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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
Additionally, regardless of your annoyance, these people are breaking no law by speaking Spanish at home.
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:
As you can see the process is going along just fine.
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:
If you wish to accelerate it, why not make an effort to have English written more logically? I assure you--that would help.
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:
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.
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:
There remains a large rift between these two groups and it is unfair to lump them together that way.
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:
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?
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.
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