Bring On the Alligators!

What's wrong with killing illegal invaders?

[Republicans] said we needed to triple the Border Patrol.  Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol.  Or they’ll want a higher fence.  Maybe they’ll need a moat.  Maybe they want alligators in the moat.  They’ll never be satisfied.

 - President Barack Hussein Obama

The response to this little bit of unpresidential levity is what you would expect.  The media guffawed.  Republican Congressman Joe Walsh (R, IL) wrote him a letter saying, now that you mention it, alligators aren't a bad idea.  The usual suspects have lined up on both sides: decrying "racist" "hate" on the one hand, and on the other hand calculating the cost and logistical elements involved.

Nothing new here?

More by accident than by design, President Obama raised a good point: Are our national borders worth defending with deadly force, or aren't they?  All the ink spilled over the immigration issue has made it clear that this is not an issue subject to reasoned argument - it's a discussion about first principles: Is it legitimate to defend a national border with deadly force or is it not?

In that sense, immigration is similar to abortion - abortion either kills a human being or it does not.  If it kills a human being, abortion is murder and must be banned.  If it does not kill a human being, there's no reason not to permit abortion or even to care particularly.

The "pro lifers" are slowly winning the abortion battle because ultrasound and other medical advances let people look inside the mother and see a baby waving back at them.  Similarly, all the bad news about jobs, crime, and welfare costs are showing more and more people the down-side of open borders.

Borders, Schmorders

The concept of totally open, unregulated American borders is relatively new.  Even in the glory days of Ellis Island, immigrants were first dumped onto the Island for a customs inspection - which was the whole point of it being an island.  It was no mere rubber stamp either; hundreds of thousands were sent back for health problems, mental weakness, or simply no visible means of support.

There was a time when Democrats did not hesitate to kill foreign invaders; Franklin Roosevelt was no slouch in beating back the Imperial Japanese and their Nazi allies in the early 1940's.

Republicans showed equal vigor in defending us against unarmed illegal aliens; in 1954, President Eisenhower organized "Operation Wetback" to round up and deport illegals.  The operation was so well publicized that the government didn't even have to do most of the work; many deported themselves before INS could find them.

Today, things are different.  Despite the murder of American law enforcement and civilians by illegal immigrants and Mexican drug cartel operatives and many other serious crimes against both life and property, our President persists in ridiculing the very idea of stopping illegals.  No, not every illegal immigrant carries a weapon, but all are trespassing and stealing something that does not belong to them.

Is there a moral or legal limit to the amount of force a nation can use to defend itself?  Enquiring nations want to know.  Europe, fearing a tsunami of Africans fleeing Arab violence and upheaval is considering ending its quarter-century-long open-borders agreement - but despite the gains of political parties who are bent on expelling foreigners, Europe's elites are more concerned with reports of Western ships not helping drifting boatloads of illegals than they are with stopping the invasion.

Just last week, Israel was invaded by mobs of Muslims armed with rocks.  While the Israeli army would have been perfectly justified in machine-gunning them all, a mere handful were hurt and the rest were simply arrested and thrown back across the border.

Somebody understands!

Why such pusillanimity?  History recoils at the memory of the Berlin Wall where the East German Stasi machine-gunned their own citizens who wanted out.  Making your entire country a prison camp is obviously wrong.

Does that make all walls evil?  Of course not!  If you imprisoned someone in your house, you'd be a monstrous criminal, but everyone locks their front door to keep people out who don't belong there.  Only in the last few decades would anyone have even thought of arguing that a nation had no right to stop foreigners who illegally wanted in.

For all that Mr. Obama claimed that he'd done everything that the Republicans asked to secure our borders, even the media knows that's a lie.  The border is about as open as it's ever been.  While there have been more deportations, we still host several tens of millions of people who have no right here, with no serious attempt to do more than nip around the edges.

The left has made it perfectly clear that they don't believe there should even be such a thing as borders.  They do not accept the idea that some people have a right to be here and others don't.  The American people have rejected this view every time it's been put to them, but voters keep getting ignored.

Serious Solutions for Serious Times

So, in the spirit of Reagan's "bold colors," let's set out precisely what Republicans, conservatives, and the American people rightfully demand of their President: secure borders and deportation of all illegals the moment they're encountered by anyone in official authority for any reason.

If alligators will help, use alligators.

If the Army with machine guns will help - and it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't - use the Army.  If our Army cannot defend our nation's territorial integrity, what good is it?

If landmines will help, use landmines!  After all, the border between North and South Korea has them, and one very rarely hears about any immigration in either direction there, despite incentives even stronger than along our southern frontier.  The Mexicans may be poor and oppressed, but they aren't starving and eating grass like the Norks.

Mr. Obama talks happy talk about being serious, but he means the exact opposite.  It's time to get serious about being a country and defending Americans.  For that matter, it's time the Europeans get serious about being countries and defending their own borders; it looks like Denmark and France may be waking up from their long slumber, and we wish them well.

Yet again, the French are more aggressive about doing what needs to be done than we Americans; something needs to change here.

When the Left screams about people dying, there is only one response - the same one we give when the police gun down an armed thug: Don't commit crimes, and you'll be just fine.  Break the law after you've been warned, and you deserve what you get.

Why is that so hard?

Read other articles by Hobbes or other articles on Immigration.
Reader Comments

"Pshaw!", I say to closing the borders. Of what importance is it that more than 3 dozen American children are molested by illegal immigrants each and every day? There are lots of children. That's the line used by the insane psychiatrists while they experiment with electric shock treatment.
What does it matter that a few policemen are murdered? Someone else will step up to do the job. There are a lot of applicants.
What does it matter that a dozen or so Americans are murdered each day by illegal aliens? There are about 300 million of us, a dozen doesn't make much of a difference. Al Gore, Bill Gates, Our Fearless Golfer, David Rockefeller, and their kind just look at it as a method of depopulating the world. They have yet to understand that wars do a much better job.
Thank you,
Robert Walker

May 20, 2011 10:11 AM

Hobbes, one of many names for the devil......Hobbes, Muggleton, and the Accuser,The Enemy, The Evil One and The Tempter are other elliptic forms to name the Devil. Belial is held by many to be another name for the Devil.

But when Hobbes is a stuffed toy in one panel and alive in another, one begins to wonder if his accusations against Democrats is merely some channeled energy from unnamed sources from the Pentagram as US strongman Blackjack Obama
today said according to unnamed sources that, unnamed rangers from a secret unit killed an Arab leader of an unnamed country using secret techniques and leaving no visual events in their behinds.

However sources on the ground said there had been wide spread casualties that could have been avoided if there had been unmanned speakers droning on and on as specified in the agreement. Meanwhile closer to home loud exlposions were heard outside the ampitheater that had been rigged with bovine flatulence for the long anticipated meeting of this that and the other irrelevant candy flavored condom being passed off as anything other than a Punch and Judy Show.

May 20, 2011 12:40 PM

"In that sense, immigration is similar to abortion - abortion either kills a human being or it does not. If it kills a human being, abortion is murder and must be banned"

Except that both issues have gray areas.

It's true that all abortion is killing a human being, but not all "killing a human being" is wrong. Some "killing a human being" is self-defense such as on a battle field (or when a mother's life is in danger because of the child she is carrying). In that case, and a few others, abortion should be legal.

Likewise, immigration has gray areas. Yes, entering the country illegally is a federal crime and worthy of punishment - certainly NOT worthy of residency.

However, as the leading example of civility and responsibility to the rest of the world, our society understands the difference between "trying to find a better life for one's family" and "foreign invasion by armed soldiers". As a competitor for the world's best talent, we also understand the object lesson that machine-gun-manned borders with alligator-filled moats gives to those that would have come here legally.

I do not believe for a second that:

"the Israeli army would have been perfectly justified in machine-gunning [mobs of Muslims armed with rocks]"

Shooting above them in the air or using rubber bullets to stop a few would have been appropriate.

"Machine-gunning" people is not some light-hearted option to be used whenever someone does something you don't like.

That illegal immigration is wrong is of course true. That they should be punished, forced to stop, businesses that hire them penalized, borders enforced - all true. But we should still act like a civil society and not a trigger-happy third world dictator.

May 20, 2011 12:59 PM

Well, 'Beta' waves, with a frequency of 12 hertz, carries information about the eyes, while four hertz 'theta' waves are linked to the mouth.

May 20, 2011 1:51 PM

"In that sense, immigration is similar to abortion - abortion either kills a human being or it does not. If it kills a human being, abortion is murder and must be banned"

It depends on the stage of the fetus from zygote to term.
A Zygote is a POTENTIAL human being.
A fetus is a POTENTIAL human being.
I viable creature capable of life without life support is a complete human being.

Is sperm a human being? An ovum?
Even the Bible says that a human being is only so once born alive.

Simplistic black and white assumptions, holding no medical or scientific merit is emotional and sentimental thinking--not critical thinking.

May 22, 2011 12:58 PM

"A fetus is a POTENTIAL human being."

Utterly wrong. A fetus **IS** a human being, and any scientist with the slightest intellectual honesty would support that.

The question is not "what makes a human being" but rather "when does life begin". A "human being" is merely something that is both human and living.

There are varying debates about when human life begins. I believe it falls at the moment of conception because it is at that moment that a unique DNA construct is created, different from both the father and mother.

Others believe that life begins at implantation, which I find to be harder case to make.

There is also a legitimate argument that it has to do with a certain amount of brain development.

The point is - after a few weeks have passed it's a human life by any of these measurements. Abortions out passed the 1 month mark are obviously occurring past all of these points (conception, implantation or brain development).

I've debated a PhD Biologist on this subject and got her to admit that, according the facts, I was absolutely right and that her position basically came down to the mother's right to "kill the human being inside her".

(My apologies to the editors for arguing something completely outside the topic at hand. It was unavoidable.)

May 22, 2011 1:27 PM

I would submit that Willy Whitten is being careless with language again:

A "viable creature capable of life without life support is a complete human being."

A 40-year old dialysis patient is, then, not a human being.

This is the next step in that train of logic.

Can you draw a line when the gestating creature becomes human? It surely isn't at the moment of birth; that could have happened two months or more sooner, and yet it wasn't human until it left its mother's body?

This is what passes for critical thinking amongst supporters of the "right" to kill and/or eat your young?

May 22, 2011 3:28 PM

Re: Robert Walker
Your point is well made. And while lfon's point is well made in his second comment, his first post is, I believe, sadly mistaken.

Israel faces the same aggression from without as does the United States, but on a different scale. It deals daily with armed bands of thugs on all sides who wish to destroy it, demographically first if possible. There is no reason to suggest that rubber bullets or firing rounds into the air will have any effect at all. Israeli soldiers could use Super Soakers and the rest of the world will line up against them to decry the "lack of proportion" in their action. Israel will not know peace; and certainly not, at the very least, until it begins to show the world it is deadly and serious about its own sovereignty and the safety of its citizens.

Likewise, we face an invasion from our southern border. For every person who sneaks across the border in the blackest hour of the night to "make a better life", escape corruption, etc, there are probably 30 who are more interested in the goodies - food stamps, education for their own kids - and this is as much a draw as anything; and besides, in both cases are they taught by their own government that they are merely retaking land rightly belonging to Mexico. This makes this an outright invasion. Why not be serious about it? Further, why must we let in anyone and everyone who "seeks a better life"? Why is our job to permit this when we're broke, much less encourage it by rewarding those who sneak in? We're broke, and American citizens are being terrorized and murdered; we need to show the invading force - armed or not, uniformed or not - that we are serious about our territorial integrity and the safety of our citizens. Just as must Israel.

May 22, 2011 3:40 PM

To clarify, I have no problem with Israel defending itself against rocket/mortar/military attacks in kind (or even in stronger kind). If bombed, they should bomb back harder and with everything in their arsenal.

If Israel believes 100% that the land the so-called "Palestinians" occupy is Israeli land than they should arrest every Palestinian as a foreign invader and deport them to the desert.

What I take umbrage with is the notion that a small Muslim crowd, partially filled with women and children, should be "machine-gunned" when they only carried rocks and signs. Something about that doesn't sit right.

May 22, 2011 3:56 PM

@Bro Jn

You bring up a VERY good point. We do not have good answers to your question about sick people, particularly in Europe. Holland has an assisted suicide law which says an ill person can punch out if a couple of doctors sign the right papers saying they understood and really wanted to go. In a very high fraction of the cases that were looked at, nobody can find the paperwork. Odd, that.

We're talking about people who are sound of mind. This is not people who don't understand the issue. Even then, it gets tough.

Who wants government making those decisions? Do you?

Babies are often viable without machines for life support at month 6, as I understand it. In the US, they get put in preemie incubators, but in poorer countries, they do what's called the kangaroo method - the mother takes off her shirt, puts the naked infant to her breast, and covers it warmly. This duplicates in-womb conditions pretty well. If the mother lies down for several weeks and feeds the child constantly, she can often keep it alive. says death fell from 70% to 30%. gives more details

Babies can't feed themselves anyway for a year or so. Isn't that life support?

May 22, 2011 4:54 PM

“I would submit that Willy Whitten is being careless with language again:”

A 'viable creature capable of life without life support is a complete human being.'

“A 40-year old dialysis patient is, then, not a human being.”
~Bro John

I would submit that Bro John has a problem with “CONTEXT”.

I was obviously speaking to a creature in a stage of development that has not reached the potential of a viable life outside of the protection of the womb.

The context is potential vs actuality. Again, is a sperm cell, which has the potential to become human a human? An ovum? A zygote? A creature with the physiology of a tadpole?
When reason cannot determine actualities from potentials, that reason is insufficient in determining reality form mythical thinking.

A 40 or whatever year old human being is obviously a human being.

You are arguing petitio principii, a truly jejune and silly form of argument.

May 22, 2011 11:44 PM

Julia said:
@Bro Jn
"Babies can't feed themselves anyway for a year or so. Isn't that life support?"

This is ridiculous. Have you no reading comprehension skills?

I am not making the argument you are arguing against.
But it is obvious no matter how I would explain it, you are going to argue from and emotional rather than a rational position.

It is ridiculous to argue with a phantom. As such you in effect argue against yourself. The whole dialog becomes a fantasy.

May 22, 2011 11:51 PM

I've debated a PhD Biologist on this subject and got her to admit that, according the facts, I was absolutely right and that her position basically came down to the mother's right to "kill the human being inside her".

Yea, I debated Einstein and he admitted that his theory of relativity is wrong. {grin}

You still haven't gotten beyond my assertions merely by claiming someone else folded to your argument.
My position again is based on potential vs actuality.
I do agree that too many abortions are done too late in the pregnancy, that is not my argument. I will not put an estimation of when the exact developemental stage should be considered viable.

Do you see that you are not arguing against my argument, but on what you wrongly percieve as my arguement?

If not the whole question is moot.

May 23, 2011 12:05 AM

As far as the issue of Palestine, there is no legitimat state of Israel.
Israel was spawned by terrorism, maintains its existance through terrorism and will surely self destruct by terrorism.

Any who argue against this characterization simply do not know the actual history of this situation.


May 23, 2011 12:09 AM

I will be as candid and clear as possible on this issue of abortion.I think that any woman has the right to chose, but with this right comes the responsability to remain cognizant to her situation.
Upon the first indication that she is pregnant--first missed period, she must determine by a test. She should be allowed no more than one month to make her determination.
Beyond that medical determination must also take precedent as well.


May 23, 2011 1:47 AM

"She should be allowed no more than one month to make her determination."

So then you don't really believe in a woman's right to choose because at 2 months out - which is statistically where most abortions occur - the woman would no longer be able to abort.

We actually agree here in principal. You're saying the same thing I am - at SOME point very early in the pregnancy it's a human life and the woman should not be allowed to kill it. We only disagree on where that point is.

May 23, 2011 8:40 AM

"We actually agree here in principal."~lfon

What do you finally got that.

I do agree that a woman has a choice, to have said abortion for what ever reason whatsoever--just that it must be done responsibly...and I don't have the authority or knowledge to put the limiting point to her choice--and was quite arbitrary for arguments sake.

May 23, 2011 12:26 PM

"So then you don't really believe in a woman's right to choose because at 2 months out - which is statistically where most abortions occur - the woman would no longer be able to abort."

No actually I was estimating that it would be at about 2 months out that this would be all sorted out. It depends on her personal cycle, but at around 2 months would be my estimation.

And as I say, for whatever reasons the woman has herself.

May 23, 2011 12:32 PM


48% of abortions occur after 2 months:

And about 1.2 million abortions occur per year in the US:

So you're saying that roughly 576,000 women per year should NOT be allowed to CHOOSE to have an abortion.

That makes you pretty darn anti-choice.

May 23, 2011 12:38 PM

Like I said Ifon, my time limit was totally arbitrary.
In the main, I am saying that late term abortions should be avoided.
I think this is a medical issue, not a political issue.

I do not like abortion, but I also do not like despotic state reactionary laws.

Freedom of choice should be used responsibly is my central point.

May 23, 2011 2:46 PM

Willy, some of your comments are very insightful and have been appreciated. But you lost me with this abortion debate. Also, the debate has been a bit off-topic from the article, don't you think?

A woman's right to choose is all fine and dandy, the problem is that men and women choose to engage in (perhaps irresponsible) behavior and they are unwilling to deal with the consequences of their actions. I think that is the much bigger issue here, how do we get people to take this power that we have as humans to "magically" create life and act responsibly with it? And yes, as a father, I find it truly magical that we can create life.

And for my two cents, an abortion stops the process of life. If one doesn't forcefully remove the baby, there is a high likelihood it would become a human being. So by stopping that process, you are basically stopping its life.

May 23, 2011 7:07 PM

"Also, the debate has been a bit off-topic from the article, don't you think?"~Alin_S

Yes, it is off topic in that the topic contained;

"In that sense, immigration is similar to abortion - abortion either kills a human being or it does not."

As you know conversations will take on a life of their own.

If this hadn't happened I would have been happier to address the border issue in light of the way it ties into the North American Union agenda, and the matter of what is called "Regionalism".
But alas, just about anything I say here is challenged, as I am obviously outside of your "conservative" box, and seen as a pox.

It is what it is.

May 24, 2011 12:38 AM

"So by stopping that process, you are basically stopping its life.

There is no doubt in that. Elementary.

The issue still must ballance the rights of the living with the 'rights' of the potential living. And this issue obviously takes your obsrvation into consideration as a given.

May 24, 2011 12:41 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...