Statue of Liberty or 30 foot wall?

Ellis island wasent used to transport drugs but was used to use and abuse refugees. Your starting a untruthful discussion.

You really don't know history at all... do you.

Read the OP again. I said WHAT IF Ellis Island had been abused for drug-trafficking? What would it mean if Lady Liberty was being used as an ideological cover up to exploit people on both sides of the border?

Wouldn't it have been right to stop the exploitation? Isn't it always right to stop exploitation of liberty for slavery?

Who ran organized crime in the 1920's and 1930's and 1940's and 1950's? Where did they come from?

I only know the stereotypes. There was all sorts of crime going on that time, from bootlegging to hate crimes to all the usual mafia-type crime. I think migration did play a big part in it, but I don't want to be racist and say that it was all migrants or that migration was the cause. I think there were probably moles sent by foreign governments to sow seeds of mayhem in the land of liberty for various reasons, and efforts to secure favorable colonial trade relations in various ways. It was the age of Bolshevism and WWI, which evolved into WWII; so people were being pushed out of Europe by fear of war and anti-Semitism.

Are you trying to make a specific point or just asking a question? The issue isn't where crime or criminals come from so much as it is how to stop crime/criminals from using national pluralism as a source of power and revenue.

Idk if there's a better term for what I'm saying here with ' national pluralism.' What I mean is that you have the world divided into more-or-less separate nations, which regard themselves as more-or-less ethnically different and separate from other national populations. As a result, you gain the ability to make money by exploiting transnational migration in a way that's not possible with intranational migration.

So, for example, if you make meth in one US city and ship it to another, that is not as lucrative as making it somewhere abroad and trafficking it in through the border, i.e. because if you use non-citizen migrants, you can maybe get additional power over the people involved and escape detection more easily, etc. I'm not sure of all the reasons for this, but it seems that with these central American gangs, they are hijacking people from their villages and bullying them into working for them while their families stay behind in villages, so it's like their families are held hostage by the gangs. The level of terrorist power in that kind of social-economic arrangement is horrendous and the pressure to keep quiet about it is high so it's really hard to even guess how many people are being abused and exploited in this way, though you can sort of estimate by looking at the culture of sex/porn and drugs, which you know costs a lot of money and that money is being made by the criminals who provide access to the drugs and prostitution.

This as to be the most moronic proposition you've offered.

That's quite an accomplishment!

Well, why do you think people would make meth and traffic it across the border? Just because they can make more money for it north of the border? Obviously cocaine grows down in the mountains so that has to be trafficked, but with synthetic drugs, it would be easier to just make it where you are selling it.

I think the main thing is that there are people outside the US who want to get money from US, and drugs are just the easiest thing to traffic in and sell. If they could import something else and sell it just as profitably, they would do that.

Illegal drugs are just easy money and they're easy to traffic, i.e. if you can stomach the risks involved or if you can bully other (poor) people into taking those risks for you.

As I said, moronic. When you began one post with "I only know the stereotypes."--you should have stopped right there. It's clear that you don't know anything, and you just puke up whatever idiot claims President Plump makes. You're pathetic.

Stop. You're ridiculing me into hate-driven fascism.

You must avoid words like 'puke up' 'idiot' and 'pathetic.' They are ego-trigger words that rhetorically whip people into a fight-or-flight reflex.

Good, maybe you'll fly to one of the nut sites where your kind of crap is appreaited.

Do you really think there's no drug trafficking going on along the border?

Do you have a more effective idea for stopping it than building a wall?

Also, do you trust the Democrats to seriously pursue any kind of policy to stop drug- and human- trafficking, or do you think they just want to tolerate it for the people who like the products it brings?