The government’s feeling of entitlment
Posted by rogin16 on June 25, 2008
CNN reports that a Guatemalan who illegally lived in the US and worked here for 11 years, saving over $59,000, will get to keep most of that money. Pedro Zapeta was fined $49,000 for failing to declare that he was leaving the US with over $10,000 after he was caught returning to his home country with the money. CNN reports that:
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the judge who fined Zapeta applied an incorrect standard in determining the amount to be forfeited. The appeals court ordered a hearing to set a new fine.
Good for the appeals court! It’s a travesty that a person (even if he was an illegal immigrant) who worked very hard, paid taxes and saved his money would lose most of it due a very arbitrary fine of almost $50,000 having committed no crime other than “failing to declare” that he was leaving the country with the money. It’s not like he tried to circumvent this law. According to his lawyer he didn’t even know that such a law existed. I wager most Americans don’t either. How could we have a law that basically strips a man of his 80% of his life savings because he failed to fill out a silly form? A more proper course of action would be to perhaps let him know that he needs to declare the money when customs or TSA stopped him rather than arresting him and basically stealing his money. Even still, even if they have to punish him for failing to declare, the punishment should fit the crime (to borrow a cliche) and if a fine of over 80% of life savings fits this crime, then we should punish CEO’s who back date their stocks (fail to declare the correct date) similarly as well.
Of course this reeks of civil forfeiture. I’m betting that TSA or customs figured the caught a drug mule with absolutely no evidence other than the wad of cash and arrested him. Civil forfeiture is one of my pet peeves. I don’t understand how a country who claims people are innocent until proven guilty can take away people’s money just because they are carrying it in large sums. A person is pressumed to be carrying drug money when it’s in excess of certain amounts and police have the authority to seize it with the burden then falling on the victim of the police theft to prove that the money was innocent (and yes they have to prove that the money was innocent since civil forfeiture is basically charging the property with the crime and not the person). How is it at all consistent with our justice to have the defendant prove innocence instead of the government prove guilt or even probable cause other than having a large sum of money? It’s not.
The government always acted as if the money was their own. They acted almost entitled to it. But it’s not their money. It was Pedro’s, and the [appeals] court affirmed that.
Where are the libertarians, strict constructionist republicans (those who defend their right to bear arms to almost an unreasonable degree) and civil rights democrats on this? Wouldn’t it be great if radio pundits and TV talking heads focused their outrage on actual tangible un-American, authoritarian laws/actions by the government rather than having a contest of who can kiss America’s ass more?
It’s sad that the government feels more and more that they are entitled to hard working people’s money.
Jack said
What do you mean, “having committed no crime other than “failing to declare” that he was leaving the country with the money”? He was an illegal immigrant. That means he broke the law by entering the country illegally, and continued to break the law by remaining in the United States illegally. Of course he wasn’t familiar with our law of taking money out of the country – he’s not an American, he’s a criminal, and didn’t belong here. Plus, you can bet that little, if any, taxes were paid on his income, unlike those foolish enough to follow the laws. And you can also bet that he was using taxpayer money for free health care while he was illegally here and not paying into the tax system. Then he wants to send the money out of the country without ever paing taxes on it. Facts are really inconvenient at times, aren’t they?
rogin16 said
I mean that he did not commit a crime by trying to leave the country other than “failing to declare” he was leaving money. Yes he was here illegally but that’s completely another crime whose punishment is deportation not seizure of assets (and with which he was not charged). I think he should be punished for being here illegal and be deported but I don’t think that warrants seizing his money that he earned. He didn’t steal it. He earned it. (But facts are inconvenient aren’t they?)
I’m pretty sure this statement is wrong: “and continued to break the law by remaining in the United States illegally.” He already broke the law; just like when you break into someone’s house you break the law, but you don’t “continue to break” it by staying there. You already broke the law regardless of how long you stay in the house. Same is true for immigration. If you come here illegally, weather you stay for one day or 2,000 the crime has already been committed. Though I think it’s arguable weather or not you remain a “criminal” once you leave because you never hear of illegal immigrants being extradited just to be charged with being here illegally.
How can you be a person of facts if half of your drivel is unsupported opinion? “Plus, you can bet that little, if any, taxes were paid on his income, unlike those foolish enough to follow the laws.” In fact, according to the facts he paid all the taxes on that money that the IRS was due. Given that he was dishwasher, I don’t think he earned more than 50k/yr to pay taxes on anyway.
You say: “unlike those foolish enough to follow the laws.” As far as we know, the only laws he broke is failing to declare and coming here illegally. But hey facts are inconvenient.
“And you can also bet that he was using taxpayer money for free health care while he was illegally here and not paying into the tax system.” Yeah you can bet, and you’d be in the poor house by now. Absolutely no evidence he owed anyone money or skidded on free health care. If he did, someone would have filed a claim on his seized money. That aside, where are those inconvenient facts to support this wild bet?
“Then he wants to send the money out of the country without ever paing (sic) taxes on it.” Again facts are really inconvenient for you, aren’t they? Given that he wasn’t sending the money out but that he was leaving with it to build a new house in his home country and given that he PAID taxes on it as the article and all sources surrounding this affirm.
To quote you “Facts are really inconvenient at times, aren’t they?”