Tripnsweep

Lots of killing.

How do you think they keep their business going? Harsh language?

Actually I was referring to a rally at the state Capitol a few years ago.

See below. Also think, I know that's a tough one for you, but relying on a bunch of poor people to carry drugs across an inhospitable desert where there is a decent chance they may die, and with only 50-60 lbs of whatever on them? That sounds like a really inefficient system. If you can move drugs by the ton in commercial traffic, and you lose maybe 1 in 10 or 1 in 20, that's an acceptable loss.

And over 95% come through legal ports of entry. So even if you somehow managed to stop people from crossing illegally, you would barely put a dent in drugs trafficking. Whether that's by air or land. Also most people involved in smuggling are American. So if you managed to entirely close off the border, the economic harm from doing that would dwarf solving this problem.

Our local sheriff did that, and was actually convicted in court for trying to lie about it, was also successfully sued over it (repeatedly), and eventually he was pardoned by Trump. It's not hard to imagine people emboldened to detain people who they can tell are different and question them is going to happen. I think it is concerning that our country is led by a racist criminal.

You'll never solve all 3. Especially drugs. Most drugs come through ports of entry, usually by Americans, so unless you plan to completely close the border, which is something that will never happen, then you might as well be trying to build a perpetual motion machine.

Singapore isn't a country of 350 million with 5,000+ miles of border to watch.

Because they look like they might be Mexican. Anyone who's spent time around natives can usually tell.

The 14th amendment precedes most reservations. But Natives weren't granted citizenship until the 1920's or 30's. There is an interesting patchwork of laws with reservations. For one example here, tribal members who live in the reservation are almost immune from civil lawsuits. I had to learn this when I was doing court enforcement. Essentially if a tribal member needs to be served, we couldn't go out there and do it. So we would have to take it to the tribal authorities who would decide whether they wanted to proceed or not. Most of the time it would be indefinitely be "looked into" and considered a lost cause. Now they could be legally served off the reservation, but unless you knew their schedule or surveilled them, you wouldn't be able to. And it would be a huge waste of time. Criminal things fall under federal jurisdiction. A tribal cop got murdered at a gas station a few years ago and the US Marshal and FBI got involved since it happened on the reservation. But the local tribal cops play by their own set of rules.

I am a little concerned because even though I am a citizen since birth, I wasn't born here, so it could be made an issue if I got scrutinized. It hasn't been a problem coming back and forth across the border, but now I don't know. My wife has a green card and is going to apply for citizenship in the near future. But both of us are just on the right shade of skin tones so it's not obvious right away. I do remember that during a protest at the Capitol a few years ago, a bunch of white nativists were yelling at the natives protesting telling them to go back to where they came from. Because brown people are all the same. Apparently to Trump that's the same case if they're trying to take citizenship from native Americans.

I think we should shift the focus. We've been at this for 40 years and it's been a failure. We had cocaine, then crack, etc. It just keeps evolving or changing to something else. We took our Pablo Escobar, Noriega, Ochoa, etc. Did that do anything? We bribed their competition who turned out to be even more cutthroat. So instead of of trying to play whack a mole with drug cartels, why not go after them in a different way? Put money into declaring drug addiction a public health crisis, cut down on arresting and incarceration for personal use possession, increase funding for counseling, addiction and actual rehabilitation, and taking away barriers that drug addicts have from being productive members of society. Which means not arresting individual addicts who have a couple grams of something on them. This would do two things. It would actually cost less than what we do now, and it would decrease the revenue of the cartels. If we treated this as a medical issue, it would go a lot further than the current model. We've done it for 40 years and all we've done is make a different group of people very wealthy once we eliminate the current crop of them. We went from Escobar, Falcon, Magluta and Roberts, to El Chapo and his generation. Once these guys hit their expiration date, somebody else will take their place.

Most drugs come through legal ports of entry, so ultimately even if you were able to prevent illegal crossing (you can't) it wouldn't really do much. Also which organizations domestically have the US military or special forces stopped from participating in illegal activities? You probably are aware that we have something called posse comitatus that prevents the government from using the military in a law enforcement capacity right? Also most of the people arrested for smuggling in the US are US citizens, so there is a very low instance of Mexican cartel operatives getting arrested for smuggling here. So even if you were able to kill the leadership of several cartels, it wouldn't really stop them. In the case of Los Zetas, they are comprised of former Mexican special forces who were trained here by the SEALS or other military special forces. So it wouldn't go as smoothly as you think with them. Ultimately they'd lose but it wouldn't be as one sided as you think.

He's an alleged billionaire so he could supposedly afford it.

It was pretty good, but unless you really pay attention to wrestling, you wouldn't know that anyway. I assume for any movie based on a true story, there's liberties taken. Or in some cases, like the movie Rush, things are actually toned down because it would be unbelievable to most people.

Except the cartels aren't run by one guy and are relatively decentralized, rely on independent contractors, and have a fluid leadership structure. Ask yourself this. When El Chapo was captured, how much of a disruption did that cause?

Special forces wouldn't have a numerical advantage. That's what they're specifically trained for, to work from a disadvantage. But they wouldn't wipe out everyone. We've seen how this turned out in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2025/01/24/navajo-nation-leaders-address-reports-of-ice-detaining-tribal-citizens/77911978007/ And now this is going on. Since I wasn't born in this country, I should probably start carrying my passport or something with me so this doesn't happen.

Good thing you didn't lose your primary source of information.

I'm amazed you haven't lost an eye trying to feed yourself. But here we are.

One convicted criminal pardoning another one.

Are there others who European immigrants didn't subjugate and try to commit genocide against?

I don't think he should have gotten life, but he did try to kill people so he should be in prison.

Only if they catch you doing it.

The act of being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is not, standing alone, a crime. While federal immigration law does criminalize some actions that may be related to undocumented presence in the United States, undocumented presence alone is not a violation of federal criminal law.