(11-29-2018 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:09 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 08:15 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah yes, the melodrama of being a bit uneasy, to the say the least, of tear gassing a group of people with a significant number of women and children trying to provide a better life for themselves. Would it not have been melodramatic if live ammo was used instead?

My point is that, as shocking as it is to some, there is a very large area that exists between the current administrations immigration policy and open borders. For example, what if, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border, we invested in sending more immigration judges to the borders to process the asylum claims. What if we created and approved more guest work visas that allowed those who are willing and able to do work, regardless of the skill level needed, to do that? Visas as a whole have declined by 10% and we're currently taking more than 6 months on average to process asylum claims.

But no, the only two choices are fences and tear gas, or open borders. Got it.

Whichever of these measures were adopted, there would still be more people waiting to get in than can be admitted, there would still be wait times, and many would get turned away, and groups of them will still try to cross en masse. None of your proposals would end illegal immigration.

When people try to cross without papers, its the Border Guards' job to stop them. This simple and basic fact remains.

And did I say illegal immigration would end? No amount of tear gas will either. So since we know illegal immigration won't end, we should look for pragmatic solutions that will manage it in the most effective way possible.

Just like with legalizing weed, or alcohol, there are always people who will try and get around the rules for gain, but they become the exception, not the rule. And you put procedures in place to deal with them. Should we still have prohibition of alcohol just because there are still moonshiners in Appalachia?

From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system. You would keep in place the ability of immigration officials to detain and deport those individuals that don't follow the rules. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay, but let's find a way to document them, keep track of them, and offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.

OK, so people would still attempt to cross the border illegally. So I'll repeat OO's question to you: if you were president, what would you have the border guards do when a group of people rush the fence? Obama and Trump approved tear gas, etc. to repel them. What's your solution? Would it be in accordance with the will of those that elected you?

So if we're doing everything we can to facilitate people applying for asylum, worker visas, etc. and these problems persist, then riot control techniques such as deploying tear gas may be a necessary evil should things along the border escalate.

But being that the former part of that sentence, even just the processing of asylum claims and keeping the border crossing open, is not being met, I think the heavy hand of tear gas was incorrect. I'd rather us proactively address the issue instead of reacting to it, and doing so with tear gas. If I had my way, I'd send resources to the border to set up asylum processing centers to try and accommodate all of those seeking asylum, track those who are waiting for their request to be processed, and then immediately deport those that aren't granted asylum. Couple that with either increasing or overhauling the aid we're giving to the Latin American countries they are fleeing, and increasing/overhauling worker/seasonal visas, and I think tear gas can be used to target drug haulers and human trafficers, not a group that contained a lot of women and children.

So you would allow what happened at the Mexico/Guatemala border to not just be allowed, but to be essentially tolerated? Sounds fun.

Mob rule wins the day in your book as long as there are no drug haulers or traffickers involved. Sounds peachy.