Oh, ChuckandNancy (Chancy?) want MEXICO to pay for it? They are going to LOVE this!
For decades now, we’ve seen Democrats with their political double-speak. They’re like Lucie holding the football for Charlie Brown, making bold assurances of one thing, and pulling the ball away when it comes time to make good on it.
Little things… like pledging to tighten security AFTER Republicans give ground on Democrat pet policy initiatives.
You didn’t really think they’d keep their end of the bargain, did you? Sure, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 put $50B into building a double-fence border barrier. But there was no real political will to actually proceed with using that money for the intended purpose.
Three years later, Chuck was still telling us how important that wall was, and how big a problem illegal aliens are for America generally. We should know, we’ve got the video.
But now, with the Partial Shutdown into its third week, and with the talks between Congress and the White House grinding to a halt, Chuck Norris and Ted Cruz coming to the rescue.
Norris drew attention to a piece of legislation that was just re-introduced into the Senate by Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that would use the seized funds of convicted drug cartel overlords for border security and border wall construction.
Cruz cleverly named his bill the “Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order Act — or EL CHAPO Act — named for the arrested kingpin of the Mexico-based Sinaloa drug cartel, Joaquin Archivaldo “El Chapo” Guzman Lorea, from whom roughly $14 billion has been seized and would be forfeited if El Chapo is convicted.
…“If you didn’t know, El Chapo is almost entirely responsible for the majority of drugs that come up through the U.S. southern border. As the co-founder and head of the Sinaloa Cartel, he is the #1 supplier of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines into the U.S. If you or your loved ones have ever tried or been addicted to illegal drugs, odds are they originated from the Sinaloa Cartel.”
Norris proceeded to cite several examples of how widely the Sinaloa’s drug trafficking network operated inside the U.S., as well as the vast accumulation of wealth the cartel has received in illicit drug money, and how the estimated $14 billion that would be forfeited upon El Chapo’s conviction would be more than enough to cover the construction of a border wall where necessary.
“Is Sen. Cruz’s EL CHAPO Act not a brilliant idea to fund the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico? And guess what? A Mexican pays for it after all — one evil hombre who has repeatedly raped America’s communities and the souls of precious millions through narcotics and other criminalities for the past three decades,” wrote Norris.
Fourteen Billion would build a pretty good chunk of that wall, wouldn’t it? And isn’t El Chapo even from … Mexico?
That would certainly qualify as ‘Promises kept’, Mr. President!
Unlike the ridiculously-named ‘Affordable Care Act’ or other bills we’ve seen in the past, the name on this one even says what it really means. Bonus points for working El Chapo into an acronym.
This seems like it should be a slam dunk, doesn’t it?
On what possible grounds would Democrats object to using drug smuggler money to fund a secure border?
This even strips ‘Chancy’ of usual go-to talking points:
— it’s waste of taxpayer money
— he promised Mexico would pay for it.
If this passes, America wins twice over.
Taxpayers shoulder less of the financial burden of protecting against criminal syndicates looking to exploit America’s wealth.
And, as Drug Smugglers get convicted, their money goes back to protecting our border which ALSO allows other assets to be redeployed to ports of entry, reducing contraband illegally entering the nation.
Why would they possibly oppose it?
Alabama’s attorney general urged Congress Friday to support the state’s push for the Census not to count undocumented immigrants when deciding the number of congressional seats for each state.
Steve Marshall, who recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state, said Alabama stands to lose one of seven congressional seats and one of its nine electoral votes if undocumented immigrants aren’t excluded from the apportionment process.
Could it be to disenfranchise states in Flyover Country, and centralize more clout in States who have no regard for the rule of law?
Is That what Palmieri’s memo really meant?
“The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success,” the memo read.
It finished, “If Democrats don’t try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats’ electoral chances in 2018 and beyond.”