But what will we do with them?

Police just might get to seize cars from illegal aliens.

Police would have the power to seize cars from illegal immigrants stopped in a traffic accident or cited for driving violations under a plan approved Thursday by the Georgia House.

The quesiton I have is what are they going to do with them? Maybe add them to the lottery. Can you imagine a “scratch the illegal” card game from the Georgia Lottery: if you scratch off the fence, you get a 1996 Acura Integra with a dash board bobble head Jesus and neon lights under the car!

Of course they’d have to lower the age for lottery tickets for 16 year old white males.

20 comments

  1. Chris says:

    Prediction:

    They’ll auction them off, investors will buy them and turn around and sell them right back to illegals.

    I gotta wonder if the used-car lobby isn’t behind this asinine bill.

  2. ramblinwreck says:

    I think this actually makes sense. Currently, under the war on drugs (with which I disagree ) if a drug dealer is arrested everything they own is siezed under the assumption that it was obtained with money from illegal activity. Our county siezed and sold an entire farm a few years back under this scenario. What about illegals? Are they breaking the law by being here ? Yes. Is the money they earn obtained legally? I think not if they are in the country illegally. If not, anything they own, including the 96 Acura, was purchsed with illegally obtained income. If the state stared confiscating everything illegals own every time you catch one I belive we would instantly see a massive self-deportation and you wouldn’t even need a wall at that point.

    If we’re going to take the assets of unlicenced pharmacists then why not “undocumented” aliens?

  3. Doug Deal says:

    How about just convicting employers who higher illegals of the felonies for tax fraud that they have to be committing in order to higher them in the first place. No jobs = self deportment.

  4. ramblinwreck says:

    Doug, that would work too except that I hesitate to penalized employers by expecting them to do something the feds are supposed to do which is to control the border in the first place. But, that would work. The downside is that we wouldn’t have a ready supply of 96 Acuras to resell.

  5. CobbGOPer says:

    I think the idea with the legislation is that if an illegal crashes into you, they likely don’t have insurance.

    Therefore, their car would be seized and auctioned in order to at least provide some type of restitution to the victim, who is stuck having to repair their vehicle and pay any medical bills on their own since the illegal didn’t have insurance.

    At least that’s how I understood it to work.

  6. StevePerkins says:

    I hesitate to penalized employers by expecting them to do something the feds are supposed to do which is to control the border in the first place.

    Going back to the drug-war analogy, that’s like saying that it is wrong to penalize people who buy drugs… because it’s “the government’s job to keep them off the market”. Pure B.S.

    I could see giving employers leniency when an employee provides a Tax ID Number (many illegals DO pay taxes), and the employer simply doesn’t investigate beyond that. However, if don’t ask your worker for anything at all, and are paying him cash under the table, then you’re guilty of tax fraud above and beyond any immigration issue. No sympathy from me… these businesses know exactly what they’re doing.

  7. Icarus says:

    JK,

    You may well have had a 96 3.2 TL, it just wasn’t a TLS, or more specifically, a TL-S or TL type S, those I think came along in 2003, but it is too late in the happy hour for me to look it up, and I’m not going to run a class on 2000 Acura’s until we can get the 90’s models figured out.

    As for Rugby’s whereabouts, he’s not with me. I think he and Jace are helping train English soldiers for winter duty in Norway:

    http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2285603.ece

  8. Doug Deal says:

    grift,

    What Supreme Court is that? The one that has upheld siezure laws for drugs, or the one that has upheld Kelo?

    Oh, you must be thinking about the Mexican Supreme Court. I do not think they have jurisdiction here.

Comments are closed.