Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Mexico could pay for the wall after all

  1. #1

    Mexico could pay for the wall after all

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/aft...d-border-wall/

    “Ensuring the safety and security of Texans is one of my top priorities,” he added.

    Cruz said using criminally forfeited assets from El Chapo and other Mexican cartel members and drug dealers can “offset the wall’s cost and make meaningful progress toward achieving President Trump’s stated border security objectives.”

    “The U.S. Government is currently seeking the criminal forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits from El Chapo, the former leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel who was recently extradited to the U.S. to face criminal prosecution for numerous alleged drug-related crimes, including conspiracy to commit murder and money laundering,” Cruz added.

    Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner proposed similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would use money seized from drug cartels to fund a border wall.

    “This is a way to fulfill the president’s desire to have Mexico pay for the wall,” Sensenbrenner, a member of the Judiciary Committee, told the Washington Examiner. “Having the money seized from Mexican drug cartels would mean that the bad Mexicans would end up paying for the wall, and the bad Mexicans have been terrorizing the good Mexicans with crime and kidnappings and murders within Mexico itself.”…

    “The [Drug Enforcement Agency] has estimated that the gross receipts of the Mexican drug trade or somewhere between $19-$29 billion a year,” he said. “We don’t have to be 100 percent efficient to get the the money we need to completely pay for the wall relatively quickly.”

    El Chapo’s $14 billion would fund well over half of the proposed wall along the southern border between the U.S. and Mexico.

    We're being governed ruled by a geriatric Alzheimer patient/puppet whose strings are being pulled by an elitist oligarchy who believe they can manage the world... imagine the utter maniacal, sociopathic hubris!



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/aft...d-border-wall/

    Cruz said using criminally forfeited assets from El Chapo and other Mexican cartel members and drug dealers can “offset the wall’s cost and make meaningful progress toward achieving President Trump’s stated border security objectives.”
    .
    If following reporting is factual, his money indirectly may have made a tiny down payment already if this award was given by politician funded by his money:



    El Chapo’s drug cartel paid US$6 million in bribes to Mexico president Pena Nieto
    PUBLISHED : Saturday, 17 November, 2018
    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/amer...xico-president

    Mexico's President gives Jared Kushner their nation’s greatest award for saving NAFTA (renamed USMCA)


    The Order of the Aztec Eagle, issued by Mexico to foreigners who make a significant contribution to the country
    November 30, 2018
    He was a “grand ally of Mexico”, President Peña Nieto declared at the announcement

  4. #3
    Sounds legit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Pinochet is the model
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Enforced internal open borders was one of the worst elements of the Constitution.

  5. #4
    Wow, the gov can actually use asset forfeiture for the purposes it was originally intended - going after drug kingpins?
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq

  6. #5
    https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1095435968927199232


  7. #6
    It is good when the US government seizes people's assets.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere View Post
    Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner proposed similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would use money seized from drug cartels to fund a border wall.

    “This is a way to fulfill the president’s desire to have Mexico pay for the wall,” Sensenbrenner [said].
    This is grossly unfair to the Columbian cartels. Why should they have to help fund the wall?

    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Wow, the gov can actually use asset forfeiture for the purposes it was originally intended - going after drug kingpins?
    Asset forfeiture was never intended for the purpose of going after drug kingpins. It was intended as an excuse for the government to take stuff from people (especially their money). The vast majority of those people are not even remotely close to being "kingpins" of any kind. Hell, many of them are not even convicted drug dealers - or even charged with any crime, for that matter ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 02-13-2019 at 03:17 PM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It is good when the US government seizes people's assets.
    Mass murderers?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    This is grossly unfair to the Columbian cartels. Why should they have to help fund the wall?



    Asset forfeiture was never intended for the purpose of going after drug kingpins. It was intended as an excuse for the government to take stuff from people (especially their money). The vast majority of those people are not even remotely close to being "kingpins" of any kind. Hell, many of them are not even convicted drug dealers - or even charged with any crime, for that matter ...
    Actually, no. There was no huge nefarious plan from the start to make a law to go after the average citizen. Large drug dealers, kingpins, were indeed getting to keep their ill gotten gains by having things in the names of wives and corporations. Laws were made to get these assets. Then others in the government realized it was a cash cow and it began being used on the everyman.

    The original writers and implementers have even apologized for the government corrupting the original intention and have been working to correct it at the state and federal level.

    We find it particularly painful to watch as the heavy hand of government goes amok. The program began with good intentions but now, having failed in both purpose and execution, it should be abolished.
    ...
    Civil asset forfeiture and money-laundering laws are gross perversions of the status of government amid a free citizenry. The individual is the font of sovereignty in our constitutional republic, and it is unacceptable that a citizen should have to ‘prove’ anything to the government. If the government has probable cause of a violation of law, then let a warrant be issued. And if the government has proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, let that guilt be proclaimed by 12 peers.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...eiture-lose-s/

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/institu.../#b0204f5ee306

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f6f_story.html


    And I'm not basing this on articles written, I've had discussions on the matter with the people involved. Yes, asset forfeiture is horrible in the current implementation and every state should follow New Mexico's example. But the original intention was for big time drug dealers such as El Chapo.
    “…let us teach them that all who draw breath are of equal worth, and that those who seek to press heel upon the throat of liberty, will fall to the cry of FREEDOM!!!” – Spartacus, War of the Damned

    BTC: 1AFbCLYU3G1dkbsSJnk3spWeEwpqYVC2Pq

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    It is good when the US government seizes people's assets.
    They're Mexicans though, so they're not really people
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Actually, no. There was no huge nefarious plan from the start to make a law to go after the average citizen.
    I didn't say anything about any "huge nefarious plan from the start [...] to go after the average citizen". I said that the purpose of asset forfeiture was simply to take stuff from people. And it was (and still is). Targeting "drug kingpins" was merely the incidental excuse used to initially justify such seizures (regardless of whether or not there was any kind of "plan" at the time to extend the practice to the "average citizen"). Like I said before:

    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Asset forfeiture was never intended for the purpose of going after drug kingpins. It was intended as an excuse for the government to take stuff from people (especially their money).
    When famous bank robber Willie Sutton was asked, "Why do you rob banks?" he is said to have replied, "Because that's where the money is." (Actually, he never really said that - but after the story got around, he said he wished he had.) This is why the asset-seizers initially targeted "drug kingpins" instead of murderers, rapists, etc. - "because that's where the money is". But bringing some kind of "justice" home to big, bad drug dealers was never the point. Asset forfeiture was never intended for the purpose of going after "drug kingpins" as such - it was intended for the purpose of going after money and property. IOW: It was all about the Benjamins - and big-time drug dealers had lots of Benjamins ... [see my closing paragraph below]

    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Large drug dealers, kingpins, were indeed getting to keep their ill gotten gains by having things in the names of wives and corporations.
    Their gains were not ill-gotten. They did not rob banks. They sold a product to willing buyers without the State's approval. As a consequence of the interdiction of their trade, they certainly committed terrible crimes such as murder (just as Prohibition-era gangsters did). But their assets were not made subject to seizure because they were murderers, or even because they were drug dealers. Their assets were made subject to seizure because they had lots of them ... (and because murderous drug dealers are easy to demonize ... [again, see my closing paragraph below])

    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Laws were made to get these assets.
    So just as I said, the State decided to "take stuff from [them] (especially their money)" and then ...

    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Then others in the government realized it was a cash cow and it began being used on the everyman.
    Of course they did. What else was going to happen? Was the government going to restrain itself at the prospect of such easy booty? If any of the architects of asset forfeiture actually believed it would, then they were improbably and grotesquely naive. (And if they didn't believe it ... well, then, there you go ...)

    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    The original writers and implementers have even apologized for the government corrupting the original intention and have been working to correct it at the state and federal level.

    [...]

    And I'm not basing this on articles written, I've had discussions on the matter with the people involved. Yes, asset forfeiture is horrible in the current implementation and every state should follow New Mexico's example. But the original intention was for big time drug dealers such as El Chapo.
    That some of the people who were responsible for engineering the gross injustice of asset forfeiture may now regret what they helped to cause does not change or mitigate anything I said. If they thought things were going to turn out any differently, then they were fools. After the fact (and for all the good it did), Frankenstein regretted creating his monster, too. But he ought to have known better - and so should have the now-regretful asset-seizers.

    The simple fact is that they had dollar signs in their eyes - and as is typical of many injustices that are eventually imposed upon people in general, they started out with the "camel's nose" of easily-maligned targets that no decent or "respectable" person would defend ... (and I have no doubt that they also had an abundance of self-justifying "good intentions" for the supposedly wonderful things they planned to do with all the money and property they seized ...)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 02-15-2019 at 02:54 AM. Reason: Added Willie Sutton reference, tidied formatting, etc.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    They're Mexicans though, so they're not really people
    Ya , I think Zip is confused . They are not americans . Personally I feel better to know that if all these govt mechanisms exist they are spending time taking monies from other places than where I live .
    Do something Danke

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by kpitcher View Post
    Actually, no. There was no huge nefarious plan from the start to make a law to go after the average citizen. Large drug dealers, kingpins, were indeed getting to keep their ill gotten gains by having things in the names of wives and corporations. Laws were made to get these assets. Then others in the government realized it was a cash cow and it began being used on the everyman.

    The original writers and implementers have even apologized for the government corrupting the original intention and have been working to correct it at the state and federal level.


    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...eiture-lose-s/

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/institu.../#b0204f5ee306

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...f6f_story.html


    And I'm not basing this on articles written, I've had discussions on the matter with the people involved. Yes, asset forfeiture is horrible in the current implementation and every state should follow New Mexico's example. But the original intention was for big time drug dealers such as El Chapo.
    It's nice that people that enabled government theft now regret they didn't have the foresight of a ant. (warm and fuzzy feelings all over)
    "The Patriarch"

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I didn't say anything about any "huge nefarious plan from the start". I said that the purpose of asset forfeiture was to take stuff from people.

    And it was. Going after "drug kingpins" was merely the excuse initially used to justify such seizures.



    Their gains were not ill-gotten. They did not rob banks. They sold a product to willing buyers without the State's approval. As a consequence of the interdiction of their trade, they certainly did terrible things such as murder (just as Prohibition-era gangsters did). But their assets weren't subject to seizure because they were murderers ...



    So just as I said, the State decided to "take stuff from [them] (especially their money)" and then ...



    Of course they did. What else was going to happen? Was the government going to restrain itself at the prospect of such easy booty? If any of the architects of asset forfeiture actually believed that it would, then they were improbably and grotesquely naive. (And if they didn't believe it ... well, then, there you go ...)



    That some of the people who were responsible for engineering the gross injustice of asset forfeiture may now regret what they helped to cause does not change anything I said. If they thought things were going to turn out any differently than they did, then they were fools. Frankenstein regretted creating his monster after the fact, too (for all the good it did). But he ought to have known better, and so should they have done.

    The simple fact is that they had dollar signs in their eyes. So as is typical with injustices that will eventually be foisted on people in general, they started out with the "camel's nose" of easily-maligned targets that no "respectable" person would defend ... (and I have no doubt that they also had an abundance of self-justifying "good intentions" for all the supposedly wonderful things they imagined they were going to do with all the assets and money they seized, too ...)

    Brought to you by that Great American and staunch defender of liberty Ronald Reagan. He was and reamains a darling of conservatives everywhere.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Brought to you by that Great American and staunch defender of liberty Ronald Reagan. He was and reamains a darling of conservatives everywhere.
    Walter Mondale would have been worse! Wash, rinse , repeat.


    The program began with good intentions but now, having failed in both purpose and execution, it should be abolished.
    Along with 100% of all the others.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.



Similar Threads

  1. Bill to make Mexico Pay for Wall
    By dude58677 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-08-2018, 10:14 PM
  2. Rick Perry: Trump's Mexico wall will be a 'digital wall'
    By CPUd in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-11-2016, 05:46 PM
  3. Mexico refuses to pay for wall
    By dude58677 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 08-17-2015, 03:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •