Am I wrong to think the problem is being inverted?
The US is (rightfully) upset about the amount of drugs, etc. coming in from Mexico because of the cartel. Then why don't they ensure those things can't get in?
Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but if I dont want my neighbour's dog coming into my house, it's just as much my responsibility to ensure it doesn't get in, as it is my neighbour's.
(The problem of addiction itself might be too complicated to discuss here; however, unless everyone, including politicians, educates themselves about what it is, there is no way to deal with it. JMO.)
But, say, you have a neighbor country whose economy you can't neglect - it is 15th in the world - but who also has areas of extreme poverty with bad access to education. Crime groups always spring in such areas. Cartels are no different. What criminals smuggle in, reflects the market requirements. Could be booze, drugs or something totally different.
Economically: Mexico is the largest exporter of all Latin American countries. It is 15th economy in the world (some say, the 12th, but I took Mexican data) . Its biggest export is into the US; its biggest import is from US. US has huge investments into Mexican economy, after all.
And, it has two presidents, the previous and the current one, that were/are reasonable.
What happens if you impose tariff war which means, impoverished legal economy?
One, you push the country to look for other partners.
Two, impoverished country sends more drug traffic across the border, that's obvious.
There is a way to work together with Mexican government regarding the cartels. They are a pest for everyone.
There is a way to deal with them in the US, too.
There is the way to deal with the border that is, you know, own complex factor.
Cutting off legal ways to make money makes illegal problems worse, not better. JMO.
