So the US is using chemical agents on civilians across an international border?
Only 50 years ago we did the same to our own citizens who just wanted civil rights and to live their lives peacefully.
truly a victory for the rule of law and justice
Might have something to do with this:
This might be an unpopular opinion here but:
The Associated Press reported that migrants approaching the border were enveloped with teargas after a few tried to breach the fence separating the two countries.
What were they expecting? Just pouring over the literal fence isn't the way to do this.
Maybe dont do illegal shit en masse if you dont want to be treated like a mass group of criminals.
I like how @Smurfy tactically changed the wording from "Illegal Immigrants" to "Asylum Seekers". A++ Yellow Journalism keep atter
With a name like yours I'd be surprised if you don't get banned for gimmicking. Would report but Garry fucked up newpunch for mobile users.
Illegal or not, is tear gassing crowds of refugees including children really a proportionate/necessary response?
If theyre attempting to illegally cross en masse, which is illegal, and trying to illegally destroy a fence to facilitate the mass crossing of illegal immigrants, which is illegal, then yea. Completely justified.
Again, I dig the rhetoric change from "illegal immigrant" to "refugee". A++ keep up the disinformation efforts.
You can't call them "illegal immigrants" until they cross the border
It's Cyke "Spook Nuke" Lon Bee, he's never been subtle.
Seeking asylum isn't illegal numbnuts
Was wondering where I'd seen that avatar before, now it makes a lot more sense.
Yep, I noticed that too. Reminds me of when I was 16 years old and an edgelord.
Yea uh theyre trying to hop and tear down fences on masse. I'd say theyre not really seeking assylum through the proper chanels by illegally crossing the border.
Theyre breaking the law as soon as they try to illegally cross the border. Quit playing semantics.
This feels like bait.
You can't tell people to stop playing semantics when the only defense of your viewpoint is the law. The law is literally nothing but semantics.
Because the law is the true arbiter of morality, which is why you can be thrown in prison for life over a plant and a dude who executed an unarmed man and has "Get Fucked" etched on his gun goes scot free because he's a cop.
'Keep on licking that boot, worm.
Asylum seekers only need to enter the country, they are not required to present themselves at legal crossings.
Especially when the legitimate crossings have been purposefully denying everyone trying to approach from getting close enough to claim asylum, which has been happening, and people have been turned away.
Just change your edgelord name to "HolocaustNow" and get it over with.
Yea not really. In this scenario, the law is clear cut. Cross the border illegally=makes you a criminal
Seek to legally immigrate through the proper channels and procedures=doesnt make you a criminal.
Group of people trying to illegally cross the border en masse=illegal
Wow some blurred lines in this shades of gray here
Uh yeah the border is becoming militarised which isn't so great but when you get large groups of people charging the fence you're standing behind, you tend to get a bit on the twitchy side. The problem is these 'asylum seekers' are seen by many to be proving Trump and the GOP right. Their behaviour is counterproductive to their cause.
You'd be the sort of goose stepper who'd be apologetic to the Chinese government in another timeline if you care so much about law. You're fucking pathetic dude.
My NPC friend, youre missing 2/3rds of the information youre trying to discredit me with. Wanna try that again before you insult me for no reason?
Sounds a lot like youre describing illegal immigration to me.
Don't forget Ryan Holle, who was generously commuted from life to twenty years in prison because he loaned his car to a shitty roommate who later used that car as a getaway ride in a murder.
But I don't want to go too far off track here, let's just say that tear gassing crowds of people for illegally crossing the border isn't necessarily proportionate.
Goose stepper, boot licker, gonna call me a jack booted thug next?
I'm sorry I shatteted your fragile beliefs by loosely contending them. I didnt mean to rile you up to the point of throwing insults.
Imagine unironically using the NPC meme and not realizing that it makes you the NPC responding with programmed thought.
What information would that be? You just seem to be rambling about illegality, and I gave you a reason why something deemed illegal and legal does not equate to wrong or right.
Id say using legal non lethal measures to prevent groups of people from committing crime on mass is a reasonable response.
Its used on local civilians all the time, and not just the US. French are getting some use out of it with their riots right now. Why is it disproportionate for the US to do so?
Rather telling that you're not even responding to the fact that legal avenues are being blocked off so they don't have any other options.
At least, it would be telling if it weren't for any other time you opened your mouth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.