International Mexican cartels vs. ICE agents. Who do you support?



There is significant debate and conflicting evidence regarding whether Trump's border policies have lowered human trafficking into the U.S.

The Trump administration claims that its strict border enforcement has reduced human trafficking. Officials state that declaring a national emergency, reinstating the "Remain in Mexico" policy, and drastically reducing border encounters have contributed to securing the border and stopping the trafficking of children. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin asserted that the administration is "dismantling sex trafficking networks and saving children from sexual exploitation and abuse," linking deportation efforts to the removal of criminal aliens, including traffickers. The administration reports a 99.99% drop in migration through the Darien Gap, which it presents as evidence of successful deterrence.

However, multiple experts and advocacy groups argue that these policies may actually increase vulnerability to human trafficking. By imposing a moratorium on asylum at the southern border and suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the administration has limited lawful pathways for migrants, potentially pushing them into the hands of cartels and organized crime that exploit individuals for forced labor and sex trafficking. Denying protection to refugees violates international obligations and heightens risks, especially for unaccompanied minors.

Moreover, aggressive immigration enforcement, including a sharp rise in ICE arrests and collaboration with local law enforcement, has created fear among immigrant communities, discouraging trafficking victims from reporting abuse or seeking help. This "chilling effect" makes it harder for law enforcement to identify and investigate trafficking cases. Critics also point to the cancellation of over $500 million in grants for anti-trafficking programs and the defunding of USAID initiatives that addressed root causes like poverty and gender-based violence, arguing these cuts undermine long-term prevention and victim support.

In summary, while the administration claims border crackdowns have reduced trafficking, experts warn these actions may exacerbate vulnerability and hinder anti-trafficking efforts by driving victims underground and eliminating critical support systems.



Most illegal drugs enter the United States through official ports of entry (POEs) along the Southwest border, primarily transported in vehicles with concealed compartments or commingled with legitimate cargo. Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) dominate this trafficking, using commercial trucks, private vehicles, and rental cars to smuggle drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl across the 25 land POEs. Although some drugs are smuggled between ports of entry via desert or mountainous terrain using methods like tunnels, all-terrain vehicles, or foot couriers, the majority of seizures and intelligence indicate that POEs are the primary route.

For specific drugs, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data shows that most illicit fentanyl is smuggled through POEs, often hidden in small quantities within vehicles or carried by individuals, including U.S. citizens. Similarly, more marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin have been seized at POEs than between them, contradicting the common belief that drugs primarily enter through unguarded areas. Maritime smuggling also occurs, with drugs transported via container ships, fishing vessels, and semi-submersibles, but overland methods exceed all others combined in volume.

Mexican cartels are the principal facilitators, controlling the flow of foreign-produced drugs like Colombian cocaine—of which an estimated 93% bound for the U.S. transits through Mexico—and manufacturing methamphetamine and heroin domestically for export. While internet-facilitated mail delivery of synthetic drugs like fentanyl analogues and designer substances (e.g., synthetic cannabinoids) is a growing concern, the vast majority of illicit drug volume still enters through physical border crossings.

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit.

If you reduce illegal border crossings by literally millions, that is by definition significantly reducing human trafficking.
 
If you reduce illegal border crossings by literally millions, that is by definition significantly reducing human trafficking.
I'm sure to an extent that is correct, but there's more to it and it killing resources devoted to investigating and prosecuting trafficking (among other crimes) and creating a chilling effect on people speaking out is not going to help. Rounding up randos who are mostly non-criminals is a waste of resources as is declaring at least half the country terror suspects. It also does nothing to stop drug trafficking, much of which could probably be significantly reduced by reducing demand domestically which would, however, require improving the material conditions for tens of millions of people
 
I'm sure to an extent that is correct, but there's more to it and it killing resources devoted to investigating and prosecuting trafficking (among other crimes) and creating a chilling effect on people speaking out is not going to help. Rounding up randos who are mostly non-criminals is a waste of resources as is declaring at least half the country terror suspects.

Those are two separate issues.

And you're full of shit if you're trying to claim eliminating border crossings is not SIGNIFICANTLY reducing human trafficking into the US.

It also does nothing to stop drug trafficking, much of which could probably be significantly reduced by reducing demand domestically which would, however, require improving the material conditions for tens of millions of people

1. We're not talking about drug trafficking.
2. Reducing illegal border crossings does help reduce drug trafficking because a lot of those illegals smuggled across the border are forced to bring in fentanyl as part of their "payment" to get smuggled.
 
Those are two separate issues.

And you're full of shit if you're trying to claim eliminating border crossings is not SIGNIFICANTLY reducing human trafficking into the US.



1. We're not talking about drug trafficking.
2. Reducing illegal border crossings does help reduce drug trafficking because a lot of those illegals smuggled across the border are forced to bring in fentanyl as part of their "payment" to get smuggled.
You didn't touch any of the substance. You're full of shit and I'm talking big picture.
 
You didn't touch any of the substance. You're full of shit and I'm talking big picture.

I'm full of shit when you're literally claiming it doesn't reduce human trafficking when we've effectively closed the border?

What you're claiming makes zero sense.

Closing the border to illegal crossings = stopping human trafficking into the US.
 
I'm full of shit when you're literally claiming it doesn't reduce human trafficking when we've effectively closed the border?
Show me where I claimed that you dishonest hack
 
Pretty shitty for the DHS to lie about something like this for political sympathy. But such is the pattern for this unhinged administration.

There is ZERO chance that Mexican Cartels would do this.. it's not in their interest to escalate a conflict with the US.
 
Ice Ice Baby!

1*qRW1fnUhmcshVDIQ0dD4_w.jpeg
I'm ready to collaborate and listen!
 
Anyone legitimately supporting the cartels in this thread got themselves on a list 15 seconds after they hit that damn sexy "Enter" key, lmfao.
 
Show me where I claimed that you dishonest hack

You're literally implying the border closure has not reduced human trafficking into the US.

If millions of people came into the country during Biden's years and now the illegal border crossings are only in the few thousands now, that is BY DEFINITION significantly reducing human trafficking.

There is significant debate and conflicting evidence regarding whether Trump's border policies have lowered human trafficking into the U.S.
 
I support ICE as long as they are focusing on the cartels and gang members..

not the people who have lived in the community for decades already, pose zero threat and are just trying to work.
 
I support ICE as long as they are focusing on the cartels and gang members..

not the people who have lived in the community for decades already, pose zero threat and are just trying to work.
So you don’t support ICE,

Good to know.
 
So you don’t support ICE,

Good to know.

If they prioritize their job correctly, I support them.

Do you think they should have more priority targets than working families who are not causing any trouble?
 
You're literally implying the border closure has not reduced human trafficking into the US.

If millions of people came into the country during Biden's years and now the illegal border crossings are only in the few thousands now, that is BY DEFINITION significantly reducing human trafficking.
That is quoting me quoting a source, try having integrity, but secondly, even that quote says there's "debate" about it.

Here's the rest of that quote that you conveniently left out but is there for all to see:

However, multiple experts and advocacy groups argue that these policies may actually increase vulnerability to human trafficking. By imposing a moratorium on asylum at the southern border and suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the administration has limited lawful pathways for migrants, potentially pushing them into the hands of cartels and organized crime that exploit individuals for forced labor and sex trafficking. Denying protection to refugees violates international obligations and heightens risks, especially for unaccompanied minors.

Moreover, aggressive immigration enforcement, including a sharp rise in ICE arrests and collaboration with local law enforcement, has created fear among immigrant communities, discouraging trafficking victims from reporting abuse or seeking help. This "chilling effect" makes it harder for law enforcement to identify and investigate trafficking cases. Critics also point to the cancellation of over $500 million in grants for anti-trafficking programs and the defunding of USAID initiatives that addressed root causes like poverty and gender-based violence, arguing these cuts undermine long-term prevention and victim support.

In summary, while the administration claims border crackdowns have reduced trafficking, experts warn these actions may exacerbate vulnerability and hinder anti-trafficking efforts by driving victims underground and eliminating critical support systems.


There are no absolute statements there.
I'm sure to an extent that is correct, but there's more to it and it killing resources devoted to investigating and prosecuting trafficking (among other crimes) and creating a chilling effect on people speaking out is not going to help. Rounding up randos who are mostly non-criminals is a waste of resources as is declaring at least half the country terror suspects. It also does nothing to stop drug trafficking, much of which could probably be significantly reduced by reducing demand domestically which would, however, require improving the material conditions for tens of millions of people
I don't see how it wouldn't hence my comment, but there's a broader picture including where resources are being pulled from which includes investigating human trafficking which I'm not an expert on, hence me not making definitive claims but noting what is going on, all of which you've avoided commenting on.
 
If they prioritize their job correctly, I support them.

Do you think they should have more priority targets than working families who are not causing any trouble?
I’m with you here Chief,

If it’s actual criminal’s, I’m all in for ICE.

But I haven’t seen ICE remotely get within sniffing distance of a vadio..
 
That is quoting me quoting a source, try having integrity, but secondly, even that quote says there's "debate" about it.

Here's the rest of that quote that you conveniently left out but is there for all to see:

However, multiple experts and advocacy groups argue that these policies may actually increase vulnerability to human trafficking. By imposing a moratorium on asylum at the southern border and suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, the administration has limited lawful pathways for migrants, potentially pushing them into the hands of cartels and organized crime that exploit individuals for forced labor and sex trafficking. Denying protection to refugees violates international obligations and heightens risks, especially for unaccompanied minors.

Moreover, aggressive immigration enforcement, including a sharp rise in ICE arrests and collaboration with local law enforcement, has created fear among immigrant communities, discouraging trafficking victims from reporting abuse or seeking help. This "chilling effect" makes it harder for law enforcement to identify and investigate trafficking cases. Critics also point to the cancellation of over $500 million in grants for anti-trafficking programs and the defunding of USAID initiatives that addressed root causes like poverty and gender-based violence, arguing these cuts undermine long-term prevention and victim support.

Yea and I'm saying all of this supposed debate is obvious bullshit and in bad faith.

Because if you reduce illegal border crossings by MILLIONS, then that is reducing human trafficking by millions.

And all the "legal pathways" people used such as the CBP One app and applying for asylum, still required all those people to trek through cartel controlled lands. They all still needed to pay. That means human trafficking.

So the entire premise of these two paragraphs is complete bullshit.

In summary, while the administration claims border crackdowns have reduced trafficking, experts warn these actions may exacerbate vulnerability and hinder anti-trafficking efforts by driving victims underground and eliminating critical support systems.

There are no absolute statements there.

I don't see how it wouldn't hence my comment, but there's a broader picture including where resources are being pulled from which includes investigating human trafficking which I'm not an expert on, hence me not making definitive claims but noting what is going on, all of which you've avoided commenting on.

I am commenting on it. You're just not reading what I'm actually saying.

The people who go underground or the people who came in "officially" by presenting themselves at legal ports of entry to apply for asylum - they were all still trafficked to the border. They all had contact with the cartels.
 
Yea and I'm saying all of this supposed debate is obvious bullshit and in bad faith.

Because if you reduce illegal border crossings by MILLIONS, then that is reducing human trafficking by millions.

And all the "legal pathways" people used such as the CBP One app and applying for asylum, still required all those people to trek through cartel controlled lands. They all still needed to pay. That means human trafficking.

So the entire premise of these two paragraphs is complete bullshit.



I am commenting on it. You're just not reading what I'm actually saying.

The people who go underground or the people who came in "officially" by presenting themselves at legal ports of entry to apply for asylum - they were all still trafficked to the border. They all had contact with the cartels.
I've read your words, and that's fine, I'm not keen on all the data so I'm not going to debate every detail but I do know that the regime is puling people off of certain jobs to round up grandmas and visa overstays. I merely quoted people who commented on the efficacy of the policies toward trafficking of which resources have been pulled from and even they don't speak in absolutes. You lied about my position while being a fucking dick and you will not escape that.

As I said, shutting down the border almost entirely I would think would reduce trafficking just sheerly if nothing else because less people are physically moving, at least here, however it doesn't stop drugs from coming in and the pulling of resources from investigating other crimes is surely not good nor is rounding up grandmas making us safer.
 
Mexican cartels are offering bounties on ICE agents, all the way up to $50k for killing high ranking ICE officials

Who do you support in this conflict?


- Good way to get the carteles marked as terrorist orgs, as they should, and getting killed as bouty prizes, as they should.
 
Back
Top