"Anything short of shooting them"

U.S. representative Mo Brooks recently attracted attention by stating:

“As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of shooting them.  Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens.”

If the primary job of our military is to protect our borders, and they are issued guns, then why not shoot invaders?  Once, while touring the jungles of Borneo (on the Brunei side of the border) I asked my guide what would happen if I ventured into the Malaysian side of the border.  His answer:  “You would get shot”.  In most of the world, if you violate the borders of a sovereign country, they shoot you.  The military exists to protect the borders of the nation that enlists them.  The guns they carry are not for show.  They are loaded and the soldier is expected to use them.
It is only because Americans are a bunch of pansies, and our so-called “leaders” cowards and sellouts, that we have an illegal immigration problem to begin with.  The hordes of Mexicans that violate our borders every day only dare to do so because they know they have nothing to fear.  If our military did its job, in protecting our borders, there would be no need for a national debate on illegal immigration.  We could, instead, concentrate on other matters, our crime rates would be reduced, we would save a lot of money and we would not be losing our nation’s character.
Very few would-be illegal immigrants would have to be shot before the Mexicans (and others) got the message.  As a matter of fact, much less blood would be spilled than by letting them in.  Shooting them would save lives.  It would save many lives.
I am not a cruel man.  I am not advocating a shoot-to-kill policy.  Shoot them in the legs – at first.

This entry was posted in immigration/ Hispanics. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to "Anything short of shooting them"

  1. BritRob says:

    From Civilisation: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson
    page 290
    However, if the Muslim population of the UK were to continue growing at an annual rate of 6.7 per cent (as it did between 2004 and 2008), its share of the total UK population would rise from just under 4 per cent in 2008 to 8 per cent in 2020, to 15 per cent in 2030 and to 28 per cent in 2040, finally passing 50 per cent in 2050.
    note 95 on page 345
    Calculated from figures in the UK Labour Force Survey and the United Nations Population Prospects middle projection. see also ‘ Muslim Population “Rising 10 Times Faster than Rest of Society” ‘ , The Times, 30 January 2009.

  2. Hacienda says:

    Hey you idiot!
    Such a such on sight policy will lead to the creation of a fascist police and
    military. In time the facism is explode in the Jews’ face. Think before wishing for things!
    Nailed your ass again.

    • jewamongyou says:

      This bozo believes that:
      Controlling our borders = police state
      Not surprising considering he, himself, is probably one of the invaders. How convenient.

      • Hacienda says:

        No! you buffoon!
        Shooting on sight and controlling borders is NOT the same. These minor! distinction are lost on you so you are a waste of time. If the US becomes a police state, guess who goes first!

      • Aoirthoir says:

        ” If the US becomes a police state, guess who goes first!”

      • a random user name says:

        Guess who goes first? It all depends what sort of deals are made before it all blows up. There are many Europeans with children who would like to have the multicultural experiment turned back as early as possible, with a minimum risk to themselves and their families. There are a growing number of Jews who realize that their experiment is backfiring and that we aren’t the enemy they thought we were, and also that it is much easier to deal with reasonable intellectuals than angry mobs with pitchforks.
        I see no reason whatsoever that a mutually beneficial solution cannot be reached for both groups. We have more to gain by mutual cooperation than by conflict.

  3. Mac says:

    I immediataely thought of the movie madagascar “they are nothing but a bunch of pansies”

  4. Unamused says:

    Aim for the sombreros! And the pinatas! And the tacos!

  5. jewamongyou says:

    Re: Hacienda,
    Would you suggest controlling our borders by throwing tomatoes at the invaders? When push comes to shove, only guns can protect us – individually and as a nation.
    Who goes first? I dunno… criminals?

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      @ JAY
      That Hacienda friend of yours posted his pro-open borders declaration over at Robert Lindsay’s blog, which I in turn rebutted.
      Like most of his ilk, he very predictably invokes crimes against the American Indians to justify open immigration today.
      As far as I’m concerned, the American Indian issue has no relevance in today’s immigration debate.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        On that note, I think a post debunking the whole “whites have no right to oppose immigration because they stole the land from the Native Americans” argument would be excellent.

      • Aoirthoir says:

        “As far as I’m concerned, the American Indian issue has no relevance in today’s immigration debate.”
        ” because they stole the land from the Native Americans”
        The thing is, most of the time they didn’t steal the land they bought it. The first few sales the natives could have claimed ignorance to white culture and laws. But they continued to sell the land with one hundred and two hundred years of experience and understanding that yes, you CAN OWN land because owning land means controlling it. So the claim that they sold without understanding cause one cannot own land anymore than one can own air is specious.
        The Prior Nations Persons bear far more responsibility for the whiteness of this land than their willing to shoulder.

      • destructure says:

        So when these illegals get to America they’re going give the land to the Indians, right? I don’t think he’s motivated by concern for the Indians. He just wants to do what he accuses Americans of having done. What a hypocrite.
        I wonder if Hacienda is aware that Mexico placed a bounty on Apache scalps in 1835? Or that the Apache supported the US in the war with Mexico. And even signed a peace treaty in 1846 placing their territories under US jurisdiction? The Apache voluntarily joined the United States to get away from the Mexicans. And that little worm pretends to support their interests??? I think not.

  6. Charles says:

    I agree JAY. The US military should be placed on the the border. The only disagreement I have with you here is that I think they should shoot to kill the first time. Word would quickly spread among Mexicans that troops are at the border shooting those who attempt to cross and illegal immigration would go down instantly. We would all be significantly safer.
    I would also like to know why is it that US soldiers are defending the borders of so many other countries but not their own? It seems clear to me that most US politicians desire open borders and have no wish to secure them. We have the means and ability to close the borders but there isn’t a will to do it among most of our criminal politicians.

  7. eugenicist says:

    We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. – George Orwell

  8. destructure says:

    I always considered Col Jessup to be the good guy…

  9. Aoirthoir says:

    Hacienda said: “In a police state, the police are the criminals, right?”
    Depends, are they policing me? Then no they’re not criminals.
    and “In a borderless world, whites are the minorities. And getting smaller by the day. LOL.”
    What are you twelve? What’s with the LOLing of fools at ridiculous statements. My answer:
    We’re not in a borderless world and whites were ALWAYS the minority worldwide. They STILL took over THE ENTIRE WORLD. Which shows their superiority. Specifically the whites that took over the entire world were the Anglish, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese. So small a number of whites ran everything. If they chose to again, non-whites like you and I would be in big trouble.
    and “This is a low brow blog.”
    Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa. Look at my fingers. You know what that is? The world’s smallest violin.
    “Only in this was will whites finally find the path to cleanse and free themselves of their past genocides, enslavement, rapes, tortures.”
    Ok. Now the brown peoples have to find a way to cleanse and free themselves of their past genocides, enslavements, rapes and tortures. Which far out number those done by whites.
    “. And to any white who disagrees, you are free to return to Europe.”
    And all Mexicans, etc et al are free to return south of the border?
    All Muslims are free to return to Mecca (and ONLY Mecca)?
    And all Prior Nations Americans are free to return to Africa?
    Just wonderin’

  10. Californian says:

    As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of shooting them. Anything that is lawful, it needs to be done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American citizens.”
    I wonder what his policy on Utoya is/was?

  11. Snow Walker says:

    Shoot them in the LEGS? What for, for heaven’s sakes? So they can turn around and sue the US for damages?
    As Unamused comments – “aim for the sombrero”. You never shoot for any other purpose than to kill. The word about THAT kind of “immigration reform” would spread real fast in indio land and I bet illegal entry attempts would decline by 90% within six months.
    3000 Americans are killed every year by illegal immigrants alone. I am not counting the “legal” ones. Even if we had to kill a hundred of them at the border … do the math.
    I wrote about the border here:

  12. Unamused says:

    “Aim for the sombrero” was a joke, of course, but seriously: kill them.
    Kill them all.

  13. In all seriousness, I don’t believe at present it would be ethical to shoot scofflaws who cross the unfenced parts of our border (something like 99% is unfenced, I think). An unfenced border is a moral hazard.
    Once the fence is up, people tearing it down, tunneling under it, blasting it with dynamite, etc., sure, they’re fair game. Right now the understanding is that the Yanquis aren’t serious, and the only way to guarantee they know we’re serious is to finish the fence.
    I know this makes me some sort of moderate on the immigration issue, which believe me is a pretty strange thought. If it helps any, I do think we need to start stringing out infantry units along the border, with orders to shoot to defend themselves and shove everyone else out. Support forces can help build the fence.

  14. We have more than twice as many soldiers in Iraq (one of the countries we’re intevening in) than the total number of US Border Patrol agents (just over 20,000). The just-over 2000 mile US-Mexican border occupies many of them.
    Assuming the US military has an overall tooth to tail ratio of 1:9 (i.e., 1 combat soldier for every nine supporting troops), and noting that there are currently 46,000 US soldiers in Iraq…
    Ending the adventure in Iraq (to say nothing of Afghanistan, Libya, etc.) would yield us 4600 spare combat infantrymen, tank crews, etc. for the US-Mexican border. (This leaves over 40,000 troops from which to select hardy men to assist with the labor required to build the fence; shouldn’t be too hard to come up with five men per mile.) Hard to say exactly how many Border Patrol agents there are on the border with Mexico. Say 8000.
    Let’s arbitrarily divide up the border into 20-mile stretches, each occupying 80 Border Patrol Agents. Now imagine each of those 80-agent units paired with a fully-equipped combat-ready infantry platoon. Also keep in mind that those soldiers have experience (a) dealing with civil authorities, (b) dealing with foreigners, (c) operating in hot and dry conditions, (d) minimizing collateral damage, and (e) finding people who don’t want to be found.
    I’d say we can win control of the border as soon as we want to.

  15. Bay Area Guy says:

    I’m just going to add a bit more.
    While I can understand the sentiment behind this post and some of the comments, I would only caution against advocating violence in any way, shape, or form.
    Don’t make it even easier for our enemies to demonize us in the eyes of the masses.
    We don’t need to shoot them. If we could simply end our godforsaken wars in godforsaken Middle Eastern countries, and have our troops defend our borders, we’d be fine.

    • destructure says:

      If we made E-verify mandatory for employers, landlords or government services (welfare, foodstamps, etc) and punished those who violated it then they’d self-deport without anyone ever touching one. If they can’t get a job or a place to live then they will leave on their own.

      • Aoirthoir says:

        “If we made E-verify mandatory for employers, landlords or government services (welfare, foodstamps, etc”
        Yeah, just what we need, MORE socialism. Socialism got us into this mess, and it’s bound to get us out? How about this:
        ELIMINATE welfare and foodstamps and THAT will get them out. It REALLY will. DEPORT ALL criminals immediately. Send them to Australia.

      • I think an Australian once gave Aoirthoir a flat beer. Or maybe hugged Aoirthoir after not having bathed recently. Or maybe got “affect” mixed up with “effect” in a conversation with Aoirthoir.

      • destructure says:

        I’d prefer to eliminate welfare and foodstamps, too. But since those programs already exist I think we should use E-verify to at least make sure illegals aren’t getting it.

      • Aoirthoir says:

        Illegal’s aren’t getting it on accident. They’re not tricking the system or fooling the politicians. They are exactly the sort of demographic the socialists love, those that want things for free. It was for persons of that sort that the very system was set up. Until people start looking at taxation as theft it’s going to continue.

      • destructure says:

        I consider it theft any time I’m compelled to surrender my property against my will. You should read The Law by Bastiat.

      • Aoirthoir says:

        “I consider it theft any time I’m compelled to surrender my property against my will. You should read The Law by Bastiat.”
        Yeah? So do I.
        I am not sure if you’re getting what I am saying. The point I am making is that the politicians WANT welfare the way that it is. It is NO ACCIDENT. Of course illegals are going to take advantage of it.
        I, like most persons, would be willing to tolerate SHORT TERM help to get people through rough spots. But it never just stops there. It is always an all or nothing thing with them. So I have the choice of simply saying I view all taxation as extortion. I pay and dislike it. The better solution would be the end of all socialist programs in these United States. Americans (NOT USians) are the MOST CHARITABLE people on the planet. We can do without the government making us wish we weren’t.

      • destructure says:

        I understand your point and I agree. My views lean towards minarchism.

  16. Pingback: Alternative News on Twitter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *