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

[The Other Harry]

I think the real question is when Trent Lott starts doing commercials for Viagra.

[John Lenin]

Whatever it takes, I agree our military would be overkill, get more border patrol, but putting up water towers in the desert sends the wrong message.

[karlamayne]

"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. "

Just curious. What do you suppose happens to the [low ball estimate] four million U.S. citizens who live (many retirees) and work in Mexico and who cannot structure their lives for a quick move north? To say nothing about the blowback that would occur to the many more millions of U.S. citizens who live near (yet on this side of) the border. This is one backlash that's little talked about.

Again, just curious.

[DAnconia55]

Troops on the borders won't do a damned thing about Illegals, but will erode freedoms for the rest of us.

Not to mention making escape difficult, should it come to it...

[karlamayne]

Excellent point!

That's one we ought to consider before making draconian moves. No one seems to [seriously] want to just cut off welfare to non-citizens. Clearly, there's a lot of common sense in what Gordon Liddy says about the immigration situation, that we might as well not lose any sleep over the situation because both parties are never, ever going to do anything to change the status quo. The Democrats because they need the votes, nor the Republicans who want the cheap labor.

[Non-Sequitur]

We can't. All the troops are in Bosnia and Korea and Afganistan and Iraq. We're fresh out.

[B4Ranch]

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 !

Please come to Reno and/or Las Vegas, Nevada and tell that to the managers who hire these illegals to work in the casinos and hotels. Then stop by the restaurants and local businesses and continue to spread the good word that the illegals are just short term, under the table workers and should not be hired for these current jobs that they fulfill.

[copycat]

If we do this, my only request is that the troops used to man the border are the ones we bring home from Germany.

[Rifleman]

We are not being invaded by the Wermacht, just a bunch of poor wetbacks trying to improve their lives. It is a police problem and should be treated as such. With a good fence and enough guards.

Using the military for this is like opening paint cans with a good chisel. Wrong tool and you will dull the cutting edge. The military is for when we need to kill people and break their stuff, not for arresting illegals.

[FITZ]

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

Not those but there are many violent types, drug runners and other criminals coming over the border. The Mexican army does patrol the border already. What's the difference?

[FITZ]

Troops on the borders won't do a damned thing about Illegals, but will erode freedoms for the rest of us.

There are areas of the border that have become very dangerous, where our border patrol agents are being shot at and even that woman FBI agent was dragged over to Mexico and they tried to kill her. I think it's getting to the point where troops may be needed because Mexico is in social upheaval and has become very violent. Fox thinks sending out millions of people is somehow helping his society but it's doing the reverse.

[Carry_Okie]

Deport a few hundred thousand Illegals from the American interior and heavily fine their employers, and we can solve this problem.

We agree about how to stop the flow of the "migrant worker" portion of illegal immigration. Unfortunately, that doesn't do much about the military and exclusively commercial (drugs) components of our border security problem. Given that, an effective rememdy may well require a policing component. Whether that is military or civil really doesn't matter when one considers the threat to civil liberties; they're both dangerous.

[chatham]

I gave up on Lott a few years ago.
Maybe he is on new medication.
Have him put it in law, and send it to Bush for approval.

[mor40]

Well? What are we doing sitting here with our eyes bugging out of our heads? Call Lott and thank him tomorrow.

Yes, let's encourage this thinking. It has to be good if this issue gets more public debate.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

OMG! What happened to Casper Milquetoast? Did he forget to take his psyche meds or something? Perhaps he has grown a spine. I place my bet that the retraction will be on Meet the Press this Sunday.

[Man of the Right]

There he goes again.

Personally, I support resumption of conscription into a British-style territorial army to guard the borders and domestic infrastructure. Would never happen in the current climate, however. The active armed forces are lucky if they can meet their recruitment quota.

Meanwhile, we've got a lousy floor leader who is supposed to be securing passage of the President's homeland security bill which has no such provision. Does Lott ever think before he opens his mouth?

[Tauzero]

"Troops on the borders won't do a damned thing about Illegals,"

especially if they're not given live ammunition

[Tauzero]

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

It is true we might not be able to depend upon soldiers to do that. Solution? Mines.

Much less labor-intensive.

[unixfox]

BINGO !!

[gabby hayes]

Can only hope Lott stands by this statement. For all his egotism, O'Reilly deserves much credit for keeping the issue of our borders front and center.