If you want to be a citizen you must speak the language, that is where the line should be drawn.
|
If you want to be a citizen you must speak the language, that is where the line should be drawn.
So a compulsory language test before citizenship is granted? That actually makes good sense. I can see a new business sector cropping up from this: "Pass Citizenship Language Test With Only 4 Days of Classes."
My immigrant ancesters from germany and russia had to assimilate to the language, why shouldn't others.
Hello again, tom:
Why does it bother you so much that other people speak a language different than yours? Is it really the cost of printing?? Somehow, I don't think so. Is it because you think you should be able to speak English when you shop at your local bodega? Where in the bill of rights does it say that you have the right to be spoken to in Engligh??
I'm sorry. The only reason that I can possibly think you want to do this is racisim.
excon
To all ;
This never was about which language someone chooses to speak . That is a 1st Amendment right.
Below is what I said of the bill rider that was passed in debate last week . It is about how far the Federal Government is required to go to accommodate multiple languages spoken by new immigrants .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, levy:Quote:
Originally Posted by 61971levy
And, so did mine. However, citizenship wasn't denied them because they didn't speak English, and that's what you're now promoting.
Assimilation and citizenship AREN'T the same thing.
excon
Why isn't already automatically "Official?" Isn't the dollar the official currency? Did we have to vote on that? Isn't DC the official Capitol? I don't rember a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Just curious : When something like this comes up, and say goes before congress, isn't it presented in English? Discussed in English? The findings printed in English? Any rulings that become, get "handed into law" in English?
What other sovereign nation, with the intestinal fortitude to try correcting the wrongs of this planet, has had to endure such an assault on its very own sovereignty?
Do you remember "the spoke story?"... This "wheel" has been turning for hundreds of years. Every so often a new spoke gets added. All the old spokes shift a little while the new spoke works hard to fit into something that's already working. A little wobbly at first then as the new spoke adjust, the wheel straightens out and continues.
If it was easy...
Hello again:
Here we are all caught up in semantics. But, we ARE talking about English... So, let's see if we can actually use the language to communicate.
I have no problem with English being proclaimed the "official" language. I DO think it's rather stupid because, as Captain Rich pointed out, English IS our official language. It IS our official language, just because. Nobody had to declare it so, and I don't understand the need to do it now?
So, tell me, in our official language, specifically what you want to happen when English is declared to be "official"?? Does it mean that you will no longer print any "official" document in any language other than English?? If so, are you for this to save on printing costs?? Do you believe that crap yourself??
excon
I agree with excon, english is already the official language. How could we answers the posts and questions if it were not.
Oui, je crois que c'est l'intention de la personne qui a posé la question originalement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Ok, I got he message.:)
Thanks Captain
It would seem self evident.
And again I have to say again because this thread has morphed into some positions I cannot support. This is no a restriction on someone's right to speak any language they choose ;nor do I think that English spoken should be a pre-requisite.
This is a question of the obligation of the various governments to accommodate . excon who claims libertarianism would evidently compel the people no matter their feelings and in spite of the expense to foot the bill to create a dejure biligual nation . I say where we have already created bilingual systems we have gone far and beyond what is reasonably mandate.
If every document released by government, at any level, was "required" to publish, either in print or online, in all the lanuages spoken in the United States today, it would be boggling to begin to attempt and financially a disaster. If English was the "Official" language, by law, the burden would be on the non-english speakers. Someone pointed out earlier that some things are already bi-lingual. Nothing wrong with that, but the burden shouldn't be foisted upon government to try keeping up.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Bilingual?? How about multilingual??
As a good libertarian, I do feel a government hands OFF this situation would be best. That's what we have now - no official language. I'm fine with that.
But, you bring up the costs of printing again as a reason to do this. I think it's an excuse for the real reason, which is racist.
Indeed, I can probably print out any document that my computer can find, in any language I want. The government computers can do that too. If they can't, it shouldn't cost too much to make them. As a libertarian, AND A GOOD NEIGHBOR, I think it's the least we should do to welcome our newcomers.
So, I'm not buying this "cost of printing" crap. There's another reason that you're not saying. As long as you don't say it, I'm left to think it's racism.
excon
Ex
So how many languages would you mandate the gvt. To print.
You can throw the charge of racism all you want. But early on in this discussion I revealed my motives
Capuchin asked : What's the benefit of having english as the official language?
To which I replied :
Read any other motive you wish into it . What I do not want is Balkanization of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm glad you asked.
I think the stuff that needs printed ahead of time should be done in English. If anybody wants to read it in some other language, they can go to a website where they can read it or download it and print it. Or if they don't have access to a computer, they can call a toll free number and have it mailed.
I'll bet it can be completely automated, and I think it'll be really cheap to run.
What government document couldn't be handled that way? Ballots? We count mail in ballots, don't we? They're received in the mail by the voter. They could be printed in the language of the voter simply and cheaply.
I don't know. What am I missing here?
excon
PS> (edited) Please again tom, I don't think YOU are a racist. I know you better than that. I do, however, think the policy you support is.
Fact- You can't deal with the public or anyone else in anything but English.
Fact-Unless you want to do yards or pick tomato's, all your life, you will learn English
Fact-Mandating an official language is a racist and separatist policy in a diverse culture, and what good would it do?? This is a non issue to my way of thinking, as its very low on the totem pole as far as things that need to be done, that goes to the greater good. It only says I speak English and so should you, There are no important jobs or positions that accommodates any language but English, no schools of higher learning, no govt jobs, so what good would it do to say English must be official if not to denigrate a whole class of people as being inferior?
A nation of immigrants needs an official language . It cannot work any other way.
Excon ;I'm glad you have so much faith in gvt's ability to reproduce accurate translations . I don't and I believe I have history on my side.
What you may not realize is that the cost of multilingual government goes well beyond the price of extra printing or even the salaries for multilingual staff members. (the city of L.A. spends in excess of $1,000,000 annually printing multi-lingual ballots)
The question of translation accuracy seldom arises. It should. If a government agency's "official" translation turns out to be wrong, what does that mean legally?
This question of errors is not theoretical. In 1994, during the New York City election , the city erroneously printed the Chinese character for 'no' as a translation for 'yes'.
There was a big flap when HUD spokeswoman Ginny Terzano issued a Haitian Creole translation pamphlet with words that appeared to mock the accent " (signed by "Sekretary Andrew M. Cuomo fella")
"Yuh as a rezedent, ave di rights ahn di rispansibilities to elp mek yuh
HUD-asisted owzing ah behta owme fi yuh ahn yuh fambily. Dis is a brochure
distributed to yuh cawze Hud ah provide some fawm ahf asistance aur
subsidy fi di whole apawtment buildin. As ah pawt ahfits dedication fi
maintain di bes pawsible living enviornment fi all rezedents, yuh HUD
field affice encourage ahn suppowts . . ."We ave a pawtnaship wid everi rezedent of
HUD-assisted owzing developments: HUD prowtekss di rights ahf di tenants,
ahn tenants gauwd dem own right tru rispansible be'aviah. Owah goal is fi
guh beyan dat pawtnaship ahn create a sense ahf community . . .""
In fact this was an honest attempt to comply with mandates .This was a HUD document ;Resident Rights and Responsibilities , that was also published in Spanish,
French, Ethiopian, Korean, Portuguese, Russian,and God knows which other language.
And by the way ;why didn't the founders add it to the Constitution ? Because they did not think about it. Even though there was a very large German population in the new Republic they rejected outright the notion of printing copies of federal law in any language but English .
With the Louisiana purchase the gvt. Did not start publishing in French . Instead ;in 1811, President James Madison signed the Louisiana Enabling Act, establishing the conditions under which Louisiana could become a state. It required the laws, records, and written proceedings of the new state to be in English.
Hello again, tom:
No, I have no faith in the governments' ability to do anything. But, if your only objection to my plan now is how it should be managed, then we're on the same page.
Right now, in the absence of an official language, states print or don't print because those people in that state decided to do it or not. There's no federal law mandating that they must. That's as it should be. No state should be forced by federal law to print or not print in any language they choose in that state.
I'm not advocating for translators or salaries. What I advocated above, is all I advocate for - a web site, good software, and a toll free number.
IF, however, there ARE paid translators, it must be because there's a NEED for them. The policy you advocate for would make them illegal.
What do you have against those who would need such a service? In court, don't you think a non English speaker should be told of the charges against him in a language he understands? I guess not. You should pardon me if I think that's kind of racist.
excon
Ex speak with forked tongue:
You DO believe your govt can help. We both know better than that, Bro.
There is no federal mandate for inter-state cross-checking of drivers license info, but after living in Fl for over a decade, a ticket I got ( and obviously forgot about ) while I lived in NH but while driving in NY... in 1995... all came back to haunt me when I misplaced my current valid Fl license and had requested a duplicate. That NY ticket had to be cleared, then NH wanted their share for suspending me there as well, then I got to pay Fl their due... I could go on...
You are also taking for granted everyone has a comp or internet access.
Translators wouldn't be illegal, just someone else's responsibility.
As far as court? Did you hear about the gays who want to sue a couples website because the site doesn't provide what they request. You cannot require someone or some venue to sell what they don't offer. If we didn't offer translation in court, is it the courts fault you don't speak the language of the country who's laws you just broke?
" There are no important jobs or positions that accommodates any language but English, no schools of higher learning, no govt jobs, so what good would it do to say "
So far.
History tells us that immigrants will assimilate, without legislation as to an official languange
1.) Make up a language
2.) Sue government for not providing the voting ballot in your new language
3.) profit
I found step 2!!
Why the government needs to only be required to provide things in one language.
It's stupid and you can say that won't happen all you want but it's not any worse than half of the lawsuits that people file and sometimes win now a days.
Top Ten Frivolous Lawsuits - LegalZoom.com
I already gave you my reasoning .Accept them or not . The cost of printing was not my motive ;you brought it up .See post #4and # 8 .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If I'm a racist then the 85 % of Americans who agree with the position I take and the majority of the immigrants cited in 2 polls are also racists .
Where did you get the "85%" figure anyway?
NeedKarma
Refer to post # 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I just can't see what significant changes having English as the official language of the USA, could bring at this time, other than to be a wedge of division, and distract us from the real issues of border security, and immigration reforms.
The non-English speakers are the ones who are burdened and harmed socially by not knowing English. Also, which immigrant group is demanding that all English government documents be printed and published in all immigrant languages as you seem to be indicating? Additionally, I really don't see why an effort should be made to make things more difficult for these people than they already are. If you really want to economize on tax dollars, as you seem, to say you do, then it would be more relevant to focus on foreign policy wherein countries like Communist Korea and Islamic countries such as Jordan receive a generous portion of your cherished tax dollars while you complain about government pamphlet printing. Such an attitude might lead some to conclude that you adhere to a biased double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
United States 2004 Foreign Aid
Lane Vanderslice
ECONOMIC AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO ALLIES AND STRATEGIC AREAS
Economic Support Fund $2,132 million (The largest recipients by country are: Egypt $575 million; Israel $480 million; Jordan $250 million; West Bank/Gaza $75 million)
International Military Education and Training (IMET) $92 million
Foreign Military Financing Program $4,394 million. (The largest recipients are Israel, $2,160 million, Egypt $1,300 million and Jordan, $206 million.)
ASSISTANCE TO EASTERN EUROPE AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States $445 million
Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union $587 million
Contribution to the (World Bank) International Development Association $913 million
Contribution to the Asian Development Fund $144 million
Contributions to the Africa Development Fund and Bank $150 million
World Hunger Notes -- 2004 United States Foreign Aid Appropriations
Facts About the Military Budget
That's all I've been saying. Thank you, Dear Neighbor!Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Perhaps someone should require Telemundo to broadcast in English, or El Nuevo Herald be in English as well. tomder55 was right to say if we traveled to another country, we would attempt to learn their language.
Just keeping it fair.
Here's my take on this topic.
I am the son and grandson of immigrants, the first member of my family born in this country. My grandparents were born in Poland before the Holocaust, and my parents were born in German DP camps afterward. All of my grandparents were Holocaust survivors, and all had tattooed numbers on their wrists.
My grandparents came through Poland, Russia and Germany before coming to the United States. In passing through those countries, they became fluent in Polish, Russian and German. Additionally, since Yiddish was the language they spoke at home, that too is a language that they were fluent in. Then they came to the USA and made lives for themselves here... and they learned English in order to get by in this country.
Learning English didn't stop them from exhibiting their cultural background... they were all Orthodox Jews and were proud of that fact, as were my parents and I. Learning Polish, Russian and German didn't eliminate their cultural identity either. As a matter of fact, Hitler kind of made sure that even those Jews who learned German and became good German citizens went to the gas chambers, so language most certainly was not an eliminator of cultural or national identity. So the idea that learning English will somehow eliminate a particular group's ability to maintain a cultural identity is a straw argument. People who come to this country and refuse to learn English aren't doing so to maintain their cultural identity. They are doing it because they are lazy.
My grandparents ran a candy store on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. They could have done business exclusively in Yiddish if they had wanted to. Of course, that would have meant that they would have been excluding English speakers from doing business with them. Being smart business people, they conducted business in English because everyone spoke that language. And in addition to that, they accommodated Yiddish, Polish, Russian and German speaking customers. But they didn't demand that people speak Yiddish to accommodate them. That would have just been bad business. And in the few cases where my grandparents had business with the government (since they refused to take welfare), they did so in English, because that was the de-facto language of government. They certainly didn't demand that the government accommodate them.
It seems to me that a private business should be able to conduct business in any language they wish to conduct business. However, if their customers can't understand that language, chances are they won't be customers for very long. Just as business owners can speak whatever language they wish, so too customers can refuse to speak any language they don't wish to speak. And chances are that if a business refuses to conduct business in English it won't last very long due to a lack of customers. We don't need to make English the official language of business in the USA. The market forces will do that for us. If a business can't survive if it doesn't speak English, it will cease to operate or else it will start doing business in English.
But no such market forces are in effect in government. The government cannot be forced to do business a specific way because (barring a coup) there is no way to force a government out of business through lack of clientele. So the questions becomes does the government have a requirement to accommodate people who refuse to speak English? In my opinion it does not have such a requirement, and I believe that this should be codified by making English the official language of government. This would do several things: 1) It would force people who are otherwise too lazy to learn English to learn it in order to conduct government business here, 2) It would eliminate one of the barriers to integration (I hate the term assimilation) of foreigners into the national community, 3) It would lower government expenses associated with translating forms into multiple languages and printing them in multiple forms... potentially saving millions and even billions of tax dollars.
Excon made the libertarian argument that the government should be hands-off on issues of language. I agree to this extent: the government should NOT be producing its forms in multiple languages. The government advocating multiple languages is as "hands-on" as government advocating a single language. Both constitute 'government interference... and in fact, advocating multiple languages is actually more "hands-on" than advocating a single language since the government pro-actively must provide translators and multiple-language forms. If you are arguing that the government should be hands-off, then it should be COMPLETELY hands-off and conduct business in a single language... English.
To those who have argued that "English only" would be an unnecessary hardship to immigrants, I have this question: Where in the Constitution (or anywhere else that is legally binding) does it say that immigration is supposed to be easy? When did the idea that immigration is supposed to be easy become the most important factor? Immigration was HARD for my grandparents. They were granted refugee status and STILL had to wait years before being able to come here. Then they worked like dogs to earn enough to survive without taking welfare. They learned the language, became successful enough to put their kids through college, with two of them becoming attorneys, one a social worker and two more going into the Real Estate business... and all of them becoming financially successful while still maintaining their Jewish identities. None of it was easy. Who said citizenship and immigration are supposed to be easy?
I support an English as a national language law.
Elliot
I disagree that an official pronouncement will force a "lazy" person into being unlazy.
Especially in places like Miami, Tampa, and Orlando Florida where the "lazy person" can spend his whole life comfortably speaking Spanish and do just fine. So if it's "lazy person" motivation you are after, you are going to have to do better than that. In my opinion
BTW
I don't see anyone here claiming that immigration should be easy. Although if they did, I see no reason for me to vehemently object based on the fact that it hasn't been easy for others. That's like saying that all immigrants should suffer all the indignities suffered by previous immigrants simply because previous immigrants suffered them. Or similar to the argument of "Since I was savagely whipped in order to be permitted in the club then the savage whippings should continue and membership should never be made any easier." Weird logic! Maybe it's your premise that's off.
Also, our government spends lavishly on foreign aid to countries which publicly state that they hate the United States and have thermo-nuclear missles aimed in our
Direction. Yet strangely, it doesn't ruffle any feathers. However, the idea of spending far less to help immigrants who admire the United States sends these same people into a frenzy. Care to explain?
Official Language a tongue-tied idea
Perhaps that is true... but if they want to continue to get welfare or other government aid, they will be forced to do so in English. If they refuse to do so, G-d belss 'em... but our government doesn't have to accommodate them. They don't have to learn English, but our government doesn't have to learn Spanish either. And if they want government assistance, they will have to do so in English.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
Don't you think that free government money will be enough to get people who are lazy to English to learn at least enough to ask for food stamps? I certainly think it will. And if it doesn't, then the government spends less on welfare. A win/win situation either way.
I don't think so. Back in the old days, American citizenship was VALUED and it was protected. But as it became easier to become a naturalized citizen, legal alien or an illegal immigrant, the value of American citizenship dropped and people stopped trying to protect citizenship as an institution. Anyone could get the rights of citizenship... free education, healthcare, welfare, etc... just by walking into this country, whether leageally or illegally. And because of that, an entire segment of our population doesn't see why illegal aliens are such a terrible thing. You seem to be one of them. And now we are lowering the last standard, language. I find it to be a travesty... not because I don't like immigrants, but because I hate ILLEGAL immigration and law breaking in general. Making immigrants learn the language will return some semblence of VALUE, of having to WORK for citizenship, to the institution. And that would be a good thing.Quote:
BTW
I don't see anyone here claiming that immigration should be easy. Although if they did, I see no reason for me to vehemently object based on the fact that it hasn't been easy for others. That's like saying that all immigrants should suffer all the indignities suffered by previous immigrants simply because previous immigrants suffered them. Or similar to the argument of "Since I was savagely whipped in order to be permitted in the club then the savage whippings should continue and membership should never be made any easier." Weird logic! Maybe it's your premise that's off.
Who says it doesn't ruffle any feathers? I am of the opinion that we should not be spending money to support regimes that actively are aggressive against us. I feel that support for other countries should be at least in part based on thei support for us. So do many others here in the USA. So yes, it is a sore point. But it was not the topic of this thread. I'll be happy to discuss this point with you in another thread.Quote:
Also, our government spends lavishly on foreign aid to countries which publicly state that they hate the United States and have thermo-nuclear missles aimed in our
direction. Yet strangely, it doesn't ruffle any feathers.
I don't have a problem helping immigrants. What I have a problem with is helping people who have more attachment to their own 'culture' than they do to the country that accepted them as immigrants... so much so that they refuse to even learn the language of their host country and demand that the country conform to THEM and THEIR CULTURE. I am in favor of aid to new immigrants until they can get their feet under them. I am not in favor of aid to people who reject the very society that offers them that aid.Quote:
However, the idea of spending far less to help immigrants who admire the United States sends these same people into a frenzy. Care to explain?
Put another way, just as I believe that aid to foreign governments should be based on their support for our policies and their lack of aggression toward us, so too aid to immigrants should be based on their support for our culture and their willingness to become a part of that culture by learning the language. The argument is actually quite consistent with my other beliefs.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I don't disagree with your goals - only your methods. The above is your method. Write a law in Washington, DC, and rip zap, you MADE immigrants learn the language.
No you didn't. The only thing you did was make yourself feel better. The ONE thing your law WON'T do, is MAKE immigrants learn English. All it does is make it harder for them to get by.
Right wingers don't seem to understand that writing some words down in a book and declaring them to be "law", doesn't solve complex societal problems. I can cite dozens of examples - the drug war being one. You think that because you wrote a law making pot illegal, that you MADE people stop smoking pot. But you didn't. Indeed, when you do that stuff, the only people whose behavior changes is the cops and the people who build prisons.
These problems can't be solved so simply.
Let me give you an example. Let's say right wingers think safety pins are bad and should be made illegal. Therefore, you write a law making possession of a safety pin punishable by 10 years in the slam.
But, in the real world, you didn't stop safety pin use. Because the only people who stopped using safety pins are YOU. Then you demonize safety pin use. You cluck your tongues and look down upon those who continue to use safety pins.
And, you'll argue with me right here, like you do about pot, telling me how safety pins SHOULD be legal (like you think pot should be legal), but as long as they're not, you have no sympathy for those who spend years in jail for safety pin abuse.
Huh? Why would you do that?? It makes absolutely no sense to me. I believe, that in your zeal to MAKE a better world, you MAKE laws that suit YOU, but have nothing to do with the real world. You actually forget that SMOKING POT, HAVING SAFETY PINS, AND SPEAKING SPANISH, are fine activities to engage in, BUT for the laws you made.
excon
And if they want it to be easier, they will learn English. If they don't they won't. But at that point it becomes THEIR problem to learn to get by, not MY problem to accommodate them. YOU want to go on accommodating bad behavior. I don't. And that is the difference between us.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And by your own admission, if the courts sentence someone to jail for safety pin abuse for 10 years, they have done the RIGHT THING. You said so yourself in the string about defense lawyers. If you want the law changed, then change the law, don't break it.Quote:
Let me give you an example. Let's say right wingers think safety pins are bad and should be made illegal. Therefore, you write a law making possession of a safety pin punishable by 10 years in the slam.
But, in the real world, you didn't stop safety pin use. Because the only people who stopped using safety pins are YOU. Then you demonize safety pin use. You cluck your tongues and look down upon those who continue to use safety pins.
And, you'll argue with me right here, like you do about pot, telling me how safety pins SHOULD be legal (like you think pot should be legal), but as long as they're not, you have no sympathy for those who spend years in jail for safety pin abuse.
Ah... now there is where we are miscommunicating. I'm not trying to make speaking Spanish illegal. I'm not trying to criminalize foreign languages. I happen to speak two foreign languages myself. What I am trying to do is take the burden of communicating in this country off of the government (which you agree has no business being involved in most aspects of a person's life) and put it back where it belongs, on the individuals. What part of that do you, as a libertarian, disagree with? Since when did it become the government's responsibility to be the translators for every individual who comes here, legally and illegally? That's a bit different than making pot, trans-fats and safety pins illegal. I'm not making Spanish illegal, I'm just making it no longer the responsibility of government to speak Spanish to accommodate Spanish speakers.Quote:
Huh? Why would you do that?? It makes absolutely no sense to me. I believe, that in your zeal to MAKE a better world, you MAKE laws that suit YOU, but have nothing to do with the real world. You actually forget that SMOKING POT, HAVING SAFETY PINS, AND SPEAKING SPANISH, are fine activities to engage in, BUT for the laws you made.
Elliot
He's taking the liberal position . We should help them at your expense because it makes me feel good.
They actions of a few do not reflect the mind of the many. Just because you see immigrants on TV marching for their so-called rights doesn't mean they all feel "oppressed" Any immigrant no matter where they come from has the burden to learn the language, or be doomed to the most menial of jobs, and in our society if there happy cutting grass or picking fruit, so be it. My argument is not in those who make no effort to assimilate, its those illegals who speak english that work for wages that cost hard working americans their jobs, so why then make a feel good law, like english an official language.It is a divisive smoke screen that doesn't address any issue whatsoever. It will change nothing at all. The issue is the money spent on heath care and services for people who are illegal, which the government has encouraged for 20 years, and the cheap labor it provides. I don't care if 85% of the people are emotional about what they perceive to be a slap in the face, the issue of language is irrelevant to the real issues your politicians should be addressing. That's what angers me.Quote:
they refuse to even learn the language of their host country and demand that the country conform to THEM and THEIR CULTURE. I am in favor of aid to new immigrants until they can get their feet under them. I am not in favor of aid to people who reject the very society that offers them that aid.
In Response to Wolverine:
Cuban Americans cherish their Spanish language heritage and are doing far better than other Hispanic groups here. If many of them don't speak English very well, it certainly hasn't hindered their progress. Weird isn't it?
excerpt:
Economics
The median household income for Cuban Americans is $36,671, a figure higher than other Hispanic groups, but lower than for non-Hispanic whites.
In contrast, native-born Cuban Americans have a higher median income than even non-Hispanic whites, $50,000 as compared to $48,000 for non-Hispanic whites.
Education
25% of Cuban Americans have a college education, about twice the average of all other Hispanic groups, and lower than that of non-Hispanic whites, of which 30% are college graduates.
However, 39% of native-born Cuban Americans have a college degree or higher, as compared to only 30% of non-Hispanic whites, and 12% for all other Hispanic groups.
Cuban American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speaking English is a very insignificant criterion on which to gauge loyalty. We have our prisons full of English speakers who would cut your throat and couldn't care less about the laws of the land. Others cheat on their income tax while speaking English fluently. Still others refused to fight when told to by their government. Others living here who speak English perfectly are self-proclaimed communists and fascist. The list is interminable. I guess your premise is a bit off again.
Actually, and evidently, Hispanic Americans don't need to speak English to prove that they are loyal Americans.
They have proven that over and over again to no avail in the eyes of people like you who obviously don't consider Hispanic blood spilled on your behalf as proving anything at all. Which leads of course to accusations of bigotry and racism and then such individuals wonder why they are coming across in that negative way.
Hispanic Americans in the United States Army
65th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since the European Enlightenment whence many of our Constitution' ideas were derived, governments are held morally responsible the way they treat human beings within their borders. Some here seem to suggest we go back to pre Enlightenment despotism. This is neither Christian nor American since the USA adheres to the United Nation's human rights statement and negatively sanctions any country that doesn't. In short, those taking the anti-American government-responsibility stance are not representing the American ethical position but merely their own.
BTW
When the expression "our tax dollars" is used it doesn't seem to take into account that those "our tax dollars" include Hispanic American tax dollars and even Illegal immigrant tax dollars for that matter. Weird! Or is narrow-minded a better word?
Excerpt
Growth of Hispanic-Owned Businesses
Triples the National Average
Washington, D.C. — The number of Hispanic-owned businesses grew 31 percent between 1997 and 2002 — three times the national average for all businesses — according to a new report, Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 [PDF], released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The nearly 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generated nearly $222 billion in revenue, up 19 percent from 1997.
“The Economic Census gives an accurate picture of America's 23 million businesses. The growth we see in Hispanic-owned businesses illustrates the changing fabric of American's business and industry. With Hispanic businesses among the fastest growing segments of our economy, this is a good indicator of how competitiveness is driving the American economy,” said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon.
US Census Press Releases
BIDC -- Hispanic-Owned Businesses
tomder55 agrees: fair point. What is your take on the so called comprehensive package (shamnesty ?) that like Dracula keeps rising from the dead ?
No different than the 1986 bill on immigration which did nothing but compound the problem, and gave incentives for more people to come here illegally. It was about money for the fat cats then, as it is now. Hope it goes down in flames again.
ETWolverine agrees: Do you believe that the government needs to spend millions and billions of our tax dollars to accommodate Spanish speakers by printing government forms in Spanish, providing translation services, etc? And if not, what method would you use to stop it?
As far as translators go, they are nessecary in all the languages that immigrants speak, it is racism that leads one to believe that its a service only for hispanic as, police and emergency services tend to have translators for all they serve, not just hispanics. As far as I know merchants and businesses have a choice, as how they print there signs and advertisements and it usually to cater to the people they want to attract, now voting is another story as I believe that the government wants the hispanic vote so they make it easy to get them by printing the ballots in spanish. English only ballots are what I do favor, but this has more to do with pandering for public office, than life in America. We can do something about that, get rid of those politicians that would use anything to get elected rather than what is fair and just.
Talaniman:
Not when 3/4 or more of the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country of Hispanic origin. Not when they are the only block of immigrants DEMANDING that we accommodate them. The Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Israeli, and the European immigrants do not make such demands. ONLY the Mexicans have made such demands. Therefore, my comment is not racism. It is simply answering the issue towards those who rose it in the first place.Quote:
As far as translators go, they are necessary in all the languages that immigrants speak, it is racism that leads one to believe that it's a service only for hispanic
Don't worry, though, I am against government business being performed in any language other than English. That includes Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese Hindi, Afrikaans, and Urdu as well.
Why? Why are my tax dollars being spent on translators when that money SHOULD be spent on fighting cime. If someone wants to communicate with the police, they can either do so in English or else they can do so by paying for the translator themselves. I shouldn't have to foot that bill, and neither should you.Quote:
police and emergency services tend to have translators for all they serve, not just hispanics.
And that's fine. If the public is against it, they will stop buying that merchant's products. If they like it, they will keep buying those products. That is the market at work, and I'm all for it. (Though I am fairly sure that if the merchant in question refused to allow English to be spoken in his store and demanded that ALL of his customers speak... say... Swahilli... there's a good chance that this merchant won't survive for very long. And those who refuse to learn English are essentially making that demand.)Quote:
As far as I know merchants and businesses have a choice, as how they print there signs and advertisements and it usually to cater to the people they want to attract,
My issue is with government, where market forces are NOT at work. Please note that I was careful about making that disticntion in my original post above.
I don't understand why you make a distinction between voting and other government business. Government business is government business, regardless of type. And if you believe that voting should be English-only, then so should the rest of government business. Or are you arguing that you want immigrants to be able to pay taxes, collect welfare, etc. but not to vote if there are eligible? This seems to be a contradiction. Can you explain it?Quote:
now voting is another story as I believe that the government wants the hispanic vote so they make it easy to get them by printing the ballots in spanish. English only ballots are what I do favor, but this has more to do with pandering for public office, than life in America.
-----------------------------
Starman,
Leaving aside the question of the source (Wikipedia isn't exactly a terrific source for statistical data), I'll accept those numbers at face value. But look at what they say: Cuban-Americans who are immigrants to the USA have lower average salaries than English-speaking white males. However, those Cuban-Americans born in this country (who ostensibly speak English) have higher salaries than English-peaking white males. This just proves my point that the best way for people to really get ahead in this country is by learning to speak English. The very people you point to prove my point. The very study you point to proves my point.Quote:
Economics
The median household income for Cuban Americans is $36,671, a figure higher than other Hispanic groups, but lower than for non-Hispanic whites.
In contrast, native-born Cuban Americans have a higher median income than even non-Hispanic whites, $50,000 as compared to $48,000 for non-Hispanic whites.
Education
25% of Cuban Americans have a college education, about twice the average of all other Hispanic groups, and lower than that of non-Hispanic whites, of which 30% are college graduates.
However, 39% of native-born Cuban Americans have a college degree or higher, as compared to only 30% of non-Hispanic whites, and 12% for all other Hispanic groups.
Again, an unfounded charge of racism. I have not questioned the loyalty of any Hispanic male in the armed forces of the USA. But I can guarantee you that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp do NOT conduct basic training in any language other than English. Military business is conducted completely in English, as it should be. If troopers are unable to speak English to the level necessary to communicate in the military, they are forced to take classes to learn it. They are NOT accommodated in any other language. Nor do they demand that they should be. Again, the very people you are pointing to as proof that I am wrong about English-only for government business are the very ones that prove my point for me.Quote:
Actually, and evidently, Hispanic Americans don't need to speak English to prove that they are loyal Americans.
They have proven that over and over again to no avail in the eyes of people like you who obviously don't consider Hispanic blood spilled on your behalf as proving anything at all. Which leads of course to accusations of bigotry and racism and then such individuals wonder why they are coming across in that negative way.
And now we get to the hyperbola part of your post: sorry to disagree with you, but a requirement that government business be conducted in English only does not constitute going back to pre-Enlightenment despotism.Quote:
Since the European Enlightenment whence many of our Constitution' ideas were derived, governments are held morally responsible the way they treat human beings within their borders. Some here seem to suggest we go back to pre Enlightenment despotism.
And since we are talking about the nature of governments, I assume you are aware of the fact that since BEFORE the Age of Enlightenment it has been an accepted point of order that a main purpose of any government is to protect its national soveriegnty. This is one of the very foundations of the entire concept of government and is the basis of the concept of the Social Contract between government and the governed (an Enlightenment concept of government). Should we not, therefore, enforce our soveriegnty in part through a national language as practically evey other country on the planet does? Not to mention strict border control to stop the flow of illegal immigration. Just wondering.
Actually, no, it doesn't. You see, according to the Heritage Foundation, the NET cost of a low-wage illegal immigrant family to the United States is roughly $22,000. The study showed that the average low-wage family pays roughly $10,000 in taxes (assuming they pay any taxes at all) but receive roughly $32,000 in government assistance, welfare, foodstamps, free education, free health care in hospital emergency rooms, etc. So a non-English-speaking family (which according to the study you posted falls into the low-income category) is costing us $22,000 per year. So when I say MY tax dollars, I can safely exclude non-Enlish-speaking Hispanic families from that category, since they are a net tax loss for the government, not a source of income.Quote:
When the expression "our tax dollars" is used it doesn't seem to take into account that those "our tax dollars" include Hispanic American tax dollars and even Illegal immigrant tax dollars for that matter. Weird! Or is narrow-minded a better word?
But how many of those businesses are owned by Hispanics that do not speak any English? I would argue that the number of successful non-English-speaking business owners in the United States is very low... so low a to be statistically insignificant.Quote:
The number of Hispanic-owned businesses grew 31 percent between 1997 and 2002 — three times the national average for all businesses — according to a new report, Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 [PDF], released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The nearly 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generated nearly $222 billion in revenue, up 19 percent from 1997.
“The Economic Census gives an accurate picture of America’s 23 million businesses. The growth we see in Hispanic-owned businesses illustrates the changing fabric of American’s business and industry. With Hispanic businesses among the fastest growing segments of our economy, this is a good indicator of how competitiveness is driving the American economy,” said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon.
You are still under the impression that I'm against Hispanic immigrants. I'm not and never have been. What I have issues with are 1) ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and 2) immigrants who make demands on the government to accommodate them so that they can 'have an easier time" in the USA and not bother to integrate into the country by learning the language.
Your charges of racism are unfounded. My stance isn't based on racism. I feel the same way for ANY person who emigrates to the USA, regardless of national origin or racial background. I think EVERY IMMIGRANT should be forced to conduct GOVERNMENT business in English.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:21 PM. |