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?
Quote:
... I take the numbers at face value
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:
What I have argued in every case is that your conclusions are in error, not the statistics themselves.
Simply ignoring the obvious conclusions which the statistics clearly justify is tantamount to an argument against them.
Quote:
... They have done better at learning English, obtaining an advanced education and becoming successful in the workplace. They have integrated into society better.
Better at learning English than the native English speakers?
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.
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?
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:
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:
Where are the voices of moderation and the voices of those who disagree with that stance.
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:
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...
Thanks for mentioning your religious background although I don't see it's relevance.
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.
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.
Why not leave that up to people who are far better qualified than yourself to determine?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
If codification would make life more difficult for immigrants why would you insist on codification?
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...
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 you have quite skillfully avoided the question I asked before...
I have been very clear concerning this issue.
