Back in August? Yeah, that one he was straightforward about. He didn't mince words at all. Something about, "I'd shoot men, women, kids, whomever. Eventually it'll make them stop coming over" when talking about the Moroccan migrants trying to cross en masse into Ceuta.
I get the essence of what he was trying to say, but it was still one of those comments that he deserved to be punished for & it was always going to come across poorly when said in that manner, rather than addressing that force needs to be enacted to repel that many people from flooding the city. His whole point was that borders need to be able to be defended. He just phrased it very crassly, in a way that didn't do him any favors.
I liken it more to my experience during my tours in the Middle East. People were shot when they didn't follow orders & respect defensive boundaries when pressing into U.S. territory (like approaching a military checkpoint despite being at gunpoint and told to turn around or trying to drive through a gate, etc.). Didn't matter if they were men, women or children. Different application, different scenario, but that was the underlying theme.
EDIT: Simply put, he's right that borders that can't be defended are no longer borders. But he's very wrong in the way he argued it because his approach amounted to lethal being the first option, whereas in my scenario, lethal was the last option. Similar ideas, very different methodologies.