Mass Deportation and Immigration Catch-All | Trump promotes “Gold Card” path to citizenship for $5 million

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 34K
  • Politics 
Since something like 85%+ of fentanyl comes into the U.S. via U.S. citizens - who I presume are not Mexican cartel members- at legal ports of entry, are we going to drone strike them, too?

I remember when I was a Republican, I used to think that the way to solve the issue of all of the bad guys in the world was to just sic the U.S. military on them and bomb them into oblivion. Then, I grew up, got over my immature fetish of thinking that we can simply do whatever the fuck we want because we have a strong military, other countries and other people be damned, and I joined the real world where there’s tons of nuance and gray area and no easy solutions to complex problems. Coincidentally, I was no longer Republican by that time!

It goes without saying: fuck the cartels, fuck criminals. But also, fuck people who think that violation of another country’s sovereignty and probable collateral damage of its citizens is the proper way to conduct our affairs.
 
CFordUNC said:
I joined the real world where there’s tons of nuance and gray area and no easy solutions to complex problems.
Click to expand...
This is the moment most left of center perspectives cement, in my experience.

Just look at maga, every problem is a nail - just swing a hammer at it, ie a strongman, a bully, a daddy, threats, and violence. Sure, there’s the unending selfishness of the right, but in the aggregate, the unwillingness (usually out of unreflected insecurity) or inability to perceive and respect nuance functionally lies at the heart of their consistently predictable simplistic “solutions” and poorly reinforced logic. Sometimes it’s a genuine lack of intelligence, but often it’s a lack of exposure to a world of complexity. That’s why Heritage et al. has sought to destroy public education, for decades.
 
CFordUNC said:
Since something like 85%+ of fentanyl comes into the U.S. via U.S. citizens - who I presume are not Mexican cartel members- at legal ports of entry, are we going to drone strike them, too?

I remember when I was a Republican, I used to think that the way to solve the issue of all of the bad guys in the world was to just sic the U.S. military on them and bomb them into oblivion. Then, I grew up, got over my immature fetish of thinking that we can simply do whatever the fuck we want because we have a strong military, other countries and other people be damned, and I joined the real world where there’s tons of nuance and gray area and no easy solutions to complex problems. Coincidentally, I was no longer Republican by that time!

It goes without saying: fuck the cartels, fuck criminals. But also, fuck people who think that violation of another country’s sovereignty and probable collateral damage of its citizens is the proper way to conduct our affairs.
Click to expand...
immature fetish is precisely the apt description of that kind of thinking.
 
Callatoroy said:
I haven't missed any point. Mexico is complicit in killing 70,000 mostly innocent Americans every year by their refusal to clamp down on the cartels. They have had ample opportunity but have shown either through capitulation, corruption, or weakness that they are feckless in dealing with the cartels. So, trump threatens tariffs to get them to clamp down which won't likely work so the next step on the ladder is to target them as terrorists and attack them. Comparing a drone strike on some cartel outpost in the jungle vs gaza is a horrible comparison. Not even close to the same. With respect to this issue, mexico can suck a big ole avocado and chase it with a corona.
Click to expand...
Their refusal? Refusal?

What's our excuse? Those same cartels bring the drugs into the US, and they distribute the drugs within the US. Why have we refused to clamp down on them? Most of the drug runners are American citizens. Why haven't we put a stop to it?

Do you understand that this is a topic with a long history? We went through this in the 80s with the Medillin cartel. The Colombian government literally declared war on them, and the country was torn apart with civil conflict and paramilitary violence until it was barely functional. The drugs kept flowing to America. They became more plentiful. The US spent billions on a War On Drugs that attacked supply, and they failed.

The way to address the problem is to address drug addiction in the US. There are medications that greatly assist in recovering from addiction. They are used comparatively rarely in the US because . . . the folks who run the 12 step programs (often right-wing Christians) don't want the competition because it will drive them out of business (12 step programs being categorical failures as medical interventions, barely better than placebo).

Now we have an actual heroin addict running HHS.

Now, what were you saying about Mexico's complicity? By the way the area Trump wants to attack has no jungles. Most of Mexico has no jungles.
 
Callatoroy said:
I don't have to feel anything about it because it won't ever happen. You are hung up on the premise that fair matters. Fuck fair. We have begged and pleaded for mexico to stop the fentanyl but they either can't or won't. In either case the result is the same. So if they can't or won't then we can either accept 70,000 deaths a year, which could be someone in your family, or we can do something about it. After 4 years of jill doing nothing but giving lip service trump campaigned on doing something and he is going to do something. You can sit on your false moral high ground and publicly trash him for not following "normal" protocol while secretly thanking him after the flow gets cut and cartels are cripled by dead cartel heads. And we aren't attacking an ally. We are attacking a terrorist organization that is killing Americans. You don't have a problem with dropping a drone strike on an isis leader or hamas leader. No difference. Protecting Americans from fentanyl is no different than protecting Americans from suicide bombers in a mall.
Click to expand...
Why are you blaming Mexico for American failures? It's always the same for you guys. The reason that we think you're racists is that, whenever you get angry at something, you lash out at brown people and blame them for the problems.

Here's the reality:

1. The **primary** responsibility for curtailing heroin use in the US belongs to the US. Mexico's government doesn't actually have any responsibility to help us at all.

2. For 50 years, America has completely failed. We have tried military solutions before. We fucking bombed and sprayed herbicide all over South America. It did not stop the drugs. We have tried law enforcement solutions. They have also been ineffective.

3. Mexico is and long has been working with the US on the problem. But it is manifestly NOT their fault that so many Americans turn to opiate addiction. America and Americans did that. How about you focus your accountability on the people WITHIN THIS COUNTRY who are responsible. That means identifying failed policies and changing them, and replacing the leadership. But you guys don't want to do that, because the best ways to treat addiction involve scientific medicine.

4. At a minimum, the US needs to be imprisoning our own homegrown drug dealers before bombing other countries. And Trump surely will -- wait, what's that? He pardoned one of the most prolific drug traffickers in history, who also tried to have five people murdered? Ross Ulbricht? That guy was pardoned?

Oh.

5. "Protecting Americans from fentanyl is no different than protecting Americans from suicide bombers in a mall" might be the stupidest of all the incredibly stupid things posted on this board. What went through your mind as you typed that? Were you just blinded by rage?
 
superrific said:
Yeah, I realized later that I lost a factor of 1000 in there but it didn't seem worth rushing to my computer to correct it.
Click to expand...
Still, 20 ponds of fentanyl is equivalent of up to a ton of heroin and there's a new class of drugs 20 times stronger. As you and others have said, you're not stopping the drugs in Mexico and you're not stopping them at the borders. The amounts needed are too small to be easy to discover and less than one per cent comes in with illegals. Most, about 85%, comes in with American citizens.
 
the good ole war against drugs lmao cant believe anyone still argues about it. been spendings billions a year on it for decades and we have more drugs hhere than ever before

same goes for illegals

we have a great demand for drugs here and it help fund our self sustaining joke of a legal system

we have a great demand for cheap illegal labor its not going anywhere either

same ole tired bipartisan bickering over a nothing burger thats not going to change one bit
 
Patb78 said:
I can’t believe you. Sure there is corruption in Mexico’s police, government and military. But guess what? The corruption exists worldwide. Al Capone’s biggest cost of doing business at the height of his power was graft. The problem is there is just too much money involved in these illegal operations for some people not to have their hands out. But bombing the shit out of suspected cartel assets isn’t going to solve the problem. The problem lies in demand in this country for the drugs. Even if military action could eliminate a cartel (which it can’t), another group would step in to fill the void. Addressing the demand problem in this country is something all administrations have failed at. However, addressing that issue successfully is the only way to eliminate the drug problem. Once again, how would you feel if Mexico carried out military operations in this country? And please don’t give the stupid answer of “Fuck Mexico.” That’s the answer an ignorant redneck would give. But, then again, maybe I’m giving you too much credit.
Click to expand...
Mexico carrying out military operations in this country is a hypothetical that is a waste of time to consider. It won't ever happen as they can barely carry out a military operation in their own country. It doesn't matter how Mexico feels about it. They have sold their souls to the cartels. I believe you are correct in that we need to address the demand side at the same time as addressing the supply side and they can be done simultaneously. But you are woefully underestimating the effect killing cartel heads would have. Cartels aren't staffed by radicalized, brainwashed jihadists. They are staffed by rational thinking, often poor people who had no other economic options. They have a healthy fear of infinite military capability and power. We have the technology to minimize collateral damage so you are going to see how effective it can be.
 
Callatoroy said:
Mexico carrying out military operations in this country is a hypothetical that is a waste of time to consider. It won't ever happen as they can barely carry out a military operation in their own country. It doesn't matter how Mexico feels about it. They have sold their souls to the cartels. I believe you are correct in that we need to address the demand side at the same time as addressing the supply side and they can be done simultaneously. But you are woefully underestimating the effect killing cartel heads would have. Cartels aren't staffed by radicalized, brainwashed jihadists. They are staffed by rational thinking, often poor people who had no other economic options. They have a healthy fear of infinite military capability and power. We have the technology to minimize collateral damage so you are going to see how effective it can be.
Click to expand...
I see how that works. It's like if you go to a jungle river and kill one crocodile, all the others will just disappear.

It's absolutely stupid to try to stop the cartels outside the country. You can't do it and you'll only piss off everybody in the attempt.
 
These discussions...I always refer back to the good old days when the US decided spraying paraquat on Mexican marijuana fields would end the smuggling. Well it did. At the same time much more potent pot from Columbia and elswhere arrived with a big bump in sales and many of the pot cartels said fuck it, cocaine is much easier to bring in and we make way more money!

Prohibition, prostitution. Supply and demand. Blah, blah, blah.
 
finesse said:
I see how that works. It's like if you go to a jungle river and kill one crocodile, all the others will just disappear.

It's absolutely stupid to try to stop the cartels outside the country. You can't do it and you'll only piss off everybody in the attempt.
Click to expand...
"Outside the country"??? What does that mean?
 
grimes70 said:
These discussions...I always refer back to the good old days when the US decided spraying paraquat on Mexican marijuana fields would end the smuggling. Well it did. At the same time much more potent pot from Columbia and elswhere arrived with a big bump in sales and many of the pot cartels said fuck it, cocaine is much easier to bring in and we make way more money!

Prohibition, prostitution. Supply and demand. Blah, blah, blah.
Click to expand...
big difference between marijuana fields and fentanyl. Many people die from fentanyl without ever realizing they are ingesting it or without ever demanding it. It is no different than a terrorist attack.
 
How many cartel members would have to die in Mexico before the flow of fentanyl would be significantly stanched? How many dead Mexican citizens would be acceptable to Mexico with ZERO blowback to America? How much would Americans be willing to spend on this "drug war"? How many American soldiers could be lost before political blowback? What's the endgame of such a military strikes and how would you know if they were successful? What if they were not successful? Is there an option B or C? If 50% of the cartel "jungle" is obliterated does that legitimately stop the flow, limit it by some percentage? Or just allow for the movement of the drug making process to some other part of Mexico. How many US soldiers would need to stay in Mexico to make sure the "operation" was completed? For how long? At what risk to American soldiers and Mexican citizens and long term regional stability? Could folks not just hop down to Guatemala and continue the operation? How does the Mexican government feel about trade agreements with the US as long as US soldiers are occupying Mexican soil? So many questions. Callatoroy, do you have any answers to these questions?
 
Callatoroy said:
"Outside the country"??? What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Most fentanyl is brought in by Americans and not the cartels themselves. Prohibition of drugs, including alcohol, has always turned into a fiasco that led to a huge growth in the numbers and wealth of the illicit providers. The best way to deal with the drug problems are education and rehabilitation. That doesn't mean "Just say no." That's just saying that you're stupid. It means a clear look at the dangers and how and what to avoid.

As a means to pay for this and to mitigate the single thing that makes drugs the most dangerous, we need to legalize and tax them. The biggest killer is not knowing the dosage or the purity of the drugs you get on the street. Being available in known qualities and quantities would probably cut overdoses by 90% or more. And no one would be getting addicted because they got something they didn't want.
 
Callatoroy said:
big difference between marijuana fields and fentanyl. Many people die from fentanyl without ever realizing they are ingesting it or without ever demanding it. It is no different than a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the point at all. Do you understand what the poster was saying? If you can't defeat marijuana smuggling by killing the plants, how can you possibly defeat fentanyl smuggling? Fentanyl is much easier to produce, can be done in small underground labs, and much easier to smuggle due to its insanely small volume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top