Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 286 posts

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#81

Post by arcticbull »

vuln wrote: post #21

Anecdotal but I have walked through security and boarded US flights with much much larger amounts of cash without a single issue, no declaration, no paperwork. Not a single person bat an eye. I wonder if there is more to this story. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. I'm sure the USG will make a mockery of itself.

It sounds like (1) they didn't notice you did that and (2) you didn't follow proper procedure because as noted in the article you're required to declare bringing in or taking out amounts in excess of $10,000. I've never gotten a jaywalking ticket, but that doesn't meant it never happens.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#82

Post by ismail »

seibelj wrote: post #14

It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destro…

> “But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions.”

You are advocating a Laissez-faire approach[0]. This is not the only view on government intervention. There are various other approaches such as developmental state[1].

I recall reading an posted to HN that discussed the success of the developmental state In the east. Cannot seem to find it now.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_state

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#83

Post by justherefortart »

seibelj wrote: post #14

It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destro…

The government by the people can only be as good as its people.

This is the government Americans deserve.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#84

Post by martin1975 »

ardit33 wrote: post #79
martin1975 wrote: post #9

I come from a country that borders Albania... Albania has a 60% muslim population, and given our current administration and mood toward islam, it is highly doubtful they were after his money but rather after something that went off on their 'threat to national security' radar. Could be a mistaken identity too, it's not unheard of .. many names on those watch lists sound similar or are not the same person at all. I'm…

Albania is mostly an atheist country, and only 43% of people identify as religious, (and it includes muslim, catholic and orthodox). It is part of NATO and it is in the process of getting into EU, and it is a staunch ally of USA, and probably the most EU/USA loving country in the region. (there are plenty of sentiment polls that have measured this). I sympathize with the Kazasis. Albania went through a major shock af…

Mostly atheist? You clearly haven't been to Albania...

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#85

Post by civilitty »

seibelj wrote: post #31
wvenable wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with this line of argument is that's used to excuse the government of these kinds of actions. Once you believe that government is simply incapable then you stop demanding that it becomes any better. Even what you describe, limiting the power of government, is a governmental solution. You simply have to elect people who want to make the system better rather than those who want to tear it down. It's…

As I stated in the opening of my post, the government is capable of good and exists for a reason. Regulations can be good. But people should recognize how much power the government has and see issues like civil asset forefeiture as an example of what can go wrong. I’m not saying the government cannot work. I’m saying that when it doesn’t work, the result can have an overwhelming negative impact, so we should be skept…

I think that's a very naive perspective brought on by the perception that the government is a big monolithic entity so when the government does something bad, its the government's fault but when a corporation does something wrong it's specifically BP or Google or just one bad apple. The target of the public's ire becomes an entity with much smaller and better defined boundaries, ignoring every other corp that is doing the same exact thing. This process is also very self reinforcing. The only reason you know so much more about government abuses of power is because government is more transparent - the very feature that makes it such a powerful tool also puts it at a PR disadvantage.

I've seen far too much unethical and down right illegal behavior by management from inside companies, especially when dealing with privatized government functions, to ever trust them to do anything that they arent forced to (essentially at gun point). While, as an immigrant, I have an extreme distrust of American law enforcement, I would rather them than any private corporation.

I say this as someone who has been on the receiving end of civil asset forfeiture. My grandparents refused to take a bunch of cash that I had brought them in case the economic situation in Russia got worse and was taken for $20k and some priceless family heirlooms on the way back through LAX. It took a year and more money in legal fees than was confiscated just so I could get back some sentimental artefacts.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#86

Post by hapnin »

The system is working as designed: shield state actors from liability while increasing police powers.

A few lose their jobs or get fined, but fewer go to jail or have to account for their excesses. I really question the motives of anyone who wants to be a cop in this environment.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#87

Post by newnewpdro »

martin1975 wrote: post #40
platinumrad wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poster you're replying to is basically correct about how civil asset forfeiture works in the US. If you search, there are plenty of articles about similar cases.

If there's truth to it, without understanding the govt's rationale about this, it looks about as un-American and un-capitalistic as it gets.... goes against the grain of who we are as a country.

Now you understand why it's so upsetting, welcome to the same page.

Edit:

The part that most filled me with rage;

The CBP seizure notice gave the Kazazis a number of options for proceeding with the case. They could abandon the cash completely, or they could make an “offer in compromise” — letting CBP keep a certain percentage of the seized cash if it returned the rest.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#88

Post by criddell »

tracker1 wrote: post #10

I absolutely hate even the idea of "Civil Asset Forfeiture." It's even more of a bullshit legal construct than a non-living entity having first amendment rights. It's clearly a 4th Amendment violation and deserves to be challenged. I'd be okay with freezing assets for up to say 3 months while formal charges are filed, but just taking them forever is fucking bullshit.

I think I agree. If there isn't a conviction I'm not sure how the forfeiture can really be justified.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#90

Post by orf »

wetpaws wrote: post #78
iforgotpassword wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wrap my head around how you can see it as positive that these kind of actions would go unpunished, in the name of "freedom". If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.

I would prefer being harrased and bullied rather than having to live in a country that has a legal power to punish me for what I say.

> to punish me for what I say.

But doesn't, unless you say something reprehensible that the society you live in agrees that you stepped way over the line.

Post reply on HN