Please do tell how trafficking children has any other ending than the sex trade
Children aren't the only humans who are trafficked. Drug mules, slave labor, and forced paramilitary service are three other exploitative dimensions of human trafficking.
I dont know shit about Madagascar to make an informed opinion and its too damn far outside of the scope of the discussion. You are simply trying to derail up until a point that its too tiresome to chase and will reply with "concession accepted".
FACT is that its far easier to smuggle through land routes than water routes, by a freaking lot.
So you do agree with me now?
And you have the nerve to criticize Trump? most drugs enter come through points of entry.
https://tucson.com/news/local/borde...cle_46653d40-7f63-5102-bb38-38da58c06a76.html
False.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/portugal-heroin-decriminalization/
No, I clearly don't agree with you, and I'm not sure how you're still confused about that.
Madagascar is just an an example that demonstrates the flaw in your logic. You believe there is some linear correlation between liberalization (as with prostitution) and human trafficking, but there isn't, and this is observed on an island where (as you would believe) you can't point to land bridges to blame surrounding countries.
You have cited nearly half a dozen sources in this thread alone where you have radically
misinterpreted what the source is saying. Now you're trying to point to Portugal. I'm well aware of Portugal. It has become to would-be narcotics liberalizers what Australia has become to gun abolitionists. Tell me, how are those handgun-only laws working to keep long guns and fully automatic firearms off your streets in Mexico? The latter aren't legal, here, either. How are
your buybacks doing? You tried them exactly the same as Australia. How has that gone?
You're focusing on outliers that you like. The Portuguese model? Why not the Chinese model? Why no Vietnam or Myanmar? Why not the draconian anti-drug laws that enjoy such wild success throughout most of Southeast Asia? You're not a college student anymore. You should have evolved to the point that you can accept (or are at least willing to learn about) the data you don't like:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-use/by-country/
and
https://www.globaldrugsurvey.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/last-12-months-drug-prevalence.pdf
This is why instead of talking about the drug problem in Madagascar, for example, I was talking about the drug problem in the USA, and our ballooning opioid epidemic. Of course, you were ignorant about the nature of this problem because you posted a source which said the exact opposite thing you assumed. Availability of opiates ballooned our opioid epidemic. Our elective incomes and our marriage to the Latin American migrant problem co-opted by drug cartels of unrivaled power sets us apart. I used to look at the Portuguese model, but now I understand it bears no relevance on the shape of my own country's drug problems.
I see now you wish to grasp for some rationale against controlling our border by pointing to our legal border channels. You didn't think this point through, either:
- It's an almost entirely uncontrolled border. What are the most heavily policed stretches with the highest ratio of border patrol per mile across our entire shared border? Indeed, the legal ports. You argue we should leave the rest of that border uncontrolled when the places where it is most controlled are reflecting the greatest success in capturing illicit drugs. This is inherently contradictory.
- Furthermore, border patrol agents are tasked primarily with monitoring illegal migration. Customs officers (such as those at the ports) are primarily tasked with the stopping the flow of illicit goods into our country.
- Expanding on that point, if you wish to frame it in this fashion, right now we're seizing ~500K border jumpers per year. San Ysidro alone sees 70,000 vehicles and 20,000 pedestrians cross northbound each day. One would assume these are all visitors or returning legal residents, although I'm sure some are bold enough to attempt passage through them, but did you do the math on that?
20% of drugs = 500K crossings
80% of drugs = 32.85m* crossings
*Remember, this is just a single access port
- Drugs seized at the border do not constitute the only drugs that have crossed the border. We seize drugs that crossed the border that we know weren't locally sourced, too, but you didn't care to look that up. Here, you can look at a map of major drug busts in Texas from 2014-2017:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1bUIY-KNq6Bh_Yii70Z4TrPYs5Io&ll=30.155287934210865,-97.58917077804563&z=8
Notice they tend to take place along highways and interstates that lead to Mexico. That's because our major drug busts compose the majority of the weight we seize, and weight like this is best moved with mechanization:
Of course, one of the known favored methods of transferring this type of weight is to drive it off-road across uncontrolled sections of our border, then exchange the weight, and has been for decades, as seen in the popular movie No Country for Old Men, or to drive up to these sections of fencing, where there is more likely to be fencing because it is easier for vehicles to cross, throw the drugs over the fence in duffel bags, and then have cartel members on the other side drive to pick up the offloaded shipment. We've caught our own border patrol agents participating in those schemes. In fact, this is the most popular method among border patrol defectors. Why do you think that is? Border agents themselves will testify they are much less likely to ever even know these exchanges took place. We're finding goddamn tiger cubs being exchanged in this fashion. I'm willing to bet we've seized more illegal wildlife at legal ports of entry, too, but for no other reason than we're actually looking, there.
- How do we know that illegals are more likely to be involved in these routes, and to support them? Those figures are revealed by the rate at which these illegals are more likely to be arrested themselves trafficking drugs! You may have forgotten, already, but I cited that statistic on the last page:
- 42.4 percent of kidnapping convictions {5x legal citizens}
- 31.5 percent of drug convictions {4x legal citizens}
- 22.9 percent of money laundering convictions {3x legal citizens}
- 13.4 percent of administration of justice offenses (e.g. witness tampering, obstruction, and contempt) {nearly 2x legal citizens}
In addition to the above stats, as I cited in that same post, we have witnessed a disproportionate number of underage migrants crossing the border, too. Why the discrepancy? I tend to favor the assessment of our drug agents, and believe it is a means of the cartels establishing an easily controlled labor base in this country. It is naive to look only at heavily monitored shipment routes when that is a fraction of its empire. You need someone to ship to. These are its roots.
- The truth is that most of our border agents are relegated to patrols who aren't working drug monitoring at those ports. As my article on the previous page pointed out the cartels deliberately wait for a rush of migrants, or groups they have sent themselves, which our border agents must respond to intercept. They then exploit the distraction to push the drugs across. Wall = no distractions = we can focus on the drugs.
- Expanding on this point more broadly, building the wall would be extraordinarily expensive, but it would also mean we wouldn't have to waste manpower on those patrols, and could focus much greater resources on policing those accessible ports you're so worried about. We have developing subterranean archaeological imaging technology to combat tunnels. We have drones we can use to look for modified cannons or other obvious adaptations to maintain the drop-off model in spite of a wall.
- The final point should be obvious from the above, but as @waiguoren pointed out-- the big question: we know that we are only successfully seizing a tiny amount of the drugs crossing the border...so where are the rest passing through?
You agree that the land bridge has become the primary means of drug trafficking, following successful control of sea, then air, yet you are insistent that the land bridge itself cannot be controlled. Why not? If it's so easy to get drugs across through legal channels, then why aren't we seizing such large amounts of drugs through legal ports of travel for returning citizens and visitors on boats or in planes?
Be my guest, i wonder which foreigners will you blame next when you realize that drugs are still readily available in your streets.
Perhaps. One step at a time.