Upset about border violence? Blame regulations, not presidents
After weeks of warning, the migrant caravan finally made it to the U.S.-Mexico border in Tijuana on Sunday. The so-called caravan is comprised of thousands of migrants, about half of whom are women and girls, traveling from a number of Central American countries with hope of receiving asylum in the United States.
Unfortunately, these asylum seekers were not welcomed by the land of the free with open arms. Instead, as groups attempted to pass over the border, U.S. Border Patrol agents fired tear gas and rubber bullets at them. The gas spread nearly 3,000 feet through a crowd of men, women and children, many of whom were peacefully waiting for their chance to legally enter the country.
This incident, like most events in contemporary American history, has the nation divided. Conservatives continue to praise the force the patrol agents used and to celebrate the event as an example of strict border control. On the other side, liberals are appalled by the lack of morality in this decision, expressing outrage over using such forceful measures on innocent children and peaceful migrants. But should this really be a partisan issue?
The tear gas was reportedly fired as a response to one or more migrants throwing rocks at agents. Firing tear gas as a response to violence at the border has long been somewhat routine in the U.S. It would be foolish to act as though tear gas has never been used at the border before or that it hasn’t been used during more liberal administrations. In fact, since 2012, tear gas has been fired at or near the U.S.-Mexico border at least 126 times. This means that, yes, tear gas was used during the Obama administration.
The use of tear gas and other methods of force in response to violence have been used at the border both by liberal and conservative administrations. Granted, the current president does have a history of blatant racism and a demonstrated distaste for immigrants. But, for fairness’ sake, we can’t blame the incident that happened at the border on the president, his administration or his empowerment of the far right. We can only blame it on our own laws and regulations.
The guidelines offered to border patrol agents about using “less-lethal force,” such as tear gas, are loose and open to broad interpretation. According to the handbook of protocols these agents receive, this type of force is allowed in “situations where empty-hand techniques are not sufficient to control disorderly or violent subjects,” and if it is used, it should be a “reasonable and necessary response.” This means that the method and degree of force used on the border can depend on the agent on duty, the time of day, the agent’s mood or a myriad of other unrelated factors. How is this a fair process?
I argue that if we wish to avoid another atrocity such as the one that occurred Sunday, we need stricter regulation of force on the border. We need more rules that outline when and to what extent methods like tear gas and rubber bullets are allowed. We need regulations that would shield innocent bystanders, especially the young women and children who were peaceful actors.
Abigail Miller is a UF political science and journalism senior. Her column appears on Fridays.
