The Fentanyl Crisis thread

[Marcus]

You are late in the conversation, and I get it is hard to get caught up in these types of back and forth's, especially when so many ad-hom's muck it up.

Given that, tell me what started the conversation about illegal immigrants vs border crossing with fentanyl, and what my position are based on what I wrote? I will then either agree, or set the context straight.

Lol. That is a great non-answer.

In regard to us discussing your assertion on the other thread.... start here by canpakes » Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:12 am

He used this as his baseline for his argument https://www.cato.org/blog/us-citizens-w ... une%202024


My position is that the border is lax (I discussed this in the other thread), and that there is trafficking of all types of things, including fentanyl. It matters not if cartels are using citizens as mules, or immigrants, it is the trafficking of a drug that is killing hundreds of thousands of dollars and costing tax payers well over a trillion dollars a year. What do you think the most trafficked thing is that comes across the border daily?

And another one!

All this given, what is your position on the epidemic, and apart from that, illegal immigration as a whole. What are your solutions?

Now you're veering off from the OP topic. I'll state my position on the topic of this thread again, and highlight my point:

...But no, you did not address the question directly, except for this response where you assert the supply should be targeted without addressing how or why:

... We need to go after the fentanyl no matter who is smuggling it in and no matter who is pushing it...

As for my question, your response is naïve at best:

We need to do both, and everything possible to fight the epidemic...

That's not a realistic or efficient answer, given limited resources.

Why waste money doing inefficient things that only potentially effect 15% of the supply? Why not target the demand side?

Do you have a response to that?

Going back to your non-response:

...My position is that the border is lax (I discussed this in the other thread), and that there is trafficking of all types of things, including fentanyl. It matters not if cartels are using citizens as mules, or immigrants, it is the trafficking of a drug that is killing hundreds of thousands of dollars and costing tax payers well over a trillion dollars a year. What do you think the most trafficked thing is that comes across the border daily? ...

Your statements that I have bolded are worth highlighting, because they emphasize the inefficiency and irrelevancy of your stance on illegal immigration as they relate to the topic of this thread: "the fentanyl crisis".

Gad has asked you this multiple times, so I am aware I am just repeating his argument, but since you have yet to respond, I'll add my voice:

How does deporting migrants who were NOT involved in the 'trafficking of a drug' assist in fighting the fentanyl crisis?

[Gunnar]

My position is that the border is lax (I discussed this in the other thread), and that there is trafficking of all types of things, including fentanyl. It matters not if carte
All this given, what is your position on the epidemic, and apart from that, illegal immigration as a whole. What are your solutions?

Thanks

The only reason the border is lax is that Donald Trump demanded that the tough and strongly conservative immigration reforms already agreed to by a strong bipartisan consensus be rejected by his craven sycophants because he wanted to use the border crisis as a campaign issue to help him get elected. He couldn't care less if the problem were actually solved or improved, especially if there was even the slightest possibility that Democrats could share any credit for it.

As for my position on the epidemic, I already shared with you my views on that to the limited extent I felt competent to do so.

[Gadianton]

Lol. That is a great non-answer.

Indeed it is. He doesn't remember what he wrote, like most Trumpers, it changes daily, depending on the need. I checked last night, so I'll volunteer this time. Markk introduced the Fentanyl problem on December 14th 2024 as a response to Jersey Girl who started a thread about "mass deportations".

I have a close family member that is in law enforcement and supervises a joint task force, federal, county, state, unit in Southern Ca. Mostly in greater LA. It focuses on cartel drugs coming over the border. Fentanyl, cocaine, heroin and meth. He shows me photos of tables full of drugs and cash almost every time we see each other.

The way it works now is that when they raid a house or auto, and bust someone, most always a Mexican immigrant here illegally or with a green card. The bust could be a few million fentanyl pills with 500K in cash, or more, and they just take the pills and cash and let the person go. They try to turn them into a snitch, but either way it is a waste of time to take them to jail, in that they won't call ICE, and they just release them with a citation, and it takes at least two team members off the streets/unit for 4 hours or so (6 man units) making more dangerous for the Unit.. The best thing that will happen is that the fed's might file on them, issue a warrant and hopefully the next time they get caught the feds can put a hold on them, and possibly deport then or throw them in prison or both. But many get wacked by the cartel if they can't pay it pack, so becoming a snitch is good in that the snitch will get 10% of a cash take. The agencies get 80% for O-T and equipment to self fund the operation.

My point, and in context with the OP, is that with Gaston being voted out and hopefully a rea commitment to a strong border and immigration policy they will start deporting and/or locking these folks up first. And get those that are known criminals and gang members out of here.

A new policy will also, and maybe more importantly off the bat, stop it at the border, and enforce the laws we have for a legal path to citizenship and stop the drugs and extortion business' by the cartels.

This where I believe they will start and I believe it is a good thing.

Since then, Markk has said that Trump has done exactly what he said he was going to do. There's a big disconnect. Markk said Trump's plan was to start deporting and locking up drug dealers first and get the gangs out. But what Trump has actually done is target working illegals first. Is Markk lying when he said Trump is doing what he said he was going to do? Trump has been clear that illegals generally speaking are criminals and psychos, and so you can make the case that by targeting farmers, Trump is technically doing what he said he would do, because they too are criminals and psychos in Trump's mind. But that's not what Markk was talking about. If Markk is telling the truth that Trump is doing what he said, then Markk was lying when he said Dec. 14th 2024 that the plan was to focus on actual criminals who had been arrested or even convicted or known to be working with criminal gangs in general.

If Trump was doing what Markk said he was going to do on December 14th, 2024, then the conversation would be very different than it has been. Yes, even criminals have some basic human rights and they could be violated, but that is dwarfed by the problem of arresting farmers in mass and having nowhere to put them, and ahh, let's build facilities in Guantanamo Bay and buy land from fellow right-wingers in Texas and built huge facilities there and have poorly funded mass detentions that will virtually ensure a concentration-camp scenario.

[Markk]

LOl, that is a answer? To what? Your assertion was that by Trump deporting people he was violating their civil rights. You are moving the goal posts, clearly. You wrote " You're doubling down exactly as I've explained, Markk. If the last alarm bell wasn't loud enough, you sound the next alarm bell louder, all as a way to justify human rights violations" Present tense.

No Markk, I'm not moving the goal posts. Along with "begging the question" and "ad hominem", you don't know what that means either. You are moving the goal posts. The conversation, which you introduced on Dec. 14th, is the Trump plan for "mass deportations". Note that Jersey Girl's thread was literally titled "mass deportations":

Well you have and are jumping around, what conversation are you talking about that I introduced in December 14th...please link me to that post. And what thread are you talking about by Jersey Girl?

You are all over the place Gad and making absolutely no sense.

Again, I'll ignore the ad-hom's here.

Changing the subject to, "how is it any different from Bill Clinton!?" is moving the goal posts.

Lol, no it isn't. You made an assertion, that you obviously did not think out, that because Trump is deporting illegal immigrants he is violating their civil rights. I brought in the number of illegal immigrants that Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden deported to show both your ignorance of what you are suggesting and your clear un-hinged hatred towards Trump, anyone that supports him, and Christians, even though those presidents did the same exact thing that you were accusing Trump of....deporting illegal immigrants.

My showing you your hypocrisy and bias, is in no way moving the goal posts, it is showing you the weakness of your very argument; that deporting illegal immigrants is not violating their civil rights.

An example of you moving the goal posts is after I showed you this....you changed your position that it was really because Trump showboats that he violates their civil rights in some kind of future tense.

So you are now in the position to either believe that deportation is a civil rights violation, or that it isn't. If the former all presidents and parties are equally guilty, if the latter, then your position was wrong.

[Marcus]

...So you are now in the position to either believe that deportation is a civil rights violation, or that it isn't. If the former all presidents and parties are equally guilty, if the latter, then your position was wrong.

That's not the message I got from Gad's post, here in the "The Fentanyl Crisis thread".

...Since then, Markk has said that Trump has done exactly what he said he was going to do. There's a big disconnect. Markk said Trump's plan was to start deporting and locking up drug dealers first and get the gangs out. But what Trump has actually done is target working illegals first...

So, how is this targeting helping the fentanyl crisis? Or to repeat myself, before you get too far off topic,

How does deporting migrants who were NOT involved in the 'trafficking of a drug' assist in fighting the fentanyl crisis?

[Markk]

First of all, I wrote that on Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:51 pm. Second, how does my post there, connect to the topics we are discussing here beyond cartel members, criminals, gang members, and a strong border policy?

And I introduced much more than a fentanyl problem, but one of a broken system. You did not read what i wrote and remotely try to understand the context of what I wrote.

Gad wrote...Indeed it is. He doesn't remember what he wrote, like most Trumpers, it changes daily, depending on the need. I checked last night, so I'll volunteer this time. Markk introduced the Fentanyl problem on December 14th 2024 as a response to Jersey Girl who started a thread about "mass deportations".

Markk wrote:
I have a close family member that is in law enforcement and supervises a joint task force, federal, county, state, unit in Southern Ca. Mostly in greater LA. It focuses on cartel drugs coming over the border. Fentanyl, cocaine, heroin and meth. He shows me photos of tables full of drugs and cash almost every time we see each other.

The way it works now is that when they raid a house or auto, and bust someone, most always a Mexican immigrant here illegally or with a green card. The bust could be a few million fentanyl pills with 500K in cash, or more, and they just take the pills and cash and let the person go. They try to turn them into a snitch, but either way it is a waste of time to take them to jail, in that they won't call ICE, and they just release them with a citation, and it takes at least two team members off the streets/unit for 4 hours or so (6 man units) making more dangerous for the Unit.. The best thing that will happen is that the fed's might file on them, issue a warrant and hopefully the next time they get caught the feds can put a hold on them, and possibly deport then or throw them in prison or both. But many get wacked by the cartel if they can't pay it pack, so becoming a snitch is good in that the snitch will get 10% of a cash take. The agencies get 80% for O-T and equipment to self fund the operation.

My point, and in context with the OP, is that with Gaston being voted out and hopefully a rea commitment to a strong border and immigration policy they will start deporting and/or locking these folks up first. And get those that are known criminals and gang members out of here.

A new policy will also, and maybe more importantly off the bat, stop it at the border, and enforce the laws we have for a legal path to citizenship and stop the drugs and extortion business' by the cartels.

This where I believe they will start and I believe it is a good thing.

[Marcus]

First of all, I wrote that on Mon Nov 18, 2024 2:51 pm. Second, how does my post there, connect to the topics we are discussing here beyond cartel members, criminals, gang members, and a strong border policy?

And I introduced much more than a fentanyl problem, but one of a broken system. You did not read what i wrote and remotely try to understand the context of what I wrote.

This the 'the fentanyl crisis thread', right?

Markk wrote:
I have a close family member that is in law enforcement and supervises a joint task force, federal, county, state, unit in Southern Ca. Mostly in greater LA. It focuses on cartel drugs coming over the border. Fentanyl, cocaine, heroin and meth. He shows me photos of tables full of drugs and cash almost every time we see each other.

The way it works now is that when they raid a house or auto, and bust someone, most always a Mexican immigrant here illegally or with a green card. The bust could be a few million fentanyl pills with 500K in cash, or more, and they just take the pills and cash and let the person go. They try to turn them into a snitch, but either way it is a waste of time to take them to jail, in that they won't call ICE, and they just release them with a citation, and it takes at least two team members off the streets/unit for 4 hours or so (6 man units) making more dangerous for the Unit.. The best thing that will happen is that the fed's might file on them, issue a warrant and hopefully the next time they get caught the feds can put a hold on them, and possibly deport then or throw them in prison or both. But many get wacked by the cartel if they can't pay it pack, so becoming a snitch is good in that the snitch will get 10% of a cash take. The agencies get 80% for O-T and equipment to self fund the operation.

My point, and in context with the OP, is that with Gaston being voted out and hopefully a rea commitment to a strong border and immigration policy they will start deporting and/or locking these folks up first. And get those that are known criminals and gang members out of here.

A new policy will also, and maybe more importantly off the bat, stop it at the border, and enforce the laws we have for a legal path to citizenship and stop the drugs and extortion business' by the cartels.

This where I believe they will start and I believe it is a good thing.

I did read what you wrote, and I found your anecdotal evidence interesting but ultimately, not helpful, as most anecdotal evidence typically is not.

Before you bring in a lot of other things to this thread you started specifically about 'the fentanyl crisis,' I was hoping you could respond to this question about the topic:

How does deporting migrants who were NOT involved in the 'trafficking of a drug' assist in fighting the fentanyl crisis?

[Markk]

...So you are now in the position to either believe that deportation is a civil rights violation, or that it isn't. If the former all presidents and parties are equally guilty, if the latter, then your position was wrong.

That's not the message I got from Gad's post, here in the "The Fentanyl Crisis thread".

...Since then, Markk has said that Trump has done exactly what he said he was going to do. There's a big disconnect. Markk said Trump's plan was to start deporting and locking up drug dealers first and get the gangs out. But what Trump has actually done is target working illegals first...

So, how is this targeting helping the fentanyl crisis? Or to repeat myself, before you get too far off topic,

How does deporting migrants who were NOT involved in the 'trafficking of a drug' assist in fighting the fentanyl crisis?

It doesn't. And I never once said it does. I suggested you go back and read the other thread, but it seems you aren't willing to do that. Out of this post, was my first mention of it in the other thread, the strawman that you are now arguing against, was derived from.

The issue is a near open border with broken policies that greatly allows illegal immigration and drug trafficking....along with all kinds of other issues, such as the trafficking of children and women. The cartels are growing their influences into our country for all these different reasons, drugs being paramount.

Again, your denials of what is happening to our country because of the open border policies is one of the reasons the left is losing credibility within their own party, and the nation over all.

Your analogy is just a very weak strawman, for one mosquitoes kill far more people than bears each year, it is not even close. Via a quick google, bears kill few people each year, one site I read states there are around 40 bear attacks a year, while mosquitoes kill millions each year, some 700 K directly and even more indirectly by the diseases they can spread. And your analogy does not mention the US government programs that are mitigating mosquitos, and wild animal control. In the US, we spend millions doing both....if we did nothing about mosquitos, malaria and other diseases would be huge problem, it is why we spend millions each year on control. Fish and Game has a budget of 4 billion, and one thing they do is manage bear populations.

The larger issue is with your analogy is that it just shows your inability to see that there is a problem and connection with illegal immigration and the drug problem we have in our country i.e., the open border policies of the last administration and the total lack of competency to address it.

Controlling the border, helps control all the issues we are dealing with, and caused by it. Drugs are killing hundreds tens of thousands of Americans each year and is a huge financial burden. Illegal immigration kills less, but equally is a very large burden on our system. All caused by purposely allowing an open border for political reasons.

So I challenge you to show me where I said, what you are claiming. CFR please.

Also, I asked you a question you did not answer, or I missed it. "what is your solution to the fentanyl epidemic, and illegal immigration?"

Thanks

[Marcus]

Before you bring in a lot of other things to this thread you started specifically about 'the fentanyl crisis,' I was hoping you could respond to this question about the topic:

How does deporting migrants who were NOT involved in the 'trafficking of a drug' assist in fighting the fentanyl crisis?

It doesn't. And I never once said it does.

Gotcha.

Also, I asked you a question you did not answer, or I missed it. "what is your solution to the fentanyl epidemic, and illegal immigration?"

This thread is about "the fentanyl crisis" so I'd rather stick to that, since you agree "deporting migrants who were NOT involved in the 'trafficking of a drug' " does NOT "assist in fighting the fentanyl crisis."

Now that immigration issues are off the table, if you recall I already proposed a more efficient and focused category of solutions--fighting the battle from the demand side--and asked your opinion about that. Do you have one?

[Markk]

Before you bring in a lot of other things to this thread you started specifically about 'the fentanyl crisis,' I was hoping you could respond to this question about the topic:

It doesn't. And I never once said it does.

Gotcha.

Also, I asked you a question you did not answer, or I missed it. "what is your solution to the fentanyl epidemic, and illegal immigration?"

This thread is about "the fentanyl crisis" so I'd rather stick to that, since you agree "deporting migrants who were NOT involved in the 'trafficking of a drug' " does NOT "assist in fighting the fentanyl crisis."

Now that immigration issues are off the table, if you recall I already proposed a more efficient and focused category of solutions-fighting the battle from the demand side-- and asked your opinion about that. Do you have one?

What do you mean gotcha? Lol? How?

You do understand that "migrants," can be here either legally with a work visa, student visa, or a O1 visa, I hav eno idea how many types of visa's there are. And from most any country in the world, like say Lionel Messi, Shohei Ohtani, or Hugh Jackman....or hard working across that country that did things right. Or a migrant could be one that is here illegally,.

I started this thread and I give you permission to answer my question. Immigration issues are not off the table at all in this thread, Lol, as the author, I make that decree. There are illegal immigrants that smuggle fentanyl across the border everyday. Keep in mind that 1000's of Americans die each year because of this. You have to also understand that there is a network or illegal and legal immigrants across the country managing the epidemic of cartel drugs, even if brought across by a higher percentage of citizen mules, that the illegal ones. Plus we have no idea how many illegal immigrants with drugs come over and never get caught.

So if you want to have a two way conversation answer my question please...."what is your solution to the fentanyl epidemic, and illegal immigration?"

If you recall I already proposed a more efficient and focused category of solutions-fighting the battle from the demand side-

I don't recall, where? what post? Time and date please. I have 5 or 6 people posting to me with limited time, so I certainly might have missed it or it did not resonate.