Using Deadly Force to Stop the Caravan of Invaders

The first half of this essay presents facts, as reported by news media, regarding what has come to be called the “migrant caravan” traveling from Guatemala through Mexico, heading toward the southern border of the United States. In the second half, I recommend what the U.S. should do about this caravan.

What has the caravan done?

On October 19, the Associated Press reported,

Migrants traveling in a mass caravan burst through a Guatemalan border fence and streamed by the thousands toward Mexican territory on Friday, defying Mexican authorities’ entreaties for an orderly crossing and U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of retaliation.

The AP further reported,

thousands of migrants, some waving Honduran flags and carrying umbrellas to protect against the sun, arrived at the Guatemalan side of the river, noisily demanding they be allowed to cross.

“One way or another, we will pass,” they chanted, climbing atop U.S.-donated military jeeps parked at the scene. Young men tugged on the fence, finally tearing it down, prompting the huge crowd of men, women and children to rush past and over the bridge.

The report also stated that Mexican police then used pepper spray to force the crowd back, although about 50 got through the police, and others got across the border by jumping off a bridge into a river. The main group apparently was allowed through eventually. So, “one way or another,” this “caravan” of about 3,000 people did pass through the southern border of Mexico, en route to the southern border of the United States.

In the one-minute video accompanying the report, I spotted only five children.

Regarding the same incident, Agence France-Presse via Yahoo reported,

The caravan of mainly Honduran migrants, whose journey has triggered escalating anti-immigrant rhetoric from US President Donald Trump, on Friday surged through a series of police lines and barricades up to the final fence on Mexico’s southern border.

There — at the far end of the bridge over the Suchiate River, which forms the western part of the Mexico-Guatemala border — they hurled rocks and other objects at hundreds of riot police, who responded with rubber bullets and tear gas.

Multiple migrants, federal police and journalists were wounded.

“We’re running away from violence, and we arrive here and they just hit us more,” sobbed 28-year-old Marta Ornelas Cazares …

Recent reports place the size of this caravan at anywhere from 4,000 to 14,000, as thousands have reportedly joined and thousands have reported given up and gone home.

The distance from the southern Mexican border to the northern Mexican border with the U.S. is roughly 1,000 to 2,500 miles, depending on the entry point into the U.S. Texas is closer, Arizona is farther, and California is farthest. Reports last week were that the caravan is scheduled to arrive at the U.S. border anywhere from election time to three weeks from now.

That means that the caravan would have to travel at least 50 miles a day. Based on the photos and videos I have seen, the people are walking no more than two miles an hour, if that, meaning that they would have to walk at least 25 hours a day. Of course they are not walking most of the trip. They are being transported for most of the trip, as this video from Fox News shows. And where do thousands of poor people trekking through poor Mexico get food and clean water for a month? Clearly, a great deal of money and organizing is behind this “caravan.”

With promised transport vehicles apparently scarcer than originally promised to the migrants, reports this week have suggested that the caravan will take two months to reach the U.S. border.

What did the U.S. say about the caravan forcibly crossing the border into Mexico?

On October 23, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated,

The migrant caravan is violating Mexico’s sovereignty, laws, and immigration procedures. President Trump will not stand for this to happen to the United States. … From a security standpoint there is no proper accounting of who these individuals in the caravan are, and this poses an unacceptable security risk to the United States. … The United States also has a message for those who are currently part of this caravan or any caravan which follows. You will not be successful at getting in to the United States illegally, no matter what. I repeat, the caravan will not cross our southern border under any circumstances.

Who organized and financed the caravan?

On October 23, Vice President Mike Pence said,

The President of Honduras told me this was organized by leftist groups in Honduras and financed by Venezuela.

On October 26, Judicial Watch reported,

It has been a delicate and complicated task, Guatemalan officials say, because the caravan is a very organized movement that has been well orchestrated. There are rest points along the route with food, water and shelter for the migrants as well as medical care in some areas. “It’s very strategic and extremely organized,” a Guatemalan government source told Judicial Watch. “It is very complex, not a simple march. There is nothing spontaneous about it.”

Glenn Beck, on his radio program on October 25 (10/25/18, 1:03:56 mark), read a letter from a listener living in Honduras, stating that people in the caravan have been told by the Honduran Libre Party—“Partido Libre,” a communist party founded by deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, a puppet of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez—that the hard economic times in Honduras are due to the actions of the U.S., and that Hondurans should go to the U.S. for (as I describe it) restitution, which the U.S. must provide. That is why the caravan is bearing the Honduran flag.

The Partido Libre page on Facebook is ‘liked’ by 106,178 people. That number is 1.17% of the number of people in Honduras. In comparison, the number of people who ‘like’ the U.S. GOP page on Facebook is only 0.67% of the number of people in the U.S., and the number of people who ‘like’ the U.S. Democratic Party’s page on Facebook is only 0.49% of the number of people in the U.S. The number of people who ‘like’ Honduras on Facebook is 182,600, not so much more than the number of those who ‘like’ Partido Libre. Also, the Partido Libre page in turn ‘likes’ the Facebook page called “Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela,” the official page of the socialist party of Nicolas Madura and formerly Hugo Chavez.

Evidently, the Partido Libre page on Facebook is popular in Honduras. The page’s posts are in Spanish, which I don’t read, but I can read some of them with the help of Facebook’s translations. The most recent post, dated October 24, seems to state the following:

We emphatically reject the insolent statements of [U.S.] Secretary of State Pompeo disclosed by Mrs. Fulton. [Heide B. Fulton is Chargé d’Affaires in Honduras; she is the top U.S. diplomat there.]

The U.S. is the principle culprit of the misery of the people for its collusion with the ‘dictator’ JOH [Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández].

It is unacceptable that they maltreat and reject human beings fleeing death.

This Facebook post seems to confirm statements in the above letter read by Glenn Beck.

Who are the people in the caravan?

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Tyler Q. Houlton tweeted on October 23,

.@DHSgov can confirm that there are individuals within the caravan who are gang members or have significant criminal histories.

In a gallery of photos of the caravan, the Chicago Tribune reported,

Migrants cited widespread poverty and gang violence as their reasons for joining the caravan.

On October 24, Judicial Watch reported,

“MS-13 gang members have been detained and coyotes (human smugglers) are joining the march with clients who pay to get smuggled into the United States,” a Guatemalan official told Judicial Watch. People from Asian countries waiting to get smuggled into the U.S. through Central America are also integrating with poor Hondurans in the caravan, a high-level Guatemalan government source confirmed. Among them are nationals of Bangladesh, a south Asian Islamic country that’s well known as a recruiting ground for terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). “There are lots of dirty businesses associated with this,” Guatemalan authorities told Judicial Watch. “There’s lots of human trafficking.”

Judicial Watch Director of Investigations & Research Chris Farrell, who traveled with the caravan, reported seeing numerous men with the Gothic letters “MS” on their neck or collarbone area. Such tattoos are standard identification for the MS-13 gang. Farrell characterized about 98% of the caravan as young males. Very many of them had cell phones.

What about additional caravans?

According to Reuters on October 28, two new caravans have formed, and one has broken through a border gate from Guatemala into Mexico.

These seventeen photos from Reuters on October 29 show various forms of life-threatening violence committed by large groups of men, some masking their faces, of the second caravan. Here are two of the captions:

Migrants throw stones at Mexican Police in Tecun Uman.

Men throw stones at a Mexican Police helicopter [airborne] after they pull down the border gate in Tecun Uman.

I recommend viewing all seventeen photos. Here is video of the incident.

On October 30, Breitbart reported,

Mexican authorities arrested two Hondurans who allegedly shot at federal police officers escorting the migrant caravan across the southern state of Chiapas. The attack follows shortly after government warnings about Molotov cocktail attacks around a second caravan near the border with Guatemala.

The remainder of this essay presents my conclusions given that all of the reports above are true.

* * *

What should the U.S. do?

The first migrant caravan already has forcibly entered Mexico. Many migrants threw stones, which are deadly weapons. Gunfire by migrants was also reported. It is reasonable to conclude—not conjecture or hypothesize, but conclude—that the caravan intends to enter the U.S. forcibly, wielding deadly weapons. The caravan was organized by enemies of the U.S.—governments and radical terrorist/criminal organizations that want to attack and kill Americans and overthrow the U.S. government. These enemies have recruited people by telling them that the U.S. is the main cause of their misery, and many if not most of the migrants probably believe this story. The caravan bears the flag of a foreign nation. It is reasonable to conclude that most people in the caravan hold values more consistent with the organizers of the caravan than with the U.S., and that they will habitually use force to impose those values on Americans.

In my Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, the first definition of ‘invade’ is “to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent.” Clearly, the “migrant caravan” is a planned invasion of the U.S.

The invasion has two distinct parts.

One part of the invasion is by operatives of the aforementioned enemies of the U.S.—ISIS, Al-Qaeda, MS-13, etc. These people want to attack and kill Americans. Any one such person is capable of murdering many Americans.

The second part of the invasion is by sheer numbers of people in ever-increasing waves. The experience of Europe the past few years demonstrates that caravans of “migrants” can be in the millions of people. A case can be made that it is already too late to save most of Europe—countries such as France, Belgium, Germany, England, and the Scandinavian nations—from conquest by Islamic forces already breeding within these countries. The experience of Israel, facing ever-growing threats from Hezbollah and Hamas (supported by Iran), demonstrates that large numbers of primitive, backward people at the borders, when financed and organized by evil outside agents, can wreak havoc and threaten the very existence of a civilized, industrialized, technologically advanced nation.

The invaders seek to set the precedent—highly publicized, for all the world to see—that the U.S. will not defend itself no matter how many future invaders attack the border.

Already, two more caravans bound for America have formed. If a significant number of these invaders gets in to the U.S., then the next wave of invaders will be in the tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands, then millions and more, using force to impose their anti-American political values on Americans, and changing the U.S. electorate into a copy of a backward Central American country. And that will be the end of the U.S. Whether such a conquest of the U.S. will take months or years or decades is not the issue.

In short, this enemy tactic is scalable, and this invasion is a mortal threat to the U.S.

On October 29, President Trump made a statement in the right direction when he tweeted,

Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our Southern Border. Please go back, you will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!

President Trump also made a strong, well-reasoned speech this afternoon on the caravans. The half hour of speech and questions and answers are worth listening to in their entirety. In answering a question about rock throwing (27 minute mark), President Trump stated that when people throw rocks as they did at the Mexican military and police, he told our military, “Consider it a rifle.”

How does a respectable nation deal with an invasion that is a grave threat to the lives of many citizens and to the very existence of the nation? The answer should be obvious. We should use our military and authorize it to use as much force—including lethal force—as necessary to defeat this invasion, with the least possible risk to the lives of Americans, and without concern for the lives of the invaders until total victory has been assured.

The only features these invaders have going for them to argue for leniency—leniency in the amount of deadly force to use, not leniency regarding allowing entry into the U.S.—are their weakness, their ignorance, their cultural backwardness, and that some of them might actually want to come to America out of respect for American freedom. But our leniency is the very thing that our enemies—supported by the political Left in the U.S.—are counting on for victory. How much leniency is justified?

Let us consider the best possible cases, the migrants who say they want freedom and are fleeing gang violence. Well, they are bringing violent gang members, not to mention ISIS and Al-Qaeda, along with them in the caravan. All of the members of the caravan have already witnessed life-threatening violence committed by many members of the caravan. All members of the caravan must know that they are providing cover for evil-doers to crash the gates of the U.S. and someday kill American civilians, as these evil-doers will surely do. We may never know the names of the Americans who will someday be raped or murdered by these violent actors. Of course, such victims won’t be the stuff of immediately-available graphic photos that range-of-the-moment Leftists display on social media and front pages. But even morally-evading Leftists know on some level that there will be such victims. And if a migrant is, despite his cell phone and social media accounts, too primitive (or too sly) to grasp that he is enabling the killing of Americans, do we want him in our country? I think not.

It is one thing to enter the country illegally. It is another thing to cause the death of Americans in order to do so.

So much for the best of those in the caravan.

One might argue, “These people have no rational choice; they are just trying to save their skin.” The rational response is, “Fine. We will save ours.”

Americans, myself included, ponder long and hard over how to deal justly and humanely even with those who are acting to kill us, as every adult in the caravan is acting to kill us. But how many of these migrants think about the mortal danger they are causing for those they seek help from? How many journalists—almost all of whom are Leftists who (falsely) pride themselves in their ‘compassion’, ‘sympathy’, and ‘empathy’—ask the migrants a question such as, “Do you think about the fact that you are providing cover for gang members and other criminals—the very kind of people you are fleeing—to enter the United States and brutalize Americans just as you have been brutalized?” How would the invaders who cheered—and many cheered—when they crashed the gates of Mexico answer that question? I wonder whether such a question would ever reach the consciousness of a single Leftist—“migrant” or American. Leftism is a primitivist, emotionalist, range-of-the-moment mentality. It is no wonder that primitive countries have Leftist governments, and American Leftists support them.

A plausible argument for leniency is that the enemy is relatively weak. Some have argued that we should use non-lethal tactics such as tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons, large numbers of personnel with shields and riot gear, and even microwave rays. Of course, the military is in a better position than I am to judge whether to use such non-lethal tactics and when to escalate to lethal tactics. But I have some civilian guidance to offer.

Even though the caravan is a relatively weak enemy of the powerful U.S., these invaders will act to kill Americans in the various ways described above. This matter is military, not civil. Our primary purpose should be to wage war against the enemy in order to protect Americans. There is no good reason to allow these invaders to enter into inherently dangerous close combat with Americans, and there is no good reason to allow these invaders to get even close to our border where some of them might slip through. We should give Mexico a chance to stop the caravan, with us working behind the scenes. But if Mexico cannot or will not stop the caravan, we should seriously consider engaging this threat militarily while the enemy is still far from our border, even if Mexico objects.

Moreover, non-lethal deterrents can be very expensive. Tear gas, rubber bullets, and police with riot gear were insufficient to prevent the invaders from crashing through the southern border of Mexico. To have a chance of working, such non-lethal measures require high numbers of personnel who are put in harm’s way. Already, many thousands of U.S. soldiers have been called to the border. That means many millions of dollars in expense. Money is time, and time is life. A million dollars is roughly an entire lifetime of productive work. Why should Americans spend many lifetimes of productive work just to provide a soft landing for invaders, all of whom (except for the children) are acting to kill us? I don’t think we should, except for one reason: precedent. We have been far too lenient in the past. So we need to put the world on notice before we move to a policy of swift, decisive, lethal force against threats that use large numbers of poorly-armed voluntary hostages.

However, it may be difficult to conduct a non-lethal operation in the heart of Mexico. We don’t currently have troops on the ground, and we might be operating without Mexican approval. We might have to work fast, without much opportunity for gradual escalation.

Moreover, it is conceivable that there are high-value enemy targets from ISIS and the like embedded in the caravan. It might be advantageous to kill those targets while they are sitting ducks. The U.S. might have agents embedded in the caravan too. Perhaps those agents could identify places where those targets are concentrated, such as in certain transport vehicles, and we could destroy those vehicles. Such an action would put the rest of the people in the caravan—and in the world—on notice that they had better give up their plans of invading the U.S.

Another option to consider is for the U.S. to declare war on Venezuela for its part in financing the invasion. The fact that the Venezuelan government is socialist—and therefore a dictatorship, with no right to exist—in itself gives us the right to declare war against it. We could invade and conquer Venezuela and seize its oil assets, making the war financially as well as strategically profitable. The U.S. could also identify the “caravans” as enemy forces, thereby putting everyone on notice that we will engage them accordingly with deadly military force.

The strong statement on October 23 by Secretary of State Pompeo, and the correct identification by President Trump that the caravan is an invasion and we will use our military to stop it, are good initial steps toward putting the world on notice that we are prepared to use deadly force.

How much deadly force is a military matter, depending in part on how pliant the enemy proves to be. The enemy leaders probably think they are in a win-win situation. If the caravan gets in to the U.S. , they win. They also think they win if many invaders are killed by the U.S., because the press and public opinion will go against the U.S., and we will back down against future caravans. We have to be willing to deliver the high death count sought by the enemy, and make clear that we will do the same thing next time.

Summary

Are the people in the caravan invaders? Yes.

Every one of them? Except for the children, yes, every one of them.

How should we deal with invaders? We should use enough force—even if deadly force—to eliminate the threat, ensuring that not even one invader enters the U.S.

I support authorizing the military to use deadly force as necessary, while the invaders are still far from our border, and while possible high-value targets are sitting ducks.

I support President Trump in his strong stand so far on this matter. I applaud his statement, “Consider it a rifle.”

* * *

This essay began as a two sentence post on October 23 on my Facebook page:

The people in the caravan of “migrants” are would-be INVADERS organized by far-left governments and operatives. I support having the U.S. military kill them now while they are sitting ducks.

The second sentence of this post was unclear and caused much controversy. Thanks to constructive comments in the ensuing thread, I clarified my thinking and formulations throughout the thread. On October 26, Facebook blocked my post and the entire thread for going against Facebook’s “Community Standards.” On October 31, Facebook denied my appeal and stated, “Someone from our review team confirmed that this post doesn’t follow our Community Standards on hate speech.” This decision by Facebook was unfortunate and ominous. The thread was an excellent example of how a discussion thread leads to clarity of thought. It was just the kind of thread that Facebook should be happy for.

Share this: