"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. How do they get away with this? It's just like how suspected drug money is seized without a conviction. How is that Constitutional?

LordPistachio: How is that Constitutional?

That's pre-9/11 thinking. Your "quaint" constitution no longer applies in the real world.

Is this the dumbest state in the nation we're talking about? Then the answer is C): pudding.

Headline mildly overstates the case; the article makes it sound like only some large money transfers are arbitrarily seized without probable cause.

/still suxxorz

DIRKA DIRKA ILLEGALS DIRKA

KickahaOta,

Headline mildly overstates the case; the article makes it sound like only some large money transfers are arbitrarily seized without probable cause.

The lawsuit says they're seizing every transfer over $500.

The AG says that they're using the utmost of discretion in only seizing transfers that are likely to be criminal in nature.

The truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in between.

Regardless, the method they're using is absolutely unconstitutional. However, it has plenty of precedent from the asset forfeiture laws created in the War on Some Drugs.

So, yeah, as you say, it still suxxorz.

KickahaOta, no TFA says But he said the state's use of warrants to take every transaction in excess of $500 - and then make senders prove the money is legal - is both unfair and illegal.

This is the best use of the asinine tag I've ever seen, but scary would also apply.

Party Foul! Everyone knows there's supposed to be an "Option C". This goes against everything I believe in.

That "due process" thing went away several years ago when the government acquired to power to assume that any large amount of cash or property might have been obtained from illegal drug dealing and subject for forfeiture even if the case never came to trial. I've never really understood that.

1. Let businesses employ illegals
2. Confiscate the illegals money
3. Profit!

/could someone remind me please why anyone wants to come to the Banana Republic of America?

can someone tell me again how the 'terrorists' hate you for your freedom?

i hate to invoke godwin so early in the thread, but...

LordPistachio: How is that Constitutional?


it's thinking like that that ruins this country.

Due process, takings, interstate commerce, undue burden... Hmmm, which to choose, which to choose...

AS IF the intended targets won't quickly find another way to get around it. Like wiring $ to New Mexico, driving across the state line, and wiring internally in AZ.

/criminal darwinism

FTA :

"That's intimidating for those folks who perhaps may be here undocumented," he said, and simply want to send money home to relatives.

Gee, wouldn't want to inconvenience those who aren't supposed to be here in the first place.

here's my solution

1) tax all wire transfers at 50%
2) get a 100% refund of that tax when you file your annual tax forms

result: income for illegal aliens is taxed and income for legal residents are not

wow, people are kinda dumb

Here I was expecting the Florida tag...tsk tsk.

You would think people in government would have some idea on how the law works.

Bahh, we didn't need that pesky 5th Amendment anyway. Next, we'll hear they'r increasing revenue by issuing speeding tickets as soon as you get in your car, which you can get out of as soon as you prove you weren't going to speed.

But he said the state's use of warrants to take every transaction in excess of $500 - and then make senders prove the money is legal - is both unfair and illegal.

...And there goes innocent until proven guilty. We're back to guilty until proven innocent. Great country, huh?

Assistant Attorney General Cameron Holmes said prosecutors use a computer algorithm to review every money transfer sent into Arizona. He said these tend to be in amounts between $800 and $1,500, usually in final payments to smugglers for ferrying people into the United States.
Wow, looks like they're not even looking at each sitation individualiiy, to at least pretend at probable cause. If the computer says you look like a smuggler, they sieze your money.

There goes the constitution.

Stupid. All the "smugglers" will now be sending multiple payments of 100$ each. All they'll get now are business transactions and people sending money to their impovershed families in Mexico.

If you wire transfer over $500 you obviously hate America.

bongmeister,

here's my solution

1) tax all wire transfers at 50%
2) get a 100% refund of that tax when you file your annual tax forms

One problem:

The government is depriving you of the interest income you could have made off of that money for the time they took the money until the time you get it back in January.

Sorry, but I don't want the government holding on to my money for a year when I could be using that money to make a little more money.

Yeah. All the drug money is done by wire transfer. Now they'll just have to use checks or debit cards like the rest of us.

B

I think for every illegal we find in america, we should get 3 square miles of territory in the country the illegal is from :)

I keed...but man I know they work jobs, and are good for America, but when people who aren't citizens start askign for rights and protections from a country they are voluntarily d1cking, that's messed up.

LordPistachio
It's not Constitutional. And they get away with it the same way they get away with everything else.

HotWIngConspiracy
They do know how the law works. They just ignore it.

BTW the gov' of our state is a female democrat. She also recently started a program to link security cameras to drivers license database and check faces for "persons of interest."

Encroachment and advancement of goverment power happens at all levels, and by all parties.

It's just like how suspected drug money is seized without a conviction. How is that Constitutional?

Unfortunately, the way they get around the Constitutional stuff is to blame the money personally. That is why you see civil cases such as "U.S. Government v.s. $500 in wired money." Your money doesn't have rights. It makes no sense, but that's how it works. It is just like cops STEALING cars because someone has pot in it.

HotWingConspiracy
You would think people in government would have some idea on how the law works.

On my last few days working for the Government....and my answer is:

A Big Fat NO. They don't. At all. The End.

Law! What do I care about the law? Ain't I got the power? – AZ Governor Napolitano (D)

bongmeister
here's my solution

1) tax all wire transfers at 50%
2) get a 100% refund of that tax when you file your annual tax forms

result: income for illegal aliens is taxed and income for legal residents are not

The problem is that, once the government has your money, it becomes less and less likely to get it back. First you'll get 99% back, the 95%, then 70%...
Also, it amounts to double-taxation.
Also, it's none of the government's damn business.

Badges!? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges!!

The Arizona Territory needs to go back on double secret probation to see if they can handle the US Constitution and become a State this time.

This is new? Try paying for your next airline ticket with cash at the gate. I'll even let you borrow my time machine to go back and try it pre-9/11.

Since when is $500 a "lot" of money?

Some guy waiting for Mom to send him money to pay the mechanic for a new radiator is going to be waiting a looooooong time me thinks!

WTF? I run a small business and do a certain amount of importing and exporting (boring, special-purpose electronics) and wire transfers in that range are pretty common. Getting transfers randomly seized because someone's computer program thinks they're fishy would really screw me up.

Legal papers filed in U.S. District Court contend warrants issued by Goddard's office to seize wire transfers of $500 or more violate federal constitutional requirements that government must have probable cause before taking the money.

Probable cause?! Where do you think this is, America?

"state's use of warrants to take every transaction in excess of $500 - and then make senders prove the money is legal - is both unfair and illegal."

Yes, very, very, illegal. I hope they sue the stupid out of AZ...

"Try paying for your next airline ticket with cash at the gate."

What will happen?

rorschach1: WTF? I run a small business and do a certain amount of importing and exporting (boring, special-purpose electronics) and wire transfers in that range are pretty common. Getting transfers randomly seized because someone's computer program thinks they're fishy would really screw me up.


Think of the ill-consequences for even legal migrants that are sending remittances to their families, only to have the State of Arizona absorb it.

Mekongcola,

What will happen?

Ditto seems to be implying that they'll seize your money and/or ticket and make you prove that the money was legally obtained.

My guess is that you'll undergo a bit of extra screening before being allowed to board.

Goddard said not all wire transfers are seized. He said only those that meet certain criteria are set aside - and recipients with "plausible" explanations can get them back.

if (amount 800) {
throw new IllegalTransferException("OMG illegals on the way");
}

Goddard defended the warrants, saying, "Our investigations and seizures are helping us disrupt human smuggling, secure Arizona's border and make our neighborhoods safer."

And....so what? No one is asking you whether they're effective. They're asking you whether they're constitutional. Ah, but who cares.

Mekongcola:
"Try paying for your next airline ticket with cash at the gate."

What will happen?

Well, it'll probably involve you taking a different plane trip, and then water, and a board.

Requiring credit card purchase of airline tickets seems like a reasonable security measure to me, unlike this shockingly abusive measure.

Try looking at California, specifically San Diego city itself.

"America's Finest City" has been nickle and diming the populace to pay for their bankrupt ways. Want an example? Parking tickets.

A Fedex truck was parked by the side of an office building dropping off and picking stuff up. PArking Nazi comes by, she sees the Fedex guy in the back of the truck, and proceeds to write a ticket. WTF!?!? And then, across the street, a person just parked in a "20 minute loading zone." She waits a grand total of 1 minute 20 seconds until the person walks inside DELIVERING STUFF, and writes them a ticket!!

fark off and die, San Diego city.

Guess I should have previewed before posting. Fark apparently removes my less-than signs. Should have used HTML entities...

start taxing drug dealers and prostitutes
/it could work

C) They should do both.

"That's intimidating for those folks who perhaps may be here undocumented," he said, and simply want to send money home to relatives.

Sure wouldn't want to make criminals feel uncomfortable, now would we? Get a work visa, then send all the money you want to back home.

"Assistant Attorney General Cameron Holmes said prosecutors use a computer algorithm to review every money transfer sent into Arizona. He said these tend to be in amounts between $800 and $1,500, usually in final payments to smugglers for ferrying people into the United States.
Then, under a court warrant, the funds are put into a special fund. The intended recipient can call a toll-free number to claim them. If no claim is made, the money is forfeited to the state. "

======================================

I remember a country called "America" that had a state named "Arizona".

What a coincidence!

Aside from the sheer unconstitutionality of it all this probably will also heavily backfire on people.

If the idea was to prevent illegals from shipping money home or paying of their debts to smugglers this will probably result in a number of unintended scenarios.

Illegals will quickly find other ways to send money back to their families in Mexico. It could range from everyone sending the money in several installments of smaller amounts below the limit to couriers transporting or trusted parties 'wiering' money back home. If there is enough money in it a whole unregulated industry of illegal banking might even spring up from this. There is plenty of precedent for that sort of thing.

The other more urgent scenario is the interception of money that was supposed to go to the people who smuggled the illegals into the country. How do you thing the smugglers will react to not getting paied? It might very well result in a rise of crime.

Instead of going after the illegals and taking their hard enarned money why not go after the people who actually have illegals working for them?