| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64752
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
When I say 'new', I mean in traditional terms... not like in the past month. I don't remember them being there before the government change in the
U.S. of the current administration.
|
|
|
DanO
Super Nomad
Posts: 1923
Registered: 8-26-2003
Location: Not far from the Pacific
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
When I say 'new', I mean in traditional terms... not like in the past month. I don't remember them being there before the government change in the
U.S. of the current administration. |
I figured it was only a matter of time before you would attempt to hijack this thread. Please provide us with a reliable source for your assertion
that the signs were not at the border before 2008. Thanks.
\"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.\" -- Frank Zappa
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
It is amazing that somebody would travel with $2,000, $5,000, $10,000 or even $30,000 with them or in their car.
It's not that they can't, but really does not make sense to me with the availability of ATM's and electronic funds transfers.......why take a chance
to lose it by whatever means????
My max on the road cash funds is $200. If I need more, I use the ATM
|
|
|
micah202
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 1-19-2011
Location: vancouver,BC
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajaguy
It is amazing that somebody would travel with $2,000, $5,000, $10,000 or even $30,000 with them or in their car.
It's not that they can't, but really does not make sense to me with the availability of ATM's and electronic funds transfers.......why take a chance
to lose it by whatever means????
My max on the road cash funds is $200. If I need more, I use the ATM |
....I hope your trust in virtual funds works out for the best
.
|
|
|
DanO
Super Nomad
Posts: 1923
Registered: 8-26-2003
Location: Not far from the Pacific
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
| Quote: | Originally posted by DanO
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
When I say 'new', I mean in traditional terms... not like in the past month. I don't remember them being there before the government change in the
U.S. of the current administration. |
I figured it was only a matter of time before you would attempt to hijack this thread. Please provide us with a reliable source for your assertion
that the signs were not at the border before 2008. Thanks. |
Hijack? I was answering a question. No, I don't take photos of the American side of the border driving south... I didn't think I had to... but, I see
with short memories that some have, maybe I should have? I bet someone can dig up when the money limit southbound signs went up... I sure don't think
it was over 6 years ago... but I could be wrong and am happy to say so if proof is provided. Have a nice day Dan. |
How typical. Insert irrelevant political rhetoric (which belongs in OT but you refuse to go there), then sort of but not really walk it back when
someone calls you on it, and act like that person is the aggressor. Since you concede that you have no basis for asserting that the signs were
erected as part of some insidious plot by the [scare quotes] "current administration," here's a short two-question quiz for you:
1. How is the presence or absence of the signs warning people about a law (31 U.S.C. 5316) that has been on the books since 1982 (during the Reagan
administration, ironically) relevant to this discussion?
2. Assuming your unproven premise to be correct, how does the erection of the warning signs by the "current administration" prove that the government
is overreaching, which is what this discussion is about? (If this one is too tricky for you, I'll give you a hint: It would actually demonstrate
that the "current administration" wants people to be informed about the law so that they don't inadvertently fall victim to forfeiture, which is sort
of the opposite of overreaching.)
Thanks. You have a nice day too.
\"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.\" -- Frank Zappa
|
|
|
Sweetwater
Senior Nomad
Posts: 915
Registered: 11-26-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: chilly today hot tomale
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by m923a1
By using the stats given in the article (62,000 people having a total of $2.5B dollars seized; 31,000 of which had an average of $8,800 dollars
seized), the other 31,000 people then had an average of around $80,000 seized.
Out of the 62,000 people, they listed the 3 most egregious errors in seized assets they could find and it totaled just over $100,000 dollars.
$80,000 is a lot of cash to be casually carrying around in a car.
[Edited on 9-12-2014 by m923a1] |
LOL....this just reminded me of a Richard Pryor joke from 1972 or so....
"When the FBI arrested him at the airport with the 30 kilos of cocaine, he was flying to the Bahamas to purchase a hospital for his sick momma...."
Edit: chite, I shouda known DK wood screw up another conversation....forgot to refresh my browser.....my bad....
[Edited on 9-12-2014 by Sweetwater]
Everbody\'s preachin\' at me that we all wanna git to heaven, trouble is, nobody wants to die to git there.-BB King
Reality is what does not go away when you stop believing in it. -Philip K Dick
Nothing is worse than active ignorance. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe(1749-1832, German writer, artist and politician)
When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I\'ve never tried before. - Mae West
Experience is what keeps a man who makes the same mistake twice from admitting it the third time around.
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by bajaguy
It is amazing that somebody would travel with $2,000, $5,000, $10,000 or even $30,000 with them or in their car.
|
Yeah but what else are you going to do when you just purchased $50,000 in counterfeit bills for $500 or whatever?
Seriously, I wonder if catching counterfeiters is part of the issue with hauling around lots of cash.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64752
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Sweetwater
| Quote: | Originally posted by m923a1
By using the stats given in the article (62,000 people having a total of $2.5B dollars seized; 31,000 of which had an average of $8,800 dollars
seized), the other 31,000 people then had an average of around $80,000 seized.
Out of the 62,000 people, they listed the 3 most egregious errors in seized assets they could find and it totaled just over $100,000 dollars.
$80,000 is a lot of cash to be casually carrying around in a car.
[Edited on 9-12-2014 by m923a1] |
Edit: chite, I shouda known DK wood screw up another conversation....forgot to refresh my browser.....my bad....
|
How did I screw up anything? Another Nomad made a big deal out of a short reply that didn't even mention a name or political party. When the tables
are turned and if I commented about a word used, do you come down on the poster? no! That's because criticism of leftists are to be ignored. '1984'
exists in 2014. Watch out, here come the thought police!
How the left silences opposition... harass conservative, traditional values to the point people weaken and stop posting. The silent majority is born.
Now, if they only would vote!
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18130
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
You ever wonder about the sensors you now drive past going south, as you leave the U.S.?
How about the new signs that warn you not to take over $10,000 out of the U.S. (or some other amount)?
Does our dollars ($100 bills) now have chips in them so they can track where they are? |
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
When I say 'new', I mean in traditional terms... not like in the past month. I don't remember them being there
before the government change in the U.S. of the current administration. |
interesting, i learn something new everyday.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64752
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
In Spanish, the word for NEW is NUEVO.
Nuevo Mazatlan has been the name for Agua de Chale since 1967... Yet it still is "New" Mazatlan, to this very day!
|
|
|
DanO
Super Nomad
Posts: 1923
Registered: 8-26-2003
Location: Not far from the Pacific
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David KHow did I screw up anything? Another Nomad made a big deal out of a short reply that didn't even mention a name
or political party. When the tables are turned and if I commented about a word used, do you come down on the poster? no! That's because criticism of
leftists are to be ignored. '1984' exists in 2014. Watch out, here come the thought police!
How the left silences opposition... harass conservative, traditional values to the point people weaken and stop posting. The silent majority is born.
Now, if they only would vote! |
You screwed it up by injecting irrelevant political ideology -- disguised as an alleged "fact" -- into a discussion where it didn't belong. In short,
you dropped a turd into our swimming pool. I asked you to source your alleged "fact" and explain its relevance. You didn't, obviously because you
can't.
Instead, you resorted to name calling, labeling me a left wing fascist who's trying to suppress your voice (of course, you have no idea what my
political views really are). How incredibly childish, like a little kid who knows he's lost an argument. What do you do for an encore, stomp your
foot, take your ball and go home?
Your apparent view that you have an unfettered right to post anything you want here is incorrect. "The First Amendment generally does not apply to
private activity. Thus, a private individual or private entity cannot be said to unconstitutionally 'abridge' another private individual's 'freedom
of speech and press.' Only the government, or its agents, can be charged with violating the First Amendment." http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/First_Amendment. Here's an explanation that applies specifically to comments on internet forums: http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-spe...
So we are not acting as the "thought police" or treading on your rights when we ask you to keep your irrelevant political jabs out of threads having
nothing to do with politics. Please take them to OT or, if they are relevant to Baja in some way, to the political forum. We'd like to swim here
without running into a turd. At least I would.
\"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.\" -- Frank Zappa
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1592
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DanO
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
When I say 'new', I mean in traditional terms... not like in the past month. I don't remember them being there before the government change in the
U.S. of the current administration. |
I figured it was only a matter of time before you would attempt to hijack this thread. Please provide us with a reliable source for your assertion
that the signs were not at the border before 2008. Thanks. |
DK.....Maybe in an effort to be somewhat more "politically correct" in your future posting of helpful Baja directions, you might consider omitting
anything like "turn left" or any mention of the word "left". Possibly instead substitute a compass heading. Our left leaning friends are a little
sensitive with the way world events are turning out these days.
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by LancairDriver
| Quote: | Originally posted by DanO
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
When I say 'new', I mean in traditional terms... not like in the past month. I don't remember them being there before the government change in the
U.S. of the current administration. |
I figured it was only a matter of time before you would attempt to hijack this thread. Please provide us with a reliable source for your assertion
that the signs were not at the border before 2008. Thanks. |
you might consider omitting anything like "turn left" or any mention of the word "left". Possibly instead substitute a compass heading.
|
That's a good idea. Whether something is on the left or right depends upon which way you are heading, up or down.
Hope that straightens things out!
Now back to the pleasant topic of shaking down Canadians. Is it true they carry cases of beer from Canada to Mexico for some strange reason?
And what about those bagpipes! eh?
[Edited on 9-13-2014 by SFandH]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64752
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Wow DanO, I sure hope the surf or fishing picks up. Nobody should be that unhappy!
Lancair, so is 90 degrees left or is it 270 degrees? LOL. Have a nice weekend everyone !
|
|
|
DavidT
Nomad
Posts: 494
Registered: 4-9-2005
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K[/
How about the new signs that warn you not to take over $10,000 out of the U.S. (or some other amount)?
|
The bank secrecy act was enacted in 1970 requiring financial transactions of over $10,000 to be reported. In 2000 the act was amended to make it
mandatory to declare cash carried into or out of the U.S.
From the US customs and border patrol website updated August 20 2014:
There is no limit on the amount of money that can be taken out of or brought into the United States. However, if a person or persons traveling
together and filing a joint declaration (CBP Form 6059-B) have $10,000 or more in currency or negotiable monetary instruments, they must fill out a
"Report of International Transportation of Currency and Monetary Instruments" FinCEN 105 (former CF 4790).
Signs notifying travelers of the need to declare were posted on San Diego roads ahead of the border in 2005.
[Edited on 9-13-2014 by DavidT]
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
When I say 'new', I mean in traditional terms... not like in the past month. I don't remember them being there before the government change in the
U.S. of the current administration. |
Yeah David there's a new sign about taking guns into Mexico as well. What is your point? What is a traditional term? Was there a change in the
current administration? I must have missed the election. Does that mean Hillary is president now?
|
|
|
Janzie
Junior Nomad
Posts: 70
Registered: 11-2-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | I have no idea about the reliability of the CBC. Maybe the Canadian Nomads can chime in on that. |
Just a comment that this story was aired on CBC but originated with the Washington Post. And the examples cited involved Americans, not Canadians.
So far we, as Canadians, have never encountered this, although we often get our RV seriously inspected at the Can/US border.
And we've always felt safer in Mx anyway. 
|
|
|
Clouseaus
Newbie
Posts: 11
Registered: 9-12-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Money grab
Retired Cop here (King County Sheriff which is Seattle). Never heard of such a thing as this money search. Have checked with other retiries and
active friends and they haven't heard of this either. If there is "Probable Cause" to believe that someone is a drugge or smuggler it might be
different. My two kids are cops here and they have not heard of such a thing either. Sounds like more e-mail "E-krap" to me.
The Military equipment is a bit of overkill but anything we get for free saves that taxpayers money.
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Clouseaus
The Military equipment is a bit of overkill but anything we get for free saves that taxpayers money. |
How is
it "free"? those $800k MRAPS were paid for by the taxpayer, giving them to law enforcement agencies that have no need for them is nothing but
corporate welfare.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
grizzlyfsh95
Nomad
Posts: 226
Registered: 1-8-2010
Location: East Cape
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | How typical. Insert irrelevant political rhetoric (which belongs in OT but you refuse to go there), then sort of but not really walk it back when
someone calls you on it, and act like that person is the aggressor. Since you concede that you have no basis for asserting that the signs were
erected as part of some insidious plot by the [scare quotes] "current administration," here's a short two-question quiz for you:
1. How is the presence or absence of the signs warning people about a law (31 U.S.C. 5316) that has been on the books since 1982 (during the Reagan
administration, ironically) relevant to this discussion?
2. Assuming your unproven premise to be correct, how does the erection of the warning signs by the "current administration" prove that the government
is overreaching, which is what this discussion is about? (If this one is too tricky for you, I'll give you a hint: It would actually demonstrate
that the "current administration" wants people to be informed about the law so that they don't inadvertently fall victim to forfeiture, which is sort
of the opposite of overreaching.)
Thanks. You have a nice day too. |
Really
The harder I work, the luckier I get
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
