 |
No matter how good your arguments, when you say people should be forced to your way of thinking, then you better back it up, with a bigger gun than mine. Forcing people to do your will is what dictatorships are all about and goes against my concept of an America worth dying for.Quote:
I think EVERY IMMIGRANT should be forced to conduct GOVERNMENT business in English.
Nobody is forcing anyone to learn any language they don't want to learn.
I don't agree with the government forcing anybody to do anything.
BUT.. if you want to do business with the government and they only do business in English it certainly would be in your best interest.
In Canada which has two official languages we have more than our fair share of governments forcing the politically correct view of the government at the time.
Did you know it is against the law to sell or buy a pound of hamburger meat?
If you sell gasoline by the gallon your business will be shut down.
In parts of Canada if your sign in the window has lettering in English bigger than the lettering in French you will be shut down.
Not really a business friendly environment.
With more than one official language how long before the US government starts mandating that business MUST accommodate whoever happens to be shopping in their store?
It can be easily argued that the Canadian government is Racist towards the english population, if they want a job with the Federal government they must learn French.
The vast majority of French Canandians speak English which gives tham a tremendous advantage in getting government jobs.
I very much enjoy my visits to Quebec and have never had any problems with the people in Quebec.
The political climate of having the French provincial government however is a different story. Inciting hatred at every possible opportunity with the sole intention of breaking up the country, I can't see any reason for the US government not taking the opportunity to prevent this happening somewhere down the road in the US.
My husband is in the military and says that there are some people that he works with speak to each other in a different language. I don't personally have a problem with other languages being spoken here, but I think in the military in ANY country one language should be spoken. You can't be too careful and I think everyone in that kind of a circumstance should be able to understand each other.
Wolverine
1. The information about Hispanic businesses was provided in response to your tax- burden comment and in response to your depiction of Spanish speakers as wanting to live on the dole.
2.Wikipedia is not the only source I provide.
BIDC -- Hispanic-Owned Businesses
3. The military info I provided was in response to your casting doubt on Hispanic loyalty due to their refusal to unlearn Spanish and stick solely to English as other immigrants have done.
4. Your insistence that Hispanics are demanding that everything be printed in Spanish is, simply stated, a lie. In fact, it's not even an issue in the Hispanic community and isn't even mentioned on Univision. So your argument is strawman.
5. The Puerto Rican 65th Infantry was militarily trained using Spanish because that's the language which they speak on the island. It did not interfere with their fighting ability.
6. Present-day American born Cubans are doing better than those who arrived in terms of salary. That is true. But English proficiency isn't the only factor. Those who first arrived here faced a discriminatory hostile environment despite their being very highly educated. American employers, for example, were unwilling to pay them the same salaries which their American born professional counterparts were earning. Also, those Cuban Americans born here enter a society where the Hispanic social infrastructure is there to give them a hand. So in addition to knowing English, they are also not under the discriminatory pressure of those who first arrived.
Excerpt
The new Miamians formed a very close and cohesive community, and they quickly began founding businesses, banks, and Cuban American institutions, as well as finding jobs for later arrivals. By 1970, 50% of Miami hotel staff members were Cuban American, and in 1980 half of all Miami-area construction companies were Cuban-owned. Cuban immigrants soon gained a reputation for success, in part because of the relative affluence of the first, “golden,” generation. However, most Cuban immigrants faced the same struggles as all other immigrant groups... Even the most successful Cubans had to overcome language discrimination and religious intolerance in their time in the U.S.
Immigration... Puerto Rican / Cuban: Transforming a City
BTW
The Catholic Irish Immigrants spoke English and were still discriminated against.
The Black Americans knew English and suffered horrendously anyway.
Discrimination against African Americans
Care to explain?
The slippery-slope scenario you imagine might be true if assimilation were not taking place in the USA in reference to Hispanics. However, it is taking place. Children of immigrants quickly learn English and it eventually becomes their primary language. In fact, many have difficulty speaking Spanish fluently and if they do speak it they do so hesitantly and often make basic, serious, grammatical mistakes. The late Mexican American singer, Selena, is a case in point. When faced with Spanish speaking interviewers she had great difficulty. She is not the exception, she is the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken 297
The only way to get impeached is have sexual relations with another woman in the white house. I guess misleading Americans isn't harsh enough for impeachment
Lying to a Grand Jury, obstruction of Justice had nothing to do with it.
I am starting to understand the left even better now.Talk about misleading!!
I don't suppose you listened to AlGores ten minute tirade condeming President Bush for ignoring Saddam Hussein's terrorist activities, his use of weapons of mass destruction, ignoring intelligence from around the world by trying to carry out diplomatic relations with Saddam. Chastising President Bush for allowing him to continue on his quest for Nucular(Is that spelled the way it sounds) weapons.
Back to the original question of this string. I guess it doesn't matter what language you use the left will never listen to reason in ANY language. Keep throwing out the perpetual lie and the race card until they get their way.
An old saying You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time has been changed by the left.
You just have to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Would you feel more comfortable with me saying that the government should not conduct business in any language except English? It amounts to the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And democracies FORCE peope to go along with rules that are against their wishes all the time... not by force of arms, but by force of law. Excon and I have had discussions about making marajuana legal. Despite the fact that many Americans feel that at least medical marajuana should be legalized, it is not. That's because the majority of Americans have voted for legislators who do not wish to legalize marajuana. So those who are in favor of legalization are being FORCED to live without legalized marajuana.
I don't like 55mph speed limits. But I'm FORCED to go along with them because they are the law. If I want the law changed, I can lobby for change and try to convince the majority of Americans toward my way of thinking and vote for representatives who are of a like mind. And if I can, then those who are in favor of a 55mph speed limit will be FORCED to go along with what I want.
The majority in a democracy FORCES the minority to do what they wish by voting. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the way the system works. It may be FORCE, but it doesn't constitute a dictatorship.
Right now, roughly 85% of Americans want to see English as the official language according to some polls. With the power of our vote, we SHOULD be forcing this issue. We should be FORCING the government to conduct business only in English, and if people refuse to learn that language, they can either obtain a translator at their own expense, or they can live their lives without dealing with the government.
Elliot
Starman
Let's start here, shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
First of all, it apparently IS a huge issue with the entire "immigrants' rights" community. And the La Razza community. And the Aztalan community. I saw the huge protests before the 2004 and 2006 elections where protestors (many of them illegal aliens by the way) were DEMANDING their rights, including Spanish language translation in government. So please don't tell me its not an issue within the Hispanic community. It's certainly a big enough issue to get national news coverage and effect election results.
And if it isn't an issue, then what's the problem with English as a national language? Let's do it and be done with it if it isn't such a huge issue. Why are you against it if the Hispanic community isn't against it?
Very nice. Perhaps they did train in Spanish, though nothing I have read actually confirms that. But when they fought or worked with other units, they did so in ENGLISH. Furthermore, when they had non Spanish commanders and noncoms (ei: Col. William Harris in 1950, and various non-Hispanic replacements for Korean War casualties in 1951) they trained and operated in ENGLISH only. And speaking Spanish in comat when evey other unit is speaking English is the way to lose a battle due to miscommunication. In the military, they consider that a Very Bad Result. I think that US military commanders were quite capable of avoiding that particular mistake.Quote:
5. The Puerto Rican 65th Infantry was militarily trained using Spanish because that's the language which they speak on the island. It did not interfere with their fighting ability.
It certainly is a major one.Quote:
6. Present-day American born Cubans are doing better than those who arrived in terms of salary. That is true. But English proficiency isn't the only factor.
How much of that discrimination was because Americans expect "highly educated people" to speak English? How muh of that discrimination could have been avoided if they had learned English? (And how much of that discrimination was due to the crime wave caused by the number of criminals who came here as part of the Mariel Boatlift? The fact that the criminals were demonstrably a very small minority of the Cuban immigrants didn't really help matters. But that is a sepparate issue.)Quote:
Those who first arrived here faced a discriminatory hostile environment despite their being very highly educated.
And how much of the payscale issues were due to language barriers and lack of language skills? That was certainly true in my grandparents case. Their lack of language skill made it hard for them to be paid a decent salary until they attained those skills. I won't get into the religious discrimination my grandfather faced as a tailor in New York in the Post WWII era. They wanted to make him work Saturdays, and since he was a Sabbath observant Jew he lost his job every week. Every Sunday he'd get a new job, and every Saturday he'd lose it because he wouldn't work on Saturday. Today we call that religious discrimination. Back then, it was just the facts of life. And yet they still managed to survive and thrive... and learning the language certainly made that easier.Quote:
American employers, for example, were unwilling to pay them the same salaries which their American born professional counterparts were earning.
Certainly true. But would that infrastructure exist without members of that community who have good jobs and are productive members of the community? Probably not. And would that be true if they didn't speak English? It would certainly be less likely.Quote:
Also, those Cuban Americans born here enter a society where the Hispanic social infrastructure is there to give them a hand. So in addition to knowing English, they are also not under the discriminatory pressure of those who first arrived.
EXACTLY!! They had to learn English in order to become part of the American community in any meaningful way.Quote:
However, most Cuban immigrants faced the same struggles as all other immigrant groups... Even the most successful Cubans had to overcome language discrimination and religious intolerance in their time in the U.S.
Sure. Discrimination takes place all the time. It takes place regardless of language barriers. I speak English quite fluently, but I have experienced racism and racialy motivated violence. It happens. But how much worse would it have been if the Irish Catholic community had refused to speak English and demanded that the government and businesses deal with them only in Galic or Celtic? How much worse would the discimination have been? If Martin Luther King Junior had demanded that the government deal with the Black community in Afrikaans or Swahili only, do you think that the civil rights movement of the 1960s would have been as successful as it was?Quote:
BTW
The Catholic Irish Immigrants spoke English and were still discriminated against.
The Black Americans knew English and suffered horrendously anyway.
Care to explain?
I don't see why you are so willing to defend the idea that immigrants don't need to learn the local language in order to make their lives better? What is your issue with English as a National Language for government business. Do you truthfully feel that people are not better off for learning English when they come here? What part of not becoming part of the national community in the USA are you trying to defend?
Now for some statistics to ponder:
According to 2005 Census Bureau information, the Hispanic population is 14.5% of the total population of the USA. However, they make up 58.2% of the non-citizen population. 57.7% of Hispanics in America entered the USA in 1990 or later.
78.2% of Hispanics state that they speak a language other than English at home, compared to 19.4% for the rest of the population, and 39.4% of the Hispanic population in America state that they speak English less than "very well", compared to 8.6% for the rest of the population.
They have an unemployment rate that is 150 basis points higher than the general population, and the median family incomes are $36,278 compared to $46,242 for the general population. Per capita income $14,461 compared to 25,035 for the general population. Hispanic families have a poverty rate of 20.5% compared to 10.2% for the general population, and on an individual basis they have a poverty rate of 22.4% compared to 13.3% for the general population.
Given the information above, can you truly state that there is no connection between language, poverty rates and income levels? Clearly there is SOME connection between the two.
Elliot
Wolverine
First, I never said that there was aboslutely no connection between language and a person's economic potential here in the USA.
Second, averages can be used to mislead and can even become meaningless when used in a certain way. For example. Two employees earning $50,000 while the other three earn 10,000 a year. The average would make them all appear to earn $26,000 each. The same holds true for the statistics you give. Take the prosperous Hispanic community in Florida and other parts of the country, merge them with undocumenteds and recently arrived apply the averages and voilà! Instananeous misinformation and misrepresentation. My opinion? Not at all:
Excerpt:
Mexican-Americans make up about two-thirds of the overall Hispanic population and have, for the most part, achieved solid lower-middle to middle class status.
When the government reports that 23 percent of Hispanics live in poverty compared with only 7.7 percent of non-Hispanic whites, the figures are somewhat misleading, since they understate the poverty of foreign-born Hispanics and overstate it for native born.
NCPA - Immigration Issues - Hispanic Minority Shows Diversity, Assimilation
In short, Your statistics in no way negate the progress which Hispanics are Generally making in the nation as a whole and in Florida in particular. The difference is that you choose to focus on only the negatives and I choose to focus on the positives. Also, if indeed poverty is only caused by language then Afro Americans should be on equal par with Anglos but are not since poverty also plagues their communities. So there are nonlinguistic factors at work here which you prefer to ignore.
Speaking Spanish at Home
It takes time to learn a language and English doesn't lend itself to quick learning due to its illogical spelling/pronunciation inconsistencies.
Consider the double "oo" pronunciation inconsistencies in the following words: "food", "blood", "look", the puzzling identical pronunciations but different spellings of the "ph", and the "f " "Full", "Phil" and the silent letters such as "d" in "could," "should"-- letters which are included but are doing nothing but being there. No, it isn't easy and takes time. Is that believable? Could that be one reason why some say they can't speak it well yet and choose to speak Spanish at home?
Furthermore, that choice doesn't mean that those speaking Spanish at home can't effectively communicate with their employers as you seem to assume. In some cases yes. But not all and not in the majority of cases since as I brought to your attention before the jobs they do don't require them to be communicating in English all day.
Additionally, regardless of your annoyance, these people are breaking no law by speaking Spanish at home. In fact, it's a human right defended by the Constitution. Or are you privy to some Constitutional info the rest of us are not aware of. If so--pray tell.
Non Citizens
About the non-citizen info, it's a matter which our government helped to create by winking at immigrant exploitation for decades and which it is at present trying to resolve. In short, it is no secret. That you treat it as if it were some type of incriminating evidence really is of no account and is actually irrelevant to the subject.
Here are some statistics for you to ponder:
English Dominant
4 % =1st generation
46% =2nd generation
78%=3rd generation
Bilingual
24% = 1st generation
47% = 2nd generation
22% = 3rd generation
Spanish Dominant
72% = 1st generation
7% = 2nd generation
0% = 3rd generation
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/11.pdf
As you can see the process is going along just fine. If you wish to accelerate it, why not make an effort to have English written more logically? I assure you--that would help.
BTW
Mariel Boat Lift
You are comparing apples to oranges.
The Marielitas arrived much later and coming from the lower classes in Cuba, were far less-educated. Any hardened criminals placed among them by Castro were promptly deported by USA authorities.
Mariel boatlift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They were initially welcomed by the American Cuban community. But soon the educational and class social class and racial differences resulted in the first group to turn against the second. There remains a large rift between these two groups and it is unfair to lump them together that way.
Cause of Discrimination
How much of it was caused by language barriers is anybody's guess.
But certainly, not speaking English is a disadvantage in an English speaking country. I never said it isn't or wasn't. Neither have I said that immigrants shouldn't learn English, that is a strawman argument and is really a waste of time since I can't defend something I didn't say.
Perhaps I'm a bit leery in attributing all discrimination to language as you do because discrimination continues against minorities even after they learn the language. Then suddenly other things are latched on to and the discriminators continue along the same line without even breaking stride.
The 65th Infantry
You are missing the point.
I use the 65th Infantry as an example of people who speak Spanish and it doesn't interfere with their loyalkty to the USA. I did so as a response to your statement concerning language learning = loyalty. Hope that clears it up.
Big Issue?
Yes, in certain areas of the Hispanic community it is a big issue. To the illegal immigranmts themselves and their families-for example. However, the Hispanic community is not one homogenous group sharing the same political concerns and agendas to the same degreess. Puerto Ricans, for example, are born USA Citizens and come and leave the mainland USA as they please. The Cuban American community at present has no immigration issue which affects it DIRECTLY.
As for the agencies which might be making it a big issue, have you considered that it is their job? All agencies, after all, have a purpose. Correct? So showing surprise at an agency which does what it's supposed to do is rather illogical--don't you think?
ETWolverine, Would you feel more comfortable with me saying that the government should not conduct business in any language except English? It amounts to the same thing.
Show me an example of the government doing business in any other language.
And democracies FORCE peope to go along with rules that are against their wishes all the time... not by force of arms, but by force of law. Excon and I have had discussions about making marajuana legal. Despite the fact that many Americans feel that at least medical marajuana should be legalized, it is not. That's because the majority of Americans have voted for legislators who do not wish to legalize marajuana. So those who are in favor of legalization are being FORCED to live without legalized marajuana.
Illegal or not marijuana is a bigger cash crop than corn. Even with enforcement, it is used widely, by a variety of tax paying citizens.
I don't like 55mph speed limits. But I'm FORCED to go along with them because they are the law. If I want the law changed, I can lobby for change and try to convince the majority of Americans toward my way of thinking and vote for representatives who are of a like mind. And if I can, then those who are in favor of a 55mph speed limit will be FORCED to go along with what I want.
I live in Dallas and nobody goes 55.
The majority in a democracy FORCES the minority to do what they wish by voting. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the way the system works. It may be FORCE, but it doesn't constitute a dictatorship.
You mean as in voting. The majority doesn't vote so who forces who.
Right now, roughly 85% of Americans want to see English as the official language according to some polls. With the power of our vote, we SHOULD be forcing this issue. We should be FORCING the government to conduct business only in English, and if people refuse to learn that language, they can either obtain a translator at their own expense, or they can live their lives without dealing with the government.
Police , fire and hospitals, all for emergencies. who else needs a translator. Not a huge industry.
This paragraph makes no sense. If the poverty statistics for the poverty of foreign born hispanics are understated and for the native born are overstated, it would mean that the REAL poverty level among Hispanics is actually higher... which bolsters my point. If the reality is lower poverty for native-born Americans and higher poverty for immigrants, that would seem to indicate MORE poverty, not less. Which just bolsters my point.Quote:
When the government reports that 23 percent of Hispanics live in poverty compared with only 7.7 percent of non-Hispanic whites, the figures are somewhat misleading, since they understate the poverty of foreign-born Hispanics and overstate it for native born.
Yep, it takes time. It ain't easy to learn English. It isn't easy to learn French either, ("Parlez vous Francaise" is pronounced "Parlay voo fronsay") but Canada and France both have it as an official language. Apparently, ease of learning the language doesn't keep France and Canada from making it the official language, and the French government ONLY operates in French. BTW, literacy is 99% in France, because the schools teach in a single language rather than accommodating multiple languages. Our literacy rate is lower, despite accommodating multiple languages. Sorry, but "it's not easy to learn" is not a reason to make English a national language.Quote:
Consider the double "oo" pronunciation inconsistencies in the following words: "food", "blood", "look", the puzzling identical pronunciations but different spellings of the "ph", and the "f " "Full", "Phil" and the silent letters such as "d" in "could," "should"-- letters which are included but are doing nothing but being there. No, it isn't easy and takes time. Is that believable? Could that be one reason why some say they can't speak it well yet and choose to speak Spanish at home?
How about Arabic? Is Arabic easy to learn? You need to learn a whole new alphabet, new grammar and vocabulary, etc. Yet most Middle Eastern countries have Arabic as the national language. Is Japanese easy to learn? How many different word-characters are there in that language's written form? Chinese? Ditto. Russian? Got to learn Cyrillic letters. German? Ever try to deal with the gutterals of German? Yet all these countries have national languages. Why not us?
And even if the language isn't easy to for Hispanics to learn, why is that MY problem? Mexico has Spanish as the official language, despite the fact that over 50 languages are actually spoken in Mexico.
I have been VERY CLEAR on this point from the beginning. I have no problem with what people speak in private. I speak two foreign languages myself and occasionally use them with my wife and my parents or when I want to hide things from my kids. Foreign languages are a useful tool. My issue is with how the GOVERNMENT conducts business. I brought in the statistics of those who speak Spanish in the home as proof that Hispanics aren't bothering to even try to learn English. They are free to do that if they wish. Perfectly legal. But the GOVERNMENT doesn't have to accommodate it. And I believe that they shouldn't. The vast majority of other countries do not, why should we be different?Quote:
Additionally, regardless of your annoyance, these people are breaking no law by speaking Spanish at home.
If that is true, then what is your issue with making English the official language? If English fluency isn't an issue, then there should be no problem and no reason to protest the issue.Quote:
As you can see the process is going along just fine.
Yes, that is a pet peeve of mine... I want to take a sword to the guy who decided to spell knife with a "k" and a knife to the guy who decided to spell sword with a "w". But again, confusion with regard to the language is not a reason to prevent English from becoming tha national language. It doesn't stop any other country from doing the same thing. Why should it stop us?Quote:
If you wish to accelerate it, why not make an effort to have English written more logically? I assure you--that would help.
No they weren't deported. They became the new organized crime syndicate in Miami, and were responsible for the vast majority of drug trafficking in the 70s and 80s. They were brutal and unstoppable as a source of crime... right up until the Columbians, who were even more brutal and savage and better trained and armed (they were mostly former Colombian soldiers) came along and fragged the Cuban's butts and took over the drug trade in the USA.Quote:
The Marielitas arrived much later and coming from the lower classes in Cuba, were far less-educated. Any hardened criminals placed among them by Castro were promptly deported by USA authorities.
And where are the Marialetas and their offspring now? Are they part of the statistics you mention regarding Cubans? Or do those statistics not lump them together that way? Are the Marialetas improving in their quality of life, level of income etc. in the same way that the first wave of Cuban Americans have? Seems to me that the statistics don't make a distinction between the two groups.Quote:
There remains a large rift between these two groups and it is unfair to lump them together that way.
So if it an organizations job to do something that means that I have to agree with it? Planned Parenthood is supposed to support abortion rights. Does that mean I have to agree with them? The ACLU is supposed to support the rights of criminals. Does that mean that I have to agree with them? The fact that an organization is doing what it is supposed to do does not mean that I have to agree with it.Quote:
As for the agencies which might be making it a big issue, have you considered that it is their job? All agencies, after all, have a purpose. Correct? So showing surprise at an agency which does what it's supposed to do is rather illogical--don't you think?
And by the way, La Raza and Azatlan aren't just "some organizations" that are "doing their jobs". They are organizations that are specifically advocating armed takeover of US territories and overthrowing US authority in those terrotories. So they are no longer just organizations "doing their jobs". They qualify as terrorist organizations under the law.
But the point that I was making was that English as a national language IS a big issue within the Hispanic community. It was in response to your statement that "In fact, it's not even an issue in the Hispanic community and isn't even mentioned on Univision. So your argument is strawman." It clearly is a big issue. My question is WHY.
And again, you have not explained what your issue is with English as a National Language for government business. You have told me about the hardships of learning English, but that doesn't stop any other country from having national languages. Why are you against it?
Elliot
[QUOTE=talaniman]
Show me an example of the government doing business in any other language.
El IRS en Español
Conexiones en Español
https://ui.labor.state.ny.us/UBC/home.do?FF_LOCALE=2
Office of the Governor :: Home Page
Página principal en GobiernoUSA.gov, el portal oficial del Gobierno de los EE. UU.
Social Security en línea - Publicaciones electrónicas
Have I made my point? If not, I can keep going and show you hundreds of other government websites and links to government forms in Spanish.
Ain't technology grand?
Elliot
[quote]The sites you cited are public service/ information sites, not even close to the business done by government. They are aimed at spanish speaking people.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yes it is, for putting out information.Quote:
Ain't technology grand?
This post is about to reach a milestone . 1000 views and 100 responses . Is that a record here ? Does it merit some kind of gold star ?
Maybe a record in the politics forum :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
[QUOTE=talaniman]What?!Quote:
The sites you cited are public service/ information sites, not even close to the business done by government. They are aimed at spanish speaking people.
These are websites by the IRS, the White House, the Social Security Department, the New York State Unemployment Insurance office and the Department of State of California. They are US GOVERNMENT WEBSITES in Spanish. Several of them link to pages with government forms in Spanish. How are these NOT business being done by government in Spanish? In particular, the NYS DUI site allows you to enter information and receive information in Spanish. Here is an actual IRS form W-7 in Spanish taken from the IRS Spanish website. How can you possibly argue that these are "not even close to the business done by government."
Please, Tal, don't try to take me for a fool.
Elliot
Not at all and all due respect, How will having English as the official language change anything, and with the sites you have put forth, do you really think these sites will go away. Government put these sites up, not out of demand but as a public service. Your government wants non-english speakers to participate, as a way to assimilate which may take generations to do, and this is a way to help. Are you saying we should not help assimilation, or we should let them do the best they can?
Its only a debate and nothing personal, so relax.
Wolverine
Statistics
It all depends on the amount of or degree of understatement and overstatements.
Overstatement of Hispanic-American citizen poverty is more significant than understatement hispanic illegal poverty for the simple reason that there are more Hispanic-American citizens than there are illegals. Furthermore, understating and overstating makes the statistics cited worthless. But since you give so much credence to statistics then I will assume you will continue along that line in reference to the statistics below which show the English Speaking African-Americans faring worse than the supposedly severely handicapped Spanish-speaking Hispanics.
People Living Below Poverty Line Percentages
BLACK 2005... 24.9 %
HISPANIC (of any race) 2005... 21.8%
ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER 2001... 10.2 %
ASIAN ALONE 2005... 11.1 %
WHITE, NOT HISPANIC 2005... 8.3%
Families with female householder no husband present below poverty level
BLACK ALONE 2005 39.3%
HISPANIC (of any race) 2005 39.0 %
Asians 2005... 17.8 %
WHITE ALONE, NOT HISPANIC 2005... 22.6 %
BTW
Notice that the Immigrant Asians are doing better than the non-Hispanic whites.
I guess their English advantage wasn't so significant after all. Hispanics are doing better than African Americans according to this census. Again the English advantage seems irrelevant. Any explanation other than tagging any statistic that doesn't harmonize with your preconceptions bogus?
Historical Poverty Tables
Agencies
I believe I was responding to your reference to legitimate agencies and not to extremists organizations which in no way manner or form represent the Hispanic community's views concerning the present immigration issues. Does the KKK represent the view of the American community concerning immigration? Should I say it does you would probably object vehemently. So please don't misrepresent.
My Views On English?"
As I previously stated, anyone who comes here to live should learn English. Should the government print everything it issues in English even though there is a significant number of citizens who might have some difficulty understanding? Well, I go with Aristotle on this and suggest seeking the golden mean for the sake of sanity and in order to keep the wheels of society reasonably well-lubricated. However, I don't see ALL Hispanics demanding what you feel that ALL Hispanics are demanding. Why? Because as I explained before, the Hispanic community isn't a homogenous entity as you and the majority of people seem think. Actually, one would expect this to be common knowledge since it is part of elementary school history and social studies.
In any case, Puerto Ricans who can have breakfast in NY, Lunch in San Juan, and Dinner in Chicago in one day if they so choose aren't particularly ruffled by all this turmoil for what should be obvious reasons. Neither is the Cuban American community as riled up as you probably imagine it to be since there are practically no Cuban illegals here. Hispanics from Santo Domingo are probably more concerned about dressing up to go dancing Merengue during the weekend.
Even among the Mexican-American community the concern varies because some families are affected more than others. For example, there are Mexican American families in California and other states which were formerly Mexico who have roots going back hundreds of years and who have no connection with Mexico in the same manner that those who have recently arrived do. To these the immigration issue isn't as significant and are even as annoyed as the Anglos by it. So for a better more realistic view of what is really going on, I suggest that you view the Hispanic community as it is and not as you imagine it to be.
Caribbean Hispanics=Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans-North American Hispanics=Mexicans-Central American Hispanics-South American Hispanics--Hispanic Americans. All these groups don't speak Spanish identically, don't have identical customs, don't have identical political agendas, and often don't even like one another in terms of interpersonal relationships.
Cubans for example are more concerned about Cuba becoming a Democracy so that their families there can stop suffering economic deprivations.
Puerto Ricans don't worry about that since it doesn't impact them one way or the other except for the slight concern about the influx of Cubans that have taken refuge on the island.
Please keep such differences in mind when thinking of the Hispanic community here in the USA and how they might be viewing the present situation.
Statistics proved what? That Hispanics loath to learn English? All third generation Hispanics already know English and many speak it much better than many undereducated Anglos and African-Americans I have met--Walt Disney, Geraldo Rivera for example, and the Puerto Rican actor Jose Ferrer weho played the emperor in the film Dune. Second-Generation Hispanics have the advantage of being bilingual and equalkly skilled in both. First generation Hispanics speak English far less skillfully but they still speak it. So what you must be referring to are the recently arrived whom to you seem as if they are unwilling. No immigrant group has ever been unwilling and the economics statistics you provide are open to interepretation, your being of course unwillingness to learn English a conclusion which the statistics themseles don't justify.
BTW here is a parial list of Hispanics whom you say refuse to learn English:
Film and TV
Notable Hispanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And I suppose you believe NASA is in trouble with all those Puerto Ricans blabbering Spanish ? Maybe we should lobby for legistation to
make the moon made of cheese concept official before the NASA PRS try to change it to say it's made of rice and beans. Or maybe one of those space probes is in danger of being named after "El Corderito" the little lamb that appears on the Puerto Rican Coat of Arms. The possibilities are endless once the imagination is given free range.
Puerto Ricans in NASA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not Your Problem
That's what Cain said to God about Abel after he'd murdered him. "Am I my brother's keeper?" Jesus answered that for us in his parable about the man found beaten on the road who was ignored until one who felt compassion came along, felt that it was his moral responsibility before God to offer a helping hand, and at cost to himself did so. Of course, I understand that not everyone subscribes to the Christian faith or that not everyone even believes in God. But in order to be decent to another human being, such beliefs aren't' required as is constantly being pointed out in elementary 101 classes in Ethics. Actually, our government recognizes that we have a moral responsibility toward one another by virtue of our humanity when it allocates a certain portion of its annual budget to help people who are having difficulties throughout the world. So does the United Nations and so does every other civilized nation which is able to do so.
To say, That isn't my problem!" actually would make a nation that can offer assistance to the less fortunate a pariah among the others. So your sentiments are definitely and fortunately not the internationally prevalent ones. In fact, such sentiments are considered anti social and disruptive to human society where survival is contingent on mutual support in times of need.
In any case, I didn't say it was your problem in my original post.
"Against a National Language?"
I grew up in the United States and have always considered English its national language. During all that time I never have encountered any ethnic group who thought that it wasn't or that it shouldn't be the national language. The Hispanic press and Univision are always encouraging its readers and viewers to learn English and emphasizing the advantages that such a skill brings and the disadvantages of not knowing it. Hispanics which don't speak English for whatever reason never suggest that English not be the national language. What they do is constantly lament the fact that they can't speak any better. In view of this, I find it weird that suddenly there is this seemingly hysterical demand that English be made the national language in response to the Hispanic presence. Additionally, the statistics show that linguistic assimilation and acculturation is definitely taking place among the third generations just as it has with all other immigrant groups. So I find it totally unnecessary that Hispanics be made to feel that they are a threat to our country's language integrity.
That is my response to your question.
Marielitos
As for Marielitos, resistance was futile--they were assimilated.
Excerpt
The Marielitos were different, but mainly because they had endured two full decades under a communist regime. Like the earlier group of Cuban exiles, they eventually assimilated and became another in a long line of successful immigrants in the United States.
26th Parallel: Gracias Marielitos
BTW
It's their problem much more than it is either yours or mine. The point is why try to make it worse by tagging their being here as a national cultural threat via your sudden demand for a national language based on their being here?
I don't deny the poverty levels of Blacks are higher than those Hispanics. All that these statistics are telling me is that Blacks have been successful at segregating themselves from the rest of society DESPITE the fact that they speak the same language. It certainly doesn't prove that those Hispanics who learn English aren't better off than those who don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
And what point are you trying to make here? That because Blacks suffer a greater degree of poverty than Hispanics, the government shouldn't make English the national language? Exactly how does that work, logically speaking?
I haven't stated that any of the statistics aren't true. In fact, the only person in this conversation who has done that is you. You are the one who has claimed that the statistics of native born Hispanics and foreign born Hispanics over- and under-state the true numbers. I take the numbers at face value.Quote:
Any explanation other than tagging any statistic that doesn't harmonize with your preconceptions bogus?
What I have argued in every case is that your conclusions are in error, not the statistics themselves.
In this particular case, if Asian immigrants are doing better than White immigrants, it is because Asian immigrants have worked harder at integration and success within society than White immigrants. They have done better at learning English, obtaining an advanced education and becoming successful in the workplace. They have integrated into society better.
I'm not. La Razza and Aztalan are LEADERS of the immigration-rights movement in America. They were the organizers of last year's protests for immigrant rights. They aren't "extremists", they are the mainstream of the immigrant-rights movement. That's the problem. By contrast the KKK doesn't lead the anti-immigration movement.Quote:
Does the KKK represent the view of the American community concerning immigration? Should I say it does you would probably object vehemently. So please don't misrepresent.
Sure. And not all Jews support the State of Israel. The Neturei Karta movement in particular is very anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. But that doesn't mean that support of Israel isn't the mainstream view of the Jewish community. So you may be right that not every Hispanic is demanding Spanish-language in the USA, it is something that a large (and very loud) segment of the Hispanic community wants and advocates for. It isn't an "extreme" viewpoint within the Hispanic community.Quote:
However, I don't see ALL Hispanics demanding what you feel that ALL Hispanics are demanding. Why? Because as I explained before, the Hispanic community isn't a homogenous entity as you and the majority of people seem think. Actually, one would expect this to be common knowledge since it is part of elementary school history and social studies.
And if you are correct that it is a minority view of the Hispanic community, then why not make English the national language? What's the problem?
I can only go by what I observe. I haven't seen anyone in the Hispanic community get up and say "We don't want Spanish language in government business." I only see the ones who agitate for it.Quote:
So for a better more realistic view of what is really going on, I suggest that you view the Hispanic community as it is and not as you imagine it to be.
I have argued in the past that if the Muslim community doesn't stand up and denounce the Islamofascist terrorists, then they are guilty of tacit support of terrorism. I believe that the same argument applies here. If the view that demands Spanish language in government is the only one we hear, the question we have to ask is "WHY?" Where are the voices of moderation and the voices of those who disagree with that stance.
And if there is so much disagreement with the demand for Spanish language in government, then why are there so many government websites that offer their services in Spanish? Clearly SOMEONE is agitating for it, and the government feels that pressure enough to act on it. Who is behind it?
First of all, I'm an Orthodox Jew, so I take anything that appears in the New Testament or other Christian writings with a grain of salt. I know, you took that into consideration in your post, but I had to make it part of the record.Quote:
That's what Cain said to God about Abel after he'd murdered him. "Am I my brother's keeper?" Jesus answered that for us in his parable about the man found beaten on the road who was ignored until one who felt compassion came along, felt that it was his moral responsibility before God to offer a helping hand, and at cost to himself did so.
Cain wasn't guilty of not supporting his brother, he was guilty of murdering him. Big difference. The fact is that Cain WASN'T Abel's keeper. Nor should he have been. If Abel had gotten lost in the woods, and G-d asked Cain where his brother was, Cain would have been within his rights to say "I don't know, am I my brother's keeper." That would be a more comparable example.
I disagree. There are different ways of solving a problem or helping others. Is it my problem to help every poor man that I see on the street by giving him money? If so, how long will it be before I have to join him with his tin cup? But I can do the civicly responsible thing, which is to support charities that help poor people. Giving the poor guy my money isn't my problem. Giving to chaities that help poor people is my problem.Quote:
To say, That isn't my problem!" actually would make a nation that can offer assistance to the less fortunate a pariah among the others.
Similarly, is it my problem to accommodate every immigrant who comes into this country with Spanish language documentation? I don't think so. I think my civic responsibility lies with helping them learn English and allowing them to integrate into society so that they can learn to help themselves.
You can give a poor man a fish or you can teach him to fish. That I choose the latter doesn't make me a bad person or civicly iresponsible.
But it has become my problem because my tax dollars are supporting it. I feel that my tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere. That makes it my problem. And I want to change it.Quote:
In any case, I didn't say it was your problem in my original post.
If, as you say, most Hispanics see English as the national language, and if you agree with that point of view, then why not codify it in law?Quote:
I grew up in the United States and have always considered English its national language. During all that time I never have encountered any ethnic group who thought that it wasn't or that it shouldn't be the national language. The Hispanic press and Univision are always encouraging its readers and viewers to learn English and emphasizing the advantages that such a skill brings and the disadvantages of not knowing it. Hispanics which don't speak English for whatever reason never suggest that English not be the national language. What they do is constantly lament the fact that they can't speak any better. In view of this, I find it weird that suddenly there is this seemingly hysterical demand that English be made the national language in response to the Hispanic presence. Additionally, the statistics show that linguistic assimilation and acculturation is definitely taking place among the third generations just as it has with all other immigrant groups. So I find it totally unnecessary that Hispanics be made to feel that they are a threat to our country's language integrity.
And by the way, I am not agitating for English as the national language in response to Hispanics being here. I am doing it in response to the fact that the government is currently NOT operating in English only. I have a problem with the government operating in Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Swahili, Hebrew, Yiddish, Urdu, Swedish and Italian as well. This isn't an issue of me vs. Hispanics. It's an issue of me against the government operating in ANY language other than English. It's just that Hispanics are the largest group of immigrants and the loudest agitators for multiple-languages in government (and education too, but that is another discussion). So my response is directed at them. If it was a Chinese person or the Chinese community making the same demands, I would have the same response.
And you have quite skillfully avoided the question I asked before. What is your issue with making English the national language as a matter of law? You avoided it by stating that you are against my blaming the issue on Hispanics. You said that most Hispanics wouldn't have a problem with English as the national language. You have said that you see English as the de-facto national language. All good and wonderful. It still doesn't answer the question: what is your issue against codifying a law that makes English the national language?
Too bad they are the wrong color, and spoken like a true racist. Now that makes your whole argument one of a superior trying to control those you say are inferior because they can't do as you say so you want a feel good law that does nothing that feeds your own superiority. Its statements like these that take from the debate and gets down to trying your best to convince everyone of your superiority over others.Quote:
Blacks have been successful at segregating themselves from the rest of society DESPITE the fact that they speak the same language.
The fact is they are a minority among their own people, but get a lot of TV time. The average working Hispanic stiff, doesn't have time for this protest stuff, because they are working trying to have the American dream, as an american.Quote:
La Razza and Aztalan are LEADERS of the immigration-rights movement in America.
what is your issue against codifying a law that makes English the national language?
I don't know about Starman, but my opinion is that if we enforce the laws we already have this and other related problems would be a non issue. Wasting time on a feel good law does nothing to change things for the better, and obviously takes the attention off the real problem that your government wants as much cheap labor as possible so they can make more money. And if you want things to change VOTE.
Huh? Why is it racist to say that Blacks have created their own segregation? Any social scientist worth their salt says the same thing. There are even a few Black leaders who are starting to recognize it about their own community. Bill Cosby has been speaking in venues across the country saying exactly that. What, exactly, is racist about recognizing the fact that Blacks have segregated themselves from the rest of society to a large degree?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It seems to me that unsubstantiated claims of racism are what detract from the debate.
That may be true. Or maybe not. But the fact is that they are STILL the leaders of the immigrants rights movement and are in the lead in pushing for multiple languages. The fact that these leaders may be the minority opinion doesn't matter much if there is nobody fom within the community to counter them. They have been able to take over the issue and claim to be the mainstream, and that's all that matters. They are the de-facto mainstream by force of the fact that nobody is countering them with another, more moderate "mainstream" opinion.Quote:
The fact is they are a minority among their own people, but get a lot of TV time. The average working Hispanic stiff, doesn't have time for this protest stuff, because they are working trying to have the American dream, as an american.
I disagree with it being a useless feel good law. I believe that making English the national language will go a long way towards promoting integration of immigrants... like it was back in the post-WWII era and earlier. Back then, there were fewer immigrants on welfare, the ones who were got off it is quickly as possible, and all immigrants learned to get by in English, which allowed them to integrate more quickly and become financially and socially independent.Quote:
I don't know about Starman, but my opinion is that if we enforce the laws we already have this and other related problems would be a non issue. Wasting time on a feel good law does nothing to change things for the better, and obviously takes the attention off the real problem that your government wants as much cheap labor as possible so they can make more money. And if you want things to change VOTE.
We have historical information to back up my position... nearly 200 years of it. 200 years of immigrants from all countries coming to this country and learning the language, and becoming better off during their time here for it. What makes you think that English as the national language is either useless or just a feel good law? Without trying it, how do you know it's a waste of time.
The only part of your post that I agree with is this sentence:I agree wholeheartedly. In your opinion, does that include enforcing the immigration laws and border security? Or am I being a racist for asking that question? You see, if we enforced the borders and started deporting illegal immigrants as the law requires, we wouldn't be dealing with the issue of immigrants DEMANDING their "rights" to deal with the government in foreign languages. But you probably see such enforcement as racist... despite calling for us to enforce the laws already on the books.Quote:
my opinion is that if we enforce the laws we already have this and other related problems would be a non issue.
I commend you, Talaniman. You quite skillfully tried to get around the fact that I presented you with some pretty strong evidence that the government is complying with the demands of Spanish speakers by providing services in Spanish. Instead of admitting that the government is indeed operating in multiple languages, which you openly question as a point of fact, you instead tried to change the subject by calling me a racist. It was quite skillfully done. But I recognized it for what it was, and now I'm pointing out to everyone else on the board.
I've been called much worse things than "racist" in my time without getting flustered. It will take a bit more than that to get me off topic or distract me or put me on the defensive.
Next time, instead of hurling unfounded cies of racism at me, you could simply say "I disagree with your point," and leave it at that. Or else give me the reasons you disagree so that we can discuss them. Or try to prove me wrong based on facts. But calling me a racist isn't going to win you the argument.
Elliot
So your actions and opinions are guided by the few, because the many are silently going about their business. Living and raising their family. Even though the press has elevated the few to prominence through TV, so your complaint is not about the few but your TV industry making it seem as the few speak for the many. That's like saying the few terrorist, speak for Islam. Maybe you should do more research beyond what appears on mainstream TV.Quote:
That may be true. Or maybe not. But the fact is that they are STILL the leaders of the immigrants rights movement and are in the lead in pushing for multiple languages. The fact that these leaders may be the minority opinion doesn't matter much if there is nobody fom within the community to counter them. They have been able to take over the issue and claim to be the mainstream, and that's all that matters. They are the de-facto mainstream by force of the fact that nobody is countering them with another, more moderate "mainstream" opinion.
Yes it does and that includes the law that makes it an offense punishable by fines and, or imprisonment, for anyone to employ workers without the proper documentation. Enforcement of this law alone would stop the incentive to come here for work.Quote:
I agree wholeheartedly. In your opinion, does that include enforcing the immigration laws and border security?
Your idea of the government meeting demands, is unfounded and untrue, and I respectfully submit to you sir the government is doing all you say because it is in their interest to do so. Because you cannot see that is your own shortcoming and should endeavor to find out. I just wonder if you are as against the millions of overseas refugees who don't speak english, that the government allows into the country and subsidises them for years, until they can assimilate.Quote:
I commend you, Talaniman. You quite skillfully tried to get around the fact that I presented you with some pretty strong evidence that the government is complying with the demands of Spanish speakers by providing services in Spanish. Instead of admitting that the government is indeed operating in multiple languages, which you openly question as a point of fact, you instead tried to change the subject by calling me a racist. It was quite skillfully done. But I recognized it for what it was, and now I'm pointing out to everyone else on the board.
Again you have chosen to believe what the TV tells you, and not done your home work, or else you would know that there are NO black leaders for the many, who go about their lives, but you fall victim to believe what the few are saying, simply because it fits your idea of the truth. The truth is this debate is about economics and not race, and I'm sure those that know the whole picture will agree at the risk of being against those mysterious social scientist you regard so highly. Your own words and attitude is what makes you a racist in my opinion, and I call it as I see it. And your right the poison of hatred will stifle any meaningful debate if you can manage to keep yours out of it and stick to facts and opinions.Quote:
Huh? Why is it racist to say that Blacks have created their own segregation? Any social scientist worth their salt says the same thing. There are even a few Black leaders who are starting to recognize it about their own community. Bill Cosby has been speaking in venues across the country saying exactly that. What, exactly, is racist about recognizing the fact that Blacks have segregated themselves from the rest of society to a large degree?
It seems to me that unsubstantiated claims of racism are what detract from the debate.
Our main point of disagreement is the fact that making a law that changes nothing, is a waste of time and effort, that should be directed at the real problems. Now I'm still waiting for what would making English the official language of the USA, change or make better? My answer is NOTHING AT ALL.
Assuming that "the many" are against the La Razza and Aztalan crowd, and are not in favor of multiple languages being used within the government, why should I be against them? I would agree with them. I only have a reason to take action against those I disagree with. Which means, in this case, the "immigrants rights movement" led by La Razza and Aztalan.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Do you make it a habbit of arguing with people with whom you agree? It would seem to be a fruitless endeavour. But if that's how you like spending your time, go right ahead. I'll stick to opposing those I actually disagree with.
Well we agree on that point, at least. It would certainly stop MOST of the incentive for coming here. As would increased border security and deportation. We seem to be in agreement on this point.Quote:
Yes it does and that includes the law that makes it an offense punishable by fines and, or imprisonment, for anyone to employ workers without the proper documentation. Enforcement of this law alone would stop the incentive to come here for work.
Of course it's in their interests to do so. For two reasons... for the conservatives in government it is just easier to bow to pressure than stand up against it. And for liberals in government, Spanish speakers are a large voting bloc that they believe they can obtain in future elections by cowtowing to their demands. So yes, it is most certainly in their best interests to do so. That doesn't make it right.Quote:
Your idea of the government meeting demands, is unfounded and untrue, and I respectfully submit to you sir the government is doing all you say because it is in their interest to do so.
But it is true that the government is definitely operating in multiple languages. The proof of that is inescapable.
As I mentioned in my original post, I place political refugees in a completely different category from immigrants. Refugees should be pushed to the head of the line, and should be given reasonable support until they can get back on their feet. (Emphasis on REASONABLE.) But that does not mean accommodating their LANGUAGE. In fact, political refugees should be the first ones to want to learn English and become a part of American society. And having known a few political refugees in my time (Anatoly (Natan) Sharansky for one, and many other former Soviet political refugees as well--- I used to do charity and outreach work with political refugees from the former Soviet countries), that has generally been the case. They learn the language faster than any other group, despite have to learn a whole new alphabet and grammar. And NONE of them ever demanded Russian language government forms. So in response to your question, I would have issues with the government acomodating even political refugees in a foreign language. But I consider documented political refugees to be in a different category from all other forms of immigration.Quote:
Because you cannot see that is your own shortcoming and should endeavor to find out. I just wonder if you are as against the millions of overseas refugees who don't speak english, that the government allows into the country and subsidises them for years, until they can assimilate.
As for what English as the National language would help, the answer is it would help with integration into society. Period. Do you deny that it would have that effect? Do you deny that those who learn English have an easier time integrating and becoming productive members of society? THAT is what it would help.
Elliot
ETWolverine, Assuming that "the many" are against the La Razza and Aztalan crowd, and are not in favor of multiple languages being used within the government, why should I be against them? I would agree with them. I only have a reason to take action against those I disagree with. Which means, in this case, the "immigrants rights movement" led by La Razza and Aztalan.
What actions can you take?
Do you make it a habbit of arguing with people with whom you agree? It would seem to be a fruitless endeavour. But if that's how you like spending your time, go right ahead. I'll stick to opposing those I actually disagree with.
Its a debate, an exchange of ideas, and opinions. And since we are both here in this "fruitless endeavor" we must both like spending our time this way.
Well we agree on that point, at least. It would certainly stop MOST of the incentive for coming here. As would increased border security and deportation. We seem to be in agreement on this point.
See, anything is possible:)
Of course it's in their interests to do so. For two reasons... for the conservatives in government it is just easier to bow to pressure than stand up against it. And for liberals in government, Spanish speakers are a large voting bloc that they believe they can obtain in future elections by cowtowing to their demands. So yes, it is most certainly in their best interests to do so. That doesn't make it right.
Political gobbledygook aside the government does recognise that non-english speakers must be helped, as far as being because of demands, sorry, I don't agree that is the case. As you say they have an interest in doing what they are doing.
But it is true that the government is definitely operating in multiple languages. The proof of that is inescapable.
This is where we drift apart, the business of government is done in english, and if you had c-spann you would know that, and what you keep referring to is the government doing its public services thing, which is entirely different, and has nothing to do with the governments business, but an attempt to facilitate inclusion. If you persist in being against this facilitation what am I supposed to conclude?
As I mentioned in my original post, I place political refugees in a completely different category from immigrants. Refugees should be pushed to the head of the line, and should be given reasonable support until they can get back on their feet. (Emphasis on REASONABLE.) But that does not mean accommodating their LANGUAGE. In fact, political refugees should be the first ones to want to learn English and become a part of American society. And having known a few political refugees in my time (Anatoly (Natan) Sharansky for one, and many other former Soviet political refugees as well--- I used to do charity and outreach work with political refugees from the former Soviet countries), that has generally been the case. They learn the language faster than any other group, despite have to learn a whole new alphabet and grammar. And NONE of them ever demanded Russian language government forms. So in response to your question, I would have issues with the government acomodating even political refugees in a foreign language. But I consider documented political refugees to be in a different category from all other forms of immigration.
We disagree. Its the same thing to me.
As for what English as the National language would help, the answer is it would help with integration into society. Period. Do you deny that it would have that effect?
Yes I think its a smoke screen for racism. It gives the government the right to deny needed services and care, to anyone who cannot be proficient with English, who happen at this time be Hispanic, coincidentally the fastest growing segment of our society.
Do you deny that those who learn English have an easier time integrating and becoming productive members of society?
YES!!!
THAT is what it would help.
NO!!!!!
Talaniman
Exactly the ones I'm taking now... agitating for a law to make English the national language.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Let's review: you had asked me why I wasn't disagreeing with what you say is the majoity of Hispanics in this country. I responded by answering that I wasn't arguing against people who's opinions I am in agreement with, so there is no reason for me to disagree with them. Doing so would be a fruitless endeavour. However, I disagree with you, so arguing with you isn't the same sort of fruitless endeavour.Quote:
Its a debate, an exchange of ideas, and opinions. And since we are both here in this "fruitless endeavor" we must both like spending our time this way.
You can disagree all you want. Do you have anything to back it up?Quote:
Political gobbledygook aside the government does recognise that non-english speakers must be helped, as far as being because of demands, sorry, I don't agree that is the case. As you say they have an interest in doing what they are doing.
Which part of a "pulic service thing" is the IRS putting its forms in Spanish, the Unemployment Insurance allowing people to file for benefits online in Spanish, etc. This is government business. It is taking place in Spanish. The fact that C-Span shows Congress operating in English is meaningless. Congress is probably the smallest part of government. The government is made up of thousands of different agencies, with tens of thousands of employees. Most of those agencies (especially the ones with public contact) operate in multiple languages. Congress has only 535 members and constitutes a very small percentage of total government operations. I can continue to list government agencies operating in multiple languages, if you would like.lQuote:
This is where we drift apart, the business of government is done in english, and if you had c-spann you would know that, and what you keep referring to is the government doing its public services thing, which is entirely different, and has nothing to do with the governments business, but an attempt to facilitate inclusion. If you persist in being against this facilitation what am I supposed to conclude?
Feel free to disagree. But the law actually says otherwise. Political refugees are actually outside the regular rules of immigration by law. So you can disagree all you want, but from a legal interpretation there is nothing to back up your position.Quote:
We disagree. Its the same thing to me.
Why is this a racial issue? What race are "Spanish speakers"? For that matter, since I feel the same way about the government operating in ANY language other than English, how can it be racism? I feel the same way about Hebrew and Yiddish, both of which I speak with varying degrees of fluency.Quote:
Yes I think its a smoke screen for racism. It gives the government the right to deny needed services and care, to anyone who cannot be proficient with English, who happen at this time be Hispanic, coincidentally the fastest growing segment of our society.
Then you are just denying the obvious. People who cannot speak English cannot do as well in the USA as those who can. This is simple logic. If you can't speak the predominant language, it limits the number and types of jobs you can attain, and thus the economic prosperity you can achieve. To deny this basic fact of logic and history is to hide your head in the sand.Quote:
Do you deny that those who learn English have an easier time integrating and becoming productive members of society?
YES!!!
THAT is what it would help.
NO!!!!!
Talaniman
Put quite simply, among successful Hispanic businessmen in the USA, the millionaires among the Hispanic community, how many of them cannot speak English and conduct business only in Spanish? And how many non-English speaking millionaires are there in the USA? I would argue that the statistical answer to both these questions is so close to zero as to be insignificant.
If you cannot see the connection between language and financial success, then you just aren't looking. And in that case, there's really nothing to talk about.
Elliot
ETWolverine]
Segregation is irrelevant to the subject. What is relevant is that though they supposedly are linguistically superior that linguistic superiority, which you continue to put forth as essential to success in the USA doesn't seem to mean squat! Also, if indeed they have wound up segregated, that supports my argument about English proficiency not being the main force of assimilation.
Quote:
And what point are you trying to make here? That because Blacks suffer a greater degree of poverty than Hispanics, the government shouldn't make English the national language? Exactly how does that work, logically speaking?
English is, and has been the recognized national language for the entire history of this country. Or are you unaware of that?
I take nothing at face value since taking things at face value within a society predisposed to misrepresent minorities would be poor scholarship and might even come across as bias camouflaged with a thin veneer of supposed trust.Quote:
... I take the numbers at face value
Simply ignoring the obvious conclusions which the statistics clearly justify is tantamount to an argument against them.Quote:
What I have argued in every case is that your conclusions are in error, not the statistics themselves.
Better at learning English than the native English speakers?Quote:
... They have done better at learning English, obtaining an advanced education and becoming successful in the workplace. They have integrated into society better.
All of the successful foreigners I see in my neighborhood barely speak English at all. These include Koreans, Chinese and Asiatic Indians. They own all the businesses in African American community in which they operate. Gasoline station, Restaurant, Magazine Store and three well-stocked grocery stores.
Quote:
La Razza and Aztalan are LEADERS of the immigration-rights movement in America. They were the organizers of last year's protests for immigrant rights. They aren't "extremists," they are the mainstream of the immigrant-rights movement. That's the problem. By contrast the KKK doesn't lead the anti-immigration movement.
BTW
The KKK is against Jewish presence and Jewish immigration into the USA. So they definitely aren't immigration neutral.
In any case, if indeed these extremist separatist groups are the leaders of the immigrant rights they sure aren't getting any airtime on Univision. In fact, they aren't even mentioned on Univision for that matter. Which arouses the suspicion that this is info you probably garnered from the Lou Dobbs anti-immigration crusade in which he distorts, mangles, twists, and disfigures 95% of the info that comes his way in order to get his way.
Quote:
Sure. And not all Jews support the State of Israel. The Neturei Karta movement in particular is very anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. But that doesn't mean that support of Israel isn't the mainstream view of the Jewish community. So you may be right that not every Hispanic is demanding Spanish-language in the USA, it is something that a large (and very loud) segment of the Hispanic community wants and advocates for. It isn't an "extreme" viewpoint within the Hispanic community.
The Spanish language has been present in what you call the USA even before the English-speaking pilgrims landed here and before the Jamestown colony was founded. Why? Because the parts of the USA you are protesting that Spanish is being spoken in were formerly a Spanish colony and later became Mexico proper. So it comes across as rather weird that you find it strange that Spanish is spoken in those areas.
The timing and the effects it will have on those accused of or perceived as provoking this self-defensive legislation--that's the problem.Quote:
if you are correct that it is a minority view of the Hispanic community, then why not make English the national language? What's the problem?
Quote:
I can only go by what I observe. I haven't seen anyone in the Hispanic community get up and say "We don't want Spanish language in government business." I only see the ones who agitate for it.
There ca be no voices for moderation when there are no voices sufficiently significant to be opposed.--sorry. Perhaps the whole agitation and demand scenario is simply a figment of your imagination. At least its intensity since I am totally unaware of it as are all other Hispanics that I mention it to.Quote:
Where are the voices of moderation and the voices of those who disagree with that stance.
Thanks for mentioning your religious background although I don't see it's relevance.Quote:
First of all, I'm an Orthodox Jew, so I take anything that appears in the New Testament or other Christian writings with a grain of salt. I know, you took that into consideration in your post, but I had to make it part of the record...
The quotation is made in support of an ethical principle taught in Ethics 101, and is an essential part of the training for lawyers, philosophers, psychiatrists, etcetera who deal in the field of the behavioral sciences. In any case Cain knew what God was referring to. So his answer is not irrelevant God' s question at all. It is simply an evasion, one that shows deficient sense of concern for others, but not one intended to negate what he knew that God knew he had done. Neither was God asking because he didn't know what God Cain had done. The question was a rhetorical one. In short, the example fits very well with your present attitude which seems to convey the same lack of concern that Cain's statement about his brother and about all other humans by extension.
Quote:
I disagree. There are different ways of solving a problem or helping others. Is it my problem to help every poor man that I see on the street by giving him money? If so, how long will it be before I have to join him with his tin cup? But I can do the civicly responsible thing, which is to support charities that help poor people. Giving the poor guy my money isn't my problem. Giving to charities that help poor people is my problem.
That's a strawman argument since I am not suggesting that you help every person on Earth since obviously your meager resources won't allow it. Neither am I suggesting that you bypass charities. What a waste of time! Please stay on subject.
BTW
Regardless of your denial of any moral responsibility toward others, your being a human being automatically places such responsibility squarely on your shoulders. That you fidget and chafe under what you consider a burden is unfortunately irrelevant.
Why not leave that up to people who are far better qualified than yourself to determine?Quote:
similarly, is it my problem to accommodate every immigrant who comes into this country with Spanish language documentation? I don't think so. I think my civic responsibility lies with helping them learn English and allowing them to integrate into society so that they can learn to help themselves.
People such as social scientists, for example, who are employed by the administration Americans chose to represent them? As for you claim that these people aren't helping themselves or are unwilling to--that comes across as bigotry. It might not be--mind you--but it comes across as extremely narrow minded nevertheless.
NO, what might make you a bad person is your constant misrepresentations your lack of compassion for those less fortunate than yourself and your vehement dedication to making their life more difficult via totally unnecessary legislation. Now that might make you a bad person in the eyes of those more aware of their moral duties than you seem to be.Quote:
You can give a poor man a fish or you can teach him to fish. That I choose the latter doesn't make me a bad person or civicly iresponsible.
That's because your tax dollars are in the possession of those who you voted to decide what to do with your tax dollars. Actually, there are so many, many, other ways in which your tax dollars are being misused too much greater degree that you actually have a bewildering array of choices to complain about. Yet, among all these misuses of your precious tax dollars you have chosen to focus specifically on this. Why?Quote:
But it has become my problem because my tax dollars are supporting it. I feel that my tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere. That makes it my problem. And I want to change it.
If codification would make life more difficult for immigrants why would you insist on codification?Quote:
If, as you say, most Hispanics see English as the national language, and if you agree with that point of view, then why not codify it in law?
Could have fooled me! Calling it agitation won't change it one iota into agitation just as your reference to collateral damage when innocent people are killed by wayward bombs or you waxing melodic about friendly fire when a soldier is killed by his own troops make it anything other than what it is. Immigrants are requesting, asking, petitioning, lobbying, for government not to pass a law which will make their assimilation into American society more difficult. That is all. Anything else is your addition, interpretation, based perhaps on your watching too much Lou Dobbs.Quote:
And by the way, I am not agitating for English as the national language in response to Hispanics being here. I am doing it in response to the fact that the government is currently NOT operating in English only...
Quote:
And you have quite skillfully avoided the question I asked before...
I have been very clear concerning this issue.
Starman,
When did I defend the KKK? I stated that they are not a goup in any leadership position in the USA. How is that defending them?
I'll get to the rest of your post later, as time permits.
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I see people arriving here all the time from Asiatic countries. They have poor or almost non-existent English skills. Yet they set up businesses, and do far better than those in the neighborhood who speak English fluently. So I think that you need to qualify that statement to bering it more in line with reality.
I apologize. The word "defend" isn't the proper word to use in that context. I'll go back and modify the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
My objection to your comparison is that you make it seem as if the whole Hispanic community is behind these extremist groups. That isn't so. In contrast, the KKK anti immigration stance against those groups it considers non-American is in my opinion supported much more by the American public than the Hispanic community supports these separatist extremist views you mention. That's what I really meant to say. My apologies for have previously gone off subject.
The only way to keep English as our only accepted language in the U.S. is we have to get rid :mad: of the Congressmen and Senators who oppose this idea. Our nation was founded by English speaking citizens and it needs to stay that way. :D
We need to vote out :) politicians who oppose English as the only accepted language for the U.S. We can make our voices heard at the voting polls, next election. :)
Too many of our officials are hung up on the PC idea of "diversity" even to the point of celebrating it. The most certain way to break up a country from within is for there to be many different languages in common use, with each community retaining its ethnic culture. Right now, if you only speak English, there are many jobs you cannot get, and areas where you can't read the street signs. Politicians love to talk about unity, but allow a situation to continue that only leads to fragmentation.
Theodore Roosevelt articulated the unspoken American linguistic-melting-pot theory when he boomed, "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."
There is a lot of expense involved in having more than one national language. Schools will need special teachers and textbooks. All hospitals and corporations will need to have printed material in each language.
Not to mention DMV and Elections. It could become a real mess.
Should English Be the Law? - 97.04
Belgium and Canada have never managed to forge a stable national identity; Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia never did either. Unique otherness immunizes countries against linguistic destabilization. Even Switzerland and especially India have problems; in any country with as many different languages as India has, language will never not be a problem.
Russians living in Estonia for generations have been told it is now a condition of citizenship to be able to speak Estonian.
The twentieth century is ending as it began -- with trouble in the Balkans and with nationalist tensions flaring up in other parts of the globe. (Toward the end of his life Bismarck predicted that "some damn fool thing in the Balkans" would ignite the next war.) Language isn't always part of the problem. But it usually is.
Our officials don't want to take a chance on losing votes by taking a firm stand for one language even knowing the problems of these other countries with several languages.
I guess we'll cross that street when we come to it. It's now the American way to operate.
Not sure where you get that idea. As a Canadian I am proud of such. I love being perfectly bilingual and I truly enjoy the respect I get when travelling once they find out I'm Canadian.Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
But I also believe that this effort is being made to counter the progressive gains of Hispanics in this country. After all, they are now called the most important minority and growing by leaps and bounds. It's strange that when reports came out about Hispanics being the fastest growing minority in this country, suddenly there was this insane push to build border fences and keep them out. Why? Afraid they'll multiply and produce more children in this country that will, in effect, be legal American citizens but of Mexican ancestry?! And now this push to make English the "official" language, if it doesn't beat all. So, I do agree with both Barack's stance and Hillary's. They are right on target on this one. And let's not forget that when we talk RACE, the Mexican or Hispanic person's RACE is actually WHITE, unless they are of another race! How many of you knew this? How many didn't? It is, and you can check any Hispanic person's birth certificate under "race" for the PROOF. They do not belong to any other racial category but White. I don't know how this "ethnicity" thing got started but it's the RACE that people take pride in, including Hispanics as well they should. But now, let's go and see what Hispanics think and say about this matter that primarily targets and would affect them.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/issues.../plusonly.html
________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!
Just Say No Deal
Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention
And for ALL Obamanots:
Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008
Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyGem
That's interesting for you to even question. Of course it's about the illegals push to amnesty. When someone chooses to come here to live, why would it be up to our society, our taxpayers to acclimate to their language and culture instead of them doing the acclimating?
The expense of our becoming multilingual is huge and at a time when our economy is the worst I've ever seen it. Why do the taxpayers once again have to pick up the cost of changing all of our public institutions, forms, road signs, hospitals, and every conceivable public event, etc. to please people who have come here uninvited?
America opens it's doors to people who come here legally after waiting their turn - and they acclimate themselves to our society since it's where they chose to come. It has been that way since the beginning and has allowed newcomer immigrants to take pride in this country. In my opinion, it is not anti-American to expect others to learn our language or for us to want to keep the language this country began under. The last poll I saw showed 80% of the citizens feel this way. (not that it matters to our government once the election has ended)
To begin with, there are many who do not believe in such polls (as if they were truly accurate to begin with), and Congress would be paying much closer attention to their constituents who responded to those polls and what they were saying if there was any merit in that that would not be perceived as being racist. But, let's start by not making it so hard for people who are already here to gain a decent path to full citizenship! Let's not take 30 years to consider whether we will legally accept them or not. That's patently ridiculous and pathetic. Also, why is it that we always have to alienate only our neighbors to the South? In my opinion and that of many others, we should erect large fences on the CANADIAN border instead of the Mexican as that is where many more terrorists enter the U.S. and it also has its good share of illegals! Why aren't we doing that? Why are we always picking on Mexico? I don't see that as right or fair. Even in the country of Canada, there are provinces and states that speak French exclusively as well as other languages. There is no "Only English" or "Only Canadian" language. Why? Because they truly value the background of the different people who live there, their French speakers, for one group, as well as those of many other countries. It is shameful that some people living in the U.S. would want to be different in that respect and hide their racism under the umbrella of "English Only" so we don't have to "pay" for translators, instruction books, etc. I'm sure such "dire" expense would make this rich country go broke the next moment, at the batting of an eye. I find it extremely difficult to understand how on the one hand, Americans are tearing down fences and barriers by supporting a Black man for the nation's highest office, while on the other hand, they are erecting fences intended to reject and divide our neighbors to the South in Mexico with the English Only proposal. It just doesn't make any sense. But I'll tell you something, that's exactly what gives this country a snub-nose character when Europe and other countries read about what we are proposing to do. English Only is totally unnecessary and divisive. We all have to live with one another and learn to get along. Let's try to IMPROVE our relations with the world instead of erecting fences and reasons to be perceived as shutting others out who may be different, in some ways, than we.Quote:
Originally Posted by purplewings
________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!
Just Say No Deal
Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention
And for ALL Obamanots:
Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008
Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com
The reason we don't build a fence on the border of Canada is because 12 million of then aren't trespassing into our country.
It's like if you have two neighbors one has 2 kids that run into your yard. The other neighbor has 60 kids that run into your yard stay there and export your cash back to their house. If you could only build one fence at a time which neighbor would you fence out first? Even if you like kids there comes to be a point when you have to say keep your kids off my freakin lawn.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 AM. |