6 ms·

Designate the cartels as terrorists and cut off their profits by securing the border.

whatshisface 4y ago
If securing the border differentially cuts off small-time operations more than it cuts off the cartels (even if it partly cuts off some cartel routes), it will raise the cartel's profits by causing prices to rise over and above the decline in sales. That's the basis of the argument that if you really wanted to get rid of cartels, you'd legalize drugs and let small operations make all of them.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  They're making $13b/yr from human trafficking alone due to sheer volume. People already cannot pay the prices so they work it off once they get over to the US. The higher the price the less people they can convince to exploit. Make it more difficult for them, or is the strategy to just let them keep trafficking?
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    Oh, when you said securing the border I thought you meant against smuggling.
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      Yes, secure it against all types of smuggling. Drugs, humans, guns, etc. Cartels are diversified, but currently a big section of profits are from human exploitation and that's the easiest to stop.
nextstep 4y ago
The war on drugs is not winnable, but the cartels can be defeated by legalizing all drugs.
- fatherzine 4y ago
  "Legalize all drugs" is de-facto policy in some large west coast cities. It is also an abject failure. Easier access to drugs is not a solution, it is merely calous / criminal negligence.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    Even in cities where drugs have been somewhat decriminalized, the production and distribution remains illegal enough to allow cartels to flourish. You can disagree that legalization is the answer, but it hasn't been tried and failed.
    - fatherzine 4y ago
      We fundamentally disagree on what the larger problem is. a. Easy access to drugs. b. Cartels. As terrible as cartels are, easy access to drugs is easily a much bigger problem. Edit: I'm using an admittedly simplistic heuristic: How many people are going to have their lives destroyed by a. compared to b.?
      - foogazi 4y ago
        Easy access to drugs are a personal choice but cartel rule is institutionalized violence Also no one has their life ruined by cartels in the US - somehow they all turn entrepreneurial once they cross the borders
        fatherzine 4y ago
        "personal choice" is not that personal. Just like "common sense" is not that common. There are herd effects that should be considered, we are not isolated atoms bouncing around subject only to Newton's laws. As a matter of fact, we are highly mimetic creatures.
        foogazi 4y ago
ASalazarMX 4y ago
Not gonna happen during AMLO's presidency. He has been recorded eating tacos with the mother of "El Chapo" and her operators, he negotiated the extradition of Secretary of Defense Salvador Cienfuegos when he was arrested in USA, and promptly exonerated him, and has publicly declared that cartel members are human beings and deserve respect. "Hugs, not bullets" is still his "strategy". His almost two decades of presidential campaign had suspicious and illegal funding, I wouldn't be surprised if narco money reached his hands too, with the implicit compromises. He and his accomplices haven't seen any consequences for his many blatant, which speaks volumes of the weak justice system in Mexico, or of the overpowered presidential figure.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  The US could close it's own border if it wanted to. The US designating them as terrorists would allow the US to go in and remove the threats just like any other cell. Cooperation of the Mexican government is ideal and could be done through economic leverage like the last admin did with the USMCA to get the Stay in Mexico policy and Mexican troops on the border.
  - 5ftfreak 4y ago
    The US tries that all Latin America will respond. What a disgusting take you have made. Why are you in so much need of keeping the US as the imperalist machinery that is today? you neoconservative, bloodthirsty fucking loser.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      You lashed out at me because you are ignorant of the issue, it's okay I forgive you. Please stick to the discussion next time though, instead of attacking the person, it shows weak emotional control, it's rude, and it's immature. Plus ya'know, it violates this site's guidelines.
  - 4y ago
voisin 4y ago
Legalize drugs (both in Mexico and the US) and have them turn into legitimate, transparent businesses with less need to resort to crime.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  I agree, it worked well for pot, now what about the human trafficking?
perfecthjrjth 4y ago
That will make it easy for immigrants to seek asylum. That's why it aint happening.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  Elaborate please, I don't follow
  - perfecthjrjth 4y ago
    Once one gets asylum-status, they can seek green card. Gang threats, criminal threats, and cartel threats to oneself and his/her family are not sufficient grounds to get asylum status; of course, one can seek asylum, but USCIS, administrative judges, even federal courts deny asylum to such people. The moment the USA declares that Mexico is a terrorist-controlled state, then judges can grant asylum automatically, even if USCIS declines at first. When USA does something, they look at these issues. Let me cite another instance, why Obama signed DACA executive order. Whenever someone enters USA illegally, such a person can never the green card, even if his/her American spouse sponsors. Only amendment of immigration laws can allow that. Here, what Obama did in the name of DACA is helpful: people can get Advance parole through DACA, then they can go to their home countries, and can come back through the port of entries (with a stamp on their passports, a stamp that says "paroled" on xx/yy/20zz). Now such a DACA person can get a green card, if his/her spouse sponsors(And this option was foreclosed earlier without DACA EAD/AP).

If securing the border differentially cuts off small-time operations more than it cuts off the cartels (even if it partly cuts off some cartel routes), it will raise the cartel's profits by causing prices to rise over and above the decline in sales. That's the basis of the argument that if you really wanted to get rid of cartels, you'd legalize drugs and let small operations make all of them.

hunterb123 4y ago
They're making $13b/yr from human trafficking alone due to sheer volume. People already cannot pay the prices so they work it off once they get over to the US. The higher the price the less people they can convince to exploit. Make it more difficult for them, or is the strategy to just let them keep trafficking?
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Oh, when you said securing the border I thought you meant against smuggling.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    Yes, secure it against all types of smuggling. Drugs, humans, guns, etc. Cartels are diversified, but currently a big section of profits are from human exploitation and that's the easiest to stop.

nextstep 4y ago

The war on drugs is not winnable, but the cartels can be defeated by legalizing all drugs.

fatherzine 4y ago
"Legalize all drugs" is de-facto policy in some large west coast cities. It is also an abject failure. Easier access to drugs is not a solution, it is merely calous / criminal negligence.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  Even in cities where drugs have been somewhat decriminalized, the production and distribution remains illegal enough to allow cartels to flourish. You can disagree that legalization is the answer, but it hasn't been tried and failed.
  - fatherzine 4y ago
    We fundamentally disagree on what the larger problem is. a. Easy access to drugs. b. Cartels. As terrible as cartels are, easy access to drugs is easily a much bigger problem. Edit: I'm using an admittedly simplistic heuristic: How many people are going to have their lives destroyed by a. compared to b.?
    - foogazi 4y ago
      Easy access to drugs are a personal choice but cartel rule is institutionalized violence Also no one has their life ruined by cartels in the US - somehow they all turn entrepreneurial once they cross the borders
      - fatherzine 4y ago
        "personal choice" is not that personal. Just like "common sense" is not that common. There are herd effects that should be considered, we are not isolated atoms bouncing around subject only to Newton's laws. As a matter of fact, we are highly mimetic creatures.
        foogazi 4y ago

ASalazarMX 4y ago

Not gonna happen during AMLO's presidency. He has been recorded eating tacos with the mother of "El Chapo" and her operators, he negotiated the extradition of Secretary of Defense Salvador Cienfuegos when he was arrested in USA, and promptly exonerated him, and has publicly declared that cartel members are human beings and deserve respect. "Hugs, not bullets" is still his "strategy". His almost two decades of presidential campaign had suspicious and illegal funding, I wouldn't be surprised if narco money reached his hands too, with the implicit compromises. He and his accomplices haven't seen any consequences for his many blatant, which speaks volumes of the weak justice system in Mexico, or of the overpowered presidential figure.

hunterb123 4y ago
The US could close it's own border if it wanted to. The US designating them as terrorists would allow the US to go in and remove the threats just like any other cell. Cooperation of the Mexican government is ideal and could be done through economic leverage like the last admin did with the USMCA to get the Stay in Mexico policy and Mexican troops on the border.
- 5ftfreak 4y ago
  The US tries that all Latin America will respond. What a disgusting take you have made. Why are you in so much need of keeping the US as the imperalist machinery that is today? you neoconservative, bloodthirsty fucking loser.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    You lashed out at me because you are ignorant of the issue, it's okay I forgive you. Please stick to the discussion next time though, instead of attacking the person, it shows weak emotional control, it's rude, and it's immature. Plus ya'know, it violates this site's guidelines.
- 4y ago

voisin 4y ago

Legalize drugs (both in Mexico and the US) and have them turn into legitimate, transparent businesses with less need to resort to crime.

hunterb123 4y ago
I agree, it worked well for pot, now what about the human trafficking?

perfecthjrjth 4y ago

That will make it easy for immigrants to seek asylum. That's why it aint happening.

hunterb123 4y ago
Elaborate please, I don't follow
- perfecthjrjth 4y ago
  Once one gets asylum-status, they can seek green card. Gang threats, criminal threats, and cartel threats to oneself and his/her family are not sufficient grounds to get asylum status; of course, one can seek asylum, but USCIS, administrative judges, even federal courts deny asylum to such people. The moment the USA declares that Mexico is a terrorist-controlled state, then judges can grant asylum automatically, even if USCIS declines at first. When USA does something, they look at these issues. Let me cite another instance, why Obama signed DACA executive order. Whenever someone enters USA illegally, such a person can never the green card, even if his/her American spouse sponsors. Only amendment of immigration laws can allow that. Here, what Obama did in the name of DACA is helpful: people can get Advance parole through DACA, then they can go to their home countries, and can come back through the port of entries (with a stamp on their passports, a stamp that says "paroled" on xx/yy/20zz). Now such a DACA person can get a green card, if his/her spouse sponsors(And this option was foreclosed earlier without DACA EAD/AP).