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

[4Freedom]

There are some great comments on this thread. We've already discussed this subject for a couple of years, now.

Just to recap. Bush has already authorized beefing the Border Patrol up to 14,000 or more. That's in the Homeland Security Bill, isn't it? The problem is it takes place over the next 10 years.

Posse Commitatus exempts the National Guard. It doesn't apply to them. We don't want them arresting anyone anyway. We need a sufficient force to turn the invaders back before they ever cross the borders in the first place.

As soon as we ascertain exactly how many Border Patrol Agents we need, we hire them immediately, (Just like they did with the TSA!) erect sufficient barriers along the borders and then send the National Guard home. No big deal. We've done it a couple of times in the past. The precedent has already been set. Not that another Clinton would care, if that's what they wanted to do.

Would a Clinton let the fact that a Republican had never done something in the past stop them from doing it? Just ask Monica. LOL!

As far as our military losing it's fighting edge doing border patrol, they haven't lost it in South Korea, Germany, Bosnia or Afghanistan. Why would they lose their edge guarding our borders?

The militaries of the world have been guarding the borders of their respective countries since before time recorded. None of them ever forgot how to break things or kill people.

[4Freedom]

"For all his egotism, O'Reilly deserves much credit..."

Don't forget Tom Tancredo, Gekas and Michelle Malkin! Heck, even Geraldo helped out little bit.

[ampat]

If O'Reilly's poll is correct, and 79% of the country wants troops on the border, then why don't the people have a say in this? Every politician who is against it aren't Lords who rule over serfs. The use of Reserve and Guard members is a good idea except that will cost more (equivalent to putting more people on active duty). The military has lots of trained personnel just sitting around waiting. That's all they do in peacetime-train (the military has roughly 1/3 on active operations, 1/3 in training, and 1/3 trained. And as O'Reilly said, we don't need troops in those European countries, especially when they are needed more here. And we don't need some military type saying that we need to create and whole new military branch in each service to do this. It just makes sense that if we need to control the borders, then we need to do something sensical and effective. The military needs a change is mindset. They can do it if they want to. The problem is that the military needs a pardigm shift, or they need to think out of the box, or they need to get rid of the non-creative political types at the top. This can be done. Rumsfield just needs to smash some rice bowls to get it done.

[MissAmericanPie]

Great post, sounds good to me.

[austinite]

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

Actually we need to do both....

[xJones]

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.

Who died and donated a pair of balls to Lott?

[RnMomof7]

It was a political lie..

[dheretic]

The only way this will work is if they're authorized to kill illegal aliens that cross the border. IMO if the military were to gun down a few hundred to a few thousand Mexicans trying to get in, the problem would be solved quickly. If the Mexican government tries to respond militarily we are free to exterminate Mexico's military forces and reduce the entirety of their nation to rubble.

[Tancredo Fan]

¡Hasta la vista, criminales! Meet my leetle friend........

[4Freedom]

"The only way this will work is if they're authorized to kill illegal aliens..."

What makes you say that?

How many thousands of North Koreans have U.S. servicemen gunned down in the last 10 years? How about East Germans or Russians?

[EBUCK]

So what are they for? Patroling foriegn borders?

EBUCK

[4Freedom]

The Mexican military, the drug smugglers and terrorists will take one look at that hardware and they won't come within a thousand miles of either border.

Problema resuelto!

[janetgreen]

Mexicans who are trying to cross the border in order to get a better life.

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.

[Redcloak]

The military are not for partoling the border.

And how do you come to this conclusion?

[The Other Harry]

And how do you come to this conclusion?

I take it that you do not know how to read.

[The Other Harry]

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.

No basic argument.

I just do not believe the military should be used to patrol our borders. We are using it for enough already. Wrong function.

[Redcloak]

I take it that you do not know how to present an argument.

How do you reach the conclusion that the military cannot be used to patrol a border? BTW: "It just can't" isn't an argument.

[Adder]

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

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

1. Posting troops along the border to prevent invasion is not a violation of the posse commitatus. Besides, troops facing outward won't be taking freedoms from you and yours, or me and mine. It will take away such things as freedom of entry from illegals and tons of drugs.
2. That should definitely be the second prong of attack. Round them up and send them back. Perhaps we should just send them back to Mexico and let them deal with the problem since that is where they crossed from. Penalize employers who hire illegals. I don't mean the employers who are duped by false papers: how is one supposed to know? But many are employed without regard to ANY papers. Bust em and bust 'em good.