Reign in the emotion, amigo!

Whoa, chief… who’s emotional now? Get a grip and stop crying like Nancy Carrigan, please.

Your reference to "Dufus" was very nice. 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. The number I used in referring to the number of LEGAL children of ILLEGAL parents is NOT something I simply made up… follow the link provided and find it for yourself… 4.5 MILLION citizen children in the custody of illegal parents that have no other recourse for health care than programs like SCHIPs. 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.

These are AMERICAN CITIZENS… not "poor kids", okay?

The "moron" will now write the words… "THE US MILITARY WOULD FAIL."

This is not an indictment of the US military, as any rational and marginally objective person can see. History is replete with examples of why the above statement is true. The US Military is NOT a "police force"… it has never been successfully employed as such, nor should it ever be assumed that it will be in the future. "Non-lethal force" is NOT a facet of our armed forces’ abilities that I think should become its primary mode of operation. IT IS NOT WHAT WE HAVE A MILITARY FOR! Doubt me? Ask a veteran. Ask Baddboy.

We may be "kicking the shit out of them" now (the insurgents, I mean)… BUT WE HAVEN"T BEEN FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS… as I said in my post. True, the illegal immigrants of today are not toting AKs or RPGs… but they would still require tens of thousands of US troops THAT WE DON’T HAVE to man posts on a border that is over 13,000 miles long. Again, the cost that this plan would demand is staggering. And if we are talking about plans that have NEVER been implemented or seriously considered in the past, let’s talk about this one. What sitting Senator or Congressman has submitted for consideration and debate anything even CLOSE to what you are advocating? What is their estimated price tag for "securing the border" with active US military personnel? Can you show me it would be cheaper than streamlining the LEGAL immigration process so that we can DOCUMENT and CHECK OUT applicant immigrants to the satisfaction of xenophobes like yourself and Pat Buchannan?

"They are ILLEGAL because they broke the law professor."

Granted, they broke the law. Laws that history shows are impractical, at best… and unenforceable at worst. So, rather than change the laws, even retroactively, you’d advocate the massive expenditure and mind-boggling logistical nightmare of placing as many as 165,000 active-duty soldiers, sailors and marines (along with untold billions of dollars worth of equipment and vehicles) on sentry duty from Nome to Brownsville, and from Honolulu to Key West? THAT’S your "common sense" solution to 2,700 illegal border crossings a day? AND with the guaranty of "non-lethal" enforcement? Please… who’s being "too cute by half" now? The Feds couldn’t even manage the 88 miles between Cuba and Key West in the 60’s and 70’s… and those "illegal immigrants" only numbered in the hundreds of thousands. We’re seeing that MONTHLY now… mi amigo. Remove the reason for ILLEGAL border crossings, and you won’t have any more illegal border crossings. There’s a statement completely lacking in "common sense", huh?

"So take it up with Webster smart guy."

"Smart guy" knows the difference between "civil law" and "criminal law"… but as you don’t, and you trust Webster more than me, I defer to Danny Webster’s opus:

Civil Law

1. the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters.

Criminal Law

1. the laws of a state or country dealing with criminal offenses and their punishments.

Your post then goes into some kind of mindless rant about an "amnesty" bill… I have no idea what bill you are referring to. I was referring to H.R.4437… a bill that would have made illegal entry into the US a FELONY punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and IMMEDIATE deportation from the country. No "amnesty" was granted or even suggested in the bill (which you OBVIOUSLY didn’t read, although I linked it)… it provided $700 million a YEAR for the design, construction and support of a WALL to be constructed in 3 stages from southern CA to the Gulf of Mexico over the next 11 years. It provided money to expand and improve US Border Patrol and INS operations both on and off the border. It granted individual states greater powers of executive authority to use and distribute funds and equipment to areas most effected by illegal immigration issues (presumably, this means the actual border area). Nearly 20% of House DEMOCRATS supported the bill… but the Senate couldn’t pass it. 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…

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. That is the "plan" of enforcement first, I guess.

You want to know what pisses me off most about your last post? That you automatically dismiss EVERYTHING I say as "... liberal, too cute by half redefinition of plain common sense." I have read and re-read what I posted, and have yet to see ONE thing that constitutes outrageous or outlandish claims, dreams or possibilities. I am convinced that the evidence I have presented clearly shows that, 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?

(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.)

So, I can now see that my opinion is NOT valid in Ryan's eyes, and that because I voiced an invalid opinion contrary to "mainstream, middle class America" I can now rest assured that the only facet of my comments that Ryan DID approve of was the fact that it was very nearly entirely in English, with no option to press "Dos" for "Espaniol".

Finally, I will assume that your closing line ("it's an American plan ... to save Americans") is not a direct quote or reference to Thomas Robb's speech given at Russellville, AL during an anti-immigration rally in 2006. While I do know that you are prone to fly off the handle and vent anger and sarcasm when frustrated... people reading this blog that DO NOT know you might recognize the quote as coming from the National Director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. 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.

Yours truly...

Dufus, aka moron, professor, smart guy