Posted on 01/31/2007 1:12:31 PM PST by primeval patriot
U.S. District Judge James Cohn has forced a Guatemalan dishwasher to surrender nearly all his life savings to the government because he didn't sign a declaration form before trying to board an airplane.
Pedro Zapeta of Stuart had $59,000 in his bag when Customs agents searched it and confiscated the money at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Sept. 18, 2005. Mr. Zapeta, a 39-year-old Mayan whose native language is Quiche, has said that he was unaware of the requirement to disclose amounts greater than $10,000. On Monday, Judge Cohn ruled that the $10,000 was all that Mr. Zapeta could keep. He must forfeit the rest - $49,000. Mr. Zapeta has no real option for appealing, and is likely to be deported soon.
"It is unconscionable for the government to take that money," said Robert Gershman, Mr. Zapeta's attorney. "They do it because they can. That's the only reason. It's just not right. He could have left with all $59,000 if he had signed the form."
In his six-page ruling, Judge Cohn said that the government had dropped earlier claims that the cash was drug money, and that prosecutors were accusing Mr. Zapeta of a civil currency violation, not a criminal offense. Mr. Gershman argued that Mr. Zapeta should pay a fine of no more than $5,000 for being negligent; he never had flown on a plane. "There is no rule of thumb in these cases," the lawyer said. "They shouldn't just rubber-stamp them with a decision like this."
Mr. Zapeta entered the country illegally 11 years ago and worked as a dishwasher for numerous Stuart restaurants, often holding two jobs at a time for little more than minimum wage. He intended to start a business with relatives upon returning to Guatemala. Mr. Gershman believes that the dishwasher's immigration and social status worked against him: "If Mr. Zapeta were a professional man, or more intellectual, or more mainstream, there's no question that he would not have been treated this way."
This is the guest worker President Bush has in mind when he proposes immigration reform. Pedro Zapeta didn't come to stay. He came to make investment money he can't make back home. Having done so, he was ready to deport himself. Judge Cohn had a chance to make sense out of this bureaucratic bungling. Instead, he displayed little logic and even less compassion.
I do think people disagree on what the law SHOULD be, but I'm pretty sure I'm right as to what the law IS. A lot of people get deported, and none of them have all their money taken from them first. Seizing the money earned while here illegally is NOT part of the deportation process. That's what I mean.
I also agree with that position, and others certainly disagree. The argument is over what the law should be. It's just like this seizure law. The law clearly says his $49,000 is gone. There's no arguing the law was properly applied. The argument is whether it's a just law or not.
I wish he had been a legal immigrant, because then we could have discussed the actual law applied, rather than getting sidetracked by a "we don't like the law normally, but because he's illegal it's fine to take his money". argument.
I have no idea, the story didn't say. There are several possibilities. He might not have one, which means he was definitely being paid under the table, either illegally or through some subterfuge of calling the dishwashers "independent contractors" which I'm sure would be illegal as well.
Or he made one up, in which case it might be an inactive number, or might belong to someone, which I take a very dim view of. Messing around with someone's SS number is very bad, it is harmful to the person, and should be punished.
Or he filed and got one. It's not that hard, he would have to lie about a birth certificate, but could get a real SS number assigned to his name. Probably the easiest because you can use it for ID most places, and employers won't ask questions with a valid SS number.
If he went to a mill to get one, they may recycle SS numbers from previous legal immigrants who expired and went home, or stolen numbers.
I think illegals can get a legal taxpayer ID number assigned. I think the Mexican consulates assist in this for their citizens. The IRS doesn't really care if you are illegal, or a mob boss, so long as you pay your taxes.
Your opinion of what should be notwithstanding, the money was NOT taken from him because he was illegal. The law does not allow the seizure of assets in a deportation.
The confiscation had nothing to do with him being illegal. It was confiscated because he did not declare it. That made it contraband, and the contraband was taken into custody. A judicial review was held which approved the custody, and the money is now the government's money. The same would happen if YOU put 59,000 in your luggage and didn't tell them.
Thanks for posting that. I hate forfeiture laws.
I would offer that several reasons contributed to him not declaring that money. Chief among them being his illegal status. The was not what got the money confiscated but it does play it's part in how this particular example went down.
This is one reasos why I said the point being made, which I agreed has more validity in other contexts, was better suited for an example about an American citizen rather than this illegal alien. Please notice that I offered the example of a bank withdrawal as well, demonstrating that I do understand this would apply to me as well.
Personally, I don't have much of a problem with this law because I would be able to explain where I got the money I have seeing as how I don't do anything illegal to get it in the first place. I would also follow rules in reporting, which I have done in the past at time of withdrawal from banks.
I am like you, I can see both sides of the debate on that subject.
I cannot, however, see both sides of the Illegal Alien issue the same way and I do have a problem when folks say it is just no big deal and should just be dismissed. That was stated quite clearly and I oppose that quite clearly.
Thanks for the link. That area is for employers. It tells employers what employees must have, and there are fines for employers.
I looked around, and still I see no evidence of ANY penalty evoked on an EMPLOYEE who is working without a permit.
SO far as I can tell, the only penalty for an illegal who is working is deportation. There is no additional fines for having a job, nor is there any forfeit of money earned at the job.
Which is what I am saying. It is illegal to hire someone who is not permitted to work. But there is no penalty to a person who works without authorization, at least none that I can find in the criminal code.
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't think so.
I never claimed there was a law saying a financial penalty for working illegally. Only that it was against the law to do so. You are making a jump there that I didn't make. My statements about ill gotten gains are correct because they are ill gotten gains.
The link I posted to you says clearly that one must be authorized to work in the USA and that was the point of posting it to you. You seem to be denying that fact. Just because there is no financial penalty for working here illegally doesn't mean it is legal to do so.
Do you concede it is illegal to work in the USA without being authorized to do so? If so, would you then concede that working in the USA outside the law is gaining monies outside the law as a drug dealer does? If you consider one valid then you must consider the other valid. If you don't can you explain to me why?
Both are pocketing monies based on endeavors outside the law right?
If I stated that there is a law stating monies are to be confiscated soley for illegal status please post that for me. I don't believe I ever said such a thing. I would however state quite clearly that doing so for that reason, combined with other measures, would put a real quick end to our massive illegal immigration problem.
Yes, and no. If the law doesn't say it's illegal to keep money earned while in the country illegally, then the money made while in the country legally is not illegal money, and is not subject to forfeiture.
ill-gotten gains are gains from illegal activity. Work is not an illegal activity, even when performed by someone who is not legally in this country.
A person under a certain age is not allowed to work in this country either. But sometimes they lie and get jobs. But the law does not say that money earned by such employment is "ill-gotten" or should be forfeited. If you are caught working under age, it is NOT a crime, and you are NOT arrested. The EMPLOYER will be charged and fined, because it is ILLEGAL and punishable for him to hire you.
It's illegal to drive over the speed limit. Surely you understand that, if you drive over the speed limit to get to work, you have illegally arrived at work earlier.
And surely you realise that the work you do in the 10 minutes between the time you arrived, and when you SHOULD have arrived, is NOT illegal work, and you will NOT be penalized for it.
I understand the desire to make working illegally a crime punishable by forfeiture, but I don't see that in the law today. I don't see illegals getting thrown in jail for working. They are rounded up for deportation, but there is no additional charges, fines, or jail time given because they were working. It's being here illegally that is the crime for them, not working.
Last month I paid my property tax on a property. The base tax was $1700. for each year. I paid the 2004 and 2005 tax bill. The base, late fee and interest grew to over $5400. Only the base tax is deductible. I guess my point is that if the man in question here had earned money and not paid taxes on it, the penalties would be horrendous. Life is tough some times. I can imagine him telling his friends, Hey, stay out of America. The kept nearly all of my money.
Until he signed that form, he was free under law to take the money home with him.
When he signed the form that said he DIDN'T have the money,
the government took the money from him. A $49,000 error.
When he signed the form that said he DIDN'T have the money,
Ruh Roh
He signed a form that said he didn't have the money although he had the money,
I don't think the dishwasher ever signed the form before he was caught trying to leave the country with $59,000 in a duffel bag. Trying to take over $10,000 in cash or cash equivalents out of the country WITHOUT filling out the form could lead to civil forfeiture of the cash and if done willfully, is a crime.
I've been trying to find the judge's 6 page opinion on the Internet, but haven't yet.
You are correct, the story says he failed to sign a form, I assume that means he didn't fill one out and turn it in.
That is slightly in his favor in my mind, simply because falsely filling out the form would prove intent to deceive, while not filling out the form could indicate ignorance.
The main lesson here has nothing to do with the drug war, immigration or government theft. The main lesson here is that if you move to a foreign country, learning the language should be priority one as soon as you have a job and shelter. This guy lived here for eleven years and didn't learn English well wnough to read a sign, and it cost him a boatload of money.
Hard for me to feel sympathy for the guy. He was here 11 years - he should have learned to speak and read English in that time. He came here illegally to begin with. He basically abandoned his family for 11 years. He probably paid little if any tax on that money over the years.
At the very least, he should be detained, and forced to prove what he made over the years. Then, he should have to pay the taxes on that money, then be deported. If he can't prove what he's made, then too bad, he loses the money.
So do I.
Also there is one more person, his friends, family, community, etc. who now hate the US.
"Also there is one more person, his friends, family, community, etc. who now hate the US."
Maybe the word will spread...don't illegally immigrate to the US.
The logical result of that statement should prove to you it's inapplicability to the real world.
If it was true (which it is not), when you were finally picked up for being illegal, you would also be charged with thousands of other criminal acts, all stemming from the wrong-headed notion that nothing you did could possibly have been legal to do.
You were better off arguing that there was actually a law that said a person here illegally could not work. By this vague "nothing you do is legal" argument, we could charge the guy for using a bathroom, for stealing our air, for walking down the street (courts already ruled on that one), or for laying down at night. Not that some people here wouldn't want to do that.
Since I'm certain you understand the distinction between an act that wrong, and an act that is restricted, I won't discuss this further. You clearly understand the latter, which would cover a law that said only certain people were allowed to have jobs. Such acts are not criminal on their face, they are simply restricted as to whom we allow to perform them.
For example, drinking is legal, but we don't allow people under the age of 21 to purchase beer. IN fact, in that case we have a law that prohibits minors from drinking beer -- so while drinking beer is not illegal, if a minor is caught drinking beer are performing an illegal act of "drinking while a minor".
So you could argue that while working is not illegal, working WHILE illegally in the country is illegal. It's an important distinction, because if you have defined an act as illegal, you can define the penalty -- what is the penalty for a worker who is caught performing work while in the country illegally? They are deported, but that is the penalty for being in the country illegally.
The legislature has not seen fit to impose a penalty of forfeiture on illegals who perform legal work (legal work meaning it's literal definition of work that is not considered illegal activity).
Again, I'm sure you understand that, even though you may well still scream back "but every activity is illegal if it's done by illegals". I'll try one more time to pre-answer that because I'm not coming back.
If someone puts an addition on a house without the proper permits, the work is illegal, and addition is therefore illegal, and the county can require you to remove the addition.
If you hired an illegal to build an addition, but you got permits, the addition would be legal, the work on the addition would be legal. You could be arrested and fined for hiring an illegal, the illegal could be deported -- but the illegal's work on the addition is NOT illegal, and the addition would not be ordered to be torn down, because it was legally built, even though it was built by an illegal.
THAT is the distinction, and it's an important on in this discussion, since we are talking about whether an illegal should be required to forfeit his savings from work he did while here illegally.
We all realise that, beyond that question, the distinction has no value, since what difference does it make whether an illegal immigrant can do work or not, if when he gets caught doing ANYTHING he will get the same punishment, deportment?
Well, anything "Legal". Because while you argue that everything he does is "illegal", in fact the law recognizes the distinction, because the code regarding the capture and derportment of illegals talks about what should be done if the illegal performed ILLEGAL ACTIVITY while in the country.
If your definition were correct, there would be no value in such a clause, since by definition everything an illegal did was "illegal". But since the clause exists, and is used every day to distinguish between illegals who do LEGAL acts (like working for a living) and illegals who do ILLEGAL acts (like prostitution, or drug sales, or robbing houses), it is clear that an illegal immigrant CAN do legal things, as opposed to illegal things, something you claim is impossible.
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.