Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro Warns Military Strikes Within Mexico Could 'Be Considered an Act of War'
On Friday, the Texas representative will introduce a resolution rebuking recent pushes to conduct military operations against Mexican cartels without Mexico’s consent or congressional authorization.

On Friday, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D–Texas) will introduce a resolution that rebukes a growing trend among Republicans to push for the U.S. to conduct military operations against Mexican cartels without the Mexican government's permission or proper authorization by the U.S. Congress. Such actions could "be considered an act of war and a violation of international law" and could "violate the constitutional separation of powers and implicate the War Powers Resolution," notes Castro's resolution.
"My resolution is both a statement of opposition to the use of force against Mexico and a statement that the White House cannot unilaterally use force," Castro tells Reason. "It's important to send a strong message that Congress would be opposed to any president making the unilateral decision to invade one of our allies."
Castro's resolution explains that the president has the "power to repel sudden attacks on United States persons and territory." It clarifies, however, that "the manufacture, transportation, and sale of fentanyl and related chemical compounds is not considered an armed invasion or sudden attack by a foreign adversary."
Therefore, it "should not serve as the basis for using military force without congressional authorization," the resolution continues.
Castro says that fentanyl overdoses are "a public health crisis and [need] to be treated like one." When asked which policies he supports to reduce fentanyl-related deaths, his answer stops short of some of the harm-reduction and drug-decriminalization policies prescribed by libertarians. Rather, he mentions increased federal funding for "treatment, recovery, and prevention services," and expanded collaboration "between the U.S. and Mexican law enforcement and public health agencies to prevent youth drug use." Castro also says he supports the Biden administration's National Drug Control Strategy, "which expands access to harm reduction and treatment programs while giving law enforcement more tools to intercept illegal drugs." He hopes the federal government will keep cracking down on pharmaceutical companies "that made billions from opioid addiction"—an approach that Reason's Jacob Sullum has criticized.
Castro's resolution comes amid heightened calls on the right to take a variety of heavy-handed and interventionist measures against Mexican drug cartels. Each candidate at the first two Republican presidential debates pushed for a more militarized border, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis going so far as to suggest sending U.S. Special Forces into Mexico.
Former President Donald Trump spoke about conducting missile strikes against cartel drug labs as early as 2020, The New York Times reported this week. Reps. Mike Waltz (R–Fla.) and Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas) helped bring the matter back into the legislative limelight in January when they introduced a joint resolution that would authorize the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "foreign nations, foreign organizations, or foreign persons" involved in fentanyl production or trafficking. Congress has ceded so much of its constitutionally prescribed war-declaration authority to the president for eight decades now; it shouldn't cede more to combat cartels.
Even as Republicans express skepticism about the U.S. intervening in foreign affairs—criticizing the war in Afghanistan or the government's ongoing aid to Ukraine, for instance—they're increasingly calling for direct military action at the southern border and on Mexican soil. This approach shows disregard for the lessons of the war on drugs and the war on terror alike.
It also has the potential to severely complicate cross-border migration. David J. Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, previously told Reason that he thought "the Mexican government would refuse any collaboration with the United States on immigration" if "the U.S. government conducted military strikes on Mexican soil." Castro takes a similar tone: "If the U.S. invaded Mexico," progress made by the Biden administration "to build partnerships with Mexico and other countries in Latin America to invest in regional resettlement and manage regional migration pressures…would immediately come to a halt."
"Military strikes against Mexico are the quickest way to destabilize Mexico and send millions of people fleeing across the border—including Americans who have an immediate right to return and Mexican citizens fleeing from the conflict," Castro tells Reason. "Anyone who is concerned about the current volume of migration should be vehemently opposed to war with Mexico."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So the cartels are paying off our politicians now?
I doubt they're paying off House members, but even if they are, they're right. Invading Mexico without their permission would be an act of war, and conducting war without congressional approval is constitutionally prohibited.
"conducting war without congressional approval is constitutionally prohibited."
True but seems to happen all the time.
Earn money in USA, high scores from trusted resources. Work at your own pace. Regular Payments. Search in different job categories. Work anywhere on your vs03 computer, laptop or mobile phone. Update your profile at any time.
.
.
Detail Here———->>> http://Www.Smartcash1.com
Actually, the last "war" was way back when we were still naively numbering them.
Since then it has been police actions and training exercises on foreign soil. Even the "war on terror" was not against a nation, but an idea.
Congress hasn’t declared war since WW2.
They’ve declared war on everything that isn’t a country.
They don’t have to really declare anything. They print the money despite the people’s objections and wage war regardless.
The last war to defend freedom and liberty was the war of 1812.
[Insert edgy comment here]
Work at home for the United States of America My friend earns $164 per hour using a computer. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her but pay check was $26,000 just working on the computer for a few hours.
More infor…. http://Www.Smartwork1.com
We're already at war. We've got over 300 people A DAY dying from fentanyl. Mexico is unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Exterminating the cartels would be doing Mexican's a favor.
The failed and immoral Drug War is the only reason we have a fentanyl problem. Starting a literal war won't do anything to fix that. As for the Mexican government, they're already doing a lot of our dirty work. Alienating them by sending troops onto their territory without their permission will make things worse, not better. The idea that we could somehow "exterminate" the cartels is a pipe dream. How many cartels have we wiped out already? We're just playing Whack-a-Mole. As long as there's a demand for drugs, someone is going to supply them. Barring some fundamental and extraordinarily unlikely change in human nature, there's always going to be a demand.
There are multiple incidents of the cartels firing on border troops and Mexico doing nothing about it.
True, but the least we can for those situations is tell Mexico, "Look, if these assholes shoot at us, we're going to consider that an act of war on their part and we will open up on them with everything we have. You don't have to like it, but our troops have the right to defend themselves if they come under attack."
Doing full-on military operations against them, however, should be completely out of bounds unless its with the cooperation of the Mexican government. Yes, they're compromised by the cartels, but it's a bad idea in the long-term to just conduct ops in an adjacent country without, at the very least, their formal consent.
My Companion mother makes 55 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal PC). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time however last month her check was 11,000 bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal PC) for 9 hours per day.
OPEN>>>>>>bitecoinsallar12.COM
Certainly, but in such situations, it's imperative to communicate clearly with Mexico. We should convey that if our personnel are fired upon, we'll interpret it as an act of aggression and will respond accordingly. Our troops have the right to protect themselves if they come under attack.
However, engaging in full-fledged military operations within Mexico's borders should only happen with the explicit cooperation of the Mexican government. While we understand their challenges with the cartels, it's unwise in the grand scheme to conduct operations within an adjacent country without, at the very least, their formal approval.
How okay would you be with Mexican troops shooting at people on the US-side of the border? What if they end up shooting the wrong person by mistake? I'm pretty states rights, and I'm cool with Texas doing just about whatever it wants north of the Rio Grande but shooting at stuff on the other side is right out. If the Mexican government can't put a stop to the violent antics of lawless cartels on the border, that could be cause for the United States to do something about it militarily, but not the individual states.
I posted a story below about Mexican troops entering the US. If you follow updates on that story they were likely linked to cartels.
But to me it would be similar to Israel saying they can't return fire on Palestine or other countries because it isnt the countries doing it, just a group heavily tied to the government. Which cartels and the Mexican government actually are.
I have no problem with Israel shooting into other countries that allow groups to attack Israel.
How okay would you be with Mexican troops shooting at people on the US-side of the border?
If those people were ruthless criminal pieces of shit who were taking shots at those Mexican troops (you know, the inverse of the situation you're commenting on) I would be more than OK with it.
I’m pretty states rights, and I’m cool with Texas doing just about whatever it wants north of the Rio Grande but shooting at stuff on the other side is right out. If the Mexican government can’t put a stop to the violent antics of lawless cartels on the border, that could be cause for the United States to do something about it militarily, but not the individual states.
It's a pity you're not also pro-literacy. This story has nothing to do with the state of Texas doing anything.
Reason.com is implementing several changes to its commenting system. Registered users can now access an enhanced profile page, allowing them to manage their muted commenter list and view a complete listing of comments. Commenters also have a 5-minute window to edit their comments after posting. Additionally, new registration and password recovery forms have been introduced.
and also take this :http://www.gwacalculator.net/
Given the amount of the Mexican government the cartels own one could argue we are currently in a de facto state of war and sabotage.
This is what needs to be addressed.
The correct approach to this problem is obvious: Contract the wet work to Ukraine, we already have the "supply chain" established, the Ukrainians have demonstrated their capabilities, and our Congress and President have a rock solid relationship with Zelensky. Those cartels will be crying дядя within a matter of weeks.
I don't know... the Ukrainian troops seem to be a bit busy right now with other things.
Money laundering is tough work.
It would indeed be an act of war, and a spectacularly stupid one give that there are forty million Mexicans in the US.
You admit they aren’t actually Americans? That’s refreshing.
You democrats are quite well versed at rounding up and interring ethnic groups in time of war. Just dust off FDR’s plan he use Don the Japanese.
The Cartels are such a big problem for the Government of Mexico, that US strikes against them likely wouldn't have to be made without permission from at least the top executives of that country.
By some accounts, the area within anywhere from 20-100 miles of the US border in Notrhern Mexico are barely, if at all under the control of any agents of their National, State, or Local Governments; and it's highly questionable who actually controls many of those "Government Agents".
Something as visible as missile strikes seem like a bad idea, drone strikes would possibly be a more realistic option but the most likely first option might be covert operations run by CIA using either active special forces operators, or more likely some kind of PMC outfit as a means of creating a level of plausible deniability; the risk with PMCs against an extraordinarily wealthy target (especially if the contractors used are sending non-western personnel for even more deniability) seems somewhat obvious though, and that's assuming the CIA isn't at some level in league with the Mexican cartels after the South American pipelines got more or less shut down and as a result have some hidden conflicts of interest.
Mexico is at war with us. How else do you describe their unwillingness to prevent the surge the border, their inaction on domestic herion production, turning a blind eye to import and transport of fentanyl within their borders and all but partnering with drug cartels profit from all of the above? They undermine our national security on a daily basis.
Exporting their poor is the only way they know how to prevent civil war.
Certainly reform is off the table.
And yet right there in her article she states:
" they introduced a joint resolution that would authorize "
Sounds like Congressional approval to me if passed.
And I like how she brings in Trump even though he never invaded or attacked Mexico while he was President and he hasn't been President for the past two and a half years. Biden is only mentioned in the context of how much progress he's made in our relations with Mexico. Who exactly would be ordering troops into Mexico if this goes forward? Unclear from the article.
Invading Mexico WITH their permission is an act of war.
Letting go of the Halls of Montezuma was a Bad Mistake.
The democrats are with the cartels.
They've probably long since paid off politicians to make their stock in trade even more illegal so their black-market monopoly would be assured.
I’m told the Castro brothers will sign up with the Mexican Army if the USA hits the cartels.
They like their woke policies
And besides, they hate the United States of America
As Bill Clinton once said, '....that depends on what the definition of war, is....'
Same Mexico busing migrants to our border?
Fuck 'em.
Yeah, I was going to say, what about the actual invasion, then? Is that something the military might be permitted to do something about?
Unfortunately they’re a mercenary force for the same globalists that currently control our military.
The enemy of the new military is the American people.
It’s a legitimate use of military power under the U.S. Constitution.
Even as Republicans express skepticism about the U.S. intervening in foreign affairs—criticizing the war in Afghanistan or the government's ongoing aid to Ukraine, for instance—they're increasingly calling for direct military action at the southern border and on Mexican soil.
There's no contradiction here, unless you believe in total non-intervention. The nationalist line has always been to ignore countries too far away. Mexico is next door.
Possibly the dumbest line of the entire article.
"Ukraine border sacred! US border racist!"
That would be pretty stupid. If they actually said that, which they didn't. But, hey, keep right on arguing with the voices in your head.
It takes some really high grade stupidity to compare the invasion of Ukraine to the Mexican border.
Fiona: Martha's Vineyard proved Democrats really do practice what they preach with respect to welcoming immigrants.
Reality: New York City mayor says influx of migrants will 'destroy' the city
Forgive my cynicism, but I'm beginning to suspect Koch-funded open borders fanatics can't be trusted to write honestly about this issue. 🙁
It has gotten so bad that Mayorkas just cleared regulations to start building the wall. Apparently having 130k dirty foreigners in a blue city was the line for Biden. Too bad he sold off all the border material that was already purchased.
There are well over three million people in NYC who were born outside the US.
Nice non sequitur. They seem to be struggling with just 125k now.
Mike Liarson is a Fiona sock? Did she mention the pizza party?
Is he?
If an influx of migrants could "destroy the city", maybe the leaders of that City should re-consider declaring the place to be a "sanctuary" open to those very migrants.
It barely makes the news that Texas is sending multiple busloads of migrants to CA daily, probably because the arrival of those buses barely alters the complexion of the general traffic coming in through those bus terminals, let alone create any kind of a noticeable disturbance in cities like L.A. or SF. It will be interesting to see if Gavin Newsom tries to file some sort of legal action against Abbott related to "trafficking" of busloads of people who are most likely being picked up by relatives once they reach the city.
Sandra, just relax, have a Koch and a smile.
Reason home movies. This one is priceless.
https://gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/149/034/071/playable/b8444998db28caae.mp4
Hilarious.
beautiful
Ha!
without the Mexican government's permission or proper authorization
...
a statement that the White House cannot unilaterally use force
Oh, I see. This is more of a "Why does Rep. Joaquin Castro hate Muslims?" situation, rather than any sort of actual principled attempt to rein in the use of force or the purse strings around the use of force back in Congress' hands.
Thanks for the utterly meaningless and vapid pro-D soundbyte Fiona. If you could make sure the next one has the Reason-signature line of "You want people to die!" that would be great!
The commentariat today is apparently fully on board with the pro-aggression principle warmongering wing of libertarianism.
What assholes you all are.
They're asymmetric "libertarians"
They're just brown people who speak Spanish. Not like they're human beings or anything like that.
And who have absolutely no business being in the USA without an invite. This whole I'm a human being so I can invade any turf I want is complete self-entitled BS.
I don't subscribe to the idea someone without a government permission slip ceases to be a human being and becomes a mere animal to be rounded up caged.
Great; Sarcasmic's home is open for invasion. Everyone! Free-Sh*t! If you're a human being his house is your house.
Except that comparing paperless immigrants with trespassers is a faulty argument. Neither their landlords nor employers consider them to be trespassers, nor do the owners of the shops where they spend their money.
The only way a trespassing argument against illegals makes sense is if you oppose all private property and consider everything from apartments to jobs to stores to be owned by government and government alone.
Except that comparing paperless immigrants with trespassers is a faulty argument.
It is literally a valid argument as they are trespassing based on the agreed to laws of the country they are entering.
Neither their landlords nor employers consider them to be trespassers, nor do the owners of the shops where they spend their money.
Landlords nor employers own the public property that is affected, the welfare the immigrants take, or the right of association of other people who decline said association. You are pushing the rights of people you defend over the shared rights of the population. You should really read the essay at some point so you stop making these dumb arguments.
The only way a trespassing argument against illegals makes sense is if you oppose all private property and consider everything from apartments to jobs to stores to be owned by government and government alone.
Public space, public roads, public utilities, etc are owned by the people of the country, not by people who illegally enter the country nor just the landlords or employers of said people. The property was already taken by government from the people, so the people who have paid into it have say in how it is used.
Again, this argument is addressed in the very essay you continue to refuse to read.
If a small town of 1000 people chip in and create a park for their shared use, are they now obligated to allow anyone in to come and trash the park because one of them decided to rent out a room? Or does the one person who made a decision have to actually confer with the other 999 people who absorbed the shared cost?
It's 100% accurate you lying twit. You just don't like that the USA has borders and is a nation at all and you'll pull out any BS excuse you can to *entitle* anyone to it. Why don't you go lobby for Mexico to just join the USA??? After all; people in the USA are just human beings too. Aren't they entitled to take-over Mexico?
How do illegal immigrants who otherwise follow the law cause you harm?
Sarc. Do yourself and everyone here a favor and read this.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/
It will answer most of your questions and maybe cause you to have a basic understanding of the issue. Not holding my breath though.
This comment is amazingly ignorant.
Do you think illegals are only ever on public property? What’s your opinion of the issue with the Army Navy game this weekend?
Who said they cease to be human beings?
It's the entitlement call of leftards.
If I can't steal your sh*t and invade any turf I want; I'm not being treated like a human being..... /s
They might be human beings but definitely not the mentality anyone wants around.
You don't subscribe to ideas at all, just bumper stickers.
Did you read the link i've given to you 3 times yet regarding public property and first principles of libertarianism? Guessing no.
I don't read your fucking links, dude. There's no reason to. You always argue in bad faith, so I'm not going to waste my time.
Yet here you are continuing to argue the topic.
Bad faith is ignoring informational essays from a well known libertarian because youre scared how dumb it will make you look.
Just slither back to your piss soaked garbage can, you fucking drunk pussy.
We are in the process of implementing several changes to the commenting system on Reason.com. Registered users now have access to an enhanced profile page, which can be found via the link near the top right of any page. This feature enables you to manage your list of muted commenters and view a comprehensive list of comments. Additionally, commenters now have the ability to edit their comments within the first 5 minutes after posting. These initial updates also encompass new registration and password recovery forms. Keep an eye out for even more significant improvements on the horizon! If you encounter any issues, please reach out to webmaster@reason.com, and feel free to provide feedback through our site feedback form.
https://pppcalculator.net/
If it wasn’t a certainty that you will make shit up to explain what I don’t say while misrepresenting what I do say then I might bother. But you will alway lie, lie, and then lie some more. If you weren’t such a dishonest piece of garbage you might be worth a conversation. But you are and you always will be.
I link to what you say. You lie about what you've said. I bring proof. Lol.
By the way when I compare you to garbage I mean garbage, not Garbage. They're pretty awesome.
Is this post an example of attacking arguments?
Sarc’s a bit of a hypocrite. And by a bit, I mean completely and utterly.
In fairness he’s also a drunk.
And a pussy shitweasel.
Who wants to feed his ex-wife horse meat because she loves horses…
3 comments in a row to justify not educating yourself. Wow.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/
Sarc. I’m going to give you a simplified version of your arguments.
You and 4 friends decide to buy a Lake house. You split costs. You set up rules of use. You agree that any changes to the agreement need to be made by the majority. One of your friends gets a new illegal immigrant room mate. He tells said room mate he can use the lake house whenever he wants, it is community property. No worries. He invited the illegal immigrant so all shared property is fine to be used by him as well. To the detriment of the other 4 on the deal in violation of the agreements.
This is what your logic leads to.
Well said.
It’s actually worse though. Because I never agreed to invest in the lakehouse, but I was forced to. And the people that forced me to pitch in on the lakehouse also forced me to pay for a yoga instructor to show up and teach sarc’s friends. And if there’s a medical emergency, I get to help pay for that too.
But sarc’s not capable of getting your simple analogy, so I hope I didn’t confuse him further with my additions.
That's a strawman and you know it!
It's not that they aren't human, or at least that shouldn't be the question at any level.
The slogan "no person is illegal" mis-frames the entire issue to pretend that the other side sees those people as undeserving of existence or presence anywhere on the planet. I agree (and assume virtually everyone would as well) that anyone born in the world isn't drawing breath illegally; there's even a case to be made that "social conservatives" and others who oppose the idea of abortions (I'm not one of those, for context) believe this more strongly than most. No person's existence should violate any law, but there's all manner of laws which restrict which people are allowed to be in particular locations depending on the time/place and situation. Requiring particular "permission slips" to enter one country from another is an extremely common version of such laws, and exists in virtually every nation on the planet which has any kinds of meaningful authority or recognized "rule of law".
How many hundreds of people were rounded up and caged for entering a particular building (one which is techincally public property owned by a polity of which they are all members, btw) on a particular day in January 2021? What would you guess is the overlap among people who applauded every one of those arrests and who also have a sign posted in their window or front yard reading including the slogan "we believe no human is illegal"?
How does Sarc know they’re human?
Is he a biologist?
A lot of Mexicans are White.
Nobody cares what color they are.
I like how you virtue signaled and didn’t identify or counter a single point.
Power pigs invading other nations because the invading unwilling nations has too many junkies is absurd on its face! It refutes itself! Why don't YOU justify this violently invasive power piggery?
Did you know that the USA invaded Vietnam, and USA troops came back addicted to various drugs they took while there in Vietnam? You want to do this AGAIN?
I’m sure this made sense in your head. Bless your heart.
Are we even sure SQRLSY has organs similar to humans?
My organ is MUCH bigger than YOUR so-called "organ", Punk Boogers!
Look, Oh Brainless Wonder, R Mac who Talks and Snorts Smack, those who advocate wasting taxpayer money on senseless violence (death and destruction) should be the FIRST to justify themselves in a data-driven manner, NOT those who oppose them!
"Let's use tax money to blow up R Mac's house!"
WHO should justify themselves FIRST (and MOST), those in favor of the above, or those in opposition?
So, er, when did Mexico become one of our allies? I mean, they used to at least be nominal members of the Rio Pact, but even that hasn't been true for two decades at this point.
Mexico was a huge ally during World War II. War with Mexico will devastate the economy of Texas and of much of California. And what do you do with the forty million Mexicans living in the US? round them all up? The entire US prison system only houses about 160,000 people and had a budget of eight billion dollars annually. The cost to hold another forty million would be in the two trillion dollar range. That is a lot of money to print.
So was the Soviet Union.
Facts?!? FACTS?!??! We don't NEEEED no stinkin' FACTS, we got us some tin-foil hate-hats and Sacred Tribal EMOTIONS!!! Especially HATRED of that them thar outta-town STRANGERS!!!
-Right-wing wrong-nuts
I’m sure you democrats have an internment plan for them. Or just dust off the one your fellow travelers used on the Japanese.
What moron doesn't know that military operations on another country's soil, without their authorization, is an act of war?
What is 'President Wilson and General Pershing'?
Was that a quiz?
Is there a prize?
Yeah, but back then the globalist leviathan that Wilson himself ironically set in motion after World War I didn't exist back then to muck things up.
Mr. Obama unavailable for comment.
which one, Barack or Mike?
Democrats assassinating US citizens on foreign soil good, Republicans assassinating violent gang members on foreign soil bad.
Given the paramilitary nature of cartel activities, I think it’s fair to call them enemy combatants at this point.
Fair point.
But Adolph Eichman is unavailable for comment as well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-detains-14-mexican-soldiers-who-accidentally-crossed-border-n1280098
February 7, 2022-
Biden: "If Russia invades, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"
Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."
I can find video footage if things are still unclear.
Also, technically, since the pipeline in question represents civilian infrastructure and not a vital military asset, this wouldn't just be a pledge to commit an act of war, it would technically be a pledge to commit a war crime.
I'm not questioning the truth that Biden said what you're claiming, but you've got to be aware that at this point, the "Ministry of Truth" will claim that the verified video footage of the man himself making that statement in a roomful of witnesses is a deepfake, and that any confirmatory declarations from people who were in the room or even forensic analysis to verify the authenticity of the video would be dismissed as "Russian disinformation"; if that claim doesn't work, the next step would be to dismiss it as a "nothing burger" or that since it's only "circumstantial" that it therefore isn't even evidence at all (every one of these tactics have been widely employed by prominent Dems, their suporters, and their collaborating media proxies in the last 4-6 weeks in reference to at least one issue and they're the standard "playbook" now).
All the MAGA Republicans, apparently.
Obama?
National Borders and Sovereignty only matter when one's own Team ox is not getting gored?
Is that kinda like how pulling a fire alarm in order to interfere in the official business of Congress is technically an act of insurrection?
No one pulled a fire alarm on J6, so not insurrection.
Also:
(D) so not insurrection.
>>increasingly calling for direct military action at the southern border and on Mexican soil.
why does Manifest Destiny stop at the Rio Grande?
Racist!
C’mon man, you knew that.
Democrats and their So many ideas..... 🙂
This is just stupid virtue signalling is all it is.
Dude is on the Cartel's payroll obviously.
And, what a payroll that is! Wasn't it Escobar that had so much cash he didn't know what to do with it all so he built a massive warehouse for it and also stored some underground?
Is that somewhat similar to how triggering a fire alarm to disrupt the official proceedings of Parliament is considered an act of insurrection?
but you can see Best Gaming Headphones Under 5000
You might want to slip in a decimal point there - - - - - -
Punctuation saves lives.
"Let's eat Grandma" .vs "let's eat, Grandma".
I’m impressed the bot was almost salient before the pitch.
edit: wait I see it's riffing Jerrys above ...
This is a great site - the bots are as smart as the rest of us - - - - - - - -
hopefully it learned decimals in the meantime lest it make a Superman III / Innitech mistake
Even as Republicans express skepticism about the U.S. intervening in foreign affairs—criticizing the war in Afghanistan or the government's ongoing aid to Ukraine, for instance—they're increasingly calling for direct military action at the southern border and on Mexican soil. This approach shows disregard for the lessons of the war on drugs and the war on terror alike.
First off, let me state clearly that I am categorically against any military intervention into Mexico for the fentanyl crisis... having said that, the desire of Republicans to not intervene in places like Ukrained/Syria etc. is not in direct conflict with the thinking behind intervening into Mexico. Mexico sits on our border and directly affects our interests. If it was official Mexican policy to push fentanyl across our border, then that would not be a foreign entanglement in a faraway land in which we have little national interest, beyond the vague claims of "stabilizing" a global hot spot.
There's also a lot of very effected naivete going on both ways as well. We have no idea how thousands of C. American refugees required to seek out and file for protection at the first safe haven traveled the length of Mexico! We're so inept, it's probably better that you take them and protect them (and a few of our) in your borders with your justice system anyway.
Yeah, I don't even want to mention the "safe third country" stuff... that collection of words and syllables slides off your average Reason writer like egg off a Teflon pan.
If it was official policy, we would have diplomats settle the issue peacefully.
You know, silver or lead.
Mexico has been invading us for years and the past year has been an act of war.
and the past year has been an act of war
Albeit an act of war that the political party the DHS aligns with fully supports.
Nonsense. Since 2009 the net migration between the US and Mexico has been TOWARDS Mexico.
Well aren't you FOS.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/09/before-covid-19-more-mexicans-came-to-the-u-s-than-left-for-mexico-for-the-first-time-in-years/
When is he not?
Do you ever get tired of being a buffoon?
Better proposal:
Pass a congressional resolution demanding that we immediately invade Mexico, carve off the northern tier of its states (Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, Sonora, and Tamaulipas) into a new buffer country, and forcibly deport the Duke of Sussex to take up his new role as constitutional monarch of the new country.
Granted, it seems rather extreme at first glance to create a whole new country just to get rid of one person, but remember that his wife will probably join him.
Constitutional monarch? I was think maybe Village Idiot.
LOL. Doubt he even sleeps with her anymore. Why would the new King want his her to go too, since he'd have plenty of (hotter) concubines.
Let's see - 109000 died from drug overdoses last year according to the lefties at NPR. I DON'T CARE IF ONLY 20 DEATHS ARE BECAUSE OF BEANERVILLALAND, IT IS TOO MUCH.
Whew! Got my BP up kind of high.
We invaded two countries over 3000 deaths on 9/11 - why shouldn't we deal with our neighboring shithole?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Good analogy. And, "Beanervillaland"?!? ????
Well yeah, sending troops into a sovereign nation and shooting the place up is an act of war.
And we have a right to engage in acts of war against our attackers and invaders. The “government” of “Mexico” will have to choose which side they're on.
We don’t need the approval of Mexico to defend ourselves against the drug cartels. Our problem only exists because the criminals are coming here across our sovereign border. If they stayed in Mexico, we’d happily leave them alone.
In addition to repelling any actual border crossings, we could certainly legitimately attack any staging of forces to cross our borders. Attacking manufacturing facilities not directly related to crossing would not be legitimate. Ostensibly those drugs could go anywhere. Our only concern is when they are criminally transported here.
It would be nice to have Mexico’s cooperation, but it isn’t required. No state is required to gain the permission of another to defend itself. Limiting this principle to imminent attacks only is wrong. If your enemy is building an invading force right on your border, you don’t wait until they have an overwhelming advantage before countering them. By that point, its too late.
Attacking manufacturing facilities not directly related to crossing would not be legitimate
Bullshit. Attacking the facilities where weapons being used against us are being manufactured is legitimate.
My most recent pay test was for a 12-hour-per-week internet job for $9,500. For months, my sister's friend has been making an average of 15,000, and she puts in about 20 hours every week. As soon as I gave it a try, I was shocked at how simple it was.
Do this instead————————————>>> https://www.dailypay7.com/
The Mexican Federal government controls 60% of Mexico. The other 40% is divided amongst the various cartels. This sure sounds like Iraq and Afghanistan.
What a fkn clown.
Drugs account for 4x as many deaths of Americans than homicides annually*. This is a blatant war on Americans. While it's sad that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, chooses to take drugs and then become addicted to them to the point that they ultimately OD, the drug cartels are the suppliers. And, if Mexico is unwilling or unable to clean them up, we should do it for them - and for us.
*https://drugabusestatistics.org/drug-overdose-deaths/
Along those lines, what if the cartels sent remote controlled drones in to drop drugs down into America's sovereign borders? Is THAT not an invasion? Well, let me inform you that THEY DO! Would any other country put up with such $#!+? I think not!
Military Strikes Within Mexico Could 'Be Considered an Act of War'
Correction Military strikes anywhere are, by definition, acts of war.
I think Fiona is trying to say they would be acts of aggression, but, of course, she's wrong, since they would be responses to attack and invasion.
This article was helpful in figuring out who reflexively defends military aggression in Mexico over the simple and obvious solution of ending the War on Drugs. JesseAz, Geiger Goldstaedt, R Mac, damikesc, Nazi-chipping warlock, Tulpa, Nobartium, William, YuckFou, DaveM, jay.ha, Vernon Depner - maybe we need to drop all you chickenhawks off in Mexico and let you fight the cartels for us.
Defending against attack and invasion is not aggression.
Do you support the US government invading Mexico and attacking cartels with aerial bombardment?
As I asked you first, when you answer my question, I'll answer yours.
Make love not war in just four comments.
Warms my sixties heart.
Chickenshit
Hey Goldilicks GorillaShit…
So the Mexican sub-human illegal un-Americans are putting guns to the heads of Good Americans to FORCE them to become fentanyl junkies? And the FIX for these poor junkies is to send USA military invaders, boots, bullets, and bombs, to FIX this ALL for the junkies? What about not just brown illegal sub-humans, but black, red, and yellow ones ass well (Oh My!) worldwide that export foods to American fatty-food addicts, foreign booze, coffee, addictive Anime movies, video games, porn, and Government Almighty knows TWAT all else! Shall we bomb them ALL?
Your comparison of sending arms and aid to being-invaded Ukrainians v/s bombing Mexico conflates a LOT of shit! Could you and Gov. Ron DeSatan and all of the other right-wing wrong-nuts please get together, and illuminate the rest of us ass to how you will make your comparison more honest? Twat is the FIX here?
We should give the “victims” here (American junkies) aid and bombs and missiles, to defend themselves, on their own behalf? So that they can go and shoot and bomb the fentanyl-pushers? How do we first-off MAKE the addicts NOT WANT their fentanyl in the first place? (We’re not fighting with American troops for or in Ukraine, ya know, we’re just sending arms and aid.)
Or… We should counsel (give therapy to) the Ukrainians, to empower and aid them in their struggles against addiction? Stupid Ukrainians! Just STOP with your addictions to Russian bullets, army boots, bombs, and missiles! Give it a REST, foolish addicts!
Twat IS your fix to your shitty analogy or comparison here? Ass above, or something else? … Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!
Move the reply button
Not sure what that means. Personally I'm ambivalent about Ukraine.
On the one hand I don't want Putin to win, and on the other hand I don't want the meat grinder to drag on.
Lampedusa Island was always Africa.
Only a racist can think that skin color matters in terms of how productive and ethical s citizen you would be. Besides, given that almost every mostly White country in the world has a fertility rate below replacement, it isn't leftist conspiracies that are creating fewer White people.
Ukraine and Russia are both considered "white," so how does their war figure in your paranoid "Replacement" conspiracy theory?
Population doubling over a long weekend!
Goldilick GorillaShit shows its fondness of GorillaShit yet AGAIN! I am SHOCKED, I tell ya!
How many newborn native babies are YOU paying for? Very few? Does that mean that the Government Almighty should command and control baby-making, then, logically? Both babies and immigrants consume goods and services, ya know, but also, most of them also produce goods and services eventually, in both case. Most immigrants will produce more quickly than most new-born babies, by the way! So Your Perfect Power-Pig arguments apply MORE to the babies, than to the immigrants!
How many Catholic priests, Native American Shamans, Methodist Ministers, Scientology “Leaders”, Jewish Rabbis, and Islamic and Hindu “Holy Men” are you inviting into YOUR house to stay with YOU? None, right? Since they are living “at large” in the territory of the Collective Hive of the USA, then with the Collective Hive of the USA being just EXACTLY like YOUR living room, the public (voters, through the Powers of Government Almighty) should decide which religious leaders are allowed to practice which religions in USA territory!!! Because the Collective Hive owns it ALL!!! …
Straight-through and honest analogy here… If this does NOT clarify to you, the collectivism inherent in your analogy, then you have a fossilized mind!
You pay taxes on your property, and maintain it. You have the right to says who uses it, no doubts in my mind about THAT! You do NOT own (or pay taxes on) ALL territories in the USA, power-grabbing PIG!
Sarcasmic would probably argue that condominiums do not have a right to post security guards in the building lobby.
Unless illegals are branded or tattooed, how will the security guard know they're living there without government permission?
READ the below and hang your tiny brainless, power-lusting shit-head in SHAME for always taking the side of Trumpanzees, power-luster-pig!
https://www.jpost.com/international/kill-him-with-his-own-gun-dc-cop-talks-about-the-riot-655709 also https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/28/michael-fanone-trump-gop-riots/
‘Kill him with his own gun’ – DC cop talks about Capitol riot
DC Police officer Michael Fanone: I had a choice to make: Use deadly force, which would likely result with the mob ending his life, or trying something else.
“Pro-law-and-order” Trumpturds take the side of trumpanzees going apeshit, making cops beg for their lives! For trying to defend democracy against mobocracy! Can you slime-wads sink ANY lower?!?!
Bar-coded tattoos on their foreheads, Buddy!!!
I don’t know, maybe because they broke the door down?
Goldilick GorillaShit's tinfoil hate-hat is reading ALL of the minds of ALL of the readers, now? Have you had it calibrated lately?
He is the only poster I have muted. I don’t even mute the pedophile, or the fat pedophile.
Goldilicks GorillaShit can't refute it, 'cause Goldilicks GorillaShit is WRONG!!!!!
Shall we get together to protect our common interests against the invasions of GOVERNMENT ALMIGHTY UN-AUTHORIZED new-born native-born infants? After all, both babies and immigrants consume goods and services, ya know, but also, most of them also produce goods and services eventually, in both case. Most immigrants will produce more quickly than most new-born babies, by the way! So Your Perfect Power-Pig arguments apply MORE to the babies, than to the immigrants!
How does lacking a government permission slip harm your life, liberty or property through force or fraud?
Goldilicks GorillaShit is an EXPERT at not making any (valid) points!
My Companion mother makes 55 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal PC). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time however last month her check was 11,000 bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal PC) for 9 hours per day.
OPEN>>>>>>bitecoinsallar12.COM
Hey Goldilicks GorillaShit…
I hereby and alwaysby refute EVERYSHIT that you write, by calling it gibberish! So there! Nanny-nanny-booo-bah!
(Did your Mommy help you to write "gibberish"?)
Weekend staff working on a Thursday? Maybe the regular staff had a training.
They're not in your home you idiot!
If the government takes my money to fund public property do I have a say in that property?
Or is my money not my property?
How many flags does it take to cover a dog house if your mom hates ice cream and there's no wheels on the canoe in your purse?
Shoulda been there nine months ago. That party was WILD!
Nobody is in anyone's home. That's a faulty analogy.
They're not in your home you idiot, so there's no question to answer. Just a fallacious analogy based upon a false premise.
How do smurfs in your gas tank affect your gas mileage?
There are no strangers in my home!
There are no strangers in your home!
If there are then they're trespassing on private property, and their immigration status is immaterial.
"If there are then they’re trespassing on private property"
EXACTLY.... The USA *is* private property of the US Citizens. They fought a WAR to get it with the British and admitted state's like Texas through legislation. So unless Mexico wants to join the union their citizens have ZERO right to be here.
The USA *is* private property of the US Citizens.
That's an oxymoron. Can't be both private and public, or private and collective, at the same time. It's a contradiction in terms.
Yes the country is comprised of many individual plots of private property. But the owners have no collective will. If some choose to rent their property to illegals, or employ them on that property, or accept their money on that property, then no trespassing has occurred.
The collective is EXACTLY what ensure private property rights. Your just chasing your tail to get what you want.
The collective is EXACTLY what ensure private property rights.
What private property rights are violated in my previous post?
Your just chasing your tail to get what you want.
I don't "want" anything. I just fail to see how a trespassing argument can be made against people without government papers. There are plenty of arguments to be made against immigration. Trespassing only works if you get rid of individual property rights. Find a better argument.
Equating lack of papers with trespassing only makes sense if individual property owners don't get to decide who is or isn't a trespasser.
Ya know like immigration policy determining who is and isn't a tresspasser???
I attack your arguments. You attack me. I win.
Move the reply button
Why?
You haven’t responded to a single argument I’ve made.
You've literally ignored every argument and just repeated ignorant bumper sticker slogans.
What is the purpose of saying 'a white guy...'? Do you think this is about race? Are you just a white supremacist - where Hitler and Stalin are fine but that Mao/Xi gook is worth a war?
Aaah - so yes you are a white supremacist and everything is about race because the US is white.
Hey JTard... see sarcs post.
You misspelled “realist”.
He can’t be bothered.
Jesse, your optimism is laudable, but perhaps a bit unrealistic.
He’s pointing out that the left prefers certain colors of people.
Be HONEST, Mad-Vulva SheMale! You dunno, 'cause ye know NOTHING!
(How many illegal sub-humans are in yer house or on YOUR property RIGHT NOW, Mad-Vulva SheMale?)
Yes. He cartels are a legitimate, clear and present danger to our sovereign borders. Mexico either needs to handle (which they haven’t) or get out of our way.
THAT is 100% libertarian. Unlike you.
Punk Boogers is ESPECIALLY VASTLY threatened by posters (such as me) who are not only supremely smarter than Punk Boogers, but ALSO a butt-ton better-looking! It is NO wonder than Punk Boogers is afraid to read my posts!
He is left handed. Needs special treatment.
Why not adopt the real Libertarian solution of bankrupting the cartels by legalizing home-grown and manufactured and Genetically Modified for safety opioids?