Cuidado mi amigo.

First off ...

Regardless of whom you feel the SCHIPs question was directed at… illegal parents or illegal children… government applications requiring ANY information that might implicate the parents as "illegal immigrants" has been deemed "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" by the US Supreme Court since its 2000 Reno v Condon ruling.

It's not open to an interpretation of my "feelings", it's what I read. It's there in black and white. The application caters to illegal children as well - I gave you the link, you can check it if you'd like. I'm unaware of this ruling, however, I am very aware that the Supreme Court is more than capable of making bone head decisions (see Roe vs Wade), especially when in 2000 it was still a majority leftist court (in practice regardless of which president originally nominated it). And if you're telling me that they ruled detecting parents as illegal during applications for their legal children is unconstitutional, then that was boneheaded as well. I understand that makes the application , "legal" (with the parental part - that's still no excuse for the illegal children's accessibility) but it's wrong in my opinion.

****
The number I used in referring to the number of LEGAL children of ILLEGAL parents is NOT something I simply made up…...... If showing a little concern for 4.5 MILLION US citizens that might need BASIC health care assistance that they can’t provide for themselves (because they are MINORS) constitutes just one more example of "bleeding heart" liberalism… call me guilty as charged. Just don’t get offended or act surprised when I start referring to you as a "bigot" again.

I'm really not sure why you keep bringing this up, other than you see an advantage in trying to triangulate this conversation into my defacto criticizing of legal US children - I have not and am not saying they should be denied services because of their parent's status. So my advice is to stop bringing it up as a point of debate as if I had contested it - I did not.

While we're on it, this phenomena is referred to as "anchor babies" (I'm sure you'll find that term sufficiently obnoxious, so I had to use it). An illegal 9 months pregnant slips across with the express intent of popping her bambino out on US soil (hospitals are not allowed to deny emergency services, nor do I advocate that be changed). Bingo - she's the immediate relative of a US citizen ... let's start the paperwork. It's a symptom of the problem of an open border, not the problem itself. Some have advocated amending the constitution so that being birthed does not grant citizenship - we are the only 1st world nation that accommodates that. I don't endorse the amendment route if for no other reason it's a bandaid, and doesn't address the real problem of no security to our south.


****

"Non-lethal force" is NOT a facet of our armed forces...’

That's fair enough - however, were they charged with that task - policing/enforcing our border, I have no doubt they would be overwhelmingly successful. If you want to play "ask a vet", then ask them if "failure" is even a part of their vocabulary. As I said, to argue that using the military in that fashion is a "misuse", fine, that's a reasonable position - but to conclude they would fail is asinine in the extreme. I simply will not EVER write the words you did, under any circumstances - I think the US military has earned that level of respect for their ability and knowing the esteem you hold them in I am utterly shocked - I truly didn't think you would write it. Regrettably, I was wrong.

As for actual enforcement, putting the border guards in place to feel as if there was a military style presence (as Mexico does on their southern border I might add), combined with the technology of a virtual and real wall is just common sense. I find it fascinating that you agree we can move off of fossil fuels - a MONUMENTAL task - if only the PoTUS would lead in a moon shot, Manhattan Project fashion, but that we are incapable of sufficiently securing our sovereignty on the southern border. How is it the genius and determination of the American people to accomplish "anything" is acknowledged by you in one "against the odds" instance, but is absent in the other? It can be done, it will be done. The only question is will it take an attack - in which it is shown the southern border was the access point of the perpetrators - before we do.

****

What sitting Senator or Congressman has submitted for consideration and debate anything even CLOSE to what you are advocating?

None. And it pisses me off. An unfunded wall is as far as it's gone. But my guess is that this issue has hit a critical mass and if the next president is a Republican he will have to implement some version of my plan or face losing reelection. So I'm holding out hope for that scenario, but I admit, it's just my guess at what will come. As for the cost, you may find this trite, but it will cost more if we do not. Not to mention, no matter how many of these "stations" you set up (and I still don't know how you plan to make them any more efficient than the DMV, and they don't even do back ground checks or medical exams), it still won't be faster than jumping a fence, and this is a CRITICAL POINT Titus - unless you sufficiently close that border, no matter what "station" plan, no matter how well intentioned or run they are, nothing will be faster then illegal entry. Furthermore, those who know full well that they won't pass whatever background check system you set up, won't bother with your "be an American today" clubhouse, and they will still cross illegally - drug smugglers and terrorists will hardly stand in your line. So you can call my measures "draconian" all you want, but the success of ANY, and I mean ANY plan of yours will be dependent upon a secure border. No plan will be effective without it. And that's something you're just going to have to come to terms with.

****

Granted, they broke the law. Laws that history shows are impractical, at best… and unenforceable at worst.

You might as well come to terms with something else - you just advocated an open border policy. What you truly want is as many little processing shacks as it takes set up on the border, and with no medical exams, no English proficiency tests, just a photo ID made, a copy made, and send them on their way north. Let me tell you something - that will NEVER happen, and I mean NEVER. My plan may be unlikely to happen, but at least there there's hope. Yours, as I have laid out, is a non starter.

****

Yes, a million people protested the bill, from CA to NY, because it DIDN’T include an amnesty clause… not because it did. Now who wasn’t reading the news? Sheesh…

You're not understanding me here - I'll attempt to be clearer. This is the bill that had illegals paying a fine, sent to the back of the line, built the wall, etc, had thousands protesting, that Bush advocated but failed to pass, right? The problem for him and his advocates was that BOTH SIDES detested the thing. And when I say "both sides" I mean the pro-amnesty crowd on the one hand, and the "enforcement first" crowd on the other. You identified it as if changing the illegal crossing to a felony was it's main focus or largest identifying aspect. It was not. This bill, the one which garnered the protests, had a focus, according to its advocates of "comprehensive immigration reform." It was going to be the catch all for all that ailed us on this issue. But, only beltway types were its advocates. And here's why - the illegals and their pro-amnesty advocates found it too heavy handed. The fines, back of the line, go back to your country of origin first, etc was what they opposed - you're right, they wanted blanket amnesty so there's your protests. My side detected a loop hole in the bill. An illegal could simply reapply endlessly for what is called a "Z Visa." They would never become an actual citizen, but this Z Visa was renewable for eternity and involved no fines, back of the line etc, it was defacto amnesty. So in the conservative media it was dubbed "the amnesty bill." We protested in a different fashion - we called and emailed our representatives by the millions and demanded they kill this bill. They did. Thus, my point was that those who called their reps - middle, mainstream America, i.e. "the majority" - is with me on this issue. Enforcement first is the majority opinion in this country, and your approach is a clear minority. I refer you to the following ....

Zogby poll: Americans fed up with illegal aliens.
Majority against Bush plan for workers, 81% think local police should help feds.

A new opinion poll by Zogby International indicates Americans are hardly pleased with the Bush administration on the subject of illegal immigration.
The poll, cited on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program yesterday, noted a huge majority – 81 percent – believes local and state police should help federal authorities enforce laws against illegal immigration. Only 14 percent disagreed.
Voters were also asked, "Do you support or oppose the Bush administration's proposal to give millions of illegal aliens guest worker status and the opportunity to become citizens?" Only 35 percent gave their support, and 56 percent said no.
"A majority opposed illegal immigration," pollster John Zogby told CNN. "In fact, when you combine those two terms, 'illegal and immigration,' it really conjures up a considerable amount of negatives. And, in fact, we find that it's really across the board."
According to the report, the greatest opponents of illegal immigration are Democrats, African-Americans, women and people with household income below $75,000, those with the most to lose in the job market.
When it came to the status of the nation's borders, respondents were asked, "Do you agree or disagree that the federal government should deploy troops on the Mexican border as a temporary measure to control illegal immigration?" A clear majority – 53 percent – agree, while 40 percent disagree.
"The Minuteman program highlighted the fact that we need more tighter border security," Phil Kent of American Immigration Control Foundation told the network. "So I think these numbers again are good. It's a good civics lesson for the American people. It shows our elected leaders that we want action."
In summing up her report, CNN correspondent Lisa Sylvester noted, "So, while the public wants tougher borders, politicians are pushing to leave them open. A real disconnect."
Dobbs responded to that statement, saying: "The disconnect that you referred to, Lisa, between our elected officials and the people of this country is in no – on no other issue any more dramatic than on the issue of illegal immigration. The Zogby poll is just simply the most recent in a string of polls that show that the American people want their borders secure, they want immigration laws to be enforced, and to clean up what has become an atrocious mess on the part of our elected representatives serving better the interests of U.S. multinationals than the people who are working for a living in this country."

Do you understand what I am saying now? When you wrote: If, as you have said in the past, the US public is as frustrated and angry over the illegal immigration problem as you are, then why did H.R.4437 get so little support from middle-class white America?,you were talking out of your ass. You have no idea what was going on with that bill. The American people didn't offer "so little support" to that bill because they thought it went too far, or because they weren't as frustrated as I am - they gave it so little support because they in fact are VERY frustrated and thought that bill didn't go far enough! You are WAY off the mark here and obviously don't understand what majority opinion on this issue in this country actually is. But don't use my poll - google "polls on illegal immigration" and CBS, ABC, CNN - they all say the same thing - the majority, across the political spectrum, want a crackdown involving enforcement of our current laws, a real enforcement, first. THEN we will deal with those there.

****

Enforcement first. Fine, I can live with that. Let’s watch Thompson, or Obama, or Clinton enforce these existing laws. The cost to enforce these laws will break a budget more surely than any spending we may make in places like Iraq, and we will do nothing more than divide a country at war even further than it already is.

Divide the country? If anything, an "enforcement first" policy would UNITE this country! This issue polls around 70 - 80 percent and covers people of all races and all political stripes. It's the single greatest missed opportunity by this administration that I can imagine. What do you think Limbaugh, Savage, Hannitty have been screaming about - we are mystified at why beltway politicians have a "gimmie" issue that bolster their approval ratings, and unite people across the board and they do nothing. It's insanity that here you have an issue, it polls one way at a super majority, people are passionate about it, and the rank and file of both parties agree - and yet no major DC politician is getting on the correct side of it! Chattering heads have been trying to figure out why that is for four years now. The consensus (in the media I expose myself to) is that the only thing that makes sense is that business interests, across the board, depend on the cheap illegal labor and they are pressuring the federal reps not to change the status quo. Apparently, thus far, politicians have been more concerned with crossing those lobbyists (and presumably big donors) then they are the American electorate. But as I said, with an issue -enforcement first - that has this level of support, coming from every corner of American life, it can't be ignored much longer. Of course, that's just my opinion.


****

...regardless of who wins the '08 Presidential election, NO President of the United States of America will follow an "enforcement first" plan because it would alienate 14.9% of the American population... and if 14.9% of the US population got pissed off enough, they'd ALL register to vote, and suddenly they would constitute one of the single largest voting blocks in the nation. What percentage of the country's 48% voter turn-out would be needed to counter 45.2 million pissed of LEGAL Hispanic-American voters

First, you're wrong if you think the legal Hispanic vote is of a monolithic mind. You're assuming, in typical "liberal" fashion, that they are. They are not. In fact, a majority of legal immigrants, even the Hispanics, want enforcement first. The truth is the opposite of what you have written here. If anything, which ever party is perceived as weak on enforcement, a majority of legal immigrants may just register with the opposite party in order to get some actual enforcement, finally.

****
(Funny thing is... I just re-read the last paragraph. I would be willing to bet that Ryan JUMPED up and automatically assumed I was referring to the previously mentioned ILLEGAL population Hispanics in America. The 14.9% of the population I am referring to, however, is the LEGAL and VOTER ELIGIBLE Hispanic Americans that ALSO protested H.R.4437 last year as not "friendly" enough to the Latino community.)

I did no such thing. I simply, and quite easily I might add, demonstrated just how far out of the mainstream and disconnected you are on this issue. And a majority of that 14.9% of legal voting Hispanics DID NOT participate in protesting that bill in the streets. And I defy you to find one poll, even one credible poll, that shows that they did. In every poll I've seen a majority of Americans (which includes legal immigrants) want border enforcement.


****
I'm confident that you have never even heard of Thomas Robb (especially as you read NOTHING I sent you concerning this topic), but isn't it nice to know that if nothing else... HE agrees with your views.

I don't know who that is. And you saying its nice that he agrees with my views - which he obviously does not - makes about as much sense as me saying it's nice you two share the same first name.
But while we're on this topic - you call me xenophobic, a Pat Buchanite, in earlier posts during our emails you've claimed that I "have a problem with brown skin" - none of these things are true. It makes you feel better to assume that I am all those things, because then you can dismiss any potentially good points I make that might otherwise make you rethink your position. That's what entering in claims of racism do - it's to invalidate my argument and point of view. So, let me ask you - do you think that a person can hold my position - one of law and order when it comes to illegals - and NOT be a racist or have anti-immigration motivations? Is that possible in your eyes? I could just as easily say you're an anarchist, or pro crime because you don't want to enforce our current law, but I don't so fear the lack of strength in my argument that I feel it necessary to call you things of which I have no proof that you are. I simply assume that you are operating out of a sincere desire to do what's best for America, rather than some hidden motivation of lawlessness. So, go on calling me these things if you want, but all you're doing is revealing how concerned you are over the weakness of your own argument.

By the way - America IS for Americans, and I can't think of anything more UNAmerican then groups like the Klan. But isn't it nice that you've brought the conversation down to this level - I'm left needing to denounce the KKK. Nice buddy ... real nice.
FR