Posted on 03/21/2016 4:40:37 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
Go to Washington Post to read story with that headline. Mexico directly interfering with our political process.
It just got ten feet higher.
It’s just one more attack in the war Mexico has been waging on the US.
One would think that violently disrupting our political process is an act of war by Mexico. We no longer have leadership that supports our soverignty.
Brace yourselves. If Trump continues to look like a winner the ENTIRE WORLD will be sticking it’s nose into this one.
Lol!
Good one!
Can you give us a little hint of the substance of the piece, so that I don’t have to give WaPo a hit?
Our elected representatives have truly surrendered the nation up to its enemies.
By the way, Taiwanese are not even allowed in the country (or weren't way back when I knew a Taiwanese who tried to enter the country on Spring Break). However, Mexico has very good relations with China. In fact, sources in Mexico tell me there are business EVERYWHERE owned by the Chinese now. We simply do not have leadership addressing a myriad of severe domestic and foreign issues that are taking place. The enemy is in control of our government. Also, remember this, Mexico and most Mexicans have a spectacular dislike for our values, our language and our culture.
It is not like America does not instigate leanings in other countries.
Ever hear of the MERIDA INITIATIVE?
I didn/t think so.
WIKI-—With the Merida Initiative set to expire on September 30, 2010, the U.S. State Department (under SoS Hillary) has proposed a major renewal and expansion of the program. If approved, starting in 2011, $310 million would be granted to Mexico, another $100 million for the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI), and $79 million for the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI).[28]
The U.S. Congress has now authorized $1.6 billion for the three-year initiative (2007–2010). The U.S. Congress approved $465 million in the first year, which includes $400 million for Mexico and $65 million for Central America, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. For the second year, Congress approved $300 million for Mexico and $110 million for Central America, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. A FY09 supplemental appropriation is providing an additional $420 million for Mexico; and $450 million for Mexico and $100 million for Central America has been requested for FY10.[20]
Only about $204 million of that, however, will be earmarked for the Mexican military for the purchase of eight used transport helicopters and two small surveillance aircraft. No weapons are included in the plan.[21][22][23] The bill requires that $73.5 million of the $400 million for Mexico must be used for judicial reform, institution-building, human rights and rule-of-law issues.
The bill specifies that 15% of the funds will be dependent on Mexico making headway in four areas relating to human-rights issues, and on which the U.S. Secretary of State will have to report periodically to Congress.[24][25]
An additional $65 million was granted for the Central American countries (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama); the House also included Haiti and the Dominican Republic in this bill for Central America, which is a comprehensive public security package that seeks to tackle citizen insecurity in Central America by more effectively addressing criminal gangs, improving information sharing between countries, modernizing and professionalizing the police forces, expanding maritime interdiction capabilities, and reforming the judicial sector in order to restore and strengthen citizens confidence in those institutions.[26]
Much of the funding will never leave the United States. It will go toward the purchase of aircraft, surveillance software, and other goods and services produced by U.S. private defense contractors.
While this request includes equipment and training, it does not involve any cash transfers or money to be provided directly to the Government of Mexico or its private contractors.
According to U.S. State Department officials, 59% of the proposed assistance will go to civil agencies responsible for law enforcement, and 41% to operational costs for the Mexican Army and Mexican Navy. While the initial cost for equipment and hardware that the military required is high, it is expected that future budget requests will focus increasingly on training and assistance to civil agencies.
As of November 2009, the U.S. has delivered about $214 million of the pledged $1.6 billion.[27]
============================================
Ut oh---Obama/s now requesting couple billion....to curb the Central America drug trade into the US.
This could be prosecuted as wire-fraud, govt fraud, ID theft, money laundering and tax evasion..
Prolly Mexico also gets a fee for letting other countries use their border as a gathering place to slither into the US.
Yet unresolved is:
<><> when Mexico should be hauled before the Hague Criminal Court for failing its sworn duty to its citizens on US soil;
<><> the scope and dimension of intl crimes committed by Mexico for dumping it citizens into the US to drain our welfare resources,
<><> when US courts prosecute Mexico for aiding and abetting criminal activities on US soil, and,
<><> the amt of reparations Mexico should pay Americans for forcing us to subsidize its citizens.
Yep so true!
<><> (1) cost to taxpayers to build family detention centers at the border;
<><>(2) costs to taxpayers of apprehending, processing and detaining unaccompanied minors;
<><> (3) the costs to taxpayers transporting, transferring, removing and repatriating unaccompanied minors;
<><> (4) the costs to taxpayers WRT ICEs removal procedures involving unaccompanied minors; and,
<><> (5) the number of times the return of unaccompanied minors were ignored and/or prevented by the govts of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.
In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.
The Colombia group’s chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions. “He was supportive of the trade agreement at the time that he came, but that was several years ago. In the present context, I don’t know what his position would be. It is not only about union trade rights. It is about what benefit or damage it can do to the US economy,” said Franco. “Events with the Clinton campaign [concerning Mark Penn] are not good at all for the trade agreement... Right now it became a campaign issues and that is sad, because it needs to go through.”
The comments were supported by a June 23, 2005 article from the news portal Terra (uncovered by Ben Smith at Politico) in which Clinton offered unambiguous support for the free trade agreement with Colombia. They appear to be the first public indication that Clinton has, at least in the past, supported the trade deal.
But evidence that the former president has been sympathetic to Colombia’s position is widely known. In 2007, Clinton met personally with and accepted an award from Colombia’s controversial president, Alvaro Uribe, during a time when the country was attempting to improve its image within the United States. Subsequently, Clinton urged Congress to view the country in a more favorable light.
Moreover, Clinton has helped Frank Giustra, one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Global Initiative, score meetings with high-ranking Colombian officials. Giustra has several business interests in the country, and both he and Clinton have collaborated on an effort to fight poverty in developing world by partnering up with mining companies in Colombia and elsewhere. (SOURCED http://nypost.com/2008/12/19/bubba-sheik-ing-the-money-tree/
========================================
Every aspect of the Bill Clinton presidency must be examined for wrongdoing. Recent news reports say the notoriously greedy Clintons used their tax- exempt Clinton Foundation charity to setup a Romney-like money-making private equity fund in the corrupt country of Columbia.
Why Columbia?
WIKI REFERENCE---In 2000, the Clinton administration committed $1.3 billion in foreign aid to the corrupt country of Columbia...... and up to five hundred military personnel to train local forces. An additional three hundred civilian personnel were allowed to assist in the eradication of coca.
The Clinton deal was an addition to $330 million of previously approved US aid to Colombia. $818 million was earmarked for 2000, with $256 million for 2001.
The Clinton-era appropriations for his Columbia Plan made Colombia the third largest recipient of foreign aid from the United States at the time.
--SNIP--
As of 2008, the U.S. has provided nearly $1.3 billion to Colombia through Clinton Plan Colombia nonmilitary aid programs:
<><> Alternative Development (2000-2008 cost: $500 million)
<><> Internally Displaced Persons (2000-2008 cost: $247 million)
<><> Demobilization and Reintegration (2000-2008 cost: $44 million)
<><> Democracy and Human Rights (2000-2008 cost: $158 million)
<><> Promote the Rule of Law (2000-2008 cost: $238 million)
LONG READ--REST AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia
Our march toward Lexington Green continues.
SNIP---My bill is simple: If the person wiring money to Mexico is here legally, great. If he can’t prove legal status, then he gets slapped with a fee which goes directly to border security and enforcement. This would cause two separate effects, both very positive.
On one side of the coin, GAO estimates that my bill could bring in up to $1 billion from illegal immigrants that would go directly towards border security and enforcement.
On the flip side, the report shows it may discourage illegal immigrants from sending the money in the first place. If that dynamic occurs, it would likely lower the amount of revenue raised for border security, but illegal immigration would be strongly discouraged and the money would stay in the U.S. economy.
We have noted this exact process is already in place for remittances sent to Cuba. Anyone sending money to Cuba is required to fill out a Cuban Remittance Affidavit form, verifying who the sender is (with ID) and specifying who the recipient is.
Previously we shared a recent discovery that remittances to Mexico, from the U.S., now account for almost $25 billion annually (year 2015), and actually exceed the entire revenue generated by the Mexican Oil industry. Yes, this means more U.S. dollars are sent to Mexico by Mexican citizens working in the U.S. than the Mexican economy generates itself internally – as measured by their energy sector GDP.
As a specific and direct consequence this means Mexico is now more economically dependent than ever on the U.S. This is the leverage candidate Donald Trump describes to get the Mexican government to pay for the Southern Border Security Wall.
If you take a more modest figure of $25 billion annually, and if the U.S. were to impose a 4% transfer fee on Mexican remittances, the revenue generated would also be $1 Billion per year. Over 10 years (budgetary timeline) that would be $10 billion, which is the currently estimated cost of the 1,000 mile wall.
A sworn affidavit by Mexico consul general to a Texas court admits that Mexico/s official govt policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system......declaring that Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing.
This explosive document filed in Texas by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the debate touched off by Donald Trump.
THE MONEY QUOTE A footnote states that Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent. IOW, anchor babies born in the US retain parents Mexican nationality.
A sworn affidavit by Mexicos consul general admits that Mexicos official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access our generous welfare system......declaring that Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing.
The Mexican consuls sworn testimony asserts that: My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals, and, that the main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and protection to nationals abroad.
Ergo, Mexicos assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its nationals abroad is inconsistent with any claim to automatic US citizenship merely by reason of birth on US soil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.