Trump authorizes use of force against migrants/ Your thoughts? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

Trump authorizes use of force against migrants/ Your thoughts?
in Politics

By YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 195 Pts edited December 2



George_Horse



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • It sickens me to know that as a taxpayer, I'm unwifully funding this "operation"!
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • @piloteer Agreed. No one is whining about Canadian immigrants, and I thought Trump was supposed to be prolife. Hmm.
    piloteerZombieguy1987George_Horse
  • @YeshuaBought
    No one complains about Canadian immigrants because there’s absolutely no reason for them to cross illegally. Therefore, they don’t. Now, force has been authorized because when you cross illegally, you’re doing something illegal. And, some, not all illegal immigrants are crossing to to do harm to the US and our citizens.
    Zombieguy1987ApplesauceGeorge_Horse
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @AmericanFurryBoy ;

    Most Canadian immigrants cannot cross the border illegally even if they try, because most Canadian ID holders are allowed to cross the border without any special permits.

    Employ a similar policy with regards to Mexican citizens, and illegal crossings from Mexico will drop drastically. Hence no force will have to be authorized either.

    Notice how the problem was created by governmental intervention; a problem that did not exist before Wilson's presidency, when there was no immigration laws in the US. Almost always, whenever the government gets involved in something, problems are created. And then that same government pushes for heavy funding of operations aiming to solve the problem. And people pay their hard-earned money to fund those pointless endeavors, that would not even be needed in the first place if only the government stayed away and let the freedom work its magic.
    Applesauce
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    Again the illegal immigration issue has become an issue that should have been remedied 3 plus decades ago.

    The original 2.7 million illegal immigrants that were given legalized status back in 1986 by then POTUS Reagan, technically could have been the (original end) of the illegal immigration situation, but given the current situation being as fluid as it continues to be, it maybe looks like the additional 11-20 million illegal immigrants in the United State are maybe looking for the same situation to happen to them? 

    If an individual comes unto ones property, or into ones home illegally, what typically happens?

    The proper authorities are called, and the trespasser is dealt with.

    So when some of the illegal immigrants come into the US illegally verses legally, why should they not be dealt with in the same manner? 

    Or is there maybe a separate standard for an illegal immigrant coming into the illegally, verses an individual trespassing unto ones property, or into ones home? 
  • I see it as just. These disgraceful scum wish to enter into our country Illegally, therefore, those who display unruly behavior should be punished. You can come to this country regardless of national origin, race, sex, and religion, but do it by legal process. I could care less if you carry children, we cannot just take in 7,000 people, no that is ridiculously moronic, it is not fair to those who fought hard to come here by legal process. I see nothing bad about what Trump is doing, and I am happy that he is not a wimp like Obama, he is sending them a brief and bold message, he will NOT make the same mistake Europe did in taking in thousands of refugees, he will have those migrants come into our country the RIGHT way. We already have more than a million illegals here, why take in thousands more?
    Zombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • I think this should be an international crime both under the Trump and Obama administrations. You have Americans firing weapons, non-lethal, but weapons none the less, across an international border at people that aren't US citizens.

    People that criticize Republicans for being to hard on illegals, or that Democrats are to soft, are both dishonest. Every administration for decades has slowly been harder and harder on illegal immigrants.

    I have to agree with @MayCaesar that immigration reform will do more to curb illegal immigration than any sort of border wall or policing tactic.

     I had the pleasure to speak to an immigration lawyer recently. They said that most lay people and politicians don't know much about the immigration process. For example I learned that just to visit family, if you are from a Hispanic country, you have to prove that you have a house or $10,000 in the bank, and a job. Because of this crazy requirement many people will illegally cross the border and intentionally seek out border patrol and turn themselves in. Because they have committed a crime they get bond and a court date and can't be immediately thrown out of the country. This happens so often that those immigrants are dropped off at a bus station so that they can get to their family in the US. They eventually show up for court and go back to their country, only to repeat the process again at some point. 

    If there was a system in place that allowed the Latin American ID holders with family that have citizenship or green cards, both very hard to obtain, into the US, and hold their family as accountable for any crimes they commit in the US, numbers of illegal crossings would decrease dramatically.

    Many farms require immigrants to function. Even John McCain aknowledges this fact https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2018/09/03/Ruben-Navarrette-Immigrants-work-harder-than-native-born-Americans/stories/201809030016. A century ago we had a policy where employers could get foreign workers into the US, mostly ranchers and farmers, and through this program that will documented and oversaw these workers keeping an eye out for criminals, those workers could eventually gain a green card to the US. Imagine if we gave the opportunity to serve in our military for a specified number of years to gain citizenship to the country. A program we had for Iraqi volounteers that the current administration criticised, and let's be honest a Democratic won would have too.

    Policies like these would drastically cut down on illegal crossings and help find those that aren't criminals and are dedicated to working and the country, and Grant them residency after providing service to us. This would be regardless of their economic status coming into the country.

    I think @MayCaesar can attest to this, being an immigrant themself. I believe that immigrants that want to create a life for themselves truly appreciate the values this country was founded on more than those of us that were born here. Things that we may take for granted are treasured by immigrants, like the right to a trial with a jury of your peers. Many Americans want to get out of jury duty, whereas many immigrants view being on a jury as proof that this country doesn't just let the government throw people in jail. They view jury duty as an important and valuable Civic duty instead of an annoying day in a hot court house where you get frustrated having to find parking and taking off of work to listen to a boring trial.
  • @George_Horse wimp like Obama? He employed the use of force against migrants at the border more often than Trump. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/28/sarah-huckabee-sanders/sarah-sanders-says-obama-tear-gas-border-month/ ;
    Do your research before taking such a hard stance
    George_HorseNathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB I agree with your stance but with a little bit of nuance. In the case of the video posted above this was forced used before the immigrants physically crossed the border. Force employed against someone who trespasses vs someone who you believe to trespass on your property in the future is different levels.

    Those that are illegally in the country should be subject to bring removed and heavy policing, but illegal immigrants are still required to sustain some industries, having a positive effect on the economy. 

    I like the way South Korea deals with illegal immigrants. They will let those immigrants live in small neighborhoods where they generally won't go after them. If they step outside that neighborhood they will prosecute them to the fullest extent possible. This way the businesses get the benefit of having workers with no minimum wage or rights, but those workers are scared enough to stay in their neighborhood as the life they live there is still better then going back to their home country. Authorities will occasionally go into these neighborhoods and deport mass amounts of immigrants. This causes a cycling of immigrant labor, the work force will always be there but any given individual doesn't remain there for long.

    Businesses get the constant benefits of illegal immigrants while the immigrants themselves are too scared to venture outside of a designated area as they know even a limited amount of time in the country is very valuable even if they know it's for a limited time.
  • @WordsMatter Hey you! Your 404s don't work! Find another source champ!
    Zombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 221 Pts
    edited November 30
    @George_Horse ;https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/28/sarah-huckabee-sanders/sarah-sanders-says-obama-tear-gas-border-month/

    Or if you prefer it from a heavily biased conservative outlet. https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/11/27/obama-used-tear-gas-at-least-80-times-at-border/


    Didn't forget properly the first time. Does this mean you don't like Trump's soft stance? Or do you just not think Obama was a wimp on this anymore?
  • @George_Horse

    Well President Trump authorized lethal force, which I think anyone would be hard pressed to defend. A rock isn't a rifle no matter how hard you might want it to be. So no I do not agree with the Presidents choice. I want to cover your argument however Mr. Horse if you don't mind.

    You say these people are coming illegal to this country, but the vast majority of these people (who are peaceful mind you) are not breaking any laws. The caravan currently sitting at San Ysidro border check point have made it abundantly clear that they are seeking asylum. Seeking asylum is in absolutely no way illegal, under both United States immigration law and International refuge and asylum law, the U.S. is bound to help these people (1) (2) (3). Whether you like it or not, the United States has both a legal and moral responsibility to help these people. That however does not excuse the actions of those individuals who choose to rush the checkpoint, however their actions should not be used to punish the others who have done nothing wrong.
    piloteerNathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • "Whether you like it or not, the United States has both a legal and moral responsibility to help these people. "

    Top jej.  :joy: Like I said from before, Trump isn't going to make the same mistake that Europe did in letting in ALL of the refugees without doing background checks. And to help them? Hell no. Yes there are some who want to come in to live better lives, but if they want to come in, they should do it by legal process as I had said previously, and obviously you did not read my entire argument. So no, we're not going to take in THOUSANDS of people out of morality, complete nonsense, and I had also stated from before that those who behave unruly should be punished, not innocent individuals. If they get in the way, that's their problem.  TRY AGAIN.

    Zombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 756 Pts
    edited November 30
    @George_Horse

    How much do you know about the legal process of immigrating in the US? It is nearly impossible to immigrate here if you are not one of the privileged categories of people, like I was when I moved here. 

    First the government institutes some of the harshest immigration laws in the world. Then it complains that people do not abide by those laws - while in reality many of them simply cannot. It is as backwards as it gets.

    I do not think that the US should open its doors for everyone. However, let us be clear: the legal process is lacking in many regards, and it is hard to blame people who try to go around the law when they become really desperate and frustrated with their lives in poor criminal countries.
    McSloth
  • @MayCaesar not to mention someone willing to walk from Guatemala to the US with their daughter probably has a decent work ethic and would fit right in.
  • MayCaesar said:
    @George_Horse

    How much do you know about the legal process of immigrating in the US? It is nearly impossible to immigrate here if you are not one of the privileged categories of people, like I was when I moved here. 

    First the government institutes some of the harshest immigration laws in the world. Then it complains that people do not abide by those laws - while in reality many of them simply cannot. It is as backwards as it gets.

    I do not think that the US should open its doors for everyone. However, let us be clear: the legal process is lacking in many regards, and it is hard to blame people who try to go around the law when they become really desperate and frustrated with their lives in poor criminal countries.
    What "privileged" categories of people are you talking about? And "nearly" impossible? I'm sure you're making an exaggeration. That era immigration policies of which you emigrated here may have been different compared to the present immigration policies, and elaborate on how HARD it is to emigrate to this country, otherwise, your argument fails to change my mind as well. 
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 756 Pts
    edited December 1
    @George_Horse I moved here 4.5 years ago, and since then things only became tougher for immigrants. Obama's era was not exactly paradise compared to the previous administrations, but now it is easily worse than ever.

    I managed to move here because I had over a dozen PhD program offers from high-ranked universities here in the US. PhD program acceptance is one of the few reliable ways for anyone to immigrate here, and it obviously is not for everyone.

    Consider a random person who manages to secure a job contract with a US company. You think that person can just go ahead and apply for a visa? Think again. The person cannot actually do much on their end; instead, they have to get the new employer to assist them with an H-1B application (that costs a lot of money both for the employer, and for the applicant - think about how hard it might be to cover the fees from the latter's side, if that person is someone from a country with the average salary of $200 a month). And H-1B visas have quotas, so if you lost the random generation lottery (and you are likely to lose it, as currently approximately 3 times as many people apply for these visas than the quota allows) - then you cannot come here.

    You have lived your entire life in the US, so you have no idea what the process is like for those who have not. For you it was easy: you became citizen the moment you were born. Try to look at it from the perspective of those who have to go through incredibly frustrating bureaucratic processes, often taking years, just to be able to move to the US permanently - and I will not even mention the following steps, which is obtaining permanent residence and citizenship.
    Americans complain that DMV takes over a month to complete a new car registration. Well, try 5 years of sitting in queues to be able to get your first paycheck in the US for a change.

    I am not saying that the immigration process should be easy. However, you do not seem to even remotely appreciate what this process is like for the vast majority of immigrants. We are not complaining, and I am not complaining either, since I was one of those few percent of immigrants who had it very easy. I would like, however, to see a bit more recognition and appreciation of the difficulties the people we are discussing in this topic face. Immigrating to the US from Honduras or Guatemala is not like going to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. There is a reason these people are moving here on foot, instead of taking a First Class flight.

    ---

    Almost all developed countries have immigration programs heavily favoring high profile employees. Countries like Canada, Australia or New Zealand have a Professional Migration point-based system. Many European countries eagerly give visas to anyone who secures a job there. Japan, notoriously difficult country to immigrate to, allows people with a job to effectively stay permanently and enjoy majorly the same legal status the citizens do.

    There have been many initiatives in the US to create a similar system, but so far it has never happened. Is it not strange that a country that likes advertising itself to the world as the biggest melting pot - actually does not let the most qualified people easily participate in the melting process? I think the system is long overdue for some reforms.

    Then again, I myself am a non-citizen immigrant, so I cannot exactly tell people here how to run their country. I only offer sensible proposals, but I do not pretend to have some sort of authority in these arguments.
    McSlothGeorge_HorseZombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
  • @George_Horse

    Again they are coming here legally, for they are following the laws set by both the United States and the international community, what part of that do you not understand? I suggest you read up on the actual laws before you start claiming that these people are coming here illegally. Not to mention you keep saying we can not take in the 7,000 or so people, but why not? As I've proven, most of these people are following the law so what's the problem with letting in the 6,500 or so who are doing everything right and have caused no problems?
  • George_HorseGeorge_Horse 377 Pts
    edited December 1
    MayCaesar said:
    @George_Horse I moved here 4.5 years ago, and since then things only became tougher for immigrants. Obama's era was not exactly paradise compared to the previous administrations, but now it is easily worse than ever.

    I managed to move here because I had over a dozen PhD program offers from high-ranked universities here in the US. PhD program acceptance is one of the few reliable ways for anyone to immigrate here, and it obviously is not for everyone.

    Consider a random person who manages to secure a job contract with a US company. You think that person can just go ahead and apply for a visa? Think again. The person cannot actually do much on their end; instead, they have to get the new employer to assist them with an H-1B application (that costs a lot of money both for the employer, and for the applicant - think about how hard it might be to cover the fees from the latter's side, if that person is someone from a country with the average salary of $200 a month). And H-1B visas have quotas, so if you lost the random generation lottery (and you are likely to lose it, as currently approximately 3 times as many people apply for these visas than the quota allows) - then you cannot come here.

    You have lived your entire life in the US, so you have no idea what the process is like for those who have not. For you it was easy: you became citizen the moment you were born. Try to look at it from the perspective of those who have to go through incredibly frustrating bureaucratic processes, often taking years, just to be able to move to the US permanently - and I will not even mention the following steps, which is obtaining permanent residence and citizenship.
    Americans complain that DMV takes over a month to complete a new car registration. Well, try 5 years of sitting in queues to be able to get your first paycheck in the US for a change.

    I am not saying that the immigration process should be easy. However, you do not seem to even remotely appreciate what this process is like for the vast majority of immigrants. We are not complaining, and I am not complaining either, since I was one of those few percent of immigrants who had it very easy. I would like, however, to see a bit more recognition and appreciation of the difficulties the people we are discussing in this topic face. Immigrating to the US from Honduras or Guatemala is not like going to Starbucks for a cup of coffee. There is a reason these people are moving here on foot, instead of taking a First Class flight.

    ---

    Almost all developed countries have immigration programs heavily favoring high profile employees. Countries like Canada, Australia or New Zealand have a Professional Migration point-based system. Many European countries eagerly give visas to anyone who secures a job there. Japan, notoriously difficult country to immigrate to, allows people with a job to effectively stay permanently and enjoy majorly the same legal status the citizens do.

    There have been many initiatives in the US to create a similar system, but so far it has never happened. Is it not strange that a country that likes advertising itself to the world as the biggest melting pot - actually does not let the most qualified people easily participate in the melting process? I think the system is long overdue for some reforms.

    Then again, I myself am a non-citizen immigrant, so I cannot exactly tell people here how to run their country. I only offer sensible proposals, but I do not pretend to have some sort of authority in these arguments.
    I am not native to this country, my parents immigrated here from the United Kingdom when I was seven years old. I will bring up the main subject of this debate, which was "Was It Just For Trump To Use Force Against Migrants?". As I had stated from before: 

    those who display unruly behavior should be punished.
    It is clear. 3 died because they thought they could go scot-free without being punished. 

    we cannot just take in 7,000 people

    So I ask you this, should the United States let ALL of them in? 

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I can see that the process for emigrating here is a ratherly difficult process, but that does not mean they should use violent means to enter the country. The subject of this debate was discussion of Trump's force against the migrants and if it was just, not immigration, but I can see the point you are making. I understand that there are many who want to live here to live out their lives in a better society and country, yes I can see this, and then there are those who we do not know. Many say there are no criminals in the caravan, but how could they be so sure? In every crowd, one stands out, and is not like the rest. Those who attempt to get asylum are doing the RIGHT thing, but those who are using violence to enter the country are not good people and they should not be let in, no matter how desperate they are to enter the country.

    You do not use violence to achieve a goal, what is the excuse to let those people in? I just cannot see it. Maybe the immigration policies should change, but they should not be amended in a way that could give criminal organizations an advantage. The same could be said from Donald Trump's 2015 presidential campaign speech "When Mexico sends their people they are not sending their best.  They're bringing drugs, and they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people." There are many good people in the caravan, and there are some who are NOT good, what idiot should say with such ignorance that there are "no" bad individuals in the caravan numbering a whopping 7,000? 

    I would favor background checks for all, but not letting them ALL in. This is a serious and extremely concerning crisis that this country is dealing with. We should be rational and logical about this, not inane. There is a solution, I do not know what it is, but we may see it in the future. So for a final note, I am not against Trump's force against the unruly migrants. There are some who get in the way, it is unfortunate, but we cannot tolerate childishness, and I say again, those who act unruly are the ones to be punished, not innocent individuals. I appreciate you for the elaboration on the immigration process, quite sometime I had seen someone do such a thing. 

    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @George_Horse

    I do not know what should be done about the caravans and illegal immigrants in general. I simply considered this situation from the point of view of many of those immigrants, who know that they are very unlikely to ever be able to move to the US, or any other First World country, legally - so saying that they should just come here legally, and that is the solution to their problems, is quite impractical.

    With regards to some of them being criminals, the US system of justice features the principle of presumption of innocence. It is very unlikely that among thousands people in the caravan there are absolutely no criminals, actual or latent. However, by default we must consider them innocent. The system of background checks essentially puts them on the trial with accusation of being a criminal, which is a problem. I would prefer a system that does not put anyone on trial, but, rather, deals with their criminal traits post-factum, as is the case with regards to most American residents.

    I would like this country to just have a meritocratic immigration system, similar to many of the systems I am familiar with - at least, in the modern world with controlled borders. But that is a different debate entirely.

    As far as people trying to cross the border illegally go, in my opinion, they should be treated same way as other people doing illegal things are. The officers should either arrest them or make them leave; if they do employ violence against the officers, then the officers can practice self-defence and employ some force. But take someone who sneaked in to the country many years ago and has lived here. There is nothing to be lost from granting that individual a pardon, as they are already effectively an integral part of the American economy and society. 

    While I do believe that laws in general should be upheld, some laws really are not flexible enough to account for a large variety of situations. Mass pardons happening every now and then is a good thing, in my opinion; I would just like the process to be a little bit more organized, rather than mostly dependent on the individual view of whoever is currently occupying the White House.

    The way I see it, we have very similar views on this, but come to them from very different perspectives.
    George_HorseZombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    http://fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/examples-serious-crimes-illegal-aliens

    When some of the illegal immigrants commit crimes against US citizens, what type of "use of force," did the illegal immigrants use in committing crimes? 
    George_HorseZombieguy1987
  • @George_Horse I'm confused on how you support the use of force. You say we shouldn't just let them all in and instead have them go through the proper channels. Many of those immigrants were attempting to do exactly that, apply for asylum. People who apply for asylum aren't just let in without bothering to check if they are a criminal, more than 10 different federal department heads have to personally sign off on their entry being allowed. Many of them never committed the crime of entering the country illegally as the tear gas was launched over the border.

    Is it ok to tear gas all the migrants who weren't throwing rocks or bottles? Was there maybe a better way for the officers to protect themselves and the border? I imagine they could have been more tactful about this in this case and probably the hundreds of cases over the last 10 years (data isn't available on the past circumstances when tear gas and pepper spray were used). When your enemies weapons are rocks and bottles, and you have the federal government to supply you with your weapons I imagine there is a way to protect the border and yourself without any US personnel or property crossing the border. Back away from the wall out of range of the rocks and bottles. If they then cross hit them with rubber bullets, tasers, water cannons, and many other riot control methods.
    George_HorseZombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
  • @George_Horse I'm confused on how you support the use of force. You say we shouldn't just let them all in and instead have them go through the proper channels. Many of those immigrants were attempting to do exactly that, apply for asylum. People who apply for asylum aren't just let in without bothering to check if they are a criminal, more than 10 different federal department heads have to personally sign off on their entry being allowed. Many of them never committed the crime of entering the country illegally as the tear gas was launched over the border.

    Is it ok to tear gas all the migrants who weren't throwing rocks or bottles? Was there maybe a better way for the officers to protect themselves and the border? I imagine they could have been more tactful about this in this case and probably the hundreds of cases over the last 10 years (data isn't available on the past circumstances when tear gas and pepper spray were used). When your enemies weapons are rocks and bottles, and you have the federal government to supply you with your weapons I imagine there is a way to protect the border and yourself without any US personnel or property crossing the border. Back away from the wall out of range of the rocks and bottles. If they then cross hit them with rubber bullets, tasers, water cannons, and many other riot control methods.


    How are you "confused"? I said those who act unruly are to be punished, not innocent individuals. What DON'T you get?
    Zombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @George_Horse that innocent individuals were punished in the use of tear gas because it can't automatically Target only those who threw things.
    Zombieguy1987George_HorseNathaniel_B
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    "that innocent individuals were punished in the use of tear gas because it can't automatically Target only those who threw things."

    How can you tell the difference?
    Are you at the border right now assisting in the vetting process? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB the difference is none had crossed the border yet, no no crime had been committed. Some were throwing bottles, they committed a crime. Tear gas makes a cloud and doesn't just affect those throwing bottles. 

    For someone so obsessed with the law and so upset when criminals hurt innocent people it's so odd that you don't care about the innocent people tear gassed at the same time as those that weren't innocent. You are very selective.
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    "For someone so obsessed with the law and so upset when criminals hurt innocent people it's so odd that you don't care about the innocent people tear gassed at the same time as those that weren't innocent. You are very selective."

    Why don't you reach out to some of the 300 sanctuary cities in the United States, and ask some of the citizens in those various cities, how they feel about, some of the illegal immigrants getting sanctuary in those cities? 

    How do you feel about the various crimes that some of the illegal immigrants have committed against various families in the US? 

    Are you familiar the below? 

    From Wikipedia: 

    "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act(IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty,[1] signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congresswhich reformed United States immigration law. The Act[2]

    • required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
    • made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
    • legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
    • legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language."

    Are you maybe pro illegal immigrant, WordsMatter? 


  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 221 Pts
    edited December 3
    @TTKDB stay on topic. We are talking about people outside the border trying to apply for asylum bring tear gassed. Not anyone inside the US. They are trying to go through the proper channels to get here legally. Since none have crossed the border yet they are potential immigrants, not illegal immigrants. All of your above points don't apply in the slightest.
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
  • @TTKDB again irrelevant. None of the people tear gassed are illegal immigrants. They are applying for asylum to be vetted by the federal government.
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    No, it's not irrelevant.

    What news media outlet source can cooberate your statement? 

    Can you, or can you not provide news footage from YouTube to cooberate this statement from you?

    "None of the people tear gassed are illegal immigrants. They are applying for asylum to be vetted by the federal government."

    Prove it.

    Show this forum /website, that reporters in a tv news station, are talking to journalists who are at the border and their news reporting can support your claims? 
  • @TTKDB ;https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-officials-defend-using-tear-gas-on-migrants-heres-a-close-look-at-their-claims

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-fires-tear-gas-starts-wait-list/story?id=59443487

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

    Here's a conservative source https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/border-agents-used-tear-gas-only-after-assault-by-asylum-seekers-official-says

    Foreign source https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/closes-major-border-crossing-tear-gas-asylum-seekers-181125202719823.html

    Need I go on? Now before you come back with your ignorant reply with your next deflecting question note that earlier in the thread I said I'm fine with using force against the migrants throwing things at the border patrol or attempting to cross the border, I just would like a method to be used that is more targeted at those offenders and not an indiscriminate cloud of gas that also affects bystanders.
  • @TTKDB again irrelevant. None of the people tear gassed are illegal immigrants. They are applying for asylum to be vetted by the federal government.

    If they weren't being violent and attempting to be illegal aliens by rushing the gates, they wouldn't have been tear-gassed.  If they were legitimately trying to apply for asylum, they could have done that in their own country, not to mention they had ALREADY BEEN OFFERED ASYLUM by Mexico.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta again I'm fine with those who rushed the border or threw things to have forced used against them. Tear gas strikes those who weren't doing that. We aren't North Korea, we don't punish family members for what one person in their family did. People are free to apply for asylum to as many countries as they please.
  • @CYDdharta again I'm fine with those who rushed the border or threw things to have forced used against them. Tear gas strikes those who weren't doing that. We aren't North Korea, we don't punish family members for what one person in their family did. People are free to apply for asylum to as many countries as they please.

    Your thought process is lacking.  "We don't punish family members for what one person in their family did"?!?  We don't???  We don't take family assets to settle fines?  We don't send heads of households to jail when they've committed a serious crime, thereby depriving the family of the primary source of income?  Everyone there voluntarily put themselves in a position to be tear-gassed.  The proper way for them to apply for asylum would have been in their home country through an embassy.  They can apply for asylum to as many countries as they please, but they don't have a legitimate claim, since they were already offered asylum. If you're truly fleeing for your life, you run to the first safe place you find, you don't get to pick-and-choose where you go.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    "Need I go on? Now before you come back with your ignorant reply with your next deflecting question"

    An example of ignorance is that even with the;

    "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986"


    In place since 1986, that 11-22 million illegal immigrants, have continuesly come to the United States, regardless of that law being in place? 

    Maybe a reason in some of the illegal immigrants coming to the US illegally, is because there are apparently 300 sanctuary cities, that they can find some apparent sanctuary in? 
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 221 Pts
    edited December 3
    @TTKDB what don't you understand about the fact that the people that tear gas was used on were on the Mexico side of the border? And also that I never said they should just be allowed in, the only stance I'm taking in this thread is that there are methodsmother than tear gas to protect the border. This is what I mean by ignorant. You try to lump them in with the crimes of illegal immigrants when 1. They aren't even in the US and 2. If they get in the US it will be legally via an asylum claim that was thoroughly vetted. I understand you don't like me and equate that with not liking any stance I take but please just do some research and think through your position and ignorance. You try to extend everything I say to me taking a stance I never supported just to make me look unreasonable but all I ever said was we can use tazers water cannons and rubber bullets to defend the border over tear gas.

    This debate is specifically about the immigrants outside the border. If you want to discuss illegals feel free to create your own thread on them. I won't respond to anymore posts about illegals as it's irrelevant to the discussion and only creating clutter in this thread.
  • @George_Horse that innocent individuals were punished in the use of tear gas because it can't automatically Target only those who threw things.

    "Oh durr!!! Even though we're facing a hail of rocks and bottles, we should try and shoot them with rubber bullets!"



    And you're telling me  tear gas should have targeting towards those who are violent?



    Cmon man I know you're not the brightest in here, but please use your goddamn head. I shouldn't even have to point out how stupid your statement is. 
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • I ain't mad at him. Obama did it too, no problem, Trump doing it too? I feel the same way. I ain't got no problem with Mr.Trump, thinking he's teaching them migrants a lesson not to mess with us! Like how @George_Horse said, he's gonna make them come in the RIGHT way!
    George_Horse
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 221 Pts
    edited December 4
    @George_Horse I never said tear gas even could Target people. Have you even been hit by a rubber bullet? Explain to me why tear gas specifically is the only plausible answer and absolutely nothing else can accomplish the goal. Israel uses rubber bullets to great success against people trying to blow them up or kill then but you expect me to believe it won't work against people armed with a bottle or trying to jump a fence?
    George_Horse
  • @George_Horse I never said tear gas even could Target people. Have you even been hit by a rubber bullet? Explain to me why tear gas specifically is the only plausible answer and absolutely nothing else can accomplish the goal. Israel uses rubber bullets to great success against people trying to blow them up or kill then but you expect me to believe it won't work against people armed with a bottle or trying to jump a fence?

    The Israelis use tear gas as well.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • @George_Horse I never said tear gas even could Target people. Have you even been hit by a rubber bullet? Explain to me why tear gas specifically is the only plausible answer and absolutely nothing else can accomplish the goal. Israel uses rubber bullets to great success against people trying to blow them up or kill then but you expect me to believe it won't work against people armed with a bottle or trying to jump a fence?
    You know you're just pissing me off now, I must be honest with you. And for that, I will stop responding to your childish arguments and questions. I simply don't have the time for your kind. I know 10 year olds who know how effective tear gas is compared to rubber bullets and other alternatives.
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 221 Pts
    edited December 5
    @George_Horse so no explanation why it absolutely must be tear gas and not a single other method could ever work? Or will you just continue with ad hominems?

    I'm the unintelligent one when you believed Obama was a wimp until you learned he used tear gas significantly more than Trump. If I'm so unintelligent it should be easy to present even the tiniest argument in one post to show how tear gas is more effective or why any other form of riot control isn't effective.

    I don't see why you are getting so mad when I'm not even attacking the use of force in its entirety. I would think that we can agree that immigrants that are trying to get over the border or are attacking guards should have force used against them.

    All I am questioning is one method of control out of a large amount of possible methods. If it's so easy just give me a single source or argument to explain why tear gas is the only viable method and I will leave you alone. Maybe I'm wrong that something else could be used but so far no one has been able to explain why it has to be tear gas. I'm not even saying you're wrong in actively asking to educate me on this if I'm missing something.
    George_Horse
  • @George_Horse so no explanation why it absolutely must be tear gas and not a single other method could ever work? Or will you just continue with ad hominems?

    I'm the unintelligent one when you believed Obama was a wimp until you learned he used tear gas significantly more than Trump. If I'm so unintelligent it should be easy to present even the tiniest argument in one post to show how tear gas is more effective or why any other form of riot control isn't effective.

    I don't see why you are getting so mad when I'm not even attacking the use of force in its entirety. I would think that we can agree that immigrants that are trying to get over the border or are attacking guards should have force used against them.

    All I am questioning is one method of control out of a large amount of possible methods. If it's so easy just give me a single source or argument to explain why tear gas is the only viable method and I will leave you alone. Maybe I'm wrong that something else could be used but so far no one has been able to explain why it has to be tear gas. I'm not even saying you're wrong in actively asking to educate me on this if I'm missing something.

    Apparently you are wrong, since you point to the Israelis, but even they use tear gas. 
    George_Horse
  • @CYDdharta I use them as an example of someone using rubber bullets. I never claimed they didn't use tear gas.

    @George_Horse said 
    "Oh durr!!! Even though we're facing a hail of rocks and bottles, we should try and shoot them with rubber bullets!"

    Implying that the use of rubber bullets would be ridiculous against people wielding rocks and bottles. So I use Israel as an example of people who use rubber bullets effectively against people wielding firearms and explosives. My point here was to say that rubber bullets can be effective against people throwing rocks and bottles, contrary to what the above poster tried to imply.
    George_Horse
  • @CYDdharta I use them as an example of someone using rubber bullets. I never claimed they didn't use tear gas.

    Border patrol DID use rubber bullets.  What point are you trying to make?
  • I ain't mad at him. Obama did it too, no problem, Trump doing it too? I feel the same way. I ain't got no problem with Mr.Trump, thinking he's teaching them migrants a lesson not to mess with us! Like how @George_Horse said, he's gonna make them come in the RIGHT way!
    As always, you make great points compadre! Right on the money!  :)
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • The correct way to apply to asylum in general is to go to the closest US embassy and fill the application, possibly asking for temporary housing on the territory of the embassy. One should not have to walk over thousands miles to be able to do that.

    On the other hand, it is not always possible to do so safely. For example, in Soviet Union going to the US embassy was a suicide: Americans would accept the asylum application, but at the same time honestly tell the applicant that it is not going to work due to the borders closed on the Soviet side. And once the person walks out of the embassy, they would be asked for documents proving the necessity of having been at the embassy, and if such documents are not present (and, as you understand, having an asylum application receipt on you was even worse than having no documents at all), then the person would be considered a Western spy and jailed for a very long time.

    Is Honduras a safe place to apply for the American embassy? Probably not. But Mexico is. There are many US embassies in Mexico, and, according to the international conventions, they all are supposed to do whatever is necessary to provide security for the applicants. Similarly, Soviet citizens would apply for asylum in the US embassies not in Soviet Union, and not in the US, but in countries in between - Turkey, India, Afghanistan or whatever they would manage to somehow get to, as long as it is not a part of the Eastern Bloc or its allies.

    I do not have anything against these immigrants, and I totally understand how they feel, since I felt the same until I moved (legally) to the US after many years of dreaming of it. At the same time, the intention to apply for asylum is a weak excuse; a bit more honesty would go a long way. They are after higher quality of life, not asylum, and there is nothing wrong or shameful in that; this is why so many people want to live here, after all. People from Syria or Iran go here not because they cannot find any other country that is safer than where they are from; they go here because this is the best place in the world to live in. I wish it was reflected in their rhetoric, because this is simply the truth.


  • It is called a slippery slope to where the authorization of the military on US Citizens is technically now feasible.
    George_Horse
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch