Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lott Bombshell: Put Troops on U.S. Borders
NewsMax.com ^ | 11/08/02 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 11/07/2002 10:38:31 PM PST by kattracks

Soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., shook up the homeland security debate Thursday afternoon by saying his supported deploying the U.S. military to guard America's borders.

Lott dropped the border bombshell during an interview with Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly on O'Reilly's nationally syndicated "Radio Factor" program.

O'REILLY: Why not back up the Border Patrol with military, whether it's National Guard or straight troops - why not do it?

LOTT: Well, I think we should do it. And I would be for....

O'REILLY: Do you really?

LOTT: Oh, absolutely.

O'REILLY: You're the first politician I've heard....

LOTT: Well, look. Most politicians run around worried about civil libertarians and being sued by the ACLU. This is not only a porous border in terms of illegal aliens. It's also a porous border in terms of crime and drugs. (End of Excerpt)

O'Reilly noted later on his TV broadcast that 79 percent of Americans told a recent Fox News survey that they supported military deployment along U.S. borders, though leaders on both sides of the political fence - including President Bush - oppose the idea.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Homeland/Civil Defense
Immigration/Borders
War on Terrorism



TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last
To: The Other Harry
seems to me that should be no better use of the military, except guarding our borders.
We have no mandate in afghanistan, or any other place in the world, but we are there with a massive deployment of armaments and troops.
The US military is not intended to be guarrisoned in our towns, and cities, but it IS intended to defend our shores! Read YOUR constitution. Mine states their specific mission!
and has no provision for an IRS!!!!!
101 posted on 11/09/2002 3:25:36 PM PST by pageonetoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
seems to me that should be no better use of the military, except guarding our borders. We have no mandate in afghanistan, or any other place in the world, but we are there with a massive deployment of armaments and troops.

The US military is not intended to be guarrisoned in our towns, and cities, but it IS intended to defend our shores! Read YOUR constitution. Mine states their specific mission! and has no provision for an IRS!!!!!

I don't completely disagree with you (especially with regard to the IRS).

I just think border patrol agents should be just that.

The military should be used to help our friends in the middle east to celebrate Rahmadan.

102 posted on 11/09/2002 3:43:29 PM PST by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
LOTT: Well, look. Most politicians run around worried about civil libertarians and being sued by the ACLU. This is not only a porous border in terms of illegal aliens. It's also a porous border in terms of crime and drugs.

Well, jezzz, this after our so-called leaders have already allowed upwards of 15 MILLION illegal aliens to crash our borders and run through our streets?

Is this a joke?

103 posted on 11/09/2002 3:56:23 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
You folks posting in favor of this are nuts. The military are not for partoling the border.

Doink! What?

Our borders are being invaded by millions that are crashing our borders and running through our streets. This is an invasion of our sovereignty and our national security! What the hell is our military for anyway?

104 posted on 11/09/2002 4:00:54 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
No.
105 posted on 11/10/2002 12:17:44 AM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
...if Reagan were President today do you think he'd make that same mistake again?

Yes.

Remember your hero's words...

"Give us your tired/poor/huddled masses yearning to be free..."

106 posted on 11/10/2002 12:22:12 AM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
Reagan's original plan was to legalize only a couple hundred thousand illegals who had been living in the US for many years. That plan was changed by others to allow in everyone who made a run for the border and they allowed many who had never stepped foot in the US before, and who had not been working in the US. Since then they've been managing to "sponsor" all kinds of non-working relatives using family reunification laws. The way it ended up was not what Reagan had planned.
107 posted on 11/10/2002 8:49:19 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
The other thing what happens when you legalize the illegals is make them ineligible for their previous jobs if they had them so their employers will have to start all over and find new illegals who will take those jobs. It's not only Americans who won't work hard for less than minimum wage ---it's also the amnestied and all American born children of immigrants who won't take those jobs. Many decide they can live "better" off welfare.
108 posted on 11/10/2002 8:52:11 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Reaganwuzthebest
...if Reagan were President today

Reagan's plan wasn't that bad but it got changed by others. Reagan only meant to legalize a couple hundred thousand, not over 3 million most who weren't here working. Reagan's plan was that the illegal had to prove they had been here working for 5 years but all that was changed so they didn't have to prove anything. If just the few who have worked hard and never accesses a single government service and always paid their own way for everything were to be given amnesty this time it wouldn't be so bad but it wouldn't work that way.

109 posted on 11/10/2002 9:01:50 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: BrowningBAR
>Write Senator Lott

Write to your Senators in D.C, too.
The time to strike is while the iron is hot !!!
110 posted on 11/10/2002 9:07:15 AM PST by Missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
Yes.

Knowing the results of the first amnesty, Reagan would not press for another one and you know it.

111 posted on 11/10/2002 2:52:53 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Sure that first amnesty had good intentions but turned into just another scam to be exploited and abused by illegals who weren't entitled to it.

The only thing that came out of it was Mexico now has more influence in our political process than even England had at the time of the Revolution. If we give another amnesty, might as well just say goodbye to the Southwest and be done with it.

112 posted on 11/10/2002 3:04:44 PM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Dialup Llama
[Not really. Al-Queda is going to focus on soft targets in the US and infiltrate from Mexico and South America (according to cnn.com).]

The only thing I can disagree with you on is the "is". It should be "are and have been" focusing on soft targets and "are and have been" infiltrating from Mexico. Does anyone think they have just been sitting back waiting for the last few years?

This is just the perfect place for them to enter - they look much like the Mexicans coming over and we have had politicians (including the PResident) putting out the "Welcome" mat. There is no way they passed that up.

113 posted on 11/10/2002 3:19:45 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
[It's shallow posturing at best, and a reckless and dangerous policy if implemented. I have no interest in seeing the Posse Comitatus Act screwed up so that some future Democrat can make it our worst nightmare.]

You and I are on the same wavelength quite often - but not on this.

What is so scary about troops on the border? It is an international border - not an internal border. Also, it is not without precedent. It has been done before when this country was in danger and I just don't see a problem with it now. The national guard has been used to guard the airports and the SF bridge, many other things I am sure. Why not the borders? I don't see this as an erosion of our freedoms - but an erosion of the freedoms of foreign nationals and terrorists getting into this country. As I said, it has been done before.

114 posted on 11/10/2002 3:24:11 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
[You folks posting in favor of this are nuts. The military are not for partoling the border.]

I am curious about your statement - what exactly is a proper use of the military?

The military has been used on the border before - in my lifetime so it has happened before and the republic did not fall.

I believe a well-defined and protected border is the first line of defense of a nation and with that in mind, patrolling the border would be the first obligation of the military.

Now you may be in agreement with the open border policy - assuming you are not, however, what would you propose doing?

Yes, eliminate the freebies and all the other benefits to the employers - but you and I know that would take years of wrangling before anything was done - if ever. IN the meantime, we are lost.

Now we are sending our military around the world to attack a country that is a threat to us - but we are not closing our own borders so that same country can send any number of people and things in to attack us - just makes no sense to me.

115 posted on 11/10/2002 3:30:26 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; Travelgirl; Budge; TheBattman; wirestripper; parsifal; pulaskibush
WOOOOOHOOOOOO!!! Does this indicate that the Republican victory this week has caused him to grow a pair?? Let's write Senator Lott and encourage this debate!

Ping!

116 posted on 11/10/2002 3:35:19 PM PST by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
[There is a saying to the effect that the function of the military is to "kill people and break things". I pretty much go along with that.

It is not a police force. It is not a border patrol.]

Well, that sounds good - but -- Remember our military has been used as a police force and a border patrol around the world for the last few decades. Why can't they defend and patrol our borders. I do not think it will 'dilute' the military.

The military, in my opinion, is to protect America and its interests. Closing our borders and protecting it from illegal immigrants who are destroying our country and from terrorists who intend to do us harm is exactly what the military is for.

117 posted on 11/10/2002 3:37:08 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
[You do *not* use the military as border patrol agents. That is stupid.]

Well, tell that to the military doing 'border patrol' around the world.

It has been done before - this is nothing new. It has precedent - in my lifetime.

Wonderful idea and it can't happen too soon.

118 posted on 11/10/2002 3:38:37 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: The Other Harry
[In my opinion, the National Guard are there to be used in times of a national emergency. Not on a routine basis.]

But you see this IS a national emergency.

And they are being used on a routine basis in the airports, guarding the SF bridges and who knows where.

Do it and do it now.

119 posted on 11/10/2002 3:40:49 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
[I think that most of us in the border states resent the millions of them who are coming here to get a better life at the expense of American taxpayers. Why should we be forced to pay billions of dollars to support them? The President obviously thinks that we should foot the bill while he ignores the law. ]

You are so right!! And it is coming to the rest of the country soon.

My husband had school lunch with granchildren in EAst TExas this past week and he said 60% of the kindergarten children were Mexicans. This is an area that had probably no more than 3 Americans of Mexican decent 30 years ago. Much of the invasion of the families, however, has taken place in the last 10 years.

120 posted on 11/10/2002 3:49:41 PM PST by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson