I May need a lawyer Friday night

#176
#176
RavinDave said:
Had to google lupara... always learn something on VN. Reminds me of when I was a kid of 5 or 6 with several siblings and a bleak Christmas in prospect till my Sicilian Uncle Joe in NJ sent a truckload of toys our way. Years later come to find out he got the money from borrowing his sister’s car and selling it. He was also disbarred for some kind of immigration related shenanigans which nowadays would probably earn a Congressional commendation.
Click to expand...

I picked that one up a few years back in a Jack Higgins book ... probably Luciano's Luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave
#177
#177
AM64 said:
77% of Drug Traffickers Are U.S. Citizens, Not Illegal Immigrants

Found the report huff was using ... his was about who was smuggling drugs rather than how much was intercepted. It's still the same absurd argument when you get right down to it ... you have to know what percentage of smuggled drugs you catch to put a number on who is doing most of the smuggling. If you only do ports of entry then the number citizens caught smuggling is going to be high.
Click to expand...

I doubt the Cato Institute is cooking the books to support liberal talking points.

Most drugs come through ports of entry because there are geographic barriers to bringing them through in other places.

Better question might be how they’re defining drug trafficking.
 
#178
#178
RockyTop85 said:
I doubt the Cato Institute is cooking the books to support liberal talking points.

Most drugs come through ports of entry because there are geographic barriers to bringing them through in other places.

Better question might be how they’re defining drug trafficking.
Click to expand...

Drugs have been smuggled in without going through ports of entry for years. Airplanes and boats have been very popular ... there's one about a submarine having been caught just recently. There appear many places along the border susceptible to dune buggies and helicopters, and as people like to point out when you mention a wall ... tunnels.

However, I expect you are bringing up a good point ... like what's a little fun stuff in a suitcase vs the serious multi million dollar loads in shipping containers ... also a recent news thing. I still question the validity of Cato's findings on the basis that they don't have access to what nobody else knows ... the amount of drugs not detected. It makes you wonder if they even know who the drugs in the shipping container belonged to. The chart Cato uses talks about convictions and not quantity ... a conviction for bringing in a few illicit pills in a suitcase just isn't the same as bringing in a whole shipping container of stuff for the streets. So, yeah, I don't think much of Cato's research to prove a meaningless point while ignoring the bigger issue. All they really proved is that tourists are a lot less sophisticated and competent smugglers than foreign drug lords. Any one of us could have predicted that.

The shipping container does give credence to the ports as a major path, but the submarine does the opposite ... and how many have gotten through?
 
#179
#179
AM64 said:
Drugs have been smuggled in without going through ports of entry for years. Airplanes and boats have been very popular ... there's one about a submarine having been caught just recently. There appear many places along the border susceptible to dune buggies and helicopters, and as people like to point out when you mention a wall ... tunnels.

However, I expect you are bringing up a good point ... like what's a little fun stuff in a suitcase vs the serious multi million dollar loads in shipping containers ... also a recent news thing. I still question the validity of Cato's findings on the basis that they don't have access to what nobody else knows ... the amount of drugs not detected. It makes you wonder if they even know who the drugs in the shipping container belonged to. The chart Cato uses talks about convictions and not quantity ... a conviction for bringing in a few illicit pills in a suitcase just isn't the same as bringing in a whole shipping container of stuff for the streets. So, yeah, I don't think much of Cato's research to prove a meaningless point while ignoring the bigger issue. All they really proved is that tourists are a lot less sophisticated and competent smugglers than foreign drug lords. Any one of us could have predicted that.

The shipping container does give credence to the ports as a major path, but the submarine does the opposite ... and how many have gotten through?
Click to expand...

Helicopters, submarines, and dune buggies (jumping the rio grande Dukes of Hazard style, no doubt). Those modalities are supposed to turn the tables on that lopsided conviction rate? Most of the drugs we’re not catching would have to be brought in by foreigners and there’d need to be enough of them to outweigh the 77%...

Seems like your only support for that is some mild xenophobia. Maybe not so mild, given your charitable characterization of the Americans as “tourists” who smuggle in a little fun stuff in suitcases vs. the foreigners who bring it in by the truck load.

DEA, CBP, and some of their former officials have stated that most drugs come through ports of entry and that that assessment is based on investigations and intelligence gathering, not just location of seizures, makes the point, too.

The only question I have is whether an American caught with a kilo of heroine in Columbus, Ohio, is counted among these convictions or whether they specifically looked at convictions under a statute for bringing drugs onto US Soil from a foreign location. I assume such a statute exists but the term “trafficking” doesn’t necessarily exclude the domestic stream of commerce.

In my experience, most people in America arrested with large quantities of drugs are Americans. You’d expect that to skew the percentages, if it’s included in the analysis. The article isn’t clear how they filtered the results, or if it was, I missed it when skimming.
 
#180
#180
n_huffhines said:
Open borders does not imply there aren't standards, processes, and oversight. It just means it's reasonably easy to go back and forth between countries.
Click to expand...

This is pap. I have heard none of the leftist anarchy crowd define open borders this way.

It is not only reasonable easy, it is VERY EASY NOW to back-and-forth between countries. As long as someone is legally permitted to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 82_VOL_83
#181
#181
FallCreekVols said:
This is pap. I have heard none of the leftist anarchy crowd define open borders this way.

It is not only reasonable easy, it is VERY EASY NOW to back-and-forth between countries. As long as someone is legally permitted to do so.
Click to expand...

What's a 'pap'? Are you 'pap' , we're you introducing yourself?
 
#184
#184
AM64 said:
Drugs have been smuggled in without going through ports of entry for years. Airplanes and boats have been very popular ... there's one about a submarine having been caught just recently. There appear many places along the border susceptible to dune buggies and helicopters, and as people like to point out when you mention a wall ... tunnels.

However, I expect you are bringing up a good point ... like what's a little fun stuff in a suitcase vs the serious multi million dollar loads in shipping containers ... also a recent news thing. I still question the validity of Cato's findings on the basis that they don't have access to what nobody else knows ... the amount of drugs not detected. It makes you wonder if they even know who the drugs in the shipping container belonged to. The chart Cato uses talks about convictions and not quantity ... a conviction for bringing in a few illicit pills in a suitcase just isn't the same as bringing in a whole shipping container of stuff for the streets. So, yeah, I don't think much of Cato's research to prove a meaningless point while ignoring the bigger issue. All they really proved is that tourists are a lot less sophisticated and competent smugglers than foreign drug lords. Any one of us could have predicted that.

The shipping container does give credence to the ports as a major path, but the submarine does the opposite ... and how many have gotten through?
Click to expand...
You can’t count the drugs you don’t seize.
Ports are monitored and inspected, so it would make sense that more busts happen and those busts include more citizens. After all, a non citizen entering through our ports would be a lot more rare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orange_Crush
#185
#185
RockyTop85 said:
I doubt the Cato Institute is cooking the books to support liberal talking points.

Most drugs come through ports of entry because there are geographic barriers to bringing them through in other places.

Better question might be how they’re defining drug trafficking.
Click to expand...
So the story of Barry Seal immediately comes to mind. And then you have the recent bust of the smuggling shallow running sub on the surface.

I don’t believe you can support a “most drugs” statement. Feel free to try. I’d agree a significant portion do come thru ports of entry. However “most” I think is pure speculation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 82_VOL_83
#186
#186
#188
#188
Hunerwadel said:
Fact-checking Trump officials: Most drugs enter US through legal ports of entry, not vast, open border

Meth, cocaine, heroin: Most gets smuggled through ports of entry. A wall won't stop it.
Click to expand...
Again this argument assumes a correlation to the drugs interdicted to the total number of drugs entering. Neither of these articles prove their assertion. They both use interdiction values as representative of total flow. I’ll agree that most drugs are interdicted in ports of entry. I’ve seen zero data to extrapolate that to represent the total drugs entering the country. And I don’t think it’s even possible frankly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orange_Crush
#189
#189
Hunerwadel said:
Why would they need to be "taken in"? It appears most of them have jobs. What you might do instead is adopt some unwanted children of mothers who no longer have access to abortions.
Click to expand...
Every female has access to abortions..

Horse and buggy travel ended a long time ago bro.
 
#190
#190
NorthDallas40 said:
Again this argument assumes a correlation to the drugs interdicted to the total number of drugs entering. Neither of these articles prove their assertion. They both use interdiction values as representative of total flow. I’ll agree that most drugs are interdicted in ports of entry. I’ve seen zero data to extrapolate that to represent the total drugs entering the country. And I don’t think it’s even possible frankly.
Click to expand...

It’s one of the stupider talking points out there right now. It’s laughably ignorant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#192
#192
1972 Grad said:
How does anyone know what comes in anywhere but where they check for it?
Click to expand...
No logic allowed please.

Also how many of these “busts” are just the cartel throwing a bone to CBP to keep them diverted from something much more major? If losing 10 pounds of heroin at an entry point gets 500 across safely via mules I’m doing that all day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 1972 Grad
#194
#194
n_huffhines said:
Anecdotal evidence? Ironically, it's for the simple-minded. Anybody can grasp them and then conclude stupid things because they're scared. I understand big data and statistical significance, which is why I'm not scared of illegal immigrants anymore than I'm scared of an American who can trace his lineage back 5 generations.
Click to expand...
Why are you lying and saying that I am scared of illegal immigrants because I want them to come here legally?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, 82_VOL_83 and AM64
#195
#195
Bigun said:
Why are you lying and saying that I am scared of illegal immigrants because I want them to come here legally?
Click to expand...

Was I even talking to you? I clicked thru on the replies and the convo seems to be with other people. I was calling people out for using anecdotal evidence in an effort to fear-monger. People either do this because they are afraid themselves, or they are just trying to manipulate the fears of others. We should not be making policy based on scary stories.
 
#196
#196
n_huffhines said:
Was I even talking to you? I clicked thru on the replies and the convo seems to be with other people. I was calling people out for using anecdotal evidence in an effort to fear-monger. People either do this because they are afraid themselves, or they are just trying to manipulate the fears of others. We should not be making policy based on scary stories.
Click to expand...
I agree with this on the whole but how do you think it will work out with millions of people flooding the country that have no respect to follow the laws?
 
#197
#197
FallCreekVols said:
This is pap. I have heard none of the leftist anarchy crowd define open borders this way.

It is not only reasonable easy, it is VERY EASY NOW to back-and-forth between countries. As long as someone is legally permitted to do so.
Click to expand...

iT's EaSy To gO BaCk AnD fOrTh....

Who cares what you've heard in the past? The idea is being presented to you now and it should be judged on its merits.
 
#198
#198
Bigun said:
I agree with this on the whole but how do you think it will work out with millions of people flooding the country that have no respect to follow the laws?
Click to expand...

Change the law so that we can document and tax them and make the arrangement better for both parties. That's what I'm advocating. The existing law is crap. Everybody knows it, so I don't know why we care so much if people follow it. We have tons of laws on the books that nobody follows or enforces. I mean literally thousands when you count up all the state laws that go ignored. **** like no realistic looking dildos in Texas. Immigration is just one of many that people are rebelling against, and it's because of a broken system. Let's fix it and reduce illegal immigration.
 
#199
#199
RockyTop85 said:
Helicopters, submarines, and dune buggies (jumping the rio grande Dukes of Hazard style, no doubt). Those modalities are supposed to turn the tables on that lopsided conviction rate? Most of the drugs we’re not catching would have to be brought in by foreigners and there’d need to be enough of them to outweigh the 77%...

Seems like your only support for that is some mild xenophobia. Maybe not so mild, given your charitable characterization of the Americans as “tourists” who smuggle in a little fun stuff in suitcases vs. the foreigners who bring it in by the truck load.

DEA, CBP, and some of their former officials have stated that most drugs come through ports of entry and that that assessment is based on investigations and intelligence gathering, not just location of seizures, makes the point, too.

The only question I have is whether an American caught with a kilo of heroine in Columbus, Ohio, is counted among these convictions or whether they specifically looked at convictions under a statute for bringing drugs onto US Soil from a foreign location. I assume such a statute exists but the term “trafficking” doesn’t necessarily exclude the domestic stream of commerce.

In my experience, most people in America arrested with large quantities of drugs are Americans. You’d expect that to skew the percentages, if it’s included in the analysis. The article isn’t clear how they filtered the results, or if it was, I missed it when skimming.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the bureaucratic effect. People like nice cushy jobs in airports as opposed to say out in the hot dusty desert. How better to justify those jobs checking tourist suitcases than to play up alarming but meaningless statistics. The best way to do that is count noses rather than how many pounds each of those people was trying to import. However, the reality is a little like the Bill Clinton economy statement, it's the amount of drugs (the economics of importing illegal substances for cash) that matters ... not a count to preserve cushy bureaucratic jobs over the tough ones out in the field.

For the really interesting part. I've been out of the country a few times lately; but when I've come back, the strange part is there isn't even anyone around who wants to look into bags. Mention it to another frequent international traveler, and they all have noticed the same thing ... virtually nobody between the baggage carousel and the exit door except maybe one guard by the exit door. Makes you think that there's a lot of bag screening going on before bags ever get to baggage claim.
 
#200
#200
NorthDallas40 said:
So the story of Barry Seal immediately comes to mind. And then you have the recent bust of the smuggling shallow running sub on the surface.

I don’t believe you can support a “most drugs” statement. Feel free to try. I’d agree a significant portion do come thru ports of entry. However “most” I think is pure speculation.
Click to expand...

most drugs come through legal ports of entry at DuckDuckGo

Maybe you should apply to be head of the DEA and CBP. You apparently know better than the heads of those agencies and the CATO Institute and whatever other experts are cited in those articles.


@AM64, The people doing the analysis and setting policy are not the ones who are going to be patrolling the desert (come on, really?) so I doubt their preference of where they spend their days is going to play into it.

This is just silly. You two secretly agree with Cato Institute and are making these ridiculous arguments to bolster their point, right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top