What's the general consensus here. For or against lethal force when they get to the border?

I'm always of the opinion of reasonable force

If they're armed it's a necessity

There's a lot of em so suppression will be hard either way

I feel like this is a very strongly calculated move

What if you can't stop them with non lethal means? Mexico couldn't.

of course.

If they attack the border and are dissuaded by force then the government look like assholes and everyone shifts pro immigration, if they assault the border and get in then there's more justification for the wall but that's a LOT of illegals

It's tricky

Lethal force won’t be necessary. Not unless they get violent when we turn them back. In that case it would literally be an invading force. That’s not going to happen though.

Why wouldn't they get violent?

@CreativeRealms self preservation. I’m totally fine with responding to violence with violence. I think most Americans are.

Imagine how easy it would be to sway public opinion on building a literal wall and putting soldiers on it if they got violent. I almost hope they do. That would be a win for my side instantly.

There isn't a big buffer zone so it could be a gamble. I also highly doubt that they'd wait by the border to get checked when they get here which is the only way force wouldn't need to be used.

I imagine people like Tim would oppose any kind of lethal force even if they end up being violent. Might split the moderates.

So any thug willing to use violence to get in shouldn’t be blocked? I doubt many people will agree with that. In fact I’m positive those are exactly the people we need to keep out. Many will agree.

They are mixing in with non violent people and there are too many to sort through.

I'm sure people agree they should be kept out but they might not want to use lethal force even if they are being violent.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/1053362115514376192

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-spent-the-past-week-repeatedly-emphasizing-jamal-khashoggi-once-supported-the-muslim-brotherhood?ref=scroll

gonna put this here

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6295861/Caravan-thousands-Honduran-migrants-TURN-Mexican-border-Guatemala.html

I know we're discussing in general but this is crazy

We are discussing here too so it's ok.

We were trying to figure out if Tim would support lethal force or not. I assume he wouldn't even if it means they get through.

lethal force?

no

but im sure they woulnd't want to cross with the military pointing guns at them

probably tear gas or water cannons at most

I'm okay with a country using lethal force to defend their borders from a clear threat such as this

Look at Israel. They use lethal force and they still try to break in.

rubber bullets

isreal is shooting them at palestinians side.

I wouldn't say that just because you point guns they'll stop.

the US can absoltely not set this as a valid precedent

You have to protect your borders with lethal force if necessary

You don't need to shoot all of them, but if they violently and illegally enter your country, you have the obligation to protect your country.

You start with minimum force and escalate it until they stop invading.

The men are fair game. Female privilege.

ie start with the Waterthrower -> Tear Gas -> Rubber Bullets -> Taser -> Lethal force.

There is also some kind of microwave weapon. Wonder if that would be deployed.