My uncle was part of a later Hungarian immigration wave after the '56 Soviet invasion.  He still speaks with accented English and has been able to make a lot of money through smarts, and hard work -- he's gotten back as much in return from the U.S. from what I can gather.  A bit of a side note, I believe he first was able to get into the country through a student visa -- later married into the family.  He could have stayed in Germany after fleeing Hungary, but in the end, the economic opportunity in the U.S. was the big selling point.  It didn't hurt that our quota system made it a little easier for him to get here from Europe.

I think there is bit of a misunderstanding here.  I missed out on the earlier discussion on immigration, but with a lot of these topics just because a diary doesn't get comments doesn't mean that people don't read it (I remember the responses on your Edwards diary -- a good diary by the way).  

Also, I think that there are a lot of us who don't see the immigration issue as a top three issue where we live.  Every region in the state is different.  From what I understand in talking to my friends in the Piedmont and Richmond this is an even bigger issue.  Inside the beltway we've had the big immigration waves (illegal and legal), but the amount of conflict hasn't been nearly as intense.  

I went to school in the 1980s with a bunch of recent immigrants some of whom were probably illegal.  I had the chance to get to know some of them on a personal level, and I think this colors my own views on the immigration issue.  A lot of these folks came to the U.S. in the 1980s because of wars in their home countries connected to U.S. - Soviet Cold War proxy battles (Guatamala, El Salvador, Nicaragua).  I understand some of those same conditions exist in places like El Salvador where the traces of their nasty Civil War still linger -- not surprising that groups like M.S.-13 have their roots their.  Our hands aren't entirely clean in the business.  So when we say that this is just about people stealing economic opportunity from regular Americans, as some people do, or that these newcomers have no respect for the rules, I think we also have to look at the other side of the coin.  

I know a lot of these folks are absolutely committed to being good citizens -- and that they pump more money into the economy than they take out (they also depress wages for some working folk, which I see as an issue that we can work on).  I don't think most people would leave behind families, and risk their life, unless they're in a pretty desperate straights to begin with.  

He was castigated by the right wing. Blew their minds that a billionaire a couple of times over could possibly be for "the little guy" and against GWB.  My lord, is Harvard proud of granting Dubya an MBA?

Political Refugees are indeed illegal until they report in and seek refugee status which, once granted, can lead to citizenship with no objection from me, provided they complied with some really stupid immigration laws we need to change.

Also, if you read my comments carefully, the only penalties I want to impose are on the parents who came illegally, the children born here are automatically unpenalized as Sui Juris points out, and I never took issue with that.  I said that the children should not be penalized for the sins of the parents.  

I also said that most of the parents were good, hardworking people who should not be overly penalized financially or otherwise. Those who came not to escape oppression, but to make a better life should be allowed to stay and enjoy each and every benefit of being an American except to vote for lawmakers. There would be no permanent underclass in the European style because their children, born here, would have the power of the vote when they come of age. I hear from many sources, not surprisingly from the retired communities in Florida and the SW border states that it may well be a "sine qua non" issue in the general election.  I don't think so up here and it is not on my top 3 list!

So what am I trying to do?  Explore some middle ground ala what everyone hopes Obama will be able to do with independents and republicans.  McCain may win the nomination, but I'd bet a picture of Andy Jackson that if he does, his plan gets modified big time.  I'm not obsessed with "no possibility of citizenship."  I just stole that from the death penalty opponents who were able to reduce the number of jury imposed death penalties by giving juries the option.  I'd like to give voters the option to reduce the fever pitch for deportation at any cost.

You may find that strange and SJ does, but we have had immigration amnesties in the past and all that happened is another flood of those who evade our really stupid (is that the problem?) immigration laws.

You're not going to find too many outside the hardcore leftists nationally according to what I'm hearing from sources in and outside of the US who say let 'em in and give 'em a vote.

Put a 25 mile speed limit on I-81 and I-95 and see how many people comply with the law.  That's what has happened with our stupid immigration laws BUT,

My concern is not that those who drive 25 MPH because the law says you have to, rather my concern is they are not arresting speeders (even giving them safe driving certificates) so why did I believe I should obey the law?  Am I stupid?  Seems like I am so I'm putting the pedal to the metal.

That is not a hppy solution for anyone.

On immigration reform, what do you have in mind, apart from granting permanent residency to all those who entered illegally and have remained?  I'm assuming that's only one piece of the solution.  

So you know where I'm coming from, I liked Bill Richardson's approach to this.  His candidacy has ended, but his website is still up, although maybe for not much longer.  So I'm going to copy his positions right in here:

Building a fence will not increase security, just as attempting to deport 12 million illegal immigrants is not feasible or reasonable. I believe a realistic immigration reform plan must address the problem from all sides -- securing the border, penalizing employers for knowingly hiring illegal workers, offering a tough but reasonable path to legalization, engaging Mexico in the reform process, and improving our current immigration quota system.

Secure the Border by Hiring and Training Enough Patrol Guards to Cover the Entire Border
We must more than double the number of guards, and provide them with the best surveillance technology available.

Establish a Reasonable Path to Legalization for Many of Those Who are Already Here
This is not amnesty, but is a tough but fair opportunity for legalization and the possibility of citizenship. Most of the illegal workers in the country are hard-working, law abiding people simply pursuing the American Dream. Those who pass a background check, learn English, pay back taxes and fines for being here illegally get the opportunity for legal status. Those that don't must leave.

Crack Down on Immigration Fraud and Illegal Workers
We should offer informant visas and cash rewards for aliens who provide law enforcement with credible information on human traffickers and document forgers. As President, I would establish a fraudulent documents task force to constantly update law enforcement and border officials on the latest fraudulent documents being marketed for entry into the United States. In addition, I believe we must improve identification documentation of immigrant workers.

Eliminate One of the Prime Attractions for Illegal Workers
We must crack down on employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants and enforce the laws already on the books.  After establishing a national ID system, employers will have no excuses.

Work in Partnership with the Mexican Government and Nations Throughout Latin America
Mexico is our friend and a major trading partner but they must take action to help reduce the northward flow of illegal immigrants and illegal drugs. We must improve border infrastructure to streamline the movement of goods through the free-trade zones along the border, revitalizing communities on both sides of the border and creating much-needed jobs. The Secretary General of the Organization of American States appointed me as a special envoy to Latin American to promote initiatives that focus on economic development and immigration. Through intensive diplomacy and face-to-face dialogue we must demonstrate to OAS member states that they have an equal responsibility to help solve the immigration problem.
. . . .
Increase the Number of Legal Immigrants Allowed Into the US Each Year
The number of guest workers allowed at any one time must be based upon the needs of the US economy. Our goal must be to meet demand for jobs that go unfilled by American citizens, and no more.

I guess your proposal is to switch out the path to citizenship, and replace it with permanent residency.  What about the other pieces of the solution?

I like much of what Richardson and other democrats have proposed.  All I'm trying to do is get over a major hump with moderates of both parties and independents on the issue of citizenship.  I'm considered a flaming liberal communist by some of the folks I stay in touch with for proposing if the only law they broke was illegal entry, they should be allowed to stay and become permanent residents.  That's not enough for the left wing of my party and the greens and naderites who want a left wing version of compromise in the Dubya mold:  it's my way or the highway and bi-partisanship is the political version of date rape.

Another interesting subject in previous RK comments is the republican version of importing indentured servants for specific high tech jobs which, if the foreign employee switchs employers results in immediate deportation (ha).

I'm for compromise when possible and understand that I have to give a little to get a little.  This is not a widely held understanding AND, before anyone goes after John Edwards as a non-believer in compromise, think about the difference between compromise and capitulation.

Also, when people have asked me why I don't run for public office, I responded (beginning years ago) with:  I wouldn't want to be a Senator, but I wouldn't mind owning 5 or 6 of them.

Campaign Finance Reform, Anyone?

I understand the emotional response people about "amnesty."  It may well be that permanent residency would defuse that emotional response.

However, as I see it the flood of illegal immigrants is going to continue as long as they can get work once they get past the border.  As I read somewhere, the problem is going to continue until the magnet is turned off.  The magnet is employment.  The things that would be necessary to turn the magnet off are things that many citizens don't want to do, like having a national id card or the equivalent, frequent id checks, draconian enforcement against employers that hire undocumented workers, and so on.  I'm not even sure I want to see all that, but I don't think the situation can ever change without such measures.

At any rate, the problem is so unmanageable now that the government cannot enforce the law effectively.  That makes a pretty hard sell:  We the U.S. government need to change the law because we messed up so bad for so long that we cannot enforce the law; and by the way, we are going to make your lives much less free, much less private, and you are going to pay much more in taxes for that privilege.

Which politician wants to get on national television and say that?   Well, maybe Romney . . . .  

which is in alignment with much of the Democratic party -- and the other Democratic candidates.  

e.g. It sounds like he said in tonight's debate: citizenship is conditioned on paying penalties (including back taxes), learning to speak English at some level of proficiency, and even a wait period of a few years.  All of this is conditioned on being an otherwise law abiding citizen.

As far as border security goes, one approach that has worked well in San Diego has been going after the smuggling cartels.  I think this approach probably will give a better return on investment than a border fence.  I also am not a fan of work visas, which I see as mostly a sop to big business (e.g. flooding the labor market).  I see reasons to give people a stake in the country long-term.

Also, I don't think the deportations are practical as a large scale solution.  

Some of these issues connected to illegal immigration like wage pressures, and overcrowding I think should be dealt with in other ways (separated from the citizenship question).

I think we probably agree on the approach here -- at least in terms of the way that we should deal with the issue.

Politically this is going to require a lot of work anyway you cut it.  It'll be a real tough issue for a president to tackle in the first or second year of the term.

And yes, Soros has done a lot of good.  Btw, my uncle's family name is Vida.  Not quite Soros in terms of his level of financial achievement, but he's done well for himself.  My cousins have a tough act to follow in terms of his professional and academic achievement (he earned a PhD in biochemistry here in the U.S. while also learning English.  He brought with him a doctorate in medicine from his days in Hungary).  I think he can make a legitimate claim as the family genius.  Unfortunately, not a blood relation, but still very fortunate to have him as a member of the extended family.  One of the many blessings in being part of this great country.

I agree and am glad you realize I am not claiming to have all the answers.  Again, know the difference between compromise and capitulation.  It make shock you, but Dubya practices capitulation and so far he's 100 to 0 on compromise with the democratic house and senate.

I'll add another interesting note.  Some months ago, the South Carolina legislature was considering passing a bill making employees who are later determined to be illegal aliens ineligible for worker's compensation.

Any ideas on who a smart employer would hire for medium to high risk jobs?

1.  Dual citizenship is widely accepted and very common.  I think that's fine; you apparently don't.  

2. You advocate "some kind of path to permanent residency with NO possibility of citizenship."  I strongly disagree that there should be "NO possibility of citizenship," as I believe this will create a permanent underclass as in Germany (mainly with Turks) and other countries.  No thanks.  Instead, I support a path to EARNED citizenship (e.g., through paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, learning English, etc.), as do most Americans.  By making it EARNED citizenship, it doesn't place anyone ahead of anyone else "in line," because it penalizes those (you can make the penalties as onerous as you want) who haven't gone through the regular immigration process.

I don't agree that "most Americans" agree with you or even with me.  I want to put it on the table and apologize for writing this after responding to other comments.

You are good and I read this blog or whatever it's called before I signed on to be able to comment.  All I want to do, given that I've probably got a decade or two on you and maybe more than that (hopefully, young people just don't seem to give a shit til they lose their jobs), into a productive dialog.  Crap, we are on the same side of the political spectrum and can't seem to agree on a hell of a lot.  You say permanent underclass, I say the underclass evaporates when the people holding green cards rather than citizenship papers die.

Please sleep on that thought because what I'm hearing, McCain's plan and other plans you're hearing are DOA.
Take a day or so off and email some friends and then,

I'd really like to know what you find.

I appreciate the time that you took to respond here, but I can't say that its resulted in any more respect for your ultimate positions.

So, on your history - fantastic, and thanks for the service.  However, that wide range of experience does seem to have boiled down into a rather narrow worldview - an us v. them, if you will.  Much as you're confused about how your fellow soldiers could end up Republicans, I'm confused as to how someone with this much experience in the world can be so comfortable with TR jingoism.  But hey, that's humanity, I suppose.

Another human trait is giving into the temptation to mis-characterize someone else's words to make achieving your own ends a little easier.  And you've given into that temptation a few times, here.  I most certainly did not say that everyone within our borders is an American.  However, unlike you, I certainly am not willing to kick someone (from the pool of those I consider Americans) who has lived and breathed America for most of their lives because they came here illegally with their parents.  Further, I don't think we should shut the door on their parents, presuming the parents are prepared to make things right.  You don't want them to be able to do that, I do.  There's the disagreement.

Further, I continue to think that your views on what constitutes an American are bullshit.  I didn't have to do anything to be a citizen of two countries, I was just born.  To you, this apparently makes me a non-American.  I find that so ridiculous as to be laughable and not really worth pursuing with you.  

Also, I did notice your little sidestep on the issue of the loyalty of non-citizen soldiers.  You seem to think that the very definition of an American is loyalty to the Constitution, and that by holding the citizenship of another country, that loyalty is impossible.  Now, those enlisted soldiers swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution.  So, do you question their loyalty or not?  If you do, well, you do (but I'd like to hear you say it).  If you don't, well, your bit about holding other citizenship making loyalty to the US impossible really is ridiculous, isn't it?  

Finally, lord knows that I think RK has occasionally managed to exist in its own little bubble in a number of ways.  Whether that is true or not, your statement about folks here not having friends in the independent and Republican camps could not be more wrong.

In any event, I'm glad you've stuck around and look forward to engaging you in the future.  As I speculated in my earlier answers, it looks like we probably share more values than not, and I'm happy to delve into either area as the opportunities arise.

If you google enlistment for non citizens, you'll find carbon copy answers from US Embassy Attache Offices.  Please note that those in the US illegally cannot join the armed forces.  Next, your search will show that those who can enlist and do, get their wait for citizenship cut from 5 years to 3 years in peacetime and less than 1 year in wartime.  I have no quarrel with this.  It is the law and compliance with the law is all I ask.  From our embassy in Rome:

ENLISTMENT (NON-U.S. CITIZENS)
This information is intended for those making inquiries from the Republic of Italy.
Military recruitment does not fall within the scope of the Defense Attaché Office at the American Embassy in Rome.
However, the following general information is provided for your reference:
All applicants for enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces (as well as the U.S. Civil Service and law enforcement agencies) must be either
• a U.S. citizen, or
• a registered alien who is:
a) legally and permanently resident in the U.S., and
b) in possession of a U.S. Immigration ('Green') Card (INS 1-151 or INS 1-551) and Social Security number.
In general, applications for enlistment are normally processed on-site at a recruiting office in the United States. Since all applicants have to take the necessary physical and mental examinations to determine their suitability, there is no way of foretelling whether or not they will be recruited. Recruitment also depends on the needs of the Armed Forces at that time.
Permanent resident status, a prerequisite if the enlisted is not a U.S. citizen, requires that the alien qualify for an immigrant visa to enter the United States. You should be aware, however, that for the reasons stated above, no assurance can be given in advance that an applicant will successfully pass the various physical and aptitude tests for acceptance into the Armed Forces. An immigrant visa will not be issued on the basis of intention to enlist or intention to qualify for government employment upon arrival in the United States.
OFFICERS
The selection process for a commissioned officer is highly competitive and includes, among other things, the following requirements: the candidate must be a U.S. citizen; before selection by a Military Academy for officer training, the candidate must pass a rigorous physical examination; he or she must be a high-school graduate, or a senior who has achieved excellent academic qualifications in high school. In addition, a pilot candidate must be both an existing commissioned officer and a U.S. citizen.

I'm well aware of the requirements for enlisting.  And really, they have nothing to do with the immigration issue, here.  I'm more interested in your curious requirements for who you consider a real American.

You charged that you can't be loyal to the Constitution if you're a citizen of another country.  I pointed out that US soldiers who have sworn an oath of loyalty to the Constitution ARE citizens of another country, and then asked you if you also question their loyalty.  So far, you haven't directly answered it.  If your answer is no, you don't question their loyalty, then that undermines your original premise (which I perceive as fundamental to your position).  If you DO question their loyalty, well, again - fine.  But I'd like to hear you say that.

(More on the other points as I can.  I'm definitely interested in pursuing the discussion in good faith.)

You say:  I pointed out that US soldiers who have sworn an oath of loyalty to the Constitution ARE citizens of another country, and then asked you if you also question their loyalty.

I swore an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and that's fact, not opinion.

Are you saying that when I so swore I was a citizen of another country other than the USA and, if so, what country?

and I have a really hard time believing that you're missing my question.  You're a smart guy, OldSoldier, so act like one and answer my question.

and I showed you mine and I'm not gonna do anything else till you show me yours!  I want your definition of an American or I'm gonna pull my pants up and go home.

[Now back in the day, that's how kids played doctor, and if Sui won't show me his or hers, I'm not gonna play anymore].  Crap, kids mind games in an adult world (more or less).

I've re-read everything and have come to the conclusion that my beliefs on the subject of Americanism were forged in the army.  Anyone who has been in combat or even near combat will tell you the the single most important thing in their lives is the absolute need to depend on the soldier in the foxhole with them and to depend on those in adjoining foxholes.  We haven't seen many foxholes much since Korea, but I use them to make a point.  It is unfortunate that the anti-gay people use this to play with "don't ask, don't tell"  as (I really hesitate to say this as it is so trite and seemingly self-serving)  some of the best soldiers I knew were as queer as a 3 dollar bill.  You just knew without having to talk about it much that they'd come running through hell and high water when the chips were down.

Now I know millions are dual citizens, many through no control of their own.  What gives me pause is the person who holds a US passport AND a passport from another country.  It doesn't seem to matter much to those who won't be sent into harms way no matter what, but I'm guessing most who have gone into harm's way will agree with the complete quote from TR because, while I'm very proud of my Hungarian heritage, no way I pledge allegiance to Hungary to get a Hungarian Passport to supplement my American Passport now that Hungary is a NATO member and remain an American.  A man (or woman) cannot serve two masters, especially when the interests of those masters diverge, and I think that's what TR was trying to tell the Catholic Knights of Columbus in 1915 (My grandfather was still in the army on the wrong side of WW I at the time):

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.

This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.

But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.

The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.

Addressing the Knights of Columbus in New York City  12 October 1915
(NOT ONE OF HIS DARKEST SPEECHES, one of his most persuasive in my experience)

My wife is Japanese, my step mother Korean.  My brother is Korean and now an Army doctor in Iraq.  My sons are mixed - and will choose at 18 what country they will be citizens of.  I hope to God they choose the United States.

I have seen immigration work.

But we are also seing it fail.  I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that there are these knee jerk liberals in disguise as progressive Democrats.  

The reason we have a crises in this country now is for two reasons.  Reason one is that we didn't go after illegal employers while the problem was still manageable.  Reason two is that we have quite a few people who don't see the inherent problem with allowing illegal immigration, so the political powers allowed it to continue.

This isn't about hatred for immigrants.  It's really about economics and in some cases national security - but mostly economics.

I finally feel someone has vindicated my first post! Are there enough of us to help progressives understand that we, who are proposing possible solutions to immigration do not have Mayflower ancestors, but are 1st and 2nd generation proud and "real" Americans, whatever that means?

You are right on employers and again I draw attention to my cross-over vote for McCain based on super Campaign Finance Reform that got watered down when the moneybags defeated him.  No way we'll succeed till we come up a a "workable" campaign law that provides public financing with media deep discounts and penalties not for "free speech" 527's , but penalties ala the United Kingdom's law on libel and slander.

Would that get it done?

Lastly, someone else sees the inherent problem with not only allowing, but rewarding illegal immigration.  Wow!
I may stick around after all  

We are aware of our addiction to oil; most of us are less aware of our addiction to illegal wages. And kicking our addiction to oil will seem like a joke compared to getting off illegal wages.

The U.S. economy, today, needs illegal wages. Many parts of our economy work mainly through illegal wages. People don't think about it, but most of us are keenly dependent on it. Many people wouldn't be able to go to work if it weren't because of their illegally waged nanny.

Many small business people and individuals are working on thin margins. Make costs a little more expensive and we cannot afford to stay in business.

What we have is that our ongoing impoverishment makes it harder for both small businesses and individuals to be able to pay for fair wages.

Let me say this again in a different way, the attacks on the real income of the middle class create the need for illegally low wages.

We must think through how we are going to get rid of this addiction. And we must start by looking at the redistribution of wealth for American citizens and legal immigrants. This would at least turn what is today a necessity into a choice.

If you look at low skilled jobs they have moved from uneducated whites (early 20th century) and blacks (19th century to mid 20th century) to hispanics from the 1960s onwards since the Braceros program - not a history major so someone else will need to cite the year that began.

Blacks fought for their freedoms, and won.  Free men aren't very cheap - so the next best thing are illegal immigrants working in the underground market.  Highly exploitable people - lucrative situation for exploiters of these peole.

Let there be no question about it.  What makes illegal immigrants cheap labor is that they are exploited.  No insurance or labor protections, no representation (ability to vote), and really very little sympathy from the community.

What the community doesn't realize is that exploitation of people puts downward pressures on their wages.

I would also point out that by ending slavery, we were forced to innovate.  As a result our farmers became the most productive in the world.  Subsidizing workforces at any level (high skill or low skill) harms innovation and the natural economy.  

Why invent a better way of doing things when it is cheaper to pay someone poverty wages?

The driving forces behind immigration should not be driven by economics.  Economics and the economy is by its very nature based on greed.  Immigration should be driven by something more sacred than that - building a stronger and better nation and creating opportunities for people.  

You do realize that in many (most?) cases, you need swear no oath of loyalty to secure your passport?  I certainly didn't swear any such oaths when I secured either of mine.

More in response, later.  But on this point, here's a preview:

We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.

It is that sort of fundamental ignorance that leads us into war and death.  You can keep it.

I like loyalty, but since the McCarthy era we no longer have loyalty oaths. Are you keeping a second passport in your back pocket in case you have to "unass" this great country for another?

I'd really like to hear YOUR definition of what it takes to be an American.  You have at least 2/3 of mine and likely to get it all in bits before you even hint at your definition.

Come on now, fair is fair.

You're the one who started this off going on about loyalty.  I've been playing ball here on your terms.  Just go on and answer the question.

As far as my other passport, it is what it is.  Do I like the idea that I can choose to live and work in most any advanced country in the world without hassle?  Yes.  Yes I do.  But I'm here, and not there, and don't feel the least bit bad about it.

And you'll get my (attempted) definition of what it is to be an American.  But since it's not a simple subject for me, I can't dash it off between meetings and calls.

Oh, and you can call me Mark.  Sui Juris has been a longtime nick, but my name is Mark Blacknell.   Good to meet you.

I can wait

Why don't you just answer my question first?  Till I get your answer on what is your definition of an American, you'll hear no more from me.

Okay, you say:
Further, I continue to think that your views on what constitutes an American are bullshit.  I didn't have to do anything to be a citizen of two countries, I was just born.  To you, this apparently makes me a non-American.  I find that so ridiculous as to be laughable and not really worth pursuing with you.

Being a reasonable and rationable person, at least in my own mind, I repectfully ask you to tell me what constitutes an American.

I am not being sarcastic or bombastic.  I'd really like to know, if you were writing a dictionary, WHAT IS AN AMERICAN?

Please pursue it with me because as you may note, relawson's comment defused any antagonism I may have held back.  I really want to know what an American is and don't spare the words in your description.