[SirJohnBarleycorn]

Unless a fence is built, that would be a permanent deployment, right?

As soon as there is a budget squeeze the first thing to be cut in DOD will be the resources for the NG on the border.

Then we will be back where we started, no fence and no security.

But taking steps toward putting the NG on the border will mollify people like O'Reilly and enough conservatives to get the Republican leadership past the next election, then it will be back to business as usual.

BUILD THE FENCE!

[Sender]

I can almost guarantee the troops will stay deployed on the border until November 4, 2006.

[EyeGuy]

As soon as there is a budget squeeze the first thing to be cut in DOD will be the resources for the NG on the border.

Then we will be back where we started, no fence and no security.

"But taking steps toward putting the NG on the border will mollify people like O'Reilly and enough conservatives to get the Republican leadership past the next election, then it will be back to business as usual.

BUILD THE FENCE!"

Shouldn't we have some spare troops from Germany coming back on line soon. They were "permanently" deployed in Germany, why not along on southern border.

But, better still, as you said a permanent fence-more effective and cheaper by far in the long run.

[Tammy8]

I agree, there is no way deploying troops to the border could be a long term solution. It is a good solution now, but only if the plan is for troops to secure the border while a major fence/barrier/wall is being built. For those of you that think a virtual fence will work- the reason it won't is because it takes constant funding to stay effective. If funding was ever cut to a virtual fence (which of course it would be sooner or later) it would not be readily apparent to we the people until we are again flooded with illegals. If an actual fence is built, then if it is not maintained properly- it would be obvious.