts between $800 and $1,500, usually in final payments to smugglers for ferrying people into the United States.
Then, under a court warrant, the funds are put into a special fund. The intended recipient can call a toll-free number to claim them. If no claim is made, the money is forfeited to the state.
But the lawsuit says the actions are far broader, with the state issuing warrants — generally good for 10-day periods — for all transfers exceeding a certain amount. Attorney Tim Eckstein, who filed the papers on behalf of three individuals whose money was taken by the state, said those warrants originally affected transfers of $2,000 or more. Now transactions of as little as $500 coming from certain states are subject to seizure.
Goddard said not all wire transfers are seized. He said only those that meet certain criteria are set aside — and recipients with "plausible" explanations can get them back.
State Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said the state needs authority to go after those who use wire transfers to move money from criminal enterprises.
"At the same time we have to make sure we protect the rights of those folks who legitimately send money back and forth," he said.
Gallardo said seizing transfers of $500 or more affects a lot more people than criminals.
"We should not just be using the $500 threshold," he said, but instead require proof of some sort of pattern or other evidence of criminal activity.
Goddard said the state provides that proof to the judge who issues each of the damming warrants.
Gallardo also said the state's offer to refund funds improperly taken is insufficient because it requires people to go to a government office to prove their ownership in order to get their money back.
"That's intimidating for those folks who perhaps may be here undocumented," he said, and simply want to send money home to relatives.
Maybe it's intimidating because they are breaking the law by even being here?
I wonder what this leftwing kook has to do with Arizona. The moron lives in Illinois. What happens in Arizona is none of his damn business.
previosuly posted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1722382/posts
Thanks, traviskicks. I did a search, but didn't find it.
no worries, I've done it quite a few times myself, the headlines can change around a lot. :)
Goddard, however, said, Western Union specifically sought out plaintiffs for the lawsuit.
This I can believe. Don't know how many of you have used WU lately, but I had to wire a friend $50 a couple of months ago (IN STATE) and it cost me $20.
That's right, FORTY PERCENT SURCHARGE!!!!
They charged ENRON with fraud? Western Union should be sued and their CEO's Jailed for usury.
Can anyone doubt how much WU "loves" these "undocumented immigrants" and the tens and tens of millions of dollars they earn off from them every year.
As the old saying goes: "Follow the money!!!"
if they are wondering what to do with the money they can send it to me
$26,000,000,000 was wired into Mexico last year. What's the take on that at 40%? $60 Billion to all of Central and South America.
Okay, I know it isn't a straight percentage, and it isn't all going through WU. Wells Fargo and BoA are also making money off the remittances.
But, tens of millions if probably in the ballpark.
Correct!
And, to state the obvious...it's a powerful incentive to maintain the status quo.
It would be nice to figure out a way to maintain the monetary incentive for businesses and yet do away with the problem of uncontrolled illegal immigration.
Guest worker programs immediately come to mind, but I'm not sure that's the answer. How do you keep Pedro on the farm when he's seen Las Vegas?
"At the same time we have to make sure we protect the rights of those folks who legitimately send money back and forth," he said.
Gallardo said seizing transfers of $500 or more affects a lot more people than criminals.
"We should not just be using the $500 threshold," he said, but instead require proof of some sort of pattern or other evidence of criminal activity.
Can the person sending the money prove that taxes have been paid on the money. If not, then taxes should be withheld.
Just think - if you had wired $1, it would have been a 2000% surcharge...
ping
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.