> Have you seen what the cartel does in Mexico?

The ones the DEA has partnered with[0], arms[1], and enables through backward drug policy[2]?

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaloa_Cartel#Alleged_collusi...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

2: https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/how-100-years-failed-...

What, you assume I think the government is good? The cartel is worse by a fair margin, but we do not have a virtuous government. The difference is that government has a modicum of public responsibility and can't/isn't likely to simply murder most* of us for no good reason.

Did you find any assumptions in the references I provided? Since you evoked the cartels as a boogeyman it seems relevant to point out that they're one of our own creation. Changes to US policy no greater or more complex than those proposed for immigration could eliminate the economic conditions which drive their violence.

Well prescreening immigrants lets us avoid dealing with the consequences of our actions, so why not

Poe's law strikes again. I'm unsure if you're being sarcastic or not. I think the consequences of our actions will find us one way or another regardless of immigration policy. That's not an argument against screening, but for policy reform.

The government has a responsibility to minimize the consequences on its own people, everyone else be damned. Of course the US needs screening for immigrants, and I don’t know anyone reasonable who’d argue otherwise. Zero crime among immigrants is unrealistic, but society should make the tradeoff there based on economic and social factors instead of feeling any kind of moral obligation wrt. immigration.

If I can avoid dealing with the ruinous consequences of governments that existed before I was born, I absolutely will.

Cartel members are already here you know. It’s not their mere presence that results in wanton violence and a lack of government authority to deal with it.