Immigrant Arrives at Texas Port of Entry Posing with Underage ‘Daughter’ he had been Raping

Your claim:

most drugs enter through legal points of entry

The claim in the article that you posted:

most drugs confiscated at the border are carried by immigrants passing through legal points of entry, not by those apprehended for crossing the border illegally

Lots of drugs come through the southern border that are not confiscated. How many illegal border crossers evade detection each year? What will the be market value of the drugs carried by those people? What about the value of the drugs that successfully pass through ports of entry? We don't know the answer to these questions.

Why do they keep sending drugs through legal points of entry if they are at a higher chance to be caught?
 
Why do they keep sending drugs through legal points of entry if they are at a higher chance to be caught?

So they can be on those TV shows . . . duh.
 
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
081ed6f9-80f2-4193-ac7f-4f4d980e7a9b.png
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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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:
    1024x1024.jpg

    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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
<seedat>
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.
 
@Madmick

I never said it was, I said what other reason is there to traffic children than the sex trade. There is none
 
You're focusing on outliers that you like. The Portuguese model? Why not the Chinese model?

I can testify personally to this. China's drug policies are extremely harsh. When I lived there---in multiple cities over many years---it was clear that drug use just wasn't nearly the problem that it is in the US. Of course, correlation is not causation. For example, the Chinese family is in much better shape than the American family. Fathers are almost always present. This can discourage drug use. Still, I think there would be a lot more drug use if e.g. China didn't summarily execute drug dealers.
 
@Madmick

I never said it was, I said what other reason is there to traffic children than the sex trade. There is none
Then you're ignorant. You've never heard of child slave labor?

Also, it depends on how we define "child". My original post in this thread cited an article that discussed disproportionate influx of minors among the migrant traffic, and how agents believe that is probably the cartel capitalizing on our laws that are more lenient towards them, and not adults.
 
@Madmick

A child, by law, is anyone under the age of 18

And sex slaves is slave labor brah
 
@Madmick

A child, by law, is anyone under the age of 18
That depends on which legal body you are referencing. You are taking for granted UN law as our specific context. Depending on the country or state-- the legal body holding jurisdiction-- and the provision in question, certain laws define a "minor" at different ages, and so it becomes important to establish what our specific parameter is. Mexico, for instance, grants majority status at 14 and 16 to protect "children" from certain types of labor.
And sex slaves is slave labor brah
Okay. What about forced textile labor, brah? What about forced weed trimming, brah? What about forced fruit-picking, brah?
https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/child-slavery/
http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/child-labour/lang--en/index.htm
https://www.hrw.org/topic/childrens-rights/child-labor
  • Worldwide 10 million children are in slavery, trafficking, debt bondage and other forms of forced labour, forced recruitment for armed conflict, prostitution, pornography and other illicit activities (ILO)
  • 151.6 million are estimated to be in child labour (ILO)
  • 114 million child labourers are below the age of 14 (ILO)
  • 72 million children are in hazardous work that directly endangers their health, safety and moral development (ILO)
  • more than 700 million women alive today were married before their 18th birthday. More than one in three (about 250 million) entered into union before age 15 (UNICEF)
  • 300,000 children are estimated to serve as child soldiers, some even younger than 10 years old (UNICEF)
  • 15.5 million children are in domestic work worldwide – the overwhelming majority of them are girls (ILO)
  • In the UK, 981 children were referred to authorities as potential victims of trafficking in 2015 (National Crime Agency)
Child labour is concentrated primarily in agriculture (71%), which includes fishing, forestry, livestock herding and aquaculture, and comprises both subsistence and commercial farming; 17% in Services; and 12% in the Industrial sector, including mining.
To your question: "What other reason is there to traffick children than the sex trade?" The answer is: anything having to do with money.

They are little slaves. A little slave is still a useful slave. I know you didn't realize it, but merely by asking that question you demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of the topic. Little details like this make it easy to pick the greenhorns out.
 
No, I clearly don't agree with you, and I'm not sure how you're still confused about that.

Because you are all over the place.

Originally i was arguing that demand of drugs in America existed before drug cartels. And that drug cartels arose in Mexico after the US started cracking on the sea routes.

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.

Im quite sure that most of Madagascar victims of trafficking are Madagascarians themselves.

Also you claim that being an island is a flaw in my logic when you were the one who said that England was lucky not to have a land border with Mexico.

So you are making an argument for both sides.

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?

Non-sequitur

Also gun laws in Mexico work quite well when it comes to petty criminals access to them. Druglords are importing said weapons from places where guns are legal, like America.

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
undefined

Just to be clear.

Are you in favor of the death penalty for people pushing drugs?

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.

The Portuguese problem was addressing demand, not offer.

America demand for drugs predates Mexican cartels by decades.

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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:
    1024x1024.jpg

    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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?

Strawman.

I never said the US shouldnt control its borders, you tried to make it as this child migrants were moving the biggest payloads and thats a falsehood.

And precisely because there are millions of crossings and billions of goods moving a year that its much easier to move through legal points of entry.

Or as you pointed out, people driving through the inhospitable parts of the borders and moving weight, but guess what, migrants arent using these regions to cross either.

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?

More strawman arguments.

My point was that the land bridge is the reason why Mexican cartels became the powerhouses that they are.

My other point is that Mexico isnt forcing America to consume drugs, your demand is fueling our cartels not otherwise. Its a bilateral problem.

You are sending guns and money, we are sending drugs, both would benefit if the flow stopped. However its been demonstrated that its far easier (and humane) to attack demand than supply.

Then you have the whole ethical argument about freedom and the right to put whatever the fuck you want inside your body.
 
How many shitty threads are we going to get representing the picture? Every time an immigrant commits any sort of crime? Jesus, it's almost as if TS has an animus at play.......
 
How many shitty threads are we going to get representing the picture? Every time an immigrant commits any sort of crime? Jesus, it's almost as if TS has an animus at play.......
Some people don't want to just look the other way. Some people care about issues.
 
Some people don't want to just look the other way. Some people care about issues.

Bringing up anecdotal crimes by group X in service of an absurdly larger point is a foolish exercise. Thread after thread about one group committing crimes, never with a broader point, or providing any sort of scale. Nope, simply anecdote.

That is how idiots care for things.
 
Bringing up anecdotal crimes by group X in service of an absurdly larger point is a foolish exercise. Thread after thread about one group committing crimes, never with a broader point, or providing any sort of scale. Nope, simply anecdote.

That is how idiots care for things.
So we should ignore the fact that people claim their victims as their children to try and get access to the US?
 
Do you have trouble reading?

I will leave figuring out the absurdity of your assertion to you. Having said that, do you believe this is a serious issue? And if so, do you have anything but a single anecdotal crime to back this assertion? As of now, it seems you guys are consistently looking at the worse criminal acts done to or by illegal immigrants, and presenting this as an argument against, well, I don't even know. None of you have articulated this yet.
 
I will leave figuring out the absurdity of your assertion to you. Having said that, do you believe this is a serious issue? And if so, do you have anything but a single anecdotal crime to back this assertion? As of now, it seems you guys are consistently looking at the worse criminal acts done to or by illegal immigrants, and presenting this as an argument against, well, I don't even know. None of you have articulated this yet.
If it happens once is that ok?
 
Back
Top