Charles Mauldin, a 78-year-old civil rights veteran, draws a stark parallel between the violence he experienced as a teenager during the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches and tear gas deployed against migrant children during Trump administration enforcement operations.

Mauldin survived tear gas attacks at Selma, where state police attacked voting rights marchers with chemical weapons. That confrontation remains etched in his memory as a defining moment of injustice. Now, decades later, he witnesses federal agents using identical tactics against vulnerable populations during immigration enforcement sweeps.

The comparison underscores a troubling pattern. Law enforcement has employed tear gas and chemical dispersal agents against civilian populations for generations. The weapons used against Mauldin in Alabama in 1965 are substantially the same instruments now deployed at the border and in immigrant communities during deportation operations.

The legal landscape governing tear gas use has evolved incrementally but remains permissive. While international protocols restrict tear gas in military contexts, domestic law enforcement retains broad authority to deploy the chemical agent against crowds, even when children are present. Federal courts have upheld tear gas use during protests and enforcement operations, provided agencies claim public safety justifications.

Mauldin's testimony carries weight because it documents continuity. Sixty years separate these incidents, yet the underlying dynamics persist. Marginalized communities face chemical weapons with minimal recourse. Judicial review operates after the fact. Warnings, notice, and escape routes remain optional rather than mandatory.

This narrative raises hard questions about state violence and constitutional protection. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement theoretically constrains force, but tear gas falls into a gray zone. Courts often defer to law enforcement judgments about necessity. Statutory restrictions remain scattered and incomplete.

For immigration advocates and civil rights organizations, Mauldin's account functions as evidence of systemic patterns. It suggests that chemical agent use