On Sunday, as a group of migrants crossed into the U.S. at the San Ysidro Land Port of Entry between Tijuana and San Diego, U.S. Border Patrol agents fired tear gas in an attempt to dispel the group. President Trump defended the agents' actions, stating that "they had to use [it] because they were being rushed by some very tough people and they used tear gas.""Here's the bottom line, nobody's coming into our country unless they come in legally," he added. Before U.S. agents used tear gas against the migrants, members of the migrant caravan planned a peaceful march to the border to demand asylum as Customs and Border Protection closed the port of entry. After being denied entry into the U.S., the situation escalated and some migrants began to throw projectiles at U.S. authorities in opposition. CBP used this as justification on Twitter: "Border Patrol agents deployed tear gas to dispel the group because of the risk to agents' safety." The Mexican Interior Ministry stated that migrants who attempted to "violently" and "illegally" cross the border would be deported.
By international and U.S. law, those who reach the U.S. border are allowed to petition for asylum. Thousands of asylum seekers wait days to weeks as "fewer than 100 asylum petitions per day are being processed at the San Ysidro entry point." Migrants protested to pressure U.S. officials into speeding up the process. How can the asylum process become more efficient? Children migrants as well as families that were not even near where the agents had used tear gas felt its effects. What proper methods could the U.S. Border Patrol agents have used to resist the projectiles thrown at them?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/25/us/san-ysidro-port-of-entry-closed/index.html
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/25/670687806/u-s-agents-spray-tear-gas-at-migrants-briefly-close-tijuana-border-entry
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/26/671026271/trump-defends-use-of-tear-gas-at-the-border-mississippi-senate-heads-to-a-runoff
21 comments:
Many Hispanic news channels have reported this event. Many coming to the conclusion that they should proceed in court cases. Many of these immigrants can come legally due to the reasoning of asylum. Being family abuse, government corruption, war, and much more. These cases can help many immigrants come safely and legally. The act of response that the border patrols have taken was not necessary, but it’s better than pulling out a automatic weapon.
Considering the American Military/ Border Patrol is one of the most well funded forces in the world, I don't think it would be hard for some Riot shields to be delivered so border patrol officers can resist whatever is thrown. However, while I know most of these migrants are fleeing countries and situations that are frankly unlivable, I do understand from the officers point of view why tear gas was used. When protests in America get violent, when rocks, or molotov cocktails are thrown police forces use tear gas as a way of not seriously or permanently harming anyone, while still dispersing a large group. I see why the migrants are frustrated, but I think we also need to keep in mind that the border patrol officers are not the ones making the wheels of the American government turn so slowly. This is a situation that does not have an easy solution. I don't think it would be right to turn all these people away, however I also don't think it right to let all of them in without hesitation or deliberation because that could set a precedent that America will let anyone who comes to the border in. Although I do not know the right answer, I am curious to see what will happen in the end, especially under the current president.
This situation presents clear inherent difficulties that rely on both the moral issue in teargassing troubled refugees but also the legal implications of a group of illegal, violent migrants at the US border. I would argue that the use of teargas may have been warranted but to the extent that the president and, according to the Washington post, "Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary" *are defending and publicizing this event should not be something needing celebration. Many don't understand the sheer scale of immigrants attempting to enter the United States illegally and the deporting and haulting of their progress is an ugly truth but the President should not be the person looking at this as a success, rather a needed safety precaution. I also agree with Alex that a redistribution to the already large border budget could provide for better protection against "rocks and projectiles". Those who wish to enter should enter legally and there really is no other alternative but the use of tear gas is a disheartening new means of enforcing this.
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/27/kirstjen-nielsen-claims-women-children-were-human-shields-tear-gas-attack-border/?utm_term=.87824daf62e5
While a majority of asylum seekers are rejected from the United States, the rate is even higher from Mexico and South American nations at upwards of 88% denial rate in 2017. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/
Under the presumption that there are a significant amount of dangerous migrants, it is very hard under the legal process to differentiate worthy asylum seekers, and I don't believe that 88% accurately reflects the percentage of those who will cause more disruption than benefit if granted asylum. The process is already slow, and against arguably poor odds, so the agitation at the border is understandable. To take care of immediate security, I agree with the tactic of using more harmless defense methods, but I do believe the asylum review process is in much greater need of staffing, funding, and giving those without evidence of criminality the benefit of the doubt just as we do with american citizens. Though the consequences of letting in more migrants remains to be seen I believe it is better than the tensions being put on both migrant and border patrol at this moment.
Because the asylum seekers initiated the attack with projectiles, the use of tear gas has sufficient justification. The usage was not unprovoked and the border control should prioritize their own safety. While the notion of being a kind and receptive country is ideal, there's also the consideration of safety. Although perhaps not as common as portrayed, there may be criminals hidden amongst the asylum seekers, and there should be a process in which all immigrants go through in order to enter the United States. Unauthorized crossing of the border should not be condoned. At the same time, however, the United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (USCIS) is inefficient and clogged with backlog. There should be some sort of administrative reform. According to the Brookings, the UCSIS is fully funded by application fees -- it does not receive federal aid. As a result, the application fee for visas and green cards are extremely expensive (interning with Jackie Speier, one of the staffers told me that the green card application fee was around 500 dollars, and someone filled it out incorrectly or sent it to the wrong place, they may have to pay again). Some immigrants cannot afford to apply and the agency is quite underfunded. According to Brookings, the system is a paper-based system that's extremely slow and inefficient. Applicants have to physically mail in their papers and it's not uncommon for applications to get lost in the bureaucracy. Those without US Citizen relatives may have to wait decades to receive visas/green cards, so, like what Max said, the agitation is understandable. I believe that Congress should modernize the USCIS system while perhaps working with the Latin American governments to fix their gang violence problems (though I'm not sure how effective the latter option would be). Speeding up the legal immigration process while alleviating some of the demand for illegal border crossing may lessen the tension we see at the border at the present moment.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/inside-the-immigration-process/
Tear gas does not respect international borders. Besides the immigrants themselves, the people of Mexico probably felt a lot of indignation of having tear gas used by a foreign nation inside their territory without their approval. Though border patrol needs some way to protect themselves, tear gas was probably not the correct way given the circumstances.
Since this was a provoked attack I think that using tear gas was a better response than pulling out guns on the immigrants. While it is unfortunate that people who weren't throwing projectiles were affected, it is inevitable because that's just what gases do ultimately and we can't really do anything about that. However it was expected that the caravan would reach the U.S border eventually and there would be some kind of altercation so there is the argument that the Border Patrol should have been prepared before hand to deal with the situation peacefully. But overall the problem goes back to immigration services which need to be fixed or at least reformed.
The use of tear gas at the border was somewhat warranted under the circumstance that the asylum seekers provoked border patrol officials. According to the New York Times, the Customs and Border Protection Agency guidelines state that use of "less-lethal force" when "reasonable and necessary" is permitted. While tear gas could fall under these guidelines, it is ultimately left up to interpretation (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/world/americas/tear-gas-border.html). Tear gas is historically used in the US as a method of peacekeeping, and I would agree with previous comments in that while the effects are widespread, the use of tear gas may be disheartening, but is a far better method than guns. The immigration process is without a doubt lengthy and difficult, but until reforms can be made to the current process officials must continue to use as peaceful methods as possible to control unrest and tension along the border.
While I agree that the use of tear gas and force is unnecessary against "harmless" people seeking refuge, I also recognize that people were trying to take advantage of the chaos and "rush through". Its a shame that those who were trying to seek asylum the legal way were affected as well but thats what happens when a few bad apples ruin it for the bunch . Even though we are a nation built through immigrants, theres has to be some sort of limitation of the people entering the country, if everybody were to be let in just because they were escaping poverty, dictatorships, political turmoil, we would have alot more people seeking refugee which would cause a major crisis, because we would not know what to do with them. Although our immigration process only chooses a select few to come to the country each year, and the process is very difficult, they must come legally still or wait for some sort of reform to the system before deciding to gather a bunch of immigrants to try and cross the border just to test what will happen.
The asylum process is one that is quite easy to remedy with regards to how easily it can be done. Outsourcing the creation of the documents to an off-site building would allow the government to tackle the issue head-on while still maintaining order and efficiency. The use of tear gas on civilians that weren't posing a great and imminent threat to the safety of the other immigrants or the civil servants was uncalled for. Other methods that could've been used could be riot shields like Alex said. Unfortunately this topic is a very personal one for some which makes the methods for determining a perfect solution very difficult.
Migrants should have been handles more humanely than being thrown with tear gas at. Many of the US authorities throwing projectiles over the border could have potential to cause an international disputes. A solution to stopping the flow of migrants into the US, since it Trump’s policy, is to incentivize people to stay in Mexico as refugees or persuade the migrants that are going to cross it to instruct them on the consequences. Tear gas over an international border is unacceptable in any context as it only provides fuel for the fire when dealing with Mexican authorities. The US and Mexico should have collaborated more in dealing with the migrants that are putting their own lives at risk for a better life here.
The immigration process in this country has always been a sensitive debate topic. While I do recognize the argument that we can't just let anyone through the borders, I do believe throwing tear gas at potential migrants is crossing the line. The U.S.'s border patrol is no doubt heavily funded and had other options to handle the situation despite the chaos of it all. On a separate note, I wonder if firing projectiles into a hostile country could be considered an act of war? But I guess the U.S. and Mexico are allies and there are a number of agreements specifying how the border is managed.
The immigration process in this country has always been a sensitive debate topic. While I do recognize the argument that we can't just let anyone through the borders, I do believe throwing tear gas at potential migrants is crossing the line. The U.S.'s border patrol is no doubt heavily funded and had other options to handle the situation despite the chaos of it all. On a separate note, I wonder if firing projectiles into a hostile country could be considered an act of war? But I guess the U.S. and Mexico are allies and there are a number of agreements specifying how the border is managed.
The immigration process in this country has always been a sensitive debate topic. While I do recognize the argument that we can't just let anyone through the borders, I do believe throwing tear gas at potential migrants is crossing the line. The U.S.'s border patrol is no doubt heavily funded and had other options to handle the situation despite the chaos of it all. On a separate note, I wonder if firing projectiles into a hostile country could be considered an act of war? But I guess the U.S. and Mexico are allies and there are a number of agreements specifying how the border is managed.
The immigration process in this country has always been a sensitive debate topic. While I do recognize the argument that we can't just let anyone through the borders, I do believe throwing tear gas at potential migrants is crossing the line. The U.S.'s border patrol is no doubt heavily funded and had other options to handle the situation despite the chaos of it all. On a separate note, I wonder if firing projectiles into a hostile country could be considered an act of war? But I guess the U.S. and Mexico are allies and there are a number of agreements specifying how the border is managed.
I think that since the migrants were the ones who initiated this, force was necessary to prevent them from entering illegally. However, I think that the force used was a bit extreme, as the migrants didn’t pose as an immediate or deadly threat. However, I think using these harsh procedures convey the dangers of attempting to illegally cross the border, and the consequences the you could receive. I think that going to far though on punishment may lead to strong hate towards our safety measures. For example, if instead of tear gas they decided to use guns, while it does show the consequences of attempting to illegally cross the border, it would also depict the border patrollers as ruthless and unjust.
These people left their homes and communities and walked for months, relying on the US to follow its own policy and help these people in need. The fact that Trump can essentially break the law and purposely slow the entrance of asylum seekers into the US is both staggering and disgusting. I am not at all surprised that these exhausted migrants were outraged to hear that they wouldn't be allowed in, and resulted in throwing rocks in opposition. Our border control officers, who wear armor plating and carry automatic weapons (and get to go back home every night), should not have immediately responded with brutal crowd control methods against a few people tossing rocks. These are just people who want safety for themselves and their families, and they shouldn't be treated as "dangerous criminals" for trying to stay alive.
I agree that the solution to this situation is not easy at all. Letting everyone in is clearly unreasonable but sending them all back who may be seeking asylum or help also seems wrong. The use of tear gas I do not find too unreasonable if the projectiles were that devastating to those guarding the border. However, I think that the border could afford the correct protection such as riot shields to deter the migrants. If the migrants were rushing and posing a serious threat I believe that the actions they took were a reasonable way to deter them from furthering the rush into the country. I think it is necessary to have them take time to let people into the country legally as it is a large responsibility but the speed seems unreasonably slow. I think there should have been better preparation for these types of events knowing the caravan would arrive along with better funding and process to deal with the large influx of those seeking asylum.
Even with the hazards of tear gas, I don't think there were any better choices for the border patrol agents to divert the migrants that were being violent or trying to "rush through." It is unfortunate that the tear gas has affected migrants who are seeking asylum peacefully, but in a way, it should send a message to the ones who provoked the border patrol to release the tear gas that by using violence they are hurting their fellow people - both their well being and their chances of being granted asylum. Though the asylum process could be more efficient in the face of this more urgent situation, I think there is an unsaid benefit to the process being relatively slow right now.
I think the asylum process would be a better process in this situation, however, with tear gas, it does send a more important message to the people as a warning. Although I think it was unnecessary in the situation, but it was a better method comparing to guns or other violent actions.
Post a Comment