US fires teargas at asylum seekers as Mexico border crossing closed
159 replies, posted
The process already exists, a country has no requirement to make the process easy.
To be fair the US government has made asylum very difficult to acquire and is seemingly attempting to get out of granting asylum to Central American refugees altogether.
which video
okay but we are clearly talking about the American border which is why I said there is an area between "open borders" and "closed borders no asylum gas everyone who tries to get in". sgman91 seems to believe that if you aren't for the latter, you must be for the latter.
This grey area doesn't make sense though, basically you don't want them to enforce the law and use mass dispersion tactics if people come en masse?
There isn't many other ways to deter rushing massed crowds besides walls to slow them down or dispersion tools like tear gas
Ok those guys shouldn't be throwing rocks but on the same page there was video footage of a shitload of people not throwing rocks.
lol, avoiding injuries. You're so full of shit. Why not just say disperse the people? -nesto- does, I don't see why you have to pretend like tear gassing people is some humanitarian act.
They attacked Border Patrol agents, attempted to break parts of the fence, and tried to storm several small openings instead of going through the same asylum process as everyone else.
Honestly, good on USBP for showing restraint, and good on Mexico for dealing with those who refuse to go through the same system as everyone else.
No, the shitload of people were trying to get through the gap while others took the time out of their day to throw some rocks.
It is better than getting fired upon by rubber bullets, which can be lethal.
I just wanted to state for the record that the vast, vast majority of people (wrongfully) trying to steal through the border were not throwing rocks. That's a distinction you failed to make.
I mean it's better than being kneecapped by a sniper but it's still nonsense to say that tear gas is deployed to "prevent injuries".
I was just wanting to see something specific that would make sense with the "grey-area" of how to enforce a border with this situation or anything really
Sure, but within the moment you've got people attempting to storm in and then rocks begin to fly, no shit you are going to release tear gas.
Close the borders, refuse entry, deny all asylum seekers. Take years to immigrate legally, because the process is deliberately bogged down, also if you're brown, denied. Yeah, sure what people want is open borders with no checks. America needs a massive immigration reform.
Man europe and the rest of the world must be such a hellhole with all us extreme leftists
It obviously worked mate.
I wasn't trying to be specific I was making a general comment about how disingenuous sgman's driveby snipe was. This conversation has been polarized to the point where if you don't support completely stopping asylum requests and closing the border than you obviously must be pro-open borders, something you clearly believe given your snide insinuations about how if I don't think teargas should be deployed in this specific instance that means I don't want them to enforce the law. It's complete sophistry, and part of why political discourse is so polarized.
But you are agreeing that it was correct to deploy tear gas, so whats the issue?
Should have kept your original post, you were on point. I'm so sick of seeing these far right idiots label people who don't 100% agree w/ how this is being managed as HURR LEFTIST NPC CUCKS THAT WANT OPEN BORDERS.
They have no concept of a middle ground or compromise.
That you are trying to play it off like it was to prevent injuries. That you are saying it was done because they threw rocks, which is supported by absolutely zero sources and is based on conjecture from one short video clip.
In general that you want people to stop storming the borders while making asylum seeking and legal immigration as much of a hassle as possible, instead recommending people stay in their home countries or in Mexico, because apparently their sovereignty is less important than hours. All while neglecting the fact that the reason these Central American countries are so dangerous to live in is at least in part to American foreign policy decisions stretching for the past hundred plus years.
I'm applying the same logic riot police use when projectiles begin to fly, that isn't a leap.
A key concern is when will it stop, but by your view, I'm guessing
you want to let them in forever, because something along the lines that nothing will ever make up for 'what america has done to other countries'.
And I still believe they should, reach a compromise or a middle ground.
A country should not be forced to change its laws under duress because theres some illegals building up a force just over the border.
Pretty much proves my point exactly. This is why I never want you to stop posting about Brexit.
Nobody can reach a middle ground with you because your starting point is irrational.
You should tell that to the Trump administration because they are the ones changing the laws, not me. I'm saying we should recognize the right to asylum that the US and other countries have done for decades before "migrant caravans" were scaring Fox News viewers.
As I said, give me a time frame, I might get behind your views, if you indeed 'want to make up for the mistakes of the past'. But uh, eternally groveling apology isn't worth the hassle.
My starting point isn't closed border, but controlled migration, I'm willing to give lee way in some areas obviously just as I hope the other side doesn't just ask for uncontrolled numbers.
The asylum right is already there, I'd rather streamline the process so we can more faster determine who is legitimate and who is just running away from poverty (not covered under the rules).
Exactly. It's government policy, something that will inevitably impact the lives of thousands, even millions of people. Something that needs to be crafted with with the optimal levels of fairness and consideration for the human beings that must live under these policies while also enforcing the rule of law and keeping the order and peace. It's not something that should be left to vague anecdote or indistinct feelings, it requires a foundation of facts and logic.
Which is exactly why no one takes you seriously when you talk about it.
what about a reform of the immigration system, for starters? aren't you basically admitting to seeing things in black and white terms here?
I like this sentiment, and I hope it becomes more of a reality as time goes by.
For the time though, the concept of a borderless world is just that, a sentiment. This isn't just a matter of national conflict either (although there is a lot of that, the Koreas, Pakistan and India, etc) the United Mexican States is hardly able to keep a lid on its own troubles, namely crime and corruption. There is nothing wrong with exercising caution along an unstable border.
Don't confuse that with lauding the efforts of this administration, I do agree that comprehensive immigration reform is becoming more and more important, and current responses by the administration have been counterproductive.
And what happens when the new system gets flooded and to the point where there are waiting lists? We are right back where we started.
so you don't believe in the existence of a sensible immigration system?
Never said that. I'm simply pointing out that no matter how easy you make immigration, you're going to have the same problem. Not saying we shouldn't make it easier, because it should be.
I think you can enforce the border without tear gassing people, yeah?
Then you start working long-term with Mexico and the rest of Central America. It might not be the quick and easy answer trump provides, but it's the truth. The reason for the flow of immigration is not bad hombres looking to steal jobs, it's the economic disparity between the US and its neighbors in the south.
How much does a decade of military patrolling cost? What are the estimates for trump's wall, again? Short-sighted stopgap measures, expensive in the long run, with inhumane treatment on top of it - often intentional, for the explicit purpose of deterrence. None of the administration's measures (nor the ideas floated by Republican platforms) target the actual reasons why immigrants come, all of them treat immigration itself as a downside.
It's long been said that they only have a problem with illegals, but with the Trump consolidation of Republican support, and Stephen Miller at his ear, the agenda seems to shift towards taking issue with legal immigrants as well. Agreeing on a reform of the system should be the first step, but we now have completely opposing ideas on what that reform should entail. I don't know if it's actually possible to do a long term plan when every 4/8 years would risk its existence. I think it would help if the conservative establishment in America acknowledged the calls that exist on the left, that liberals should cater to people they left behind, and did the same with minorities instead of treating them as genetically Democrat
There are always going to be lines. While immigration from Mexico has declined sharply in the last few years, it's always going to exist due to economic disparity with the United States. What's important to keep in mind regarding these migrant caravans is that many of these people are escaping imminent danger. The traditional immigration debate has obfuscated what is in reality a humanitarian crisis that has existed in Central America for many years, not helped at all by an increase in natural disasters and tacit support for coups, in the case of Honduras.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
