The need for stricter border security is well established. When our borders are not secure as one political party tends to favor, poor Mexicans die and drug cartels gain money and power. Maybe a fence along with other measures, increasing patrols, harsher penalties, is actually the most humane solution to Mexican drug cartel problem?
Mexico is a sovereign nation. The United States solving the problem is both a violation of Mexico's sovereignty and a very paternal reaction that denies the Mexican people their agency.
That's true, but Mexico also exports huge quantities of narcotics to Canada, Europe, and other countries. Who is responsible for solving the problem?
And regardless of responsibility for causing or solving the problem, we absolutely need to improve border security. Physical fences aren't very effective in most areas but better sensors and more human guards could do a lot to reduce smuggling and human trafficking.
And has spent billions attempting to limit their purchase & international movement. Maybe it should continue to be a joint effort rather than finger pointing that one side isn't doing enough.
I dont think that the Mexican people are actively choosing this. I don't think they want it either (drug trade). So if our goals are aligned, why is it considered a violation of their sovereignty and not just helping a neighbor out.
If my neighbor has an issue on their property, and they ask me not to intervene I will not cross onto their property to help, even if I think I should (unless you know, murder or whatever). But if my neighbor asks me to help, we should work together. It seems like we can work together in a more overt, positive, non-covert CIA way. I'm not saying this would work for certain, just that aybe we should try something new.
How does the US "solve" this problem? I don't see any direct way of doing this without some sort of military intervention. Is that what you are suggesting?
Sure, but then we're not "putting a wall around the problem" either. Like I said, I'm not agreeing with the claim, but your objection contradicted itself
In all reality the Mexican cartels are the beneficiaries of The War on Drugs as they are serving a well established market for illegal drugs where the government offers no protections (quite the opposite actually) to the market participants so whoever can muster up the most firepower is the ‘market leader’.
> The need for stricter border security is well established.
This is orthogonal to the humanitarian issue happening in Mexico for the last few decades.
> When our borders are not secure as one political party tends to favor, poor Mexicans die and drug cartels gain money and power. Maybe a fence along with other measures, increasing patrols, harsher penalties, is actually the most humane solution to Mexican drug cartel problem?
Sorry, but you're out of your mind. I'm a native Texan and the last thing I want is a fence separating our us from our brothers and sisters south of the border. We should be helping the Mexicans, not abandoning them to violence and cartel terrorism. I would rather they seek refuge here than die on the other side of a fence.
Unfortunately we as a country have done a poor job in helping other nations develop and gain secure economies for their peoples. Paramilitaries thrive in such environments, and then other powers make their offers for international leadership.
Assuming "we" is USA, then you've done much worse than that - you've ruined quite a few economies and societies that would be perfectly fine if not for your involvement. And you are still doing it - see Cuba.
What effect has the legalization of pot in various US states had on violence in Mexico? I thought Mexico was about to legalize it themselves, what's happening with that? This seems like the USA experience with Prohibition, if it's not a crime, the criminals have less control over it.
21 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 59.5 ms ] threadAnd regardless of responsibility for causing or solving the problem, we absolutely need to improve border security. Physical fences aren't very effective in most areas but better sensors and more human guards could do a lot to reduce smuggling and human trafficking.
If my neighbor has an issue on their property, and they ask me not to intervene I will not cross onto their property to help, even if I think I should (unless you know, murder or whatever). But if my neighbor asks me to help, we should work together. It seems like we can work together in a more overt, positive, non-covert CIA way. I'm not saying this would work for certain, just that aybe we should try something new.
I'm not sure I agree with this claim, but "this puts a fence around it" seems like a complete misunderstanding of it.
This is orthogonal to the humanitarian issue happening in Mexico for the last few decades.
> When our borders are not secure as one political party tends to favor, poor Mexicans die and drug cartels gain money and power. Maybe a fence along with other measures, increasing patrols, harsher penalties, is actually the most humane solution to Mexican drug cartel problem?
Sorry, but you're out of your mind. I'm a native Texan and the last thing I want is a fence separating our us from our brothers and sisters south of the border. We should be helping the Mexicans, not abandoning them to violence and cartel terrorism. I would rather they seek refuge here than die on the other side of a fence.
- Incentives (war on drugs)
- Weapons shipments (Operation Fast and Furious)
- Training cartel members (US Special Forces trained the founding members of Los Zetas)
- Money laundering services (Bank of America and others banked cartels)
The US literally armed them with assault weapons. At times the CIA was directly trafficking drugs themselves.