open.substack.com
Take I wrote on increasing calls in Republican and bi-partisan spaces for a Military intervention into Mexico against the Cartels, and why this would inevitably lead to armed conflict within America itself, along with a possible death spiral of instability in the wider North American region.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Say it ain't so!
One question really jumped out. If you don't think Texas martial law and comparable insanity would prevent cartel operations...why would a border wall? If the idea is just to make it harder to move product, smugglers have already demonstrated plenty of creativity. Static obstacles just don't work alone.
Anyway, as a Texan, I thought this was a neat article.
Because a border wall increases the marginal cost of trying to cross the border, and allows the country to begin to get a handle on its own internal affairs.
You'll never get illegal immigration to zero, that doesn't mean "do nothing" is the correct approach. Unless you're from the WEF or similar globalist group where no borders is the entire solution.
There's a lot of things that would raise the marginal cost. He spent the rest of the article arguing that the cartels could outwit and outshoot all the others. Why wouldn't that argument apply to the wall, too? It won't even shoot back.
I expect that in real life, a border wall (plus appropriate patrol and surveillance) is going to be more cost effective than bombing Ciudad Juarez.
I also think that contradicts the OP. The kind of power which would defeat the US military wouldn't be stopped by a glorified fence. It proves too much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link