By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Over a dozen relatives of Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán have entered the United States, reportedly as part of negotiations surrounding the drug trafficking charges against his son, Ovidio Guzmán López. Mexican officials, including the security secretary, confirmed the family’s entry, stating they are not wanted in Mexico. These developments follow Ovidio’s extradition to the US and upcoming court appearance where a potential plea deal is anticipated. The US Department of Justice has yet to comment publicly on the matter.
Read the original article here
Family members of notorious drug lord El Chapo have reportedly entered the United States, a development that has sparked considerable controversy and raised serious questions about the current administration’s approach to law enforcement and immigration. The sheer audacity of this event, considering El Chapo’s history and the Sinaloa cartel’s designation as a terrorist organization, is striking.
This action directly contradicts the stated goals of a “law and order” administration, fostering the perception that US citizenship might be available for purchase, regardless of background. It fuels suspicions that the current administration isn’t truly committed to combating crime, especially organized crime. Instead, it raises the alarming possibility that deals are being struck with powerful criminal organizations.
One theory circulating suggests this move was part of a plea bargain with Ovidio Guzmán, El Chapo’s son, in exchange for cooperation. This theory finds some support in the recent actions taken against certain Mexican governors, with visa cancellations and frozen US bank accounts hinting at a broader effort to crack down on corruption and dirty money. If this theory holds true, it raises even more uncomfortable questions regarding the methods used to secure this cooperation.
The situation highlights a disturbing double standard in immigration policy. While some legal residents face deportation, and others struggle for family reunification, members of a notorious drug cartel seemingly receive preferential treatment. The incongruity of this situation is further underscored by the fact that this occurred under an administration that has taken a tough stance on immigration in other contexts. This inconsistency underscores the perception that the application of justice is inconsistent and selective.
The hypocrisy extends beyond immigration policy. The ease with which these family members seemingly entered the US contrasts sharply with the difficulties faced by others seeking legal entry. This has led to accusations that the system is rigged in favor of those with wealth and influence, widening the already existing gap between the rich and the poor.
Numerous commentators have pointed out the glaring contradiction between the administration’s public stance on law and order and its apparent actions in this case. Some even suggest the situation indicates a willingness to compromise with dangerous criminal elements. The overall message, critics argue, is one of corruption and a disregard for the rule of law.
Beyond the immediate controversy, this event raises broader concerns about the long-term implications for US security. The potential for the Sinaloa cartel to expand its operations within the United States is alarming. Facilitating the entry of family members of a prominent cartel leader sends a powerful message about the potential rewards for collaboration, potentially emboldening other criminal enterprises. Concerns about the potential for increased drug trafficking and related violence within the US are valid and should not be ignored.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that accusations of corruption against the current administration are already prevalent. Recent news about large, anonymous financial transactions involving the president only exacerbate this perception. The timing of these allegations, so closely following the news of El Chapo’s family’s arrival in the US, adds fuel to the fire, lending credence to the already widespread suspicions about possible corruption and backroom deals.
The entire situation has many people questioning the true intentions of the current administration. Is it truly committed to fighting the war on drugs, or are there other, more self-serving, motives at play? This raises concerns not only about the administration’s competence but also about its integrity and commitment to the rule of law. This is a scenario ripe with questions, and the answers, whatever they may be, have the potential to drastically reshape perceptions of the administration. The lack of transparency and the evident inconsistencies only fuel the flames of distrust and speculation.