Lott backs use of troops to protect U.S. borders

Denver Post ^ | 11/13/2002 | Michael Riley

[dirtboy]

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - The incoming majority leader of the Senate said that he now supports sending troops to protect U.S. borders, an indication the Republican Party may harden its stance on immigration after last week's sweep in midterm elections. Speaking last week on the "O'Reilly Factor," a conservative talk show on the Fox News Network, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the troops could not only shut down traffic of illegal immigrants but also help stop drug trafficking and cross-border crime.

"Most politicians run around worried about civil libertarians and being sued by the ACLU," Lott said on the Thursday night broadcast, according to a transcript of the interview posted on the Fox News website. "This is not only a porous border in terms of illegal aliens, it's also a porous border with regard to crime and drugs."

A hot-button issue in the national immigration debate, militarizing the border would reverse a long-standing commitment to civilian enforcement, opponents say. Supporters - including U.S. Rep Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., an outspoken opponent of current immigration policy - say it's the only effective way to stem a tide of terrorists and illegal immigrants.

Tancredo, who until now has found little support on the issue among top Republicans, seemed as surprised as anyone at the change of attitude of the Senate's most powerful Republican.

"I hope this strong stance by the Senate majority leader will garner a shift in the administration's approach to securing our borders," Tancredo, who chairs the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, said in a statement.

Lott's office said he hasn't drafted legislation to authorize the deployment of troops.

Tancredo hasn't sponsored such a bill either, but he repeatedly has called on Bush to deploy troops by executive order.

Angela Kelly, assistant director of the National Immigration Forum in Washington, said placing troops on the border is unlikely to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, but it could increase violations of human rights.

"What the military is trained to do and what the border patrol is trained to do are very different missions," Kelly said. "You risk some terrible mistakes if you don't have people properly trained to enforce our immigration laws."

[dirtboy]

Found link on American Patrol

[Balding_Eagle]

Two surprises from Lott: Troops on the border, Late term abortion.

Almost sounds like he may have been hiding a set of brass ones.

[Republic of Texas]

I'll believe it when I see it. Especially coming from Lott.

[mfreddy]

I hope you are correct

[Huck]

Well, he's getting a second chance. Let's see what the man can do.

[Sparta]

Not just deploy the troops to the border to keep the illegals out, but round up the ones already here and ship 'em out.

[RaceBannon]

bump to that!!

[Free the USA]

fyi

[realpatriot71]

Obviously, the American Military's mission is not one of "police work" - it's one of killing the bad guys. So, in this sense I do not support any sort of military use in collecting and rounding up illegals already in this country (ie. those already living and working in cities and communities). That is the mission of law enforcement agencies.

With that said however, I see no reason while military support could not be used, evenything from helicopters and planes, to National Guardsmen driving in a jeep along the border to look for those coming in. I see the use of military in this sense, as one of helping to tighten the border and prevent illegals fom coming in. If the military, in this manner, were to find any illegals coming into this country, they would treat and medicate as appropriate, and would then detain these people until the proper authorities arrived.

Where am I going wrong?

[American Soldier]

You're not wrong anywhere. You are one of the few who has a grip on this. I warn you - it's lonely.

This would ruin troops' readiness as fast - faster actually, due to the static nature of the operations - than peacekeeping operations. It would be a waste of active troops.

But I have to say I see nothing wrong with the National Guard, in accordance with it's role as the citizens' militia, helping out. I have suggested several times that all the border states' governors could go a long was towards fixing this problem if they just rotated guardsmen to the border zone. had them throw up a fence on the U.S. side, then guard it.

[Sparta]

I'm not advocating using the military to round up the immigrants in America, but I want to use an INS with a pair of balls for the roundup.

[11B3]

How about deploying National Guard engineering units to the border along with National Guard MP units to do the police work? The Engineers job would be to begin construction of a WALL. That way we aren't going to have troops along this long stretch of nothing for generations - only the Wall. Also, this construction project would increase the skills of the Engineer units involved, the MP units would get some real training, and the flow of illegals would slow to nothing. Use Airmobile Infantry as backup to the MPs as a reaction force.

[realpatriot71]

The INS would be the proper authority, obviously, for this type of mission. Equally obvious, is the fact the the INS needs reform and more officiers available for such duties.

I sympathize with those who want to come to this country to live and work, but unfortunately illegals end up taking from the system without giving back. As well as this, illegal imigration can lead to unsavory types of people who we don't want here, who don't want to work and contribute, coming in.

I welcome any imigrant who wants to come to this country to to live thier dream, but let's do it legal. I don't think that's too much to ask of our government.

[Sparta]

I agree, but can we use Jeff Head's idea of a armed citizen's home guard to assist the INS?

[realpatriot71]

I think if this country, the greatest in the world, really wanted to put a manned fence to tighten up the border we could do it. Once in place, I don't imagine needing near the number of military patrols anymore, or even at all, if the INS gets to a point where it can control the situation.

The military solution could be one interim in nature.

[realpatriot71]

Well, I think any citizen should be able to hold and detain anyone involved in illegal activites until the proper authorites arrive. My only resignation to citizen patrols is that one doesn't need any special traing to be a part of one, and I can see where this lack of training could lead to a situation getting out of control. People could get hurt. I want illegals to go home, not get killed, and I definitely don't want any well meaning citizen to be hurt either. You know what they say about the path to hell . . .

What I'm saying is that I applaud efforts of "regular joes" who can help in this manner, when the situation presents itself. However, I don't think it should be encouraged.

[dsutah]

Why I don't see anything wrong with what you've said here! But I'm wondering. Haven't we had for years the border patrols? And after 9-11, wasn't there some talk about there being National Guardsmen down there, anyway? Or, am I thinking of the Border Patrols?

It's really confusing! People on FR and on t.v., keep on saying the borders are wide-open. I keep reading where they are deporting people since 9-11. Another thing, I read that after 9-11, the President was going to see about arming them also, or at least some of them. I haven't read anything more about it. Do you know what's going on down there?