So over the next biennium. southbound checkpoints would cost $125 million, but the federal checkpoints (along the entire border, not just in Texas) generated just $55 million in cash seizures in two years. That means we must expect southbound checkpoints to be a major money loser. If the state wants to participate in drug cartel profits - which undoubtedly are significant - they'd have to legalize and tax. The criminal justice system in and of itself is not a moneymaker. Set up such checkpoints and Texas would likely spend $3 for every dollar seized.Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced in 2009 that her department would make southbound checkpoints a priority of federal border law enforcement. ...
Since federal southbound inspections were re-established in 2009, seizures of weapons and money have increased; through fiscal years 2009 and 2010, some $55 million and 484 guns were seized during the inspections.
To be clear, I'm all in favor of legal attempts to seize drug cartel profits: I just think they're looking in the wrong place if the focus is on southbound highways (headed to spots that already have federal checkpoints) as opposed to the much more significant money laundering taking place through the US banking system. And in the current, hyper-partisan environment of D.C. gridlock, I won't be holding my breath for improved regulations that would allow money laundering at banks to be properly investigated.
.jpg)
12 comments:
Are you suggesting that we now target banks as a way to reduce the drug problem?
No, I don't think targeting banks would "reduce the drug problem," and in truth I'm not sure anything would. These days prescription meds are as big an issue as illegal drugs as far as addiction goes. Instead, going after money laundering banks would attack the infrastructure of organized crime gangs in Mexico - IMO a worthy enough goal and arguably a better public policy tactic than arresting users, even if it doesn't affect US-side drug demand.
How many USERS are laundering thier money?
I don't have a problem with targeting the corrupt banking officials, but, there are more couriers transporting money on our highways than there are making large deposits in our banks.
Afterall, the Cartels know exactly where the checkpoints are, so it is not that big of an issue to go around them along out pourous border....
I apologize for posting off topic. Would someone please look at sb 779 and tell me that I am not crazy in thinking it is the utmost crazy thing ever. Thank you
No users are laundering money, 12:32, which is why arresting them won't disrupt the drug trade. You asked if this would solve the "drug problem" and I said "no." It would only attack the organized crime problem, people will still do drugs.
As for going "around" the checkpoints, most couriers crossing via land - in both directions - are going THROUGH them, according to DPS testimony at the Lege. The traffic volume makes it impossible to check every vehicle, and and high levels of corruption provide an even greater degree of certainty for them.
The business model of the cartels is to control illegal access to the the legal crossings, extorting payment for anyone who wants to use the smuggling route for guns, drugs, illegal immigration, etc.. One corrupt customs agent can waive through many tons of contraband in a single shift, and plenty of cash the other way. In that sense, much of the focus on patrolling between the checkpoints, etc., is security theater that plays into the hands of the folks controlling the actual cross-river plazas, where most of the real action happens.
Ok so now you want to go after the "USERS"?
You always gripe about drug bust that involve "USERS".
Grits you are gonna have to quit flip flopping around like a fish out of water
You can't bitch about everything all the time, that's why most people don't take you that serious.
You are more of an entertainment feature to get people through the day, except of course the Republic of Texas members who think you are really in tune with the world.
Get up from your desk, take a bath, and change your drawers, JABBA.....
Where did I say I wanted to "go after users," 2:21? Please quote it back to me. I think in fact what I said at 11:57 was the exact opposite.
BTW, I've been accused of being a liberal, socialist, communist, conservative, libertarian, fascist, racist, white supremacist, and lots of other stuff in my time, but that's a first for saying Grits represents the views of "Republic of Texas members." Who'da thunk?
We can't criticism "US-side drug demand." We can't even talk about it.
8:55, it's fine to criticize or talk about US-side drug demand. I just don't support arresting addicts as a primary drug control strategy. The cost-benefit analysis just isn't worth it to pay $55 per day to lock up petty drug offenders while we're laying off teachers, etc..
I have to agree that arrest and incarceration doesn't work. Or at least hasn't worked yet. I just did a look up the estimates of illegal drug users is somewhere in the 20's. Thats anywhere from 21, 000,000 to 28 million. Do we really think we can lock that many people up? Get real.
I have worked with many youth who were decoys at the border crossings. Yes the cartels will sacrifice a small load to keep the guards busy while a big load drives past.
Ham2mtr
BTW, if we legalized and taxed, The cartels would still be in trouble. Even California talked about only legalizing California weed. Why import what can be grown here.
Which would generate additional taxes from the producer and those who supply him the items needed for a comercial operation.
Ham2mtr
Arresting addicts doesn't work, if it did the problem wouldn't be so large as it is now - however, treatment DOES WORK and costs far fewer $$ than arresting and incarceration. The Feds and the States going after the BANKs and financial institutions that are the MONEY MOVING guys of the cartels WOULD WORK to choke off their access to capital. Excerpts from Roger Eberts "The One Percenter" Chicago Suntimes Blog: he quotes from and investigative report in The Guardian: Around 2008/09 "authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveler's checks and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia (now Wells Fargo) accounts. More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4 billion -- a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product -- into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business." Mr. Ebert adds: If a third of the Mexican GNP passes through your bank and you don't ask the questions required by law, you are either (1) a criminal, or (2) incompetent. You can read the entire article at: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/04/the_one-percenters.html
SO, why arrest the little small time addict selling a few grams to his close friends - in order to support HIS OWN habit? NO ONE FROM WACHOVIA ever went to prison over their actions...yet, we attempt to imprison these addicts for very long times and totally destroy any ability for them to ever become a productive citizen when released -these banks, their boards, their CEO's, and the accounting personnel never pay a price for their cartel financing schemes?? Come on now, you'd have to be downright dumb not to see the problem there!!
Post a Comment