Tripnsweep

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.

Actually it is not a criminal act. Merely being present without the right documents is a civil offense, akin to a traffic ticket.

Most people hopping the border to come here are doing one of two things: Getting away from a violent situation that could get them killed, or seeking to get a better paying job. Or some combination of the two. Just coming here doesn't automatically make you a criminal. Being present in this country without documentation is not a criminal act.

The idea of our special forces sweeping in and routing them won't happen. These guys have intelligence, not terribly sophisticated, but they will know what is coming and if we send our guys in there, we're going to be surprised by how many of our own get killed. The cartels aren't stupid. They have their own soldiers, they have the money to hire good people and to buy weapons that are a step above what most regular soldiers carry. And if the US did manage to push them into the jungles and mountains, then they'd have a different problem. Because the cartels would just operate from there. It would be a lot slower but they'd still do it.

First of all the title says it all. This is beyond stupid and ill conceived. Designating them terrorist organizations doesn't really do anything. It doesn't change how the Mexican authorities deal with them. The other problem is exactly what level of involvement would make somebody a member of the cartel? They are usually on pretty well compartmentalized, and use independent contractors to handle certain aspects of their business. Is the guy who handles transportation but nothing else a terrorist? There's no clear answer. The other problem is that if there is direct military action taken against them in Mexico, it isn't going to go the way people think. The cartels aren't stupid, they have military equipment and weapons. A fair number were also special forces in either the Mexican military or in other foreign armed forces. I'm not saying they're at the same level as the US as far as special forces training, but it wouldn't be as one sided as you might think. Even if the US succeeded in wiping out a good number of them, the guys who actually run the cartels and hold power are mostly insulated or live in places that any direct assault would be asking for something bad to happen. Guys like El Chapo are mid to upper level management. Even if they took guys out at that level, there's going to be guys who take their place. But taking out the top guys is next to impossible. But even if that succeeded, there's still going to be someone who replaced them. So what should be done? Stopping the idiotic and wasteful "war on drugs". It has been an abject failure. If drug addiction was designated as a public health issue and treated as such, we would actually save money, decriminalization of small amounts, and redirect law enforcement to focus only on large scale trafficking, wholesalers, etc. We would save so much by doing that. Less people in prison, more money for drug counseling and in/outpatient treatment, and less barriers to being able to get your life back on track by not having a felony for possession on your record. But none of that is particularly exciting or doesn't sound like you'd be punishing drug addicts or people you don't like.

That isn't going to stop anyone.

That isn't a congressional action. That's just common sense. To be honest I wouldn't trust most people who own guns to not put out their own eye trying to spoon pudding into their mouth. I was qualified to carry a gun on duty and chose not to because I didn't feel it would do anything but possibly escalate a situation.

I don't believe that having unfettered access to firearms is the intent behind what the 2nd amendment is. It's an obsolete amendment that was created when there was a very real and reasonable threat towards this country existing. In the subsequent 250 years, I think we've eliminated the notion that we are going to be invaded. The last time a foreign country occupied any part of the territorial US was during WW2, and that was some remote Alaskan island. The military was more than capable of handling it. I think we should have some personal responsibility that goes with gun ownership. We have it with cars, why not guns? If you aren't mentally ill, not a criminal or anything, can pass a written test, demonstrate you know how to actually use your firearm properly, and insure it, then I don't have a problem with that. If you think you need a machine gun or something like that, that just shows how unqualified you are to own a gun.

Maybe I'll get a presidential pardon too.