These are just a few of the commentaries on a story that has swept the internet. “Pedro Zapeta” was one of google’s most searched terms over the weekend, and by my last count there have already been over 100 blog posts written about him on technorati.com. Someone uploaded the CNN story that sparked this interest on Youtube.
Sadly, the anti-migrant online machine has been at it again. About two-thirds of the messages I’ve seen say he deserves to be deported and have all of his money taken from him, in harsher terms, obviously.
Pedro Zapeta had worked for 11 years on less than $6 an hour in hopes of one day returning to Guatemala to build a home for his mother and his sisters. He had $59,000 with him when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took it all away for failing to fill out the form you need to declare you’re carrying more than $10,000. They assumed he was a drug dealer until lawyers went through the pay stubs he meticulously saved to prove he had earned every last cent. He even earned a generous $0.25 raise.
Now the Internal Revenue Service wants not only the $59,000 he’s taking back with him, but the $10,000 that have been set up for him in a trust fund by well-wishers who found out about the story last year through CNN or the Palm Beach Post. Now, I’m not expert, but using this federal income tax witholding calculator, assuming Zapeta earned a maximum of $1500 a month, he can’t owe more than $25,000 in taxes. That is an amateur rounding up as much as he can, especially considering Zapeta was working on poverty wages and would probably not be taxed at all if he were legal.
I’m not going to use this post to argue about broken, complicated, and unjust immigration laws, I’m not even going to appeal to sympathy. It’s clear to me that for anti-migrant advocates, as soon as Zapeta chose to stay in the U.S. illegally (that’s a civil offense by the way making it the equivalent of going 60 mph on the freeway) he ceased to be a human being to them. It’s not even worth appealing to their sympathy. I won’t even mention how hypocritical it is to consume cheaper goods at the same time that you condemn the people that provide them to you.
What I will say is that here you have a man, that a year ago was prepared to leave the Unwelcoming States of America to build a home for his family in what is likely a very poor region in my home of Guatemala. People pay Habitat for Humanity to do this themselves! Not only would he have built a home but the money he was bringing back very likely would have supported more poor Guatemalans, and kept them from leaving in to the U.S. the first place. It was a win-win situation.
Now he’s been in the U.S. for another year, wasting countless dollars in the court system and legal fees. Guatemala has not only lost a happy home, the U.S. is wasting tax dollars and what little international political capital it has to take a Guatemalan dishwasher’s money and donations. I guess the wars in the Middle East are forcing the U.S. to resort to desperate measures (1 in 2 of Zapeta’s dollars would go to the U.S military after all).
I am glad that despite losing all of this, Zapeta has kept his dignity:
Robert Gershman, one of Zapeta’s attorneys, said federal prosecutors later offered his client a deal: He could take $10,000 of the original cash seized, plus $9,000 in donations as long as he didn’t talk publicly and left the country immediately.
Zapeta said, “No.” He wanted all his money. He’d earned it, he said.
If anyone is interested in helping Pedro Zapeta out, I’m told that a trust fund has been set up for him. Send checks to Robert Gershman’s office.
1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
Seventh Floor
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
I’m sure they’ll gladly sift through all the migrant hate mail they’ll receive for your support.
Okay, let’s review.
<
p>
Mr. Zapeta attempts to cross the border with $59,000 in cash. Crossing the border with any amount of currency is legal, but one transporting more than $10,000 must file a report Surprise! Mr. Zapeta fails to do so.
<
p>
Under the law, the government may therefore seize and forfeit the money , which it proceeds to attempt to do. The case is United States v. $59,000 in U.S. Currency. It’s pending in the federal court in Miami. You can review it under docket number 06-60573 on the PACER system or at the courthouse if you’re in Miami.
<
p>
Zapeta’s lawyer admits that he attempted to cross the border with the money and even admits that the money is subject to forfeiture. He argues that the amount of the forfeiture is excessive on constitutional grounds. The court decides that seizure of the whole amount is constitutional but nevertheless decides to permit the government to seize only $49,000, ordering it to return $10,000 to Zapeta. Zapeta is dissatisfied and appeals. The case has not yet been decided. According to the CNN article, Zapeta wants all his money.
<
p>
Meanwhile, back at the border, Zapeta, an illegal alien, is arrested for immigration violations. Surprise, again! What did Zapeta expect would happen? Apparently, he has agreed to depart the country voluntarily.
<
p>
To top it off, Zapeta admits he never paid taxes on the money when he earned it. He has been collecting donations from well-wishers, and the IRS now wants to use that money to satisfy the unpaid taxes.
<
p>
I would say this is another bad choice for a test case, Kyle. Surely there are more sympathetic cases out there? And isn’t it noteworthy that despite Zapeta’s lawbreaking trifecta (the immigration violation, the tax evasion, and the customs violation), he still has a shot at persuading the court that he should get some or all of his $49,000 back?
<
p>
TedF
Legally Zapeta might not be a good test case, as you have laid out so well above, but from the perspective of the U.S. migration debate this has turned more heads than even I have imagined.
<
p>
Someone who worked for 11 years on meager wages only to have it all taken away by the government is even rankling staunch anti-migrant advocates, because he was on the way out of the country in the first place.
<
p>
Either way, I appreciate the legal background, I was hoping to get an educated opinion on this, and I’m glad I received it.
<
p>
I still think people should send enough money to Zapeta to replace everything he lost.
<
p>
Why do they get to seize some of the trust fund money as well then?
The IRS gets to go after the $10,000 because the money the government seized for the customs violation does not necessarily go to the IRS (nor, contrary to your post, does it go to the military)–it goes to a special fund set up to receive forfeited funds. At first glance, it seems the funds are to be used primarily for law enforcement purposes.
<
p>
In other words, the $49,000 was forfeited because of the customs violation, but Zapeta still owes the income tax (and presumably the FICA taxes, as well as interest and penalties) that he should have paid when he earned the money.
<
p>
I’m still confused as to the immigration angle here. Suppose Zapeta were an American tax evader flying to Switzerland to stash his money. Do you think he would have been treated differently than was Zapeta?
<
p>
TedF
…Quite frankly the description of the facts in the post is confusing. If there were “pay stubs,” I find it difficult to believe that income and FICA taxes had not been withheld–he apparently wasn’t paid in cash–so I’m not sure that there is a tax problem. But there certainly is a cash currency export problem.
<
p>
I wonder why he just didn’t deposit the cash in a US bank account and wire the money to an account in a Guatemalan bank.
Raj, I think you and I are the founding members of Kyledeb Watch, an organization devoted to keeping our earnest friend on the straight and narrow.
<
p>
TedF
…going on with the case described in the post. I have transferred more than a bit of money from our bank account in the US to our bank account in Germany via wire, and never had a problem.
<
p>
Why anyone would be carrying US$59,000 in a suitcase, on an airplane, is something of a mystery. For example, thefts have been known to occur from checked luggage. I suspect that something more is going on here that KyleDeb has not reported.
<
p>
Regarding my first paragraph, of course the wire transfer included a currency conversion (years ago US$->DM, more recently US$->Euro), but absconding with US$59,000 in US$ would not involve a currency conversion. What would he want with US$ in Guatamala, instead of Guatemalan currency? That’s another reason why the case is fishy.
someone that didn’t trust institutions or banks and tried to rely on himself to transport the money. It’s a common phenomenon in the majority world. Keeping cash in your mattress.
…surely there must be at least one reputable banking company in Guatemala. I’m sure that reputable US banks have reputable correspondent banks in Guatemala that the funds could have been wired to. That’s another reason why your description of the case is very fishy.
<
p>
Regarding
<
p>
I mean does anyone find it ironic that it took the U.S. two years and probably much more money in court and law costs to do what the man was going to do anyway, leave?
<
p>
from your later comment, if one was going to take that tack, the US gov’t would never be able to enforce its currency export laws, would it? “Well, he’s just leaving.” What is there to suggest that he wouldn’t return to the US and do the same thing all over again?
you act like you know everything but here’s where you’ve slipped up. Sure Guatemala has a good deal of banking institutions but the majority of Guatemala’s population, used to political and economic instability, doesn’t trust them. Last year when there was a problem with getting currency printed everyone withdrew all of their money from the banks making the crisis even worse. You couldn’t get money out of ATMs past 8 in the morning.
<
p>
Look down your nose at me all you want, but don’t talk to me as if you know what it’s like to be a migrant more than I do.
<
p>
Furthermore, while you have made some good points, don’t act like you know everything about all of this. While it is true the failure to fill out this form, can result in civil penalties or even the seizure of money, you as well as I know that there is such thing as leniency on behalf of the prosecutors.
<
p>
I do not see why in this case leniency is not something to consider. I mean the fact that prosecutors were trying to offer him a deal to shut up about this incident tells you that they know it looks bad to prosecute a man like this.
<
p>
Look down at your nose at me all you want raj, but it is you that is coming out as pompous now.
…KyleDeb relates stories that are obviously meant to tear at one’s heart strings, but many of the stories don’t really stand up under scrutiny.
to write about this. Like I said, I don’t pretend to know everything, but that doesn’t mean what happened above wasn’t horrible. A man working for 11 years to save up to build a home in rural Guatemala has everything taken away from him? That’s sad, and like I said that could have been a home that kept more migrants from leaving in the first place. I mean does anyone find it ironic that it took the U.S. two years and probably much more money in court and law costs to do what the man was going to do anyway, leave?
keeping me honest. I don’t pretend to ever know everything, and I enjoy learning along with your comments.