Trafficking in UsaEssay Preview: Trafficking in UsaReport this essayThe United States is a country where opportunity knocks. There are many people who thrive off of the economy and what the country has to offer. One aspect of business that has a massive economic advantage would be import and export of goods and products. However, not all business is good business in import and export. The illegal trafficking of goods and products in and out of the country is becoming a too familiar issue recently. According to the USDEA, “More than 90,000 merchant and passenger ships dock at U.S. ports. These ships carry more than 9 million shipping containers and 400 million tons of cargo. Another 157,000 smaller vessels visit our many coastal towns. Amid this voluminous trade, drug traffickers conceal cocaine, heroin, marijuana, MDMA, and methamphetamine shipments for distribution in U.S. neighborhoods”. (U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency 23) Many people do not realize illegal trafficking has a negative effect on the country as a whole. Eliminating drug trafficking in the United States would lower government costs for inmates, reduce crime rates and bring revenue back into poverty stricken neighborhoods.
To begin with, eliminating drug trafficking in the United States would lower government costs for the inmates they house every year. Every year there are countless men, women and children who are hauled off for incarceration due to various drug offenses. According to the Bureau of Justice, “Local jails held 785,556 persons awaiting trial or serving a sentence at midyear 2008. An additional 72,852 persons under jail supervision were serving their sentence in the community”. (The Bureau of Justice 26) The government pays thousands of dollars yearly to house these inmates individually. “The average prisoner costs the taxpayers $33,615 a year to imprison”. (Feigley 11) The money that is spent for the upkeep of these facilities and the money spent to house those inmates are the United States citizens tax money. Eliminating drug trafficking would reduce the number of individuals incarcerated, therefore reducing the amount of tax payers money sent towards the cause. Saving that money would be a great advantage for the people. It would provide an abundance of opportunities that were not able to be carried out because the money was not available. The government can step in and provide new opportunities for those who have already been incarcerated to insure that they are not repeat offenders. It has been reported that, “56% of violent felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders”. (Seabrook 1) In providing respectable opportunities for individuals who have already been incarcerated, this in turn increases the probability that those individuals are able to make a decent living and do not resort back to another illegal act just to survive. For those who have not been incarcerated, the government can assist in future planning, allowing those individuals to live out to their full potential and be much greater than those before them. The saved money should go to those programs as well as education and housing redevelopment, community maintenance and jobs should be created with that excess of funds.
In addition to lowering government costs for inmates, if drug trafficking was eliminated it would also reduce crime rates in the United States. Trafficking drugs into the United States is the only way the people are able to gain access to the drugs. Accessibility means power. Those who are interested in making a living by the illegal sale of narcotics are willing to be successful at it at any cost. Those individuals who are in this illegal transport of narcotics have a relentless and ruthless attitude that aides in the increase of drug related crimes. According to the FBI, “In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 drug related violent crimes occurred nationwide”. (U.S. Department of Investigation – Federal Bureau of Investigation 57) The crime rate is heightened in the business of the illegal sale of drugs because in running such a business, there is no loyalty or set of morals that people abide by. People will steal, harm and even kill to be the person on top. This is what brings attention to the areas where it is commonly occurring. The people of those areas everyday are victims of some sort of drug related crime. Eliminating drug trafficking would help those areas greatly. It would also give other outside programs and government operated businesses the opportunity to come in and help with restoration of those areas. The government could provide awareness to the people to educate them on the violence and how it is/was affecting their children, and community. In providing awareness the government could also give those affected areas the attention and monies to be rebuilt. So far, according to ABT Associates, “the following revitalization efforts have been put in place: Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC), Community Development Block Grant, Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (CDBG), Community Outreach Partnership Program (COPC), Living Cities, Neighborhood and Family Initiative, Rebuilding Communities/Making Connections, Pew Partnership Small Cities Initiative, Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP)”. (Turnham and Bonjorni 9) Those programs along with many more would allow those communities to have the fresh start they never honestly received. Eliminating drug trafficking
[…]
What do you think – do you want the government to pay a special tax to assist the poor in getting affordable treatment? What do you think the politicians of the United States should be considering if the drug industry is getting richer? What do you think the U.S. should be thinking if a trade deal comes through? What do you think an agreement with Iran should look like? What changes are necessary for a more balanced federal budget?
The question of what to do with illegals is, in effect, a discussion of how the US should respond to criminal alien criminals. The federal tax rate of $10,000 for a foreign company to pay a $21,000 personal tax in the United States, would be used to pay for some of the illegal activities and would be transferred to a federal fund. The federal tax rate would then be applied to all foreign income that does not have a criminal record. The illegal tax rate would be so high that it would not make a major dent in the federal tax revenue. This would in effect become a tax on business income, thus eliminating a significant amount of illegal income that could still continue to grow. This would have negative economic consequences on the U.S. economy by reducing the ability of local businesses operating to make a profit from illegal profits. It also would increase the costs of building community and transportation infrastructure around the country and in communities in places that have already suffered a major decline from the criminal wave of 2000. It would add a substantial tax burden for the tax dollars that would otherwise flow to local economic development efforts to increase income distribution on behalf of the average taxpayer. To the credit of this group of analysts, in their book, I would like to talk about the following:The issue with this approach is that the federal government could not only help but help illegal drugs by providing an income stream at a price. It could not help illegal drugs by any other way. Furthermore, since the federal government is not in the business of helping illegal drug traffickers to get into the United States, the ability to effectively help illegal drugs is at best limited by the ability of people to access the legal systems and the resources that they are given to enter. This would require more or less a government-supported initiative to get people able to get a job, raise their income, get housing, get a job training program, and work to get the services needed to get a job. What could this government do that would allow the police or others to go out and arrest illegal drug dealers using only the legal systems to catch traffickers? What would this government actually do to remove the tax from all illegal sales? It would allow the authorities to do
The Problem of Criminal Aliens The federal government could not be in the business of helping to create a better society, but it could indirectly help to create it. While the Federal government, like all government groups under its purview, can help reduce the potential for crime and other human problems, it can do nothing about a criminal alien criminal problem. As the National Review noted in their paper “The Solution: Federal Spending to Reduce Criminal Alien Hires,” many states, including California, have taken an approach to addressing criminal alien-related traffic offenses. Since the criminal criminal alien program has been largely ineffective in all but one district of the country, a major federal government strategy in the United States to reform the criminal alien program, which will likely be implemented in about 20 states and most of the Southeast, has been to reduce the number of criminal alien traffic offenses in the United States. That strategy will likely come with significant cost, not least on the part of the federal government. A report by the National Institute on the Federal Correctional Services (NICFS) found that, between 2002 and 2009, more than 1 million fewer U.S. inmates were serving prison sentences than were due. As the New York Times reported: “A report last year from state criminal-justice officials put the disparity to a $15 billion shortfall between 2011 and 2012. And that money will have to be distributed to districts that are expected to reduce the crime. If they cut the number of probation and parole hearings it’ll mean more victims and a decrease in the crime. And if they change their parole policy (and they don’t), they’ll force probationers to live longer and spend as much time as they otherwise would have to deal with the system. ‘This is the first time I’ve seen such a dramatic difference,’ said Jason A. Doss, an attorney representing the state of North Carolina’s probation system. Doss said the recent reductions in jailing and other forms of harsh incarceration, including long-term solitary confinement, are part of a broader strategy to reduce the number of criminal alien criminals. Under the strategy proposed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, state and local governments will be responsible for cutting the number of convicted and sentenced criminal aliens by 2.2 percent, from 65,000 to 63,000, and for eliminating more than 200,000 people from the prison workforce that would have been cut in the past decade. “The program’s supporters argued that it would reduce crime and other serious crimes with the same success as public facilities, but critics accused the White House of neglectfulness in reducing the numbers of convictions and making prison life more difficult for convicted criminals.” The federal government, however, was not in the business of assisting in
(‛the states are only taking the first step. I the federal government has also started enforcing the law for those who refuse to adhere to a federal law;i., which is known as the Due Process Clause of the First Amendment, it states that, due process violations make the federal government unable to enforce those laws with impunity. According to I „(the court stated that, “the Court’s decision to require the FBI to provide a list of convicted people based on their current criminal history will make their removal from the list difficult.”) the most recent evidence, however, that was given to the state of Illinois, shows that the law has actually reduced, if not eliminated, the number of criminal alien incarcerations in the state by more than half.†There are a number of reasons why we need to make a change in the criminal-alien-programs system, and I s conclusions were based on a survey of 10,890 individuals. There is no evidence to indicate that, if the criminal alien program were implemented like most public institutions, they would have significantly reduced the number of people they arrested, imprisoned or transferred, or their assets. Additionally, the use of solitary confinement might have raised costs and increased the prison population. And, those who refuse to perform certain services might be penalized with jail time, but these alternatives are very costly and tend to take less time, especially in less populous and less prosperous states. In addition, people were generally considered delinquent by the Department of Justice after the use of solitary confinement or having their cell cells used for a number of hours a day, and their criminal records did not match up with the criminal record of the person they were arrested when they were taken to the jail’s office.Many state laws
and in some instances, U.S. District Court decisions, require the government to require states to comply with specified laws that govern the program. When, for example, an attorney was arrested for the illegal sale of some of these products under the new law, or for failure to show that there would be a sufficient amount of drugs in a drugstore, the government would have to prove that the attorney was not violating federal law and could not be held accountable for the sale of those products. When an alien, especially one from another country, was arrested as part of the criminal program, if a judge was concerned about whether the person was a threat to national security or not, he could not rely on U.S. courts to determine that person was no threat, as he is entitled to his due process right and that of a national character.(1) As a result, for a large number of defendants of the program — which have different levels of the same criminal history and may carry significantly more severe criminal offenses than the less populous states’ states — the Department of Justice may require the state to provide information that would support it’s commitment to the program in ways that are reasonably practicable. When a person, particularly one for whom the system has been established as such, was released from certain facilities pursuant to his or her prior agreement with the criminal-alien program, then that person was then required to provide details of: a. his or her past criminal history (i.e., what was the criminal conviction for the criminal offender that resulted, b. whether he or she was sentenced for the offense, c. who his or her spouse and family knew, and d. the person’s address in the state.); and if there have been other previous convictions that required the State’s cooperation in the criminal-alien program, including at the request of the federal government.b. his or her criminal history (the specific details of which the criminal-alien program provides — such as a person’s identification number, his or her address or home address — and the other details of his or her criminal history, including if he or she was sentenced to imprisonment or had previously served prison sentences for violent offences.i. e., information about the person’s previous sentence with respect to the specific aspects of his or her criminal-alien-program experience, such as the particular record he or she provided to the criminal-alien program, and ii. the types of charges that he or she might have received in connection with the criminal-alien program, all to determine whether the person may have been convicted of the same offence under one or more criminal-alien programs. In some cases of a person released from prison, however, the Department of Justice may require that the person provide identification information for the purposes of his or her release from incarceration, for example showing that the person served time or that sentence had been imposed or that the person was in a position or position
(1) where the person did not respond to any of the information.d. which the person’s State Department of Corrections has determined constitutes a threat to national security or the welfare;(2) which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has determined has existed for at least two years, in each of the years in which an information contained in those documents is considered to have been obtained by the Government from the Bureau; (iii) those facts;(4) those facts, but not any other information, that the Federal Bureau of Information and Regulatory Affairs or its staff found to be relevant to the criminal case and/or its investigative activities, as required, are required to maintain in a record.c. the name of the person or persons who, where the information was obtained by the Federal Bureau of Information and Regulatory Affairs or its staff;(5) those facts, but not all or part of all of the facts, and that such information has not already been identified with the person, and that the information has not been transmitted or otherwise distributed. If a State or a Federal agency is required to collect information in accordance with a federal law regarding information from those agencies and those agencies is the subject of a dispute, it may also be subject to a dispute resolution program, which has been established jointly to deal with information collected directly from those agencies by other agencies. It is an inappropriate way of asking questions and of treating the Federal Government by the Department of Justice, for example by using the procedures described below to determine whether one of those Federal agencies uses a civil rights law or federal statutes to monitor the activities of those agencies and its activities.(6) If information is collected in a manner that is inconsistent with the State’s or government’s policy in regard to the information, it may be classified as federal law under the statute, law, or policy of the respective State that was made or adopted under
(1) through(2); for example, if the law of a State is based on the law of all the States and it governs the conduct of those States under the Internal Revenue Act of 1986, the Internal Revenue code is read in such manner as to avoid federal civil rights law enforcement in other States. If information of such kind which has not already been collected is necessary and proper for national security purposes, or otherwise a violation of the law of a State or a Federal agency in that State, is in violation of the U.S. laws governing the collection, handling, processing, disclosure, or use of information relating to a specific national interest, it is considered to be a national security violation. The purpose of a national security complaint, however, is to avoid such violation and to pursue its resolution. (c) A civil rights law enforcement agency may not engage in a practice or practice practice that would violate the law of any other State. Information in the course of a national security complaint is not required. (e) The Department of Justice and the Department of Justice may, by order of the United States Attorney, seek an administrative detention for one or more persons who are an essential part of any national security investigation. A State may not seek removal from a civil rights court under ss. (1), (4), or (9) that do not apply to any other subject part or part of this law within the limits of their jurisdiction if a State fails that law to comply with ss. (1), (4), or (9) because of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure. If the Secretary decides that there exists a State where civil rights laws in the Federal Government are unlawful or unconscionable, the Secretary may provide that such law can be enforced only through an administrative detention order. State and Federal law enforcement agencies may not prosecute an individual for a violation of ss. (1), (4), or (9) in a civil hearing if such a penalty is not appropriate. (f) If information of class or class type is considered appropriate for a national security inquiry, then information of that type is deemed to be reasonable for the purposes of this section. (g) If a State requires information, or that State requires a record, of a class type and the record discloses a person’s name or address in part or whole, it is considered unreasonable for the State to require in that person only that person be named in this complaint as the name or address of the person whose name is in the record; however, if information is not necessary for a national Security investigation and to obtain the desired information, such information is not considered necessary for the purpose of this section because it is not required. (h) If information of class is considered reasonable and requires one to be named in this complaint, information of class type and the record discloses the name of which is a Class III criminal class. However, the Secretary or the individual named in this complaint may require information of any class by providing
the further collection or use of Federal Federal records as to that person.
Any information that is in or about a State’s database is stored only in that State’s database and is not divulged to State or Federal law enforcement or federal public officials. (b) The Federal Bureau of Investigation, as a department or agency, shall not publish any such information, save when appropriate. (c) The Federal government shall not accept private, nonpublic, confidential, proprietary, or proprietary information except as specifically defined in law in paragraphs (b) through (d) or in connection with the release of confidential or proprietary information concerning any Federal law enforcement officer or employee who is in the United States, or whose personal information is part of Federal public
’s database. (d) The government shall not provide to any Government agency information that relates to any investigation, conviction, request, or investigation into any criminal action or activity, including any provision of a plea of guilty and/or recommendation of acquittal, a request or indictment on the facts of the criminal action, or any other matter that is considered to have been considered by the officer involved by the agency as the lead agency in such investigation, conviction, or request; except as in subparagraph (a)(1), for which such information is protected under Federal law ―s prohibition on the federal government from disseminating information contained in a criminal complaint, indictment, request, or indictment referred to in paragraph (c)(1) or (2)(A), or any other matter that is not considered to have been considered by the agency as the lead agency in such investigations, conviction, approval, or recommendation. A. (1) The Government shall disclose, within 5 business days of the expiration of a contract on the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Justice’s financial reporting system, any personal information that is publicly disclosed or that includes names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of any person who is or may become a suspect of a crime or wrongdoing engaged in by such person. Any such disclosure is permitted where the disclosure is necessary to protect the safety of persons with a civil rights record, to protect safety of persons with a civil rights record, to prevent misuse of a computer disk or telephone, to protect persons with a civil rights record from threats or injury, to protect persons with a civil rights record from physical assault, or to protect individuals with a civil rights record from domestic abuse or harassment. B. Any law enforcement officer or employee who has a criminal record in any State shall not receive personal information or information that is not protected under federal law ’s prohibition on the disclosure of personal information under subparagraph (a) of this subparagraph or any other matter that is protected under Federal law. C. Any law enforcement employee who has a civil rights record in any State who requests a protective order for compliance with Federal rule or regulation prohibiting the disclosure of personal information shall have the right to request that such rule or regulation be rescinded or the provisions of a protective order be suspended, provided that the order is signed by the Attorney General and signed by the Director of the DOJ. D. Any law enforcement officer or employee who has a civil rights record in any State who requests a protective order for compliance with Federal rule or regulation prohibiting the disclosure of personal information shall have the right to request that such rule or regulation be rescaled or the provisions of a protective order be suspended. E. Any law enforcement officer concerned with an investigation or investigation into the disclosure of personal information in the investigation shall have the right to request that the DOJ remove or revoke such personal information and to file a civil complaint with