CNS News did some analysis and found the following:
An analysis by CNSNews.com, published earlier this month, showed that the odds of a civilian dying in Ciudad Juarez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua was three times more likely than a civilian dying in Baghdad.David A. Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego, said the violence is Mexico is exaggerated in media reports at a House hearing on Tuesday. The per capita rate of civilian killings in the Mexican border city in 2008 was nearly three-and-a-half times (3.4) as great as the per capita rate of civilian killings in the Iraqi province of Baghdad, CNSNews.com has determined, based on State Department statistics and data supplied by an Iraqi civilian-casualty database recommended by the Department of Defense.In Ciudad Juarez, where drug cartels are fighting with Mexican authorities for control of the city, an estimated 1,800 people were killed in 2008, according to the U.S. State Department. That equaled one in every 889 residents in a population that the State Department says 1.6 million.
Since 01Jan09, one thousand people have been murdered in drug violence. 7,000 people have been murdered in Mexico since January 2007. Drug cartels have committed to murdering 1 police officer every 48 hours in Ciudad Juarez.
Additionally, the drugs aren't just flowing through Mexico, but much of it now is being consumed inside Mexico.
From National Review:
What’s more, drug use in Mexico itself is widespread and growing; McCaffrey’s report says that chronic drug consumption there has doubled since 2002.An estimated 20 percent of the cocaine that enters Mexico is consumed locally, and Tijuana’s 1.4 million people are estimated to include 100,000 meth addicts. There’s nothing reform of American drug laws can do to affect this.
Even Hillary Clinton is saying that the violence in Mexico is intolerable.
What can we do? Again from National Review:
1. Finish the fence- It is astonishing that this shovel-ready project that would employ legions of idle construction workers from Michigan, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere isn’t being completed, or even expanded. Instead, the permanent assignment of troops to patrol the border would seem to be unavoidable at this point; the public is way ahead of the elites on this, with a recent poll finding 79 percent of voters in favor of placing the military on the border.
2. Expand state and local cooperation with the feds
3. Keep expanding E-Verify
4. No amnesty- This is important again for two reasons. First, amnesty would give gangsters who are currently illegal immigrants much more freedom of action, comparable to the way the 1986 amnesty gave legal status to Egyptian illegal alien Mahmoud “The Red” Abouhalima, enabling him to freely travel to Afghanistan and receive his terrorist training, then re-enter the country and help lead the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. During the 2007 amnesty debate, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff estimated that 15 to 20 percent of the illegal population would be ineligible because of criminal records among other reasons, a large share of them undoubtedly gang members. While some of these undesirables would surely be screened out, there’s little doubt that the overwhelmed immigration bureaucracy would be pressured into rubber-stamping amnesty applications, granting legal status to many of the 15 to 20 percent identified by Chertoff.
5. Disengage border towns
6. Send in the Marines?