I wouldn't say that there's nothing. The Federales tried to contain the protesters non-violently. Several hundred of the protesters got past them and rushed the fence. At that point, I don't see any more than two choices the Border Patrol could have made. Either stop them, or let them tear the fence down.
I'd have liked to see the US authorities engage the crowd proactively in the first instance and open up lines of communication (and by communication I don't mean issuing orders), diplomacy goes a long way and the impression that's coming across quite believably is there was no taste for that.
here you go spot! Ignore the Obama/political leanings, I just linked to this article to illustrate that using crowd control gas (while not perfect) works. It sure beats the alternative of lethal/harmful force. Border agents can ruminate over safer alternatives when their shift is over. Theory versus reality has always been a vexing, complicated mistress. http://www.gopusa.com/hypocrisy-oba...-once-a-month-as-democrats-stood-by-silently/
Apparently they get the chance to ruminate once a month and have got nowhere, but the fact you are referring to two possible options, lethal weapons and non lethal weapons, says a great deal. There are a great many alternatives which involve treating people like human beings before they get to the point of being an angry mob and frankly I can't blame them for being aggressive at that point. Tell me you wouldn't be. In fairness though I have no experience of illegally entering someone else's country.
I totally agree! But once the mob is storming the border it's a little late in the game for that. Again, pretend you are the border agency charged with securing our border safely & effectively. When the "lines of communication & diplomacy" fail (which would be ALWAYS over a long enough timeline) you still need to accomplish your mission first, and work on better methods when you can. It's fixing the train while it's still rolling.
Or stopping someone from entering a country. Just sayin'. And you can treat people like human beings all you want (and should) but you can't please everybody or appease everybody at the cost of compromising your mission. Ideas & plans & theories all have their place, but when the shit hits the fan who ya gonna call? Hint - it ain't Ghost Busters!
Opened up lines of communication, met with representatives of the refugees, provided information on a more human level, put faces and names to the uniforms and fences that otherwise demarked impersonal authority. This was a delicate situation and required tact, not firepower. Maybe this stuff did happen, I don't know, but there's little coming out to suggest that, everything is in terms of projecting authority and treating the immigrants like an invading army.
Well, as I say, no experience here of entering a country illegally by force. That's bad shit isn't it? All kinds of damage comes from people doing that, you should respect borders and sovereignty.
ooh ooh! Mr. Kotter! I know the answer! Enact & enforce international policies & practices that encourage economic equality so people won't be so poor & desperate that they feel they have to leave their country of origin. Now give me my cookie dammit!
Enact and enforce international policies eh? Do tell us about that and why we shouldn't let little things like human beings or international law get in the way of the almighty mission.
you missed my point! In that same sentence I say "encourage economic equality". I mean a lot of people say the US (and other countries I guess but of course we get most of the blame) is keeping the Central American countries poor. Thus all the do-gooders in the world would have policies in place to bring these countries up to speed economically.
I have no idea if the US contributes directly to keeping Central America poor but I fucking guarantee I will get dog-piled from people who will set me straight in three....two....one
Not me, I genuinely don't know much about the situation. Contrary to what you might think I'm not in the habit of randomly commenting in ignorance. Bear in mind for much of the above disagreement I've actually got a lot of experience dealing with groups of angry and violent people, although not in directly equivalent circumstances. I'm hardly a "Monday morning quarterbacker" or whatever the phrase was. Building dialogue early is always preferable to enforcing later. As for the political feasability both of our countries do have a pretty sordid history of proactively (and typically disastrously) interfering with economic rivals in one way or another, but whether this is such a case I have no idea.
my simplistic opinion is: poor people want to come here, got it. Let them come but design and implement a stream-lined & fair process. I don't give a shit if some are "bad actors" because the US is already chock-full of criminals so what do a few more matter? I support a one-for-one exchange, as I've brought up before. The US will give up one shit-bag lazy leech (no returns either!) for every hard-working immigrant we get in return. Elect me and I can make that happen! I think I'll get bi-partisan support on this issue!
ah but if the handful of dudes charging the fence weren't connected to the women and kids who got caught downwind... Other than the few fence chargers, no one else there had committed any impermissible act.
other than the snarky bullshit about leeches - the sole reason we don't HAVE something closer to a streamlined process is the so-called "Freedom Caucus in the House. In 2013 a reasonable bill passed with bipartisan support in the Senate, but Bohenor had a rule that he wouldn't put a bill on the floor unless he had 218 GOP votes, and he didn't, because the hardliners wouldn't play and he refused to pass it with Dem help. So it failed.
well Nova you are telling me that the US isn't chock-full of native born leeches/deadbeats/career criminals/malcontents/etc. that are a detriment, not an asset to our country? I would gladly trade those for hard working immigrants.
"The Federales tried to contain the protesters non-violently." - MAOHS sorry but I can't hear the word "Federales" without thinking of this classic scene:
that's not what I WAS telling you but I'm very happy TO tell you that. No time now but I would be pleased to defend the premise later on.
Maybe that's the way forward then, for every Mexican immigrant who passes a background check deport one resident criminal? That's how we made Australia don't you know?
as a taxpayer, father, law abiding citizen I would rather have more hard working immigrants (hell just working period) in my city than deadbeat criminal shit-bags. It would be nice to to do a one-for-one but it wouldn't be fair to the other country. But a man can dream, can't he?
ummm....."another country" is 1/2 of the equation. My idea is to let an immigrant in (obviously they are coming from another country) and we give that country one of our people we don't want here anyway - criminals, lazy fucks that are able to work but don't, general deadbeats & layabouts....you get the idea I'm sure.
