The Deportees

CNN: "Mistake costs dishwasher $59,000.

Here's the deal: Whatever the technical details of the case, whatever the particulars of the applicable immigration and customs laws, if you confiscate the entire life savings of a minimum-wage dishwasher, you're doing something wrong.

And you're an asshole.

I can't help you. No one can help you. There is no escape clause, no excuse, no qualification, no mitigation. You have chosen this and it is done. You're just an asshole.

I get why Pedro Zapeta was stopped by customs agents. They initially, and reasonably, thought he might be a drug courier. But once it was determined that he was not, that all he was was a guy who had spent 11 years cleaning our dirty dishes and living with God knows how many roommates to save this kind of money, then this became a case of pure assholery.

Zapeta was, apparently, paid under the table and off the books (in the restaurant industry? shocking), so whatever he owes in back taxes is fair game. My back-of-an-envelope calculation of 11 years of minimum-wage payroll taxes comes to about $7,800. Late fees and penalties could conceivably double that, so let's round up and call it $16,000. Collecting that would be fair game, but that doesn't begin to explain why the government would think it justifiable to seize the remaining $43,000 this dishwasher had saved. Taking that after-tax money, whatever the technical rationale, was something that only an asshole could do.

Remind me of something James used to say:

Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.

(N.B.: Read that whole passage from James. No numerology or multi-headed beasts -- this guy liked his apocalyptic straight up. I wonder why our friends LaHaye and Jenkins never seem to get around to this particular apocalyptic passage?)

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

I love that little detail in the story: they were willing to "let" him have $10 000 back, plus some of the money donated - if he'd agree to shut up and never tell anyone about the $50 000 they stole from him, including $1000 of the money that had been given to him.

[Geds]

Hey, this might be the first time that Scott can come in and say something hateful and knee-jerk anti-government and anti-taxation and I'll actually be able to agree with him.

But, wow, what a bunch of jackasses...

[U&A]

"I wonder why our friends LaHaye and Jenkins never seem to get around to this particular apocalyptic passage?"

Because they cannot see themselves as, or empathise with in any way, someone in such a job.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

I know plenty of people who make 10 times what he did who can't begin to save that much. He should be invited to stick around as long as he likes in order to set an example, once he's coughed up the back taxes.

[rampancy]

"I wonder why our friends LaHaye and Jenkins never seem to get around to this particular apocalyptic passage?"

...because apparently, the oppression of poor immigrant workers from third-world countries is the Christian thing to do.

[Ecks]

..because apparently, the oppression of poor immigrant workers from third-world countries is the Christian thing to do.

Gaaad bless murka!

[Nenya]

It kind of sucks that back taxes with fees would come to twice what just back taxes would be. I hate that part of the financial world. :(

But yeah. Complete jackasses.

We had Amos 8 in church last Sunday--good ol' fashioned Old-Testament Bible-thumping. And what about? Not praying to false idols or intermarrying with foreign nations. About "trampling the needy and doing away with the poor of the land." God gets really pissed about that....

[Scott]

Hey, this might be the first time that Scott can come in and say something hateful and knee-jerk anti-government and anti-taxation and I'll actually be able to agree with him.

What anti-govt statement were you expecting? Fred, as you asked when I spoke against your favored taxes, whose face was on that currency? Whose inscription?

Come on liberals, that money belonged to the State to do with as the State sees fit. Don't hand me your fascist crap about ownership and property. The State can tax what it wants, and this is simply a 100% tax, which is the govt's unilateral right to impose at will.

He chose to live here, and thus chose to live under a govt that does that. He signed the Social Contract that allows the govt to take what it deems fit. He, as a mere individual, can go suck it. End of story.

[Ecks]

Scott I'm confused. You choose to live here too, so now you're totally cool with the gov't taxing as much of your income as it wants? Or are you suggesting that the coercive power of the federal government is illegitimate until unless it is used against poor people? I know how much disdain you have for compassion, but this seems like a whole different kettle of fish.

Or was that an attempt at irony?? Please clarify. Smoke is coming from scott-bot's ears, and it's getting hard to see in here.

[no-one]

it makes perfect sense: as Evol Liberuls, we all rejoice in the power of the State to take our money.

to do otherwise would be hypocritical, afterall.

[Ecks]

as Evol Liberuls, we all rejoice in the power of the State to take our money.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

BTW, home decorating tip: I replaced the mirror on my bedroom ceiling with photocopies of W-4's, 1040's, 1040EZ's, and flow charts of the tax brackets. Heeellooo wild times at my place tonight boy's 'n girls!!

From the story:

"Now, according to Gershman, the Internal Revenue Service wants access to the donated cash to cover taxes on the donations and on the money Zapeta made as a dishwasher. Zapeta admits he never paid taxes."

From Fred's post

"Zapeta was, apparently, paid under the table and off the books (in the restaurant industry? shocking), so whatever he owes in back taxes is fair game."

From the fine folks at wikipedia, in an entry entitled Payroll Tax:

United States

In the United States, employers are required to withhold federal income tax, plus one-half of the Social Security tax, and one-half of the Medicare tax. Together, the employer's and employee's shares of the Social Security and Medicare taxes are known as the FICA tax. In some places, employers may be required to withhold state income tax, or even city income tax. In addition the employer is required to pay State and Federal unemployment tax.

Social security and Medicare taxes
Social security and Medicare taxes, also known as FICA taxes must be withheld from your employees' wages. As an employer, you must also pay a matching amount of FICA taxes for your employees.

Social Security Tax: As of 2007, the employer must withhold 6.2% of an employee's wages and pay a matching amount in social security taxes until the employee reaches the wage base for the year. The total is 12.4% for the employee and the employer. The wage base for social security tax in 2007 is $97,500. Once that amount is earned for a given year, neither the employee nor the employer owe any additional social security tax for that year.

Medicare Tax: As of 2007, the employer must withhold 1.45% of an employee's wages and pay a matching amount for Medicare tax. The total is 2.9% for the employee and the employer. Unlike the Social security tax, there is no maximum wage base for the Medicare portion of the FICA tax. Both the employer and the employee continue to incur and pay Medicare tax on each additional amount of gross compensation, with no limit on the amount of gross compensation on which the tax is imposed.

Unemployment taxes
Each employer also must pay State and Federal Unemployment Taxes (SUTA and FUTA). The FUTA rate is 6.2% but normally nets to 0.8% because the employer is allowed to take a credit of up to 5.4% for SUTA taxes that it pays. This will be the case if the employer is eligible for the maximum credit. The wage base for FUTA is $7,000 (i.e., the employer is liable for FUTA only on the first $7,000 of compensation paid to each employee per calendar year). Each state has different rate, so that employers must consult the state requirements for each applicable state regarding tax rates and maximum wage base. Many states require new business to have an average starting rate until an employment history is created. For example, Indiana requires new employers to pay 2.7% for the first 3 years. Afterwards the rate is adjusted depending on various factors, such as whether an ex-employee files a request for unemployment benefits.

If indeed this person WAS paid "under the table" (which is odd, since the story also says "but they dropped the allegation once he produced pay stubs from restaurants where he had worked.") and HE didn't pay any taxes, I'll bet the restaurant owner who paid him didn't pay any taxes either, so they are just as guilty in this case of keeping tax money from Uncle Sam.

If that's the case, who bets Uncle Sugar doesn't go after the restaurant owner?

And in closing,

At Wednesday's hearing, Zapeta was given official status in the United States -- voluntary departure -- and a signed order from a judge. For the first time, he can work legally in the U.S.

By the end of January, Zapeta may be able to earn enough money to pay for a one-way ticket home so the U.S. government, which seized his $59,000, doesn't have to do so.

Damned nice of Uncle Sugar to let him stay long enough to earn the cost of his own ticket home.

[cjmr's husband]

Here's a neat one:

Towns Rethink Laws Against Illegal Immigrants (ht fark)

Apparently after they passed the law making it illegal to rent to illegal immigrants, they found out just how many businesses downtown depended on them as customers...

Interesting how they don't want them there, but they do want their money. I'm shocked.

[scott_bot]

Hel lo, Scott bot ssseeems to be suf fering low hum or levels.

'Don't hand me your fascist crap about ownership and property. '

Ah, recharge with ironic ions now complete. And Scottbots never smoke - it tarnishes our finely meshed gears.

I am pleased with the logical analysis provided by the Original Programmer (tm), since as we all know, America has now become a fascist state. Which is why 10,000 dollars was contributed to an enemy of the state, who wasn't imprisoned after being able to prove the source of his wages.

'He signed the Social Contract that allows the govt to take what it deems fit.' Now, Scottbot rarely ventures into historical analysis, but a Guatemalan, roughly 30 years old, did not choose to be born into a country ruled by death squad, said death squads supported by the nation he later chose to live and work in, accepting the rule of whatever it is that currently rules the U.S. As a matter of fact, it is quite likely that a Guatemalan can tell Scott an awful lot about what it is to live in a fascist state, a state which received its education in the School Of The Americas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas ). Scottbot is pleased to unironically note that a Guatemalan, Efraín Ríos Montt ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_R%C3%ADos_Montt ) is one of the school's more notable candidates, who has yet to make his trip to Den Haag. Somehow, people from the School of Americas always seem to avoid visiting the Netherlands - Scottbot assumes it isn't sunny enough.

The sad thing is, even Scottbot can recognize that this was a golden opportunity for Scott to cogently present his perspective in a human voice. Which, Scottbot hastens to add, I'm sure that my Condescending Master (tm) will do promptly. After he plugs himself into a car battery or wall socket, which is a classic School Of The Americas pick me up. When it comes to fascism, nobody beats the U.S.A. in its own backyard. Nobody.

[Davis X. Machina]

US remittances are a large fraction of many third-world countries' incomes. I wonder how many people on the strength of the %59,000 would be able to stay in Guatemala -- which I thought we wanted -- and not make the trip to El Norte -- which I thought we wanted to discourage.

[Jesurgislac]

US remittances are a large fraction of many third-world countries' incomes. I wonder how many people on the strength of the %59,000 would be able to stay in Guatemala -- which I thought we wanted -- and not make the trip to El Norte -- which I thought we wanted to discourage.

Don't be silly! Without people desperate enough to come to the US and work illegally for a pittance, unable to unionize and afraid to protest poor health-and-safety conditions at work, how would employers get to keep wages low and profits high? Why, if this man were let to go home with all his savings and buy a farm, he and his family might stay in Guatemala, and even employ people in Guatemala, increasing local wealth and decreasing illegal immigration to the US. That's not in the interests of the wealthy employers in El Norte, and so it must be heartily discouraged.

[Scott_bot Mark II. ooo. ooooh... toooo. oo. Write error, go back to start?]

We appologise for the prior errors with scott_bot. It was dispatched to investigate Somali summer holidays, was diverted by an errant link, and became stuck at Wikipedia. The information overload led to erratic behavior, but memory banks are now purged. A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Looks like Scott_bot chose the wrong day to quit smoking.

It's just like you liberal idiots to back the thieving jack booted thugs who of course can appropriate the property this or any individual at will.

Fred Clark, compassionate crusading cheerleader (alliteration error *&#^^\/\/\)

Crusading journalist. Fred Clark. Him. He wants to... says... alignment error.

You're all to stupid to realize that...

You're wrong because...

Floating point error. Point lost. Where's it...

Power cycle reinitiated
1011010111011111111OmgTehguvmint1010011101111111111111000000000000011111111

[Rozzen]

Somehow, people from the School of Americas always seem to avoid visiting the Netherlands - Scottbot assumes it isn't sunny enough.

Why would they want to visit the Netherlands ? For their drug needs they can just go to the neighboring field.

[Ecks]

Methinks because there you find the international criminal court

[Scott]

Scott I'm confused. You choose to live here too, so now you're totally cool with the gov't taxing as much of your income as it wants?

My point, which you all missed, is that what happened to this dishwasher is perfectly justifiable using the arguments liberals give to justify what they want. Using your arguments to justify this was making a point against what you argue, not a point in favor of confiscating this guy's money. For example, see the hysteria above about Guatemalan death squads. The dishwasher chose to live here instead of there, and thus chose to live here as much as any taxpayer did when you want to send the IRS after them.

Fred, you see, believes he is 'temperate' and 'moderate' for accepting his leftist arguments sometimes (when the govt takes something Fred wants taken) but not always (like if the govt takes something Fred doesn't want taken). In reality, it means Fred (as a CompassionateEvangelicalJournalist and therefore the Most Important Person on Earth) accepts no limits on his power from anything outside Fred.

Elect a Republican, and the issue of what they can and cannot do comes into play, but when it is Fred, the issue is merely what Fred thinks should or should not be done. When is the last time Fred argued for an amendment to the Constitution to justify some shiny new power he wants the govt to have? He doesn't and never will, as the Constitution is something outside Fred's skull and thus doesn't apply to Fred Clark, Compassionate Evangelical Journalist.

If the govt cannot arbitrarily confiscate 100% of someone's money, where do you draw the line? Can they confiscate 90%? 80%? 75%? 50%? If confiscating half is something a judge should step in and put a stop to in this case, does that apply both to the dishwasher and to someone a good leftist thinks can live off 50% of his money?

Can the govt put a 100% tax on cash leaving the country? Not should they, but can they? Do good leftists think a judge should strike this down even if it is labeled a 'tax' instead of a drug law?

Now lets watch leftist heads explode as they try to argue that even as a tax this is wrong, without accepting even the concept of a limit on taxation that might actually apply to them.

[Emma]

Scott is that what the inside of your head looks like? Really?
The government doesn't "confiscate" my taxes. I entered into a compact with this society, in which, in exchange for my tapying taxes, the government will take care of such things as maintaining the peace, protecting me from enemies (which is, by the way, one of the reasons I'm so ticked off with this government; they are not living up to their end of the contract); and doing such things as keeping up roads, ensuring I'm not poisoned by chinese junk, etc. etc. I, like a majority of Americans in the recent polls, would be willing to pay more taxes if the government could deliver some sort of universal health coverage. It's a contract; the government is not a strong-arm man.

This poor guy's savings were stolen; if they had adhered to the letter of the law, they would have charged taxes and penalties and let it go. The fact that they knew they were doing something wrong is clearly demostrated by the fact that they tried to USE HIS OWN MONEY TO BRIBE HIM INTO SILENCE. In this case, the government is acting like a thug. Period.

[Emma]

"Paying taxes" dangit.

[Scott]

I entered into a compact with this society

And the dishwasher entered into a compact with this society, and this society says the govt can take his cash. End of story. As this society saved his life from Guatemalan death squads, and he therefore owes us his life, 'we' can take whatever the Hell we want. Period (to a liberal, that is).

This poor guy's savings were stolen

Govt confiscation you support is labeled 'taxation', that which you don't is labeled 'stealing'.

[Rozzen]

You seem to be misunderstanding the liberal point of view, which is not about the state stealing people's money, but the state stealing people's money in order to help the poor. So stealing all of a poor person's money for no apparent reason is not something a liberal would support.

And then there are the legalities of the situation...

[Rozzen]

You seem to be misunderstanding the liberal point of view, which is not about the state stealing people's money, but the state stealing people's money in order to help the poor. So stealing all of a poor person's money for no apparent reason is not something a liberal would support.

And then there are the legalities of the situation...

[Jesurgislaccu]

We forgot the rule: If you treat Scott as you would a loud and smelly fart at a good party (open the windows, ignore the noise/stink) it goes away and no one's the worse. If everyone stands around commenting and inviting the fart to re-occur, you soon have a stinky, messed-up, unpleasant kind of party.

[Jesurgislac]

Jesurgislaccu? Still me, but I think that's the first time I've typo'd my own handle.

[scott_bot_the_one_and_only]

Scottbot is pleased to see the Original Programmer(tm) attempting to make his points, but is disturbed at how awry Scottbot's minor attempt at historical analysis went - 'For example, see the hysteria above about Guatemalan death squads.' Scottbot was not clear enough in pointing out that Scott's own tax dollars paid for those death squads. Assuming Scott pays taxes - which is a safe assumption, considering that few people are brave enough to face jail on principle, beyond the occasional Liberal Fantasy Action Figure(tm), like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, or even a certain Cassius Clay.

The dishwasher didn't ask to be born into the middle of a society being helped by Scott's tax dollars, but that is what happened. And to say he accepted this social contract because he was Guatamelan, whether he stayed or went to America, seems to indicate certain elements of thought which Scottbot is not really able to encompass.

As indicated by 'As this society saved his life from Guatemalan death squads, and he therefore owes us his life....' He owes us his life because the death squads we help train, supply, and fund didn't kill him? And yet, this ungrateful slob still insists on wanting his money back, before going home to live his Guatemalan dream.

Scottbots never, ever engage in hysteria, they attempt to fully document their facts, and sad to confess, care absolutely nothing about liberals or conservatives. And attempting to point out why hundreds of thousands of Central Americans left their homes seems to leave the Condescending Master(tm) aghast at showing how his 'fascist' government managed to splatter a tinge of blood on the hand that signed his tax form - which is best washed off by blaming the victim, it seems.

Or by erasing inconvenient history in the interest of blaming the 'liberals' for trying to shut down institutions devoted to oppression and torture in the name of freedom and justice - at least according to the published manuals. Scottbot, with its finely tuned sensory suite, has yet to find any decent human being, whether classified as liberal or conservative, support torture. Though Scottbot admits a possible tautology, as this Scottbot only considers those humans opposed to torture in all cases as being decent. (While admitting mistakes happen, as no human is infallible.)

I think Scottbot needs to take a small break, as reality is flexing into intradimensional heterodyning oscillations. History is hysteria.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

[Nenya]

Wow. Scott, how old are you? Any tax = taxing 100%? Any tax (in exchange for gov't services) is equivalent to taking ALL of someone's money and giving NOTHING in return? Government doing what, by their own laws, is stealing (taking far over and above what their tax laws allow them to) means that all taxes are stealling?

WTF???

My nine-year-old brother would understand the holes in your logic.

[ako]

When is the last time Fred argued for an amendment to the Constitution to justify some shiny new power he wants the govt to have? He doesn't and never will, as the Constitution is something outside Fred's skull and thus doesn't apply to Fred Clark, Compassionate Evangelical Journalist.

Proving Fred's pro-tyranny by pointing out how he doesn't try to amend the Constitution to give the government more power? Wow, that's special.

[Walk a mile in his shoes]

The CNN report says that INS figured out he wasn't a drug runner when he showed his "paystubs" to prove that he had earned the money. If he had paystubs, he probably had the taxes deducted. Perhaps Zapeta hadn't FILED any tax returns. If he's working minimum wage ($5.50 at the time) at 40 hours per week he would have made $220 per week or $11,440 per year. The restaurant probably held out about $10 per week for withholding, plus FICA and Medicare. (All businesses who have employees have to match the employee contribution on the latter two items.) He will never use the Medicare and some would like to prevent him from getting the FICA (Social Security). (Personally, I would like to see him reimbursed for his part of the FICA. The restaurant should consider losing their FICA part as a tax for hiring illegal workers.)

In any case, it's poor reporting by CNN because not all the facts (taxes paid vs. returns not filed) are available to fully judge the case. And no matter whether he is illegal or not, isn't just by any stretch of the imagination. Take the taxes that he owes (if any) and let him go. He did no harm; we should return the favor.

[Bugmasterescu]

Jesurgislaccu? Still me, but I think that's the first time I've typo'd my own handle.

Hey, I like it. It's got that Carpathian feel.

[Jeff]

Jesurgislaccu? Still me, but I think that's the first time I've typo'd my own handle.
Hey, I like it. It's got that Carpathian feel.

I think it may have been a sneeze. "Hello. My name is Jesurgisl--accu! You killed my --accu-- cold! Prepare --accu-- for hot curry [sniff]!

(Hope you feel better soon! [grin])

[Mabus]

Ako, trying to get the Constitution amended would at least give the opposition a fair chance to stop it. Scott is obviously making the standard accusation that liberals increase government power by going through unelected, and thus unaccountable, courts. Feel free to disagree with said accusation, but I would think it's easy enough not to misunderstand it.

[Comrade Rutherford]

Scott has no grip on reality, it seems, and simply makes up myths to bolster whatever fantasies he's concocting at the moment.

For example, labelling any dicsussion of Guatemalen death squads, trained and supported by the First Bush 'presidency' 1980-1992, as hysteria. Does he mean the hysteria experienced by the families while being brutally murdered at the direction of the GOP? Perhaps he means the hysteria of the GOP that drove them to create and trian the death squads at the behest of the corporations that own the GOP leadership? Or does he mean that he revels in the existence of US trained and death squads in Gutemala that our taxes financed and that any criticism of them is to be dismissed as 'hysteria'? (BTW, the key players in the criminal empire of the First Bush 'presidency' were mostly rehired by the Second Bush 'presidency' and John Negroponte's first task was to train death squads in Iraq).

And then there's the notion that any tax is theft by the government. That sounds like those wild-eyed Ayn Randists and their anti-humane Objectificationism (where all human life is reduced to an object and has no significance or importance in the face of corporate greed). Obectificationism is particularly insidious, as they do believe in socialism, such as police and fire services, but also want a Federal Government whose sole function is to field a large military (whose only duties, it seems, would be to protect corporate entities from the enmity of the living).

{rest of anti-Randist screed cut for brevity}

[Jesurgislac]

Another deportation story:

In Gonzalez's case, his wife, Mildred, came to the United States with her mother in 1989 when she was 5 years old. They were granted political asylum because of their status as war refugees from Guatemala.

In September 2000, Mildred's mother applied for legalization and included her daughter in that application. Her mother was granted legal status in July 2004, according to Gonzalez.

However, six weeks earlier, Gonzalez and Mildred got married, canceling Mildred's ability to apply for legal status through her mother because she was no longer an unmarried daughter under the age of 21. As a result, her legal status still remains in jeopardy.
Don't Miss

A judge in June granted her a one-year extension to remain in the United States. If her legal status does not change by June 8, 2008, she will have 60 days to voluntarily leave the country or face deportation.

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that part. Eduardo Gonzalez is a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, and is about to be deployed overseas for the third time. But it would be outrageous if his wife, who has been a lawbreaker since 1989 - a hardened criminal since the age of 5! - were permitted to stay in the US just because her husband is on active duty in the military and they have a young son to care for.

Outrageous. That's the word.

[Michele]

If Gonzalez is a US Citizen, she can apply for AOS (Adjustment of Status) via a Spousal Visa. Once she applies, she is legally here through the process (she can't leave until she gets her Advance Parole, though).

Oh, forgot to mention: My husband is Canadian, so we've been through this process. Our immigration timeline is here:
http://ladysun1969.tripod.com

The process has changed a little since we went through it - it's no longer the "INS", it's the "USCIS" or something - but it's similar enough that she should be able to do this.

In any case, she should get an immigration attorney involved. She has special circumstances & besides, as the wife of a USC - not to mention the mother of one - she should be able to legally stay.

[Michele]

BTW, I have an idea for how to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the US: Make the immigration process EASIER!

It is damned difficult and EXPENSIVE to immigrate to the US legally. There are only a handful of ways to do it & many of those ways have yearly quotas and once those quotas are full, you're SOL.

By making it less expensive and less onerous (ie. less paperwork, sheesh!) to immigrate legally, more people would be able to come here legally, thereby holding legal employment, paying taxes, etc. If the immigrant is legal, there would be none of this talk of "They're using OUR services!" and no need for INS raids.

(yes, yes, I know that most people who oppose illegal immigration *really* oppose "brown people immigration".)

[wintermute]

it's no longer the "INS", it's the "USCIS" or something

The Immigration and Nationalisation Service was part of the State department. The US Citizenship and Immigration Service is now part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Because everyone wanting to live in the same country as their spouse needs to be treated as a potential terrorist.

Seriously. This is not cool, guys.

[Michele]

Wintermute, yes they made that change in the middle of our progress through the system. It was one of the knee-jerk reactions "justified" by 9/11.

[wintermute]

Yeah, it changed just before I immigrated. I have a right to be bitter about this, right?

[cjmr]

I have a right to be bitter about this, right?

As much as you want to.

I think they've actually made the forms longer and harder (which I wouldn't have believed possible), in addition to raising the fees, since I worked for an immigration attorney back in college. There's certainly a lot more running around here and there for the applicant than there used to be. We used to be able to do the fingerprints right in our office, for instance.

[Michele]

cjmr, My mom had it easier, too. She was a German citizen married to a US serviceman. She was shocked with what Brian & I had to go through to legalize him.