Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 2:12:31 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

FR:
May we please get back to pimping my agenda...
ie:Locking up and confiscationg the assets of the assholes who employe illegal immigrants

When did I say I was against that?



When did I say you did?
When did you say you were in favor of it?

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 2:13:35 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		I didn't. This is why I found RacerJim's bizarre little tantrum so strange. It was like the idiot was channelling Violet Elizabeth Bott or something.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 2:16:06 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I didn't. This is why I found RacerJim's bizarre little tantrum so strange. It was like the idiot was channelling Violet Elizabeth Bott or something.


With some it is only possible to consider the source and thank your parents for the deeper gene pool that they bestowed on you.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:02:42 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline
quote:

Malecot, 52, has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he could face a maximum of five years in prison per count and a $250,000 fine per count. The government is also seeking to seize the restaurant, which includes the bakery and a catering business as well as a neighboring building owned by Malecot, saying the property should be forfeited because it was used in a crime.


Does anyone else think that it's a bit much to take the guy's property because it was "used in a crime"? I mean I'm all for the fine and I don't have an issue with him serving time in jail even, but that last step just seems destructive. I doubt the federal government is going to keep the business open and hire legal workers.

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:08:33 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
More and more policing agencies are using new laws that allow them to seize and then sell any property used in the commission of a crime and use the proceeds to fund more similar endeavors, and yes I am good with it in this case. Someone will buy the property and do something with it, and the lesson though painful won't soon be forgotten. 

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:11:21 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

quote:

Malecot, 52, has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he could face a maximum of five years in prison per count and a $250,000 fine per count. The government is also seeking to seize the restaurant, which includes the bakery and a catering business as well as a neighboring building owned by Malecot, saying the property should be forfeited because it was used in a crime.


Does anyone else think that it's a bit much to take the guy's property because it was "used in a crime"? I mean I'm all for the fine and I don't have an issue with him serving time in jail even, but that last step just seems destructive. I doubt the federal government is going to keep the business open and hire legal workers.

Not really, no. In this case, his property is the instrumentality of a crime, so confiscation doesn't seem completely out of order, particularly as it looks very unlikely that he's actually going to get sent down for five years.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:16:45 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

quote:

Malecot, 52, has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he could face a maximum of five years in prison per count and a $250,000 fine per count. The government is also seeking to seize the restaurant, which includes the bakery and a catering business as well as a neighboring building owned by Malecot, saying the property should be forfeited because it was used in a crime.


Does anyone else think that it's a bit much to take the guy's property because it was "used in a crime"? I mean I'm all for the fine and I don't have an issue with him serving time in jail even, but that last step just seems destructive. I doubt the federal government is going to keep the business open and hire legal workers.



It is called the RICO act and it states that if you make a ton of money off of an illegal enterprise that enterprise can be confiscated.
It was put together by those who thought that it was the way to go after the dopers. Sell dope and make money and buy a house or a business the feds will take it.
Now it is coming back to bite those in the ass who thought that their criminal enterprise was safe because it was not drugs. Too bad so sad...if you can't do the time don't do the crime.
You and I have had this conversation before. The penality is five years and/or $10,000 for each illegal. If the illegals constituted a significant portion of his enterprise then the enterprise is up for confiscation.
The government has no interest in running a french bakery/restaurant/catering service. They will just put it on the auction block and put the proceeds in the treasury.
From the article cited it seems unlikely that his business will be forfiet. If they had targeted tyson foods,cargil,adm,wallmart or any major employer of illegal aliens then confiscation becomes a real possibility.
You want to go easy on this fellow who has commited a felony but you never seemed to feel it was ok to go easy on the illegal alien who had only commited a misdemeanor....kinda points to your agenda...ya phoquing bigot.

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:18:33 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		LOL.  Thomas.  explain to me then RICO in terms of TARP.



1.2.3. GO

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:19:35 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


More and more policing agencies are using new laws that allow them to seize and then sell any property used in the commission of a crime and use the proceeds to fund more similar endeavors, and yes I am good with it in this case. Someone will buy the property and do something with it, and the lesson though painful won't soon be forgotten. 



The RICO law is 40 years old.
Hardly "new" by any stretch of the imagination.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:21:00 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
More and more policing agencies are using new laws that allow them to seize and then sell any property used in the commission of a crime and use the proceeds to fund more similar endeavors, and yes I am good with it in this case. Someone will buy the property and do something with it, and the lesson though painful won't soon be forgotten. 


I guess it'll probably work out, but I still think it's a stupid law. I could understand if like, he couldn't pay the fine so the government took his stuff to pay for it, but it just seems sort of random to say "hey you committed a crime here, we're going to take all your stuff."

That's what jail and fines are for, taking property as punishment seems unsavory.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:23:34 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
You want to go easy on this fellow who has commited a felony but you never seemed to feel it was ok to go easy on the illegal alien who had only commited a misdemeanor....kinda points to your agenda...ya phoquing bigot.


I have no problem with the jail time or fine with this guy.

Do you really think that 5 years in jail and $250k fine is "going easy" yet returning someone to their country of legal residence (which isn't even punitive btw) is unfair?

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:24:53 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
More and more policing agencies are using new laws that allow them to seize and then sell any property used in the commission of a crime and use the proceeds to fund more similar endeavors, and yes I am good with it in this case. Someone will buy the property and do something with it, and the lesson though painful won't soon be forgotten. 


I guess it'll probably work out, but I still think it's a stupid law. I could understand if like, he couldn't pay the fine so the government took his stuff to pay for it, but it just seems sort of random to say "hey you committed a crime here, we're going to take all your stuff."

That's what jail and fines are for, taking property as punishment seems unsavory.


It is a slippery slope.

I see your point- it is a good one.

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:25:33 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
If a business is built through crime why allow the criminal to keep the proceeds when apprehended, is the thinking. Or property acquired through criminal enterprise, its ill-gotten gain.

And how is prison time more kind than seizing property? 

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:28:08 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


If a business is built through crime why allow the criminal to keep the proceeds when apprehended, is the thinking. Or property acquired through criminal enterprise, its ill-gotten gain.

And how is prison time more kind than seizing property? 


Should the state take you car is your insurance dropped?


NO.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:30:41 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

LOL.  Thomas.  explain to me then RICO in terms of TARP.



1.2.3. GO




Same same all it would take is for a federal prosecutor to grow a pair.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:32:25 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		Same same all it would take is for a federal prosecutor to grow a pair./snip


I agree.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:32:45 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
More and more policing agencies are using new laws that allow them to seize and then sell any property used in the commission of a crime and use the proceeds to fund more similar endeavors, and yes I am good with it in this case. Someone will buy the property and do something with it, and the lesson though painful won't soon be forgotten. 


I guess it'll probably work out, but I still think it's a stupid law. I could understand if like, he couldn't pay the fine so the government took his stuff to pay for it, but it just seems sort of random to say "hey you committed a crime here, we're going to take all your stuff."

That's what jail and fines are for, taking property as punishment seems unsavory.


It is a slippery slope.

I see your point- it is a good one.




OK then repeal rico and give the dopers and the mafia back all of their shit.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:34:09 PM   
Elisabella


Posts: 3939
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
If a business is built through crime why allow the criminal to keep the proceeds when apprehended, is the thinking. Or property acquired through criminal enterprise, its ill-gotten gain.

And how is prison time more kind than seizing property? 


I don't think prison time is more kind, I think it's more just.

I see your point about wanting to stop people from profiting through criminal activity but seeing as how all of his criminal activity took place after he already owned the restaurant, I don't think the point can be made that the property is part of the "proceeds" - and either way it just squicks me.

Obviously the law was on the books when he did what he did so he'll have to deal with it, but I still think it's a stupid law.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:34:36 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Did the crime get me the car?

No, so you're right. However, if I were a car thief...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


If a business is built through crime why allow the criminal to keep the proceeds when apprehended, is the thinking. Or property acquired through criminal enterprise, its ill-gotten gain.

And how is prison time more kind than seizing property? 


Should the state take you car is your insurance dropped?


NO.



_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers - 5/27/2010 3:35:32 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		OK then repeal rico and give the dopers and the mafia back all of their shit./snip\

being that we have one standard for the elite- another for the rest of us-  cool.  yeah.   DONE.

(in reply to Elisabella)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Immigration debate, legal charges against employers Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109