Ken,

We’re missing each other’s intent. I wasn’t accusing you; since I only posted part of the article, I honestly thought you might not have read all of it. Again, I took your comment to mean that you thought I was arguing against the new law. Since I wasn’t, and you’re obviously an intelligent man, I thought you might have missed an important part of the essay. No accusation or insult was intended or implied.

Chris,

I get annoyed at statements like “I’m going to guess you didn’t read the entire article”, as they are petty accusations and often assumes bad intentions, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt. I was especially annoyed at such pettiness from you, as you are an honest and honorable person. Your reaction to assume bad intentions or laziness on my part (that I ignored or didn’t read parts of your post), rather than a lack of clarity in your article or a lack of understanding of my comment on yours, was I think unwarranted. If you’ll note, I made no accusations towards you anywhere in my original comment; if you took it as such, then I apologize for being unclear and will try harder in the future to be clearer. I know the anonymity of the internet and the brutal nature of the comments section makes it easy to be cynical and not give the benefit of the doubt to others. Even now I feel like a dick because it now sounds like I am sermonizing in this comment, which to some extent I am. On the other hand I know how I can sometimes be and I know how tone is nearly impossible to be conveyed anonymously and in writing. Some things that are written respectfully and seriously can be heard by your inner voice with a tone that was not intended; I should take more care in my writing if it was this easy for someone like you to misread the intentions of my comment. I enjoy this site very much and take to heart what you have to say, as it is clear you are a very serious person and should be taken seriously. As such I have some respect for you, which is why I was disappointed by your accusation.

My intentions with my first comment were not to attack or support any part of your post, but merely to express my opinion on what I see as one of the foundational problems with the immigration debate, in the broad scope, and the narrower effects on the military and police. I have spent my entire adult life working in and with (after my enlistment) the military, as well as coming from a cop family. I saw and see first hand the effects that policies have on both institutions, institutions I care very much about. Both of these institutions are filled with decent and honorable people, who are put into very bad situations by politicians and policy makers with poor understanding of the incentives many of their bad policies have. The military in particular seems to be the favorite guinea pig/whipping boy for the latest fad in social engineering, of which immigration is a part.

Vincent,

Understood, and I know of many Americans who have moved to Europe. I’d love to live in Europe again for a while, but I wouldn’t give up American citizenship.

Felicitation on passing your entrance exam! When do you join the 8 RPIMa?

Ken,

My essay wasn’t an argument against this program, balanced by an argument for it. It was an argument for it, with a recognition of the objections. Just clarifying. I’ve read your comment a few times, and it seems to me that you think I’m simply discussing both sides of the issue. If I’ve misread that, my bad.

“I’m going to guess you didn’t read the entire article”

If you have to guess, you clearly didn’t read my entire comment. If you had you would have read “your argument against immigrants, which I fully understand is balanced by an argument for” (emphasis added).

I do, however, appreciate the kind words with which you started your comment.