Caravan

[DixonHur 11296]

59 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

But again, that is not a rule under any treaty or law. It is made up. See my post above.  Also, how do you know the second part? 

I may be confusing the UN rules with the EU rules, but I thought we had something like that in place with Mexico and Canada.  I'm on my phone now, but will check it out when I get home.

Either way, I know the second part because they are bypassing Mexico for the US even though they share a similar culture, and the same language as Mexico. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Brave??? Shooting tear gas across a river at unarmed civilians is brave? What exactly would constitute cowardly?

Regardless, any Border Patrol agents, brave or otherwise, who fired tear gas should be prosecuted. As should anybody who ordered them to.

 

edit: not across a river. Across a wall and fence covered in concertina wire.

They’ll never be prosecuted and if they were there would be millions of patriots like myself that would gladly spare a few bucks for a GoFundMe for them. People are tear gassed all over the world and no one gives a shit except when it involves Israel and Gaza and now here.. The reason why Netanyahu is one of my favorite world leaders is that he does what’s necessary to repel the Palestinian invaders and by sending the African economic migrants back to their home countries. Liberals both in Israel and the US gnash their teeth and are horrified. I think Trump should resign. He is too big of an idiot for my taste. I have no problem with a show of force at thr border.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Question: What type of POS loads a canister of tear gas into a gun, points it at migrant women and children, and actually fires it?

 

 

Answer: The same type of POS who herds people into gas chambers, or children into camps. 

Heartless bastard, Dixon? Yeah, I'd say supporting this shit is a little more than just being a "heartless bastard".

 

 

 

Uhhhhhh.... no. Jesus what is wrong with you.

[Celery Man 20935]

1 hour ago, gecko said:

 

1) pepper spray, not tear gas

2) that wasn't a press event

[hobbes2702 13032]

29 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

They’ll never be prosecuted and if they were there would be millions of patriots like myself that would gladly spare a few bucks for a GoFundMe for them. People are tear gassed all over the world and no one gives a shit except when it involves Israel and Gaza and now here.. The reason why Netanyahu is one of my favorite world leaders is that he does what’s necessary to repel the Palestinian invaders and by sending the African economic migrants back to their home countries. Liberals both in Israel and the US gnash their teeth and are horrified. I think Trump should resign. He is too big of an idiot for my taste. I have no problem with a show of force at thr border.

Maybe you should save those few bucks for your meth so that you won’t have to suck dick for it.

[bolverk 29671]

59 minutes ago, gecko said:

 

This is a very disingenuous comparison. It's sad to think I actually used to respect Brit Hume as a journalist. I guess he's now just a paid pundit.

A) The incident, as described in the article, has no mention of the use of tear gas. No wonder no one remembers "all the howls of outrage over the use of tear gas."

B) That incident occurred within the borders of the U.S. As has been previously mentioned, this one involved shooting across an international border.

Quote

 

The group first approached a lone agent stationed about 1/8 of a mile north of the border. They ignored his commands to stop, so he fired pepper balls to try to stop them and protect himself, Caston said.

 

 

C) What use of force they did use was apparently in self-defense.

Quote

 

Caston said several agents were struck in the arms and legs with rocks, and that one agent was hit in the head with a filled water bottle.

“While attacks on Border Patrol agents are not uncommon, the agents showed great restraint when faced with the dangers of this unusually large group, and fortunately no one was serious injured,” said Paul Beeson, San Diego sector chief for the Border Patrol.

 

It's foolish not reading an article prior to posting it if you think it's going to somehow further your position. Otherwise, you might find out that the talking head you support is actually misleading his audience (aka lying).

[Anastasis 23469]

13 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

1) pepper spray, not tear gas

2) that wasn't a press event

We're parsing mace vs. pepper stray now?

 

Shit. They should consider themselves lucky.  If they were Shia Yemenis we'd be giving Mexico cluster bombs to drop along the border. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Anastasis

[Celery Man 20935]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

We're parsing mace vs. pepper stray now?

 

Shit. They should consider themselves lucky.  If they were Shia Yemenis we'd be giving Mexico cluster bombs to drop along the border. 

neither mace nor pepper spray are tear gas

[Thetexashammer 1062]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

A) The incident, as described in the article, has no mention of the use of tear gas. No wonder no one remembers "all the howls of outrage over the use of tear gas."

You know, because I tend to be skeptical of all journalists, I believed you. Then I saw the responses. Then I clicked the link. You should be ashamed of yourself. Like Hugo, you lie deliberately and with perfect fluency.

[hobbes2702 13032]

5 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

You know, because I tend to be skeptical of all journalists, I believed you. Then I saw the responses. Then I clicked the link. You should be ashamed of yourself. Like Hugo, you lie deliberately and with perfect fluency.

Please show where in the article it states that tear gas was used.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

 

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Please show where in the article it states that tear gas was used.

It's like Whoopi Goldberg said about Roman Polanski. "It wasn't Rape Rape". See the difference? 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[hobbes2702 13032]

Just now, Thetexashammer said:

 

It's like Whoopi Goldberg said about Roman Polanski. "It wasn't Rape Rape". See the difference? 

So, in fact, you lied. Tear gas wasn’t mentioned at all. Not only did you accuse someone else of being a liar but you lied while doing it. Bravo.

Pepper spray and tear gas aren’t the same thing but good try. 

[Anastasis 23469]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

neither mace nor pepper spray are tear gas

While I for one admire a pedantic devotion to the terminology of the chemical agents we deploy on immigrants, chemical mace as originally formulated was a specific type of tear gas (CN).   

Edited November 27, 2018 by Anastasis

[bolverk 29671]

11 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

You know, because I tend to be skeptical of all journalists, I believed you. Then I saw the responses. Then I clicked the link. You should be ashamed of yourself. Like Hugo, you lie deliberately and with perfect fluency.

How in the ever-loving-fuck did I lie? The words "tear gas" do not appear in that article (I even did a word search of the article after reading it to make sure), which is precisely what Brit Hume was seizing upon in his tweet.

[hobbes2702 13032]

Just now, bolverk said:

How in the ever-loving-fuck did I lie? The words "tear gas" do not appear in that article (I even did a word search of the article after reading it to make sure), which is precisely what Brit Hume was seizing upon in his tweet.

You didn’t lie. He did

[Celery Man 20935]

you use mace or pepper spray on a person, you use tear gas on a crowd.  as the words are used in the parlance of our times.

That's not the issue, although it's related to the issue of digging up some thing that is exactly the same if you're a fucking idiot and then but Obama'ing.

[bolverk 29671]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

While I for one admire a pedantic devotion to the terminology of the chemical agents we deploy on immigrants, chemical mace as originally formulated was a specific type of tear gas (CN).   

The article only mentions pepper spray, which so far as I know, is only delivered at a relatively short distance. Tear gas, again so far as I know, is delivered in canisters that can be shot from quite a ways away.

The reason this matters: The use of pepper spray in the earlier incident appears to have been used in self-defense 1/8th of a mile inside the US (as I pointed out). Shooting tear gas over an international border is very different. That distinction isn't pedantry.

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, Celery Man said:

you use mace or pepper spray on a person, you use tear gas on a crowd.  as the words are used in the parlance of our times.

You are all over the place with this.  If the pivotal aspect is whether the agent is deployed against a singular person vs. a crowd, than the border altercation back in 2013 where the border agent fired pepper balls on a crowd of immigrants would qualify. 

[Anastasis 23469]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

The article only mentions pepper spray, which so far as I know, is only delivered at a relatively short distance. Tear gas, again so far as I know, is delivered in canisters that can be shot from quite a ways away.

The 2013 incident  involved the deployment of pepper balls.  It's a weaponized form of OC intended for riot control from range. I am not so sure why it is hard to recognize that gassing immigrants was wrong and bad in 2013 and continues to be wrong and bad in 2018.  There is no need to deflect with silly hand waving.

 

 

 

[Anastasis 23469]

Look at this fucking clown.  But not tear gas!

 

 

[Celery Man 20935]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You are all over the place with this.  If the pivotal aspect is whether the agent is deployed against a singular person vs. a crowd, than the border altercation back in 2013 where the border agent fired pepper balls on a crowd of immigrants would qualify. 

my next sentence started with "that's not the issue"

[DixonHur 11296]

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

But again, that is not a rule under any treaty or law. It is made up. See my post above.  Also, how do you know the second part? 

Your post above is about the Geneva convention which only applies in wartime.

Anyway, here'swhat I was referencing regarding 1st Safe Country.  I'm not going to pretend to be a legal scholar, but I certainly didn't "make up" the idea.

UN High Commission for Refugees - Asylum Process

Also, more evidence of them being economic migrants, as opposed to asylum seekers, is that Mexico offered to provide asylum, yet they moved on.

[bolverk 29671]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The 2013 incident  involved the deployment of pepper balls.  It's a weaponized form of OC intended for riot control from range. I am not so sure why it is hard to recognize that gassing immigrants was wrong and bad in 2013 and continues to be wrong and bad in 2018.  There is no need to deflect with silly hand waving.

 

 

 

I just went back to the article and it initially mentions pepper spray and later says pepperballs. In my defense, pepper spray stuck in my mind (maybe because I had never heard of pepper balls).

Still, the point I continue to make is one incident allegedly involved self-defense inside U.S. borders.

From the 2013 article:

Quote

Caston said several agents were struck in the arms and legs with rocks, and that one agent was hit in the head with a filled water bottle.

 

 

The other involved use of weapons to shoot over the border. Look, I don't like to see the use of any force, but I do understand self-defense. Show me where there's mention of folks from the caravan throwing rocks and bottles in this incident, because I haven't seen it.

Edited November 27, 2018 by bolverk
clarifying source of quote

[Anastasis 23469]

Just now, bolverk said:

 

Look, I don't like to see the use of any force, but I do understand self-defense. Show me where there's mention of folks from the caravan throwing rocks and bottles in this incident, because I haven't seen it.

• Shortly before noon, US officials fired tear gas and a “flash-bang” grenade at a group of people attempting to cross through a fence into the US. Video taken of the incident shows rocks being thrown at agents before the tear gas was fired. (Customs and Border Protection officials said Monday that four agents were hit with rocks over the course of the day.) Witnesses also reported that Border Patrol agents fired rubber bullets.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/26/18112474/tear-gas-border-patrol-caravan-rocks

 

[DixonHur 11296]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Show me where there's mention of folks from the caravan throwing rocks and bottles in this incident, because I haven't seen it.

Here you go... is also video of it

Link

[bolverk 29671]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

• Shortly before noon, US officials fired tear gas and a “flash-bang” grenade at a group of people attempting to cross through a fence into the US. Video taken of the incident shows rocks being thrown at agents before the tear gas was fired. (Customs and Border Protection officials said Monday that four agents were hit with rocks over the course of the day.) Witnesses also reported that Border Patrol agents fired rubber bullets.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/26/18112474/tear-gas-border-patrol-caravan-rocks

 

Thank you.

[bolverk 29671]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Here you go... is also video of it

Link

You too.

[Dahobbs 17534]

14 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Your post above is about the Geneva convention which only applies in wartime.

Anyway, here'swhat I was referencing regarding 1st Safe Country.  I'm not going to pretend to be a legal scholar, but I certainly didn't "make up" the idea.

UN High Commission for Refugees - Asylum Process

Also, more evidence of them being economic migrants, as opposed to asylum seekers, is that Mexico offered to provide asylum, yet they moved on.

That isn't a rule, it is a summary of the laws inacted by countries to implement the convention along with recommendations for unified rules. Those recommendations are not required or law in any form. Further, the first country principle was discussed in the link I provided you. It doesn't mean one must apply for asylum in the first country. It just means a country may, at its discretion, send a refugee to another country IF the refugee would be granted refugee status there. It is most definitely not a basis to deny refugee status entirely. The rule actually prevents one country from sending a refugee to another country that would not grant refugee status. And you are simply wrong about the 1951 convention applying only during wartime. In fact, it is what our asylum laws are based on. 

[gecko 1104]

I actually thought pepper spray was merely a “small arms” version of tear gas.....

[wildcat09 29352]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Uhhhhhh.... no. Jesus what is wrong with you.

Saving this for two years from now when you’re completely cool with herding undesirables into gas chambers.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Saving this for two years from now when you’re completely cool with herding undesirables into gas chambers.

Fuck you.  

[DixonHur 11296]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That isn't a rule, it is a summary of the laws inacted by countries to implement the convention along with recommendations for unified rules. Those recommendations are not required or law in any form. Further, the first country principle was discussed in the link I provided you. It doesn't mean one must apply for asylum in the first country. It just means a country may, at its discretion, send a refugee to another country IF the refugee would be granted refugee status there. It is most definitely not a basis to deny refugee status entirely. The rule actually prevents one country from sending a refugee to another country that would not grant refugee status. And you are simply wrong about the 1951 convention applying only during wartime. In fact, it is what our asylum laws are based on. 

Ok.  So what.  Let's say you're 100% right about all the legalities...Mexico offered them asylum and they turned it down.  So clearly they are not simply seeking refuge which was the point of the original post. 

These are economic migrants trying to game the system.  But even that is fine by me.  Hear their argument for asylum, and if warranted grant them asylum.  But in the meantime, they need to wait their turn and not just bum rush the border.  It was their choice to pass up asylum in Mexico, so they need to live with the consequences of that decision.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

They’ll never be prosecuted and if they were there would be millions of patriots like myself that would gladly spare a few bucks for a GoFundMe for them. People are tear gassed all over the world and no one gives a shit except when it involves Israel and Gaza and now here.. The reason why Netanyahu is one of my favorite world leaders is that he does what’s necessary to repel the Palestinian invaders and by sending the African economic migrants back to their home countries. Liberals both in Israel and the US gnash their teeth and are horrified. I think Trump should resign. He is too big of an idiot for my taste. I have no problem with a show of force at thr border.

Time for you to go back to Iran then, migrant. 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Saving this for two years from now when you’re completely cool with herding undesirables into gas chambers.

[Dahobbs 17534]

40 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Ok.  So what.  Let's say you're 100% right about all the legalities...Mexico offered them asylum and they turned it down.  So clearly they are not simply seeking refuge which was the point of the original post. 

These are economic migrants trying to game the system.  But even that is fine by me.  Hear their argument for asylum, and if warranted grant them asylum.  But in the meantime, they need to wait their turn and not just bum rush the border.  It was their choice to pass up asylum in Mexico, so they need to live with the consequences of that decision.

Again, I agree to a point. Let them claim asylum and then hear the argument. Treat them humanely in the interim. If they don't qualify, send them back. I have no issue with this. And I agree they need to go through proper channels, but we must also continue to enforce our laws, which require that those channel be available. The executive branch can't just ignore our asylum laws, and the treaties we signed, because it doesn't like them. 

Also, I couldn't tell what your original point was. It seemed you had two, one that they didn't qualify as refugees because they didn't seek asylum in Mexico, and two that they were economic migrants. If we are going to discuss the topic, we should do so with the correct legal and factual background. That first point was wrong. It needed to be corrected. That is all I was doing. 

[workswithseed 2103]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Saving this for two years from now when you’re completely cool with herding undesirables into gas chambers.

Saving this when an illegal kills a person and you show fake outrage

Edited November 27, 2018 by workswithseed

[DixonHur 11296]

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, I agree to a point. Let them claim asylum and then hear the argument. Treat them humanely in the interim. If they don't qualify, send them back. I have no issue with this. And I agree they need to go through proper channels, but we must also continue to enforce our laws, which require that those channel be available. The executive branch can't just ignore our asylum laws, and the treaties we signed, because it doesn't like them. 

Also, I couldn't tell what your original point was. It seemed you had two, one that they didn't qualify as refugees because they didn't seek asylum in Mexico, and two that they were economic migrants. If we are going to discuss the topic, we should do so with the correct legal and factual background. That first point was wrong. It needed to be corrected. That is all I was doing. 

The original point was that they were economic migrants.  I was attempting to use two reasons why, to "prove" my point.  Apparently one of the reasons wasn't actually a reason, but the point remains.

I'm all for humane treatment, but the civility needs to cut both ways.  Storming the border and throwing things at our law enforcement agents doesn't buy you a lot of good will.

Regardless of how slowly the US decides to process the applicants, it's important to remember that the migrants made the choice to bypass the Mexican offer of asylum.

Edit to say I don't like the way Trump is currently handling it.

Edited November 27, 2018 by DixonHur

[Brian Fantana 6685]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

Time for you to go back to Iran then, migrant. 

I'm sure he'll try not to suck any dicks for meth on the way out

[GHOSTUSER 361]

5 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Maybe you should save those few bucks for your meth so that you won’t have to suck dick for it.

You should space out the use of “sucking dick for meth” line for greater effect and for it to pop and sting more. You used it just a few posts before so it didn’t really do its job in this instance. Just some friendly advice.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[Thetexashammer 1062]

4 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

You should space out the use of “sucking dick for meth” line for greater effect and for it to pop and sting more. You used it just a few posts before so it didn’t really do its job in this instance. Just some friendly advice.

Stone cold brother.

Ridicule is fun and interesting but up in here it's become a substitute for intellectual rigor, it becomes the refutation of facts and logic. Ridicule should emphasize your point, not be a substitute for having a point.

And sadly it's rarely done well.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Celery Man 20935]

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Time for you to go back to Iran then, migrant. 

I was born here bitch. How many times do I have to tell you that. Your memory sucks. Also, my folks were highly educated with money. Exactly the type of people who make ideal immigrants. 

To return the topic, I appreciate all of the arguments about processing their asylum claims. Still there were people throwing rocks and breaking through the border fence. What’s wrong with a show of force as a deterrent. Can someone explain to me why we as a nation can’t exercise that right when virtually every other country can.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[FondrenRoad 4378]

25 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I was born here bitch. How many times do I have to tell you that. Your memory sucks. Also, my folks were highly educated with money. Exactly the type of people who make ideal immigrants. 

To return the topic, I appreciate all of the arguments about processing their asylum claims. Still there were people throwing rocks and breaking through the border fence. What’s wrong with a show of force as a deterrent. Can someone explain to me why we as a nation can’t exercise that right when virtually every other country can.

Then they should go back and take you with them so America can have the type of immigration policy you desire. Lead by example. Self deport. 

And do it before you shoot up some place and reflect more poorly on your parents, and immigrants in general, than you already do  

Edited November 27, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Michael Knight 12977]

57 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I was born here bitch. How many times do I have to tell you that. Your memory sucks. Also, my folks were highly educated with money. Exactly the type of people who make ideal immigrants. 

To return the topic, I appreciate all of the arguments about processing their asylum claims. Still there were people throwing rocks and breaking through the border fence. What’s wrong with a show of force as a deterrent. Can someone explain to me why we as a nation can’t exercise that right when virtually every other country can.

Your president wants to end birthright citizenship.

 

For fucking 50 years we've been fed nothing but the exceptionalism of America, how we're the shining city on the hill, the greatest country on Earth and a guiding light to the world. Now you want us to just be like everyone else, well fuck you.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Michael Knight

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

38 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Then they should go back and take you with them so America can have the type of immigration policy you desire. Lead by example. Self deport. 

And do it before you shoot up some place and reflect more poorly on your parents, and immigrants in general, than you already do  

Stone cold, brother.  

And iconoclast never ceases to amaze me. ‘My parents were rich so they’re ideal immigrants.’   You dumb motherfucker.  

[Michael Knight 12977]

1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I was born here bitch. How many times do I have to tell you that. Your memory sucks. Also, my folks were highly educated with money. Exactly the type of people who make ideal immigrants. 

 

And lest we forget that even you with the desirable educated family with money became a fucking criminal, a drag on society and a despicable piece of shit. So maybe they should review your citizenship.

[lemonlime 5503]

When the Auschwitz Memorial calls us out.

[workswithseed 2103]

8 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

When the Auschwitz Memorial calls us out.

That's some good ol' white guilt right there. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

52 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

When the Auschwitz Memorial calls us out.

Shut the hell up you ignorant troll.  Trying to make some bizarre connection to the atrocities of WWII and the Nazi regime to firing tear gas at people trying to break thru a border station is disgustingly insulting to the people who lived and died as a result of that horrendous period of time.  You obviously know jack fucking shit about it.  

The people working those crossing are people who have families, and shooting canisters of an eye irritant in the vicinity of people rushing  a closed border crossing is a pretty low level act given what could have occurred if actual physical contact between armed guards and people attacking them had taken place

Edited November 27, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[lemonlime 5503]

If anyone should have white guilt it's the people who run Auschwitz. I sure hope they have some.