Lott Bombshell: Put Troops on U.S. Borders

NewsMax.com ^ | 11/08/02 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[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

[SwordofTruth]

"Troops on the Borders?" Bah!

When a country is being invaded like we are being invaded any moron can see that troops on the border is a good idea.

[agitator]

I heard it with my own ears. I have to disagree with Saber on this one. What is happening at the border is a national security issue, not a police issue. What is happening on the border amounts to an invasion sponsored by a foreign government(s). The first duty of the military is defending against foreign invasion. If we don't deal with this problem now, we won't have to worry about Posse Comitatus. Every invasion has to be stopped at the beachhead or else. Every alternative to this translates to the patently stupid, dangerous, and unconstitutional F.A.I.R. solution of tattooing every American with a government ID number, produceable ON-DEMAND, in order to weed out the illegals and I fear that A LOT more than US soldiers on the border. Troops anywhere other than at the border is entirely another issue.

[agitator]

ping

[gubamyster]

I agree with you in general about troops at the border. However, until the incentives for illegals to cross the border are eliminated, the border patrol gets the tools to do their jobs, immigration laws are enforced including deportations, and businesses begin to be heavily fined for hiring illegals, then maybe sending the military to the border may just intimidate a few illegals from crossing.

I realize Lott doesn't have a great track record on immigration, but at least now he is acknowledging there is a problem. Let’s see if he backs-up his words.

O’Reilly has really been railing on the INS the last few weeks.

[Freedom2specul8]

I'm not being sarcastic..and haven't decided on whether this is a good idea or not. Please tell me the difference between patrolling our borders and defending our borders. Can they both mean the same thing? (The national guard perhaps?)

[John Lenin]

I think the National guard should be on the order, that's their REAL job, to protect the states from civil unrest and foreign invaders. Most of the jobs the illegals take are in construction as day laborers, they work a few days maybe a week, get paid cash and it's on the next home depot parking lot. They get paid in cash, most of them. how do you catch that ? You don't !

[rolling_stone]

IMO having troops on the border is fraught with problems..but using their technology and manpower could be worked into effective border control.

The big deal about the statement is a switch in attitude.

It has always been said in border areas if the man at the top(president) publicly stated it was time to close the borders, then they would be much easier close. All of upper INS management would get the message and give the Patrol Agents more freedom and resources to do their job instead of tying their hands behind their backs and blindfolding them. Immnigration judges will turn on a dime and quit releasing aliens without bond. Voluntary returning aliens without deportation will change to formally deportating them instead and less turnstile aliens.

Once people coming here realize they won't be met with bleeding hearts & open hands, immigration counseling, welfare etc but possibly the military then much incentive will be take away to come here.

Having the aliens put into work camps instead of luxury federal prisons for punishment or instead of immediately being returned to Mexico to try again will send stories back to their homeland with them about how things have changed, and the problem will IMO slow to a trickle and then terrorists will be easier to catch, unable to hide among the thousands of ordinary economically motivated illegals that currently cross our borders.

[rolling_stone]

So I take it you don't have a social security number, driver's licesne number or passport number? That means no credit, no job or bank account, unable to drive or travel to most foreign lands...ah yes freedom from a number was lost years ago for those wanting any of the above.

[sarcasm]

I see no mention of interior enforcement of immigration laws by Lott. How 'bout legislation to ban the acceptance of sham Mexican Consular ID cards by banks and local governments, stopping the IRS from issuing TIN's to illegals, prosecution of the employers of illegals......

[John Lenin]

It does make sense to have them come here legally as long as they enforce the laws against the illegals I would support it. But what will happen is the big corporations will get quotas and more Americans will lose their jobs to Mexican transients. The only thing "The People" are going to stand for is controlled borders and contolled legal immigration.This 50/50 divided government is BS , our elections are rigged, its's the perfect cover to ignore the immigration issue and socialism. Just look at the election results in California, it's 100% fraudulent.

[The Other Harry]

I'm not being sarcastic..and haven't decided on whether this is a good idea or not. Please tell me the difference between patrolling our borders and defending our borders. Can they both mean the same thing? (The national guard perhaps?)

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.

To the extent that it is used in ways other than its primary mission, it is weakened. Diluted.

If we want more border patrol officers, then we should hire them. That is one job. It is not the job of the Army.

[The Other Harry]

... any moron can see that troops on the border is a good idea.

Not!

You do *not* use the military as border patrol agents. That is stupid.

[Lion's Cub]

"Troops on the Borders?" Bah!

Not sure I totally agree with you on this one. I do agree that most of the illegal immigration could be stopped by heavily fining employers, deporting all illegals, and having an real INS.

But there's still the problem of the Mexican "police" escorting the drugs and who-knows-what-else into our territory and shooting at our Border Patrol. Like it or not, we ARE in a defacto war with Mexico that our politicians continually deny for their own gain. Troops on the border might just signal to Fox that his invasion has come to an end.

Other than that, I don't have a problem using National Guard or Border Patrol, as long as there's enough of them, they are heavily armed, and ordered to shoot to kill.

I'm also aware that this isn't going to happen. American politicians don't give a hoot about America or American citizens any more.

[wotan]

There is a saying to the effect that the function of the military is to "kill people and break things".

But that is why we should put the military on the border. Soldiers should kill people who attempt to cross it, because those who do so are invaders.

You do this by creating a no-man's land on our side of the border a couple hundred yards wide, a double fence, and shooting anyone found between the fences.

There should, of course, be portals through which allowed visitors may pass. These should be manned by the border patrol.

[The Other Harry]

How about the national guard ?

In my opinion, the National Guard are there to be used in times of a national emergency. Not on a routine basis.

[The Other Harry]

But that is why we should put the military on the border. Soldiers should kill people who attempt to cross it, because those who do so are invaders.

That is absolute nonsense.

We aren't going to be gunning down impoverished Mexicans who are trying to cross the border in order to get a better life.

[John Lenin]

Hey Harry, why don't you put a sign on your door, my doors are unlocked, come in and help yourself. Thats what we are doing on the borders right now.

[wotan]

We aren't going to be gunning down impoverished Mexicans who are trying to cross the border in order to get a better life.

But if I were in charge, we would. A few Mexicans would be shot. The rest would get the idea, and a lot of Americans lives would be saved.

Incidentally, good to see another early bird, or do you live in Europe?

[The Other Harry]

Hey Harry, why don't you put a sign on your door, my doors are unlocked, come in and help yourself. Thats what we are doing on the borders right now.

It's not the same thing.

I think we should protect and defend our borders. I just don't think that is the function of the military. I believe that would be the wrong way to go about it.

I also don't think the military should be used to provide food to Somalia. That doesn't mean that Somalia does not need food or that we should not help provide it. It is just is not the way we should use our military.

Use it to kill people and break things.

Send it in to say hello to our good friends in Iraq. That is what it does, and that is what it should concentrate on doing. Leave the borders to someone else.