why would it be mexico's responsibility to detain them? presumably no Mexican laws have been broken and it's not like Mexico fucked up their countries. and jsut so we're clear, you really think an attack of even greater scale (i.e. explosive ordinance) was warranted against unarmed civillians?
U.S. Border Patrol agents reportedly fired tear gas into Mexico, forcing parents with toddlers to flee. Well so far this has absolutely zero to do with the US military, so I'm not seeing how it could be "an act of war" by any means. I do know that when I was deployed whether in combat or peace-keeping roles our unit had no access to tear gas or methods to fire tear gas or even training with tear gas - no soldier wants to mess with that shit, it's dangerous!
Really? Even in cadets we were given "live" tear gas training... the reservist instructors made sure we got a big breath of it before letting us out of the gas hut, too... uke:
We have th4 responsibility to defend our borders. Lethal force should be used if non-lethal methods fail.
Sort of like how we executed your ancestors for being traitors and trying to destroy our country because they were too lazy to work the farms themselves? Now we see we should not have stopped because their continued racism has damaged far more lives than they were worth.
From what, the poor? Hey look, a fat bigot calling for lethal force to be used against poor brown people. You're basically Christ reborn.
I wasn't aware of the "those guys with military equipment that have been given orders to do this sort of thing aren't technically our military so it doesn't count" loophole in international relations. To clarify, you are saying your military should shoot children if it looks like they are about to step over a line on a map?
You say open borders like it's a bad thing. We did have open borders for our first hundred years...I guess the left having its way back then helped enormously. During that 100 year period, we had our foundational growth spurt that sustained our country into the 20th and 21st centuries.
The attitude of people like Poodle is terrifying, especially coming days after we commemorated the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI. Is this particular situation going to escalate into full-on conflict? Almost certainly not. Are situations like this how many conflicts start? Yup.
let me explain - we all got tear-gassed in basic and pretty much annually throughout our careers. When I say "training with tear gas" I mean the typical soldier doesn't carry around tear gas or is certified to use tear gas canisters/grenades/etc. It's not part of our normal fighting arsenal in other words. Granted if your "additional duties" that all soldiers (especially NCO's) have might include tasks related to handling tear gas, then you will be responsible for the tear gas training/use. For some reason both my son and myself (might be genetic) don't have much of a reaction to CS or any other gas version. A full strength gassing really messes them up but it doesn't affect us too badly.
I keep hoping Trump has finally gone to the well one too many times with the "invading immigrant hordes" bucket. His base still loves it, but suburban moderates aren't falling for it anymore.
And during that time we still had times where we limited immigration. Now we have a different system and it’s not perfect, but I don’t think we should just let in anybody and everyone.
Sorry, I thought it would be fine since I didn’t use caps. Especially not if they know we will actually use force. I’m curious, what ways other than conflict so conflicts start?
The only immigration we limited was from the slave trade. Immigration was not restricted on the federal level until the 1880s. In fact, some of our naturalized citizens didn't even have to move to immigrate and become citizens--the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo granted citizenship to 70,000 people already living in California and New Mexico.
I remember when my NJROTC class went for a visit to Paris Island. Part of the visit was to toss them into the gas hut for a short period of what the marines would go through. It was a different time when our parents did not care to hear of things like safety. I had a good laugh when parents were paying for emergency tickets for their kids to fly home, and some of the kids got stuck there in a snow storm for some extra time. I was home, of course. I was not giving up any break to go through torture by marine drill sergeants in an abbreviated boot camp. I had seen full metal jacket. That did not look like any sort of fun. You have to have some tolerance and idea of the effects so you do not get disoriented in the field if you come into contact with it. I think the training for the troops involved being in the hut in a gas mask, having it filled with the gas, and then having to remove your mask and feel the effects for a certain amount of time. The NJROTC class got to do it without removing the mask, but they say it still got in and irritated their skin and eyes. Maybe the kids did lift them up for a few seconds as part of their experience.
To be fair to FF (ugh) immigration control wasn't a thing globally until this time. It became a thing because global movement increased significantly during the industrial revolution and the age of flight as it became much quicker and easier to travel. Obviously in the decades since this has continued to increase, and now we have a world that is not only much easier to travel but is also a lot more globalised in terms of business, the merging of cultures, communication, education, basic wealth and information. So you can't really compare the 19th Century world with today's when it comes to movement of people. Of course, the US was unique in that during that period it relied heavily on immigration for population increase, but of course then the main immigrants were European. The US, unlike much of Europe, has the space and capacity to easily accommodate more immigrants. What people like FF won't tell you (and perhaps FF doesn't even realise himself because he just follows the partisan line) is that the real reason they want strict immigration control is because people like themselves, i.e of white European heritage, are already soon going to be outnumbered by non-whites. With no real need for white people to migrate en masse to the US they know that a more open the borders the more brown people will come and the more the white man will continue it's journey to ethnic minority status.
"I wasn't aware of the "those guys with military equipment that have been given orders to do this sort of thing aren't technically our military so it doesn't count" loophole in international relations." - Baily my point being even if Trump hadn't sent our military down there, US Border Agents (who have been there long before this caravan incident and will be there long after) would have done the exact same thing that they just did.
The whole rapist, drug dealer, and murderer thing was such a lie. A rapist would have to walk by millions of rapable people in countries that are much more accepting of abusing and raping women to make it to the US to rape it's women. You could easily rape people in the third world and it might be worse for the woman to report it than for you to be arrested for it given the status of women. The same with murder. One would think you could much more easily go on mass murder sprees in a country with less tracking and less police and forensics than the US. Your in a caravan of 7000 people who no one knows who they are. If you just want to kill someone you are in the perfect place, and if you had a personal vendetta it is probably not with a person in the US, and you could probably visit legally and take transportation to kill someone. The drug dealing thing only makes sense to a complete moron with no brain, aka republicans. What drug dealer in their right mind is going to hand someone as much drugs as they can carry and then make them walk thousands of miles in a caravan full of poor people across the territory of other gangs so they hopefully could make it into the US and sell the drugs and then pray these poor unknown people give you the money instead of disappearing with the cash and starting a new life in a country you don't know? Drug dealers re not using the caravan. Even fleeing criminals would be stupid to use a large group of easily spotted people with police and reporters roaming around it.
My opposition to illegal immigration in particular is on a personal level. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ll repeat it. My ex wife came here legally, my family spent a lot of money and a went through a lot of red tape to not only get her here, but also to make her a citizen. It’s not an easy thing to do. It’s not fair for those people who do it the right way to have people just hop the border and we just grant them citizenship because of reasons. As for open borders, I still don’t understand why every country except the US is supposed to have immigration policies, but we are just supposed to let anyone in?
But this whole "caravan" thing isn't about illegal immigration. The point is to try to get in legally. Are there people trying use the caravan as cover in order do illegal stuff? Maybe...but most of them plan to do it legally.
One training objective of getting "gassed" is to develop confidence in your mask - by being able to function wearing the mask, then removing it and being incapacitated you learn that "hey, my mask works pretty good as long as I wear it!" Thus the official name is the "Confidence Chamber" but hey, let's not kid ourselves - it's gas! In the full length school to be a certified NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) instructor the students (all NCO's) have to remove their masks in a chamber for 10 minutes! Medical personnel are standing by of course. They also have to inject themselves with atropine (the antidote for a chemical attack) which makes your heart feel like it's going to explode and you're fixing to die! Again, medics are there for that training.
Sorry, but what's that got to do with the wider system? You don't need to tell me the process. I've had clients who I've acted for for over 15 years going through all many of processes to finally settle. The process will always be there to some degree, and if people can follow it they should. But sometimes they can't (for instance, if they are a legitimate refugee) so the question is, what constitutes a fair immigration system when it comes to issues like overstayer, undocumented entry and claims of refugee status? That has nothing to so with what I assume was you meeting someone with a limited visa or online and needed to go through the spousal process. Also, it's a myth that being an ellgal entrant or overstayer makes for an easy life. It doesn't. It makes for a hard life, even if you try your best to regularise your stay. Also, where did your ex-wife come from if I might ask? One of the countries concerned in this debate? Do you think you are allowing your personal grudge to inform your wider view of the system?
for the first 100 years or so we did not. The Chinese exclusion act was the first. Since then there has been a distinct patter of how immigration fear-mongering plays out and who we're supposed to be afraid of.
so why not hate that complex system, not the desperate people who have neither the time or the resources to labor through it? Here's an idea - no politician I know of is proposing it but no one has shown me what's wrong with it save "OMG fucking BROWN people!!!" - start with the premise that anyone can come here that wants with two provisions: no one with a history of crimes that the U.S. defines as felonies (unless they can prove refugee status and then case-by-case) and never get caught here without us knowing you came. People won't have to sneak and evade if there's not an insane barrier to being allowed entry. Now, once you have that foundation you set various levels of legal presence, ranging from temporary seasonal work up to legal permanent resident with potential to seek citizenship. And if you ever want to seek citizenship your presence HAS to be documented and in compliance with your level. (and doing both should not be irrationally burdensome to filter people out). if you don't comply on either point you're flagged as ineligible for citizenship (or whatever) Point being - incentivize compliance, don't be thuggish about non-compliance. Do this for, say, a ten year trial period and carefully monitor the outcomes - IF it turns out to somehow be more of a burden than we can bear (highly doubtful) - then do something different once this plan sunsets. (and yes, I'd suggest this basic premise for every nation with a high enough level of sophistication to monitor the situation - but a lot of nations are more worried about their people fleeing than about anyone wanting in.
as far as Tijuana, this is playing out exactly the way Trump wanted it to, it looks just like he wants it to look, he's got a shit-eating grin right now that a porn star couldn't improve on. Ask yourself why it is that mass immigration groups have arrived before, not a few times - but THIS hasn't happened before. What's the one major factor that's different now?
