Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Only if by "drug-users" you mean "some portion of pot smokers, and cocaine/crack users".

I also have a very hard time seeing their market as expanding, since drug use has been slowly (very slowly) declining for the past few decades (the war on drugs having a very marginally successful effect), the massive decrease in crack use, and the massive increase in US-based pot farms, in addition to the ever-increasing border security. If the cartels are increasing their operations, it's not because their market is growing but out of desperation to try to regain their market shares in the US, and is assuredly coming at the expense of what would otherwise have been all profit. The violence is not conflict over a thriving market, but the result of criminal syndicate overpopulation: there are too many cartels for the market to bear, and being criminal swine they've entered into an escalating conflict that's seen them transform into petty warlords to survive their competition.


Now just out of curiosity: how warlordy are they at this point? Full-blown mini-state warlord, sicilian mob closely-interwoven-with-the-civilian-population warlord, or something in between? How easy/hard would it be for the US to bring heavy firepower against them in an effective way (do they have distinct static bases of operation, or just safe houses hidden in civilian areas)? Would a US strike be a wave of drones and air-cav, or some drawn out mechanized infantry police action (not necessarily precluding the former)?

For all my opinion doesn't matter on the issue, it would be nice to know whether to look at any possible future US military involvement as a terrible, bumbling idea, or a clean if unpalatable solution to a serious problem.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
With only 2 bystanders killed, I'm actually slightly impressed. The cartel's certaintly weren't trying to minimize civilian casualities(unlike what our military does)

Oh I dunno about that.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

Almost 200 dead children seems a bit high in a country we're nominally allies with.

I guess this is trying to minimize casualties also?

http://www.dw.de/iraq-occupation-could-link-to-high-child-cancer-rates/a-15615222

You missed the whole 60,000 dead in Mexico thing last year, to make your cheap political shot.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Only if by "drug-users" you mean "some portion of pot smokers, and cocaine/crack users".

I also have a very hard time seeing their market as expanding, since drug use has been slowly (very slowly) declining for the past few decades (the war on drugs having a very marginally successful effect), the massive decrease in crack use, and the massive increase in US-based pot farms, in addition to the ever-increasing border security. If the cartels are increasing their operations, it's not because their market is growing but out of desperation to try to regain their market shares in the US, and is assuredly coming at the expense of what would otherwise have been all profit. The violence is not conflict over a thriving market, but the result of criminal syndicate overpopulation: there are too many cartels for the market to bear, and being criminal swine they've entered into an escalating conflict that's seen them transform into petty warlords to survive their competition.


Now just out of curiosity: how warlordy are they at this point? Full-blown mini-state warlord, sicilian mob closely-interwoven-with-the-civilian-population warlord, or something in between? How easy/hard would it be for the US to bring heavy firepower against them in an effective way (do they have distinct static bases of operation, or just safe houses hidden in civilian areas)? Would a US strike be a wave of drones and air-cav, or some drawn out mechanized infantry police action (not necessarily precluding the former)?

For all my opinion doesn't matter on the issue, it would be nice to know whether to look at any possible future US military involvement as a terrible, bumbling idea, or a clean if unpalatable solution to a serious problem.

A lot of the drugs you say are being grown or created in this country are done so by the cartels. As far as decrease in drug use, where are you getting your statistics from, because what I read says there is an increase in drug use:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/08/study-22-million-americans-use-illegal-drugs-3/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39200536/ns/health-addictions/t/illegal-drug-use-higher-nearly-decade-report-finds/#.UUHAUKN5mSM



A military strike, I think would not be the ticket unless we wanted to really have a pissed off population of immigrants in this country seeing family members killed in Mexico. If we got bogged down in there, it would be extremely bad.

Here's where that whole secure border thing comes in nice and handy. But I'm just that crazy ranty guy...

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's where that whole secure border thing comes in nice and handy. But I'm just that crazy ranty guy...

Secure borders would actually harm us more; such as it is, the borders are a deterrent rather than an actual wall against illegal immigrants (some who you would consider refugees due to the violence) and illegal activity.. If we were to make a wall, I could only assume that more people would die and our soldiers and border patrol agents would suffer to a greater degree than before.

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/03/progress_in_mexico_drug_war_is.html

Improved cooperation with the U.S. since then led to the recent arrests of 755 Sinaloa cartel suspects in U.S. cities and towns as small as Stowe, Iowa. Mexican authorities, meanwhile, rooted out more than two dozen high-level government security officials, including Mexico's former drug czar, who were allegedly paid to protect the same gang, Mexico's most powerful.

The U.S. Embassy reported a record 85 extraditions from Mexico to the U.S. in 2008, contributing to a power vacuum that sparked an all-out war among the cartels as they battle for routes to the U.S. and control of Mexico's growing domestic drug market.

These successes, however, come with a brutal cost: skyrocketing violence in Mexico, with twice as many deaths last year and more than 1,000 people killed in the first eight weeks of this year; more than 560 kidnappings in Phoenix in 2007 and the first half of 2008, and more than two dozen shootings so far this year in Vancouver, British Columbia, where a shortage of cocaine from Mexico has pushed prices up from $23,300 to almost $39,000 a kilo.

 WarOne wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's where that whole secure border thing comes in nice and handy. But I'm just that crazy ranty guy...

Secure borders would actually harm us more; such as it is, the borders are a deterrent rather than an actual wall against illegal immigrants (some who you would consider refugees due to the violence) and illegal activity.. If we were to make a wall, I could only assume that more people would die and our soldiers and border patrol agents would suffer to a greater degree than before.

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/03/progress_in_mexico_drug_war_is.html

Improved cooperation with the U.S. since then led to the recent arrests of 755 Sinaloa cartel suspects in U.S. cities and towns as small as Stowe, Iowa. Mexican authorities, meanwhile, rooted out more than two dozen high-level government security officials, including Mexico's former drug czar, who were allegedly paid to protect the same gang, Mexico's most powerful.

The U.S. Embassy reported a record 85 extraditions from Mexico to the U.S. in 2008, contributing to a power vacuum that sparked an all-out war among the cartels as they battle for routes to the U.S. and control of Mexico's growing domestic drug market.

These successes, however, come with a brutal cost: skyrocketing violence in Mexico, with twice as many deaths last year and more than 1,000 people killed in the first eight weeks of this year; more than 560 kidnappings in Phoenix in 2007 and the first half of 2008, and more than two dozen shootings so far this year in Vancouver, British Columbia, where a shortage of cocaine from Mexico has pushed prices up from $23,300 to almost $39,000 a kilo.

Not seeing where More security equals more deaths for us here.
Get the army out of the rest of the world (SK looking at you) and put them on the borders like we had in the 1890s and early 1900s. This is getting worse, not better.
Its almost like DHS foresees this and bought 1.4billion rounds and 2700MRAPS...

Mexico has become a cluster feth. I wouldn't travel there for any money.

 kronk wrote:
Mexico has become a cluster feth. I wouldn't travel there for any money.

It's kind of a shame.

A lot of the country is beautiful, and the food is tremendous.

No you guys are completely right, I didn't walk off a training course with 5 pop flares, a cs grenade and smoke pot. I realize that theyre not the same, but i believe some of you have a much stricter idea of what goes on in an Army base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No you guys are completely right, I didn't walk off a training course with 5 pop flares, a cs grenade and smoke pot. I realize that theyre not the same, but i believe some of you have a much stricter idea of what goes on in an Army base.

 kronk wrote:
Mexico has become a cluster feth. I wouldn't travel there for any money.

I hear some stories from my buds that used to live there and I can't blame them for wanting to get out.

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's where that whole secure border thing comes in nice and handy. But I'm just that crazy ranty guy...

As a recent (legal) immigrant should I be worried that I think the same thing?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's where that whole secure border thing comes in nice and handy. But I'm just that crazy ranty guy...

As a recent (legal) immigrant should I be worried that I think the same thing?

Sure, I mean arn't you just a little bit peeved that you had to go through a bunch of hoops while a ton of people routinely just walk over here without having to go through all that red tape?

There have been protests done by legal immigrants over this very issue and I have talked with a number of legal immigrants myself that felt the same way.

 fire4effekt wrote:
No you guys are completely right, I didn't walk off a training course with 5 pop flares, a cs grenade and smoke pot. I realize that theyre not the same, but i believe some of you have a much stricter idea of what goes on in an Army base.

I have a TON of Sparklers I totally got at a discount on July 5th last year...

Well, I should have qualified my statement by saying that I was referring to disciplined and professional military units.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Here's where that whole secure border thing comes in nice and handy. But I'm just that crazy ranty guy...

As a recent (legal) immigrant should I be worried that I think the same thing?

Not at all. Having a strong border has little to do with legal immigration.
I'll note Mexico has historically been a problem along the border. I had relatives attacked by Pancho Villa many moons ago. Even earlier I remember when the Aztec volcano worshoping raptors were a threat. Those eyes, those bright red eyes in the moonlight...it still sends shivers down my spine.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, I mean arn't you just a little bit peeved that you had to go through a bunch of hoops while a ton of people routinely just walk over here without having to go through all that red tape?

There have been protests done by legal immigrants over this very issue and I have talked with a number of legal immigrants myself that felt the same way.

A little peeved doesn't even begin to cover it. I was apart from my wife for almost a year from the time that we applied for the visa. We had paperwork that involved justifying our relationship and proving that we were in love and wanted to be together, background checks, fees, all sorts of vaccinations, a medical exam, full disclosure of any past convictions/warnings/arrests (there were none), an interview at the US Embassy about our relationship and to make sure that I had never outstayed any visit to the United States (which could be punished with a 3 year, 10 year or lifetime ban from entering the country) and now that I'm here I have had to apply for parole to leave the country (if I don't and leave the US for whatever reason then we have to start over), for permission to work and to start adjusting my legal status so I can start the pathway to citizenship. When I was in the country and applying for my permission to work illegal immigrants who had applied for deferred action after we submitted our paperwork were getting approved ahead of us. Not including the time that was spent and the moments we'll never get back its also cost us thousands in fees to Homeland Security, fees for the medical and other items like travel, postage, necessary documents. One of the conditions of the visa was also that my wife prove her earnings, income, investments etc. to prove that I would not become a financial burden on the US, so she had to sign an affidavit that she earned over the threshold and that I would not claim any public assistance for ten years.

Now I watch the news about immigration and I see that they want to give amnesty to up to 11 million illegal immigrants and start them on the path to citizenship were they can claim public assistance (and the overwhelming majority of those here illegally are low skilled manual laborers) and those that defrauded the Social Security System for claiming back taxes that they were not entitled to or fraudulently using Social Security Numbers will get to pay a fine, whereas a legal immigrant could be barred from entering the country because that is classed as a crime against moral turpitude. The President of the United States, who is a law graduate and published papers on law, has decided to favour those who show no respect to the law of the land, but instead have come here unlawfully and pleaded for special treatment while those of us who have shown this country the respect it deserves have been ignored.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not at all. Having a strong border has little to do with legal immigration.

Sadly there are some people out there who like to deliberately confuse legal and illegal immigration

This sounds horrible....

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, I mean arn't you just a little bit peeved that you had to go through a bunch of hoops while a ton of people routinely just walk over here without having to go through all that red tape?

There have been protests done by legal immigrants over this very issue and I have talked with a number of legal immigrants myself that felt the same way.

A little peeved doesn't even begin to cover it. I was apart from my wife for almost a year from the time that we applied for the visa. We had paperwork that involved justifying our relationship and proving that we were in love and wanted to be together, background checks, fees, all sorts of vaccinations, a medical exam, full disclosure of any past convictions/warnings/arrests (there were none), an interview at the US Embassy about our relationship and to make sure that I had never outstayed any visit to the United States (which could be punished with a 3 year, 10 year or lifetime ban from entering the country) and now that I'm here I have had to apply for parole to leave the country (if I don't and leave the US for whatever reason then we have to start over), for permission to work and to start adjusting my legal status so I can start the pathway to citizenship. When I was in the country and applying for my permission to work illegal immigrants who had applied for deferred action after we submitted our paperwork were getting approved ahead of us. Not including the time that was spent and the moments we'll never get back its also cost us thousands in fees to Homeland Security, fees for the medical and other items like travel, postage, necessary documents. One of the conditions of the visa was also that my wife prove her earnings, income, investments etc. to prove that I would not become a financial burden on the US, so she had to sign an affidavit that she earned over the threshold and that I would not claim any public assistance for ten years.

Now I watch the news about immigration and I see that they want to give amnesty to up to 11 million illegal immigrants and start them on the path to citizenship were they can claim public assistance (and the overwhelming majority of those here illegally are low skilled manual laborers) and those that defrauded the Social Security System for claiming back taxes that they were not entitled to or fraudulently using Social Security Numbers will get to pay a fine, whereas a legal immigrant could be barred from entering the country because that is classed as a crime against moral turpitude. The President of the United States, who is a law graduate and published papers on law, has decided to favour those who show no respect to the law of the land, but instead have come here unlawfully and pleaded for special treatment while those of us who have shown this country the respect it deserves have been ignored.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not at all. Having a strong border has little to do with legal immigration.

Its substantially more than 11 million. Thats the line the MsM is spouting.
Sadly there are some people out there who like to deliberately confuse legal and illegal immigration

 Frazzled wrote:
Its substantially more than 11 million. Thats the line the MsM is spouting.

That sadly doesn't surprise me. Most of the information that I can find about the impact of illegal immigrantion is a few years old.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure, I mean arn't you just a little bit peeved that you had to go through a bunch of hoops while a ton of people routinely just walk over here without having to go through all that red tape?

There have been protests done by legal immigrants over this very issue and I have talked with a number of legal immigrants myself that felt the same way.

A little peeved doesn't even begin to cover it. I was apart from my wife for almost a year from the time that we applied for the visa. We had paperwork that involved justifying our relationship and proving that we were in love and wanted to be together, background checks, fees, all sorts of vaccinations, a medical exam, full disclosure of any past convictions/warnings/arrests (there were none), an interview at the US Embassy about our relationship and to make sure that I had never outstayed any visit to the United States (which could be punished with a 3 year, 10 year or lifetime ban from entering the country) and now that I'm here I have had to apply for parole to leave the country (if I don't and leave the US for whatever reason then we have to start over), for permission to work and to start adjusting my legal status so I can start the pathway to citizenship. When I was in the country and applying for my permission to work illegal immigrants who had applied for deferred action after we submitted our paperwork were getting approved ahead of us. Not including the time that was spent and the moments we'll never get back its also cost us thousands in fees to Homeland Security, fees for the medical and other items like travel, postage, necessary documents. One of the conditions of the visa was also that my wife prove her earnings, income, investments etc. to prove that I would not become a financial burden on the US, so she had to sign an affidavit that she earned over the threshold and that I would not claim any public assistance for ten years.

Now I watch the news about immigration and I see that they want to give amnesty to up to 11 million illegal immigrants and start them on the path to citizenship were they can claim public assistance (and the overwhelming majority of those here illegally are low skilled manual laborers) and those that defrauded the Social Security System for claiming back taxes that they were not entitled to or fraudulently using Social Security Numbers will get to pay a fine, whereas a legal immigrant could be barred from entering the country because that is classed as a crime against moral turpitude. The President of the United States, who is a law graduate and published papers on law, has decided to favour those who show no respect to the law of the land, but instead have come here unlawfully and pleaded for special treatment while those of us who have shown this country the respect it deserves have been ignored.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not at all. Having a strong border has little to do with legal immigration.

Sadly there are some people out there who like to deliberately confuse legal and illegal immigration

That's an Epic rant man... take an exalt.

I think this re-enforces the idea that the process for LEGAL immigration needs a massive overhaul.

Curious whembly here... how would you address the LEGAL immigration so that it's not so onerous... and, how would you address the illegal immigrants?

 whembly wrote:
That's an Epic rant man... take an exalt.

I think this re-enforces the idea that the process for LEGAL immigration needs a massive overhaul.

Curious whembly here... how would you address the LEGAL immigration so that it's not so onerous... and, how would you address the illegal immigrants?

Thank you

With legal immigrantion I do believe that they, by and large, have a reasonable process in place. I understand that they need to verify that people coming into the country are suitable, do not carry a communicable disease and are not a risk to the population by virtue of mental health, addiction, criminal past etc. The only things that I think would expedite the process for legal migrants is more investment in staff and training. The billions that illegal immigration costs the United States should help offset this cost.

For legal immigration there could be a lot more, and clearer, information available. I do feel sorry for anyone who is in the position of speaking basic English when they come here. If they published flowcharts of what forms to submit and when as a whole process then it would make things clearer. Many non-government forums with advice from people who went through the process are more useful than what Homeland Security has produced. One of the things my wife and I fell foul of was the requirement that we had to prove that we'd met within two years of the petition. As part of this proof we'd sent them the email itineraries, photographs of us with date stamps (and also holding that week's paper), tickets from things we'd done together and sporting events we'd attended (with scoreboard in the background). What they don't specify is that they have two different classes of evidence - Primary evidence like the actual boarding passes (their instructions said that the booking emails were suitable evidence), and everything else. Had we not kept the boarding cards then we would have been in a world of trouble.
Also regional differences seem to cause issues. I lived in Northern Ireland and hold an Irish Passport, my police certificates had to come from the UK. When I went to the Embassy in London I was almost refused an interview because the lady dealing with my documents was refusing to allow me through without police certificates from the Republic of Ireland, even though I never lived there. Thankfully a supervisor was able to clear this up. I've heard of other petitions refused because the divorce laws, and the associated documents, vary from what is used in the United States.

Communication between the different branches of Homeland Security needs to be improved drastically. For months we got a very clear picture that the left has no idea what the right hand does when we were trying to locate paperwork that I was supposed to have received upon entering the US, but another branch of Homeland Security was eventually able to tell us that particular paperwork wouldn't exist for me because of the visa I entered under. So that was months of stress, phone calls, train trips and delaying my applications for adjusting status, to work and parole to leave if needed, not to mention held up applying for a Social Security Number and driving licence.


As far as illegal immigrants go my own opinion is that they have no lawful right to be in the United States, whether by virtue of entering illegally or outstaying their visa. I believe that they should be returned to their country of origin and serve any ban from entering the United States due from their illegal presence. They can then apply to enter the United States legally and take their place in line with everyone else. I support ICE doing their job of detecting and removing illegal immigrants, and prosecution of those who attempt to impede them (including officials in "sanctuary cities"). I do not think that the US taxpayer should have to foot the bill for the incarceration of illegal immigrants guilty of committing crimes who will be deported after their sentence, they should be deported and excluded from the United States for life. If anyone willingly and knowingly hires an illegal immigrant then that person should be subject to a significant monetary penalty to offset the attraction of paying under the table and possible jail time. I have no problem with work visas as long as they are properly monitored to ensure that no one abuses the privilege, maybe a monetary deposit would encourage this.


I don't understand how in some circles that the United States exercising border control, like virtually every other nation, is controversial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should also have added that I am in support of gay couples being given the same immigration right as hetrosexual coupes.

For its many faults the immigration process is better than what I have seen being implemented in the UK as I was leaving. For me to return to the UK with my wife I need to be employed in a job for I believe a year, and be earning 40,000 GBP a year. Her earnings are not taken into account - she could be a billionaire and I could work part time stacking shelves and we wouldn't get in. This has taken the ability for married couples to live together out of the range of many couples with a non-UK partner because the government had to look tough on immigration after all their talk.