I fail to see how killing invaders fails to repel them given the massive historical precedent for such a tactic's success. It's more or less the default setting for the entirety of human history and as we see in the modern era, when you deviate from that baseline you get huge fucking problems.
It's fine to cite the other tools in the toolbox, but I am sick and fucking tired of everyone insisting that we can't use the one tool that has been reliable for thousands of years.
I also dispute your characterization of this as genocidal. A huge part of the problem with the numbers of people flooding in is the system of incentives. There is currently nothing to dissuade people from coming. If you shoot a couple dozen invaders over the course of the week in a very public way then word will immediately spread over the internet that "oh hey, they're actually hostile towards us just rolling in, maybe we better not." And suddenly some of those caravans start turning around because people aren't too keen on getting shot. The number of people trying to pierce the border goes down and consequently so does the need to shoot people. You also want to make sure to limit the flow in as much as humanly possible because proper enforcement will now require something on the scale of door to door raids across the entire country to expel all the invaders that are currently here.
The whole thing hinges on the principle of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Kill a few invaders and they think twice about coming and maybe a few even start to self-deport once they realize it isn't safe for them here.
But no, let's be fluffy feely and never ever use the threat of violence as a strategically employed tool because that would be wrong.
I swear to god, you want to see this country overrun and ruined.
You are being idiotic. The tool that's in the toolbox that has always worked for thousands of years is simply removing them, or closing the border. Again, even the Romans did this, and they were fucking barbaric as a military force.
The tool of "murder everyone including the children" has been considered an appalling and unacceptable crime to everyone including the Romans.
We literally watched immigration in the UK drop to zero because it was possible that some migrants would be sent to Rawanda, and you still think the only solution here is open, wanton, mass murder.
You don't want to deal with the border, you just want to kill people because you're being a violent savage.
Hence the importance of enforcing one's borders effectively at the outset so that things don't have the chance to get bad enough to warrant wholesale killing.
Invasion drops to zero when you exercise control over who gets to enter your country.
I fail to see how killing invaders fails to repel them given the massive historical precedent for such a tactic's success. It's more or less the default setting for the entirety of human history and as we see in the modern era, when you deviate from that baseline you get huge fucking problems.
It's fine to cite the other tools in the toolbox, but I am sick and fucking tired of everyone insisting that we can't use the one tool that has been reliable for thousands of years.
I also dispute your characterization of this as genocidal. A huge part of the problem with the numbers of people flooding in is the system of incentives. There is currently nothing to dissuade people from coming. If you shoot a couple dozen invaders over the course of the week in a very public way then word will immediately spread over the internet that "oh hey, they're actually hostile towards us just rolling in, maybe we better not." And suddenly some of those caravans start turning around because people aren't too keen on getting shot. The number of people trying to pierce the border goes down and consequently so does the need to shoot people. You also want to make sure to limit the flow in as much as humanly possible because proper enforcement will now require something on the scale of door to door raids across the entire country to expel all the invaders that are currently here.
The whole thing hinges on the principle of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Kill a few invaders and they think twice about coming and maybe a few even start to self-deport once they realize it isn't safe for them here.
But no, let's be fluffy feely and never ever use the threat of violence as a strategically employed tool because that would be wrong.
I swear to god, you want to see this country overrun and ruined.
You are being idiotic. The tool that's in the toolbox that has always worked for thousands of years is simply removing them, or closing the border. Again, even the Romans did this, and they were fucking barbaric as a military force.
The tool of "murder everyone including the children" has been considered an appalling and unacceptable crime to everyone including the Romans.
We literally watched immigration in the UK drop to zero because it was possible that some migrants would be sent to Rawanda, and you still think the only solution here is open, wanton, mass murder.
You don't want to deal with the border, you just want to kill people because you're being a violent savage.
Hence the importance of enforcing one's borders effectively at the outset so that things don't have the chance to get bad enough to warrant wholesale killing.
What a novel revelation you absolute simpleton.
If it's not a novel revelation to you, then do not skip it in favor of wanton murder.
You can't force the invaders to detour to Rwanda without the threat of and will to enact violence up to and including killing people.
How do you not grasp this? Violence is an integral part of this equation whether you like it or not.