Immigration Watch International (2): Judge Sets Whopping Fine on Migrant Bond Issuing Firm, $811 Million

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Judge Sets Whopping Fine on Migrant Bond Issuing Firm, $811 Million

One of the legal ways that non-migrants can make money from the migration business is to lend money (for bonds) to illegal aliens in trouble with the law. The bonds are designed to make sure that an alien involved shows up at scheduled court hearings and meets other requirements.

There is also substantial illegal money to be made in this business. As the Washington Post reported on April 4, a single firm in Virginia took in so much money from this business illegally to warrant a total penalty of $811 million, an amount large enough to threaten the firm involved with bankruptcy.

The firm is Libre by Nexus, and it is located far from migrant populations; it is in Verona, Va., population 4,582, in the northern Shenandoah Valley. A federal judge in Roanoke, Va., found, according to the Post, that the company owed the federal consumer protection agency $231 million in restitution plus massive civil penalties. The company, which operates throughout the United States, plans to appeal the verdict.

Immigration bonds are somewhat similar to bonds in the criminal court system, and perform the same service, making sure that the individual involved shows up in court when needed.

It is also a program that operates on a lot of relatively small-scale cases; TRAC, the Syracuse University research outfit, estimates that in CY 2024, the median bond was for $5,000.

Lending money to lots of people at $5,000 a crack, despite high fees, is not a very profitable business, as Libre must have found, because it added a new element to its dealings with many of the aliens (illegal ones by definition). It insisted that many of them must wear cigarette-package-sized monitors on their legs for $420 a month. And, again according to the Post, the fee had to be paid whether the device worked or not.

The judge ruled that Libre could not do this in the future.

Five entities were charged in the case: Libre, its parent company Nexus Services, CEO Mike Donovan, and two of his associates, Richard Moore and Evan Ajin. The company has been in and out of various state and federal courts in recent years.

https://cis.org/North/Judge-Sets-Whopping-Fine-Migrant-Bond-Issuing-Firm-811-Million

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Judge Sets Whopping Fine on Migrant Bond Issuing Firm, $811 Million

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors