Increased Military Presence On US-Mex Border Is Reducing The Influx of Narcotics Into the U.S.A.

November 23, 2018

I don't know how accurate this article is. But what it says makes sense, considering the current environment on our southern border.

A Mexican drug cartel blames the migrant caravan for slowing its smuggling operations amid the U.S. military deployment to the U.S.-Mexico border, sources said.

Todd Bensman, of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), reported on Nov. 19 that the U.S. military presence at the border is curbing drug trafficking by the notorious Gulf Cartel.

The U.S. Army has arrived at the border, and is reportedly laying miles of razor wire in an effort to drive migrants to legal crossings where tent cities are being erected.

More at: www.worldtribune.com...

Amazingly, over 90% of drugs smuggled into the United States, enter through the U.S.-Mexican border.
Source: drugabuse.com...

Even though our military is not at the border to reduce drug trafficking, any reduction in trafficking is welcome, and saves lives of U.S. citizens.

Maybe we should keep troops there permanently, and train them to take a more active role in apprehending traffickers?

-CareWeMust

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

Awe, there there. It'll be okay.

We'll get you some nice coloring books and an emotional support pig.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

Opinion noted. We all have them, and they're all equal in importance.

I could see this potentially having a positive effect. Anything that helps to stop the flow of drugs and the crime that comes along with them will have a positive impact on American society.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

Opinion noted. We all have them, and they're all equal in importance.

Well, except that poster's opinion...

A canary in a coal mine, that one is.

a reply to: watchitburn

you know Rosie O'Donnell?

I knew a girl who's sister worked for her in the 90's, she had to sign a NDA, so i have no gossip

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

Naive.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

Well I mean, at least attempt to dispute the article, challenge it and provide a meaningful rebuttal.

Surely, you have the mental capacities to engage, right?

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
I could see this potentially having a positive effect. Anything that helps to stop the flow of drugs and the crime that comes along with them will have a positive impact on American society.

I heard a few " person on the street" interviews today, with people who live in Texas and Arizona. They are truly grateful for the military presence, and President Trump's measures to protect U.S. citizens in those areas.

Reducing the amount of drug trafficking is a huge and important byproduct of our military presence.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

Opinion noted. We all have them, and they're all equal in importance.

Well, except that poster's opinion...

A canary in a coal mine, that one is.

We have to remember that ATS is composed of all types of people. Perhaps there are a few who actually benefit from drug trafficking.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

So your saying that an increased number in security will in no way curb illegal activities at the border?

I am not sure what logic you are using, but I am going to guess none.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

I agree. From everything I have seen the majority of the drugs comes through shipments like trucks, cargo containers and lastly hidden compartments of vehicles as well as tunnels. The very smallest portion is smuggled in on the backs of "migrants" and from what I have read it is basically a way to pull the heat off of the main methods of truck, containers, vehicles and tunnels - basically making it seem like the "foot smugglers" are what we need to worry about, b/c it is easily visible, and thus ignore the larger, more efficient methods.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

Opinion noted. We all have them, and they're all equal in importance.

Well, except that poster's opinion...

A canary in a coal mine, that one is.

We have to remember that ATS is composed of all types of people. Perhaps there are a few who actually benefit from drug trafficking.

Sorry.. the "all opinions are equal" thing has always been a pet peeve of mine.

Einstein's opinion on a mathematical concept is more important to me than Cher's opinion, to give an example.

So to me some opinions will have more weight than others, depending on the subject and the person.

For instance, Cher's opinion on hair styles I would value over Einstein's...

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The increased military presence is likely having a damping effect on every form of trafficking.

a reply to: Lumenari

Very true. But we don't know much of anything about individual members here. So when someone says "Bullsh*it", he/she could be speaking from personal experience.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Bulls#it.

Naive.

and provocative.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The increased military presence is likely having a damping effect on every form of trafficking.

edit - posted w/o your quote added in, it was missed again when I hit the quote button. AAHHHHH!!!!

You really think it has effect on the amount smuggled in the back of Semi's and cargo containers? What about vehicles where they hide it in the vehicle's "cavities".? I would assume the military as nothing to do with these methods, they aren't checking more vehicles b/c they are there, they haven't taken over BCP's role in checking vehicles, they didn't bring new/more equipment to check more vehicles, etc. I can't see the number of vehicles being stopped being any higher, have higher capacity to catch them thus I don't see the cartels slowing their flow.

As for tunnels, I doubt there is much reduction in flow there as well. It's not like the military is sitting there listening to the ground (they are too deep for that in most cases anyway), nor are they checking traffic within the border, so what makes it across, is basically in the clear, at least from what I understand on how the tunnels work.

Now as far as the people who carry bags across in the desert and such, I can see that this method might be impacted, possible by a large percent - at least where there is military presence. Now in the middle of the desert where there are no troops, I would doubt that has slowed in those areas.

Thoughts - counter-arguments?

a reply to: carewemust

This sounds like an entirely reasonable thing.

But it does call into question the work of DEA and border guards. It would seem reasonable that they should be defunded and the funds forwarded to the military to defend the US at the border.

Just by accident, they are better than the bodies that are intended to fulfill that role.

Perhaps the criminals have had no opportunity to compromise and corrupt the military?

a reply to: carewemust

Just imagine what a wall could do.