The Weekly Screed, 27 December 2007

Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas: Vigilante or visionary?
by David Benjamin

The emergence of Joe Horn in Pasadena, Texas, during a period of intense national debate over immigration reform, could be a coincidence. Or it might better be seen as a stroke of divine guidance.

Until November 14, Joe Horn was just a retiree living with his daughter’s family in Pasadena. But that day, he saw two burglars breaking into the house next door. Not content to merely call the cops, Joe loaded his shotgun and proceeded to defend his neighbor’s castle. Beating the police to the scene, Joe shot both intruders in the back as they fled, killing Diego Ortiz and Hernando Torres.

The news account of this heroic incident includes repeated efforts by a 911 dispatcher to talk Joe out of plugging the bad guys. But Joe, somehow instinctively aware that he was breaking new ground in social policy, ignored his own safety and blasted his way across the front lawn and into history.

Joe Horn did, simply, what generations of frustrated Americans have been aching to do ever since the Alamo. He grabbed his scattergun and he went out hunting Mexicans. In fact, the burglars he bagged were Colombian but hey — short, swarthy, sweaty, brown, talking in gibberish — aren’t they all Mexicans at heart?

This is not to suggest that President Bush should declare open season on all Mexicans. That would be dangerous. In the resulting national fusillade of gunfire, some non-Mexicans could be killed or injured. However, it now lies within the nation’s purview to develop Joe Horn’s brilliant stroke into a comprehensive anti-immigration program.

The obvious model for this initiative comes from sportsmen’s paradises like Wisconsin where the biggest game is not Mexicans but white-tailed deer — millions of ‘em! In states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Maine, anyone paying a license fee is entitled to shoot, kill and carry away one deer during a specified “deer season.” Usually, hunting is restricted to “antlered” deer, but in seasons of high population, does (Doe: a deer, a female deer) are sometimes deemed fair game.

The scope of this possibility is almost breathtaking. Right now, in America, there are more than 200 million legal guns of all kinds. Meanwhile, there are, by various estimates, eight to twelve million illegal Mexicans living and working in our midst. The math speaks for itself. If only ten percent of America’s gun owners were licensed to hunt Mexicans for the period between, say, Thanksgiving and Christmas, there would be two hunters for every illicit intruder.

The authorization and licensing of an annual “Mexican season” is clearly a strategy that could promise a swift and happy ending to America’s illegal immigration saga. To consider how effective this plan could be, let’s prolong the analogy to “deer season” in the northern woods.
In Wisconsin, as hunting season begins, deer throughout the state sense danger. They grow skittish and impulsive. Their patterns of movement and feeding change. They barely sleep, and they spend these days in flight from every sound and scent they encounter. Their panic often drives them directly into the line of fire. Thousands escape, but thousands perish. The result — thanks to the state’s rigorous management of the hunt — is a sustainable number of these creatures in the ecosystem.

This time-tested administrative model is easily applicable to Mexicans (not to mention Colombians, Guatemalens, Salvadorans, etc.) On Thanksgiving day, as millions of hunters in their gaily colored blaze-orange vests greet the dawn by venturing out in search of Mexicans, the Mexicans would be galvanized by terror. As individuals, just as deer seek safety in the deepest brush, they would seek out and fight for the best hiding places — cellars, culverts, Taco Bells. As a mass, like the deer herd, they would be driven inexorably toward the Mexican border, seeking sanctuary on native soil.

Many would fall, some would get through. Many would hide successfully, thus seeding a target-rich environment for the next year’s hunt. In any case, the reduction in numbers would result in a smaller, more manageable population of illegal aliens.

Ideally, after six or seven seasons, the annual Mexican hunt might be suspended, for fear of wiping out the species entirely. On the other hand, if hunters prove to be too few or Mexicans turn out to be too abundant and fertile to control, the immigration authorities might decide to OK the equivalent, of a “doe season.” This would authorize the hunting of legal Mexicans — like Jimmy Smits, Linda Ronstadt or Alberto Gonzales. This would not only represent sound herd management but — for hunters and quarry alike — it would be a great change of pace.

Note that this proposal is merely a rough outline. It does not consider, for example, the possibly thorny issue of disposal. Indeed, with several million Mexicans shot and “dressed” over a 30-day span, sanitation will be of paramount concern. Simply leaving the Mexicans to the tender mercies of carrion-eaters is unacceptable, not only as a public health issue but as a massive waste of good protein. The pet food industry, at minimum, should be consulted. Moreover, the Vatican, which rather jealously presumes all Latin Americans to be under its jurisdiction, would inevitably object if carcasses were handled irreverently. Additionally, it might be prudent public policy to distribute millions of organ donor cards throughout the barrios, packing plants and tomato fields where illegal Mexicans tend to concentrate.

Considerations like these will certainly enliven the discussion. But the key point remains: an effective paradigm already exists to both control and derive benefit from the current glut of unwelcome Mexicans. Moreover, if the Joe Horn Method works as expected, future hunts could apply just as felicitously to other invasive species — Chinamen, Slavs, Hunyoks, French Canadians, perhaps even the Japanese.