With little prospect of reaching an agreement on border security that would pave the way to reopen the government, lawmakers casting about for novel solutions to fund Trump’s border wall landed on yet another truly bad idea: tapping funds generated by civil asset forfeiture.
Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of law enforcement taking property from those suspected of illegal activity without ever necessarily charging them of a crime, let alone convicting them. Once seized, property alleged to be involved in a crime can then be permanently kept or sold by the government. It is very difficult (if not impossible) to get back, and law enforcement engaging in the practice is subject to little scrutiny, and victims rarely get their day in court to argue for the return of their possessions.
If that sounds like textbook abuse of government power, that’s because it is. Government seizure of property never to be returned is exactly the opposite of the liberty enshrined in the Constitution.
So naturally, that’s exactly what the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., is advocating.
Democrats continue to refuse to negotiate in good faith or appropriate any money for border barriers. If they won’t compromise, POTUS should use asset forfeiture money or other discretionary fees to start construction. If not, he should declare a national emergency. It’s time.
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) January 11, 2019
He’s not the only one who seems to have settled on the idea. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., even penned an opinion piece for Fox News outlining just why he thinks using civil asset fortitude funds is such a good solution.
Forfeiture funds at the Treasury and Justice departments have funds available. This plan would be hard to challenge in court and will make Mexico’s drug cartels pay for the wall! https://t.co/E4gCsl4lPy
— U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. (@SenBillCassidy) January 11, 2019
Cassidy’s attempted justifications make the idea even less palatable. It amounts to taxpayers fronting the money for the wall as the money he plans to use isn’t even in government coffers. Instead, his proposal seems to be based on the wishful thinking of coming upon criminals literally carrying bags of cash across the border — never mind that it’s drugs, not money, that flows into the U.S. He writes:
Worse, he also seems to conflate seizing drugs with raising money — a proposition that, short of government sales of confiscated heroin, is pure fantasy.
Setting those bizarre points aside, both Meadows and Cassidy should know better than to champion using money stolen using civil asset forfeiture as an appropriate means to fund the wall.
Civil asset forfeiture itself is an abuse of law enforcement power and a clear violation of rights and principles laid out under U.S. law and in the Constitution. Using funds generated from it to facilitate executive overreach based on the bogus justification of an emergency is even worse.
The only good thing that might come out of their suggestion is a broader discussion on civil asset forfeiture reform — legislation that’s clearly long overdue.
