AP FACT CHECK: Trump oversells wall as a solution to drugs

[tulc]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump oversells wall as a solution to drugs

In his prime-time speech to the nation, President Donald Trump wrongly accused Democrats of refusing to pay for border security and ignored the reality of how illicit drugs come into the country as he pitched his wall as a solution to trafficking.


A look at his Oval Office remarks Tuesday night:

tulc(interesting article!)

 

[timewerx]

As long as officials, politicians, and law enforcement can be bought with money, nothing will solve the problem of drugs.

 

[Ringo84]

That sounds pretty good. But whomever is in charge of their Twit account needs to either be fired or to get a clue: AP Politics on Twitter

I'll never understand why some of a press that has been consistently insulted and threatened will continue to be such boot-licking quislings.
Ringo

 

[Albion]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump oversells wall as a solution to drugs

Given that the whole rationale for building the wall and the method of financing it was based on a web of lies, no one should be surprised that 57% of the American public oppose its construction.

No. Percentage-wise, more people support building it than oppose building it.

There are not 57% who are in agreement, either pro or con or undecided, on any particular course of action.

 

[Albion]

As long as officials, politicians, and law enforcement can be bought with money, nothing will solve the problem of drugs.

"Solve?" Would significantly reducing it be at all worth our time?? If not, why not?

We try to reduce the number of traffic deaths with airbags, seat belts, speed limits, and so on. Should we do away with all of that, since there are likely still to be some deaths despite our best efforts??

 

[High Fidelity]

"Solve?" Would significantly reducing it be at all worth our time?? If not, why not?

That argument is dismissed when discussing firearms and the amount of mass shootings and murder in the U.S., so I don't see why it's relevant here.

 

[Yekcidmij]

"Solve?" Would significantly reducing it be at all worth our time??

At what cost?

We try to reduce the number of traffic deaths with airbags, seat belts, speed limits, and so on. Should we do away with all of that, since there are likely still to be some deaths despite our best efforts??

It's really a matter of cost. The costs of traffic laws are deemed acceptable given the benefits and their ability to mitigate the risks. We could always eliminate more traffic deaths by doing more draconian things like reducing the speed limit to 5 mph and making people pay $5,000,000 minimum per traffic violation. But those costs are too high given the benefits they would confer and the risks they would mitigate.

In my mind the question regarding a boarder wall is cost vs. benefit and risk mitigation. Would the cost of a wall confer significant benefits and sufficiently mitigate the risks is supposed to mitigate? I'm not yet persuaded it would. And I'm sure not persuaded by using other people's paychecks for bargaining purposes (if anything, that would persuade me of the opposite).

 

[hedrick]

"Solve?" Would significantly reducing it be at all worth our time?? If not, why not?

We try to reduce the number of traffic deaths with airbags, seat belts, speed limits, and so on. Should we do away with all of that, since there are likely still to be some deaths despite our best efforts??

But the alternatives aren’t wall or no wall. We could improve border security based on evidence for what is most needed. Might even include walls in some places.

 

[Gigimo]

"Solve?" Would significantly reducing it be at all worth our time?? If not, why not?

We try to reduce the number of traffic deaths with airbags, seat belts, speed limits, and so on. Should we do away with all of that, since there are likely still to be some deaths despite our best efforts??

How many people OD on drugs yearly in the US with the current measures in place to stop the flow of drugs?

Last figures I've seen has over 70K in 2017 which is drastically higher that the 20K in 1999.

Something needs to change if people are interested in solving this problem, a border structure just might be a good way to help stem the flow of drugs. A side effect of reducing the flow of drugs into the country might be a decrease in firearm accidents/homicides, just a thought.

Another side effect would be later on when another establishment/globalist politician manages to get elected they will find it much harder to re-open our borders to all comers and drugs. Their actions would be much more obvious and would come under more intense scrutiny by the sane people of this country.

I.E. this is the biggest reason why they don't want Trump to build any type of structure whatsoever. (And some folks just keep insisting on voting for their own demise, imagine that).

 

[Albion]

That argument is dismissed when discussing firearms and the amount of mass shootings and murder in the U.S., so I don't see why it's relevant here.

See it or not, the two situations are not at all parallel.

For one thing, with the gun issue, there is a Constitutional amendment which guarantees the right to ownership; that factor is not involved with the wall or fence.

For another, the wall dispute does not deal with an individual person being allowed to own something, anything; and of course it is entirely possible to enter the United States from outside, so the wall is a preventative only against circumventing the established, legal procedures for processing immigrants.

 

[Albion]

At what cost?

At a cost savings.

It's really a matter of cost.

Not really. Not in the case of contraband drugs. I was just listening to one news report that noted that more of our people die annually from such drugs than were killed in the whole of the Vietnam War. Then remembering the figures for each myself, I realized that that is certainly true. And it ought to be sobering for us all to contemplate.

 

[Albion]

But the alternatives aren’t wall or no wall. We could improve border security based on evidence for what is most needed. Might even include walls in some places.

Apparently it is. The Democrats in Congress have taken a stand against any such physical barriers. The president himself has said that of course the wall or even steel fence would not be suitable for every last mile of the border, in mountain areas or on rivers, for example. But all of this has been harrumphed by the Schumer-Pelosi team despite the flexibility shown by the White House.

 

[Yekcidmij]

At a cost savings.

How so?

Not really. Not in the case of contraband drugs. I was just listening to one news report that noted that more of our people die annually from such drugs than were killed in the whole of the Vietnam War. Then remembering the figures for each myself, I realized that that is certainly true. And it ought to be sobering for us all to contemplate.

I'm just not clear on the argument being made. Do you think a boarder wall will mitigate drug overdoses from "contraband drugs?" And do you think illegal immigration is a primary driver/major factor of these overdoses? I'm also not sure what news report notes that statistic or the actual source of that statistic.

On the surface it looks like a non-sequitur and would be rather difficult to prove those two claims.

 

[Albion]

I'm just not clear on the argument being made. Do you think a boarder wall will mitigate drug overdoses from "contraband drugs?" And do you think illegal immigration is a primary driver/major factor of these overdoses?

90% of the heroin used in the USA comes illegally across the southern border. Would a wall reduce the amount? There is no doubt that it would, and that is what everyone who works in drug enforcement or for the border patrol would tell you. And that's just the situation with that one drug.

 

[Yekcidmij]

90% of the heroin used in the USA comes illegally across the southern border.

Not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for that stat?

Would a wall reduce the amount? There is no doubt that it would, and that is what everyone who works in drug enforcement or for the border patrol would tell you. And that's just the situation with that one drug.

But why think that it would? I appreciate drug enforcement's expertise, but on what grounds do they know that a boarder wall would reduce drug traffic? Do they have statistics on the effectiveness of the proposed boarder wall? And by how much could it be expected to be reduced and at what cost?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Here is Brookings on the subject:

The Wall: The real costs of a barrier between the United States and Mexico

 

[EpiscipalMe]

90% of the heroin used in the USA comes illegally across the southern border. Would a wall reduce the amount? There is no doubt that it would, and that is what everyone who works in drug enforcement or for the border patrol would tell you. And that's just the situation with that one drug.

How will a wall help when most heroin comes through legal ports of entry?

“The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) notes that Mexican criminal organizations move most of their illegal goods over the Southwest border through ports of entry in passenger vehicles or tractor trailers.13 In passenger vehicles, the drugs may be held in secret compartments; while in tractor trailers, the drugs are often mingled with other legitimate goods. Less commonly used methods to move drugs into the United States include smuggling them through cross-border underground tunnels and on commercial cargo trains, small boats, and ultralight aircraft.”
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44599.pdf

 

[EpiscipalMe]

No. Percentage-wise, more people support building it than oppose building it.

There are not 57% who are in agreement, either pro or con or undecided, on any particular course of action.

What poll are you looking at?

Here is the latest I could find:
34% think wall is best
35% think there are better options
31% say heck no to the wall

Americans are split on feelings toward border wall, poll shows

 

[The Barbarian]

While talks of a wall between the U.S. and Mexico border have led to televised shouting matches between national leaders, the rest of America is less divided. More than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority, according to a new poll by NPR, PBS News Hour and Marist.

Only 28% of those polled answered that the border wall should be an immediate priority, while 19% replied it shouldn’t be an immediate priority, and 50% said it shouldn’t be a priority at all.

Of those polled, a vast majority of Democrats—91%—said they didn’t think the wall was an immediate priority or said it was not a priority at all, while 35% of Republicans held that view. Sixty-three percent of Republicans thought the wall was of immediate concern compared to 7% of Democrats.