Can you focus one bit on the crux of the issue? im not even going to try and derail this issue with the criminalization of sex workers and why it is a bad thing.
The point in bringing sex workers in the first place was a logical fallacy in the first place
"legalize drugs? may as well legalize slavery, DERP"
You can spin it as much as you want, the premise still stands.
If as you said "land is meaningless" why are they not immigrating directly into the US? why are they going all the way to Ecuador and taking a land route from Ecuador to Mexico.
No, i dont presume Americans are intellectually inferior.
I do presume you are intellectually dishonest.
Human trafficking is about more than sex trafficking, but I will
focus by not addressing that ignorance; rather the fact that the legalization of sex workers clearly doesn't cause (nor enjoy any linear correlation) to the liberalization of sex worker laws. Madagascar is a wonderful example illustrating two of my points; it is an island, where legalization of prostitutes is legal, and yet it is a "Tier 2: Watch List" or Tier 2b country in terms of human trafficking: one of the worst. No land bridge to pretend the problem is hopeless, nor to blame it on someone else.
I never said "land is meaningless". I pointed out that land was originally an ineffective trade route for the drug lords, but due to the fact competent nations can successfully control air/sea as ports of entry, the drug lords had to turn to this route, and that route has become more effective than either of the previous preferred routes because it was able to co-opt and disappear into the perpetual migrant flood.
The premise is simple. A large, physical wall is an effective physical deterrent against encroachment via the most facile, and currently most problematic form of
migration: the land bridge. If we understand that the river of drugs has been inextricably married to this migrant river, then we understand the necessity of stopping it, and how this will benefit both our nations. That has been demonstrated in this thread, and you yourself cannot deny this truth because you worked so hard to talk about the nature of the drug source, who controls it, and why Canada-- who also shares a land bridge-- isn't the burden to Americans seeking to control and stymie the drug trade. I spared myself additional legwork by manipulating you into making these arguments yourself in my dual-trolltrap thread last month.
Drug prohibition is unarguably more effective at deterring heroin use than a legal market, or even (more specifically) a pseudo-legal market. Honest attempts to understand why we are losing this war all point to you, and to our porous border. Separating children from their parents isn't an effective or humane way of ending this flood; especially when we consider how our dollars helped to create such a violent state some reasonably flee in search of "asylum"
. After all, Venezuela and Nicaragua are shitty socialist states that murder their own people, so of course some of these refugees have such a legitimate claim. This separation policy only creates an environment where the drug cartels and gangs can more effectively prey on and co-opt the migrant stream.
No, the honest solution to stemming their power, and gaining a leg up on the drug war, isn't to divide families, and it isn't to legalize hard drugs. The honest answer to this problem is that the key lies with controlling the migrant flood. We have to keep you out to sort the good from the bad, and to prevent the bad from achieving their base of power which is the disproportionate spending power they yield from drug sales in the American market.
It worked against the Mongols. It can work much more modestly for us. It was never my priority, or my desire, but if I am honest with myself, I can see no alternative effective long-term solution to the problem that could be projected by the state. Reduced costs of supply mean nothing in a market where demand is elastic.