With links this time!

Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all not everything that has been done in this country in the last couple centuries was a good thing. That's why the country has evolved. The standard two hundred years ago was a place of freedom for only certain individuals. That standard has changed to a place of freedom for everyone.

It cost hundreds or thousands of American lives but that of which you speak was stopped 150 yeas ago or so.

Ok fine look what's been done here and there in the last 100.

I for one and going to not argue with this PC madness.
I enjoy seeing and am proud of what this country has become and not what some unproven Johnny come lately ideals say we should be.
 
So, if they choose to be rude, it is our responsiblity to cater to them?

I don't think so.
How are you being held responsible for catering to them? Is your store being forced to put up signs in spanish? Are you being required to learn a new language in order to conduct business? Nope.

It cost hundreds or thousands of American lives but that of which you speak was stopped 150 yeas ago or so.

Ok fine look what's been done here and there in the last 100.
And even in the past 100 it wasn't all that great. It's been less than a century since women have been been allowed to vote. Yes, many great strides have been made and that's the point. The "standard" fifty years ago was segregation. The "standard" evolves.
 
The "standard" evolves.

I suppose human rights are better in other places where this influx is coming from? I was talking economics not PC ideologies. Money, lifestyle is why we are so popular and why 99.9% want to come here.

Yep and once you've watched it evolve a half a century or so lets talk again and then tell me whatja think. Observing and reading about are two completely different things.

I give up this is pointless and hasn't much to do with the original posts intent.
 
y thinking is when those that come, no matter from where, your coming to America.
Ok, now be an American. Until the last decade or so that was the way it was too. My Hispanic friends are Americans of a different heritage than me but first and foremost we are all Americans. Anything wrong with that?
If this country is allowed to follow the ideals of another country soon that will become part of our standard. Not a good scenario in my book.
It is fairly simple really, "you wanted to come and live in America so now be an American". Remember where and why you came, don't forget your heritage but be an American first now. If you want things to be like they were where you came from, go back there.

First generation assimilation hasn't really been the norm with previous waves of immigration, and I see no reason why this one should be different.

Also, I would put forward that it's possible (though of course we have no way of knowing) that given the means to immigrate here legally and perhaps actually become citizens the people who are now illegals might suddenly feel more need to conform to American society. Some of them at least. As it is, why should they bother to learn the language or be more "American" when we don't consider them such and will deport them at the first opportunity?

Good. Then I assume you have no issue with the local police enforcing immigration laws as they are now doing in Mecklenburg CO, NC and other towns across the USA.

Yes and no. If local police come across an illegal alien, then I'd say they have a responsibility to detain them and hand them over to the proper authorities to be dealt with. They are, after all, breaking the law. At the same time, I think that rooting out illegals is outside the scope of their responsibilities and that any time they spend doing so is time they aren't spending dealing with other crimes that are their responsibility to investigate and attempt to prevent.

So move to Spanish speaking country and have fun.

Why move to a Spanish speaking country when I can instead just move to one of the many Spanish speaking counties we have right here in this one?

Also, are we still under the false presumption that bilingual/Spanish-speaking areas are a new thing, brought on by illegal immigration? Yes, some of the ones we have now are...but others have been around pretty much forever.

Oh no! Putting soldiers on the border might send the wrong message or offend someone.

No, putting soldiers on the border might be an improper use of military forces for law enforcement duties, something we in the US try to avoid. If you like martial law, move to another country that believes in it.

YES...INVASION!

Putting it in capital letters doesn't make it right. Yes, it is technically an "invasion" as Redworm pointed out. It actually fits two of the three definitions in the online dictionary entry I'm looking at right now (assuming we concede that it's harmful). Unfortunately, the one definition that remains is the only one of the three for which a military response is appropriate.

If you want to talk about expanding the Border Patrol, then yeah that's a solution I can get behind (at least part of it). Is there some reason the military can accomplish anything the Border Patrol can't? Last I checked, law enforcement agencies could get ahold of NVG's, helicopters, off-road vehicles, etc. I imagine if the funds were there they could even get some of the nifty thermal sights the military uses. So why is it we should use the military for this purpose instead of simply expanding and funding the Border Patrol to the level necessary to get the job done? Is there some reason heavy armored combat vehicles like tanks and APCs are needed to combat illegal immigration?
 
This thread was fine when we were discussing illegal immigration. Now that it is a complaint-fest for "signs in spanish" or "tellers speaking spanish" and other PERFECTLY LEGAL THINGS, it shows the true colors of some posters here.

Stop bashing legal Americans, you rednecks.:mad:

This thread is so obviously over.
 
"How are you being held responsible for catering to them? Is your store being forced to put up signs in spanish? Are you being required to learn a new language in order to conduct business? Nope."

Well, here in California some of our tax money goes toward printing ballots in languages other than English... That seems like "catering", and I'm definitely being held responsible for paying my taxes.

Tim
 
How are you being held responsible for catering to them?

I grew up in So. California (the San Fernando Valley) in the 50s and 60s. That area has had a very large Spanish/Latino influence from day 1. The school system, as well as the general population, has always had a very high percentage of Mexican immigrants.

They were not offered the driving test in Spanish. They were not offered ballots in Spanish. They were not offered special classes in school which "catered" to those who spoke very little English. For the most part they made the effort to function in a society in which the English language prevailed. And they succeeded.

Today, the system has gone to extremes, compared to 40 years ago, in order to accomodate those who come to this country (many illegally) and do not care to assimilate. They are free to go on the public dole. The government goes out of its way to conduct business in their native language. That is what I mean by catering.
 
I suppose human rights are better in other places where this influx is coming from? I was talking economics not PC ideologies. Money, lifestyle is why we are so popular and why 99.9% want to come here.

Yep and once you've watched it evolve a half a century or so lets talk again and then tell me whatja think. Observing and reading about are two completely different things.

I give up this is pointless and hasn't much to do with the original posts intent.
I never said that the standard in Mexico was any better. My point was simply that the status quo is not meant to be preserved because it's never perfect. There are always things that can be improved. I for one would see it as a massive improvement if in fifty years every single American could speak two languages.
 
Well, here in California some of our tax money goes toward printing ballots in languages other than English... That seems like "catering", and I'm definitely being held responsible for paying my taxes.

There are legal residents of this country whose primary language is not English. Who read Spanish (or various others) better. Who have the right to vote.

Also, the whole "I don't want my tax money going to that" thing was already covered...there's a whole big expensive war on that costs a lot more than bilingual ballots that I didn't like from the start.

EDIT: Or are we again having problems differentiating between "those who don't speak English," "those who don't read or write English well," and "illegal immigrants?" Because while those three sets do overlap, they are not one and the same.
 
"How are you being held responsible for catering to them? Is your store being forced to put up signs in spanish? Are you being required to learn a new language in order to conduct business? Nope."

Well, here in California some of our tax money goes toward printing ballots in languages other than English... That seems like "catering", and I'm definitely being held responsible for paying my taxes.

Tim
Those ballots are for citizens who - unless they've spent fifteen or twenty years living in the country and are over the age of 50 - have taken the citizenship test in english and have a decent understanding of the language and probably a better understanding of our government than most natural born citizens.

I'll concede that such a thing is catering to speakers of other languages. However remember that you're catering to American citizens that have every right and priveledge that you do. If you wanted to vote in another language you have the choice as well.
 
I grew up in So. California (the San Fernando Valley) in the 50s and 60s. That area has had a very large Spanish/Latino influence from day 1. The school system, as well as the general population, has always had a very high percentage of Mexican immigrants.

They were not offered the driving test in Spanish. They were not offered ballots in Spanish. They were not offered special classes in school which "catered" to those who spoke very little English. For the most part they made the effort to function in a society in which the English language prevailed. And they succeeded.

Today, the system has gone to extremes, compared to 40 years ago, in order to accomodate those who come to this country (many illegally) and do not care to assimilate. They are free to go on the public dole. The government goes out of its way to conduct business in their native language. That is what I mean by catering.
But you have not had to learn another language in order to exercise any of your rights. It's one thing to argue against catering to illegals but catering to legal residents and especially citizens because they were born elsewhere and didn't start learning this new language until well into adulthood (where it's significantly more difficult to learn a new language) is perfectly acceptable.

I do understand what you mean by catering, however.
 
This has nothing to do with this thread , Does it ?

It does when a common fallback argument against anything the government might possibly to do cater to those (even citizens) who speak other languages is "it costs me tax money!!!1!"

Guess what: a lot of things cost tax money. Things I don't like. Things you don't like. Things you don't like that I like, and vice versa. If that's the most compelling argument you have, then just give up now.

As far as why I chose the Iraq war, it's just the most expensive thing I could think of off the top of my head that I was utterly opposed to.
 
Illegal aliens are free to go on the public dole at a huge expense to taxpaying citizens of this country. That aspect of "catering" I disagree with.
 
Illegal aliens are free to go on the public dole at a huge expense to taxpaying citizens of this country. That aspect of "catering" I disagree with.
Sure but putting up signs in other languages has nothing to do with illegals getting free services.

People tend to forget that illegals also buy stuff, pay rent, drink, eat, watch tv, shop for clothes and a bunch of other things that stimulate the economy. No, it doesn't justify being illegal but it does get rid of the argument that they're not contributing anything. The subject of how much they contribute versus how much they cost is still under heavy debate.
 
People tend to forget that illegals also buy stuff, pay rent, drink, eat, watch tv, shop for clothes and a bunch of other things that stimulate the economy. No, it doesn't justify being illegal but it does get rid of the argument that they're not contributing anything. The subject of how much they contribute versus how much they cost is still under heavy debate.

Yep, and no amount of evidence there might be to prove that they cost this country billions is gonna change your mind.

Illegal is still illegal, no matter what spin you care to put on it.

Done with this one.
 
Illegal aliens are free to go on the public dole at a huge expense to taxpaying citizens of this country. That aspect of "catering" I disagree with.

I'm no fan of that either. Of course, as Redworm pointed out I fail to see how this relates in any way to bilingual signage, ballots, services, etc. There are illegal immigrants that speak English, and legal ones that don't.

The more the debate focuses on things like bilingualism the less I think it actually has anything to do with actual illegal immigration.

Yep, and no amount of evidence there might be to prove that they cost this country billions is gonna change your mind.

Net cost? Are you taking into account what they contribute to the economy, including directly into many tax bases (such as property taxes, sales taxes, etc)?

I have no doubt they cost the country billions...but I also have no doubt they contribute back a large amount to offset it. And people smarter than you or I are still debating whether it's a net positive or negative (economically) and either way how much.
 
Well what we have here is couple of Johnny come latelys that have taken this thread to where I have watched so many others sink to. Agenda, agenda agenda, and not the topic of the original post. I learned a long time ago not to argue with women or fools not that anyone heres either but I am otta this one.
G-Day Ladies and Gentlemen, It was fun while it lasted.
 
Well what we have here is couple of Johnny come latelys that have taken this thread to where I have watched so many others sink to. Agenda, agenda agenda, and not the topic of the original post.

The topic of the original post was a stack of statistics of varying veracity and context. Is there some reason that border security and the economic effects of illegal aliens isn't pertinent to this thread?

One could argue that all this focus on the evils of bilingualism is just "agenda, agenda, agenda," especially since the original statistics weren't broken down by mastery of the English language.
 
Yep, and no amount of evidence there might be to prove that they cost this country billions is gonna change your mind.

Illegal is still illegal, no matter what spin you care to put on it.

Done with this one.
Not necessarily. If they really did cost billions then it would be a different story. However, even a first econ student will tell you that 12 million consumers makes a significant impact and contribution to the economy in general. Considering it's safe to assume at least half of those are also employed - albiet illegally - then they also make a significant positive impact on at least many local economies if not entire regional ones.

Now whether or not they use more than they contribute is in question and the answer to that may be too complex to put in a neat little nutshell.

You're right, illegal is still illegal. But illegal does not mean immoral, illegal does not mean unjust, illegal does not mean evil, illegal does not mean victimizing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top