The Fentanyl Crisis thread

[Markk]

Hey Mark. Dig this.

Exclusive: Trump’s foreign aid freeze stops anti-fentanyl work in Mexico

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 025-02-13/

Did you read the article? There is a lot here that will be very interesting to "dig" into (pun intended), and probably deserves to be a thread of it's own.

Start with this, and tell me what you see that might be concerning about this?

WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has vowed to destroy Mexican cartels and end the U.S. fentanyl epidemic, but his sweeping freeze on foreign aid has temporarily stopped U.S.-funded anti-narcotics programs in Mexico that for years have been working to curb the flow of the synthetic opioid into the United States.

All of the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) programs in Mexico are currently halted due to the funding freeze, five people familiar with the matter told Reuters. These programs focus heavily on dismantling the fentanyl supply chain, according to State Department budget documents, opens new tab reviewed by Reuters. Their activities include training Mexican authorities to find and destroy clandestine fentanyl labs and to stop precursor chemicals needed to manufacture the illicit drug from entering Mexico.

Read this and tell me what you find here that might be a bit more concerning. It is a copy and paste of the first two paragraphs of the INM website.

"The Bureau of International Narcotics Matters (INM) was created in 1978 to reduce drug trafficking into the United States from Latin America. INM’s mission soon expanded beyond combating drugs to supporting stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and to fighting corruption and transnational crime around the world. To reflect its expanded mission, INM was re-established as the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in 1995.

Today, INL uses a wide range of tools to counter crime, illegal drugs, and instability abroad, including foreign assistance, bilateral diplomacy, multilateral engagement, and reporting, sanctions, and rewards. INL has two complementary core competencies: helping partner governments assess, build, reform, and sustain competent and legitimate criminal justice systems, and developing and implementing the architecture necessary for international drug control and cross-border law enforcement cooperation. INL works with partner nations, international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, U.S. federal, state, and local criminal justice entities to achieve our mission."

The reports that are linked are exhaustive and will take some time to go through, but it will be an interesting read. In one, on page 34, it reads as follows and compliments the points I find concerning.

Drug-Free Communities:
INL assists civil society and grassroots organizations to form and sustain effective locallevel anti-drug coalitions aimed at preventing substance use disorders in their communities,
currently in cooperation with the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA). As
of January 2022, INL support has resulted in the establishment of over 390 active coalitions
consisting of over 12,900 volunteers in 29 countries around the world, some of which have
continued to operate following the conclusion of INL funding.

Let me know what you find here?

[canpakes]

1) mass deportations of migrant workers will have no effect on fentanyl supply or demand
2) mass deportations of migrant workers will not improve surveillance at the border, vett character of anyone at the border, or stop anyone from crossing the border.

If Markk is of the mind that either one of those will make any significant difference in the fentanyl problem - let alone be worth their cost even if so - then I’d love to see him present a case for it.

[Dr Exiled]

1) mass deportations of migrant workers will have no effect on fentanyl supply or demand
2) mass deportations of migrant workers will not improve surveillance at the border, vett character of anyone at the border, or stop anyone from crossing the border.

If Markk is of the mind that either one of those will make any significant difference in the fentanyl problem - let alone be worth their cost even if so - then I’d love to see him present a case for it.

Mass deportations will stop border crossings. It's like heavy deterrents to crime, it works. When Mussolini started really cracking down on the Mafia, it had to flee into the hills. Black and White is so passe. Continuums are the rage today. The more pressure that is put on the migrants, the more they will weigh, making a cost benefit analysis, and decide that perhaps they should come another time, or perhaps never.

[Markk]

Lol, yes words that I did not say and that change the context of what I said, and muck it up....i.e. A word salad. The context that you asserted that P-25 were the architectures of his presidency, which is just false.

So you claim. I see it otherwise, and have provided rationale and lists above to support my own POV. If you disagree, contest those points rather than just stamping your feet and indignantly proclaiming, “Nuh-uhh!” Or don’t. It’s all good.

This is exactly what I mean about most folks here being unable to answer the simple question.

It helps to write clearly, but two people have already answered you, so the issue may be closer to you than you think.

I tell you what, I'll make it easy. I will just assume, by your insistence that deporting people that are here illegally is wrong, ...

Weird. I’ve never insisted such a thing, but do go on.

... and because of your inability to even say people here that do not follow our current laws are here illegally i,e, "border crossers," ..

Oops. You’re wrong there, too, considering how often I’ve used the term, ‘illegals’, across multiple threads. But, do go on.

... that you want a open border without any type of CBP system, rules or laws, defining and prohibiting entrance and passage.

Well, damn. Considering my remark in how I believe that a border entry point in a high-traffic zone like El Paso is absolutely (I did use that exact word) preferred, you’ve now struck completely out. But why stop here? Do go on.

And anyone, from any country, can come into this country when ever they want without consequence, or being vetted on their character and past behaviors from where ever they came.

I think that you imagined this one after the night sweats brought on by that late evening In-n-Out triple ‘Animal Style’ burger that you were cautioned not to eat.

But, do go on.

And that they are eligible to all the right and privileges offered by the government.

Oh, you’ve already forgotten about my proposal for a probationary period from assistance programs even for LPRs, contingent on meeting particular legal goals, which is a stricter standard than what the Trump Administration now requires. I’ve only posted that for you a few times, already.

But, here’s a shovel. Do go on, and keep digging yourself in.

So given this is your belief, which is what I gathered from the cryptic things you are writing.

Who knew that English was so cryptic?

At this point, what should we do with our current CBP system? Should we just lay them all off and remove all border facilities, except for maybe places like El Paso, and just erect signs saying "welcome to the USA?"

If you pitch that to Trump with the condition that you’ll kick back a few thousand bucks to him from each sign installation, he may just take you up on that.

I’d suggest that you don’t use Comic Sans for the sign’s font, though. Nobody likes Comic Sans.

In regard to places where there is significant travel....what will the folks there checking folks that travel through, be looking for?

The same things that they do now.

And maybe some Bosas Donuts.

Moving through your diversions to address the question....You wrote:

Well, damn. Considering my remark in how I believe that a border entry point in a high-traffic zone like El Paso is absolutely (I did use that exact word) preferred, you’ve now struck completely out. But why stop here? Do go on.

What about the non-high traffic entry border points. If you were trying to enter into the country illegally, or bring drugs, weapons, or anything else illegal or harmful into that country....would you go through a high traffic point of entry the is being checked, or would you go to a point of entry that is not being checked or monitored?

What you wrote here brings to question why I ask you whether or not you believe a country should, or should not, have immigration laws, which I defined as a open border policy.

[Gadianton]

Mass deportations will stop border crossings. It's like heavy deterrents to crime, it works. When Mussolini started really cracking down on the Mafia, it had to flee into the hills. Black and White is so passe. Continuums are the rage today. The more pressure that is put on the migrants, the more they will weigh, making a cost benefit analysis, and decide that perhaps they should come another time, or perhaps never.

The response was directed towards all the things Toucan Sam is worried about. Markk has been melting down about not "knowing who these people are" entering the country. Mass deportations won't solve these kinds of problems. In other words, in terms of "border policy" -- a way to intelligently filter the flow over the border -- simply moving large numbers of people out won't solve that problem. Not directly and not as a deterrent

If the goal is to keep people out of the country period, including those you would might otherwise welcome, then sure, increasing the level of persecution of immigrants by any and all means is at least on the table for helping. If we're talking about migrant workers, then we should also consider demand not just supply, as Marcus points out. In that case, we should Put Markk's boss in jail for hiring them. Sending the white right-wing employers to Guantanamo will solve the problem much faster than the migrants who have less to lose.

You should focus on American immigration history for your examples, Dr. E, especially considering you're considering representing some of these poor folks Markk is destroying for no reason he has been able to articulate so far.

I asked my new best friend DeepSeek about the effectiveness of the Clinton era draconian measures earlier. DeepSeek has some cool features like saving previous conversations without logging in. I'm a huge fan.

how did the mass deportation of clinton era affect the flow of traffic across the border?

It's a long answer so I'll highlight:

Deportations and Border Crossings: Mass deportations during this period, particularly of criminal non-citizens, may have deterred some unauthorized crossings. However, they also led to cyclical migration patterns, as many deportees attempted to re-enter the U.S., potentially increasing border traffic in certain areas.

While the Clinton-era deportations and border policies aimed to curb unauthorized immigration, their impact on the overall flow of traffic across the border was mixed. Legal traffic, especially trade, continued to grow due to economic agreements like NAFTA, while unauthorized crossings were rerouted rather than eliminated. The long-term effect was a more militarized border but not necessarily a reduction in total border traffic.

Data from the U.S. Border Patrol: During the Clinton era, the U.S. Border Patrol reported increased apprehensions at the border, which suggests that stricter enforcement did not necessarily deter crossings but instead led to more attempts. For example, in the late 1990s, annual apprehensions often exceeded 1 million, indicating high levels of attempted re-entries.

Source: U.S. Border Patrol Apprehension Statistics (available through the Department of Homeland Security's historical data).

Net Effect on Migration: While deportations and stricter enforcement may have temporarily slowed unauthorized crossings, they did not significantly reduce the overall flow of migrants. Instead, they contributed to a growing population of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., as fewer people returned to their home countries voluntarily.

Source: Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2009). A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States. Pew Research Center.

Quit being a tool for Trump, you're better than that.

[canpakes]

If Markk is of the mind that either one of those will make any significant difference in the fentanyl problem - let alone be worth their cost even if so - then I’d love to see him present a case for it.

Mass deportations will stop border crossings.

For that reason, I disagree. Although, folks may not come here if they believe that they cannot enter in the first place, and even then, many will still try.

Fear of mass deportation after the fact doesn’t have the same effect. Folks don’t typically think long term in that way, especially when their existing life is much riskier in their home country to begin with. The few that might factor mass deportations into a decision to travel to the border would likely be those with the most honest intent. It won’t be stopping any actual drug runner whose aim was to remain a drug runner.

[canpakes]

What about the non-high traffic entry border points. If you were trying to enter into the country illegally, or bring drugs, weapons, or anything else illegal or harmful into that country....would you go through a high traffic point of entry the is being checked, or would you go to a point of entry that is not being checked or monitored?

What you wrote here brings to question why I ask you whether or not you believe a country should, or should not, have immigration laws, which I defined as a open border policy.

Markk, I’ve clearly laid out my own ideas for immigration within a system that is clearly based on lawful procedure and conduct. I have no idea why you keep asking this clearly inane question.

Please, go back and reread those older posts before you ask again.

[Jersey Girl]

Hey Mark. Dig this.

Exclusive: Trump’s foreign aid freeze stops anti-fentanyl work in Mexico

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 025-02-13/

Did you read the article?

Why should I? It's all word salad.

There is a lot here that will be very interesting to "dig" into (pun intended), and probably deserves to be a thread of it's own.

Start with this, and tell me what you see that might be concerning about this?

WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has vowed to destroy Mexican cartels and end the U.S. fentanyl epidemic, but his sweeping freeze on foreign aid has temporarily stopped U.S.-funded anti-narcotics programs in Mexico that for years have been working to curb the flow of the synthetic opioid into the United States.

All of the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) programs in Mexico are currently halted due to the funding freeze, five people familiar with the matter told Reuters. These programs focus heavily on dismantling the fentanyl supply chain, according to State Department budget documents, opens new tab reviewed by Reuters. Their activities include training Mexican authorities to find and destroy clandestine fentanyl labs and to stop precursor chemicals needed to manufacture the illicit drug from entering Mexico.

Read this and tell me what you find here that might be a bit more concerning. It is a copy and paste of the first two paragraphs of the INM website.

"The Bureau of International Narcotics Matters (INM) was created in 1978 to reduce drug trafficking into the United States from Latin America. INM’s mission soon expanded beyond combating drugs to supporting stabilization efforts in the Balkans, and to fighting corruption and transnational crime around the world. To reflect its expanded mission, INM was re-established as the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in 1995.

Today, INL uses a wide range of tools to counter crime, illegal drugs, and instability abroad, including foreign assistance, bilateral diplomacy, multilateral engagement, and reporting, sanctions, and rewards. INL has two complementary core competencies: helping partner governments assess, build, reform, and sustain competent and legitimate criminal justice systems, and developing and implementing the architecture necessary for international drug control and cross-border law enforcement cooperation. INL works with partner nations, international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, U.S. federal, state, and local criminal justice entities to achieve our mission."

The reports that are linked are exhaustive and will take some time to go through, but it will be an interesting read. In one, on page 34, it reads as follows and compliments the points I find concerning.

Drug-Free Communities:
INL assists civil society and grassroots organizations to form and sustain effective locallevel anti-drug coalitions aimed at preventing substance use disorders in their communities,
currently in cooperation with the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA). As
of January 2022, INL support has resulted in the establishment of over 390 active coalitions
consisting of over 12,900 volunteers in 29 countries around the world, some of which have
continued to operate following the conclusion of INL funding.

Let me know what you find here?

Stop giving me assignments. The man is dismantling our government and shutting down essential services, and all you can do is harp on this fentanyl/border BS to the tune of eleventy billion pages of your customary one-man vortex. Miss the forest for the trees much? Give me a break.

FYI: He and Co-President Musk fired NUCLEAR safety and security experts. Tried to rescind it the very next day (when they realized the totally stepped in crap) and didn't have any contact information for those workers. NUCLEAR safety and security Markk...and you're worried about the flipping border.

[Gunnar]

Stop giving me assignments. The man is dismantling our government and shutting down essential services, and all you can do is harp on this fentanyl/border BS to the tune of eleventy billion pages of your customary one-man vortex. Miss the forest for the trees much? Give me a break.

FYI: He and Co-President Musk fired NUCLEAR safety and security experts. Tried to rescind it the very next day (when they realized the totally stepped in crap) and didn't have any contact information for those workers. NUCLEAR safety and security Markk...and you're worried about the flipping border.

You are so right, Jersey Girl. This fuss about the border and fentanyl is mainly a distraction from the far greater danger posed by Trump and his puppet master Musk's determination to dismantle our democracy and nullify our most cherished ideal that "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

[Markk]

What about the non-high traffic entry border points. If you were trying to enter into the country illegally, or bring drugs, weapons, or anything else illegal or harmful into that country....would you go through a high traffic point of entry the is being checked, or would you go to a point of entry that is not being checked or monitored?

What you wrote here brings to question why I ask you whether or not you believe a country should, or should not, have immigration laws, which I defined as a open border policy.

Markk, I’ve clearly laid out my own ideas for immigration within a system that is clearly based on lawful procedure and conduct. I have no idea why you keep asking this clearly inane question.

Please, go back and reread those older posts before you ask again.

Lol this remind of of Fonzi; when he could say he was wrong. You are dancing around the very clear question. However, nothing you have said is clear in regard of it.

You first wrote, as your supposed clear answer to my question:

I’d guess that most folks will answer according to their local situation. Does the border between Yukon and Canada need a wall? Doubtful. Does some means of control prove useful where there’s significant travel to monitor, like El Paso? Absolutely.

Then you changed it to:

I’ll repeat what you called a word salad, when you asked if we should have ‘open borders’:

“I’d guess that most folks will answer according to their local situation. Does the border between Yukon and Canada need a wall? Doubtful. Does some means of control prove useful where there’s significant travel to monitor, like El Paso? Absolutely.”

I trust that you can figure that statement out. : D

The you changed it to:

Well, damn. Considering my remark in how I believe that a border entry point in a high-traffic zone like El Paso is absolutely (I did use that exact word) preferred, you’ve now struck completely out. But why stop here? Do go on.

How that clear to my question, which I have clarified several times, that 'there should be no immigrations laws of a CBP type of department,' and 'what about the non-high traffic check points, should people just be allowed to come and go as they will?'

We both know you understand the question, you are not stupid, and I believe we both understand why you can't commit to a straight forward question.

Answer the question Cakes. I assume you do have a clear and thought out position, that you can articulate, right?