Thousands of Hondurans heading toward the US

[Novus America]

And the President could theoretically order what you propose, but that would spark a Consitutional crisis and almost certainly be struck down by the courts.

Is that before or after Ginsburg is kaput?

And umm if you think I am far left... I do not think I have ever been called that.

Exhibit these opinions and you'll be seeing it a lot more.

Regardless of Ginsburg, nobody on the Supreme Court believes the President has unlimited powers.
And how is saying the President has limited powers far left?
How is saying that US law does provide for a limited right to claim asylum far left (I mean the law clearly says it).

Again I have been saying the government did the right thing here. I fail to see how that is far left.

[Novus America]

That is not evidence the government is lying and that the Mexican government is also lying. You have provided zero evidence the government is lying here.

You've provided zero evidence that they're telling the truth.

That is not how this works. If two governments say say something, that is some evidence it happened. Sure it is not self proving evidence. Sure contradictory evidence could outweigh it, as it is not the strongest possible evidence.

But you have no evidence to prove they lied. You are the person claiming someone else lied. I am not saying anyone lied.

If a witness says something happened, and you claim they lied, the burden is on you to show they lied.

In a court of law the government would clearly win here. The Border Patrol was there. You were not. What they say happened is better evidence then you claiming they lied without evidence.

[Vassenor]

You've provided zero evidence that they're telling the truth.

That is not how this works. If two governments say say something, that is some evidence it happened. Sure it is not self proving evidence. Sure contradictory evidence could outweigh it, as it is not the strongest possible evidence.

But you have no evidence to prove they lied. You are the person claiming someone else lied. I am not saying anyone lied.

If a witness says something happened, and you claim they lied, the burden is on you to show they lied.

In a court of law the government would clearly win here. The Border Patrol was there. You were not. What they say happened is better evidence then you claiming they lied without evidence.

This post dedicated to the victims of the Bowling Green Massacre.

[Novus America]

That is not how this works. If two governments say say something, that is some evidence it happened. Sure it is not self proving evidence. Sure contradictory evidence could outweigh it, as it is not the strongest possible evidence.

But you have no evidence to prove they lied. You are the person claiming someone else lied. I am not saying anyone lied.

If a witness says something happened, and you claim they lied, the burden is on you to show they lied.

In a court of law the government would clearly win here. The Border Patrol was there. You were not. What they say happened is better evidence then you claiming they lied without evidence.

This post dedicated to the victims of the Bowling Green Massacre.

Was that the Border Patrol? No.
Was that different people? Yes.
Does the government sometimes lie?
Yes.
Does the fact the government sometimes lies mean it always lies? No.

You cannot automatically reject ever government report without condradictory evidence just because sometimes someone in the government says something wrong.

[Ifreann]

You've provided zero evidence that they're telling the truth.

That is not how this works. If two governments say say something, that is some evidence it happened. Sure it is not self proving evidence. Sure contradictory evidence could outweigh it, as it is not the strongest possible evidence.

But you have no evidence to prove they lied. You are the person claiming someone else lied. I am not saying anyone lied.

You're claiming that the government isn't lying. You have provided no evidence that they aren't lying.

If a witness says something happened, and you claim they lied, the burden is on you to show they lied.

If a witness says something happened, the burden is on them to prove it happened.

In a court of law the government would clearly win here. The Border Patrol was there. You were not. What they say happened is better evidence then you claiming they lied without evidence.

The AP were there. The Secretary of Homeland Security wasn't, and this government has a well earned reputation for lying.

[Ifreann]

This post dedicated to the victims of the Bowling Green Massacre.

Was that the Border Patrol? No.
Does the government sometimes lie?
Yes.
Does the fact the government sometimes lies mean it always lies? No.

The government sometimes lies, so they could be lying this time, but you believe the government because they're the government.

[Novus America]

That is not how this works. If two governments say say something, that is some evidence it happened. Sure it is not self proving evidence. Sure contradictory evidence could outweigh it, as it is not the strongest possible evidence.

But you have no evidence to prove they lied. You are the person claiming someone else lied. I am not saying anyone lied.

You're claiming that the government isn't lying. You have provided no evidence that they aren't lying.

If a witness says something happened, and you claim they lied, the burden is on you to show they lied.

If a witness says something happened, the burden is on them to prove it happened.

In a court of law the government would clearly win here. The Border Patrol was there. You were not. What they say happened is better evidence then you claiming they lied without evidence.

The AP were there. The Secretary of Homeland Security wasn't, and this government has a well earned reputation for lying.

A witness saying something is evidence. There is a different between proof and evidence.
And no, the witness does not have to offer additional proof. They can be impeached, alternative evidence can be offered, and the alternative evidence can outweigh that witness’s evidence.
Sure the word of a witness alone is not the strongest evidence. But it is evidence.
And the Border Patrol was there.

The AP has not said the government lied, it does not support your argument.

I am not saying we can be 100% sure the government told the truth. All I am saying is we have more evidence that it did happen then that it did not happen.
And you have not addressed the fact that Mexican government also said there was violence.

[Novus America]

Was that the Border Patrol? No.
Does the government sometimes lie?
Yes.
Does the fact the government sometimes lies mean it always lies? No.

The government sometimes lies, so they could be lying this time, but you believe the government because they're the government.

Sure they could be lying. So offer some proof they are lying.

[Philjia]

The government's gotten what it wanted, namely non lethal violence at the border. They have the resources to be able to set up an efficient temporary asylum application processing centre, but that wouldn't play well with their supporters, so they engineered a situation where things would have to be controlled with tear gas rather than red tape. Tear gas is an effective incapacitant but generally harmless, so outcry against it's use ends up looking shrill and disproportionate.

[Ifreann]

You're claiming that the government isn't lying. You have provided no evidence that they aren't lying.


If a witness says something happened, the burden is on them to prove it happened.


The AP were there. The Secretary of Homeland Security wasn't, and this government has a well earned reputation for lying.

A witness saying something is evidence. There is a different between proof and evidence.
And no, the witness does not have to offer additional proof. They can be impeached, alternative evidence can be offered, and the alternative evidence can outweigh that witness’s evidence.
Sure the word of a witness alone is not the strongest evidence. But it is evidence.

The Secretary of Homeland Security was no witness to the events at the border. She works in Washington.

And the Border Patrol was there.

The Border Patrol didn't say they were attacked. The Secretary of Homeland Security said they were.

The AP has not said the government lied, it does not support your argument.

The AP said there was no violence before CBP used tear gas. Which very obviously contradicts claims that there were rocks thrown at CBP which they responded to with tear gas.

I am not saying we can be 100% sure the government told the truth. All I am saying is we have more evidence that it did happen then that it did not happen.

Only if you trust the self-serving claims of government officials over first hand accounts from reporters. Which you apparently do.

And you have not addressed the fact that Mexican government also said there was violence.

You haven't shown the Mexican government saying that.

---

The government sometimes lies, so they could be lying this time, but you believe the government because they're the government.

Sure they could be lying. So offer some proof they are lying.

They could be lying, but you automatically believe them until they are proven to be lying.

Do you seriously not see anything wrong with that? You know that Trump's government lies, all the time, even about shit people can see with their own eyes to be false, but you're going to believe them anyway.

[Novus America]

A witness saying something is evidence. There is a different between proof and evidence.
And no, the witness does not have to offer additional proof. They can be impeached, alternative evidence can be offered, and the alternative evidence can outweigh that witness’s evidence.
Sure the word of a witness alone is not the strongest evidence. But it is evidence.

The Secretary of Homeland Security was no witness to the events at the border. She works in Washington.

And the Border Patrol was there.

The Border Patrol didn't say they were attacked. The Secretary of Homeland Security said they were.

The AP has not said the government lied, it does not support your argument.

The AP said there was no violence before CBP used tear gas. Which very obviously contradicts claims that there were rocks thrown at CBP which they responded to with tear gas.

I am not saying we can be 100% sure the government told the truth. All I am saying is we have more evidence that it did happen then that it did not happen.

Only if you trust the self-serving claims of government officials over first hand accounts from reporters. Which you apparently do.

And you have not addressed the fact that Mexican government also said there was violence.

You haven't shown the Mexican government saying that.

---

Sure they could be lying. So offer some proof they are lying.

They could be lying, but you automatically believe them until they are proven to be lying.

Do you seriously not see anything wrong with that? You know that Trump's government lies, all the time, even about shit people can see with their own eyes to be false, but you're going to believe them anyway.

The AP did not say that. They said that the group passed the Mexican police without violence.

And the Border Patrol is saying it!
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/11/2 ... ay-vpx.cnn
https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxn ... icle/64164

Note in the CNN video you can actually see some migrants throwing things! (The Fox one too but obviously they are in on the conspiracy so the video must be fake...).

From the BBC
“Mexico's interior ministry said in a statement that a group of "nearly 500 migrants" had "tried to cross the border in a violent way" at El Chaparral border crossing.“
“Several hundred managed to climb over the first barrier, according to Agence France-Press news agency. It was as they tried to cross a second, spike-topped wall that officials on the US side began firing tear gas.”

According to the BBC it started peacefully but did not stay that way.
“The march started peacefully with migrants carrying pro-immigration banners and shouting: "We aren't criminals! We are hard workers!".
But once they managed to get past the security cordon, the march quickly turned into a dash for the border, BBC correspondent Will Grant reports.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... a-46339085

But why should I even bother?
Clearly you do not seem interested in actually learning what is going on when you have conspiracy theories to push.

[Major-Tom]

The government's gotten what it wanted, namely non lethal violence at the border. They have the resources to be able to set up an efficient temporary asylum application processing centre, but that wouldn't play well with their supporters, so they engineered a situation where things would have to be controlled with tear gas rather than red tape. Tear gas is an effective incapacitant but generally harmless, so outcry against it's use ends up looking shrill and disproportionate.

Tear gas is still an inappropriate response, in my opinion. As you've said, these people can be temporarily processed, tear gassing them won't all of a sudden drive them back to Honduras.

Neither will Trump's shrill cries of "hmm maybe we should close the border."

[Novus America]

The government's gotten what it wanted, namely non lethal violence at the border. They have the resources to be able to set up an efficient temporary asylum application processing centre, but that wouldn't play well with their supporters, so they engineered a situation where things would have to be controlled with tear gas rather than red tape. Tear gas is an effective incapacitant but generally harmless, so outcry against it's use ends up looking shrill and disproportionate.

Tear gas is still an inappropriate response, in my opinion. As you've said, these people can be temporarily processed, tear gassing them won't all of a sudden drive them back to Honduras.

Neither will Trump's shrill cries of "hmm maybe we should close the border."

The government did not randomly tear gas everyone there. Only the ones trying to jump over and damage the fence while throwing things at the Border Patrol.

What else should they have done? Just run away and let the fence be destroyed?
Or do something lethal? Neither would be a good option.

The ones who commited the crimes, and got tear gassed as a result will not be processed for asylum at all. They were arrested and will be sent back.

The rest who did not engage in such legal activity are still being processed.

[Ifreann]

Tear gas is still an inappropriate response, in my opinion. As you've said, these people can be temporarily processed, tear gassing them won't all of a sudden drive them back to Honduras.

Neither will Trump's shrill cries of "hmm maybe we should close the border."

The government did not randomly tear gas everyone there. Only the ones trying to jump over and damage the fence while throwing things at the Border Patrol.

What else should they have done? Just run away and let the fence be destroyed?
Or do something lethal? Neither would be a good option.

The ones who commited the crimes, and got tear gassed as a result will not be processed for asylum at all. They were arrested and will be sent back.

The rest who did not engage in such legal activity are still being processed.

Did you know that gas weapons can't be used to target specific people? It's true! Gas just floats about in the air and effects everyone nearby, whether they do anything wrong or not.

[Vassenor]

Tear gas is still an inappropriate response, in my opinion. As you've said, these people can be temporarily processed, tear gassing them won't all of a sudden drive them back to Honduras.

Neither will Trump's shrill cries of "hmm maybe we should close the border."

The government did not randomly tear gas everyone there. Only the ones trying to jump over and damage the fence while throwing things at the Border Patrol.

What else should they have done? Just run away and let the fence be destroyed?
Or do something lethal? Neither would be a good option.

The ones who commited the crimes, and got tear gassed as a result will not be processed for asylum at all. They were arrested and will be sent back.

The rest who did not engage in such legal activity are still being processed.

>Fumes were carried by the wind toward people who were hundreds of feet away.

So no, it wasn't "Only the ones trying to jump over and damage the fence while throwing things at the Border Patrol" (which you still haven't proven, btw).

[Novus America]

The government did not randomly tear gas everyone there. Only the ones trying to jump over and damage the fence while throwing things at the Border Patrol.

What else should they have done? Just run away and let the fence be destroyed?
Or do something lethal? Neither would be a good option.

The ones who commited the crimes, and got tear gassed as a result will not be processed for asylum at all. They were arrested and will be sent back.

The rest who did not engage in such legal activity are still being processed.

>Fumes were carried by the wind toward people who were hundreds of feet away.

So no, it wasn't "Only the ones trying to jump over and damage the fence while throwing things at the Border Patrol" (which you still haven't proven, btw).

Umm I did offer evidence of that. I even posted videos of them doing it. But okay.
Obviously you will just keep screaming “no proof!” and your completely baseless conspiracy theory regardless of whatever I show so there is no point.
Did you even click the links? Watch the two videos?

Anyways the government did not direct tear gas at the others. Some others nearby were affected sure, but that was not directed at the vast majority, who would not have been in that specific area anyways. Why were others within a few hundred feet of that area anyways? It was across a dried river, and not near any legal entry point. And it did not cause them any real harm.

[Philjia]

The government's gotten what it wanted, namely non lethal violence at the border. They have the resources to be able to set up an efficient temporary asylum application processing centre, but that wouldn't play well with their supporters, so they engineered a situation where things would have to be controlled with tear gas rather than red tape. Tear gas is an effective incapacitant but generally harmless, so outcry against it's use ends up looking shrill and disproportionate.

Tear gas is still an inappropriate response, in my opinion. As you've said, these people can be temporarily processed, tear gassing them won't all of a sudden drive them back to Honduras.

Neither will Trump's shrill cries of "hmm maybe we should close the border."

The administration wants to cultivate an adversarial atmosphere, and deliberately not dealing with the situation properly is part of that. Nobody died, so the administration doesn't look that bad, the Hondurans won't be deterred from trying to enter long term, so they can continue to be a problem, and asylum applications are being processed but very slowly, so the migrants will be encouraged to try to jump the border while looking unreasonable for doing so since a legal path exists. It's positively Machiavellian.

[Old Tyrannia]

AMERICA FIRST
This will how that America is an idea without ethics or emotions that it doesn't owe anything to the world and it's "refugees" I sincerely hope that this goes violent

Dark Socialism: To me this reads as a fairly straightforward case of wishing harm on others.

As such, I am going to overrule Farn's initial judgement and give you a *** one day ban for trolling. ***

[Major-Tom]

Tear gas is still an inappropriate response, in my opinion. As you've said, these people can be temporarily processed, tear gassing them won't all of a sudden drive them back to Honduras.

Neither will Trump's shrill cries of "hmm maybe we should close the border."

The government did not randomly tear gas everyone there. Only the ones trying to jump over and damage the fence while throwing things at the Border Patrol.

What else should they have done? Just run away and let the fence be destroyed?
Or do something lethal? Neither would be a good option.

The ones who commited the crimes, and got tear gassed as a result will not be processed for asylum at all. They were arrested and will be sent back.

The rest who did not engage in such legal activity are still being processed.

I’m aware that it wasn’t anything akin to some “slaughter,” but the fact is, women and children, many of whom (if not really all of them) were acting just fine. And when you throw tear gas canisters, more than just the targets are going to get hit.

When children are in the vicinity, tear gas should be out of the question.

[South Ccanda]

Wow, I cant believe this thread is still alive.

Lets stat facts here,
1. We already have thousands of impoverished Americans within our border that need homes, how are we going to take care of the residents within the caravan if we cant take care of our own citizens?
2. The Honduran peoples have no real tyranny or oppression in their home country to apply for asylum, which is what they are attempting.

Also, once they get here, where will they go? Unless we push forward a large fund for them, they will likely be out on the streets, with few being in homes opened up to them by their fellow Americans. Plus, unless they spread out quite a bit upon arrival, they can fill too many job positions in a town quickly, choking out the original residents.

[Novus America]

The government did not randomly tear gas everyone there. Only the ones trying to jump over and damage the fence while throwing things at the Border Patrol.

What else should they have done? Just run away and let the fence be destroyed?
Or do something lethal? Neither would be a good option.

The ones who commited the crimes, and got tear gassed as a result will not be processed for asylum at all. They were arrested and will be sent back.

The rest who did not engage in such legal activity are still being processed.

I’m aware that it wasn’t anything akin to some “slaughter,” but the fact is, women and children, many of whom (if not really all of them) were acting just fine. And when you throw tear gas canisters, more than just the targets are going to get hit.

When children are in the vicinity, tear gas should be out of the question.

Well there was no good reason to be there. You can see the event occurred around a mostly dried river bed that is almost certainly polluted and dangerous. Not near inhabited areas or at a legal checkpoint. Why would people drag kids there?

Making it off limits with kids around would only encourage use of kids as human shields and there is no sign any kids were actually injured.

Besides again what was the alternative?

Retreat and let the fence be overrun and torn down?
Use lethal means?

Obviously those alternatives would be worse.

[Ifreann]

Wow, I cant believe this thread is still alive.

Lets stat facts here,
1. We already have thousands of impoverished Americans within our border that need homes, how are we going to take care of the residents within the caravan if we cant take care of our own citizens?

You can take care of your own citizens. Your government simply refuses to do so.

[Ifreann]

I’m aware that it wasn’t anything akin to some “slaughter,” but the fact is, women and children, many of whom (if not really all of them) were acting just fine. And when you throw tear gas canisters, more than just the targets are going to get hit.

When children are in the vicinity, tear gas should be out of the question.

Well there was no good reason to be there. You can see the event occurred around a mostly dried river bed that is almost certainly polluted and dangerous. Not near inhabited areas or at a legal checkpoint. Why would people drag kids there?

Making it off limits with kids around would only encourage use of kids as human shields and there is no sign any kids were actually injured.

Besides again what was the alternative?

Retreat and let the fence be overrun and torn down?
Use lethal means?

Obviously those alternatives would be worse.

Open the border crossings and let them in, then you won't need to gas children.

[Novus America]

Well there was no good reason to be there. You can see the event occurred around a mostly dried river bed that is almost certainly polluted and dangerous. Not near inhabited areas or at a legal checkpoint. Why would people drag kids there?

Making it off limits with kids around would only encourage use of kids as human shields and there is no sign any kids were actually injured.

Besides again what was the alternative?

Retreat and let the fence be overrun and torn down?
Use lethal means?

Obviously those alternatives would be worse.

Open the border crossings and let them in, then you won't need to gas children.

The border crossing is open. But it has lines.
You have to wait in line.

[South Ccanda]

Wow, I cant believe this thread is still alive.

Lets stat facts here,
1. We already have thousands of impoverished Americans within our border that need homes, how are we going to take care of the residents within the caravan if we cant take care of our own citizens?

You can take care of your own citizens. Your government simply refuses to do so.

Refuses? Do you know how much goes into our welfare program? about 235 billion US Dollars. thats quite a bit. they don't refuse to help our citizens, they just don't know how. We need a serious reform in the welfare program before we just let in a whole caravan of people.

*EDIT* We spend 462 billion US Dollars on welfare.