Is The Flow Of Drugs From the South An Emergency?

[mark46]

This is a cite about politics, so I ask a political question or two.

Drugs flow by boat, by air, by truck, by car, and on foot. Drugs flow across legal ports of entry, and perhaps a bit in other ways. Much comes across the Mexican border. Some comes across the Atlantic into Florida.

Q1) What Democratic candidate will answer that the drugs coming from the South are not an emergency?
======
As an aside,
Q2) Is the trafficking of women and children from the South an emergency? Which Democratic candidate will say that it is not.
========
Q3) Are the millions who want to come as asylum seekers from Central America an emergency? Which Democratic will say no? Or, which Democratic candidate will say that we should give billions of aid, or accept hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers?
=========
Q4) Do the non-drug crimes committed by Mexican drug cartels constitute an emergency?
=======
BOTTOM LINE
Democrats do NOT have a winning issue here.

All they seem to want to do is point out Trump's lying in support of his positions. In the end, this does NOT matter. What matters is the perceived threat of drugs, trafficking of people, and gangs/cartels. The answer to people's fear is not to argue with Trump's lack of facts.

 

[Speedwell]

This is a cite about politics, so I ask a political question or two.

Drugs flow by boat, by air, by truck, by car, and on foot. Drugs flow across legal ports of entry, and perhaps a bit in other ways. Much comes across the Mexican border. Some across the Atlantic into Florida.

Q1) What Democratic candidate will answer that the drugs coming from the South are not an emergency?
======
As an aside,
Q2) Is the trafficking of women and children from the South an emergency? Which Democratic candidate will say that it is not.
========
Q3) Are the millions who want to come as asylum seekers from Central America an emergency? Which Democratic will say no? Or which Democratic candidate will say that we should give billions of aid, or accept hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers?
=========
Q4) Do the non-drug crimes committed by Mexican drug cartels constitute an emergency?
=======

Same answer as before:

Ordinary illegal economic migration is down, and could be reduced even further by acting aggressively against employers of illegal aliens. In any case, most of those here illegally did not come across the southern border. Certainly no Islamic terrorists are known to have done so. The amount of drugs brought in by mules at remote, lightly-fenced border areas is trivial. Most of the drugs come in at ports of entry and by other means (Increasingly by drones; the Border Patrol has deployed tethered blimps with sensors to detect them.) Other forms of criminal activity will continue to be a problem, but The Wall is not necessarily the most practical way to deal with it.

No, it's clearly evident that it's all about The Caravans. You need to focus on that.

Democrats do NOT have a winning issue here.

Same answer as before: A film of La Lomita chapel being bulldozed will be all the "issue" they need.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The whole point of the debate is "does more wall = a fix to these problems?"

If most of the drugs come through legal ports of entry then why would one spend billions more dollars to build wall when that won't affect that?

No one on the Left supports eliminating the border altogether. They all want security at the border. It's a matter of rational expenditure of money to solve the problem.

That is why it is ironic that CONSERVATIVES are fighting this battle. Conservatives should be demanding the most RATIONAL and EFFICIENT use of money to achieve the ends.

Are more drugs coming in thru legal ports of entry or are more people just getting caught there? That can only be based on the number of people who are caught with drugs. How can they say how much is coming thru open boarders if they don’t catch them?

 

[mark46]

OK, I hear you.

Voters will consider the positions in 2020. Crime along the Southern border will be down over 4 years, drug crime will be down, the number of illegals crossing will be down.

And Democrats will say this doesn't matter because in 2019, Trump shouldn't have tried used a $1B for 30-30 miles of wall at locations that Congress disapproved of, and that he tried to use $3.6B of military construction money to build more wall. They will argue that the $1B of new wall was wasted on 30-50 miles of wall. Really? Perhaps you believe that this a winning strategy for Democrats. I do NOT.

Same answer as before:

Ordinary illegal economic migration is down, and could be reduced even further by acting aggressively against employers of illegal aliens. In any case, most of those here illegally did not come across the southern border. Certainly no Islamic terrorists are known to have done so. The amount of drugs brought in by mules at remote, lightly-fenced border areas is trivial. Most of the drugs come in at ports of entry and by other means (Increasingly by drones; the Border Patrol has deployed tethered blimps with sensors to detect them.) Other forms of criminal activity will continue to be a problem, but The Wall is not necessarily the most practical way to deal with it.

No, it's clearly evident that it's all about The Caravans. You need to focus on that.

Same answer as before: A film of La Lomita chapel being bulldozed will be all the "issue" they need.

 

[Kaon]

This is a cite about politics, so I ask a political question or two.

Drugs flow by boat, by air, by truck, by car, and on foot. Drugs flow across legal ports of entry, and perhaps a bit in other ways. Much comes across the Mexican border. Some comes across the Atlantic into Florida.

Q1) What Democratic candidate will answer that the drugs coming from the South are not an emergency?
======
As an aside,
Q2) Is the trafficking of women and children from the South an emergency? Which Democratic candidate will say that it is not.
========
Q3) Are the millions who want to come as asylum seekers from Central America an emergency? Which Democratic will say no? Or, which Democratic candidate will say that we should give billions of aid, or accept hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers?
=========
Q4) Do the non-drug crimes committed by Mexican drug cartels constitute an emergency?
=======
BOTTOM LINE
Democrats do NOT have a winning issue here.

All they seem to want to do is point out Trump's lying in support of his positions. In the end, this does NOT matter. What matters is the perceived threat of drugs, trafficking of people, and gangs/cartels. The answer to people's fear is not to argue with Trump's lack of facts.

What poor immigrant do you know that can bring in drugs by air, boat or even truck by the load?

The problem is that demagoguery hides the truth. There are only a hand full of entities that actually maximize the traffic - and they are not all the cartels, although they are tremendous "gangs" in their own right.


Bogeymen are being made out of straws, and it is being done so that you beg and give permission for your demise (through legislation especially).

 

[Rubiks]

The whole point of the debate is "does more wall = a fix to these problems?

That's not what OP asked.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, I hear you.

Voters will consider the positions in 2020. Crime along the Southern border will be down over 4 years, drug crime will be down, the number of illegals crossing will be down.

Yeah, sure.

And Democrats will say this doesn't matter because in 2019, Trump shouldn't have tried used a $1B for 30-30 miles of wall at locations that Congress disapproved of, and that he tried to use $3.6B of military construction money to build more wall. They will argue that the $1B of new wall was wasted on 30-50 miles of wall. Really? Perhaps you believe that this a winning strategy for Democrats. I do NOT.

Neither do the Democrats.

 

[mark46]

I agree, if your point is that the US should accept more poor immigrants from Mexico as legal immigrants?

Fentanyl is not heavy at all. In reality, neither is coke. Both can be smuggled in trucks, in hidden compartments, as has been the case for decades.

What poor immigrant do you know that can bring in drugs by air, boat or even truck by the load?

The problem is that demagoguery hides the truth. There are only a hand full of entities that actually maximize the traffic - and they are not all the cartels, although they are tremendous "gangs" in their own right.


Bogeymen are being made out of straws, and it is being done so that you beg and give permission for your demise (through legislation especially).

 

[SimplyMe]

OK, I hear you.

Voters will consider the positions in 2020. Crime along the Southern border will be down over 4 years, drug crime will be down, the number of illegals crossing will be down.

If they are down, it will likely only be because of historical trends. Kind of like how there are the Republican claims of how the wall in El Paso reduced crime but the true facts show that crime dropped before the wall was every built. Absolutely nothing suggests that a wall across the southern border will do what you are claiming it will.

And Democrats will say this doesn't matter because in 2019, Trump shouldn't have tried used a $1B for 30-30 miles of wall at locations that Congress disapproved of, and that he tried to use $3.6B of military construction money to build more wall. They will argue that the $1B of new wall was wasted on 30-50 miles of wall. Really? Perhaps you believe that this a winning strategy for Democrats. I do NOT.

And it was a winning strategy for the Democrats in 2018, when 10 million more Americans voted for Democrats than Republicans -- with the border being one of the key issues. I doubt it will be much different in 2020, particularly with Trump bypassing the "will of the people," based on the 2018 elections, to try and get his wall built.

 

[SeventyOne]

BOTTOM LINE
Democrats do NOT have a winning issue here.

Well, the Dems also have recent blackface incidents as well as their proud position of At-Birth abortions to run on in two years. So, that's something.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree, if your point is that the US should accept more poor immigrants from Mexico as legal immigrants?

It's The Caravans (Oh my!) not illegal economic migration of Mexican nationals. That is way down and can be reduced even more without The Wall. In any case, it is certainly not a national emergency. You want more Mexican labor? Start work visa program.

Fentanyl is not heavy at all. In reality, neither is coke. Both can be smuggled in trucks, in hidden compartments, as has been the case for decades.

Or in submarines, or drones. The Wall will sure stop that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Interesting question. So if no one knows how much drugs are coming through non-walled areas, how does one justify the claim that a wall there will solve the problem?

It's like saying that drugs could be coming from outerspace we just haven't witnessed it happening so let's build a missile defense system that costs billions of dollars. I mean we don't know if drugs are coming from space, it could be that we simply haven't seen that happen yet. So let's build the space defense system to fix the drug problem.

Hmmm if I’m a drug smuggler which route would I choose going thru a secured boarder checkpoint with armed guards and search dogs or out in the middle of friggin nowhere where nobody is around? It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out.

 

[Speedwell]

Hmmm if I’m a drug smuggler which route would I choose going thru a secured boarder checkpoint with armed guards and search dogs or out in the middle of friggin nowhere where nobody is around? It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out.

Where the border runs through a vast desert, dangerous to cross, where it is patrolled and electronically monitored in various ways? Sure, you could probably get some through that way. In real life, when things got too hot at the ports of entry, the drug smugglers started using drones.

 

[Kaon]

I agree, if your point is that the US should accept more poor immigrants from Mexico as legal immigrants?

Fentanyl is not heavy at all. In reality, neither is coke. Both can be smuggled in trucks, in hidden compartments, as has been the case for decades.

I am saying many Americans think the same "illegals" that are part of the caravan are the ones carrying drugs by the boatload, airplane, or truckload through the border - as a reason for building a case against immigration.

There is an ignorance as to who is the actual party or parties that can smuggle the amount of drugs over the border such that it can be sold on a mass scale. People are choosing to ignore what resources it takes to bring a plane of drugs over the border - and what those implications are with respect to the bogeyman being set up by both sides.

 

[mark46]

PARAGRAPH 1
I am claiming nothing, only that the numbers are likely to be looking very good in 2020. And yes, that is primarily because of trends. However, Trump certainly focused policies on these issues. I think that this issue is a winner for Republicans. I don't see how it could be a winner for Democrats.

PARAGRAPH 2
It is very difficult to project re-elections from House wins in an off-year. In recent years, such losses by the incumbent were followed by re-election victories. In fact, only Bush Sr and Carter were not re-elected.

As an aside, many believe that the 2020 victories were about wanting a change, and wanting a House (and local governments) that more nearly reflected the diversity of the people. The voters reacted to Trump negatively as they historically have to almost every first term president. And yes, Trump thought that projecting fear regarding Southern immigrants would help his party's candidates late in the campaign. He was wrong. However, 2020 is a much different situation. He is an incumbent pointing to the situation on the border.

If they are down, it will likely only be because of historical trends. Kind of like how there are the Republican claims of how the wall in El Paso reduced crime but the true facts show that crime dropped before the wall was every built. Absolutely nothing suggests that a wall across the southern border will do what you are claiming it will.

And it was a winning strategy for the Democrats in 2018, when 10 million more Americans voted for Democrats than Republicans -- with the border being one of the key issues. I doubt it will be much different in 2020, particularly with Trump bypassing the "will of the people," based on the 2018 elections, to try and get his wall built.

 

[mark46]

Hmmm if I’m a drug smuggler which route would I choose going thru a secured boarder checkpoint with armed guards and search dogs or out in the middle of friggin nowhere where nobody is around? It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out.

hmmm

The vast majority does indeed come over the secured border crossings, often in concealed compartments in trucks. So, perhaps these criminals have made a different analysis from yours.

 

[mark46]

I agree.

These are the same people who would support Trump if he shot a woman at noon on 5th Avenue (Trump's own example). 35% will support Trump no matter what. Probably 35% will oppose him, no matter what. The remaining 30% decide elections. the number is usually cost to 10% once we get within a month of the election. The numbers needed to flip PA, MI and WI were under 80K.

I have posted quite a bit on this thread. It is my opinion that the Democrats will go down the losing path with regard to this issue, and in choosing a candidate.

I am saying many Americans think the same "illegals" that are part of the caravan are the ones carrying drugs by the boatload, airplane, or truckload through the border - as a reason for building a case against immigration.

.

 

[Speedwell]

I agree.

These are the same people who would support Trump if he shot a woman at noon on 5th Avenue (Trump's own example). 35% will support Trump no matter what. Probably 35% will oppose him, no matter what. The remaining 30% decide elections. the number is usually cost to 10% once we get within a month of the election. The numbers needed to flip PA, MI and WI were under 80K.

I have posted quite a bit on this thread. It is my opinion that the Democrats will go down the losing path with regard to this issue, and in choosing a candidate.

And what do you suppose will happen to those votes in PA, MI and WI when the army bulldozes La Lomita and Trump's core fanbase cheers because it is an RC chapel largely attended by Latinos? Don't worry, if you don't like that scenario, there will be others like it. Inevitably.

 

[SimplyMe]

I agree.

These are the same people who would support Trump if he shot a woman at noon on 5th Avenue (Trump's own example). 35% will support Trump no matter what. Probably 35% will oppose him, no matter what. The remaining 30% decide elections. the number is usually cost to 10% once we get within a month of the election. The numbers needed to flip PA, MI and WI were under 80K.

I have posted quite a bit on this thread. It is my opinion that the Democrats will go down the losing path with regard to this issue, and in choosing a candidate.

I'm part of that 30% -- and I'm almost definitely voting against Trump. Granted, we'll see who the Democrats nominate. In this case, Trump went exactly opposite of what the people have stated they want (both the November elections and recent polling) -- and he did it by fiat, not by any type of compromise. He had two years with a Republican Congress to push the wall through -- and I think it says a lot that he couldn't get a Congress controlled by his party to pass funding for it. Instead, he declared an "emergency," even stating he didn't have to do it this way, only after the people voted and said they didn't want his wall, as well as not giving any meaningful compromise (such as a path to citizenship for Dreamers, which Trump once promised he would do) to get it into the budget.

 

[Ringo84]

No.

Not in the way Donny seems to think (to the extent that he thinks). Donny seems to believe that if we just curbed the inflow of drugs from the south, the "drug war" would be instantly won. Like most of Donny's platform, that's extremely simplistic. We know, for example, that opioid manufacturers were more interested in profits than the harm they were doing by overprescription of opioid meds and pushing them on doctors.

Donny's "solution" to the problem - a wall - wouldn't fix the problem because drugs flow through ports of entry; not straight through the border. A president who bothered to read and study would know these things. But we have Donny, who seems to think that he can "gut instinct" his way through life.
Ringo