Time again for another timeless edition of Reader Vox Populi where insightful readers write the blog. 

The contention that we made here Tuesday that Trump's recent dealings with Mexico paid off drew mail and often the ire of readers. First, what we said on that blog:

Mexico has agreed to place 10,000 troops on the US-Mexico border to stop the flow of fentanyl here in exchange for President Trump delaying his plan to impose tariffs on Mexico. Say what you will, but that is one of the most concrete actions taken by any government to interrupt the fentanyl scourge that has ruined the lives of so many New Mexicans and contributed mightily to the high crime rate here. 

Vox Populi kicks into high gear with reaction. We begin with longtime journalist Peter Katel, now retired, who covered Mexico for years for numerous national news outlets:  

Hi Joe, Regarding your comment about Mexico’s deployment of troops to its border with the U.S., this is not a first. Mexico sent even more troops in 2019. The latest deployment offered both Trump and Mexican President Sheinbaum a way to back down from a tariff war that would have (and still might) hurt both sides. Whether it does anything beyond that is questionable. 

If troop deployments were a solution to the fentanyl crisis, then the 2019 action would have made the latest one unnecessary. Granted, the earlier troop move by Mexico was aimed at migrants, not drugs. But unless the newly assigned troops start searching every single vehicle coming through a port of entry - unimaginable, given the traffic volume - this deployment looks like another in the long list of drug-war theatrics. 

As all data make clear, most fentanyl entering the U.S. from Mexico comes through ports of entry, smuggled by American citizens. A well-done summary by the libertarian Cato Foundation concludes: "Policymakers should focus on reducing demand for fentanyl rather than futilely trying to reduce supply."

Former state Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino writes:

First, the vast majority of the fentanyl entering the US comes through ports of entry and is transported hidden among the containers brought across the border by the hundreds of thousands of commercial trucks which enter daily. That putting 10,000 Mexican troops on the border will do anything extra in stopping that flow is highly unlikely unless those military troops have access to some type of technology that will detect packages of fentanyl buried among the legal products being imported—or unless they are willing to stop every single truck and off-load their contents which will bring traffic at the ports of entry to a complete halt. 

In fact, the number of fentanyl-related deaths in the country have dropped over the past two years. There are still far too many lives being lost, but the efforts of the Biden administration to intercept fentanyl at the border have paid off. That effort was aided by the development of better technology for detecting the presence of fentanyl. . .It is in further improvements in that direction that we will be able to make headway in reducing the availability of this poison—not in the photo op involved in stationing soldiers along the border—doing what? 

BLOG ADDENDUM

Good points from Peter and Jerry. Our position--as explained elsewhere--is that troop deployment can have an impact "when combined with a broader strategy, including intelligence-sharing, addressing the demand for fentanyl, and strengthening partnerships with international authorities." There is no cure-all.

LUJAN AND KENNEDY 

Reader Ricardo Flores writes in defense of Sen. Lujan:  

I think the criticism of Ben Ray Lujan by the MAGA media (over his questioning of RFK, Jr.) is par for the course when it comes to any racial/ethnic minority member of Congress because of racial attitudes that still exist. Even where the details of any law or policy are not fully understood by the public, the MAGA media will sharpen their focus on racial/ethnic minority members who are in the spotlight so that they can launch a full-out attack at the slightest discrepancy, or opposition to their right wing ideology.  

Opposing RFK was the right thing to do given his stated position on vaccines. Senator Lujan did a commendable job of pressuring him to attain some level of disclosure about how he would lead HHS and, more importantly, to expose his loyalty to Trump's divisive agenda. 

On social media, Shoebill McGee wrote: 

No one attacked Benny. We simply pointed out that giving an answer he didn’t like is not failing to answer. Benny boy was rude and his questions weren’t productive. As a huge fan of RFKJ, I’m very happy to see him be questioned, as long as it’s productive. 

THE BOTTOM LINES 

In the first draft of the Wednesday blog the last name of mayoral candidate Mayling Armijo was edited incorrectly several times. We apologize for the error.

This is the Home of New Mexico Politics.