Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I think it's reasonable (although perhaps naive) for people to have a sunny view of law enforcement. Especially when, like me, they're white men from middle-class backgrounds; I've never had a bad experience with law enforcement, despite having done some stupendously dumb-ass things. But even though I'm predisposed to view cops favorably, the stuff with ICE is shocking to me. America has a big chunk of histo…
Or, if Mexican heroin killed multiple people you know, you have a not-sunny view of illegal immigrants and unsecured borders. Just because you attribute your own ignorance to the color of your skin, doesn't mean others do.
But is it really fair to call it "Mexican" heroin? Is that a bonafide statement or an assumption? Lethal drugs don't explicitly come from outside the US, and in the presence of stronger border security the supply-demand curve would just re-balance itself with an all domestic supply.
Heroin has always been illegal. Illegally crossing the border has always been illegal. I view the "Mexican" claim as a scapegoat. One could easily make the argument that spending $5b on privatized drug rehab programs (instead of privatized-incarceration) would have the same or greater positive effects on the drug epidemic than a $5b wall. Or $5b in aide to regular police departments along the border (not ICE). Or $5b in aide to Mexican towns right over the border.
There are a million ways to skin a cat. If reducing domestic drug deaths is the goal, demonizing immigration is not the answer. Education and treatment are the answer. Mexicans are just a convenient target.