US fires teargas at asylum seekers as Mexico border crossing closed - Polidicks

Alt Left vs Alt Right clash of titans

Is saying that people shouldn't be tear gassed radical leftism now?

I'd like to see comprehensive immigration reform too, but immigration reform is completely separate from this. If you have people trying to illegally cross the border, in that moment it is a black and white issue, either you stop them or you don't. If you don't, then you have no enforcement of immigration control. I'd really like to hear some of the people insisting that hopping the border shouldn't be stopped or punished articulate how what they're asking for isn't de facto open borders.

I see very few people actively arguing that we should just let storms of people cross the border unpunished. I see plenty of people explaining why people are crossing the border, which is a far more important thing to discuss if you want to actually stop something like this from happening in the future. It's incredibly disingenuous to cry about "the process" when we have a far-right administration actively undermining that process in an attempt to stop legal asylum altogether.

maybe the question of controlling your border is binary but how you achieve the answer is not. It's a false dichotomy you're creating. we must control our border =/= we should tear gas people attempting to enter the country.

So how do you suggest controlling the border, if the most benign form of non-lethal force is out of the question?

Maybe we can invent drones that pick up people gently and return them to the border of the country they already illegal entered lol

"Why didn't they just come in legally?" After being told to not come here and after deploying troops on the border? Really? If them coming here legally is legit your primary concern, why didn't we tell these refugees "If you come, be sure to come to *point of entry here*" and send additional judges/lawyers to process the paperwork and to thoroughly screen them for "bad hombres"? This administration has been retarded about this from the start and some of you are just sitting here like "this is fine".

I should address this point in this thread too. The migrants were trying to legally cross but Trump admin. changes combined with the spike in migrants from the "caravan" has made asylum application a monumental task. (From the other thread) Even with the asylum application, it's not that easy or simple. The application process has been taking a substantial amount of time. Fani Caballero, 32, a migrant from Honduras who arrived with the caravan, sat by the train tracks, within sight of United States agents on the other side of the steel columns of the border fence. Her daughter, Cristina, 7, cried as Customs and Border Protection helicopters circled overhead. “People had thought that they were going to open the gates, but that was a lie,” Ms. Caballero said. “We thought it would be easier.” She had signed up for an interview with a United States asylum officer, the first step in the asylum application process — but the surge of migrants with the caravan meant she would be waiting for weeks. “Now, I guess I’ll just wait my turn, because I can’t go back to my country,” she said. (...) The backlog of people waiting to request asylum at a checkpoint has swelled, causing frustration among the migrants to boil over. Some of those rushing the border on Sunday had children in strollers and in their arms. (...) The Trump administration has demanded that Mexico agree to host migrants applying for asylum as they wait for a hearing before an immigration judge in the United States. The wait can last months or even years, during which time many migrants are released and allowed to work under rules that President Trump has vowed to change. Mr. Trump wants them to wait in Mexico instead. The ridiculously long asylum process hits pretty hard when you are dealing with people who have very little money fleeing imminent political violence and have to stay in temporary shelters that have relatively few resources as well. Thousands of migrants began arriving in Tijuana about 10 days ago and have been housed since then in squalid conditions in a community sports center that has been converted into a makeshift shelter. Many have become increasingly desperate with the realization of the obstacles still before them in reaching the United States. Tijuana city officials say they have no money to improve conditions at the sports center, where more than 5,000 migrants are sheltering in a space with capacity for no more than 3,500. When things are this desperate, one shouldn't be surprised when migrants get anxious and go for more risky options like what happened. I'm not advocating to opening up the border completely as a lot of people would like to imply, but this a symptom of an asylum system that is deeply flawed and intentionally made to discourage asylum seekers from applying. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/world/americas/tijuana-mexico-border.html)

It's not retardation, though. It's all part of the plan. The migrant crisis is just an excuse to push an entire immigration policy built on white supremacy. Trump's base doesn't want brown people here, whether they're legal or not.

I consider that sort of agenda to be retarded. Just because "it was the plan all along" doesn't make it any less retarded.

As a general statement? No. Within the context of this specific situation where “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”? Absolutely. Then what were they supposed to do in this situation?

>alt left You mean center left? leftwingers in the US are considered conservative in most western nations.

Cross-posting from the other thread on this topic because it's also relevant here: Most of the points I was going to make have already been made in this thread, but I'd like to make one extra point regarding the "they're criminals" argument. When people argue that all of these violent actions are justified because the people seeking asylum are 'criminals', they aren't simply stating that they broke the law. Afterall, you don't use teargas on someone for jaywalking. The implication is that these are hardened criminals like those from a criminal gang who must be stopped from entering the country at all costs lest they rape and pillage everything, hence the rhetoric about 'invaders'. Even though the reality is that these are middle-aged women with strollers containing their three-year old children who made a desperate choice in a desperate situation. There can be no argument that this statement of asylum seekers being 'criminals' is not based in racism towards hispanics. The people making this argument want you to dehumanize these people. They want you to dismiss real human suffering because it suits their political agenda. Don't let them.

You're dodging the question. We already know the circumstances, so given the circumstances, what would you expect border control to do? I'd bet you anything you want that the guy making the call as to whether or not to use tear gas isn't the guy who can set up a fast-track immigration/asylum process to avoid the issue to begin with.

Arrest people.

Whether or not the border guards could've used tear gas or rubber bullets is not the issue here. This event would not have happened in the first place if Trumpian policies had not made it so difficult for people to cross legally in the first place. Im not dodging the question, I'm including context which disengenious posters ignore when they argue that you're either for open borders or violent crackdowns on immigrants and there's no middle ground. This is just a 'gotcha' argument that doesn't mean anything. It's a disengenious way of avoiding having to deal with difficult questions by just throwing shit at people who are uncomfortable with the way things are going by saying that they want violence and anarchy if they dont agree with you because there is no middle ground.

Are you seriously suggesting that mass arrests are less violent and less likely to cause injury than tear gas? We've seen this policy in action- look at any of the mass arrests by riot police any time there's a major protest. Broken bones, trauma, and deaths are common occurrence. Tear gas is unpleasant to be caught in but it's the least harmful means of deterrence available. The hell are you on about, that's literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I've never said 'of course using lethal ammunition on illegal immigrants is A-OK!!!', could you slow your roll and try to actually respond to my posts rather than what you think I really mean? I'm trying to figure out who's just expressing disapproval of current federal immigration policy, and who actually believes that the most mild level of non-lethal force is excessive for border control as a general rule. I am asking you a serious question, not a 'gotcha'. Is it wrong to use non-lethal force to prevent someone from crossing the border? Answering 'no' does not mean you endorse Trump's immigration policy. or give a wild thumbs-up to what happened here. This is a simple yes-or-no question about what level of force you believe is justifiable to secure a border, because it is impossible for me to distinguish between people saying 'this is a bad thing because of Trump's policies that shouldn't have happened' versus 'tear gas is never ever justifiable to use on civilians' when you and others just say 'tear gassing immigrants was wrong because Trump' and refuse to answer the simplest of clarifying questions.

Why do you think we even have non-lethal crowd dispersion tactics if the goal isn't to lessen the permanent damage caused? Like you're saying the goal was "100% just disperse the crowd" and that "preventing injuries" is a bullshit claim but... wat? If the goal was solely to disperse the crowd with no regard for injuries they'd just shoot the shit out of them. Nonlethal options are used specifically because they are able to achieve the desired results with minimal injuries.

But you do think that it's justifiable in this case. Hence Yes. Babies can die from inhaling it and they were not even close to a rarity in that area. Blindness is a common result of exposure to tear gas. If the tear gas is not kept up to date it breaks down into far more toxic agents, depending on what sort of tear gas was used. The most mild level of non-lethal force for border control is an arrest or the threat of an arrest.

This doesn't contradict what he said whatsoever. I think you misread his post lol

I feel like this limit to the scope of the argument was imposed after it started and does feel like a "gotcha" Raidyr here was talking about politics in general, or so I see it. Cheeky Nandos replied that he doesn't see a grey area for America. Again, pretty broad statement, in direct response to someone talking about the larger political landscape. There's no clue that I'm "supposed" to be talking about the enforcement required in this specific situation, and not the politics that created it So when you tell me "actually that has nothing to do with this, because this discussion is limited in this and that way" I have to say "gotcha" is a word that does pop to mind

I didn't state it was a contradiction. I was stating that he stated in his post that Is merely him hiding his own position as 'the obviously neutral and correct and not-extreme facts of the reality' while he goes on about how 'tear gas was the most mild thing they could have done here' because he excuses that they "had to escalate". If he's alright with that escalation and, therefore, is alright with escalation in general ('no general rules') then I'd like to know where he believes 'it's justifiable' ends as that's key to resolving his core question, which is Regarding 'why does the level of force I believe is justifiable not justifiable to you'.

It's possible to blame Trump for creating the situation in the first place and simultaneously blame those who decided to try to break through the border for their own actions.

Are you seriously suggesting that mass arrests are less violent and less likely to cause injury than tear gas? We've seen this policy in action- look at any of the mass arrests by riot police any time there's a major protest. Broken bones, trauma, and deaths are common occurrence. Tear gas is unpleasant to be caught in but it's the least harmful means of deterrence available. Read that again, Firgof is talking about arrests being made if an individual person crossing the border and being detained assaulted someone, i.e. not mass arrests a la riot police. That's not to say that such a thing couldn't be done without use of excessive force. You're using a bad example of law enforcement handling things incorrectly to justify another example of law enforcement handling things incorrectly. I am asking you a serious question, not a 'gotcha'. Is it wrong to use non-lethal force to prevent someone from crossing the border? Answering 'no' does not mean you endorse Trump's immigration policy. or give a wild thumbs-up to what happened here This is a simple yes-or-no question about what level of force you believe is justifiable to secure a border, because it is impossible for me to distinguish between people saying 'this is a bad thing because of Trump's policies that shouldn't have happened' versus 'tear gas is never ever justifiable to use on civilians' when you and others just say 'tear gassing immigrants was wrong because Trump' and refuse to answer the simplest of clarifying questions. You're asking for a simple yes-or-no answer to a question that requires a very serious and complicated answer. You also complained about people arguing that tear gassing people, as a general rule, is a bad thing but then argue that there can only be one general rule when it comes to border protection. Why is it unacceptable to have a general rule in one instance, but acceptable in another instance? Ive already clarrified my position on this issue. You're putting people who disagree with you into a corner and refusing to accept any answer that doesn't go along with yout preexisting beliefs.

It's also possible to blame victims of kidnapping for being kidnapped by their own inattention. That doesn't mean it is ethical or just to do so. Furthermore, they decided to break through the border as a reaction to our actions.

Someone abducting you against your will and choosing to physically force your way into a foreign country are in no way the same. What the fuck are you thinking with this

Absolutely. It is also absolutely unethical to forgive someone using an unwarranted amount of force to ensure they can not do it. Shooting them would also ensure they wouldn't be allowed to 'get away with' breaking the law - and yet we would (at least I hope) shun that action because the action taken (lethal force) was not a proportional or just response to the 'harm' that was being done. The harm that was being done here was people crossing a fence into another nation's border - that can be resolved through police work or, alternatively, an increase in personnel to handle traffic and clear announcements and supplies being distributed to ensure that people are kept calm. When the police engender a riot, they should not be allowed to use 'non-lethal force' to suppress it simply because they didn't want to deal with it to begin with. Are you another of those who believe these people are not fleeing for fear of their lives to the United States and believe that they're simply here 'to steal jobs' and are therefore criminals in waiting?

Someone abducting you against your will and choosing to physically force your way into a foreign country are in no way the same. These people have no choice in being the situation in which they are in. They're fleeing any combination of violence, persecution, starvation or drought. The situations are definitely comparable. Two things being comparable is not equal to being the same.

https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-tomi-lahren-migrants-tear-gas-thanksgiving-1231582 Wow who knew fox hires such horrible people.