2 hours ago, mikebike said:

I’d like to see the US response if Mexico fired anything across the border, for any reason...

How about just "the same reason"....

 

So if a violent mob of Canadians were trying to illegally cross into Mexico AND throwing rocks at American immigration officials, I think tear gas would be acceptable. 

 

To be fair though - were this to happen, the Americans would be stopping it on their side anyway. 

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

I’d like to see the US response if Mexico fired anything across the border, for any reason...

You mean like this: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-mexico-20140402-story.html

 

Quote

Two heavily armed, camouflaged Mexican soldiers crossed 50 yards inside Arizona in January and drew their guns against U.S. Border Patrol agents who confronted them in a tense standoff, according to documents obtained by The Times/Tribune Washington Bureau. U.S. officials said it was one of nearly two dozen border incursions by Mexican soldiers into southern Arizona in the last four years.

 

52 minutes ago, thaiguzzi said:

American paid Agent Provocateurs given lessons by the American SS (Secret Service).

Blatantly obvious.

Keep "The Wall" in the news with positive coverage ie "those rapists and drug dealing scum are invading us!".

Help we are not safe.

We need a wall.

Pathetic.

 

Actually i think a wall is a good idea. A wall on every US border. To keep the Americans IN.

Nutty conspiracy post.

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

I know. Any incidents of the Mexican border patrol firing tear gas into Guatemala? Didn't think so.

No - but there were violent clashes between Mexican police and the Guatemalan caravaner's at their border.

 

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/369090/migrants-storm-guatemala-mexico-border

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45920624

 

Guess what the Mexican police fired at protestors to force a retreat into no-mans land - go on - have a guess... That's right - TEAR GAS.

 

So yeah - this happened down there too.

15 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

were this to happen, the Americans would be stopping it on their side anyway. 

Yes. As the pass-thru of migrants/asylum-seekers/illegals from the US to Canada has increased dramatically over the last 2 years I have read MANY articles explaining how the USA was moving quickly and decisively to end the thruput and give their northern neighbours a helping hand. ????????????

Try getting into Thailand by massing at the border?  all this weeping over illegals is pathetic. Obey the law and all's good.  

11 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

No - but there were violent clashes between Mexican police and the Guatemalan caravaner's at their border.

 

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/369090/migrants-storm-guatemala-mexico-border

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45920624

 

Guess what the Mexican police fired at protestors to force a retreat into no-mans land - go on - have a guess... That's right - TEAR GAS.

 

So yeah - this happened down there too.

Did they fire tear gas into Guatemala?

52 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Try getting into Thailand by massing at the border?  all this weeping over illegals is pathetic. Obey the law and all's good.  

You’ve clearly not been here long enough to recall large scale migration of refugees into Thailand from Cambodian, Burma and Laos.

 

Nor does it seem how the ethnic majority of Chinese in Bangkok arrived.

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5096012/

Really?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5096012/

"Really???"  What is your point?  I have personally used chemical agents in riots without the aid of a gas mask, and I have instructed in the use of these agents both in the US and internationally.  Some chemical agents are designed to use indoors and others in an outdoor setting.  

 

Chemical agents are an effective tool for law enforcement that will not cause lasting harm to the recipient.  All US law enforcement are trained in the use for chemical agents and are exposed to these agents so they know first hand what the effects are.  Most agencies require this training once a year as part of their in-service-training.

 

         

29 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

"Really???"  What is your point?  I have personally used chemical agents in riots without the aid of a gas mask, and I have instructed in the use of these agents both in the US and internationally.  Some chemical agents are designed to use indoors and others in an outdoor setting.  

 

Chemical agents are an effective tool for law enforcement that will not cause lasting harm to the recipient.  All US law enforcement are trained in the use for chemical agents and are exposed to these agents so they know first hand what the effects are.  Most agencies require this training once a year as part of their in-service-training.

 

         

You didn't read it did you.

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

Did they fire tear gas into Guatemala?

 

Of course.

 

 

"A migrant throws back a canister of tear gas at Mexican Police as they try to pull down the border gate in Tecun Uman"

 

https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/migrants-clash-with-police-at-guatemala-idUSRTX6H10A

 

Go to picture 9 - showing a Guatemalan throwing a gas canister back over the border fence. He's on the Guatemalan side, he's throwing it over to the Mexican side. So what's next - you gonna claim he brought that with him????

 

Actually - let me predict your next question...

 

"Yeah - but was it the same brand of tear gas".

 

Give it up man, your raised points that were not researched based on your gut feel. Put it to bed now.

 

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by pedro01

5 hours ago, JAG said:

So a department of the Federal Government is now commenting directly, critically and in an openly partisan manner upon the actions of the elected chamber of the government?

 

Compared to that I suppose that lobbing tear gas across an international border into a foreign country pales into insignificance...

 

So, for instance, a military or police service would be wrong to criticize a government, elected chambers, committees etc for anything? Say like procuring poor equipment, under funding, under manning?

 

And what were the Mexican border authorities doing when illegal immigrants were trying to breach their border and enter a neighboring country illegally?

 

I can understand the ire of many Americans at how some of their politicians seem to want to allow illegal economic migrants to enter and stay freely; and some even want to give these criminals the vote!

 

 

wish EU patrol boats in the Med would do the same to illegal border violators paddling across.

All of this will be non issues soon when Trump invades Mexico over its  refusal to pay for the cement, fence, barrier wall as he has warned them to.  Mexico will then become a territory of the USA, similar to Puerto Rico, which everyone knows, Americans' have deep affection for. Those entering the southern bounder of the territory of Mexico will be dealt with harshly by territorial police.  A small tax on tortillas will pay for the wall between the territory and the USA mainland.  Tourism will be greatly increased in Mexico as well as oil exploration and the Peso will be replaced with the USD.  Great retiree opportunities and with a great night life.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Utter hogwash.

 

Appart from your poor attempt at deflection around ‘any reason’, your assertion why Mexico fails to ‘block’ the people heading towards the US border is without foundation.

 

A simple internet search will provide you with plenty of examples of concerns raised regarding the abuse of refugees in Mexico, but even if it did not, your acceptance of the abuse leaves you with a problem explaining your support for leaving these people in Mexico and subject to that abuse.

 

 

Hogwash? Are you denying that the Mexicans have had an open season  for  the past 50+ years on these migrants, of which Mexico has refused to do anything about.  This has nothing to do with my "acceptance" of abuse.

How about you consider this: Instead of trying to illegally enter the USA through Mexico, they stay where they are? If Mexico refuses to stop the illegal caravans, then Mexico has responsibility for these people. All that Mexico is doing is passing the problem along.

 

The USA has the moral and legal right to stop an invasion of foreigners of whom the USA has no information of. Surely you saw the news reports  that showed the HIV/AIDS  infected  subjects seeking entry into the USA so that they could get better "free" healthcare. How about, the physically impaired people being pushed along in wheelchairs? What do you think that they will do in the USA aside from collect welfare? Yes, there are some children being sent over to eventually become anchors. They are better off back in their own countries not in the USA.

The USA can barely take care of its own but you expect it to now accept in all these diseased and physically deficient zombies.

Even the left wing Guardian profiled some of the single parents traveling to America with their children, who have severe disabilities.

María Cáceres’s son Javier, who is 15, has Down’s syndrome. He’s a tall, chunky kid, with short dark hair, a missing front tooth and eyes that are permanently crossed. The journey has been difficult for Javier, his mother says. In addition to Down’s, he was born with hydrocephalus, a condition where excess fluid collects in the brain. He easily gets dizzy and complains of headaches. Doctors have told María that he needs surgery, but she’s never had the money. He also suffers regular seizures, yet it’s been weeks since they could afford his anticonvulsant meds.The previous day, Javier collapsed from the heat while walking the highway, and María worries he will have a seizure so far from a doctor. She points to his ankles that are swollen from wearing flip-flops, and says the food donated in the camps is making him vomit. He hasn’t been eating, she tells me. “He’s very weak. When he gets tired he just sits down in the road.” Next to them is Juan Antonio and his six-year-old daughter Lesly, who has severe cerebral palsy. Unable to walk or speak, she is bound to a stroller that is too small and showing wear. 

The USA has the right to defend itself from the entry of violent mobs and other unauthorized  undesirables.

 

 

8 hours ago, webfact said:

"a violent mob"

That would be the guys with guns and tear gas, wouldn't it?
 

It also looks that this government shutdown doesn't work, or maybe that only goes for the peaceful and useful parts of government?!?

5 minutes ago, JulesMad said:

That would be the guys with guns and tear gas, wouldn't it?
 

It also looks that this government shutdown doesn't work, or maybe that only goes for the peaceful and useful parts of government?!?

Voilent mob would refer to the stone throwing wannabe illegal immigrants trying to rush the border.

 

Not sure if you've been every hit by a rock. Actually scrub that - I read a few more of your posts.... I put it at 50/50....

 

Anyway - rocks hurt and could be fatal. On the other hand, tear gas makes your eyes water.

 

So yeah - the violent mob were the instigators. Unless you want to claim that the tear gas happened first and that cause the rock throwers to rush the border.... which takes us back to those rocks to the head...

 

50/50

32 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

Voilent mob would refer to the stone throwing wannabe illegal immigrants trying to rush the border.

 

Not sure if you've been every hit by a rock. Actually scrub that - I read a few more of your posts.... I put it at 50/50....

 

Anyway - rocks hurt and could be fatal. On the other hand, tear gas makes your eyes water.

 

So yeah - the violent mob were the instigators. Unless you want to claim that the tear gas happened first and that cause the rock throwers to rush the border.... which takes us back to those rocks to the head...

 

50/50

Thank you Pedro! Patriotic American's who support legal entry at the  borders haven't been able to rely on the law makers (GOP & Dems) to effectively secure our borders for decades! Now finally another President is put to the task of defending  our sovereignty by use of force and deterrents ! Threats by  foreigners who mass in force  and try rushing the barrier while assaulting our border patrol and local authorities to gain illegal entrance at the southern border will only result with more of the same ! 

 https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/deploying-tear-gas-at-the-border-is-not-a-new-tactic

delete. i somehow managed to post in the wrong thread haha

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by direction BANGKOK

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So, for instance, a military or police service would be wrong to criticize a government, elected chambers, committees etc for anything? Say like procuring poor equipment, under funding, under manning?

 

And what were the Mexican border authorities doing when illegal immigrants were trying to breach their border and enter a neighboring country illegally?

 

I can understand the ire of many Americans at how some of their politicians seem to want to allow illegal economic migrants to enter and stay freely; and some even want to give these criminals the vote!

 

 

I expect that in the USA, as in the UK, the heads of a military or police service have the right of access to the appropriate Secretary of State, maybe even to The President in certain circumstances, to raise the matter of underfunding procurement and so on. That is rather a different kettle of fish to allowing, or maybe even instructing, a spokesperson for the service to publicly criticise one party in a political debate over that service. For example, when there was grave concern about the availability of helicopters (a very expensive resource) for operations in Afghanistan during Mr Brown's time in government the Chief of The General Staff certainly exercised his right to raise the matter, I believe that he went to see the Prime Minister. However, he did not, quite correctly, instruct a spokesperson to say that the Labour Government should (spend more money on) sending more helicopters to Afghanistan. That's the difference. 

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

I expect that in the USA, as in the UK, the heads of a military or police service have the right of access to the appropriate Secretary of State, maybe even to The President in certain circumstances, to raise the matter of underfunding procurement and so on. That is rather a different kettle of fish to allowing, or maybe even instructing, a spokesperson for the service to publicly criticise one party in a political debate over that service. For example, when there was grave concern about the availability of helicopters (a very expensive resource) for operations in Afghanistan during Mr Brown's time in government the Chief of The General Staff certainly exercised his right to raise the matter, I believe that he went to see the Prime Minister. However, he did not, quite correctly, instruct a spokesperson to say that the Labour Government should (spend more money on) sending more helicopters to Afghanistan. That's the difference. 

It is quite common for public servants in the US (especially those in law enforcement) to not only openly criticize politicians but to offer their personal and political opinions. The USA is not the UK. To quote you, "That's the difference."

2 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Hogwash? Are you denying that the Mexicans have had an open season  for  the past 50+ years on these migrants, of which Mexico has refused to do anything about.  This has nothing to do with my "acceptance" of abuse.

How about you consider this: Instead of trying to illegally enter the USA through Mexico, they stay where they are? If Mexico refuses to stop the illegal caravans, then Mexico has responsibility for these people. All that Mexico is doing is passing the problem along.

 

The USA has the moral and legal right to stop an invasion of foreigners of whom the USA has no information of. Surely you saw the news reports  that showed the HIV/AIDS  infected  subjects seeking entry into the USA so that they could get better "free" healthcare. How about, the physically impaired people being pushed along in wheelchairs? What do you think that they will do in the USA aside from collect welfare? Yes, there are some children being sent over to eventually become anchors. They are better off back in their own countries not in the USA.

The USA can barely take care of its own but you expect it to now accept in all these diseased and physically deficient zombies.

Even the left wing Guardian profiled some of the single parents traveling to America with their children, who have severe disabilities.

María Cáceres’s son Javier, who is 15, has Down’s syndrome. He’s a tall, chunky kid, with short dark hair, a missing front tooth and eyes that are permanently crossed. The journey has been difficult for Javier, his mother says. In addition to Down’s, he was born with hydrocephalus, a condition where excess fluid collects in the brain. He easily gets dizzy and complains of headaches. Doctors have told María that he needs surgery, but she’s never had the money. He also suffers regular seizures, yet it’s been weeks since they could afford his anticonvulsant meds.The previous day, Javier collapsed from the heat while walking the highway, and María worries he will have a seizure so far from a doctor. She points to his ankles that are swollen from wearing flip-flops, and says the food donated in the camps is making him vomit. He hasn’t been eating, she tells me. “He’s very weak. When he gets tired he just sits down in the road.” Next to them is Juan Antonio and his six-year-old daughter Lesly, who has severe cerebral palsy. Unable to walk or speak, she is bound to a stroller that is too small and showing wear. 

The USA has the right to defend itself from the entry of violent mobs and other unauthorized  undesirables.

 

 

So early this in the new year to be putting so much effort Into parading your hatred of those less fortunate than yourself.

 

I’ll ask you again:

 

Since you recognise that refugees travelling to the US via Mexico are very often subjected to vile abuse while on that journey, do you support measures to give them the swiftest access to claim, as is their right, asylum in the USA?

 

 

21 minutes ago, Hank Gunn said:

It is quite common for public servants in the US (especially those in law enforcement) to not only openly criticize politicians but to offer their personal and political opinions. The USA is not the UK. To quote you, "That's the difference."

I am not an American. I take it you are. Very well, if that is the case, I find it quite extraordinary!

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Thank you Pedro! Patriotic American's who support legal entry at the  borders haven't been able to rely on the law makers (GOP & Dems) to effectively secure our borders for decades! Now finally another President is put to the task of defending  our sovereignty by use of force and deterrents ! Threats by  foreigners who mass in force  and try rushing the barrier while assaulting our border patrol and local authorities to gain illegal entrance at the southern border will only result with more of the same ! 

 https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/deploying-tear-gas-at-the-border-is-not-a-new-tactic

And then their are all the other ‘Patriotic Americans’ who don’t buy into the fear mongering you’ve ingested and are now vomiting.

Firing anything into a sovereign country is a slippery slope imho. 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And then their are all the other ‘Patriotic Americans’ who don’t buy into the fear mongering you’ve ingested and are now vomiting.

50 + years of relentless illegality at the Southern borders by foreigner's! Why is it that every president has used force to quell these attacks and disturbances! I supported every President that maintains border's,especially this one

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So early this in the new year to be putting so much effort Into parading your hatred of those less fortunate than yourself.

 

I’ll ask you again:

 

Since you recognise that refugees travelling to the US via Mexico are very often subjected to vile abuse while on that journey, do you support measures to give them the swiftest access to claim, as is their right, asylum in the USA?

 

 

 

I can answer that one easily enough.

 

The question is nonsense.

 

What happens to them on the journey should have no impact on their ability to claim. 

 

Eligibility to asylum is based on where you left, not the mode of transport. 

 

At least it's proven one thing - some questions ARE stupid.

6 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

I can answer that one easily enough.

 

The question is nonsense.

 

What happens to them on the journey should have no impact on their ability to claim. 

 

Eligibility to asylum is based on where you left, not the mode of transport. 

 

At least it's proven one thing - some questions ARE stupid.

Another ill informed statement.

 

And incidentally, the question I pose to Gerryatrickid was nothing to do with Eligibility to asylum, their eligibility commences the moment they are in the UD regardless of how they arrive.

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by Chomper Higgot

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

50 + years of relentless illegality at the Southern borders by foreigner's! Why is it that every president has used force to quell these attacks and disturbances! I supported every President that maintains border's,especially this one

This administration has to reckon with thousands upon thousands massing at the borders! What ever it takes to protect my countries sovereignty

Edited January 2, 20197 yr by riclag

13 minutes ago, riclag said:

This administration has to reckon with thousands upon thousands massing at the borders! What ever it takes to protect my countries sovereignty

Trump has had two years with a majority in both houses.

 

He’s done nothing other than feed you fear.

 

And you swallowed it.