Ask Me Help Desk - Border wars

Hello:

Since my "Let's talk" thread has turned into home decorating, I thought I'd start this one. It's OK, because I want to make an outlandish suggestion. I say outlandish, because I know how radical my solution sounds to you... I, on the other hand, I believe YOUR solution (the drug war/prohibition) to be an outlandish idea - especially since we HAVE a history with it. Yes, we HAVE a history with it. It actually HAPPENED right here, in the good ole US of A. It's NOT just a liberal idea.

The drug war has been intensifying for the last 30 years. Every time we "crack down", drug warriors are SURPRISED that it didn't work. Given that the drug cartels have TAKEN over Columbia, it should be NO surprise that the war is advancing northward. Yet, the drug warriors in the US, who started the whole thing, ARE surprised, and they KEEP on being surprised...

I don't know. What surprises me, is the surprise of the drug warriors. We DO have a history. SOME of us remember it.

Like I've suggested MANY times on these pages, in recent times, when we identify an enemy, we immediately shoot somebody else. If the reason you support the Arizona law is because of the drug war, you're shooting in the WRONG direction...

excon

What, precisely, was the suggestion?

Do you suspect some supporters of the Arizona law of only supporting it because of the drug war?

I support it because it authorizes local law enforcement to enforce Federal laws already on the books. Having read through it, it looks like that's all the Arizona law does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

What, precisely, was the suggestion?

Do you suspect some supporters of the Arizona law of only supporting it because of the drug war?

Hello Cats:

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Ending the drug war.

FEAR is what drove the law in Arizona. FEAR is what drives our drug laws. I suggest if we END the drug war, the border war would END of its own accord. Hence, there would be no NEED for the Arizona law.

excon

Not much room for debate here. Prohibition doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

The downside is that if we ended it, all those DEA agents would have to go back and finish high school.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Not much room for debate here.

Hello again, Cats:

Oh, no?? Just you wait... They'll say, all we need to do is "crack down". Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

PS> You DO know that Americas toughest sheriff, Joe Arpio, who believes that assaulting the masculinity of his prisoners is a GOOD law enforcement tool, WAS a DEA agent before he was elected. I wonder if there's a connection... Hmmmm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

PS> You DO know that Americas toughest sheriff, Joe Arpio, ... WAS a DEA agent before he was elected.

I did not know that. It does explain his disregard of "traditional" corrections theory. Then again, theories that led to Attica back in the day kind of scream for a re-examination anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catsmine

theories that led to Attica back in the day kind of scream for a re-examination anyway.

Hello again, Cats:

As noted earlier, we really DON'T seem to learn from our past... After Attica there was a complete reinventing of our correctional system geared more toward rehabilitation instead of punishment. But, that ended in 1988 with the Willie Horton episode, and get tough on crime has been the mantra ever since. It's turned us into the worlds largest jailer.

I don't know. We seem to get that if you poke a wild animal with a stick while he's caged up, you'd better NEVER let him out. But, we poke sticks at virtually every one of our prisoners, and then let 99% of 'em go. Then we're surprised to find out they're pissed off. What's up with THAT?

On the positive side, Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, has introduced a bill that'll change it all. It hasn't passed, but the conversation has begun.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Cats:

As noted earlier, we really DON'T seem to learn from our past... After Attica there was a complete reinventing of our correctional system geared more toward rehabilitation instead of punishment. But, that ended in 1988 with the Willie Horton episode, and get tough on crime has been the mantra ever since. It's turned us into the worlds largest jailer.

I dunno. We seem to get that if you poke a wild animal with a stick while he's caged up, you better NEVER let him out. But, we poke sticks at virtually every one of our prisoners, and then let 99% of 'em go. Then we're surprised to find out they're pissed off. What's up with THAT?

On the positive side, Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, has introduced a bill that'll change it all. It hasn't passed, but the conversation has begun.

excon

Have you got a link for that bill?

My theories/beliefs/feelings on criminality are by and large too outre` for public consumption. I think that prison is an insult to my dignity as a part of society. Jails are needed short term but warehousing people is stupid and ineffective.

Hello again, Cats:

I can't find a link to the specific bill, but here's a link to his senate webpage about it.

excon

PS> (edited) I suspect that once we agreed on exactly what IS crime, our solutions wouldn't be so different.

Sure spend time locking up the ones caught up in the organized greed for profits, and let the money flow.

Makes as much sense as chasing people who want work, and ignoring the ones who give them jobs, and low wages. They are the ones who benefit.

I agree though that Arizona is reacting to fear, and logic has gone out the window, since sending them back is the knee jerk solution to all their immigration problems. Just like locking up the users of the drugs, that make criminals so dangerous, and rich.

I would hate to see what would happen if employers had to pay a fair wage to legal immigrants, and how much drugs would stop being smuggled, and how empty the jails would be, if drugs were decriminalized, and taxed.

Ya think Arizona could afford to guard their own borders? Without profiling? I mean who walks through the dessert knowing they can't get work??

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I agree though that Arizona is reacting to fear,

Here we disagree. From everything I've seen Arizona is acting out of disgust that the Feds won't do their job enforcing immigration laws already on the books.

We can debate that, as it seems pretty clear that this new law was enacted after events that have instilled a fear into the law abiding citizenry, but the fact remains that the feds have indeed stepped up their border enforcement, as far as man power, and money. Its not enough.

But the history of any immigration reforms, has been fought tooth and nail, by big money interests for years. More so, what most don't know is not only the effects of drug trafficking on border states, but the business policies of many top echelon corporations that have laid off workers, and shuttered factories in the U.S. built them within the Mexican border, and exploited the cheaper labor cost by essentially turning them into sweat shops, then they closed those for a more profitable third world country.

The new law targets people looking for money any money, but does nothing for the reasons they sneak over here, somebody will give them a few bucks to work all day and make them some big cash.

Take away those that lure them here, you take away the motive to take a risk, and sneak here. Not the entire solution, but one that separates a working person from a criminal, as with the passing of recent events, as the shooting of a rancher, and I submit to you prevent the lumping of criminals, with those looking for work.

This new law is a direct reaction to the criminal element of illegal immigrants, but targets all who are illegal.

You think you're going to round up half a million men, women, and children, in Arizona, and not have serious blow back from the community they come from??

Think again, as there is a financial cost to the state for such an undertaking, if in nothing else but bus fare, and feeding, that many to get them back to the other side.

Not only is it fear of the criminal element, this new law doesn't even begin to address all the complex phases of securing the border, catching the criminals, rounding up half a million people, and moving them. That makes it illogical, not very well thought out, and chance of success almost zero.

That's because the federal law is vague, and unsustainable, and very hard to enforce. Just the way I see it though. I have been know to be wrong. But I wonder why Arizona chose to enact a bad law, rather than get the feds to participate on a greater level? Why is the crime rate actually going down in the places most affected by illegal immigrants? Why are these facts not brought out by the officials who wrote the law? I can only guess its because the progress made so far has been overshadowed greatly by the political climate and the looming elections.

Politicians have a way of making their case for reelection by putting a face on a boogy man they can oppose, that scares the hell out of their constituents. That's why I think fear and not pragmatism is the reason why we have what we have in Arizona, and I see the same thing happening here in Texas very soon. As I said FEAR!!

Don't get me wrong, we all should be up in arms against criminals, but do we have to take it out on the woman and children too? That's what the new law is all about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Since my "Let's talk" thread has turned into home decorating, I thought I'd start this one. It's ok, because I want to make an outlandish suggestion. I say outlandish, because I know how radical my solution sounds to you... I, on the other hand, I believe YOUR solution (the drug war/prohibition) to be an outlandish idea - especially since we HAVE a history with it. Yes, we HAVE a history with it. It actually HAPPENED right here, in the good ole US of A. It's NOT just a liberal idea.

The drug war has been intensifying for the last 30 years. Every time we "crack down", drug warriors are SURPRISED that it didn't work. Given that the drug cartels have TAKEN over Columbia, it should be NO surprise that the war is advancing northward. Yet, the drug warriors in the US, who started the whole thing, ARE surprised, and they KEEP on being surprised.....

I dunno. What surprises me, is the surprise of the drug warriors. We DO have a history. SOME of us remember it.

Like I've suggested MANY times on these pages, in recent times, when we identify an enemy, we immediately shoot somebody else. If the reason you support the Arizona law is because of the drug war, you're shooting in the WRONG direction.....

excon

First, immigration laws are about that - law. A law and a policy that is suppose to support and enforce national sovereignty. What other country in the world does not have its own immigration laws? Does any other country have an open border policy? Does Mexico? Why should someone who immigrates legally have to go through a painstaking process that takes years and costs thousands of dollars. Is it, to use the liberal catchword for every debate, FAIR to the legal immigrant?

G&P

Well said, in. Why is it OK to violate Title 8 but not the other ones? If these same people came from Honduras into Mexico they would serve at least 2 years and have everything confiscated and then be sent back.

Hi ex what gets me about this "war" on drugs is the US has demonstrated it has the capability to take out with drones whoever it pleases in Pakistan and yet it's advisaries in this war are alive and well and yet they are even more dangerous to the US population than the Taliban. I guess this is another case for the US of they gave a war and no one came

Colombia is ruled by a democratically elected ,and very popular President ,Alvaro Uribe ,who is fighting and defeating narco-terrorist insurgents in his country.

The war on drugs is poorly named . It is simply law enforcement . If you don't like the laws change them . Funny ;with this wide spread support for making every drug legal you would think it would be easy to changes the laws . Maybe the people of the country think the risk of legalization are greater than the efforts needed to fight the crime.

This argument about prohibition makes no sense . Tobacco and alcohol are prohibitted for people under the age of 18 . Does that prevent underaged users from illegally getting tobacco and alcohol ? No. Gee ;maybe then we should surrender and place no age limits . No ;everyone would say that is an absurd conclusion.

Just because a law is difficult to enforce ;it doesn't mean that quid pro quo it is not worth having such a law.

Hello tom:

If they told you that from this day forward, you couldn't own or possess safety pins, would it be a "crime" if you had one? Or, would you consider the law to be the crime? Would you rid your house of safety pins? Would you speak to your children of the dangers of safety pins? Would you support cracking down if people didn't get rid of their safety pins? Would you come on a website like this to tell an exconvict to STOP yelling about safety pins - because it's the LAW? Do you believe what the government tells you WITHOUT question?

Do you intrinsically KNOW what crime is? Does somebody have to tell you that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that rape is wrong? Why not? Would you, upon running into your first dealer, instinctively KNOW that pot is WRONG and SHOULD be against the law? What would be your first clue?

As a good Christian man, WHY do the cops NEED to tell you what IS and ISN'T against the law?

I suspect the above is a little too subtle for you.

excon

Subtle ? More like absurd ;unless you think the large majority of the American population equate the dangers associated with legalized drugs the equivalent of a pin prick.

Unlike you, ex, I don't associate everything with "the war on drugs."