I really have to admit a fascination with all things military... historical, tactical, strategic, logistical... it all fascinates me. Call it the "Armchair General" in me, I just can't help it.
MRAP: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. Produced for the USMC by FPI as the Cougar HE. Crew 2+4, Engine 330+hp Cummings Diesel, Armor 7.62 ball-round rated, mined protected wheels and center line carriage, Armament (primary) remote weapons platform capable of numerous variants including TOW, .50 cal auto-machinegun, 40mm autocannon, twin .30 cal machineguns, Cost aprox. $500,000 ea.
This peach is already slated to be the primary urban and urban assault vehicle of the USMC. Only possible short-comings I can see is the fact that it is only 1/3 the troops capacity of an M113, and half of the Bradley. Top speed of 65 mph and (seemingly) top-notch design and engineering seem to make this a hot item for combat troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Big ticket seller? The price tag. This vehicle is easily just as versatile as the JEEP was in WWII, and just as economical to build and operate. 1/6 the cost of a Bradley, and half the cost of a M113... half a million for one of these is as cheap as any budget-conscience politician can hope for.
Gotta see if Jambo and my friend Rick has had a rise in one of these...
Sunday, November 18, 2007
For Baddboy, et al...
I found these beauties last night... thought I'd dedicate them to Baddboy, our only contributing Veteran... he can act as "proxy" for all our proud service men and women.
The first is the new MRAP vehicle... aprox. 7 years late, but who's counting, right? From reports in the Stars and Stripes, this thing is a huge hit with the boys in Iraq, and it will undoubtedly service mighty nice in the "Stan" too. Can't tell you how much it pisses me off that Rummy held up this vehicle as "un-needed" (NOT "un-tested" as the White House has stated time and again... read the Stars and Stripes article!), even after the press made such a flak about the lack of vehicle armour in the face of determined IED attacks in the months IMMEDIATELY preceding the invasion. THAT man has a lot of F***ING questionable decisions to answer for, and I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that if a Dem wins in '08... the FIRST thing they do is sit him in front of Congress to answer some of those questions. Any takers?
Baddboy's comments concerning monetary contributions to the historically, as well as politically, questionable regimes of the United States of Mexico over the last 20 years were not new to the Bund... but they were very topical to our discussion. The "Nada Peso" bill I got off another GOP-leaning site. Very nice, and quite in step with Baddboy's comments!
Enjoy!
Friday, November 16, 2007
Live long and prosper - just do it legally please....
Just a couple of points.
One of the reasons I have always enjoyed our friendship, and the spirited arguments, is that each of us, when it finally hits that our argument or position is untenable, just comes right out and says it - I know I have had to more then a couple of times.
On the US military. There have been instances, Haiti etc, where the police function went array - I get that. I just believe that if they were stationed with the mandate to protect their own soil, they would be fantastic. And in California, where Swarschenegger sent his state guard (to a high traffic access point) the spot all but dried up. Undoubtedly they went somewhere else, but the point is it was effective. On that we will just agree to disagree until when and if it is implemented and one of us is shown to be correct.
On the English proficiency. Even every Democrat's plan includes this. And while your point about the proficiency in English of natural born citizens is well taken, I would add that an even more extreme example would be the inability for high school students and probably 80% of the populous (a generous number) to understand basic civics, government or naming the states and presidents - yet we require that knowledge of new immigrants, they even take a test on it. And as far as I know, those tests are in fact prepped with multi week classes, as are English classes - although I don't think the English is required like the history/government classes. See, you put in a multi step citizenship program - they pass the medical examination and background check, and get issued a temporary visa i.e. "entry"- they then have X amount of time to learn English in these provided classes. I'm fine with that. And the "who" whom would judge the proficiency is easy in my eyes. The same instructor that teaches civics and US history undoubtedly "grades" the test - the English instructor would do the same. Use the same scale that they implement in grading "proficiency" in history , have a test after the weeks of classes, and bingo. I hope you didn't think I meant they had to recite Poe's The Raven at the border check point before they are admitted. The medical exam and background check for entry, yes - the English is for citizenship (with a solid expiration date on their Visa to encourage this followed by an actual deportation if they just let it lapse). I think we have some common ground there.
But the bottom line, as I and James have advocated, is that ANY program that does not first stop the leak, will doom the boat to sinking. And I will just simply have to disagree with you on our ability to do that - the real and virtual fence, with an enormous increase in man power and I it can be done. And remember - you don't have to police or fence every square mile for a huge effectiveness rate. Some of that area is very rough terrain, and nearly untraversable. So you focus on the main (and sub-main) traffic areas and you can make a large dent very rapidly because you force them into areas that will cause some simply to not try. At any rate I find the project very doable, and much less costly then the status quo (that's guess on my part, but even if it's a net cost, it's the right and "secure" thing to do). Not to mention - if you perceive a slight hostility towards Hispanics over the "press 1 for English", what do you think could happen if a suicide bomber takes out just three or four people in a shopping mall and his steps are traced back to crossing that border illegally? Let alone a suitcase nuke coming over the Rio Grande. Draconian won't even begin to describe what would be the outcome then.
Also, I'm fine with sanctioning Mexico - just remember, they have some sweet light crude they might dangle in front of us if we do ... I still say screw em' - they've been screwing us on this issue (govt printed pamphlets on how not only sneak in, but avoid detection once you're here) for a long time.
In closing I'll repeat that I think my plan would work - but I don't see the political will arising to prosecute it. I think there's enough "testicalage" to build the real/virtual fence and man it, and if it's Republican presidency in 08' he'll more than likely have to do it before he's up for reelection. Let's hope so. At least that's a start. That and Titus conceding we are right in principle, even if he wishes our "fellow man" sensibilities were a little more "finely tuned."
Later.
FR
One of the reasons I have always enjoyed our friendship, and the spirited arguments, is that each of us, when it finally hits that our argument or position is untenable, just comes right out and says it - I know I have had to more then a couple of times.
On the US military. There have been instances, Haiti etc, where the police function went array - I get that. I just believe that if they were stationed with the mandate to protect their own soil, they would be fantastic. And in California, where Swarschenegger sent his state guard (to a high traffic access point) the spot all but dried up. Undoubtedly they went somewhere else, but the point is it was effective. On that we will just agree to disagree until when and if it is implemented and one of us is shown to be correct.
On the English proficiency. Even every Democrat's plan includes this. And while your point about the proficiency in English of natural born citizens is well taken, I would add that an even more extreme example would be the inability for high school students and probably 80% of the populous (a generous number) to understand basic civics, government or naming the states and presidents - yet we require that knowledge of new immigrants, they even take a test on it. And as far as I know, those tests are in fact prepped with multi week classes, as are English classes - although I don't think the English is required like the history/government classes. See, you put in a multi step citizenship program - they pass the medical examination and background check, and get issued a temporary visa i.e. "entry"- they then have X amount of time to learn English in these provided classes. I'm fine with that. And the "who" whom would judge the proficiency is easy in my eyes. The same instructor that teaches civics and US history undoubtedly "grades" the test - the English instructor would do the same. Use the same scale that they implement in grading "proficiency" in history , have a test after the weeks of classes, and bingo. I hope you didn't think I meant they had to recite Poe's The Raven at the border check point before they are admitted. The medical exam and background check for entry, yes - the English is for citizenship (with a solid expiration date on their Visa to encourage this followed by an actual deportation if they just let it lapse). I think we have some common ground there.
But the bottom line, as I and James have advocated, is that ANY program that does not first stop the leak, will doom the boat to sinking. And I will just simply have to disagree with you on our ability to do that - the real and virtual fence, with an enormous increase in man power and I it can be done. And remember - you don't have to police or fence every square mile for a huge effectiveness rate. Some of that area is very rough terrain, and nearly untraversable. So you focus on the main (and sub-main) traffic areas and you can make a large dent very rapidly because you force them into areas that will cause some simply to not try. At any rate I find the project very doable, and much less costly then the status quo (that's guess on my part, but even if it's a net cost, it's the right and "secure" thing to do). Not to mention - if you perceive a slight hostility towards Hispanics over the "press 1 for English", what do you think could happen if a suicide bomber takes out just three or four people in a shopping mall and his steps are traced back to crossing that border illegally? Let alone a suitcase nuke coming over the Rio Grande. Draconian won't even begin to describe what would be the outcome then.
Also, I'm fine with sanctioning Mexico - just remember, they have some sweet light crude they might dangle in front of us if we do ... I still say screw em' - they've been screwing us on this issue (govt printed pamphlets on how not only sneak in, but avoid detection once you're here) for a long time.
In closing I'll repeat that I think my plan would work - but I don't see the political will arising to prosecute it. I think there's enough "testicalage" to build the real/virtual fence and man it, and if it's Republican presidency in 08' he'll more than likely have to do it before he's up for reelection. Let's hope so. At least that's a start. That and Titus conceding we are right in principle, even if he wishes our "fellow man" sensibilities were a little more "finely tuned."
Later.
FR
Inarguable...
I am forced to admit that it is impossible for me to maintain an argument based on the rights of individuals (and, in some cases, entire societies) that have gained access to the US illegally. My contention has always been that the system that makes them "illegal" is so flawed as to be non-functional. Since it is something the US has only had in effect since 1952 (the McCarran Walter Immigration Act), I feel that correcting the errors and flaws of current immigration laws and regulations is hardly the impossible task that Ryan seems to think it is... just as securing the border might not be the impossible task that I am inclined to think.
When I use terms and phrases like the system that makes them "illegal", I am not suggesting that it is the LAWS fault they are illegal... only that we are trying to enforce laws that are impractical and probably unenforceable. An example of another such law would be the crime and lawlessness that followed the implementation of the Volstead Act of 1919. This does not mean, however, that I think Al Capone wasn't guilty of murder and violence because I think it is wrong for the Feds to regulate morality... only that what the Volstead Act did was to increase the occurrence of very crimes they were trying to eliminate.
I understand the need of a "secure" border... I even support it. I simply haven't heard a viable, practical suggestion as to how to achieve that goal. I still maintain that the use of US active-duty military personnel "shoulder-to-shoulder" across the US-Mexican border will result in nothing more than massive expenditures of money, manpower and equipment in a time when it is vitally needed elsewhere and the increased possibility of the death of those trying to illegally enter the US (admittedly, a chance they take themselves... but resulting in even more bad press for the US).
Some kind of increase in manpower and expense is undoubtedly needed, I don't deny that. All I am saying is that in the world of realpolitik, no current US President or presidential candidate is going to promote the kind of effort Ryan is calling for in securing the border... for exactly the reasons I have given: alienation of huge portions of the voting block, expense, bad press, et al. It simply won't happen. Some other answer or compromise measure will have to be found. Undoubtedly, it will be a combination of what we have discussed and suggested here... comprehensive immigration policy reform with increased security at the border and more stringent enforcement of deportation policy for those deemed habitual or dangerous offenders.
The last point I wanted to touch on was one brought up in comments on the previous posts numerous times... English proficiency as a requirement for applicant immigrants.
At no point in the past 231 years has the US required immigrants to speak English. I find it difficult to understand why that is such an issue now. Yes, more than 15% of the current US population do not speak English as a first language... I know that. I simply can't understand why that is "bad" to the point that it must be mandated by Law to force that 15% to conform. In a world where English is the largest spoken language on earth (and the language of business and technology globally)... followed closely by Spanish, how can it be a bad thing to have a population that so closely reflects the actual spoken demographics of the globe? Where do we see examples of ethnic societies in America where English doesn't emerge as the primary language of the population after only ONE generation?
We have all lived among the vast Asian population of the Mississippi Gulf Coast for more than a decade... did we experience the refusal of that population to "conform"? Did we not work with second-generation Vietnamese that were fluent in BOTH tongues, very nearly equally? Of ALL the Vietnamese people we dealt with on a daily basis in our chosen profession, what percentage of those people were we UNABLE to communicate with at all? In my 14 years on the Coast, I would say I encountered that kind of language barrier in no more than 1 in 100 cases... and I am not exaggerating at all.
Perhaps the most telling point is one that Daydream Believer made in her comment... who is going to determine "proficiency" in a time when one in four high school graduates can't find their home state on an unlabeled map... or cannot read even one act of a Shakespeare play (written in their NATIVE tongue!)? How many people do we work with on a daily basis can't write a proper letter to the editor of the local newspaper without spellchecks or grammar guides (myself included)?
I do not refute the argument that some degree of ability is needed to promote functional literacy in American society for non-English speaking immigrants (legal immigrants, mind you). All I am saying is that if the onus of proficiency is dropped on the applicant's lap, it is simply one more hurdle to citizenship when I can't help but feel that it is the hurdles that are prompting illegal attempts at entry rather than legal ones.
Why, then, can't basic language (English language, obviously) be provided as part of the citizenship class that ALL citizen applicants must take anyway? Rather than a one-week course, make it a four week course that includes 3 weeks of class and material to make the application of even limited English skills more practicable for immigrants... this extra course could be waived if the applicant can show adequate skills prior to applying, of course (no sense wasting time and money on an immigrant with a PhD in English language studies).
I guess I keep asking myself which is the greater threat to an America embroiled up to its ASS in the War on Terror (with theaters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and very possibly Iran and North Korea sooner or later)... a pourous border OR 20 million undocumented aliens residing illegally in the country? I think I would agree with Ryan and say a pourous border is the greater threat, and having said that, I think Baddboy's suggestion of playing hardball with Mexico about policing thier side of the Rio Grande is an excellent idea. Cut off the $110 billion dollar support and assistance checks until such time as we can see that Mexico is doing all it can to stem the tide of illegals from their end of the field. That amount alone is more than twice what the PotUS has asked the Congress for in War funding over the last 14 months... and that kind of action on our part could go a long way to changing how Mexico City feels about the "immigration" status of the 2,000 Mexicans crossing the border every day.
Now, if I had to guess, I'd venture to say that with the implementation of THAT kind of hard-ball play, we wouldn't NEED 5 divisions of US Army and Marine troops on the US-Mexican border to stop the flow... Mexico would post 5 divisions of their own troops there instead, with guns pointed south instead of north.
This is a pro-active response to the problem, where I still insist that Ryan's initial suggestion to "secure" the border with Federal troops and National Guard personnel is reactionary at best... and a flat-out recipe for disaster, at worst.
So, to wrap up... I am still more than a little pissed off that every single thing I write or say on this topic is dismissed out of hand as "liberal bullshit" time and time again. I question failing immigration policy, and I'm labeled a "moron"... when in 1938, FDR kept in place an immigration policy that REFUSED entry and immigrant status to 500,000 German and central European Jews... and history is very clear what their fate was over the course of the next 7 years. I question the suggestion to use active duty military as a police force, and I'm called unpatriotic and anti-military... when all I have to do is refer to such historical events Kent State, the military occupation of Mississippi and Alabama during Reconstruction, Wounded Knee and Rosebud Reservations, and MacArthur's attack of the "Bonus Army" to show that the US military make lousy policemen... especially in the US itself.
I have readily admitted that my position is nearly impossible to defend outside of the realm of moral emotionalism... NEVER a good position to make political opinion from. That does not negate the moral side of the issue, however. Labeling an argument "irrelevant" because of emotional attachment is as untenable as arguing from a purely emotional position alone. My concern for "poor kids" of illegal aliens (whether or not those children are US citizens) is as valid an argument as any in an age when one side of the "isle" pits public perception and emotion against the other on a minute to minute basis. I still stand by the premise that ANY US policy that risks the rights and liberties of even ONE innocent citizen risks the rights and liberties of ALL US citizens... this is the very heart of Ryan's favorite "slippery-slope" argument in any number of his favorite political "hot topics". The Gonzalez-Reno affair is an excellent example... Reno was RIGHT in what she did, and nothing she did to enforce her determination was ILLEGAL or WRONG... yet the country, the world, and very probably history itself will vilify her and the Administration she was working for because of it. All the world will recall is that she was "pandering" to the evil Castro in giving up the child Elian into his Communist regime's hands. The moral issues of the affair had far-reaching and tangible effects on the outcome of the affair... this is undeniable, and unfortunate... especially since the Administration had in its power to stop the disaster before it exploded.
Am I really THAT out of line in hoping that the same (or worse) can be avoided in THIS situation?
When I use terms and phrases like the system that makes them "illegal", I am not suggesting that it is the LAWS fault they are illegal... only that we are trying to enforce laws that are impractical and probably unenforceable. An example of another such law would be the crime and lawlessness that followed the implementation of the Volstead Act of 1919. This does not mean, however, that I think Al Capone wasn't guilty of murder and violence because I think it is wrong for the Feds to regulate morality... only that what the Volstead Act did was to increase the occurrence of very crimes they were trying to eliminate.
I understand the need of a "secure" border... I even support it. I simply haven't heard a viable, practical suggestion as to how to achieve that goal. I still maintain that the use of US active-duty military personnel "shoulder-to-shoulder" across the US-Mexican border will result in nothing more than massive expenditures of money, manpower and equipment in a time when it is vitally needed elsewhere and the increased possibility of the death of those trying to illegally enter the US (admittedly, a chance they take themselves... but resulting in even more bad press for the US).
Some kind of increase in manpower and expense is undoubtedly needed, I don't deny that. All I am saying is that in the world of realpolitik, no current US President or presidential candidate is going to promote the kind of effort Ryan is calling for in securing the border... for exactly the reasons I have given: alienation of huge portions of the voting block, expense, bad press, et al. It simply won't happen. Some other answer or compromise measure will have to be found. Undoubtedly, it will be a combination of what we have discussed and suggested here... comprehensive immigration policy reform with increased security at the border and more stringent enforcement of deportation policy for those deemed habitual or dangerous offenders.
The last point I wanted to touch on was one brought up in comments on the previous posts numerous times... English proficiency as a requirement for applicant immigrants.
At no point in the past 231 years has the US required immigrants to speak English. I find it difficult to understand why that is such an issue now. Yes, more than 15% of the current US population do not speak English as a first language... I know that. I simply can't understand why that is "bad" to the point that it must be mandated by Law to force that 15% to conform. In a world where English is the largest spoken language on earth (and the language of business and technology globally)... followed closely by Spanish, how can it be a bad thing to have a population that so closely reflects the actual spoken demographics of the globe? Where do we see examples of ethnic societies in America where English doesn't emerge as the primary language of the population after only ONE generation?
We have all lived among the vast Asian population of the Mississippi Gulf Coast for more than a decade... did we experience the refusal of that population to "conform"? Did we not work with second-generation Vietnamese that were fluent in BOTH tongues, very nearly equally? Of ALL the Vietnamese people we dealt with on a daily basis in our chosen profession, what percentage of those people were we UNABLE to communicate with at all? In my 14 years on the Coast, I would say I encountered that kind of language barrier in no more than 1 in 100 cases... and I am not exaggerating at all.
Perhaps the most telling point is one that Daydream Believer made in her comment... who is going to determine "proficiency" in a time when one in four high school graduates can't find their home state on an unlabeled map... or cannot read even one act of a Shakespeare play (written in their NATIVE tongue!)? How many people do we work with on a daily basis can't write a proper letter to the editor of the local newspaper without spellchecks or grammar guides (myself included)?
I do not refute the argument that some degree of ability is needed to promote functional literacy in American society for non-English speaking immigrants (legal immigrants, mind you). All I am saying is that if the onus of proficiency is dropped on the applicant's lap, it is simply one more hurdle to citizenship when I can't help but feel that it is the hurdles that are prompting illegal attempts at entry rather than legal ones.
Why, then, can't basic language (English language, obviously) be provided as part of the citizenship class that ALL citizen applicants must take anyway? Rather than a one-week course, make it a four week course that includes 3 weeks of class and material to make the application of even limited English skills more practicable for immigrants... this extra course could be waived if the applicant can show adequate skills prior to applying, of course (no sense wasting time and money on an immigrant with a PhD in English language studies).
I guess I keep asking myself which is the greater threat to an America embroiled up to its ASS in the War on Terror (with theaters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and very possibly Iran and North Korea sooner or later)... a pourous border OR 20 million undocumented aliens residing illegally in the country? I think I would agree with Ryan and say a pourous border is the greater threat, and having said that, I think Baddboy's suggestion of playing hardball with Mexico about policing thier side of the Rio Grande is an excellent idea. Cut off the $110 billion dollar support and assistance checks until such time as we can see that Mexico is doing all it can to stem the tide of illegals from their end of the field. That amount alone is more than twice what the PotUS has asked the Congress for in War funding over the last 14 months... and that kind of action on our part could go a long way to changing how Mexico City feels about the "immigration" status of the 2,000 Mexicans crossing the border every day.
Now, if I had to guess, I'd venture to say that with the implementation of THAT kind of hard-ball play, we wouldn't NEED 5 divisions of US Army and Marine troops on the US-Mexican border to stop the flow... Mexico would post 5 divisions of their own troops there instead, with guns pointed south instead of north.
This is a pro-active response to the problem, where I still insist that Ryan's initial suggestion to "secure" the border with Federal troops and National Guard personnel is reactionary at best... and a flat-out recipe for disaster, at worst.
So, to wrap up... I am still more than a little pissed off that every single thing I write or say on this topic is dismissed out of hand as "liberal bullshit" time and time again. I question failing immigration policy, and I'm labeled a "moron"... when in 1938, FDR kept in place an immigration policy that REFUSED entry and immigrant status to 500,000 German and central European Jews... and history is very clear what their fate was over the course of the next 7 years. I question the suggestion to use active duty military as a police force, and I'm called unpatriotic and anti-military... when all I have to do is refer to such historical events Kent State, the military occupation of Mississippi and Alabama during Reconstruction, Wounded Knee and Rosebud Reservations, and MacArthur's attack of the "Bonus Army" to show that the US military make lousy policemen... especially in the US itself.
I have readily admitted that my position is nearly impossible to defend outside of the realm of moral emotionalism... NEVER a good position to make political opinion from. That does not negate the moral side of the issue, however. Labeling an argument "irrelevant" because of emotional attachment is as untenable as arguing from a purely emotional position alone. My concern for "poor kids" of illegal aliens (whether or not those children are US citizens) is as valid an argument as any in an age when one side of the "isle" pits public perception and emotion against the other on a minute to minute basis. I still stand by the premise that ANY US policy that risks the rights and liberties of even ONE innocent citizen risks the rights and liberties of ALL US citizens... this is the very heart of Ryan's favorite "slippery-slope" argument in any number of his favorite political "hot topics". The Gonzalez-Reno affair is an excellent example... Reno was RIGHT in what she did, and nothing she did to enforce her determination was ILLEGAL or WRONG... yet the country, the world, and very probably history itself will vilify her and the Administration she was working for because of it. All the world will recall is that she was "pandering" to the evil Castro in giving up the child Elian into his Communist regime's hands. The moral issues of the affair had far-reaching and tangible effects on the outcome of the affair... this is undeniable, and unfortunate... especially since the Administration had in its power to stop the disaster before it exploded.
Am I really THAT out of line in hoping that the same (or worse) can be avoided in THIS situation?
Once more unto the breach, dear friends!
First of all, it's rein in. Reign is the term a monarch rules.
Second, we have covered this EXHAUSTIVELY! I can't believe we're back here again!
Titus says that historically, not just in America but world wide, closed borders do not work. Despite the fact that Japan did okay as a closed society for almost a thousand years, they did better after Perry knocked the door down. I do not deny the historical validity of Titus' claim. Closed borders do not work.
I checked again. I cannot find a Ryan post, idea or rant that says "We need to lock the border and not let one more immigrant in, period."
What time and time again both Ryan and I have advocated is a SECURE border. Build the fence. Build the wall. Build the gates. Defend both. Don't stop the legitimate, legal immigration of people from Latin American nations. Stop the illegal entry and employment of undocumented illegal aliens. Once the border is secure the deportations can begin. The prosecution of private individuals and companies hiring illegal aliens (we have discussed the oxymoronic use of illegal immigrants as a term in previous posts, I believe) can begin today if someone exercised some testiclage on the local, state and national level. What is heartless about that?
And when I say "secure" I know we're all on the same page. One doesn't need to build the Berlin wall by a factor of 600. Existing technology, expanded manpower, various holding sites for prisoners, and transportation to the border and across it. End of story.
WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT THIS? Why is this so difficult?
Here is an unfortunate loophole in my master plan. The only "amnesty" I can see working, for obvious reasons, is that short of a retroactive amendment to the Constitution, the guardian or parent of the aforementioned children, citizens of the United States due to geographical location of their birth, need to stay with their child/children. They stay. I can't see an alternative. That doesn't mean they're granted immediate citizenship, but it creates an Eleon Gonzales/ Janet Reno confrontation on a scale that boggles the mind. And we all remember how that ended just one on one.
I do not see how the American military (never mind that it wouldn't BE the American military unless they create my HDF, per New Deal 2008, unless the SeaBees and the Army Corps of Engineers are building the wall/fence/barrier) would fail in SECURING the borders. Both borders. It is not IMPOSSIBLE.
As a close, think about this. The Soviet Union had easily triple the mileage of border, just with "friendly" countries. They had fences and "secure" borders with western nations like Norway, Sweden, and not so western but not so hostile to the West countries like Turkey. Were they bleeding people like the East Germans were? Were their borders "open" in any way shape or form? They exercised a WILL to secure borders and made it happen. Granted, ten divisions of KGB troops scattered over tens of thousands of miles but they still did it. What we lack is the will.
Second, we have covered this EXHAUSTIVELY! I can't believe we're back here again!
Titus says that historically, not just in America but world wide, closed borders do not work. Despite the fact that Japan did okay as a closed society for almost a thousand years, they did better after Perry knocked the door down. I do not deny the historical validity of Titus' claim. Closed borders do not work.
I checked again. I cannot find a Ryan post, idea or rant that says "We need to lock the border and not let one more immigrant in, period."
What time and time again both Ryan and I have advocated is a SECURE border. Build the fence. Build the wall. Build the gates. Defend both. Don't stop the legitimate, legal immigration of people from Latin American nations. Stop the illegal entry and employment of undocumented illegal aliens. Once the border is secure the deportations can begin. The prosecution of private individuals and companies hiring illegal aliens (we have discussed the oxymoronic use of illegal immigrants as a term in previous posts, I believe) can begin today if someone exercised some testiclage on the local, state and national level. What is heartless about that?
And when I say "secure" I know we're all on the same page. One doesn't need to build the Berlin wall by a factor of 600. Existing technology, expanded manpower, various holding sites for prisoners, and transportation to the border and across it. End of story.
WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT THIS? Why is this so difficult?
Here is an unfortunate loophole in my master plan. The only "amnesty" I can see working, for obvious reasons, is that short of a retroactive amendment to the Constitution, the guardian or parent of the aforementioned children, citizens of the United States due to geographical location of their birth, need to stay with their child/children. They stay. I can't see an alternative. That doesn't mean they're granted immediate citizenship, but it creates an Eleon Gonzales/ Janet Reno confrontation on a scale that boggles the mind. And we all remember how that ended just one on one.
I do not see how the American military (never mind that it wouldn't BE the American military unless they create my HDF, per New Deal 2008, unless the SeaBees and the Army Corps of Engineers are building the wall/fence/barrier) would fail in SECURING the borders. Both borders. It is not IMPOSSIBLE.
As a close, think about this. The Soviet Union had easily triple the mileage of border, just with "friendly" countries. They had fences and "secure" borders with western nations like Norway, Sweden, and not so western but not so hostile to the West countries like Turkey. Were they bleeding people like the East Germans were? Were their borders "open" in any way shape or form? They exercised a WILL to secure borders and made it happen. Granted, ten divisions of KGB troops scattered over tens of thousands of miles but they still did it. What we lack is the will.
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
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
