The Fentanyl Crisis thread

[canpakes]

Cakes, I really thought you knew what is meant by the term open border, I see now I was wrong. So I will assume you believe there should be Immigration laws. Given that, and moving forward...we have laws. So, why is it wrong to enforce them?

From wiki, it is as good a definition as any.

An open border is a border that enables free movement of people (and often of goods) between jurisdictions with no restrictions on movement and is lacking substantive border control.[1][2] A border may be an open border due to intentional legislation allowing free movement of people across the border (de jure), or a border may be an open border due to a lack of legal controls, a lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border (de facto). An example of the former is the Schengen Agreement between most members of the European Economic Area (EFTA and the EU). An example of the latter has been the border between Bangladesh and India, which is becoming controlled. The term "open borders" applies only to the flow of people, not the flow of goods and services,[3] and only to borders between political jurisdictions, not to mere boundaries of privately owned property.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

[Markk]

I think Mark has a kind of script, perhaps entitled "How to own the libtards on immigration". On it, there is a list of questions he has to ask you in the right order. and one of them is "Do you think we should have immigration laws?" .

If you just burst out laughing when he asks you that, and don't deign to give him an answer, he doesn't know what to do next. So he has to keep on asking until you answer and then he can put a tick on his form and move on to the next one, and then the next and so on, leading up to your inevitable outing as a perverse America hater or whatever.

Chap, It is a important question given that the talking point here is that Trump is going the mass support illegal immigrants, which he many very well do, just as the previous presidents before him, namely Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

It's like pulling teeth here to get some of the folks here to just be open and transparent.... and articulate what they believe on this issue. What you call a list of questions, I call attempts to just get a fair answer, a easy yes or no question.

In one breath they want to say that Trump is this and that, and even go so far as saying that he is violating the human rights of these folks, despite those presidents I mentioned doing so. Biden even deported more illegal immigrants than Trump did in his first run. There was even a debate at one time as to who was the "deport-er in chief," Clinton or Obama, and if I remember correctly Obama won even though Clinton deported more.

The point here is that Trump is being vilified for the same thing that every other president has done; enforcing the immigrations laws of their presidency. So my questions are very fair...."do you believe there should be immigration laws? And, if so, do you believe these laws should be enforced."

[Markk]

Cakes, I really thought you knew what is meant by the term open border, I see now I was wrong. So I will assume you believe there should be Immigration laws. Given that, and moving forward...we have laws. So, why is it wrong to enforce them?

From wiki, it is as good a definition as any.

An open border is a border that enables free movement of people (and often of goods) between jurisdictions with no restrictions on movement and is lacking substantive border control.[1][2] A border may be an open border due to intentional legislation allowing free movement of people across the border (de jure), or a border may be an open border due to a lack of legal controls, a lack of adequate enforcement or adequate supervision of the border (de facto). An example of the former is the Schengen Agreement between most members of the European Economic Area (EFTA and the EU). An example of the latter has been the border between Bangladesh and India, which is becoming controlled. The term "open borders" applies only to the flow of people, not the flow of goods and services,[3] and only to borders between political jurisdictions, not to mere boundaries of privately owned property.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

If it is wrong for Trump to enforce our immigration laws, just like the other presidents I mentioned did ( over 25 million deported, i.e. mass deportation), which is what you have been asserting, then why have them?

Edit...Who is that woman in the picture? Tuesday Weld?

[Markk]

Well, he won't answer the questions posed to him and he started it, so that's why I don't answer. All the fentanyl crisis stuff came as a response to Jersey Girl's mass deportation thread. But nothing he said then or since then is even remotely a motivation to mass deport people.

It should be really simple. There was a South Park episode 20 years ago when similar immigration concerns were swirling that everyone remembers as the "They took our jobs!" episode. If Mark would say, we need mass deportations because illegals are taking our jobs, then I would say, "Oh okay, thank you for finally answering, that does make basic logical sense," and then I would answer his question about open borders.

LOl, no you got caught with your pant's down when I showed you the number of deportations by the previous presidents. So much so, you implied the other presidents deportations weren't really deportations, and Trump's were, because of his "showmanship."

This is what was said in Jersey Girl thread that you are creating your straw-man out of.

Jersey Girl OP reads....Simple question: Practically speaking, how does one go about rounding up undocumented immigrants all over the United States for mass deportation?

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.

Markk wrote..."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[l] 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.

It's clear I addressed the OP, by showing some current problems, that once removed will allow deportations to begin.

Now you can continue with your ad hom's, straw-men, and identity politics. Or, you can answer my questions that you declined to address.

[Gadianton]

Markk brings up a good point, Jersey actually asked about the logistics of performing a mass deportation and Markk's relative anecdote doesn't answer that either. The emphasis of Markk's post changed the context to the justification rather than the logistics -- the urgency because fentanyl.

That change of context to necessity was fine for me because I think it's okay to discuss why we're doing something prior to discussing the logistics of doing it. But Markk has failed again to explain either the rationale or the logistics. His latest attempt is to ask, "Is Trump not allowed to enforce the law? Huh? Huh? Can't Trump enforce the law? Huh?"

That's like complaining that we wrongly criticize Hitler, saying that he shouldn't have enforced the law after Jews were legally declared non-citizens.

(Markk still doesn't understand the table from his website. Everyone knows other presidents have deported illegals, with Obama being the king. The super-mass of Clinton, the multi-million figure, is returns that happen near the border, and a big chunk are repeats -- hardly a "deportation" and most immigration commentary, including CATO, doesn't cite that big number. Clinton focused on the border to avoid the interior work that is far more draconian).

I'll answer Markk's question as soon as he provides a justification for mass deportations.

[Jersey Girl]

Markk brings up a good point, Jersey actually asked about the logistics of performing a mass deportation and Markk's relative anecdote doesn't answer that either. The emphasis of Markk's post changed the context to the justification rather than the logistics -- the urgency because fentanyl.

That change of context to necessity was fine for me because I think it's okay to discuss why we're doing something prior to discussing the logistics of doing it. But Markk has failed again to explain either the rationale or the logistics. His latest attempt is to ask, "Is Trump not allowed to enforce the law? Huh? Huh? Can't Trump enforce the law? Huh?"

That's like complaining that we wrongly criticize Hitler, saying that he shouldn't have enforced the law after Jews were legally declared non-citizens.

(Markk still doesn't understand the table from his website. Everyone knows other presidents have deported illegals, with Obama being the king. The super-mass of Clinton, the multi-million figure, is returns that happen near the border, and a big chunk are repeats -- hardly a "deportation" and most immigration commentary, including CATO, doesn't cite that big number. Clinton focused on the border to avoid the interior work that is far more draconian).

I'll answer Markk's question as soon as he provides a justification for mass deportations.

Mass deportations are impossible to carry out by the sheer numbers involved in doing that. What Trump has done so far is create a shock and awe effect. It'll all fall flat on it's face like every other dust up he creates because he is a stranger to systematic approaches. He shoots from the hip, a barrage of lawsuits soon follow, and then suddenly it gets a news cycle burial like every single thing he's doing or has ever done in his whole entire life.

He's a serial failure. Write that down.

[Markk]

Markk brings up a good point, Jersey actually asked about the logistics of performing a mass deportation and Markk's relative anecdote doesn't answer that either. The emphasis of Markk's post changed the context to the justification rather than the logistics -- the urgency because fentanyl.

That change of context to necessity was fine for me because I think it's okay to discuss why we're doing something prior to discussing the logistics of doing it. But Markk has failed again to explain either the rationale or the logistics. His latest attempt is to ask, "Is Trump not allowed to enforce the law? Huh? Huh? Can't Trump enforce the law? Huh?"

That's like complaining that we wrongly criticize Hitler, saying that he shouldn't have enforced the law after Jews were legally declared non-citizens.

(Markk still doesn't understand the table from his website. Everyone knows other presidents have deported illegals, with Obama being the king. The super-mass of Clinton, the multi-million figure, is returns that happen near the border, and a big chunk are repeats -- hardly a "deportation" and most immigration commentary, including CATO, doesn't cite that big number. Clinton focused on the border to avoid the interior work that is far more draconian).

I'll answer Markk's question as soon as he provides a justification for mass deportations.

LOL, classic. So you are not really talking to me???? wow, I guess I won't know how you feel about my last post to you, I hope cakes or someone else tells me what you said about me.

Gad, my opinion in Jersey Girl thread, gives my opinion that as DA's and jails start contacting ICE, that will allow more deportations. And I stated that a stronger commitment to the border will allow more deportations. I also said that hopefully stop it at the border. Which is a answer of how deportation can accelerate. I said it was a good start.

Gad: But Markk has failed again to explain either the rationale or the logistics. His latest attempt is to ask, "Is Trump not allowed to enforce the law? Huh? Huh? Can't Trump enforce the law? Huh?"

That's like complaining that we wrongly criticize Hitler, saying that he shouldn't have enforced the law after Jews were legally declared non-citizens

.

Just to be clear, you believe that if Trump legally, per immigration law deports immigrants that are here illegally, even ones that commit felonies and sex crimes, even to children, that he has no right to do that? Well, then if that is your opinion, you must believe that we should just have open borders and no immigration laws, I guess, except for when Biden, Obama, Bush and Clinton deported folks.

(Markk still doesn't understand the table from his website. Everyone knows other presidents have deported illegals, with Obama being the king. The super-mass of Clinton, the multi-million figure, is returns that happen near the border, and a big chunk are repeats -- hardly a "deportation" and most immigration commentary, including CATO, doesn't cite that big number. Clinton focused on the border to avoid the interior work that is far more draconian).

LOL, well how are they not deportations? If they are here illegally, and deported, well then they are deported. And if they are repeats, they will be deported again, just like a Trump will do the same to the repeats he deports. But like you said all presidents deport illegals, and so will Trump, all withing the US Code.

Just so we get this straight so when the numbers start coming out with the Trump deportations...how far in your opinion does a person sneaking into the country have to get, before they qualify for your definition of being deported? My reading is that a return is still a deportation...right? What is the number that constitutes "mass" deportation?

Gad: I'll answer Markk's question as soon as he provides a justification for mass deportations.

I wonder how Markk will now you are requesting that? But if Markk knew you were asking that question, he would say that enforcing the immigration laws per the US Code is Justification.

[Jersey Girl]

Just so we get this straight so when the numbers start coming out with the Trump deportations..

When the numbers start coming out? They can't even find the phone numbers of the nuclear experts they fired.

[canpakes]

Markk brings up a good point, Jersey actually asked about the logistics of performing a mass deportation and Markk's relative anecdote doesn't answer that either. The emphasis of Markk's post changed the context to the justification rather than the logistics -- the urgency because fentanyl.

As often as these ‘fentanyl crisis’ conversations always seem to end up with Markk harping on a supposed need for ‘mass deportations’, I’m left thinking that neither MAGA ‘leadership’ nor its base understand - or care - about how to tackle the fentanyl crisis.

Looks like we’re in for another Trump dog and pony show, instead of real solutions. It does seem to easily distract some folks, I guess.

[Markk]

Just so we get this straight so when the numbers start coming out with the Trump deportations..

When the numbers start coming out? They can't even find the phone numbers of the nuclear experts they fired.

Jersey Girl, Trump is going to screw more things up, along with doing some good things and some very good things, on all fronts. I agree they need to be carful as the cut programs. But they are also finding a lot of waste and fraud....isn't that a good thing?

Do you believe it is a good idea to make employees come back to work that are getting paid to "work" at home, that have no real supervision or accountability? Do you believe it was good that they found that one agency who had 4.7 trillion dollars, was allocating much of the funds without coding. In other words making it very difficult or impossible to know where the money went? Isn't that a good thing. Do you thing it is a good thing to get open accounting for USAID? I do.

Over all, do you believe that cuts are a good thing, and do you acknowledge there is waste that should be cut?