4 ms·

Wait till you realize that US government officials can shoot you at the border at whim and they will not be even tried or your family allowed to take this to US

by megous 7y ago

Wait till you realize that US government officials can shoot you at the border at whim and they will not be even tried or your family allowed to take this to US courts, no matter the reason for the murder. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/supreme-court-cross-border-shooting-case/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/supreme-court-cr... > Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that "regulating the conduct of agents at the border unquestionably has national security implications" and that any risk of undermining border security provides a "reason to hesitate." Basically absolutely nothing will happen, except maybe your country's foreign ministry wagging a finger at US, if that.

dijit 7y ago
Truthfully though, it would be an international incident with lots of press coverage if someone from a western country was killed at the US border. The more insidious stuff to my mind is anything that can be made to look fuzzy or complicated. The populace gets divided on tiny/minute details and speculation, even _if_ they discuss things, which is not a given when it's something that can be made to look unclear or contested. It's true that you have no rights as a non-US citizen at the US border, you can be detained for any reason on entry; so ask yourself: Would the media be interested in the fact you got detained for 9hrs? Even if you were abused in custody? (and not provably so). I think that's unlikely, but that's a big deal to most people.
- wnoise 7y ago
  Since when is Mexico not a Western country?
  - dijit 7y ago
    Feels like this comment is coming from a place of anger or a presumption that: 1) I'm a US citizen (I'm not). 2) Mexicans are shot at the border when trying to get through normal US customs checks, like in an airport (They're not). 3) that the Mexicans that are actually being shot on the border by the border guard is seen by the international community as acceptable (It isn't). But, for the sake of refuting what you _actually_ said, lets go with "Western as an economic definition": From Wikpedia: -----8<----- The term "Western world" is sometimes interchangeably used with the term First World or developed countries, stressing the difference between First World and the Third World or developing countries. This usage occurs despite the fact that many countries that may be culturally "Western" are developing countries – in fact, a significant percentage of the Americas are developing countries. It is also used despite many developed countries or regions not being Western (e.g. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao), and therefore left out when "Western world" is used to denote developed countries. Privatization policies (involving government enterprises and public services) and multinational corporations are often considered a visible sign of Western nations's economic presence, especially in Third World countries, and represent common institutional environment for powerful politicians, enterprises, trade unions and firms, bankers and thinkers of the Western world. ----->8----- So, "Western" is often used interchangably with first world; Countries in the first world, also according to wikipedia: -----8<----- Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Western-aligned countries included: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan The neutral countries included: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and (now former) Yugoslavia. ----->8----- This is because "First world"/"Western" has roots in the cold war. "Second world" == Soviet bloc "Third world" == everywhere else. (yes, that's a tepid definition when you think about it because most people take it to mean impoverished)
    - johnmaguire2013 7y ago
      Wikipedia also says... > According to Samuel P. Huntington, some countries are torn on whether they are Western or not, with typically the national leadership pushing for Westernization, while historical, cultural and traditional forces remaining largely non-Western. [...] Mexico and Russia are also considered to be torn by Huntington. (Hi dijit!)
    - wnoise 7y ago
      It is coming from a place of anger, because despite your protests, (3) is an accurate description. Anger is an appropriate response to this state of affairs. This boy was killed at the U.S. border. Anytime nobody makes an effort to address something, it is de facto acceptable. There might be solid reasons it is not being addressed, such as lack of power, or too high a cost to attempt to put pressure on the U.S. But it remains the case that it is currently considered acceptable.
- megous 7y ago
  They certainly made a simple killing look fuzzy and complicated with all the arguments. But even murdering people for fun on the border seems to happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHqI1PGRNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHqI1PGRNg Outrage happens too. But reprecussions?
  - dijit 7y ago
    Er, I have nearly no information to go on, but he wasn't shot. From the looks of it, a guy turned up to the border with an illegal substance in a drinking bottle; proceeded to drink it, and the officer gestured and the person took another few sips. Before succumbing to an overdose because it was a highly concentrated narcotic. I don't think this is a defence or support of anything, I don't have more facts like: what was said, where did the drugs come from, was coercion involved, etc; It just looks sad, certainly not an indictment of border officials.

by megous 7y ago

dijit 7y ago

Truthfully though, it would be an international incident with lots of press coverage if someone from a western country was killed at the US border. The more insidious stuff to my mind is anything that can be made to look fuzzy or complicated. The populace gets divided on tiny/minute details and speculation, even _if_ they discuss things, which is not a given when it's something that can be made to look unclear or contested. It's true that you have no rights as a non-US citizen at the US border, you can be detained for any reason on entry; so ask yourself: Would the media be interested in the fact you got detained for 9hrs? Even if you were abused in custody? (and not provably so). I think that's unlikely, but that's a big deal to most people.

wnoise 7y ago
Since when is Mexico not a Western country?
- dijit 7y ago
  Feels like this comment is coming from a place of anger or a presumption that: 1) I'm a US citizen (I'm not). 2) Mexicans are shot at the border when trying to get through normal US customs checks, like in an airport (They're not). 3) that the Mexicans that are actually being shot on the border by the border guard is seen by the international community as acceptable (It isn't). But, for the sake of refuting what you _actually_ said, lets go with "Western as an economic definition": From Wikpedia: -----8<----- The term "Western world" is sometimes interchangeably used with the term First World or developed countries, stressing the difference between First World and the Third World or developing countries. This usage occurs despite the fact that many countries that may be culturally "Western" are developing countries – in fact, a significant percentage of the Americas are developing countries. It is also used despite many developed countries or regions not being Western (e.g. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao), and therefore left out when "Western world" is used to denote developed countries. Privatization policies (involving government enterprises and public services) and multinational corporations are often considered a visible sign of Western nations's economic presence, especially in Third World countries, and represent common institutional environment for powerful politicians, enterprises, trade unions and firms, bankers and thinkers of the Western world. ----->8----- So, "Western" is often used interchangably with first world; Countries in the first world, also according to wikipedia: -----8<----- Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, West Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Western-aligned countries included: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan The neutral countries included: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, and (now former) Yugoslavia. ----->8----- This is because "First world"/"Western" has roots in the cold war. "Second world" == Soviet bloc "Third world" == everywhere else. (yes, that's a tepid definition when you think about it because most people take it to mean impoverished)
  - johnmaguire2013 7y ago
    Wikipedia also says... > According to Samuel P. Huntington, some countries are torn on whether they are Western or not, with typically the national leadership pushing for Westernization, while historical, cultural and traditional forces remaining largely non-Western. [...] Mexico and Russia are also considered to be torn by Huntington. (Hi dijit!)
  - wnoise 7y ago
    It is coming from a place of anger, because despite your protests, (3) is an accurate description. Anger is an appropriate response to this state of affairs. This boy was killed at the U.S. border. Anytime nobody makes an effort to address something, it is de facto acceptable. There might be solid reasons it is not being addressed, such as lack of power, or too high a cost to attempt to put pressure on the U.S. But it remains the case that it is currently considered acceptable.
megous 7y ago
They certainly made a simple killing look fuzzy and complicated with all the arguments. But even murdering people for fun on the border seems to happen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHqI1PGRNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cHqI1PGRNg Outrage happens too. But reprecussions?
- dijit 7y ago
  Er, I have nearly no information to go on, but he wasn't shot. From the looks of it, a guy turned up to the border with an illegal substance in a drinking bottle; proceeded to drink it, and the officer gestured and the person took another few sips. Before succumbing to an overdose because it was a highly concentrated narcotic. I don't think this is a defence or support of anything, I don't have more facts like: what was said, where did the drugs come from, was coercion involved, etc; It just looks sad, certainly not an indictment of border officials.