It is disproportionate to use tear gas against asylum seekers trying to get into the US, suggests Alex Horton of The Washington Post. Particularly the recent use of it against a group that included women and small children was over the top and risky. While the Trump administration portrayed the group trying to cross as an invasion to justify the use of tear gas, it ignores the damage it can do to small children. Infants can be hospitalized by it. Additionally, Donald Trump used the fact that stones were thrown at border agents to put migrants in a negative light, yet he ignored that agents were wearing protective gear and none of them were seriously harmed.
Notwithstanding heavy criticism from liberals, the use of tear gas at the border is necessary and has many precedents, writes James S. Robbins of USA Today. While sad to see, it is the most effective way of dispersing crowds in the least violent way possible. Particularly so in a case where rocks were also thrown at border agents. Already since the 1980s has America used tear gas at the border. Critics of the government should look at the migrants who brought young children into a situation that was unquestionably risky. They had experienced tear gas when crossing into Mexico from Guatemala. For now, tear gas is a necessary response.