Law Provisions

The law makes it a state misdemeanor crime for anyone to be unable to prove lawful residence in the United States upon being asked to provide such proof pursuant to a specific section in Title 8 of the United States Code, and requires police to make a reasonable attempt, when practical to determine immigration status if there is cause to suspect they are illegal immigrants. Only when making lawful contact, anyone who appears to be an illegal alien upon reasonable suspicion and fails to produce such proof is subject to arrest without warrant, and, upon confirmation of the individual’s illegal status by the federal government, a fine of at least $500, and up to six months in jail.

A person is “presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States” if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.

SB1070 also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting “the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law” and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.

In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone, regardless of citizenship or immigration-status, to hire or to be hired from a vehicle which “blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.” Vehicles used in such manner are subject to mandatory impounding. Moreover, “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” illegal immigration, giving shelter to illegal immigrants, and transporting or attempting to transport an illegal alien, either knowingly or while “recklessly” disregarding the individuals immigration-status, will be considered a class 1 criminal misdemeanor if less than 10 illegal immigrants are involved, and a class 6 felony if 10 or more are involved. The offender will be subject to a fine of at least $1,000 for each illegal alien so transported or sheltered.

Arizona is the first state with such a law. Prior law in Arizona, and the law in most other states, does not mandate that law enforcement personnel ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and many police departments discourage such inquiries for fear that immigrants will not report crimes or cooperate in other investigations.

Is it just me or has Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 not gone far enough? If the Arizona police are only going to be stopping Hispanic people and asking for their papers, won’t everyone else feel left out? Being a yoga teacher, this kind of thing concerns me.

So, what if we included everyone so that nobody feels excluded? I’ve sketched out a simple system that should make everyone feel good.

First, we’ll have the government give all the “legals” green armbands that they must wear at all times. It will be for their safety and would end pesky inquiries for papers from law enforcement. Police officers can get back to focusing on crime like robberies, rape, murder, and citizens can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that their brown-skinned neighbors are paying their taxes.

Native Americans can get another color, since they sometimes, you know, look like Mexicans. Maybe turquoise blue, since that color is often associated with “Indians.”

Maybe we should go a step farther, and give all citizens with IQs under 110 an orange band. They will not be allowed to carry guns…

And all of us non-brown folks who have an IQ over 110 get a gold sparkly band, so we can do pretty much whatever we want.

Then, anyone who is overweight has to go to work repairing roads or sewers (for free) until they lose weight as payback to society for taking more resources than one person should. We can use the tax money that would have gone toward infrastructure maintenance and put it back into securing our borders. Hey, these armbands may be cheaper than fitting everyone with microchips but they’ll still cost something!

Anyone not wearing a band is subject to “treatment” – you know, the kind Rumsfeld seems to like. And every now and then, specific band colors (such as green) get special jobs, like cleaning up toxic waste dumps – stuff like that. We can just round them up and have them live in barracks…it’ll be nice for them. They can work all day and feel really good about it.

I haven’t worked out the system completely yet, but I’ve heard about someone from the last century who really thought this one out . . .

I mean seriously, some people are advocating for a fascist state…so why not give it to them?

Economists Do It With Models tries to explain this in a little more detail and in layman’s terms:

Hedge fund guy: I think the housing market is going to go to s**t in the next few years. More specifically, I think I know which parts of the housing market are particularly vulnerable. In order to profit off of this information, I would like to short sell a financial product that is tied to the housing market. In other words, I’m going to borrow one of these securities, sell it at the current high price, buy it back once it’s worthless and then give it back to the original owner, keeping the profit for myself. (Update: Technically the short position was achieved via a credit default swap as opposed to a regular short sale. This doesn’t affect the overall analysis, and you can see my comment below for more detail.) Now, there are a few products out there that would be appropriate for this, but it would be totally better if I could design the product myself, since then I could be extra sure that it would tank as much as possible, thus maximizing my profit. Let me call my buddies at Goldman and see what they can do for me.

Goldman Sachs, to hedge fund guy: Sure, we can do that, just tell us what you would like the crappy product to look like. But wait a second…you do realize that it’s hard to short sell something unless other people actually hold the product in their portfolios, right? And who in their right minds would buy something that you, as a smart guy, specifically picked as being the bottom of the housing market barrel? That kind of throws a monkey wrench into your plan…but wait, I think we might have a solution to this problem. So here’s the deal – you’re gonna get a call from another financial firm, and you’re gonna tell them that you are looking to create a product to invest in. Now, this is technically true, so all you’re really doing is leaving out the teeny detail that you are taking a short position rather than betting on an increase in value. No big deal, right? Just tell them what you want in the product and they will make it happen.

Goldman Sachs, to other investors: Hey look, we have this new awesome product for you. The assets in the product have been hand-picked by an outside firm who specializes in this sort of thing, so you can be confident that’s it’s going to do well. *snicker*

And then, big shock, the product tanks, the investors lose over $1 billion and the hedge fund guy makes a corresponding $1 billion. Note that the real problem here is not that Goldman Sachs purposely created and sold a crappy product. The problem is instead one of asymmetric information, which in this case is the financial equivalent of Groucho Marx’ “I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members” quote. Simply put, if you have a really smart guy trying to sell you something that he owns, he’d better have a good reason for needing to sell it, since otherwise you’re probably getting taken for a ride. This situation is a classic example of the lemons problem- you know, where the shady dude is trying to sell you his used car and not telling you that it’s been in 5 accidents and has a faulty transmission- except that we’re talking about a financial product rather than a Honda Civic with a rolled back odometer.

I try to generally be as objective as possible (and have in fact defended Goldman’s business practices in the past), so I want to stay way more out of the discussion of whether this is a sign that more financial regulation is necessary than Rachel Maddow does in the video above. I will, however, point out that what Goldman Sachs is accused of is already illegal under current law, so I’m not sure how new regulations in and of themselves would prevent this behavior. Cue the oversight conversation…

The Somali Pirates’ Business Model

by Mark Leon Goldberg

Last week, a group of investigators dispatched by the Security Council to Somalia released an exhaustive, 100 plus page report on arms trafficking, aid diversion, and other criminal activities in Somalia… I found this short explanation of the pirates’ business model, tucked away in the report’s annex, to be fascinating:

“A basic piracy operation requires a minimum eight to twelve militia prepared to stay at sea for extended periods of time, in the hopes of hijacking a passing vessel. Each team requires a minimum of two attack skiffs, weapons, equipment, provisions, fuel and preferably a supply boat. The costs of the operation are usually borne by investors, some of whom may also be pirates.

To be eligible for employment as a pirate, a volunteer should already possess a firearm for use in the operation. For this ‘contribution’, he receives a ‘class A’ share of any profit. Pirates who provide a skiff or a heavier firearm, like an RPG or a general purpose machine gun, may be entitled to an additional A-share. The first pirate to board a vessel may also be entitled to an extra A-share.

At least 12 other volunteers are recruited as militiamen to provide protection on land of a ship is hijacked, In addition, each member of the pirate team may bring a partner or relative to be part of this land-based force. Militiamen must possess their own weapon, and receive a ‘class B’ share — usually a fixed amount equivalent to approximately US$15,000.

If a ship is successfully hijacked and brought to anchor, the pirates and the militiamen require food, drink, qaad, fresh clothes, cell phones, air time, etc. The captured crew must also be cared for. In most cases, these services are provided by one or more suppliers, who advance the costs in anticipation of reimbursement, with a significant margin of profit, when ransom is eventually paid.

When ransom is received, fixed costs are the first to be paid out. These are typically:

• Reimbursement of supplier(s)

• Financier(s) and/or investor(s): 30% of the ransom

• Local elders: 5 to 10 %of the ransom (anchoring rights)

• Class B shares (approx. $15,000 each): militiamen, interpreters etc.

The remaining sum — the profit — is divided between class-A shareholders.”

Wonder if they teach that at Wharton?

Tax Cannabis 2010 is the pro-legalization campaign’s official site, at which you can listen to a radio ad currently running in the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles, where medical marijuana dispensaries have already proliferated. The state legalized medical marijuana in 1996.

Law enforcement groups and all of the gubernatorial candidates, including Democrat Jerry Brown, widely caricatured as Governor Moonbeam during his first stint as the state’s chief executive in the 70s, oppose full-scale legalization. Here’s a site from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration called Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization.

And hyere’s one of our most clicked-on links (no idea why), a graphic of potential tax revenue from marijuana production state by state, including the number of marijuana-related arrests in the U.S.

The earnest tone of the blog is typified by this comment:

“It’s tragic that fraud perpetrators have to learn critical lessons of life the hard way all the while leaving a wake of suffering victims behind them as they eventually enter a life of misery themselves. Fraud may pay in the short run but it never pays in the long run!”

Will my high level connections overcome a DUI?

I have a friend pretty high up at a major company (in sales) who had recently talked to me about submitting my resume for employment. I had to gently remind this very good friend of mine that I have 2 DUIs, but both are over 5 years old. I have since cleaned up my act and hardly ever drink at all. I certainly don’t drink and drive! She then took that information and asked her co-workers whether or not I’d have a shot at the position. They for obvious reasons told her that with so many viable candidates with clean records, why would they choose me?

But there’s a twist…One of my other good friend’s fathers happens to be a Senior VP with this very company. He was an ex cabinet member and has worked as a Senior VP for this company for around 6-7 years now. Needless to say, he has influence.

In your opinion, would this Senior VP be able to bypass “the rules” written or unwritten, with a letter of recommendation? Or am I still dead in the water? I doubt you can answer this question with certainty, so again, I am just looking for your opinion. I am qualified for this job otherwise and know I would be risk worth taking. My friend obviously feels the same or she would have never mentioned it in the first place. I am worried that my past in this regard has caught up to me and might prevent me from getting a job I really want.

RESPONSE FROM EVIL HR LADY

Everyone has undoubtedly heard the phrase, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” There are certainly many cases where this is true, but usually you have to both know the right people and the right things.

So, in short, yes, a Sr. VP could pull strings and get you preferential treatment, and probably guarantee you a job. But, I can’t see why he would want to.

You see, while VPs can pull strings, they can’t pull them in a cost free way. If he does this, someone will owe him (or he’ll use up his credit on someone else owing him). Usually, getting a qualified person a job would be low cost expenditure for your average Sr. VP. But, you have a big black mark next to you that increases the cost to him tremendously.

The problem with sales is that you are expected to drive around all day. Your car becomes your office, which means the company is liable for your actions while you are in the car. Unless it would be illegal to consider a 5 year old DUI, I would fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting a job which puts the company at so much risk.

I know you say you don’t drink and drive any more, but there is no way for the company to know that. For all they know you just haven’t gotten caught. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

If you were the VPs daughter, then maybe he’d try. But, for a daughter’s friend, I doubt he would want to use up his capital and put his career on the line for you. Let’s say you get hired and you get into a car accident. Even if it is 100% not your fault, it’s going to come back and look bad on him.

Now, I don’t know what the laws are in your state regarding how convictions can be considered. If they would require the conviction to be ignored, then go out and get the job on your own. Without the big black mark on your record Mr. VP could probably (and more willingly) put a good word for you.

But, if they can consider it, I would think a company (and any VP who suggested it) foolish to put someone with two DUIs in a company car. So, yeah, I think this is where your past catches up with you.

RESPONSE FROM A READER

Yes,the DUI/DWI will adversely affect your hiring prospects. Remember, HR stands for “human RESOURCES” not “HUMAN Relations”. You are nothing but an expendable fixed-cost asset to them.

However, my one-and-only lifetime legal mistake nearly 7 years ago did not hamper me from going into a lower wage non-driving arena to survive. It won’t matter what level of advanced education, references, or sterling work history you have: a felon will get more “forgiveness” (oops–the F word in our nation…) than a misdemeanor DUI, unless you are a “celebrity”. Here is the rub: it’s your life, not the Darwinian Capitalist System’s. Do what you must to survive, STOP ALCOHOL USE COMPLETELY, live a straight-edge lifestyle (sXe on the web) and never give up. HR will always want to find a fault in you…they are like accountants searching for the missing penny, Theory X managers all-the-way.

As time goes by, your new sXe, clean health & fitness lifestyle will eventually put you back into the professional driver’s seat without the need for any crutches like alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.

Believe me, I may be bitter (obviously…), but I have been completely clean sXe for 7 years: something most HR reps can’t match. You can do it and turn out better than those who get bailed out from their “unforgivable” mistakes.

Guns and the Weber Grill Wars (Vagabond Guru)

I don’t know if it was a trend unique to my city or if it was popular everywhere, but everyone I knew in Detroit had a Weber grill and we barbequed all summer. We cooked steaks, ribs, chicken, brats… roasted corn and potatoes. We still all do. BUT I don’t know anyone that has a Weber grill anymore.

I lost three of them. How they got the damn things over my six-foot fence I’ll never know, but they did it somehow. And in later years, as Slouchy NEVER emptied the ash until it was overflowing, I imagine it was a messy affair.

I had a friend who found his at a pawnshop down the street and convinced the owner that the intelligent thing to do was to let him take it back home.

After the third grill left the backyard at the Hannington compound I said, “Screw this!” I found a grill made by some artisan in his garage. A western type deal, it was welded steel with cast iron parts and had a little horseshoe that you could swing out over the fire and heat up a cup of coffee or some barbeque sauce and an overhead bar with various hooks that allowed you to hang pots of beans or other barbeque-like fare.

Not only did it look cool, but also there was NO WAY anyone was lifting that f**** over a fence!

I’ve lived in Detroit for over twenty years.

I’ve been a victim of crime…

Mostly, these “sprees” could be traced it to a new crack house nearby…

I’ve lived here for a long time and have played in this city for even longer and I have never REALLY been in fear of my life. At some point you get streetwise, you know how to fit in and people just don’t mess with you.

When you live here you become a part of a neighborhood and for the most part if you dig on folks in the hood, they will dig on you and let you do your thing. On the east side, where I am, there is Berry Sub, Indian Village and West Village, to the north is Boston/Edison and Brush Park and to the west Cork Town and Mexican Town….

Read the full post here.

Though retailers seem to be confronting return fraud, incidents continue to permeate most retail stores. According to the survey, most retailers (88.9%) have had stolen merchandise returned to stores within the past year. Retailers also report being victimized by returns of merchandise originally purchased with fraudulent or stolen tender (74.1%) and returns using counterfeit receipts (45.7%).

The release goes on to address something called “wardrobing.”

“Consumers experiencing a bit of buyer’s remorse as a result of the economy may be returning unworn and unused merchandise to stores,” said NRF Vice President of Loss Prevention Joe LaRocca. “While retailers look at returns as a way to provide good customer service, an increased rate of returns is yet another challenge for retailers during a tough economic climate…”

The unethical practice of “wardrobing,” the return of non-defective, used merchandise—especially in the apparel and electronics categories—continues to be problematic for retailers. Nearly two-thirds of retailers (64.2%) have seen this type of merchandise returned in the past year – down from 66.1 percent last year, but up from 2006 levels (56.0%).

So remember, this year, act ethically. When you unwrap that new blender – the moment you hit “puree,” it’s yours.