I want to be clear these people should be shot. This is a premeditated invasion by a hostile force

In the words of the great Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions. Only compromises."

Cueta was a warzone last night
This was day 1
Today they've started looting every store in the city

If this doesn't make you support remigration, I don't know what will pic.twitter.com/dGT2nxmEft

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) July 31, 2026

Who's suffering is worse, the immigrant who arrived illegally who has nothing or the citizens who sustain a society by following the rules. You can't have both. And if you allow the immigrants to ignore law and order, the population will begin to deny law and order.

Or as the sage "Asmongold" said: (lol). "If the politicians are elected to stop the boats fail to do so, the people will eventually elect a politician to sink the boats". We are inching closer to that point and that will truly be a humanitarian disaster. Europe best stop what it can soon.

Some bishops already understand what is happening

CARDINAL ROBERT SARAH: "The barbarians are already inside the gates. As a Bishop, it is my duty to warn the West." pic.twitter.com/Aom6oGozOK

— The Conservative Alternative (@OldeWorldOrder) July 31, 2026

I think most people don't understand that this situation is a lot more complex than simply Africans wanting to immigrate to Europe. If you didn't already know, Ceuta is not a part of mainland Spain. It is a tiny area on the African continent surrounded by Morocco. Morocco has long disputed Spain's ownership of the region and some Moroccan politicians have called for the country to invade and occupy Ceuta to take it from Spain. It's entirely likely that these groups are supported by the Moroccan government as a part of their efforts to end Spanish control of Ceuta.

I interpret this less as an immigration issue and more as an indirect attack on Spain by Morocco.

Rocag said:

---

I think most people don't understand that this situation is a lot more complex than simply Africans wanting to immigrate to Europe. If you didn't already know, Ceuta is not a part of mainland Spain. It is a tiny area on the African continent surrounded by Morocco. Morocco has long disputed Spain's ownership of the region and some Moroccan politicians have called for the country to invade and occupy Ceuta to take it from Spain. It's entirely likely that these groups are supported by the Moroccan government as a part of their efforts to end Spanish control of Ceuta.

I interpret this less as an immigration issue and more as an indirect attack on Spain by Morocco.

---

Any map game connoisseur knows more about Ceuta and Melilla than the average historian. 90% of playing Europa Universalis in the first state is conquering those two territories and holding.

jkag89 said:

---

Do not know the reasons Spain keeps that spit of land across the the Strait of Gibraltar (is it political, historical, economic, combination?) but maybe it is best for all around to consider independence or having it become a part of Morocco. Making it not part of the EU and hence not an easy egress point would alleviate the situation?

---

After the reconquista, Spain took them to thwart invasions into their country and attack pirates using the strait of Gibraltar.

They were actually Portuguese first, but when Spain and Portugal came under the same Monarch they became Spanish, and then when Portugal gained independence they wanted to remain Spanish.

They actually predate Morocco

So the response to literal invasion is to surrender the territory? I bet this would never have negative outcomes

Vox Clamantis said:

---

I want to be clear these people should be shot. This is a premeditated invasion by a hostile force

---

So Christian.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

I want to be clear these people should be shot. This is a premeditated invasion by a hostile force

---

So Christian.

---

Just pretend they're a Palestinian kid with a rock, Sapper. You'll have their entire family yeeted

Sounds like the disagreement here isn't "you shouldn't shoot invaders". Because clearly that's a justified use of violence by the state.

The disagreement is whether they are invaders.

You seem to think that they aren't invading, so what exactly are they doing and how would you protect your citizens from whatever it is they're doing?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

I want to be clear these people should be shot. This is a premeditated invasion by a hostile force

---

So Christian.

---

Just pretend they're a Palestinian kid with a rock, Sapper. You'll have their entire family yeeted

---

I'm not an Israeli settler. But to the actual topic at hand, Spain has not shot anyone and no occupation or conquest has occurred. So why is your first reaction that Spain should engage in indiscriminate murder?

---

That's an easy one. To stop 50,000 people from bumrushing their border, and destroying their city.

How do you expel 50,000 people who refuse to leave?

The humane way is for the invaders to act humane. Why do they get a pass? Because they are poor? Or disenfranchised?

PabloSerna said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Vox Clamantis said:

---

I want to be clear these people should be shot. This is a premeditated invasion by a hostile force

---

So Christian.

---

Let's not lump all of Christianity into one person's opinion.

---

I realize your knowledge of Christianity begins with the 1970's but believe it or not there is actually a rich Catholic tradition in the very region we're speaking of involving repelling invaders with force.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Is slaughtering unarmed people generally seen as ethical or unethical?

---

Doesn't matter as it has no bearing on the context and degree in this situation.

Yes, Israeli snipers shooting old women in a Catholic Church is unethical.

No, shooting a horde of 40,000 military aged men rushing through barriers in order to encourage them to stop is not unethical.

this isn't hard from first principals.

the state has a limited monopoly on violence / use of force as part of the rule of law. they have both an explicit and implicit authority to use or threaten force accordingly in order to (literally) enforce the law.

those who willingly break the law are aggressors against the law, against the legal order, and therefore by extension against the state and the people that the state is responsible to protect. the number of aggressors and whether or not they are armed does not alter this fact. absent direct and immediate personal danger, only the state may respond lawfully. therefore they are obligated to do so - or rule of law will begin to collapse. failure to respond would be a moral failure on the part of the state.

the armed status, nature of offense, and intent behind the offense should determine the scale and character of the state's response, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the justice of the state responding in and of itself.

a mass challenge and breach of the border of a sovereign state must be handled immediately, and the only means to do so is violence - either threatened or used. the choice and nature of that violence is dowstream of the aggressor's actions.

sapper's appeal here seems to be against the use of force in and of itself, on the grounds that the aggressors are (ostensibly) unarmed. this is a logical error. the state's authority depends on its ability to compel compliance with the law. denying lawful recourse to force negates the state's raison d'etre. the aggressors being armed or not, violent or not, compliant when challenged or not, are relevant to to the nature and proportionality of the response, but not to the legitimacy of enforcement itself.

based on that, the original question in the OP has not been answered. force is fundamentally required to enforce a border at all. the question is the nature and degree of for that would be a proportional response to a mass incursion - given that such a response is to both prevent this incursion, and deter future such incursions.

Zobel said:

---

this isn't hard from first principals.

the state has a limited monopoly on violence / use of force as part of the rule of law. they have both an explicit and implicit authority to use or threaten force accordingly in order to (literally) enforce the law.

those who willingly break the law are aggressors against the law, against the legal order, and therefore by extension against the state and the people that the state is responsible to protect. the number of aggressors and whether or not they are armed does not alter this fact. absent direct and immediate personal danger, only the state may respond lawfully. therefore they are obligated to do so - or rule of law will begin to collapse. failure to respond would be a moral failure on the part of the state.

the armed status, nature of offense, and intent behind the offense should determine the scale and character of the state's response, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the justice of the state responding in and of itself.

a mass challenge and breach of the border of a sovereign state must be handled immediately, and the only means to do so is violence - either threatened or used. the choice and nature of that violence is dowstream of the aggressor's actions.

sapper's appeal here seems to be against the use of force in and of itself, on the grounds that the aggressors are (ostensibly) unarmed. this is a logical error. the state's authority depends on its ability to compel compliance with the law. denying lawful recourse to force negates the state's raison d'etre. the aggressors being armed or not, violent or not, compliant when challenged or not, are relevant to to the nature and proportionality of the response, but not to the legitimacy of enforcement itself.

based on that, the original question in the OP has not been answered. force is fundamentally required to enforce a border at all. the question is the nature and degree of for that would be a proportional response to a mass incursion - given that such a response is to both prevent this incursion, and deter future such incursions.

---

Well said. Spain has a responsibility to protect its citizens by whatever means necessary. Thankfully it appears things have calmed down.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

A country's use of 'Violence' can take the form of creating barricades, arresting people, and using force to remove them. It could also take the form of a line of soldiers with 50 caliber machine guns mowing down as many people as possible. And it can take many forms in the middle of those two options.

If we are talking about the most humane way to deal with the situation, then I think the least amount of violence needed for a country to maintain rule of law would be preferred. Shooting the invaders might be highly effective, but that doesn't mean it is automatically morally justified.

I don't know the situation, history, geopolitics well enough to know what 'least amount' is in this case, but I think we 'ought' to be adverse to jumping to killing if other forms of force can be reasonably effective.

There is a negative gut reaction to some of us when we read someone so casually suggest opening fire on 40,000 human beings. It reads as hate and disdain. But, I also realize that intention does not come through well in message boards, so I can ask Vox what he's thinking. Is this a 'we should shoot the invaders' because LETS WASTE THESE MFers? Or is this a 'we should shoot as few of the invaders as possible and then mourn their deaths and treat this like a horrible tragedy?

---

Shooting the invaders is likely the most efficient and least damaging way to deal with this issue.

In this case the violence is used as more of a deterrent and less of a punishment. The goal is to stop them from invading, to convince them that it is more costly for them to continue with their course of action, than it is for them to turn around.

This also helps deter future invasions where other lives could be lost as the precedent that invaders will be dealt with using lethal force has been clearly established

There is no hate for these people. No one would be arguing that Spain should go into Morocco and shoot these people because they deserve it. The disdain is for their action and participation in a horde designed to overwhelm the Spanish border.

Don't put violence in quotes. It is not conceptual or a euphemism. You shouldn't be squeamish about it - this is the base layer of enforcement.

I also don't agree that the "least amount" of violence to maintain rule of law is preferred. Or at least, I think "least amount" can't be evaluated on a per-event basis. The least amount of violence to maintain rule of law on a long timescale may be very high on a short timescale. For example, a high amount of violence, correctly applied in the past may have prevented this entire incident altogether. In that way, weak governments with weak responses actually end up paying much higher bills in terms of violence required overall.

I'm also a little bit curious as to why shooting invaders isn't morally justified even if effective. This is basic function of government. Border guards carry rifles - what do you think those are for, exactly? Thousands overrun fences and overwhelm a town. If that isn't the time to use a weapon, when is?

All of this handwringing seems to me to be a thin facade overlaying a kind of moral cowardice. To whom does that border guard owe humane treatment? The civilians, women, and children behind him? Or the men running toward him? If he has to shoot one in front to prevent the death of one behind, is that "humane"? "Morally justified"? If even one Spanish citizen lost their life to this it seems to me the fact that the border guards did not open fire is not morally justified. If the guards themselves were not present, or unarmed, so much the worse.

Your "negative gut reaction" is just empathy for "people" in general, with no understanding for actual moral responsibility. You get to have that because you aren't responsible for anyone here. Nobody said "hey go shoot a bunch of people" and characterizing it as "casually suggest opening fire" without including "on the thousands of men overrunning your order" is a lie by omission.

The tragedy here is that this will increase the likelihood of much higher bloodshed in the future. Weak governments, led by weak men do that.

Quote:

---

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

---

Question for the class: the people overrunning the town outnumbered the town. Is this an act putting them in de facto a state of war with the town? Why or why not?

Yes, for the reason so eloquently mentioned in your quote.

The 40,000 people horde didn't happen organically, these guys weren't like "hey you decided to try to enter Spain today, too?". It was organized and designed to overwhelm the defenses and then once into Ceuta, exert power over the city itself and its citizens due to sheer numbers.

Correct. And by extension it is not different in kind when a person or group of people invade your house, or tens of thousands overrun a border check point, or millions enter to change the balance of power in your nation.