What Bleeds is What Leads: Tear Gas at the Mexican Border
In our modern world of abundant media, it is often hard to overlook current events or turn a blind eye to tragedies around the world. From the New York Times articles that stack up throughout the day before my late-night readings to my sporadic FaceTime conversations where I drop everything to have a 1-on-1 about foreign policy or border control, I would like to believe that I am a person who has and who advocates productive conversations. But as I read more articles and have more conversations, I realize that I start to forget about ongoing issues, even like some that hit close to home like immigrant families at the US-Mexican border. I realize that the issue lies beyond me and in our culture of 'bleeding' news receiving the most coverage; in spite of our unfathomable access to news coverage, burning issues that begin to lose their eternal flame get left in the darkness.
As of November 28th, border agents dispatched the use of tear gas grenades on peaceful protesters advocating for Reformed Border Protection on the San Ysidro crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Some, if not most of these crowds included mothers, children and infants fighting too, for the causes of their parents but also seeking asylum. Once photos were released to the public portraying this act of unnecessary violence, the legality of the issue sprung up in conversation. President Trump and the secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen were quick to defend the use of tear gas across international borders while those like Gavin Newsom, the governor-elect of California, quickly refuted any justifications for this overreaction.
In our current international humanitarian law, a country has the right to control who comes into their sovereignty, but not the right to use force against those outside the jurisdiction of said country. Even so, if these migrants were to trespass the border and continue to peacefully protest, border protection would still not have the authorization to use tear gas because there was no escalating threat. There is a protocol for levels of engagement, and certain conditions have to be met in order to use something as potent as tear gas in any form of policing, not just border control. In fact, similar to police men, border patrol agents are trained to deescalate certain levels of engagement to prevent the use of 'indiscriminate methods of force' that can cause more than substantial collateral damage.
Currently, the unnecessary cause of harm, panic, and even death via tear gas in a peaceful protest like the one at San Ysidro is under heavy investigation because of its violation of the International Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The overreaction against asylum seekers is allowing for heavier news coverage than usual, about families suffering at the US-Mexican border. The way the New York Times article portrayed this issue was fair and holistic, but in my opinion made it seem like Border Protection agents acted rationally in every other interaction with Mexican immigrants and asylum seekers. Had the photographer who took the image of a mother and her two children running away from tear gas been absent (see below), and had border protection agencies made an effort to conceal this overreaction, this horrible event may not have made it to the front lines. This is certainly not the first and the last instance that Border Protection agents have and will use unnecessary force against Mexican families, and it is important to realize that this is what the article is telling the reader. The article is not mentioning a slip up of an otherwise ethical and lawful agency; rather, it is demonstrating the unpredictable jurisdiction and unfathomable potential of an organization that is supposed to protect rather than strike fear into its people.
It is this newfound perspective of Border Control that we should remember because our understanding of it can motivate us to criticize our own institutions for being unjust. These horrific yet ephemeral tragedies will continue to occur and will inevitably become more horrific and make them easier to forget in the long run. The longer we let the problem persist, the greater our desensitization to the issue will be. The article is not just a story to bring condolences and prayers to those who suffered or faced injury in events like the San Ysidro protests, it is also a call to action to prevent events like these from happening in the future.
New York Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/world/americas/tear-gas-border.html
As of November 28th, border agents dispatched the use of tear gas grenades on peaceful protesters advocating for Reformed Border Protection on the San Ysidro crossing between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Some, if not most of these crowds included mothers, children and infants fighting too, for the causes of their parents but also seeking asylum. Once photos were released to the public portraying this act of unnecessary violence, the legality of the issue sprung up in conversation. President Trump and the secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen were quick to defend the use of tear gas across international borders while those like Gavin Newsom, the governor-elect of California, quickly refuted any justifications for this overreaction.
In our current international humanitarian law, a country has the right to control who comes into their sovereignty, but not the right to use force against those outside the jurisdiction of said country. Even so, if these migrants were to trespass the border and continue to peacefully protest, border protection would still not have the authorization to use tear gas because there was no escalating threat. There is a protocol for levels of engagement, and certain conditions have to be met in order to use something as potent as tear gas in any form of policing, not just border control. In fact, similar to police men, border patrol agents are trained to deescalate certain levels of engagement to prevent the use of 'indiscriminate methods of force' that can cause more than substantial collateral damage.
Currently, the unnecessary cause of harm, panic, and even death via tear gas in a peaceful protest like the one at San Ysidro is under heavy investigation because of its violation of the International Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The overreaction against asylum seekers is allowing for heavier news coverage than usual, about families suffering at the US-Mexican border. The way the New York Times article portrayed this issue was fair and holistic, but in my opinion made it seem like Border Protection agents acted rationally in every other interaction with Mexican immigrants and asylum seekers. Had the photographer who took the image of a mother and her two children running away from tear gas been absent (see below), and had border protection agencies made an effort to conceal this overreaction, this horrible event may not have made it to the front lines. This is certainly not the first and the last instance that Border Protection agents have and will use unnecessary force against Mexican families, and it is important to realize that this is what the article is telling the reader. The article is not mentioning a slip up of an otherwise ethical and lawful agency; rather, it is demonstrating the unpredictable jurisdiction and unfathomable potential of an organization that is supposed to protect rather than strike fear into its people.
It is this newfound perspective of Border Control that we should remember because our understanding of it can motivate us to criticize our own institutions for being unjust. These horrific yet ephemeral tragedies will continue to occur and will inevitably become more horrific and make them easier to forget in the long run. The longer we let the problem persist, the greater our desensitization to the issue will be. The article is not just a story to bring condolences and prayers to those who suffered or faced injury in events like the San Ysidro protests, it is also a call to action to prevent events like these from happening in the future.
 |
| A Mother and her Children fleeing from Tear Gas discharges |
New York Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/world/americas/tear-gas-border.html
Wow! Diego, this is quite the thoughtful piece and encompasses so many signficant issues from "What is protection?" to "Humanitarian treatment?" to "Can we look to de-escalate situations rather than quickly invoking strong-arm tactics?" to "What are the concerns and needs of these migrating Mexican families?" to "Have we become de-sensitized in this age of 'bleeding' news?" to "How can governments (and its citizens) find ways to work together?" to a whole host of other issues. This is much more than a blog entry- it is a call for civilized people to wake up!
ReplyDeleteWell done, Diego. As Mr. Caragher points out, you have done more than simply reflect on an event or an isolated experience.
ReplyDelete