Can we FIX immigration on our border, when the PROBLEM is in Central America? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Can we FIX immigration on our border, when the PROBLEM is in Central America?

Debate Information

Hello:

The problem is the drug war, which created the cartels, who're turning Central America into a hell hole.   So, if we wanna stop our problem HERE, we've got to invade THERE. 

OR

We could just END the drug war and that'll CRUSH the cartels..  You're welcome..

excon


«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    How would ending the drug wars "CRUSH the cartels"?  On the contrary, it seems that giving the cartels a free hand would strengthen them.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    How would ending the drug wars "CRUSH the cartels"?

    He said drug war you thoroughly dishonest individual. As in legalise drugs.

  • exconexcon 67 Pts   -  

    Hello C:

    The ONLY reason for the cartels existence is to sell cocaine.  If we legalized drugs, the profit motive goes away.  It's kinda like marijuana..  It USED to be profitable to sell it here in the US..  But, since legalization, the dealers can't compete with the state and are out of business.

    excon
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    excon said:

    Hello C:

    The ONLY reason for the cartels existence is to sell cocaine.  If we legalized drugs, the profit motive goes away.  It's kinda like marijuana..  It USED to be profitable to sell it here in the US..  But, since legalization, the dealers can't compete with the state and are out of business.

    excon
    Ah, you didn't say anything about legalizing drugs, just ending the drug wars.  We could bring all of our agents and troops home, ending the war on drugs, without making hard drugs legal.

    Even at that, I'm not sure that it would do all that much to the cartels.  They would still be the most powerful organizations in those countries.  They'd just make most of their money legally.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Ah, you didn't say anything about legalizing drugs, just ending the drug wars. 

    He used the singular twice, but you apparently can't read English, can you?

    DRUG WAR.


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Ah, you didn't say anything about legalizing drugs, just ending the drug wars. 

    He used the singular twice, but you apparently can't read English, can you?

    DRUG WAR.


    Why don't you go do something productive, like play in traffic?
    Debater123
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Why don't you go do something productive, like play in traffic?

    Debunking political extremists who use debate sites to poison minds and cause suicides isn't productive?

    I guess for you it isn't productive. For normal people it's productive.

    CYDdhartaAlofRIDebater123
  • exconexcon 67 Pts   -   edited April 4
    CYDdharta said:

    Ah, you didn't say anything about legalizing drugs, just ending the drug wars.  We could bring all of our agents and troops home, ending the war on drugs, without making hard drugs legal.


    Hello C:

    Couple things...  Ending the war on drugs MEANS they'd be legal..  Or else, the war didn't end..  You can't have it both ways.  And, if drugs remained illegal, the cartels still have a profit motive.  Consequently, people line up at our border because the cartels made their country's into hell holes.

    excon

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1385 Pts   -   edited April 4
    @Nomenclature
    Nomenclature said:
    Debunking political extremists who use debate sites to poison minds and cause suicides isn't productive?
    Could you explain to me how posting one's opinions on a debate site causes suicides? I'd genuinely like to know how you came to this conclusion.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    Could you explain to me how posting one's opinions on a debate site causes suicides?

    He just literally told me to go play in traffic, which is likely to seriously injure or kill me. Are you able to read and understand text written in English? Because if you were then such a question would not be necessary.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Why don't you go do something productive, like play in traffic?

    Debunking political extremists who use debate sites to poison minds and cause suicides isn't productive?

    I guess for you it isn't productive. For normal people it's productive.

    That's what you've deluded yourself into thinking you're doing?  I've never found anyone more inept at their stated purpose than you.  Congratulation!!
    Debater123
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    excon said:


    Hello C:

    Couple things...  Ending the war on drugs MEANS they'd be legal..  Or else, the war didn't end..  You can't have it both ways.  And, if drugs remained illegal, the cartels still have a profit motive.  Consequently, people line up at our border because the cartels made their country's into hell holes.

    excon


    The first drug ban was passed in 1909, but the war on drugs was declared by the Nixon administration in 1971.  They're obviously not the same thing.

    You haven't demonstrated that legalizing drugs would remove the cartels' profit motive, rather than just making those profits legal.  Additionally, the cartels have a brisk business in moving illegals into the country and robbing illegals as they try to illegally enter the country.  Legalizing drugs would do nothing to reduce those profits.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    Could you explain to me how posting one's opinions on a debate site causes suicides?

    He just literally told me to go play in traffic, which is likely to seriously injure or kill me. Are you able to read and understand text written in English? Because if you were then such a question would not be necessary.

    Oh look it must be a suicide cult;

     
    Nomenclature
  • exconexcon 67 Pts   -   edited April 4
    CYDdharta said:

    You haven't demonstrated that legalizing drugs would remove the cartels' profit motive, rather than just making those profits legal.  Additionally, the cartels have a brisk business in moving illegals into the country and robbing illegals as they try to illegally enter the country.  Legalizing drugs would do nothing to reduce those profits.


    Hello again C

    It's really a matter of economics.  If you could buy cheaper, better, and cleaner cocaine without risking jail, would you buy from a street dealer, or a state store..  Common sense says you'd buy from a state store..

    Without any customers, the cartels would be outta business.. Now, it's true they'll still engage in other illegal business, but none of them will be any near as profitable as cocaine, and none of them will chase Hondurans from their homes..

    excon
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    excon said:


    Hello again C

    It's really a matter of economics.  If you could buy cheaper, better, and cleaner cocaine without risking jail, would you buy from a street dealer, or a state store..  Common sense says you'd buy from a state store..

    Without any customers, the cartels would be outta business.. Now, it's true they'll still engage in other illegal business, but none of them will be any near as profitable as cocaine, and none of them will chase Hondurans from their homes..

    excon

    Why would cartels no longer have customers for their drugs?  They'd still be in control of growing the crops needed for manufacturing the drugs.  At best, it seems all you would be doing is making their profits from the sales of drugs legal.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Oh look it must be a suicide cult

    Yeah, except there's no traffic in your image and the board in the top middle shows clearly that the children are playing on a court.

    Are you even capable of telling the truth? Literally every word which leaves your lips is a distortion of factual reality.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  

    Yeah, except there's no traffic in your image and the board in the top middle shows clearly that the children are playing on a court.

    Are you even capable of telling the truth? Literally every word which leaves your lips is a distortion of factual reality.


    Show me where I said anything about traffic, you pathetic weasel. 
  • exconexcon 67 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:

    Why would cartels no longer have customers for their drugs?

    Hello again, C:

    I dunno what you're not getting..  The cartels need to make a profit..  The state does not..  If the state WANTED to destroy the cartels, and it does, we could lower the price of cocaine to a dime a hit, or we could make it FREE.  That would absolutely crush the cartels.  Lemme repeat..  The state does NOT need to make a profit.  Fact is, we could even EXPORT cocaine to Central America and give it away... 

    As a matter of fact, I LIKE that idea. 

    You get that, right??

    excon
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    excon said:
    CYDdharta said:

    Why would cartels no longer have customers for their drugs?

    Hello again, C:

    I dunno what you're not getting..  The cartels need to make a profit..  The state does not..  If the state WANTED to destroy the cartels, and it does, we could lower the price of cocaine to a dime a hit, or we could make it FREE.  That would absolutely crush the cartels.  Lemme repeat..  The state does NOT need to make a profit.  Fact is, we could even EXPORT cocaine to Central America and give it away... 

    As a matter of fact, I LIKE that idea. 

    You get that, right??

    excon

    Coca plants only grow in certain regions, regions which are controlled by the cartels.  In order for the state, or any domestic source, to manufacture cocaine, something that would never be allowed, they would have to buy the coca leaves from the cartels.  The cartels would still be in control.
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 5
    @CYDdharta
    Show me where I said anything about traffic, you pathetic weasel.
    Your literal words were:-
    Why don't you go do something productive, like play in traffic?

    Why aren't you capable of understanding that you can't make up for low intelligence with rudeness and dishonesty?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited April 5
    [Duplicate]
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta
    Coca plants only grow in certain regions, regions which are controlled by the cartels.
    Cocoa plants can be grown anywhere, just like any other plant since the invention of hydroponics in the 1930s.

    I'm amazed at just how ignorant you are of basic scientific facts.

  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Thats CY for you , he wallows in his ignorance a typical Trumpster.........I left a message for you Nom 
    CYDdharta
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Thats CY for you , he wallows in his ignorance a typical Trumpster.........I left a message for you Nom 
    NomenclatureCYDdharta
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Hey, thanks buddy. I still haven't worked out messaging on this site, but I found your link. Very handy. I'll definitely put it to use.
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    You’re welcome. Messaging is handy enough just press  the logo of the person you want to message and you get to their homepage at the top of their page just hit the message button and that’s it 
    Nomenclature
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -   edited April 5
    @aarong We're still waiting for that delete post feature
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -   edited April 5
    @aarong We're still waiting for that delete post feature
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -   edited April 5
    @aarong We're still waiting for that delete post feature
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @Nomenclature

    Thats CY for you , he wallows in his ignorance a typical Trumpster.........I left a message for you Nom 

    ...and there's @Dee, irrelevant as always.  Why don't you go try to catch cars?  Don't forget to take your sock puppet with your.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta
    Coca plants only grow in certain regions, regions which are controlled by the cartels.
    Cocoa plants can be grown anywhere, just like any other plant since the invention of hydroponics in the 1930s.

    I'm amazed at just how ignorant you are of basic scientific facts.

    Plants grown in a lab wouldn't get rid of the cartels.  It would just make a premium market for "organically grown" cocaine.

    Your short-sightedness and lack of common sense are stupefying. 
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    ...and there's @Dee, irrelevant as always.  Why don't you go try to catch cars?  

    Why is that a thing in the US ......well I never 

    pDon't forget to take your sock puppet with your.

    HA , HA you’re a silly little fellow .....have you stopped sobbing yet over Trumps loss or are your still teary eyed?
  • all4acttall4actt 220 Pts   -   edited April 5

    @CYDdharta @Nomenclature @Dee

    Name calling and telling people they should do something that would get them killed adds nothing to the debate but distracts from it and below your intelligence.

    As for the war on drugs against the Mexivan Cartels.  The Mexican government has already expelled all our DEA agents. So the US is out of that.  As for their other illegal activities such as human trafficking is not just for simply  bring illegals across the boarder it has more nafarious and a very lucrative buisness for some of them.  Also,  you are correct if drugs were made legal what is to stop them from then becoming legal providers of the drugs.

    As for legalizing illicit drugs.  Whereas it would be an economic boon to the economy it would also be a detriment to society.
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @all4actt

    Name calling and telling people they should do something that would get them killed adds nothing to the debate but distracts from it.  


    If you feel that strongly about don’t do it 
  • all4acttall4actt 220 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Never have nor would I.
  • all4acttall4actt 220 Pts   -  
    @excon
    Back to the topic

    None of you solutions are viable.

    There is no desire, well apparently little desire, to invade, what I am asuuming your talking about, Mexico.

    As stated before the US is out of the war on drugs in Mexico, not that it had yet been successful.

    The current administration seems to be unwilling to do what needs to be done to stop it.   Even if it leads to inhumane treatment, illiticit trafficking, some people with illicit intentions or the further spread of Covid, and all at an extreme cost to the American tax payer.
  • all4acttall4actt 220 Pts   -   edited April 5
    @Dee

    Name calling is one of the things I disliked about Trump.  I guess there was something you agreed with him on.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1274 Pts   -   edited April 5



    @excon


    I'm as libertarian as they come, but some drugs are powerful enough to destroy the very fabric of society. The reason China is now a global economic leader and coming out of their third world stature is because they solved their opium problem. It's kind of cliche to think of China being the land of opium dens filled with enlightened/stoned Buddhists. But the truth is that those opium dens are all gone now, and the reality of that situation is nowhere near the romanticized idea western culture has of opium dens. The opium scourge in China was just as ugly and horrific as any drug scourge that effects any society, only about ten times worse than anything that it can be compared to in the West. All legal, social, and ethical ideals broke down, and China was overtaken by a drug that would cause their society to be destined to be a permanent third world country.        

    They did solve that problem but their method for doing so is nothing that could conceivably be done in the US. The Red army marched into the opium dens and dragged everybody out of them and beat them to death in the streets. I've also read that they then tried to find the homes of all the drug addicts and drug all the occupants of their homes out into the streets and beat them to death. It's highly doubtful we would convince enough people in this country to deal with our drug problems in that manner. 

    I agree with you about the war on drugs which is by far the longest war the US has been involved in, and there's never going to be any possibility of it being successful enough to ever be considered a victory and come to a adequate place of closure. It is literally a massive money leak and it's not like we need an extra strain on our budget. It's never a good time to have a luxury expense on the budget, but now seems like a most especially bad time for something like that. 

    Although I'm whole heartedly against the idea of making our country inhospitable for anybody who genuinely is looking for a better life by closing the gates to the country. And I'm even more opposed to burdening the taxpayers with massive walls and paying even more border patrol agents to do a job that just like the war on drugs, it too cannot be adequately resolved. Border patrol is also a bleeding gash on our budget. 

    It's obviously a violation of states rights to force them to legalize dangerous drugs, so total legalization is not an ethical solution to the problem. But drugs can be decriminalized at the federal level, which is a start. It would also behoove us all to invest in rehabilitation far more than we do now. This may seem counterintuitive for someone who is as concerned about the budget as I am, but the truth is rehabilitation is far more affective than prison. Prison does nothing to rehabilitate anybody for anything. It costs taxpayers loads of money to feed, house, and care to the medical needs of prisoners. And we also have those privately owned prisons which only exacerbates the cost. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb when I say the owners of those facilities are staunch supporters of criminal justice reform. So long as dark colored people keep getting herded into their jails, they'll keep getting paid. Rehabilitation methods have proven to be vastly more affective than prison. It keeps people out of prison. It actually stops criminals urges to recommit. So investing in rehabilitation would be a far more affective solution than simply stepping on states rights and forcing them to legalize bath salts.

    Another method that should get an honorable mention is lowering the minimum wage, or maybe even (dare I say) getting rid of it altogether. It's not like illegal immigrants are stealing jobs from brain surgeons. They're working on farms, picking corn. They get paid below the table, and far less than minimum wage. About $2.00 an hour. The reason legal citizens don't do that work is because it pays so low, and it's undesirable. Perhaps if we lowered the minimum wage, those low paying jobs would no longer have the stigma of low paying undesirable work. If legal citizens who can't find work anywhere else, there would be absolutely no work for illegal immigrants to have here. There would be no reason for illegal immigrants to even come here if all those jobs are already filled by legal citizens. And if it doesn't work that way, at least the cost of living would go down for everybody.           



           

      
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:

    It's obviously a violation of states rights to force them to legalize dangerous drugs, so total legalization is not an ethical solution to the problem. But drugs can be decriminalized at the federal level, which is a start. It would also behoove us all to invest in rehabilitation far more than we do now. This may seem counterintuitive for someone who is as concerned about the budget as I am, but the truth is rehabilitation is far more affective than prison. Prison does nothing to rehabilitate anybody for anything. It costs taxpayers loads of money to feed, house, and care to the medical needs of prisoners. And we also have those privately owned prisons which only exacerbates the cost. I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb when I say the owners of those facilities are staunch supporters of criminal justice reform. So long as dark colored people keep getting herded into their jails, they'll keep getting paid. Rehabilitation methods have proven to be vastly more affective than prison. It keeps people out of prison. It actually stops criminals urges to recommit. So investing in rehabilitation would be a far more affective solution than simply stepping on states rights and forcing them to legalize bath salts.

     Voluntary rehabilitation can be fairly effective, mandatory or coerced rehab, not so much.  There is no clear indication that mandatory or coerced rehab is effective.  In fact, it may be detrimental.  

    2016 report by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who were involuntarily committed were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those who chose to go into treatment.

    https://www.healthline.com/health-news/people-with-drug-addictions-forced-into-rehab#Does-forced-drug-treatment-work?


    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26790691/

  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -   edited April 6
    @all4actt

    Name calling is one of the things I disliked about Trump.  I guess there was something you agreed with him on

    When I come on this site if people engage respectfully thats what they get back , when people behave otherwise they will receive the very same back if you don’t like that , tough , your finger wagging moral condemnation says a lot more about you than it does me 
    CYDdharta
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @all4actt

    Never have nor would I.

    If you puff your chest out we could pin a big badge with ribbons on it to let everyone know what a wonderful person you are 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

     Voluntary rehabilitation can be fairly effective, mandatory or coerced rehab, not so much.  There is no clear indication that mandatory or coerced rehab is effective.  In fact, it may be detrimental. 

    Now if only you could apply that same logic to capitalism.

    Voluntary labour can be fairly effective, mandatory or coerced labour, not so much.  There is no clear indication that mandatory or coerced labour is effective.  In fact, it may be detrimental.


    CYDdharta
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

     Voluntary rehabilitation can be fairly effective, mandatory or coerced rehab, not so much.  There is no clear indication that mandatory or coerced rehab is effective.  In fact, it may be detrimental. 

    Now if only you could apply that same logic to capitalism.

    Voluntary labour can be fairly effective, mandatory or coerced labour, not so much.  There is no clear indication that mandatory or coerced labour is effective.  In fact, it may be detrimental.


    Noting relevant to add, usual Dee, or Nom or whoever you decided to log on as this time.
    NomenclatureDee
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    Noting relevant to add, usual Dee, or Nom or whoever you decided to log on as this time.

    Well I suppose that's slightly better than being told to go and commit suicide, but honestly: why are you so contemptibly rude and hateful?

    And you're obviously paranoid. Dee and I aren't the same person. We happen to know one another from a different debating site.

    CYDdhartaDee
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -   edited April 6
    Noting relevant to add, usual Dee, or Nom or whoever you decided to log on as this time.

    Well I suppose that's slightly better than being told to go and commit suicide, but honestly: why are you so contemptibly rude and hateful?

    And you're obviously paranoid. Dee and I aren't the same person. We happen to know one another from a different debating site.

    Projecting, also as usual.  As I've always said, projection is the left's favorite tool.

    Here's a thought; why don't you post something that contributes to the post topic for a change?
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Projecting, also as usual.  As I've always said, projection is the left's favorite tool.

    What is actually wrong with you? It isn't my fault Trump lost the election. I'm not even American so I didn't vote. 

    Here's a thought. 

    Perhaps if Trump hadn't literally tried to overthrow democracy and institute a dictatorship when he lost a fairly contested democratic election, more people would be sympathetic to your lust for a resurgence of 1930s style Italian fascism? Think on it.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1495 Pts   -   edited April 6
    @CYDdharta

    Projecting, also as usual.  As I've always said, projection is the left's favorite tool.

    What is actually wrong with you? It isn't my fault Trump lost the election. I'm not even American so I didn't vote. 

    Here's a thought. 

    Perhaps if Trump hadn't literally tried to overthrow democracy and institute a dictatorship when he lost a fairly contested democratic election, more people would be sympathetic to your lust for a resurgence of 1930s style Italian fascism? Think on it.


    Yes, Dee; you stated many times you're not American.  

    So, what you're saying is that you are, quite literally, incapable of sticking to the thread topic.  No one ever accused you of being a worthwhile poster.
  • all4acttall4actt 220 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    More out of curiosity than anything.  What do you think my "moral indignation" says about me?

    It is more a standard of decorum and keeping to the topic at hand.  I don't see how demeaning people helps get your point across.
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    CY is still fuming Trump lost so he’s lashing out at everyone , he hasn’t stopped sobbing and it looks like he won’t 
    CYDdhartaNomenclature
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -   edited April 6
    @all4actt

    More out of curiosity than anything.  What do you think my "moral indignation" says about me?

    That you’re going to go through life  judging everyone from on that pedestal you’ve put yourself upon 

    It is more a standard of decorum and keeping to the topic at hand.  I don't see how demeaning people helps get your point across.

    I demeaned  no one , my statement was made regarding the posts the individual made , actually I think my assessment might be a tad generous in hindsight 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch