Whatever happen to that caravan, anyway?

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2018, 06:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. No one was doubting the existence of the caravan, but the issue was that its existence was used in efforts by some to scare people into thinking there was a mass of brown people, funded by George Soros, coming here to murder them in their sleep and take their jobs. Not that this is a mass of people that are leaving behind terrible living conditions (not just violence) and trying to seek for themselves a better life in another country: the United States.

Should all of them be eligible for asylum? I don't think so. But this situation is something that should cause us to take a hard look at ourselves and how we interact with our neighbors in the hemisphere. A lot of the conditions that these people are trying to escape have been exacerbated, if not caused outright, directly or indirectly by our foreign policy in the region. They are trying to come here because other countries, Mexico included, have gotten the shit end of the stick when it comes to this. At the same time, our country has tightened our legal immigration requirements, making it more difficult to people to come here on work VISAs from these countries in favor of immigrants from, let's be honest with ourselves, whiter countries. It used to be that an immigrant labor force from Latin America was able to legally come here with ease, but that's just not the case anymore.

Unfortunately, the people in office (and I'm not just talking about this administration) haven't been willing to take a comprehensive look at how all of this works. They haven't been willing to admit to themselves and to the people of this country that we are being shitty neighbors. Working with these countries as partners in our efforts as we try to improve the lives of all people on our landmass just seems out of the question, and then we are baffled when they try to make it to our border and improve their lives here.

Is there a humanitarian crisis south of us on par with those in Africa? The answer to that is almost certainly yes. But that is too close to home so we don't like to admit this to ourselves.

I agree and each side will say the other side is doing it wrong. The former admin did nothing to fix the situation and folks are mad at the current admin's tactics. But maybe, just maybe Trump will piss enough people off, because he's Trump, that congress does something. 

I'm not holding my breath. I'm simply expecting both sides to use them as their political pawns.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-26-2018, 06:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. No one was doubting the existence of the caravan, but the issue was that its existence was used in efforts by some to scare people into thinking there was a mass of brown people, funded by George Soros, coming here to murder them in their sleep and take their jobs. Not that this is a mass of people that are leaving behind terrible living conditions (not just violence) and trying to seek for themselves a better life in another country: the United States.

Should all of them be eligible for asylum? I don't think so. But this situation is something that should cause us to take a hard look at ourselves and how we interact with our neighbors in the hemisphere. A lot of the conditions that these people are trying to escape have been exacerbated, if not caused outright, directly or indirectly by our foreign policy in the region. They are trying to come here because other countries, Mexico included, have gotten the shit end of the stick when it comes to this. At the same time, our country has tightened our legal immigration requirements, making it more difficult to people to come here on work VISAs from these countries in favor of immigrants from, let's be honest with ourselves, whiter countries. It used to be that an immigrant labor force from Latin America was able to legally come here with ease, but that's just not the case anymore.

Unfortunately, the people in office (and I'm not just talking about this administration) haven't been willing to take a comprehensive look at how all of this works. They haven't been willing to admit to themselves and to the people of this country that we are being shitty neighbors. Working with these countries as partners in our efforts as we try to improve the lives of all people on our landmass just seems out of the question, and then we are baffled when they try to make it to our border and improve their lives here.

Is there a humanitarian crisis south of us on par with those in Africa? The answer to that is almost certainly yes. But that is too close to home so we don't like to admit this to ourselves.

For the statement in BOLD, can you back that up?
Show me several years of data that make your claim valid, also define "whiter" countries and show where they are allowed in a higher rate than normal. I am very curious to see how you can prove this.

[Bengalzona]

(11-26-2018, 06:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. No one was doubting the existence of the caravan, but the issue was that its existence was used in efforts by some to scare people into thinking there was a mass of brown people, funded by George Soros, coming here to murder them in their sleep and take their jobs.

Actually from their actions, I would not be surprised to hear that they were funded.... by Trump.

[Belsnickel]

(11-26-2018, 07:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I agree and each side will say the other side is doing it wrong. The former admin did nothing to fix the situation and folks are mad at the current admin's tactics. But maybe, just maybe Trump will piss enough people off, because he's Trump, that congress does something. 

I'm not holding my breath. I'm simply expecting both sides to use them as their political pawns.

Pretty much. It's what happens when people care more about votes than they do people.

(11-26-2018, 07:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: For the statement in BOLD, can you back that up?
Show me several years of data that make your claim valid, also define "whiter" countries and show where they are allowed in a higher rate than normal. I am very curious to see how you can prove this.

I could if I still had the data. Immigration policy shifts in the points systems and things have resulted in a decrease in immigration from neighboring countries in favor of European and Asian countries. That being said, Mexico is still the largest source of our immigration in this country, but it has become much more difficult in the past 30-40 years, which is why there has been a rise in illegal immigration. Unfortunately, I don't have the data for this, it was presented by DHS at a forum I went to last year.

[GMDino]

I'm not saying Trump is Hitler.  To this point in our modern history there has been one Hitler...and several other leaders who wanted to eliminate "lesser" people and grab complete power.

I don't think Bush or Obama or Trump is Hitler.

I think Trump is a megalomaniac who thinks he can control everything himself better than anyone else and believes he has never failed...but it's about the money for him, not the power.

But I wanted to share something from the Twitter account of the people who maintain the Auschwitz Memorial so that we never forget what Hitler was and so that we don't repeat it.

When we look at Auschwitz we see the end of the process. It's important to remember that the Holocaust actually did not start from gas chambers. This hatred gradually developed from words, stereotypes & prejudice through legal exclusion, dehumanisation & escalating violence.

— Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) November 26, 2018

[GMDino]

Then we have the rabble rousers:

Bum-rushing the border is a CHOICE and has consequences. Watching the USA FINALLY defend our borders was the HIGHLIGHT of my Thanksgiving weekend. ?????? https://t.co/jAkfcgzRuN

— Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) November 26, 2018

That's not political discussion...that's firing up hate and fear for votes.

And that's the type of person people are willing to align themselves with when you say we "shouldn't" gas children but "they brought it on themselves".

WE are supposed to be better.

[fredtoast]

On a personal level I have to say that when it comes to controlling the behavior of children tear gas works better than spanking or time out.


Just sayin'.

[*bfine32*]

(11-27-2018, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: On a personal level I have to say that when it comes to controlling the behavior of children tear gas works better than spanking or time out.


Just sayin'.

Good point. It was definitely more effective than the parenting in this case. 

[*Nately120*]

(11-27-2018, 04:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: On a personal level I have to say that when it comes to controlling the behavior of children tear gas works better than spanking or time out.


Just sayin'.

Serves the kids right for not being fetuses anymore.

[GMDino]

Just to verify that tear gas is illegal in war but legal to use on civilians.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/27/tear-gas-forbidden-war-but-legal-use-civilians-and-migrants/2133144002/

Of course legal doesn't equal moral or right.

Quote:Tear gas is considered a riot control agent because the effects dissipate a short time after exposure,’’ said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. “But even though the effects of tear gas wear off, its symptoms are harsh and terrifying, including severe eye irritations and difficulty breathing.


“The United States may justify firing tear gas across the border as legal, but the decision to use an indiscriminate, psychologically terrifying toxic chemical was excessive and certainly immoral.’’

The odd juxtaposition of a weapon banned in combat being approved for use on civilians stems from a desire to clarify conditions at war and avoid escalation.


Richard Price, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia and author of the book “The Chemical Weapons Taboo,’’ said Iraq’s chemical warfare on Iran in the 1980s prompted the 1993 treaty, which banned the production, stockpiling and use of such weapons.


Tear gas, also known as CS gas, was included on the list largely to avoid confusion at war, but was granted an exception for law-enforcement purposes.


“It’s one of the really strange situations we have in attempts to restrain various weapons of violence, because you actually have tighter restrictions on the use of this particular method than you do in domestic policing,’’ Price said.


“The idea is that, if you’re only going to ban certain chemical weapons and not others, then clearly in the fog of war it becomes impossibly confusing. If you’re a soldier in the field and you see a gas shell exploding around you, you’re not going to sit around and go, ‘Is that mustard gas? Sarin? Tear gas?’’’


Department of Homeland Security officials defended the use of tear gas – which also causes nose and throat irritation, as well as coughing and a choking sensation – as the least harmful way for CBP agents to defend themselves as they were pelted with rocks and bottles from the other side of the fence.


They also said the approach would be used again, if required, and that those who wanted to avoid its effects steer clear of violent protests.


“We don’t target women and children,” said Rodney Scott, chief Border Patrol agent in the San Diego sector. “If women and children choose to insert themselves into a violent crowd that is attacking police officers with rocks and bottles, there are going to be unintended consequences.”


Those are especially noxious for children. Sven Jordt, an expert on chemical weapons at Duke University, said how somebody reacts to tear gas depends on its distance, concentration and the person’s health status. The impact could last as little as 10-20 minutes.


However, children are more vulnerable because of their size and the likelihood they don’t know to cover their mouths and close their eyes to minimize the harm.



“Tear gas is heavier than air, so the concentrations are higher lower to the ground,’’ Jordt said. “Children also have much smaller lungs, so if they inhale it, they are exposed to higher levels. And, obviously, they cannot understand what’s happening to them, this pain developing, so they also develop much more anxiety and fear response.’’

I think it is just wonderful that we have rules of war to keep the people sent to kill each other from getting (more) hurt but we just can't extend that to every citizen. 

[GMDino]

(11-28-2018, 12:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Serves the kids right for not being fetuses anymore.

AMERICAN fetuses.  

[GMDino]

Got to thinking about how tear gas is acceptable on civilians but not in a battle during a war and it led me to think about how the right called the immigrants trying to breach the wall an "invasion".

Was it?

Were they armed?  (Other than with rocks, I suppose.)

I know "invasion" can be used for any large group moving in somewhere like an "invasion of fans" to a stadium or town, but it seems Trump and his supporters framed this as a military event...until they got called out for using the tear gas then it became "crowd control".

Seems they want it both ways.

[Bengalzona]

(11-28-2018, 01:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just to verify that tear gas is illegal in war but legal to use on civilians.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/27/tear-gas-forbidden-war-but-legal-use-civilians-and-migrants/2133144002/

Of course legal doesn't equal moral or right.



I think it is just wonderful that we have rules of war to keep the people sent to kill each other from getting (more) hurt but we just can't extend that to every citizen. 

Heck, we used to get tear gassed all the time in Army training. After awhile, you get somewhat used to it. It's pretty effective at clearing out your sinuses. I once met a female Samoan ROTC cadet who did 100 push-ups without a mask in a gas chamber (a female doing 100 push-ups is pretty impressive in and of itself).

One time in basic, we were taking a break on a long march back from the ranges. The drill sergeant thought that would be a good time to run a gas drill, so he started popping some tear gas grenades and tossing them around. One of them landed right in front of me, so I kicked it away about ten yards. That was a big 'no, no'. I got chewed out for it, saying that I could have started a forest fire (this was not a good time for me to point out that I didn't pop the grenade there and create the situation, of course). Anyway, the drill sergeant grabbed a stick, picked up the burnt-out cannister with it, made us get in formation and then made us double-time while he ran in front hoisting the cannister on the stick. That was about 15 minutes of hell as the cannister was still breathing out tear gas and we had to run right into the cloud of it.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2018, 02:14 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Heck, we used to get tear gassed all the time in Army training. After awhile, you get somewhat used to it. It's pretty effective at clearing out your sinuses. I once met a female Samoan ROTC cadet who did 100 push-ups without a mask in a gas chamber (a female doing 100 push-ups is pretty impressive in and of itself).

One time in basic, we were taking a break on a long march back from the ranges. The drill sergeant thought that would be a good time to run a gas drill, so he started popping some tear gas grenades and tossing them around. One of them landed right in front of me, so I kicked it away about ten yards. That was a big 'no, no'. I got chewed out for it, saying that I could have started a forest fire (this was not a good time for me to point out that I didn't pop the grenade there and create the situation, of course). Anyway, the drill sergeant grabbed a stick, picked up the burnt-out cannister with it, made us get in formation and then made us double-time while he ran in front hoisting the cannister on the stick. That was about 15 minutes of hell as the cannister was still breathing out tear gas and we had to run right into the cloud of it.

I have a photo of my future son in law getting the gas treatment in basic (his whole group actually).  He wasn't fond of it but said it wasn't as bad as it looked and some people took it worse and some better.

My dad and my father in law both said they went through it to.

My son in law got in trouble for not having his battle buddy with him one morning and was told to "play dead" until he got there.  Unfortunately he found that funny and smiled.  He wasn't smiling much the rest of that day.  lol.

[Bengalzona]

(11-29-2018, 02:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: I have a photo of my future son in law getting the gas treatment in basic (his whole group actually).  He wasn't fond of it but said it wasn't as bad as it looked and some people took it worse and some better.

My dad and my father in law both said they went through it to.

My son in law got in trouble for not having his battle buddy with him one morning and was told to "play dead" until he got there.  Unfortunately he found that funny and smiled.  He wasn't smiling much the rest of that day.  lol.

I don't have much issue with tear gas being used on adults. Children are another matter, however.

[GMDino]

(11-29-2018, 05:25 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I don't have much issue with tear gas being used on adults. Children are another matter, however.

Agree.

*IF* there were children trying to, or with the people trying to, breach the wall then it is on the people who brought the children.

The people who were NOT trying to enter illegally should not have been gassed IMHO.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2018, 05:25 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I don't have much issue with tear gas being used on adults. Children are another matter, however.

I think it is an effective training tool. It produces negative effects that are short lived, so it provides a realistic simulation for gas training. You obviously don't wanted mustard gas or something else that has a higher degree of lethality, but you want some effect. If you just throw in a smoke grenade then there isn't as much of a sense of urgency to the drill.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2018, 02:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: I have a photo of my future son in law getting the gas treatment in basic (his whole group actually).  He wasn't fond of it but said it wasn't as bad as it looked and some people took it worse and some better.

My dad and my father in law both said they went through it to.

My son in law got in trouble for not having his battle buddy with him one morning and was told to "play dead" until he got there.  Unfortunately he found that funny and smiled.  He wasn't smiling much the rest of that day.  lol.

My dad still has his basic training book from Fort Dix and there is a page devoted to the gas drill. Those are some interesting pictures.

[Bengalzona]

(11-29-2018, 05:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it is an effective training tool. It produces negative effects that are short lived, so it provides a realistic simulation for gas training. You obviously don't wanted mustard gas or something else that has a higher degree of lethality, but you want some effect. If you just throw in a smoke grenade then there isn't as much of a sense of urgency to the drill.

I think it is useful for crowd dispersal. Particularly in certain situations. But it isn't the only thing that can do that. There is a toolbox of resources available to peace officers. I'm not sure that it was the best thing in this situation.

Moreover, I'm not fond of our border starting to resemble the borders between Israel and the Palestinian territories: walls, teargas, rock throwing, police shooting unarmed people, etc. If people from South of the border where coming into the U.S. and bombing buses in order to try to regain what they consider to be their homeland, that would be one thing. That hasn't happened here. Ever. Here, we panic because grandma reported seeing a "large family of them Mexicans" at the grocery.

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 02:14 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Anyway, the drill sergeant grabbed a stick, picked up the burnt-out cannister with it, made us get in formation and then made us double-time while he ran in front hoisting the cannister on the stick. That was about 15 minutes of hell as the cannister was still breathing out tear gas and we had to run right into the cloud of it.

Yah! you screwed your buddies, B.  Shame!