NationStates Jolt Archive

George Carlin had been right all along. You have to be asleep to believe in it.

Come to America, work hard constantly, save up and soon...

You get deported and your savings confiscated by the government.

Mistake Costs Dishwasher $59,000 (http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/mistake-costs-dishwasher-59000/20070928093609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

And this story shoots down a huge chunk of conversative and libertarian talking points, where hard work will get you ahead.

I don't think it smacks down libertarian viewpoints as much, considering the idea of seizing the money by the US government, being pissed off about taxes not payed, nor the idea that he is illegal (since he wouldn't be illegal if our immigration policy was based on a libertarian platform).

I'm pissed that the US government has seen fit to STEAL this guy's money, and then use an already messed up immigration system to remove him from the picture so they can keep it with no recourse buy the guy.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?

In which case, this is tantamount to the government using slave labor to gain revenue.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?

The problem is government sponsored theft from a man who worked his ass off to try for a better life. If you fail to see the ethical problems with that then I don't see how anyone could ever take you seriously.

The anti-immigration crowd amuses me to no end, because if they were paying $150 an hour for ditch diggers in Canada your ass would be over the boarder before you could learn to say aboot and eh.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?


"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddle masses yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

'nuff said

I'd like to know how he lived on minimum wage over the past 11 years whilst accumulating nearly 60 grand.

I don't see why they should take all of his money. Just take out what he owes in taxes (because it is unfair for him to work tax free when everyone else has to pay) and let him be on his way. He definitely deserves the money though. I've washed dishes in restaurants; it sucks ass.

Assuming the guy was paid legally, he's probably owed money by the feddies.

I don't see why they should take all of his money. Just take out what he owes in taxes (because it is unfair for him to work tax free when everyone else has to pay) and let him be on his way. He definitely deserves the money though. I've washed dishes in restaurants; it sucks ass.

I don't see why they should take all of his money. Just take out what he owes in taxes (because it is unfair for him to work tax free when everyone else has to pay) and let him be on his way. He definitely deserves the money though. I've washed dishes in restaurants; it sucks ass.

Agreed. Kick him out of the country, fair enough. Take the money he'd owe for taxes, fine. But the money he earned by doing his job? That's his.

Exhibit A, as to why our government needs to walk over, into a dark corner, and die quietly.

The problem is government sponsored theft from a man who worked his ass off to try for a better life. If you fail to see the ethical problems with that then I don't see how anyone could ever take you seriously.

Did he ever pay taxes on any of those earnings?

The anti-immigration crowd amuses me to no end, because if they were paying $150 an hour for ditch diggers in Canada your ass would be over the boarder before you could learn to say aboot and eh.

Somehow I doubt that. Though I do understand what you're getting at.

11 years of taxes owed to the IRS, with interest and penalties would add up to a significant amount of money (although I don't know if $59,000 would cover it or not).

My take on this is, have someone figure out the taxes, interest, and penalties, take it out of the $59,000, and if there's anything left, the guy gets to keep it. If the $59,000 isn't enough to cover it, then the guy goes home without anything.

I don't see why they should take all of his money. Just take out what he owes in taxes (because it is unfair for him to work tax free when everyone else has to pay) and let him be on his way. He definitely deserves the money though. I've washed dishes in restaurants; it sucks ass.

$5.50 an hour, the government owed him money.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?

They took $59,000 from someone who worked for it for 11 years at around 5.50 an hour... They come to work here, because we need them, especially when the "average" american would want $8.00/hr[or more] to wash dishes... But the "average" employer won't pay that, because the "average" american consumer won't pay for the extra cost on products produced to cover hiring people at that level.

I've no sympathy to the US government, it's run and operated by morons, who are elected to office by other morons, and at least in the guys hands the $59,000 will go to good use, as opposed to being wasted by the government on paying for some politicians 2 week meeting at a Vegas casino.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?

The problem is that the US government is acting like a pirate here. Stealing cash which doesn't belong to it and throwing out its victims.

Sure, the IRS could probably skim off the taxes owed of that $59,000, but that's it. Taking the whole load and throwing him out of the country? That's just robbery.

They took $59,000 from someone who worked for it for 11 years at around 5.50 an hour... They come to work here, because we need them, especially when the "average" american would want $8.00/hr[or more] to wash dishes... But the "average" employer won't pay that, because the "average" american consumer won't pay for the extra cost on products produced to cover hiring people at that level.

I've no sympathy to the US government, it's run and operated by morons, who are elected to office by other morons, and at least in the guys hands the $59,000 will go to good use, as opposed to being wasted by the government on paying for some politicians 2 week meeting at a Vegas casino.

I suppose I can agree with you on that. Still, it's not like this fellow DID enter this country illegally, DID work here illlegally, and did not pay taxes on the money he earned.
At the same time, this isn't just cause to let our borders wide open to anyone who wants to come in and work 5.50 an hour. This is just cause to force employers to pay minimum wage for services rendered. It's a cause for greater oversight and regulation of business practices.

I don't see why they should take all of his money. Just take out what he owes in taxes (because it is unfair for him to work tax free when everyone else has to pay) and let him be on his way. He definitely deserves the money though. I've washed dishes in restaurants; it sucks ass.

He wasn't getting minimum wage, it's $6.67 in Florida, so it's not like the Federal Government was helping him out, and the few things constructed by the state that he used (even though they should be privatised) like roads, electricity, already have taxes 'built-in'. So in no way was he 'stealing', from the government (yet honestly, how can you 'steal' from a theif?) I think he should get all of his money back.

Assuming the guy was paid legally, he's probably owed money by the feddies.

From the article: "Zapeta admits he never paid taxes.".

With a statement like that, I seriously doubt the government owes this guy money (seeing as his employers wouldn't have been taking taxes out). However, this guy would owe 11 years of taxes, interest, and penalties.

Anti-immigration types amuse me.

They are the same ones who also keep minimum wages BELOW the poverty level... Which encourages immigrants (especially illegals) to take those jobs, and then bitch about closing the border.

I say, open borders improves the economy.

It supports libertarian viewpoints by showing how inept and utterly oppressive government is.

The libertarian argument on immigration (note the difference to that imposter Ron Paul's stance): http://www.mises.org/story/2135

As Tekania said, I don't think it's been smacked down at all by this.

From the article: "Zapeta admits he never paid taxes.".

With a statement like that, I seriously doubt the government owes this guy money (seeing as his employers wouldn't have been taking taxes out). However, this guy would owe 11 years of taxes, interest, and penalties.

The way the IRS figures penalties and interest, he owes them 17.3 billion dollars.

Ask Willie Nelson.

He wasn't getting minimum wage, it's $6.67 in Florida, so it's not like the Federal Government was helping him out, and the few things constructed by the state that he used (even though they should be privatised) like roads, electricity, already have taxes 'built-in'. So in no way was he 'stealing', from the government (yet honestly, how can you 'steal' from a theif?) I think he should get all of his money back.
Hmm, then his employer owes him money in my opinion. If the immigration laws weren't so pathetic this wouldn't even be a problem. Maybe give him a slap on the wrist fine and let him go home instead of demanding all the back-taxes and penalties. I mean he did work so hard for so very little. It's cruel to treat the man like this.

IRS "interest and penalties" would be usury (and illegal) if it were being done in the private sector.

My only immigration policy as a libertarian, is every single employee, manager and director in the IRS and BATF should be deported to Antarctica.

He wouldn't even be here if there wasn't a need, I hope everyone remebers that somehwat.

I think, all in all, the government should give him his money back, it's not like it's even their (not that any money they have is 'theirs', yet still) money, and send him on his way. Better yet, give him a citizenship and get him another job working at minimum wage in Florida. That's what a good government would do.

He wouldn't even be here if there wasn't a need, I hope everyone remebers that somehwat.

I think, all in all, the government should give him his money back, it's not like it's even their (not that any money they have is 'theirs', yet still) money, and send him on his way. Better yet, give him a citizenship and get him another job working at minimum wage in Florida. That's what a good government would do.

Nah, a 'good' government would let him come over if he wants, then let he and his employer decide the value of his labor. The government that governs least, governs best.

Good, he should be deported promptly. Fuckin' illegal.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?

If the guy that hired him also hands over the money he would have had to pay to a citizen to do that job and contributes the money he didn't contribute to social security, then you might have a point.

Good, he should be deported promptly. Fuckin' illegal.

Profound.

I don't see why they should take all of his money. Just take out what he owes in taxes (because it is unfair for him to work tax free when everyone else has to pay) and let him be on his way. He definitely deserves the money though. I've washed dishes in restaurants; it sucks ass.

I was going to say the same thing

So... The American Dream is to come into the country illegally, work illegally, not pay taxes, and then leave the country while trying to remove $49,000 more than the legal limit from the country?

You are aware that the money would be seized if an American citizen had been caught not paying taxes and attempting to take out of the country amounts higher than 10,000 US Dollars without having them declared he or she could end up being arrested, prosecuted, and having the excess amount confiscated, as per the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act?

This isn't about him being an illegal. Nor did he make a "mistake" - apart from breaking some laws that is...

So... The American Dream is to come into the country illegally, work illegally, not pay taxes, and then leave the country while trying to remove $49,000 more than the legal limit from the country?

You are aware that the money would be seized if an American citizen had been caught not paying taxes and attempting to take out of the country amounts higher than 10,000 US Dollars without having them declared he or she could end up being arrested, prosecuted, and having the excess amount confiscated, as per the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act?

This isn't about him being an illegal. Nor did he make a "mistake" - apart from breaking some laws that is...

Which also illustrates the failure of the US Government. As far as I'm concerned, the US Government seizing money earned through labor from an American Citizen is tantamount to TREASON... The US Government has no right to a persons labor.

Which also illustrates the failure of the US Government. As far as I'm concerned, the US Government seizing money earned through labor from an American Citizen is tantamount to TREASON... The US Government has no right to a persons labor.

I guess it's a world wide failure, as the kind of law that we see here is not unheard of elsewhere. They're actually quite common.

And when the money is earned through illegal work and no taxes has been paid... No, I don't see any problem with this.

Nah, a 'good' government would let him come over if he wants, then let he and his employer decide the value of his labor. The government that governs least, governs best.

And that's why we kept the Articles of Confederation.

Nah, a 'good' government would let him come over if he wants, then let he and his employer decide the value of his labor. The government that governs least, governs best.

And by that standard we have set up a great government in Iraq!


That's the punch line ain't it?

I guess it's a world wide failure, as the kind of law that we see here is not unheard of elsewhere. They're actually quite common.

And when the money is earned through illegal work and no taxes has been paid... No, I don't see any problem with this.

It is, but initially it wasn't. The US didn't start taxing people labor, it was an invention of the 20th century.

As far as I'm concerned compensation from your labor of washing dishes =/= illegal work.

Additionally nothing is a crime except that which endangers or removes the right of another.

So... The American Dream is to come into the country illegally, work illegally, not pay taxes, and then leave the country while trying to remove $49,000 more than the legal limit from the country?

You are aware that the money would be seized if an American citizen had been caught not paying taxes and attempting to take out of the country amounts higher than 10,000 US Dollars without having them declared he or she could end up being arrested, prosecuted, and having the excess amount confiscated, as per the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act?

This isn't about him being an illegal. Nor did he make a "mistake" - apart from breaking some laws that is...

yeah i think that "going to another country illegally, working like a dog, saving every possible penny--even those that should go to taxes, and trying to take it all home in cash in a duffel bag" must be the great guatemalan dream. its sure not the american one.

not that there arent rich american families who have prospered on the wrong side of the law.

if the stupid sot had bothered to learn anything about the country he was stealing from he would have known that he wasnt going to be able to take that kind of cash out of the country by airplane.

yeah i think that "going to another country illegally, working like a dog, saving every possible penny--even those that should go to taxes, and trying to take it all home in cash in a duffel bag" must be the great guatemalan dream. its sure not the american one.

not that there arent rich american families who have prospered on the wrong side of the law.

if the stupid sot had bothered to learn anything about the country he was stealing from he would have known that he wasnt going to be able to take that kind of cash out of the country by airplane.

Ahh, so providing a service to a country == stealing? That's precisely what you're saying.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddle masses yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

'nuff said

Illegals need to GTFO

Illegals need to GTFO

We need to rewind history, and make illegals not illegals anymore.

OPEN THE BORDERS... It will be of great benefit to the United States.

Ahh, so providing a service to a country == stealing? That's precisely what you're saying.

thanks for telling me what i mean.

what i am precisely saying is that to take the money that rightfully belongs to the state in the form of various payroll taxes out of the country is theft. not as a matter of law but it is theft nonetheless.

thanks for telling me what i mean.

what i am precisely saying is that to take the money that rightfully belongs to the state in the form of various payroll taxes out of the country is theft. not as a matter of law but it is theft nonetheless.

Payroll tax == theft, as the US Government has no right to your labor. People are payed for compensation for their labor performing particular jobs. Labor =/= income.

First off: They would seize any money undeclared by anyone legal or otherwise who did not declare it. You have to fill out a form to say "Hey, taking US Dollars totalling over $10k overseas." It is not just a tax issue but also keeps track of where hard cash is going. It's not a perfect system, but it's a system.

Second: He was illegal. This means he either stiffed the government working under the table (meaning the middle class tax burden is greater since we have to carry him), or stole someone's identity (see below how that can be fun for YOU). More laws broken. This guy just couldn't seem to get it together. I don't think he's a good example of the American Dream. My parents didn't include being a law breaker in that lesson when I was growing up.

Third: Who the hell carries cash? If you are such an idiot as to not use wire transfer or money order or some sort of instrument you deserve to get mugged. I don't carry more than parking meter change. Where I live, you get jacked for $1.50. This twit wasn't smart enough to know what the average illegal Mexican knows? Send it through Bank of America.

Let's face it, this guy deserved to lose his money. What's that old saw? "A fool and his money are soon parted." I don't feel sorry for him. Let's hope this brain trust didn't breed and produce more of his idiot line.

Here is something few Americans are aware of and I see more and more as a notary: If someone like this idiot comes here illegally, works, uses your SSN to pay taxes and YOU don't show the money on YOUR 1040, you can be having a wonderful time explaining why you didn't and proving you weren't picking tomatos in California's Central Valley. Of course, I don't mind if an illegal uses your identity and you get to go through audit hell. I get $10 for each time you have to sign my notary book and I stamp a paper stating you swear you are who you are.

Enjoy your illegals. :cool:

Payroll tax == theft, as the US Government has no right to your labor. People are payed for compensation for their labor performing particular jobs. Labor =/= income.

only in your head.

in law its tax evasion.

morally its theft.

You're carrying him? Let's see.

He's not on welfare.
He's not getting food stamps.
He has no kids here in school.
It's already stated that the general tax does not support the roads he's using in Florida.

How are you carrying him again?

Additionally nothing is a crime except that which endangers or removes the right of another.
One could argue that tax evasion would, in the long run / bigger picture, endanger or remove the rights of another.

Remember this story the next time you see someone complain that the police, for example, don't have enough resources to adequately fight crime, or when a fire truck arrives late because of fire department cutbacks... Taxes are used to pay for a lot of things.
yeah i think that "going to another country illegally, working like a dog, saving every possible penny--even those that should go to taxes, and trying to take it all home in cash in a duffel bag" must be the great guatemalan dream. its sure not the american one.

not that there arent rich american families who have prospered on the wrong side of the law.

if the stupid sot had bothered to learn anything about the country he was stealing from he would have known that he wasnt going to be able to take that kind of cash out of the country by airplane.
Indeed. This has got little to do with the famed American Dream.

I fully support consumption based taxes in lieu of the government stealing labor compensation.... Which will be universal, including covering non-citizens in our borders, and visitors to this country, and removing immigration barriers. This would also save massive amounts of money in the fact we could pretty much cut the INS massively (since we would need little or no enforcement) and severly cut the IRS.

if the stupid sot had bothered to learn anything about the country he was stealing from he would have known that he wasnt going to be able to take that kind of cash out of the country by airplane.

Stealing from? Did he rob banks? Hold up convenience stores? Beat up old people for their money? Stealing is now working for wages without a visa?

You're just being intellectually dishonest to vilify this person and justify your standpoint.

He evaded taxes, and worked without a permit and appropriate visa. He took nothing that he did not earn (to the extent of publicly available knowledge). No more, no less.

Illegals need to GTFO

Let me know when you'll go back to Europe.

Stealing from? Did he rob banks? Hold up convenience stores? Beat up old people for their money? Stealing is now working for wages without a visa?

You're just being intellectually dishonest to vilify this person and justify your standpoint.

He evaded taxes, and worked without a permit and appropriate visa. No more, no less.



Let me know when you'll go back to Europe.

1. No kidding... When someone turns basic menial labor into a crime it's horrible.

2. As well... If only the Natives of the US had an immigration policy like ours in place. We'd all be illegals.

Stealing from? Did he rob banks? Hold up convenience stores? Beat up old people for their money? Stealing is now working for wages without a visa?

You're just being intellectually dishonest to vilify this person and justify your standpoint.

He evaded taxes, and worked without a permit and appropriate visa. He took nothing that he did not earn (to the extent of publicly available knowledge). No more, no less.



Let me know when you'll go back to Europe.

as i already explained he owed tax money to the government. he was taking that tax money out of the country. while that is not technically theft but rather tax evasion, it amounts to stealing from this country.

OPEN THE BORDERS... It will be of great benefit to the United States.
agreed. after all, it worked so well in the past. just see how Open Borders benefitted the Native Americans, Native Australians, and even the Native Hawaiians. :rolleyes:

agreed. after all, it worked so well in the past. just see how Open Borders benefitted the Native Americans, Native Australians, and even the Native Hawaiians. :rolleyes:

Yeah, good one, considering those we are calling "illegals" and deported, are almost exclusively descended from NATIVES of the American continents.

We make it pretty easy for Europeans and Canadians to step into our country, but slap heavy bribes upon native descent hispanics to get here. It's legislative racism in the American Immigration system.

Yeah, good one, considering those we are calling "illegals" and deported, are almost exclusively descended from NATIVES of the American continents. which still doesn't show how open and unregulated passage to and from a country will benefit that country.

We make it pretty easy for Europeans and Canadians to step into our country, but slap heavy bribes upon native descent hispanics to get here. It's legislative racism in the American Immigration system.ANYONE wanting to come to America to live and/or work has to pay what you call 'bribes' so it's not just descendants of Hispanics that has to pay.

I like how people say Illegals and automatically others think "Hispanics" and call those supporting tougher borders 'racists'.

which still doesn't show how open and unregulated passage to and from a country will benefit that country.

ANYONE wanting to come to America to live and/or work has to pay what you call 'bribes' so it's not just descendants of Hispanics that has to pay.

I like how people say Illegals and automatically others think "Hispanics" and call those supporting tougher borders 'racists'.

Yeah, everyone has to pay these bribes... Of course if your from the "right" country it's own a couple hundred, if you're from the wrong one it's 10's of thousands... Even our own immigration lawyers tell people from Central America it's easier to come here illegally, get employed and find residence and THEN apply, than it is for them to go through the so-called "proper channels".

Well not TOTALLY unregulated, checks to make sure they have no communicable diseases, are not fleeing legitimate crimes, and are not affiliated with a terrorist organization are enough for me... And all the controls that would be needed. But "open borders" by our present screwed-up standards. You know, how we used to do it when we were the "Land of Opportunity"... Which the government has effectively legislated to nothing.

i would of thought your president would be an example that you dont need to work hard to get to the top

Yeah, everyone has to pay these bribes... Of course if your from the "right" country it's own a couple hundred, if you're from the wrong one it's 10's of thousands... Even our own immigration lawyers tell people from Central America it's easier to come here illegally, get employed and find residence and THEN apply, than it is for them to go through the so-called "proper channels". two points.
one. people don't do crime because it's harder than 'the legal way'. they do so because it's easier than 'the legal way'.
two. if your lawyers are telling people that, report em in for advising their clients to break the law.
if we arrest enough of those lawyers, perhaps more would be inclined to work on FIXING the outdated system instead of trying to circumvent it.

Well not TOTALLY unregulated, checks to make sure they have no communicable diseases, are not fleeing legitimate crimes, and are not affiliated with a terrorist organization are enough for me... And all the controls that would be needed. But "open borders" by our present screwed-up standards. You know, how we used to do it when we were the "Land of Opportunity"... Which the government has effectively legislated to nothing.unfortunatly...
1) Illegals DON'T get such a background check thus you won't be solving the problem of making entry 'easier than the proper method'.
2) The fees help pay for those background checks, so you still require the fees... or are you saying let the citizens that pay taxes foot the bill?
3) most of the backlog is doing thoes background checks.

and "how we used to do it when we were the 'Land of Opportunity'" is how we are doing it now. Centralized points of entry, checks and filling out the forms. answering questions, etc... however, we don't want to flood those cities with unemployed people. hence the limited number allowed in. those cities will bear the brunt of the influx and then what?

two points.
one. people don't do crime because it's harder than 'the legal way'. they do so because it's easier than 'the legal way'.
two. if your lawyers are telling people that, report em in for advising their clients to break the law.
if we arrest enough of those lawyers, perhaps more would be inclined to work on FIXING the outdated system instead of trying to circumvent it.


The lawyers are merely providing their clients with the truth of the screwed-up system. I have plenty of associates who took their advise and are now here legally on visas or are naturalized... If we didn't have such a ridiculously perverted system of bribes, this would hardly be an issue. The lawyers can do little about it, since their only job is to assist immigrants coming to this country. Which is what they do. It's sad that they have to advise them to break the law, but it's pretty much a forced issue by a screwed up system. It's OUR job to fix it, not the immigration lawyers... Which is exactly what I propose.


unfortunatly...
1) Illegals DON'T get such a background check thus you won't be solving the problem of making entry 'easier than the proper method'.

Except the fact that it wouldn't be near impossible for them to get here legally, thus few would be needing to try to do so.


2) The fees help pay for those background checks, so you still require the fees... or are you saying let the citizens that pay taxes foot the bill?

So, it only costs 300 to do a background check if your european, but 30,000 if you're from El Salvadore? Try again.


3) most of the backlog is doing thoes background checks.


For those who can even get on that log...


and "how we used to do it when we were the 'Land of Opportunity'" is how we are doing it now. Centralized points of entry, checks and filling out the forms. answering questions, etc... however, we don't want to flood those cities with unemployed people. hence the limited number allowed in. those cities will bear the brunt of the influx and then what?

With the added hike in bribes based on nationality/race... Nullifying applications of people even if they already have guaranteed jobs waiting for them.

We need to rewind history, and make illegals not illegals anymore.

OPEN THE BORDERS... It will be of great benefit to the United States.

Oh, I'm sure it'll be great for society in general. But for the individuals who are murdered and raped by barbarians from other countries, not so much.

The lawyers are merely providing their clients with the truth of the screwed-up system. I have plenty of associates who took their advise and are now here legally on visas or are naturalized... If we didn't have such a ridiculously perverted system of bribes, this would hardly be an issue. The lawyers can do little about it, since their only job is to assist immigrants coming to this country. Which is what they do. It's sad that they have to advise them to break the law, but it's pretty much a forced issue by a screwed up system. It's OUR job to fix it, not the immigration lawyers... Which is exactly what I propose. by advising them in an ILLEGAL course of action they can come under review and can be disbarred. by telling us that such lawyers exists, you put the pressure on others. nice going.

Except the fact that it wouldn't be near impossible for them to get here legally, thus few would be needing to try to do so.background checks take time and is what's happening now. so you are not making it easier or faster.

So, it only costs 300 to do a background check if your european, but 30,000 if you're from El Salvadore? Try again.please show where the USA has this price discrepency per country and how it's the USA that's behind it. after all, if it's Legisative, then it's in writing somewhere.

For those who can even get on that log... which your idea doesn't solve.

With the added hike in bribes based on nationality/race... Nullifying applications of people even if they already have guaranteed jobs waiting for them.please show the price sheet.

please show where the USA has this price discrepency per country and how it's the USA that's behind it. after all, if it's Legisative, then it's in writing somewhere.


there is no fee to enter the country illegally eh?

people from ... the UK can just hop on an airplane, land in newark and disappear into the US for the price of their plane ticket.

someone from...el salvador... has to have tons of cash to pay the bribes of every official he comes across on his way to the US by foot.

there is no fee to enter the country illegally eh?

people from ... the UK can just hop on an airplane, land in newark and disappear into the US for the price of their plane ticket.

someone from...el salvador... has to have tons of cash to pay the bribes of every official he comes across on his way to the US by foot.

from all the Immigration forms I'm looking at, I still don't see a breakdown of prices by country of origin set and controlled by the USA only.

in other words, back your claim.

from all the Immigration forms I'm looking at, I still don't see a breakdown of prices by country of origin set and controlled by the USA only.

in other words, back your claim.

there arent, he is jumbling together a bunch of different concepts

like that stupid advice that lawyers supposedly give people to come here illegally and then apply to stay...that doesnt work, you have to apply for a visa from outside the country. he must be thinking of those who feel that they can apply for policial assylum which can keep them in the country.

there arent, he is jumbling together a bunch of different concepts

like that stupid advice that lawyers supposedly give people to come here illegally and then apply to stay...that doesnt work, you have to apply for a visa from outside the country. he must be thinking of those who feel that they can apply for policial assylum which can keep them in the country.

ah, then my apologies. I thought you were siding with him about the cost thing.

I wonder if I send his post to the the Bar Association, would they try to find those lawyers giving that kind of advice? :p

there arent, he is jumbling together a bunch of different concepts

like that stupid advice that lawyers supposedly give people to come here illegally and then apply to stay...that doesnt work, you have to apply for a visa from outside the country. he must be thinking of those who feel that they can apply for policial assylum which can keep them in the country.

No, I'm not... People can apply for a visa while in this country. Actually it's not even THEM applying, local businesses provide the necessary documentation for the immigrant to "enter" AFTER they are here, and the government can then issue the Visa to the business, who provides it to the immigrant. One of the many loopholes "illegals" have to use, thanks to you people. It's also alot cheaper than attempting to enter yourself, or than hiring a lazy US citizen who wants 2x or 3x the money for 1/10th the work.

ah, then my apologies. I thought you were siding with him about the cost thing.

I wonder if I send his post to the the Bar Association, would they try to find those lawyers giving that kind of advice? :p

well if you think about that one for a minute...

just where are these lawyers practicing? if they are IN the country then so are their clients--meaning the clients dont need advice about how to get into the country, just about how to get a visa that will let them stay. if they are OUT of the country, are they breaking US law?

No, I'm not... People can apply for a visa while in this country. Actually it's not even THEM applying, local businesses provide the necessary documentation for the immigrant to "enter" AFTER they are here, and the government can then issue the Visa to the business, who provides it to the immigrant. One of the many loopholes "illegals" have to use, thanks to you people. It's also alot cheaper than attempting to enter yourself, or than hiring a lazy US citizen who wants 2x or 3x the money for 1/10th the work.

give me a source on this one.

No, I'm not... People can apply for a visa while in this country. this is true, people here on student visa's can apply for resident visas while here.
Actually it's not even THEM applying, local businesses provide the necessary documentation for the immigrant to "enter" AFTER they are here, and the government can then issue the Visa to the business, who provides it to the immigrant. provide proof please. I want names of those Businesses, where they are located, and proof that they do this.
One of the many loopholes "illegals" have to use, thanks to you people. It's also alot cheaper than attempting to enter yourself, or than hiring a lazy US citizen who wants 2x or 3x the money for 1/10th the work. true, damn our Citizens who want to be paid MINIMUM WAGE and have health benefits provided. :rolleyes:

so where is the proof of the US Government's "Basied on where you're from" price sheet?

well if you think about that one for a minute...

just where are these lawyers practicing? if they are IN the country then so are their clients--meaning the clients dont need advice about how to get into the country, just about how to get a visa that will let them stay. if they are OUT of the country, are they breaking US law?

interesting question. I guess it depends if breaking a country's border laws also crosses into international law. after all, other countrys have to reconize the borders.

this is true, people here on student visa's can apply for resident visas while here.
provide proof please. I want names of those Businesses, where they are located, and proof that they do this.
true, damn our Citizens who want to be paid MINIMUM WAGE and have health benefits provided. :rolleyes:

so where is the proof of the US Government's "Basied on where you're from" price sheet?

Damn our citizens for wanting free hand-outs with minimal work and minimal involvement... Because the average american gets pissed when they walk into a resturant and have to pay 25 more cents for an item because the business had to increase labor costs somewhere. Americans want more for less... Which could be a good thing, except when its taken to the extreme of mandating more for less... I'd rather have immigrants here than sending jobs oversees, considering that at least when they are here they are assisting the economy, not merely draining it... Which is all you want.

No, I'm not... People can apply for a visa while in this country. Actually it's not even THEM applying, local businesses provide the necessary documentation for the immigrant to "enter" AFTER they are here, and the government can then issue the Visa to the business, who provides it to the immigrant. One of the many loopholes "illegals" have to use, thanks to you people. It's also alot cheaper than attempting to enter yourself, or than hiring a lazy US citizen who wants 2x or 3x the money for 1/10th the work.

i dont think this exists. there is no way to convert an illegal alien into a legal immigrant while they are in this country except for the few who can be proven to need political assylum.

this is true, people here on student visa's can apply for resident visas while here.


people on student visas are here legally. the student visa states that they will return to their country when they are done with their studies. an employer has to file paperwork showing that they have necessary skills in order to get a work visa to stay.

[snipped all irrelivant items out]
all these twists and turns, avoiding your issues.

so let's keep adding to the list of things I'm asking for.

1) please show where the USA has this price discrepency per country and how it's the USA that's behind it. after all, if it's Legisative, then it's in writing somewhere.

2) I want names of those Businesses, where they are located, and proof that these businesses apply for entry and work visas after hiring an illegal immigrant for whom those applications are for.

Added on:
3) and please show how Pedro Zapeta was assisting the economy when he was taking his $59,000 in CASH out of the country? (note CASH, not a cashiers check or money order, so proof that he was NOT using a bank or any other financial institution).

people on student visas are here legally. the student visa states that they will return to their country when they are done with their studies. an employer has to file paperwork showing that they have necessary skills in order to get a work visa to stay.

true, but the work visa can be applied while the student is still here. The student is not required to go back to his/her country of origin then apply. of course, this is from years ago when my friends Fiancee was a graduating student and wanted to work in the USA.

i dont think this exists. there is no way to convert an illegal alien into a legal immigrant while they are in this country except for the few who can be proven to need political assylum.

...or when Amnesty is offered and granted.

...or when Amnesty is offered and granted.

yes

living in new mexico, i know people who have come here on student visas and have stayed to become citizens and those who came illegally who used one of the amnesty offers to eventually become citizens.

true, but the work visa can be applied while the student is still here. The student is not required to go back to his/her country of origin then apply. of course, this is from years ago when my friends Fiancee was a graduating student and wanted to work in the USA.

i suppose that it the one exception to the getting a visa outside the country rule. .... im not sure about what happens to a student who marries a citizen.... but those people are at least here legally.

that is a far cry from supposing that there is a way for an employer to convert his illegal workforce to a legal one through some paperwork. if that could be done, it WOULD be done all the time.

The American Dream only applies to *Americans.


*not people from the Americas. Only applicable to people born and raised in the United States of America. Must at least be third generation American, preferably of European descent. Non-refundable.

The American Dream only applies to *Americans.


*not people from the Americas. Only applicable to people born and raised in the United States of America. Must at least be third generation American, preferably of European descent. Non-refundable.

that must be the third time you made me laugh today.

that must be the third time you made me laugh today.

:)

i suppose that it the one exception to the getting a visa outside the country rule. .... im not sure about what happens to a student who marries a citizen.... but those people are at least here legally. I think they still have to apply. yet a different form.

that is a far cry from supposing that there is a way for an employer to convert his illegal workforce to a legal one through some paperwork. if that could be done, it WOULD be done all the time. yep. and that's why I worded it the way I did.

So, it only costs 300 to do a background check if your european, but 30,000 if you're from El Salvadore? Try again.

Can you provide a source for that accusation?

From the article: "Zapeta admits he never paid taxes.".

With a statement like that, I seriously doubt the government owes this guy money (seeing as his employers wouldn't have been taking taxes out). However, this guy would owe 11 years of taxes, interest, and penalties.
If one makes $11,000 a year in the US, one has to pay income tax?

Amazing!!

If one makes $11,000 a year in the US, one has to pay income tax?

Amazing!!

Here's a quick tax calculator for 2006 (using the 1040 EZ form): http://www.finance.cch.com/sohoApplets/TaxEZ1040.asp

Here's the federal tax chart for 2006: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
That chart is for taxable income. Surely there would be personal exemptions that would lower that taxable income to zero?

That chart is for taxable income. Surely there would be personal exemptions that would lower that taxable income to zero?

Not quite. His exemption would be $3300. So I think he'd still be on the hook for a tiny amount.

Given that he saved nearly $60,000 in eleven years however, I don't imagine that his income was actually $11,000 a year.

That chart is for taxable income. Surely there would be personal exemptions that would lower that taxable income to zero?

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it. I edited my post to have a quick tax calculator (based on the 2006 1040EX form).

The poster child for all would be illegal migrants.

as i already explained he owed tax money to the government. he was taking that tax money out of the country. while that is not technically theft but rather tax evasion, it amounts to stealing from this country.

And I've already said that the government could legally take the tax money owed. But not ALL of the money. What it is doing is akin to robbery, pure and simple.

And no, it's still not theft. He has put labor into the country, and was paid money for his services. He has not paid dues owed. That's it.

Unless you call loan defaulters thieves too, singling out this person as a thief is being dishonest.

Oh, I'm sure it'll be great for society in general. But for the individuals who are murdered and raped by barbarians from other countries, not so much.

It's not like they'll bring smallpox infected blankets to spread among the populace now will they?

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it. I edited my post to have a quick tax calculator (based on the 2006 1040EX form).
I entered $11,000 on that quick tax calculator and that would give him a tax of $255.

11 years @ $255 = $2805

$59,000 - $2805 = $56,195 minus penalties would still leave the guy a considerable chunk of change?

Perhaps the owner of the restaurant could be charged with income tax evasion?

I entered $11,000 on that quick tax calculator and that would give him a tax of $255.

11 years @ $255 = $2805

$59,000 - $2805 = $56,195 minus penalties would still leave the guy a considerable chunk of change?

Perhaps the owner of the restaurant could be charged with income tax evasion?

Don't forget, you are excluding social security and state taxes (where applicable). You are also excluding bracket creep and interest on the tax owed.

And yes, the restaurant owner has been dodging payroll tax. He likewise should be charged.

Then there's the fine for trying to mule $49,000 without declaring it.

And I've already said that the government could legally take the tax money owed. But not ALL of the money. What it is doing is akin to robbery, pure and simple.

And no, it's still not theft. He has put labor into the country, and was paid money for his services. He has not paid dues owed. That's it.

Unless you call loan defaulters thieves too, singling out this person as a thief is being dishonest.

that is a seperate issue from the point i was making.

i suppose it was because of the embarrassment of thinking that the guy was a drug mole when he turned out to be an extremely frugal man trying to take money home to start a new life for his family.

personally i would prefer that he get to take most of that home but im pretty sure that they found legal justification for every penny that they took from him.

and legal justification is all they need.

I entered $11,000 on that quick tax calculator and that would give him a tax of $255.

11 years @ $255 = $2805

$59,000 - $2805 = $56,195 minus penalties would still leave the guy a considerable chunk of change?

Perhaps the owner of the restaurant could be charged with income tax evasion?

there are also social security taxes due.

George Carlin had been right all along. You have to be asleep to believe in it.

Come to America, work hard constantly, save up and soon...

You get deported and your savings confiscated by the government.

Mistake Costs Dishwasher $59,000 (http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/mistake-costs-dishwasher-59000/20070928093609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

And this story shoots down a huge chunk of conversative and libertarian talking points, where hard work will get you ahead.

an illegal immigrant from Guatemala

That's all I need. Good for the government. One less lawbreaker off the street. To bad his past employers won't be prosecuted for hiring an illegal.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?

Absolutely nothing.

that is a seperate issue from the point i was making.

i suppose it was because of the embarrassment of thinking that the guy was a drug mole when he turned out to be an extremely frugal man trying to take money home to start a new life for his family.

personally i would prefer that he get to take most of that home but im pretty sure that they found legal justification for every penny that they took from him.

and legal justification is all they need.

Maybe. But given how I've seen the US operate, I'm willing to bet that legal justification is as flimsy as wet tissue paper and a lawyer would be able to shred it to pieces.

But the judge is in on it with that ruling of his. "We've taken all your money, so we'll let you stay long enough to earn a ticket home."

I entered $11,000 on that quick tax calculator and that would give him a tax of $255.

11 years @ $255 = $2805

$59,000 - $2805 = $56,195 minus penalties would still leave the guy a considerable chunk of change?

Keep in mind that tax calculator is only for 2006 (I believe the standard deduction was less in previous years). Also, $5.50/hr * 40 hours * 52 weeks is $11,440. Plug that into the calculator and you get a tax of $299 (for a total of $3289 in tax, according to 2006 deductions).

Finally, as I stated in one of my earlier posts, I think the guy should have to pay the tax, interest, and penalties on the money he earned, and get to keep what was left.

The anti-immigration crowd amuses me to no end,

Um I have a big problem with those who enter Illegally. I have ZERO problems with those who enter America legally.

Anti-immigration types amuse me.

People who throw cliches around amuse me. Precisely what is an anti-immigration type?

there are also social security taxes due.
Why should he be paying SS if he won't be collecting it?

People who throw cliches around amuse me. Precisely what is an anti-immigration type?
People who think that the state has a right to decide who is allowed to interact with the people within a given geographic area and how that interaction is to occur.

Why should he be paying SS if he won't be collecting it?

Good. Let's start a system where you can opt out of social security taxes.

So... The American Dream is to come into the country illegally, work illegally, not pay taxes, and then leave the country while trying to remove $49,000 more than the legal limit from the country?

You are aware that the money would be seized if an American citizen had been caught not paying taxes and attempting to take out of the country amounts higher than 10,000 US Dollars without having them declared he or she could end up being arrested, prosecuted, and having the excess amount confiscated, as per the Currency and Foreign Transaction Reporting Act?

This isn't about him being an illegal. Nor did he make a "mistake" - apart from breaking some laws that is...

Indeed.

Um I have a big problem with those who enter Illegally. I have ZERO problems with those who enter America legally.

Of course it's not very easy to legally immigrate when you can't speak English (and before you tell him to learn English, how is a peasant in Guatemala going to do that?) and have no money. Immigrating is a heck of a lot harder than many people seem to think.

Illegals need to GTFO

I could not agree more.

Payroll tax == theft, as the US Government has no right to your labor. People are payed for compensation for their labor performing particular jobs. Labor =/= income.

Amendment 16 says otherwise

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Ratified on Feb. 3, 1913

Why should he be paying SS if he won't be collecting it?

If he'd been here legally, he would have had no choice but to pay SS tax (but he'd be eligible for it as well).

its the law.

Silly Ashmoria. The 'law' only applies to people who actually come here legally. Everyone else is a victim. And anyone who says otherwise is racist for hating "brown people" even if they are from Russia.

Why should he be paying SS if he won't be collecting it?

its the law.

People who think that the state has a right to decide who is allowed to interact with the people within a given geographic area and how that interaction is to occur.

In other words, anyone who does not believe in full open borders without security checks?

Maybe. But given how I've seen the US operate, I'm willing to bet that legal justification is as flimsy as wet tissue paper and a lawyer would be able to shred it to pieces.

But the judge is in on it with that ruling of his. "We've taken all your money, so we'll let you stay long enough to earn a ticket home."

without a good lawyer you are pretty much screwed in court no matter who you are.

Good. Let's start a system where you can opt out of social security taxes.

I'm all for that.

Of course it's not very easy to legally immigrate when you can't speak English (and before you tell him to learn English, how is a peasant in Guatemala going to do that?) and have no money. Immigrating is a heck of a lot harder than many people seem to think.

Believe me, I have been trying to get that changed. However, that does not invalidate that the dude is a crook and therefor, got what he deserved.

In other words, anyone who does not believe in full open borders without security checks?
If you want to phrase it like that, yes.

I prefer my way of putting it, because it tells it like it is. It adds no slant or spin. Immigration controls is simply the state telling people how and if people are allowed to interact with each other.

You're insinuating all sorts of reasons, mainly drawing from the collection of irrational fears that people have amassed over the years. As though it matters whether you get carjacked by a guy who immigrated or a guy who was born in the US.

Believe me, I have been trying to get that changed. However, that does not invalidate that the dude is a crook and therefor, got what he deserved.

He is a crook because he wanted a better life for his family and was willing to work 11 years for it? He broke a law that he could not hope to comply with and hurt absolutely nobody. Just because the law says one thing does not make it right. If the law said every family must sacrifice their first born, would you comply with that too because it's the law?

He is a crook because he wanted a better life for his family and was willing to work 11 years for it? He broke a law that he could not hope to comply with and hurt absolutely nobody. Just because the law says one thing does not make it right. If the law said every family must sacrifice their first born, would you comply with that too because it's the law?

The law would never say that, as no politician would be stupid enough to propose, let alone vote for it. Also, the people wouldn't stand for it. Not to mention it breaks that whole law against murder.

I really wish people would stop trotting out this example, and others similar to it. It is in no way comparable to taxes.

He is a crook because he wanted a better life for his family and was willing to work 11 years for it?

Since he crossed international bounderies and entered the country illegally, the answer to that question is yes. He is.

He broke a law that he could not hope to comply with and hurt absolutely nobody.

That does not matter. The fact that he crossed illegally is the issue here as well as the fact that he has not paid any taxes. Frankly, I like to know how he got into America in the first place. Did he have a passport? Does one need a visa to get into the United States from his nation?

Just because the law says one thing does not make it right.

That I can agree with.

If the law said every family must sacrifice their first born, would you comply with that too because it's the law?

That would be unconstitutional.

If you want to phrase it like that, yes.

I prefer my way of putting it, because it tells it like it is. It adds no slant or spin. Immigration controls is simply the state telling people how and if people are allowed to interact with each other.

You're insinuating all sorts of reasons, mainly drawing from the collection of irrational fears that people have amassed over the years. As though it matters whether you get carjacked by a guy who immigrated or a guy who was born in the US.

Ah I getcha now. :)

After reading further into the American Colony's fear of overpowered government, I have to laugh. Honestly I want to burn something down though. :(

My example was a poor one perhaps, but the point remains. If a law contains sections that are unjust, would you support it just because it is the law?

My example was a poor one perhaps, but the point remains. If a law contains sections that are unjust, would you support it just because it is the law?

If a law contained sections that were unjust, I would support a change in the law (by calling my legislators, making/signing petitions, etc). But I wouldn't ignore the law in the meantime. I can't help to affect change while I'm in jail.

If a law contained sections that were unjust, I would support a change in the law (by calling my legislators, making/signing petitions, etc). But I wouldn't ignore the law in the meantime. I can't help to affect change while I'm in jail.
Even if a law was passed that required you to spy on Muslim neighbours and hand over the info to the NSA?

Even if for some reason the majority supports such a law, and your efforts are extremely unlikely to change anything?

I don't want to advertise, but I made a thread on law pretty much because of the hijack developing here. You two might want to have a look.

Even if a law was passed that required you to spy on Muslim neighbours and hand over the info to the NSA?

Even if for some reason the majority supports such a law, and your efforts are extremely unlikely to change anything?

I don't want to advertise, but I made a thread on law pretty much because of the hijack developing here. You two might want to have a look.

A law like that wouldn't be passed either (it would be political suicide). Also, if I'm not mistaken, that would be unconstitutional.

BTW, I've already read the thread you created. I haven't posted on it yet (I'm about to go to bed), but I've read it.

People who think that the state has a right to decide who is allowed to interact with the people within a given geographic area and how that interaction is to occur.

I don't think your definition is a good one. It would mean that someone who do believe that the state has a right to decide such things but remains in favor of an open border policy would fall into the category of an "anti-immigration type". Conversely, one who did not believe that the state has such a right but does not want any people to move from any other geographic areas into "his" either, would not be an anti-immigration type...

Surely an anti-immigration type would be someone that was more staunchly opposed to immigration in and by itself, not someone who was just in favor of a controlled immigration, for example with the purpose of weeding out convicted criminals, fugitives and dangerous elements.

And no, that last part is not supposed to be an example of a different definition. That's left up to the people who use the term "anti-immigration types" without bothering to explain or define it.

Yes, not abiding to a customs law equates to the fall of the American dream..

Yes, not abiding to a customs law equates to the fall of the American dream..

Quiet you.

Quiet you.

:(

-snip-
I think you know the point I was trying to get across. And besides, have you ever met anyone with one of those two oddball persuasions you mentioned? It's possible, but there seems to be something about the internal consistency of ideas in people's heads that makes it rare.

Two words: Dreams Change.

Editor's note: I didn't read the thread, I'm just sick of people thinking the American Dream of the 1950s is the same as the American Dream of the 2000s.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but from the sounds of it, he didn't seem to be ignrance of the law, and he still broke them.

So he came here illegally.

He didn't pay taxes, which is illegal.

He worked without documentation, which is also illegal.

He tried to transport more than $10,000 out of the country which was illegal.

A fool and his money is soon parted probably applies here.

I think you know the point I was trying to get across. And besides, have you ever met anyone with one of those two oddball persuasions you mentioned? It's possible, but there seems to be something about the internal consistency of ideas in people's heads that makes it rare.

Probably yes, but my point that people should be more aware of the terms they use so recklessly still stands. I get tired of the straw-man attitude of some (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13090880&postcount=20), as the immigration issue is a huge and complex one in my mind.

The US immigration policies are ripe for improvement, but a nuanced approach would be welcomed. Dismissing the desire for border control as simply "anti-immigration" is worthless, and that's why I would like a proper definition for that term if it's going to be used in this debate.

That said, I'd also like to add that this is probably not the best case to use to highlight the plight of the illegal immigrants, nor should this story serve as the basis for any change in either law or policy.

And as an aside, I should add that the people I know (from my personal experience) who are the staunchest advocates for an open border policy and the right for people to move freely between nations, do firmly believe that the state has a right to decide who is allowed to interact with the people within a given geographic area and how that interaction is to occur. At least, they've never voiced opposition to that basic idea. Of course, it might just be them...

One less lawbreaker off the street.

In English, the language you purport to be able to speak, "one less lawbreaker off the street" means "one more lawbreaker on the street."

Jaw Bush may be right when he tells the nation that "Childrens do learn," but apparently corny does not.

Well, let's put it this way: I have yet to see an argument made for border control that didn't somehow end up being based on a person claiming to have the right to decide over the life of another.

Isn't that what states do?

Dismissing the desire for border control as simply "anti-immigration" is worthless...
Well, let's put it this way: I have yet to see an argument made for border control that didn't somehow end up being based on a person claiming to have the right to decide over the life of another.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?The US is made up entirely by illegal immigrants, so why this distinction now?
And besides that wasn't it the idea of those who founded the US that everybody could come there? How can the US possibly reject somebody as an illigal immigrant? What does illigal really mean? That somebody cannot go an live where he pleases? Do you own the earth?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but from the sounds of it, he didn't seem to be ignrance of the law, and he still broke them.

So he came here illegally.

He didn't pay taxes, which is illegal.

He worked without documentation, which is also illegal.

He tried to transport more than $10,000 out of the country which was illegal.

A fool and his money is soon parted probably applies here.You sound like a nationalist.

The US is made up entirely by illegal immigrants, so why this distinction now?
And besides that wasn't it the idea of those who founded the US that everybody could come there? How can the US possibly reject somebody as an illigal immigrant? What does illigal really mean? That somebody cannot go an live where he pleases? Do you own the earth?

So disregarding his legality, as it were, you don't mind him violating the tax laws and customs laws either?

George Carlin had been right all along. You have to be asleep to believe in it.

Come to America, work hard constantly, save up and soon...

You get deported and your savings confiscated by the government.

Mistake Costs Dishwasher $59,000 (http://news.aol.com/story/ar/_a/mistake-costs-dishwasher-59000/20070928093609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)

And this story shoots down a huge chunk of conversative and libertarian talking points, where hard work will get you ahead.

He's an illegal immigrant. He deserved to be deported and attainder put upon his property; if he has no respect for the laws of a country, why should the country welcome him?

Isn't that what states do?
It seems to be a running theme at NSG right now. Yes, it is something that states do. It is not something the ideal state would be happy to do - the ideal state would keep it to a minimum. It is an extremely dangerous principle: if a person has their life dictated by a mob of people he never met and who don't care about his life or his person, then where would you draw the line? If it's not okay for some to live within the geographical area because it offends the sense of aesthetics of the mob, then what about black people sitting in front of the bus?

Afterall, just because it is doesn't mean it ought to be.

He's illegal, right? So he shouldn't even be in this country, let alone working, in the first place, right? What's the problem?

wrong. the government itself is in the country illegally.
the entire country was usurped at gunpoint genocidally from people who had been living here and governing themselves just fine for at least ten thousand years.

=^^=
.../\...

He could have wired it home properly too or done a bank transfer. Oh wait, no he couldn't...he was here illegally. Oh, wait again, tons of illegals manage to use banks transfers to the tune of billions sent home every year.

Carrying $59k = not too bright.

I don't have any sympathy for either side of this. The Government is corrupt, and people from all over think they can just ignore our immigration laws and borders as they see fit.

So disregarding his legality, as it were, you don't mind him violating the tax laws and customs laws either?Customs laws are ridiculous, so let him just pay taxes for the 59000 and let him go.

Customs laws are ridiculous, so let him just pay taxes for the 59000 and let him go.

Should he get off easier than a "legal"?

Also, since he's been working and not paying taxes for 11 years... How much does he owe the IRS? Considering interest, penalty taxes and such?

He should have taken the deal they offered him. Since he refused, he's only got himself to blame.

In English, the language you purport to be able to speak, "one less lawbreaker off the street" means "one more lawbreaker on the street."

Who broke the law? This illegal Guatamalan. He is now off the streets. Ergo, we do have one less lawbreaker roaming our streets.

Jaw Bush may be right when he tells the nation that "Childrens do learn," but apparently corny does not.

I'm going to ignore this blatant flamebait.

I'm going to ignore this blatant flamebait.

Then why did you acknowledge it?

The US is made up entirely by illegal immigrants, so why this distinction now?

Because it is the government (AKA the US Government) that made the laws to protect our borders. To damn bad that the cities do not enforce them.

And besides that wasn't it the idea of those who founded the US that everybody could come there?

Yep. Section 8 of the US Constitution: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

How can the US possibly reject somebody as an illigal immigrant?

US Constitution section 8 as stated above.

What does illigal really mean?

il·le·gal (-lgl) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Prohibited by law.
Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
NOUN:

an illegal immigrant.

That somebody cannot go an live where he pleases? Do you own the earth?

No. Just the law decides what is or is not illegal.

You sound like a nationalist.

Or someone who knows what the law says and that the dude broke such laws. You sound like someone who is against any and all laws.

I don´t know am I eligible to participate in this discussion since I´m not american. But I´m rather amused to be part of society that was said to be most american in europe (nowadays, propably most anti-american).

I just don´t understand why you demonize your immigrants, when in reality, your country seems to need them badly. C´mon, you need more population to compete, it´s a fact. Maybe illegals are not adding their wealth to fuel your consumerism now, but maybe the next generation will be mid-class goods consuming americans who pay their taxes and pay the salaries of barbers, cooks, waiters, construction workers etc.

As a cook and former member of family business, I´ve seen that people are not ready to pay high prices for their food, which makes hiring new staff impossible. Who pays 7$ for warm lunch, when they can have one tv-dinner at 2$. When employers has to hire cheap illegal, the problem is not border crossing, but rather a hint that there´s something wrong in your economy. I´m telling no bullshit, this comes from my own grave experience.

What you need, is to give a chance to everyone. I shall benefit from our excellent education system, since I can go to school for free if I want. I just pass qualification exam, and shall begin my studies to become construction engineer. Waste of tax money? Anything but it.
If you don´t give proper education to your poor children, they will stay poor. It always amuses me when your right wingers compare public education, health-care or welfare to socialism, when actually they are necessity for healthy and equal society.

So, let´s see. Our scandinavian paradise finland is geographically at the size of germany, but we have only 5 million people. I get the salary of 12$ without any education nor experience (I now do environmental construction and set optical fiber cables for phone companies, and I can expect my salary to rise when I quit at workforce rental company). Now, If we get more people to live in finland, and have them educated properly, we have more consumers and taxpayers, and they are in no way threat to my job. Why? Strong worker unions and government makes sure everyone get´s their negotiated minimum salary. Immigrant or native, both get the same wage as it should be.

Then we have more people to eat in our restaurants. We have more people who need houses and cars and services. We have enough people to encourage corporations to keep their assembly lines in finland. What is enough people? My estimation is that we need at least 45 million immigrants, 9 times what we have native finns.

The real problem is cultural assimilation, or rather the lack of it. Stantard english speaking born-american seems to be afraid of these new strangers who speak their own languages and have their own strange customs. Indeed, in 50 years you could hear your officials speaking spanish instead of english.

But can you expect assimilation when you don´t educate (illegal) immigrants´ kids properly? In perfect case, newcomers would be atheists, hungry for work, adaptable and willing to learn our language. But in imperfect world we live, we have to encourage them, not just wait they adopt our ways themselves.

Boost your worker unions, encourage your government to act when employer uses illegal workers, make their businesses to pay the consequences, not worker. Maybe prices will rise, but employers wouldn´t benefit anymore by hiring illegal over legal.

Economically you got nothing to lose, since china and japan already own your ass. Nothing short of total rebuilding your economy will save you at long run. Neither us.

See, future belongs to asia...

The US is made up entirely by illegal immigrants, so why this distinction now?
And besides that wasn't it the idea of those who founded the US that everybody could come there? How can the US possibly reject somebody as an illigal immigrant? What does illigal really mean? That somebody cannot go an live where he pleases? Do you own the earth?

That's not true. I was born here (in CT, actually), as were my parents (my father from CT, and my mother from SD). My great grandparents and grandparents all immigrated following the laws of the time, and came in through Ellis Island (my father's side from Poland, my mother's side from Ireland).

As to your other questions, the US has to limit the number of immigrants it allows each year, so the whole system isn't overwhelmed. And the US government does own all of the US (with the exception of the areas designated sovereign foreign ground, such as the UN building, foreign embassies, Native American reservations, etc).

Who broke the law? This illegal Guatamalan. He is now off the streets. Ergo, we do have one less lawbreaker roaming our streets.



I'm going to ignore this blatant flamebait.

Jumping, tutu-wearing Jesus H Christ in the sky!

"one less criminal off the street" is a double negative. If there is one (fewer) criminal off the street, then that means there is one more criminal on the street. See how English works?

This is not Spanish, ese vato, this isn't the barrio de Guatemala, you unnnerstan mang?

You speak English like a south American peasant, I demand to see your papers proving you are an American citizen, you should not be permitted to vote or hold a job unless you can provide these papers on command.

Your spanglish is probable cause hombre!

Jumping, tutu-wearing Jesus H Christ in the sky!

"one less criminal off the street" is a double negative. If there is one (fewer) criminal off the street, then that means there is one more criminal on the street. See how English works?

This is not Spanish, ese vato, this isn't the barrio de Guatemala, you unnnerstan mang?

You speak English like a south American peasant, I demand to see your papers proving you are an American citizen, you should not be permitted to vote or hold a job unless you can provide these papers on command.

Your spanglish is probable cause hombre!

You're flamebaiting. warned.

I see, a forum account without a country. Corrected.

Then why did you acknowledge it?

Either manners, respect, or trolling/trollbaiting?

First gambit in the Maneuver, methinks.