[steve666]

As usual, talking through both sides of his mouth.
Who does this clown think he's fooling?
An amnesty is an amnesty, no matter how you spin it. And what this will do is increase pressure on the border, no matter what we throw in their way.

What he should have said:
I am the President of the United States, a sovereign nation of laws, and even though we are a nation of immigrants they must abide by our laws to enter this country. It is an affront to everyone who entered legally and those waiting patiently to enter legally to legitimize those who cut in line before them.
Therefore, I am giving all illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States 90 days to leave the country without penalty. Those who remain and are caught and detained by Homeland Security will not be allowed to apply legally to immigrate to this country.
After this 90 day period, we will be conducting sweeps of all day laborers in conjunction with local law enforcement and all will be immediately deported and fingerprinted. Businesses will be randomly searched for employment of illegal aliens and if any are found there will be a $100,000 fine per illegal and the president of the business will be jailed for a period of no less than a year.
All illegals currently in our prison system (25% of all federal Prisoners are illegal aliens), will be immediately deported to their home countries.
The National Guard will be placed on the border until we can train 5,000 more border agents and a double wall will be built.
Our legal immigration number will be reduced to 350,000 per year to reduce population overgrowth and stabilize our population at around 300 million people. Chain immigration will no longer be allowed. There will be a percentage of legal immigration geared towards those with needed skills in the sciences, medical profession, etc.
I will also introduce legislation declaring English to be the official language of the United States. We are a nation made up of hundreds of different nationalities and ethnicities. A common language is one of the most important things that binds us together as one nation. As Teddy Roosevelt once said:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant
who comes here in good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself
to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it
is an outrage to discriminate against any such man be cause of creed, or
birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming
in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no
divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something
else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the
American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the
English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a
loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

It is with this sense of a common goal to live free and succeed in a fair and honorable society that I bring these proposals to the American people. No longer can we tolerate the legitimization of rampant illegality that is undermining our storied immigration system. The war against terror also demands that our borders be secure. Although I can understand what has driven these illegal immigrants to endure hardship and danger in order to enter this country for work to provide for their children, it is more important to remember that there are Americans who also need to provide for their children, and legal immigrants who entered this country through the proper legal channels and their needs must come first.
To those illegal immigrants who must now go home and I say to them to show the same passion they showed during street protests here in the US and take to the streets in Mexico and Central America to show the Governments in their own countries that they want to be given the chance to work for a decent wage and to be able to educate their children so that they may have a better life and the chance to increase their countries economic and living conditions.
The United States remains committed to immigration as the greatest asset we have in ensuring the economic vitality of this country far into the future, and that which sustains us, enhances our culture, and brings bright minds and fertile imaginations into our society to keep it fresh and innovative.
All we ask, and now demand, is that those who choose to immigrate to this great country do so the right way, legally.
Good night.

[ink]

If Bush wants to control illegal immagration, he need only heavily fine the companies that hire them. No demand = no illegals. Conservatives always hail the power market (and rightfully so), but seem to have a poor understanding of how it works (eg., supply and demand).

Militarizing the border, on the other hand, matches perfectly with the Bush Doctrine of power before intellect.

[steve666]

I think the border must be militarized until an adequate number of border agents are trained.
However, there definitely needs to be employer sanctions, and strict ones. You notice thats the one thing he glossed over. Typical ain't it?

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't think there's an immigration or border problem. We have a pretty good system in theory, and we're a lot more welcoming of immigrants than many countries, but it's got a lot of red tape at the very least. We ought to make immigration easier.

The language thing is just disguised bigotry. English is hardly better than any other language. Let people speak whatever the hell they want to speak. If there's demand for services in another language, then meet it. If we end up with a shift in languages, then so be it. IMO we'd more likely see English change significantly, just as it has done in the past -- this is why it's hard for us to read Beowulf, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare.

Anyway, while there seem to be a number of objectionable details, this is a surprising step in the right direction. Surprising because Bush is such a ****-up. I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

English is hardly better than any other language. Let people speak whatever the hell they want to speak.

Wait just a GD minute mister....I'm an American, and i'll be damned if I'm going to learn another language...

Reminds me of the joke...

What do you call someone who speaks three languages.....Tri-lingual
What do you call someone who speaks two languages.......Bi-lingual
What do you call someone who speaks one language.......An American

[TheWOAT]

Legal immigrants tend to have post secondary education degrees at higher rates than American citizens. Legal immigration couldnt fulfull the need for menial laborers and ag workers. A guest worker program may be needed.

As for "English the official language"... I dont believe in "Bilingual Education" as its used in ESL classes mostly because it doesnt work. Ive seen "Bilingual Ed' classes being praised by some, but they often cite classes where the students were all born here and have equal english skills. There are many students who are taught to read and write Spanish before learning English to the same level. Thats ****ed up, how will they compete? The BS has to end.

[steve666]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I don't think there's an immigration or border problem. We have a pretty good system in theory, and we're a lot more welcoming of immigrants than many countries, but it's got a lot of red tape at the very least. We ought to make immigration easier.

The language thing is just disguised bigotry. English is hardly better than any other language. Let people speak whatever the hell they want to speak. If there's demand for services in another language, then meet it. If we end up with a shift in languages, then so be it. IMO we'd more likely see English change significantly, just as it has done in the past -- this is why it's hard for us to read Beowulf, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare.

Anyway, while there seem to be a number of objectionable details, this is a surprising step in the right direction. Surprising because Bush is such a ****-up. I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

That is really assinine. I guess we dont need to communicate with one another, huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

I have faith that we will manage to communicate with one another without an official language, just as we have managed to do so for the past several hundred years, along with several waves of immigrants. If people want to communicate they will: 1) make a patois, which may evolve into a language or 2) learn more languages. I think that Americans are adaptable, and intelligent, and will have no difficulty learning enough Spanish to communicate with immigrants that learn enough English, or just as likely, learning fluent Spanish, just as immigrants will learn fluent English.

You, OTOH, seem to think that Americans are so dumb and/or lazy that we won't even bother to learn to talk to our fellow, newly-arrived Americans. Basically, you're saying that learning foreign languages is one of those jobs Americans won't do. I am disappointed that you have such a dim view of Americans.

[steve666]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I have faith that we will manage to communicate with one another without an official language, just as we have managed to do so for the past several hundred years, along with several waves of immigrants. If people want to communicate they will: 1) make a patois, which may evolve into a language or 2) learn more languages. I think that Americans are adaptable, and intelligent, and will have no difficulty learning enough Spanish to communicate with immigrants that learn enough English, or just as likely, learning fluent Spanish, just as immigrants will learn fluent English.

You, OTOH, seem to think that Americans are so dumb and/or lazy that we won't even bother to learn to talk to our fellow, newly-arrived Americans. Basically, you're saying that learning foreign languages is one of those jobs Americans won't do. I am disappointed that you have such a dim view of Americans.

No, what I'm saying is that people who move here should learn to speak the language that the vast majority of Americans speak, english, which is the de facto official language of the US and has been since its inception.
If i moved to mexico I wouldnt be so arrogant as to believe that they should start to speak english in order to make it easier for me.

http://www.usenglish.org

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

I don't think there's an immigration or border problem. We have a pretty good system in theory, and we're a lot more welcoming of immigrants than many countries, but it's got a lot of red tape at the very least. We ought to make immigration easier.

The language thing is just disguised bigotry. English is hardly better than any other language. Let people speak whatever the hell they want to speak. If there's demand for services in another language, then meet it. If we end up with a shift in languages, then so be it. IMO we'd more likely see English change significantly, just as it has done in the past -- this is why it's hard for us to read Beowulf, or Chaucer, or Shakespeare.

Anyway, while there seem to be a number of objectionable details, this is a surprising step in the right direction. Surprising because Bush is such a ****-up. I guess even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

Have you personally experienced this 'red tape' ?

I have. It is not as bad as I thought it was when I was filling out the forms and driving three hours each way to the INS/DHS offices and waiting hours to be served.

forms to get work auth. forms to get green card. meeting DHS rep. with supporting evidence to show that no fraud is being committed. granting of green card with conditional status. two years wait to remove conditional status. Only really took a total of three or four years. Most of that was spent waiting on the DHS office in Texas to send a single piece of paper granting the next step.

I admit I had a chuckle over the pages of forms where the last page explains that the forms comply with the paperwork reduction act, but I've spent more time filling out tax returns than I have the forms for immigration.

Should we make immigration easier? Hard to say: immigration from some countries is easier than others. I suppose I would like to see it streamlined, but there's a definite need for security screening as well. I definitely reject the notion of amnesty. It's not impossible to immigrate the right way.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by steve666

No, what I'm saying is that people who move here should learn to speak the language that the vast majority of Americans speak, english, which is the de facto official language of the US and has been since its inception.
If i moved to mexico I wouldnt be so arrogant as to believe that they should start to speak english in order to make it easier for me.

http://www.usenglish.org

In other words, you're saying it's a matter of courtesy; am I right?

As far as that goes, I quite agree. The fact is that there is a de-facto standard, and that's a powerful argument for a de-jure standard. One of the founding principles of the US is that everyone deserves a political voice, but the fact is that if that voice can't be commonly understood then it is meaningless. It's impractical and unreasonable to teach everybody every language spoken in the US, and so the next best thing is to find the established cross-cultural standard -which happens to have been English- and formalize it.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by steve666

I think the border must be militarized until an adequate number of border agents are trained.

"Militarizing" the border is a complete sham. It makes for a nice prime-time speech but will accomplish nothing of any significance. You see there is this little thing called the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. Sending 6000 National Guard troops to the border makes for interesting political theater, but if they can't by law apprehend, pursue, or detain illegal border crossers then how exactly does their presence significantly improved the situation? As the border patrol agent union president essentially said on NPR (sorry, can't locate a link right now) .... this plan gives them "more eyes and ears but no more hands". And without more hands the problem doesn't get solved.

Originally Posted by steve666

However, there definitely needs to be employer sanctions, and strict ones. You notice thats the one thing he glossed over. Typical ain't it?

Indeed it does. I find it interesting that many on the right fall all over themselves railing against the illegality of the situation and want to crackdown on illegal immigrants. They want to toss the illegal immigrants in jail and/or deport them for "violating the law". But you hear nary a peep out of them when it comes to the business owners that employ (exploit?) the immigrant workers. When was the last time you heard any serious talk about sending the wealthy, predominantly white, business owners who employ illegal aliens to jail? The answer is for the most part you don't. And the question is .... why?

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW

And the question is .... why?

$$$

[Y3a]

If Bush had threatened to have ARMED soldiers on the border who had orders to shoot to kill, and the Illegals INSIDE OUR COUNTRY had 3 weeks to get out, I would have liked his speech. I think Bush has some sort of deal with the Mexican Slimeball President. ($$$)

[Rumor]

I think it should be required to speak at least 3 languages by the end of high school. Who's it going to hurt? No one. If implemented at an early enough stage, then it's entirely possible to be fluent in 6 or 7 languages by the time one is 18.

[cpt kangarooski]

steve666--

No, what I'm saying is that people who move here should learn to speak the language that the vast majority of Americans speak, english

Why? I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I think that learning English is a good thing, and that we ought to encourage it and help. But it's idiotic to force people to learn English just because they want to live here. There are tons of incentives for them to learn it anyway. We have never in the past needed to manufacture incentives, to artificially prop up English. Immigrants either wanted to learn it or were willing to forgo the advantages it would bring them. In either event, it was their choice. It should remain their choice. I am confident that there will not be any real problems with the issue. In fact, I don't think there is an issue. As I said, it's just a disguise for bigotry.

And note well that most Americans don't know foreign languages, and yet when traveling abroad, seem to manage. This is because they are willing to take the chance that they can get by on English alone, and they are willing to accept that they will not have as many opportunities to enjoy themselves as they would if they were fluent in the native tongue.

This is not a matter of politeness. It's a matter of self-interest. If an immigrant feels it is in his interest to learn English, he will. If he feels it's a waste of his time, even considering the doors that stay closed as a result, then he won't. English is not a weak language that needs to be propped up lest it die out. It's probably the most vibrant and successful language in history. So we can afford to take a laissez-faire attitude on this. Which, let me remind you, has been our policy on this matter for centuries, and it hasn't let us down yet.

As for the government, it is never ever the place of government to dictate policy in matters of culture. It is totally inappropriate for the government to tell people here what language to speak. Rather, it should meet the needs of residents and citizens. If a lot of people in an area speak Spanish, then the government simply will not be doing its job if it sticks solely to English. To do otherwise relegates non-English speakers to a second-class status, and again it's clear that the whole language issue is nothing more than bigotry in a weak disguise.

OAW--

You see there is this little thing called the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids the use of the military in civilian law enforcement.

Of course, this is a good thing. The military is utterly unsuited for work in law enforcement. Civilians, even criminals, are not like a military enemy. The modes of thought that have to be used, and the tactics that have to be applied are entirely different. History is rife with examples of the sorts of massacres and injustice that occur when the military is allowed to operate domestically.

Y3a--

If Bush had threatened to have ARMED soldiers on the border who had orders to shoot to kill, and the Illegals INSIDE OUR COUNTRY had 3 weeks to get out, I would have liked his speech.

Ah, and now for an undisguised bigot, who's bloodthirsty to boot.

It might interest you to know, if you've got any rational faculties left, that what you're suggesting would range from an act of war (deliberately murdering civilians of another country when they're in that country -- if they haven't crossed the border yet) to grossly unconstitutional (deliberately murdering civilians in violation of the 5th Amendment -- if they have crossed the border, regardless of whether they did so legally or not). Basically you are supporting the idea of mass murder. Congratulations: now you're on the side of spectacular assholes ranging from Klansmen to Nazis.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Y3a

If Bush had threatened to have ARMED soldiers on the border who had orders to shoot to kill, and the Illegals INSIDE OUR COUNTRY had 3 weeks to get out, I would have liked his speech.

That would be illegal.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Rumor

I think it should be required to speak at least 3 languages by the end of high school. Who's it going to hurt? No one. If implemented at an early enough stage, then it's entirely possible to be fluent in 6 or 7 languages by the time one is 18.

Six or seven? Keep in mind that the world record for fluencies is only twelve. Six or seven is certainly more than most people can handle.

I don't deny the value of foreign-language programs in schools. In fact, I think they should be required more often, and the standards for passing those classes raised. I also don't see why having an official language would mean that suddenly foreign-language requirements in schools should need to be relaxed.

Many nations have both an official language and strict foreign-language requirements in their schools. If the US were to choose an official language, why would it need to be any different?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

steve666--


Why? I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I think that learning English is a good thing, and that we ought to encourage it and help. But it's idiotic to force people to learn English just because they want to live here.

Is it? The fact is that people who don't speak English in this country, no matter how gifted they might otherwise be, tend to have a very difficult time surviving. If the purpose of a government is truly to ensure that people have equal opportunity, and a knowledge of English is a prerequisite for said opportunity (as it seems to be), then what is the problem with requiring a knowledge of it?

And note well that most Americans don't know foreign languages, and yet when traveling abroad, seem to manage.

Yes, and this is one of the biggest reasons for the "ugly American" stereotype. The fact is that not at least making an attempt to learn the basics of language of a culture you're moving to or visiting is rude.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Six or seven? Keep in mind that the world record for fluencies is only twelve. Six or seven is certainly more than most people can handle.

I don't deny the value of foreign-language programs in schools. In fact, I think they should be required more often, and the standards for passing those classes raised. I also don't see why having an official language would mean that suddenly foreign-language requirements in schools should need to be relaxed.

Many nations have both an official language and strict foreign-language requirements in their schools. If the US were to choose an official language, why would it need to be any different?

What I meant by 6 or 7 is that a child's mind learns easier than an adult mind. If they start learning start learning to be bilingual at say age 4 and continue to learn languages, then it's feasible by age 18 to be able to speak 6 languages.

I think it's entirely possible. We're not even close to pushing our limits mentally.

[steve666]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In other words, you're saying it's a matter of courtesy; am I right?

As far as that goes, I quite agree. The fact is that there is a de-facto standard, and that's a powerful argument for a de-jure standard. One of the founding principles of the US is that everyone deserves a political voice, but the fact is that if that voice can't be commonly understood then it is meaningless. It's impractical and unreasonable to teach everybody every language spoken in the US, and so the next best thing is to find the established cross-cultural standard -which happens to have been English- and formalize it.

Exactly.

[steve666]

Originally Posted by OAW

"Militarizing" the border is a complete sham. It makes for a nice prime-time speech but will accomplish nothing of any significance. You see there is this little thing called the Posse Comitatus Act which forbids the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. Sending 6000 National Guard troops to the border makes for interesting political theater, but if they can't by law apprehend, pursue, or detain illegal border crossers then how exactly does their presence significantly improved the situation? As the border patrol agent union president essentially said on NPR (sorry, can't locate a link right now) .... this plan gives them "more eyes and ears but no more hands". And without more hands the problem doesn't get solved.



Indeed it does. I find it interesting that many on the right fall all over themselves railing against the illegality of the situation and want to crackdown on illegal immigrants. They want to toss the illegal immigrants in jail and/or deport them for "violating the law". But you hear nary a peep out of them when it comes to the business owners that employ (exploit?) the immigrant workers. When was the last time you heard any serious talk about sending the wealthy, predominantly white, business owners who employ illegal aliens to jail? The answer is for the most part you don't. And the question is .... why?

OAW

I dont consider protecting the border from foreign invaders to be a civilian law enforcement. Its national security.

I agree about some Republicans on employer sanctions and the lack of enforcement, but they are not true conservatives. True conservatives like Tom Tancredo, Sensebrenner, etc, do want to see enforcement.

[Spliffdaddy]

Every conservative in this forum has made it clear that punishing/fining/killing employers (aka, "rich whitey" - for the racists among us) that hire illegals is something they support.

To suggest otherwise is to be a partisan lefty with no reading comprehension skills.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by steve666

I dont consider protecting the border from foreign invaders to be a civilian law enforcement. Its national security.

I think you would be hard pressed to convince even the most conservative of courts that border crossings constitute an military invasion of the United States. That's tantamount to saying that drug smuggling is a chemical warfare attack against the US population.

If it's not "civilian law enforcement" then why all the hullaballoo over the illegality of it all? Why are they referred to as illegal immigrants? The bottom line is that you can't have it both ways.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Every conservative in this forum has made it clear that punishing/fining/killing employers (aka, "rich whitey" - for the racists among us) that hire illegals is something they support.

To suggest otherwise is to be a partisan lefty with no reading comprehension skills.

Well if we are going to go down the "reading comprehension skills" road, I'll just pose a simple question. Did I say ....

A. "many on the right ...."

or

B. "many on the right in this forum ..."

And I'll just leave it at that.

OAW

[steve666]

Originally Posted by OAW

I think you would be hard pressed to convince even the most conservative of courts that border crossings constitute an military invasion of the United States. That's tantamount to saying that drug smuggling is a chemical warfare attack against the US population.

If it's not "civilian law enforcement" then why all the hullaballoo over the illegality of it all? Why are they referred to as illegal immigrants? The bottom line is that you can't have it both ways.

OAW

It doesnt have to be a military invasion. National immigration laws are being violated, and drug smugglers are also crossing into the country. All Bush has to do is declare a national security emergency (which he should have done after 9/11) and there is no problem.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by steve666

It doesnt have to be a military invasion. National immigration laws are being violated, and drug smugglers are also crossing into the country. All Bush has to do is declare a national security emergency (which he should have done after 9/11) and there is no problem.

Perhaps. But we both know that isn't going to happen. Furthermore, militarizing the border really isn't even necessary. Seriously .... I think we can both agree that there are an order of magnitude more illegal immigrants than there are businesses that hire them. Many of these illegal immigrants are concentrated in various industries (e.g., landscaping, roofing, meat packing, fruit/vegetable harvesting, etc.), so that narrows down the types of businesses that need to be scrutinized. It seems to me that running around trying to catch individual illegal immigrants is a pretty bass-ackwards approach to this problem.

Imagine if the federal government started to systematically raid the offices of the businesses that hire the illegal workers .... many of which have the vast majority of their workforce coming from this labor pool. Imagine if serious fines were handed out to businesses found in violation. Not "slap on the wrist" fines .... I'm talking major dollars. Imagine if business executives/owners were tossed in jail for repeated violations. Mark my word ... the illegal labor market would dry up in short order and the illegal immigrants would leave on their own because there would be little to no work for them. It just seems to me that that would be a smarter and more cost effective approach for dealing with this issue than running around trying to catch "Jose'" when "Jesus", "Jorge", and "Julio" will just take his place even if you do.

That's not to say that you don't enforce the law when it comes to the illegal immigrants themselves. Certainly you do. But the question is where do you focus your efforts? The current approach is just as stupid as the so-called War on Drugs. Law enforcement arrests low-level dealers selling "ounces" on the street in droves (only for them to be replaced by another) but rarely goes after the high-level dealers importing "tons". I submit that law enforcement efforts would be more effective and meaningful if they were focused on those that create the illegal labor market in the first place. But of course, that's not likely to happen considering how the companies that do so are the same ones forking over major dollars in political contributions and lobbying efforts to both sides of the aisle.

OAW

[steve666]

I would focus it on these points first:
1. Immediately go after any gang members who are illegal and deport them
2. work with local authorities to round up day laborers and homes that house 20-30 illegals and deport them
3. Go after the businesses that hire them full time.

[dampeoples]

That's a pretty backwards list, as points one and two require huge amounts of manpower and number one could be dangerous.
Number three is where the immigrant problem can be fixed, and quickly. Don't go after the larger corporations that hire them, too much red tape (contributions, etc), but go after the Landscape/Construction market.
Hell, I've got 15 years of electrical experience, most of it with a large manufacturer, and couldn't get a job pulling wire in the subdivision down the street for 1/2 of what I'm worth.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

Imagine if the federal government started to systematically raid the offices of the businesses that hire the illegal workers .... many of which have the vast majority of their workforce coming from this labor pool. Imagine if serious fines were handed out to businesses found in violation. Not "slap on the wrist" fines .... I'm talking major dollars. Imagine if business executives/owners were tossed in jail for repeated violations. Mark my word ... the illegal labor market would dry up in short order and the illegal immigrants would leave on their own because there would be little to no work for them.

I'm all for it.

I think MOST people are all for this. This is nothing that hasn't been repeated a million times, yet still the government does jack squat.

[Y3a]

Funny how suggesting we shoot and kill illegals entering our country gets a reply of "It's illegal" but the illegals seem to get a pass from the same dolts whining about the illegality !?!?!?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Funny how suggesting we shoot and kill illegals entering our country gets a reply of "It's illegal" but the illegals seem to get a pass from the same dolts whining about the illegality !?!?!?

Probably because most people are already against illegal immigration--so the assumption is that we all believe we should be trying to stop it, but we have different opinions on how best to accomplish that. On the other hand, murder is, in most people's sense of morality, much more reprehensible than an illegal border crossing. And U.S. law agrees: murder is a felony and a potential capital offense, and illegal immigration is not.

[steve666]

I personally don't want to see anyone get hurt, certainly not killed. I just want people to enter through the proper channels and I dont want to see the population of this country go much higher.
Lost in all this and never mentioned in Congress or the media is that the population of the US will reach 500 million in 30 years at the current rate of immigration. That is just scary.

[Y3a]

So, talk all you want, they will still stream over the borders. Do you have any REAL SOLUTION??? The threat of death should be enough. You won't have to kill all of them, just a few to get the point across. talking, programs of amnesty etc is all BS. You have to take a stand against ALL illegals or you are lost.

[steve666]

I listed the real solutions. No amnesty, but I'm not going to advocate shooting someone.

[Rumor]

Steve,

I think you should have wrote the speech for GWB.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Is it? The fact is that people who don't speak English in this country, no matter how gifted they might otherwise be, tend to have a very difficult time surviving.

So you are saying that nowhere in America there are people who speak only one other language?

If the purpose of a government is truly to ensure that people have equal opportunity, and a knowledge of English is a prerequisite for said opportunity (as it seems to be), then what is the problem with requiring a knowledge of it?

I disagree. I am certain there are areas where equal opportunities does not require any English at all.

Yes, and this is one of the biggest reasons for the "ugly American" stereotype. The fact is that not at least making an attempt to learn the basics of language of a culture you're moving to or visiting is rude.

I agree, but many do not care, and still, they survive quite well.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

So you are saying that nowhere in America there are people who speak only one other language?

I'm not quite sure I understand the question. If you're asking if anywhere in America are there people who speak only one language and that language isn't English, there are certainly a few small communities. However, those communities cannot, as a rule, achieve any remotely large scale, and the overwhelming majority of people in these communities live in poverty.

I disagree. I am certain there are areas where equal opportunities does not require any English at all.

Really? Show me one. Further, show me one that isn't also bilingual-English, where the other language hasn't basically been forced in by people who refuse to learn the lingua franca, as it were.

I agree, but many do not care, and still, they survive quite well.

I wouldn't say "well", exactly.

[steve666]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I'm not quite sure I understand the question. If you're asking if anywhere in America are there people who speak only one language and that language isn't English, there are certainly a few small communities. However, those communities cannot, as a rule, achieve any remotely large scale, and the overwhelming majority of people in these communities live in poverty.

Really? Show me one. Further, show me one that isn't also bilingual-English, where the other language hasn't basically been forced in by people who refuse to learn the lingua franca, as it were.

I wouldn't say "well", exactly.

There is a town in texas of all places that actually made spanish the official govmnt lagnuage.
As you said, the place is poor, will always be poor, and deserves to be poor.
The fact that texas allowed this to happen is in itself a disgrace.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I'm not quite sure I understand the question. If you're asking if anywhere in America are there people who speak only one language and that language isn't English, there are certainly a few small communities. However, those communities cannot, as a rule, achieve any remotely large scale, and the overwhelming majority of people in these communities live in poverty.

Really? Show me one. Further, show me one that isn't also bilingual-English, where the other language hasn't basically been forced in by people who refuse to learn the lingua franca, as it were.

I wouldn't say "well", exactly.

And yes, my question was not well phrased, but I see you got the meaning. Thanks.

I cannot show one community, but certainly point to some cultural minorities in area like New York, or Los Angeles, where some people are doing very well, and their knowledge of English is down to the bare minimal.

I know there are communities in the big cities around the world where immigrants do learn the local language because they do not care, or do not have time to learn it (or make time to learn it) and as long as they can interact with people who speak their other language, and make business with them...

Of course, I doubt those people would become millionaires, but to make a good enough living? Why not?

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by steve666

There is a town in texas of all places that actually made spanish the official govmnt lagnuage.
As you said, the place is poor, will always be poor, and deserves to be poor.
The fact that texas allowed this to happen is in itself a disgrace.

Interesting. I am curious of your opinion about the claims from people of Quebec and their languages Laws giving precedence to French. Many called the French of Quebec racists because they asked for control of public signs languages.

Here you are, claiming that that town of Texas should be put to shame bacause it makes its official language Spanish.

[steve666]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Interesting. I am curious of your opinion about the claims from people of Quebec and their languages Laws giving precedence to French. Many called the French of Quebec racists because they asked for control of public signs languages.

Here you are, claiming that that town of Texas should be put to shame bacause it makes its official language Spanish.

Actually, it is a disgrace. This is why the official language of the US must be declared-English.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by steve666

Actually, it is a disgrace. This is why the official language of the US must be declared-English.

I understand this is your point of view.

But the fact is that with immigration, uses and customs change. At some point in time, the idea of "English, universal language" may not happen.

I understand the language issue is off-topic, but nevertheless, immigration is the main engine of sustaining a culture: on one side, ther is influence, on the other side, there is resistance.

Then a compromise happens along the way. I don't know what compromise awaits the US in regards of immigration from the South, or illegal immigration, but with that large number of illegal immigrants already in the country, I do not see other solutions but force, and with a price to pay for Americans.

Granted, the lobbies that allowed to hide the issue for so long (was it sop hidden, really?) is to blame, but then again, it also obeyed the laws of the free market. Now, these people are in such a large number, that like it or not, their participation is probably already deeply embedded in the socio-economic strata of the US, and also, part of a significant political lobby.

Somehow, and I understand how frustrated you are (your point regarding unfairness for people who use the legal process being cheated is an excellent one) reality is that you are facing with quite a challenge.

I don't blame Bush for talking from both sides of the mouth: he is a politician and aims to please. What else can be expected?

[steve666]

He can be a leader. I expect a president to be a leader, especially one not facing reelection. However, i already knew Bush was a pussy so I wasnt expecting much.
As for reality, I have been dissapointed for 20 years, ever since the first amnesty (which basically destroyed the city I was living in, LA.
This country is going down the tubes so fast its scary.
The U.S. is toast

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by steve666

The U.S. is toast with butter and strawberry jam.

Yummy.

[maxx9photo]

Blah, blah, blah, blah... bunch of NATO here (NO ACTION TALK ONLY)

[steve666]

Get this, shocked the heck out of me!

To: Select U.S. English Members
From: Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of the Board
Subject: Senate Votes Yes on English as Official Language!
Date: May 18, 2006
Dear Friend:
Today is a great day for our nation and for U.S. English, Inc. The Senate affirmed the role of English as our official language in a 63 to 34 vote on the Inhofe official English Amendment to S 2611, an immigration reform bill. We are ecstatic that all of our efforts, and all your efforts, have culminated in this victory. It was difficult, but we managed to convince the Senate that English as our official language is good policy.
If your Senators voted to defend our common language, please call them and thank them for their support. If your Senators voted against making English our official language, please call them and let them know you disagree with their vote.
You can find the contact information for your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by steve666

Get this, shocked the heck out of me!

To: Select U.S. English Members
From: Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of the Board
Subject: Senate Votes Yes on English as Official Language!
Date: May 18, 2006
Dear Friend:
Today is a great day for our nation and for U.S. English, Inc. The Senate affirmed the role of English as our official language in a 63 to 34 vote on the Inhofe official English Amendment to S 2611, an immigration reform bill. We are ecstatic that all of our efforts, and all your efforts, have culminated in this victory. It was difficult, but we managed to convince the Senate that English as our official language is good policy.
If your Senators voted to defend our common language, please call them and thank them for their support. If your Senators voted against making English our official language, please call them and let them know you disagree with their vote.
You can find the contact information for your Senators here: http://www.senate.gov/

There goes freedom of speech...

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

There goes freedom of speech...

I've never understood this argument. What speech would be criminalized, if an official language (English or otherwise) were to be formalized?