:142smilie :142smilie :142smilie
Eddie
that was a good one. I am going to respond to your last post when I stop laughing.
Eddie
that was a good one. I am going to respond to your last post when I stop laughing.
38 SENATORS VOTED TODAY AGAINST MAKING ENGLISH THE OFFICIAL
- Thread starter The Boys
- Start date
In Plain English: Let's Make It Official
In Plain English: Let's Make It Official
here is an interesting article that i read in time magazine.
Having a unifying language is a secret of America's success. Why mess with it?
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Jun. 12, 2006
Growing up (as I did) in the province of Qu?bec, you learn not just the joys but also the perils of bilingualism. A separate national identity, revolving entirely around "Francophonie," became a raging issue that led to social unrest, terrorism, threats of separation and a referendum that came within a hair's breadth of breaking up Canada.
Canada, of course, had no choice about bilingualism. It is a country created of two nations at its birth, and has ever since been trying to cope with that inherently divisive fact. The U.S., by contrast blessed with a single common language for two centuries, seems blithely and gratuitously to be ready to import bilingualism with all its attendant divisiveness and antagonisms.
One of the major reasons for America's great success as the world's first "universal nation," for its astonishing and unmatched capacity for assimilating immigrants, has been that an automatic part of acculturation was the acquisition of English. And yet during the great immigration debate now raging in Congress, the people's representatives cannot make up their minds whether the current dominance of English should be declared a national asset, worthy of enshrinement in law.
The Senate could not bring itself to declare English the country's "official language." The best it could do was pass an amendment to the immigration bill tepidly declaring English the "national language." Yet even that was too much for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who called that resolution "racist."
Less hyperbolic opponents point out that granting special official status to English is simply unnecessary: America has been accepting foreign-language-speaking immigrants forever--Brooklyn is so polyglot it is a veritable Babel--and yet we've done just fine. What's the great worry about Spanish?
The worry is this. Polyglot is fine. When immigrants, like those in Brooklyn, are members of a myriad of linguistic communities, each tiny and discrete, there is no threat to the common culture. No immigrant presumes to make the demand that the state grant special status to his language. He may speak it in the street and proudly teach it to his children, but he knows that his future and certainly theirs lie inevitably in learning English as the gateway to American life.
But all of that changes when you have an enormous, linguistically monoclonal immigration as we do today from Latin America. Then you get not Brooklyn's successful Babel but Canada's restive Qu?bec. Monoclonal immigration is new for the U.S., and it changes things radically. If at the turn of the 20th century, Ellis Island had greeted teeming masses speaking not 50 languages but just, say, German, America might not have enjoyed the same success at assimilation and national unity that it has.
Today's monoclonal linguistic culture is far from hypothetical. Growing rapidly through immigration, it creates large communities--in some places already majorities--so overwhelmingly Spanish speaking that, in time, they may quite naturally demand the rights and official recognition for Spanish that French has in French-speaking Qu?bec.
That would not be the end of the world--Canada is a decent place--but the beginning of a new one for the U.S., a world far more complicated and fraught with division. History has blessed us with all the freedom and advantages of multiculturalism. But it has also blessed us, because of the accident of our origins, with a linguistic unity that brings a critically needed cohesion to a nation as diverse, multiracial and multiethnic as America. Why gratuitously throw away that priceless asset? How mindless to call the desire to retain it "racist."
I speak three languages. My late father spoke nine. When he became a naturalized American in midcentury, it never occurred to him to demand of his new and beneficent land that whenever its government had business with him--tax forms, court proceedings, ballot boxes--that it should be required to communicate in French, his best language, rather than English, his last and relatively weakest.
English is the U.S.'s national and common language. But that may change over time unless we change our assimilation norms. Making English the official language is the first step toward establishing those norms. "Official" means the language of the government and its institutions. "Official" makes clear our expectations of acculturation. "Official" means that every citizen, upon entering America's most sacred political space, the voting booth, should minimally be able to identify the words President and Vice President and county commissioner and judge. The immigrant, of course, has the right to speak whatever he wants. But he must understand that when he comes to the U.S., swears allegiance and accepts its bounty, he undertakes to join its civic culture. In English.
In Plain English: Let's Make It Official
here is an interesting article that i read in time magazine.
Having a unifying language is a secret of America's success. Why mess with it?
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Jun. 12, 2006
Growing up (as I did) in the province of Qu?bec, you learn not just the joys but also the perils of bilingualism. A separate national identity, revolving entirely around "Francophonie," became a raging issue that led to social unrest, terrorism, threats of separation and a referendum that came within a hair's breadth of breaking up Canada.
Canada, of course, had no choice about bilingualism. It is a country created of two nations at its birth, and has ever since been trying to cope with that inherently divisive fact. The U.S., by contrast blessed with a single common language for two centuries, seems blithely and gratuitously to be ready to import bilingualism with all its attendant divisiveness and antagonisms.
One of the major reasons for America's great success as the world's first "universal nation," for its astonishing and unmatched capacity for assimilating immigrants, has been that an automatic part of acculturation was the acquisition of English. And yet during the great immigration debate now raging in Congress, the people's representatives cannot make up their minds whether the current dominance of English should be declared a national asset, worthy of enshrinement in law.
The Senate could not bring itself to declare English the country's "official language." The best it could do was pass an amendment to the immigration bill tepidly declaring English the "national language." Yet even that was too much for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who called that resolution "racist."
Less hyperbolic opponents point out that granting special official status to English is simply unnecessary: America has been accepting foreign-language-speaking immigrants forever--Brooklyn is so polyglot it is a veritable Babel--and yet we've done just fine. What's the great worry about Spanish?
The worry is this. Polyglot is fine. When immigrants, like those in Brooklyn, are members of a myriad of linguistic communities, each tiny and discrete, there is no threat to the common culture. No immigrant presumes to make the demand that the state grant special status to his language. He may speak it in the street and proudly teach it to his children, but he knows that his future and certainly theirs lie inevitably in learning English as the gateway to American life.
But all of that changes when you have an enormous, linguistically monoclonal immigration as we do today from Latin America. Then you get not Brooklyn's successful Babel but Canada's restive Qu?bec. Monoclonal immigration is new for the U.S., and it changes things radically. If at the turn of the 20th century, Ellis Island had greeted teeming masses speaking not 50 languages but just, say, German, America might not have enjoyed the same success at assimilation and national unity that it has.
Today's monoclonal linguistic culture is far from hypothetical. Growing rapidly through immigration, it creates large communities--in some places already majorities--so overwhelmingly Spanish speaking that, in time, they may quite naturally demand the rights and official recognition for Spanish that French has in French-speaking Qu?bec.
That would not be the end of the world--Canada is a decent place--but the beginning of a new one for the U.S., a world far more complicated and fraught with division. History has blessed us with all the freedom and advantages of multiculturalism. But it has also blessed us, because of the accident of our origins, with a linguistic unity that brings a critically needed cohesion to a nation as diverse, multiracial and multiethnic as America. Why gratuitously throw away that priceless asset? How mindless to call the desire to retain it "racist."
I speak three languages. My late father spoke nine. When he became a naturalized American in midcentury, it never occurred to him to demand of his new and beneficent land that whenever its government had business with him--tax forms, court proceedings, ballot boxes--that it should be required to communicate in French, his best language, rather than English, his last and relatively weakest.
English is the U.S.'s national and common language. But that may change over time unless we change our assimilation norms. Making English the official language is the first step toward establishing those norms. "Official" means the language of the government and its institutions. "Official" makes clear our expectations of acculturation. "Official" means that every citizen, upon entering America's most sacred political space, the voting booth, should minimally be able to identify the words President and Vice President and county commissioner and judge. The immigrant, of course, has the right to speak whatever he wants. But he must understand that when he comes to the U.S., swears allegiance and accepts its bounty, he undertakes to join its civic culture. In English.
fatdaddycool said:
fdc,
because we take a different stance than you on this issue you assume that we hate illegals. well speaking for myself i don't despise illegals. i just think that they should learn the language to help them asimulate into this country...not for us to learn their language.
as a union man you should check how these illegals are keeping the wages down for people who work on the lower pay scale.
my grandparents, who were part of the migration into this country from europe did it, as well as my wife, who came from french speaking quebec. if they can do it, these people who are sacreficing their lives can also do it.
Last edited:
By declaring an official language, the gov should be smaller.
Eliminating the need for forms (drivers licenses for example) to be printed in Spanish and English should decrease paperwork.
The "need to learn English" will help our newer immigrants in the long run. They will have the opportunity to do other (better = higher wage) jobs than the ones where speaking is not important. If our newest immigrants stay here and do not learn English they are going to create a cast type system where they will never be able to rise and never truly be Americans.
So basically, by passing this bill we:
1. Reduce the government
2. Save some trees and paperwork
3. help all Americans operate on equal footing
I don't see this as a "lost of freedom" but a reduction of government. People will always be free to speak whatever they wish.
Eliminating the need for forms (drivers licenses for example) to be printed in Spanish and English should decrease paperwork.
The "need to learn English" will help our newer immigrants in the long run. They will have the opportunity to do other (better = higher wage) jobs than the ones where speaking is not important. If our newest immigrants stay here and do not learn English they are going to create a cast type system where they will never be able to rise and never truly be Americans.
So basically, by passing this bill we:
1. Reduce the government
2. Save some trees and paperwork
3. help all Americans operate on equal footing
I don't see this as a "lost of freedom" but a reduction of government. People will always be free to speak whatever they wish.
Now there you go eddie, I mean comrade. The above posts by Blazer and AR's article by CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER are intelligent and well spoken points of view, ones that I might add I agree with.
Not your ranting from the lunatic left and name calling about everyone that you disagree with. This is typical of how you voice your opinions and it's also typical why your such a joke on this site.
So sharpen your quill comrade and let the tyrant go, because at least for me it is so amusing that I can hardly keep from laughing my :moon: off. :142smilie :mj07:
Not your ranting from the lunatic left and name calling about everyone that you disagree with. This is typical of how you voice your opinions and it's also typical why your such a joke on this site.
So sharpen your quill comrade and let the tyrant go, because at least for me it is so amusing that I can hardly keep from laughing my :moon: off. :142smilie :mj07:
Ed?
Was I wrong? I mean, it's great of you to pick a box to toss me in to, and all that, but was I wrong?
I correct you on a poorly thought out statement you made, (once again) and you throw me to the wolves?
I know we haven't boxed in a while, but this is too weak to even get the blood pumped up over.
Was I wrong? I mean, it's great of you to pick a box to toss me in to, and all that, but was I wrong?
I correct you on a poorly thought out statement you made, (once again) and you throw me to the wolves?
I know we haven't boxed in a while, but this is too weak to even get the blood pumped up over.
Ctown--Eddie is out mourning today --his prefered constiutional interpretation took 2 more hits today.
They threw out lawsuit trying to remove In God We Trust from money.
----and school board is getting ready to fire the plagerizing professor in Colorado that said we deserved 911.
They threw out lawsuit trying to remove In God We Trust from money.
----and school board is getting ready to fire the plagerizing professor in Colorado that said we deserved 911.
Blazer said:
Absolutely agree, people will always be free to bitch about the fact that our newest citizen in the United States of America, here to pursue the same dream our forefathers did, are not so verbose as those of us that have known no other language in their lifetime and yet still do not know the proper application of "loss of freedom" as compared to "lost of freedom".............................You aren't one of those educated beaners that has a better paying job and a drivers license and have been shown the secret "I'm an American and your not" handshake, are you?
AR182 said:
AR,
I am fully aware of union pay scales decreasing in the last few years. I will not agree that it is due to illegals keeping wages down. I would attribute that phenomenon to much more than that and I assure you illegals are the smallest part of it. The apathetic attitude us "Educated and Natural Citizens" have toward unions is what is doing it. The fact that fuel prices are at an all time high, high paying jobs such as aircraft maintenance mechanics are consistently shipped overseas where the labor cost is a non factor is partly to blame. That and the fact that the public still wants to pay $12 to fly to Tahiti, still ALWAYS blames the players associations when a sport goes on strike, not caring that owners get anti-trust exemptions and make record profits, still get ticked off at the operators when there is a rail strike. I can guarantee you one thing AR, and I mean this with the utmost respect that I have always had and still have for you, you are unwittingly more responsible for the decline of unions in this country than some illegal that snuck through the fence two weeks ago.
I find it increasingly difficult to explain to people that everytime you purchase from Walmart, buy a ticket on some fly by night airline, blame players for high ticket prices, or are oblivious to picket lines and the plight of organized labor, you are hurting the organized labor movement. I am also quite sure that someone will come on here and tell me how evil unions are, and they are generally the same people that disagree with raising minimum wage. You don't think that rich corporations do anything to keep wages down? You think that Walton never lobbied for the elimination of labor unions? Maybe the first person that doesn't take advantage of low prices due to the fact that there was a labor strike and all union laborers were terminated and replaced with scabs can explain it because I am tired. I am tired of trying to explain to people that there are other people, just like you and I, trying their best to make a good wage for themselves and their family. That they have the same rights to pursue happiness and good fortune just like everyone else. I am tired of explaining to everyone that their own actions matter to many. I am tired of people telling me how much they had to pay for their car or their flight or their food, but won't say a word when it comes to paying six dollars for a hot dog at Fenway.
fdc...
the respect is mutual, i assure you. a post to you complimenting you on your wit was my very first post at madjacks. the suspicious person that you are thought that i was pulling your leg. it's alright to disagree on issues, it makes us that much wiser by listening to the other side...as long as it's done respectfully.
i agree people from other countries have every right to happiness in this country as americans do...as long as it's done without breaking the law 9entering this country & by committing fraud)& not at the expense of an american citizen, which imo is being done by illegals.
here is a copy & paste article from the center of immigration studies.....you should check this site out...maybe it'll change your opinion.
Job Data Should Give Pause to Immigration Advocates
By Steven A. Camarota...Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
The recovery from the recession of 2001 is often described as "jobless." But this is not entirely correct. My analysis of Census Bureau data shows that between March 2000 and 2004, the number of adults working in United States actually increased.
What's interesting, however, is that all the net growth in jobs went to immigrant workers. In fact, while the number of unemployed adult native-born workers increased by 2.3 million over this time, the number of employed immigrants rose by 2.3 million.
Significantly, about half the growth in immigrant employment was from illegal immigration.
It would be a mistake to assume that each job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. Still, such statistics should give pause to those who want to legalize illegal aliens and increase immigration still further.
Our analysis also shows that of the 900,000 net increase in jobs between March 2003 and 2004, two-thirds went to immigrant workers, even though they account for only 15 percent of all adult workers. At the same time, 1.2 million working-age natives left the labor force. Thus while native unemployment and withdrawal from the labor force increased, immigrants were making significant employment gains.
Our analysis also shows little evidence that immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want. It is true that immigration has its biggest impact at the bottom end of the labor market in relatively low-paying occupations done by less-educated workers.
Nonetheless such occupations still employ tens of millions of native-born workers.
In job categories such as construction labor, building maintenance and food preparation, where immigrant growth is the most pronounced, native unemployment also tends to be the highest. Immigration added 1.1 million workers to just these three occupations in the last four years, but there were nearly 2 million unemployed native-born Americans in these same occupations in 2004.
Unfortunately, both presidential candidates chose to ignore these facts during the recent election campaign. To the extent they even addressed the immigration question, both advocated legalizing illegal aliens and increasing legal immigration still further. President Bush continues to advocate such policies.
While public opinion polls generally show most Americans, including Hispanics, want less immigration, legal and illegal, those in positions of authority in this country generally sing the praises of mass immigration. One reason elites like immigration so much is that they do not face the job competition that lower-income Americans face. Only about 5 percent of lawyers and 6 percent of journalists are immigrants, compared with one-fourth of construction laborers and one-third of janitors. When more educated and affluent people say, "Immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want," what they really mean is that immigrants only take jobs they don't want.
When businesses say, "Immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want," what they really mean is that given what they would like to pay, and how they would like to treat their workers, they cannot find enough Americans. Therefore, employers want the government to continually increase the supply of labor by nonenforcement of immigration laws and keeping legal immigration levels as high as possible. This in turn holds down wages and benefits, especially at the bottom end of the labor market, as well as allowing them to put off investment that would increase productivity.
The idea that America is desperately short of less-skilled workers is absurd on its face. There are 70 million native-born Americans and legal immigrants already here between the ages of 18 and 64 who have only a high school education. This is an enormous pool of labor that if properly paid and treated could satisfy all the labor demands of American employers.
If we did enforce immigration laws and lowered the level of immigration, the reduction in the supply of labor would force employers to increase wages and to improve benefits and working conditions, especially for the lowest paid American workers -- native-born and legal immigrants. It would also force employers to invest in labor-saving devices and tec hniques.
Improving job opportunities for the poorest American workers and increasing the productivity of the economy are both sound public policy goals.
Reducing the level of legal and illegal immigration, now running at 1.5 million a year, would do both.
the respect is mutual, i assure you. a post to you complimenting you on your wit was my very first post at madjacks. the suspicious person that you are thought that i was pulling your leg. it's alright to disagree on issues, it makes us that much wiser by listening to the other side...as long as it's done respectfully.
i agree people from other countries have every right to happiness in this country as americans do...as long as it's done without breaking the law 9entering this country & by committing fraud)& not at the expense of an american citizen, which imo is being done by illegals.
here is a copy & paste article from the center of immigration studies.....you should check this site out...maybe it'll change your opinion.
Job Data Should Give Pause to Immigration Advocates
By Steven A. Camarota...Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.
The recovery from the recession of 2001 is often described as "jobless." But this is not entirely correct. My analysis of Census Bureau data shows that between March 2000 and 2004, the number of adults working in United States actually increased.
What's interesting, however, is that all the net growth in jobs went to immigrant workers. In fact, while the number of unemployed adult native-born workers increased by 2.3 million over this time, the number of employed immigrants rose by 2.3 million.
Significantly, about half the growth in immigrant employment was from illegal immigration.
It would be a mistake to assume that each job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. Still, such statistics should give pause to those who want to legalize illegal aliens and increase immigration still further.
Our analysis also shows that of the 900,000 net increase in jobs between March 2003 and 2004, two-thirds went to immigrant workers, even though they account for only 15 percent of all adult workers. At the same time, 1.2 million working-age natives left the labor force. Thus while native unemployment and withdrawal from the labor force increased, immigrants were making significant employment gains.
Our analysis also shows little evidence that immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want. It is true that immigration has its biggest impact at the bottom end of the labor market in relatively low-paying occupations done by less-educated workers.
Nonetheless such occupations still employ tens of millions of native-born workers.
In job categories such as construction labor, building maintenance and food preparation, where immigrant growth is the most pronounced, native unemployment also tends to be the highest. Immigration added 1.1 million workers to just these three occupations in the last four years, but there were nearly 2 million unemployed native-born Americans in these same occupations in 2004.
Unfortunately, both presidential candidates chose to ignore these facts during the recent election campaign. To the extent they even addressed the immigration question, both advocated legalizing illegal aliens and increasing legal immigration still further. President Bush continues to advocate such policies.
While public opinion polls generally show most Americans, including Hispanics, want less immigration, legal and illegal, those in positions of authority in this country generally sing the praises of mass immigration. One reason elites like immigration so much is that they do not face the job competition that lower-income Americans face. Only about 5 percent of lawyers and 6 percent of journalists are immigrants, compared with one-fourth of construction laborers and one-third of janitors. When more educated and affluent people say, "Immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want," what they really mean is that immigrants only take jobs they don't want.
When businesses say, "Immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want," what they really mean is that given what they would like to pay, and how they would like to treat their workers, they cannot find enough Americans. Therefore, employers want the government to continually increase the supply of labor by nonenforcement of immigration laws and keeping legal immigration levels as high as possible. This in turn holds down wages and benefits, especially at the bottom end of the labor market, as well as allowing them to put off investment that would increase productivity.
The idea that America is desperately short of less-skilled workers is absurd on its face. There are 70 million native-born Americans and legal immigrants already here between the ages of 18 and 64 who have only a high school education. This is an enormous pool of labor that if properly paid and treated could satisfy all the labor demands of American employers.
If we did enforce immigration laws and lowered the level of immigration, the reduction in the supply of labor would force employers to increase wages and to improve benefits and working conditions, especially for the lowest paid American workers -- native-born and legal immigrants. It would also force employers to invest in labor-saving devices and tec hniques.
Improving job opportunities for the poorest American workers and increasing the productivity of the economy are both sound public policy goals.
Reducing the level of legal and illegal immigration, now running at 1.5 million a year, would do both.
Last edited:
AR,
I will agree that I do not approve of illegal immigration by any standard, however, all immigrants are not illegals as I am sure you know.
That being said let me ask you this, is it not possible that Bush may want to legalize immigration in some form in order to show the positive effect his leadership has had in increasing manufacturing jobs such as hamburger maker. Isn't he the one that moved to make hamburger maker a manufacturing classification? And now he can staff all those new jobs with citizens that will work for next to nothing thereby making his biggest supporters, the rich, happy?
All of this kind of falls in line with what I was saying earlier. Don't you think we may be more successful as a society if we were to prevent the hiring of illegal aliens by imposing large penalties on the practice rather than trying to cover thousands of miles of border country?
That, however, will never happen because we do not punish the rich we mollycoddle them as we all standby to pick up the crumbs. Again, you want to know what is happening to unions, I would hazard to say that none of the illegals crossed the border with the intention of taking a union job, however I can honestly say that the company that hired them knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Who is the real criminal?
I will agree that I do not approve of illegal immigration by any standard, however, all immigrants are not illegals as I am sure you know.
That being said let me ask you this, is it not possible that Bush may want to legalize immigration in some form in order to show the positive effect his leadership has had in increasing manufacturing jobs such as hamburger maker. Isn't he the one that moved to make hamburger maker a manufacturing classification? And now he can staff all those new jobs with citizens that will work for next to nothing thereby making his biggest supporters, the rich, happy?
All of this kind of falls in line with what I was saying earlier. Don't you think we may be more successful as a society if we were to prevent the hiring of illegal aliens by imposing large penalties on the practice rather than trying to cover thousands of miles of border country?
That, however, will never happen because we do not punish the rich we mollycoddle them as we all standby to pick up the crumbs. Again, you want to know what is happening to unions, I would hazard to say that none of the illegals crossed the border with the intention of taking a union job, however I can honestly say that the company that hired them knew what they were doing and did it anyway. Who is the real criminal?
fdc...
i agree that businesses, large & small should be held accountable for cutting out the american worker & hiring illegals. there should be fines & arrests for hiring illegals.
and i do believe bush & the senate are in bed with major corp.by pushing their immigration bill...hopefully the house will stand their ground (i'm not sure but i think the house's bill give penalties to businesses for hiring illegals).
i agree that businesses, large & small should be held accountable for cutting out the american worker & hiring illegals. there should be fines & arrests for hiring illegals.
and i do believe bush & the senate are in bed with major corp.by pushing their immigration bill...hopefully the house will stand their ground (i'm not sure but i think the house's bill give penalties to businesses for hiring illegals).
Cheers AR. Always a pleasure. Now if we can just figure out how to fix my friggin dogs flatulence problem
fatdaddycool said:
it's unbelievable.. we have the same problem...we have a very small dog & the smell coming from her farts make people clear the room (lol).
Today, 05:20 PM
fatdaddycool
Chi-TownHustler Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fort Worth TX usa
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazer
By declaring an official language, the gov should be smaller.
Eliminating the need for forms (drivers licenses for example) to be printed in Spanish and English should decrease paperwork.
The "government" does not need to enact any law to add or remove verbage from any form whatsoever, much in the same way that Maytag does not have to put a "French" copy of their installation intructions in the dishwashers they sell to "real Americans".
The "need to learn English" will help our newer immigrants in the long run. They will have the opportunity to do other (better = higher wage) jobs than the ones where speaking is not important.
So are you actually trying to tell me that only English speaking jobs pay well? So the restaurant owner in Chinatown in Boston, Chicago, or anywhere else for that matter that does not speak fluent english will never amount to anything financially? I know that there are alot of people that speak english in prison, I hope they all know what a decided advantage they have over those beaners and the damn asians. If someone wants to know the language then they can attend classes or read a book, however, it is not my intent to make it lawful. That is utterly ridiculous, you want to fund the "re-education program" how? My tax dollars maybe? The "need to learn english" does not apply to each and every immigrant. Just a completely ridiculous statement. Show me the study that proves an illegal will get a better wage by being able to say "for here or to go?"
If our newest immigrants stay here and do not learn English they are going to create a cast type system where they will never be able to rise and never truly be Americans.
First of all most of them are already "Americans" whether it be Central, North, or South American. Do you mean a "Caste" system? And that is going to happen when exactly? I mean I am just curious as it hasn't happened in the hundreds of years that immigrants have been pouring in to the UNITED STATES, just curious to know if I missed the memo? Well thats going to be horrible..............what ever shall we do to ensure that these damn immigrants completely put aside their heritage and culture because they moved a thousand miles north and assimilate to the real American Culture...................hell yeah I will be first in line to learn the language of the Real Americans! Yessir, the only problem is that there are so many different dialects, Apache, Commanche, Croe, Utes, Navajo, Going to take us a long time but I think I can learn them all and get me a good job!!!! Woohoo!!! Quick question, how long will it take me and the other immigrants to "rise" to your obviously superior level?
So basically, by passing this bill we:
1. Reduce the government A one page application for a drivers license hardly qualifies as shrinking government.
2. Save some trees and paperwork (When you make a statement on the side of your stance, try not to make it so ridiculous. The United States uses more lumber than any country in the world and it isn't because Pedro failed his drivers license test twice.
3. help all Americans operate on equal footing(Certainly you mean United States citizens? Sure thing, this will make us all equal......Bill of Rights couldn't do it but you just wait until we make you learn English, then you will be considered my equal in all phases of life. Yessir we will all pay the same amount in fines, and do the same amount of time for the same crime and everything. Come to the UNITED STATES, learn our language and I assure you that even though you are still a dishwasher at Petey's Bungalow, not one affluent yenta will look down her nose at you when you stop in the Racetrack to pick up a quart of Dos Equis.
I don't see this as a "lost of freedom" but a reduction of government. People will always be free to speak whatever they wish.
Absolutely agree, people will always be free to bitch about the fact that our newest citizen in the United States of America, here to pursue the same dream our forefathers did, are not so verbose as those of us that have known no other language in their lifetime and yet still do not know the proper application of "loss of freedom" as compared to "lost of freedom".............................You aren't one of those educated beaners that has a better paying job and a drivers license and have been shown the secret "I'm an American and your not" handshake, are you?
-----------------------------------------------------------
If we have a "Drama Queen of the Year" award, I nominate this post.
By the way.......The most laughable part of this whole thread, is a bunch of guys who slaughter the written English language, worrying about others needing to learn it!
fatdaddycool
Chi-TownHustler Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fort Worth TX usa
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazer
By declaring an official language, the gov should be smaller.
Eliminating the need for forms (drivers licenses for example) to be printed in Spanish and English should decrease paperwork.
The "government" does not need to enact any law to add or remove verbage from any form whatsoever, much in the same way that Maytag does not have to put a "French" copy of their installation intructions in the dishwashers they sell to "real Americans".
The "need to learn English" will help our newer immigrants in the long run. They will have the opportunity to do other (better = higher wage) jobs than the ones where speaking is not important.
So are you actually trying to tell me that only English speaking jobs pay well? So the restaurant owner in Chinatown in Boston, Chicago, or anywhere else for that matter that does not speak fluent english will never amount to anything financially? I know that there are alot of people that speak english in prison, I hope they all know what a decided advantage they have over those beaners and the damn asians. If someone wants to know the language then they can attend classes or read a book, however, it is not my intent to make it lawful. That is utterly ridiculous, you want to fund the "re-education program" how? My tax dollars maybe? The "need to learn english" does not apply to each and every immigrant. Just a completely ridiculous statement. Show me the study that proves an illegal will get a better wage by being able to say "for here or to go?"
If our newest immigrants stay here and do not learn English they are going to create a cast type system where they will never be able to rise and never truly be Americans.
First of all most of them are already "Americans" whether it be Central, North, or South American. Do you mean a "Caste" system? And that is going to happen when exactly? I mean I am just curious as it hasn't happened in the hundreds of years that immigrants have been pouring in to the UNITED STATES, just curious to know if I missed the memo? Well thats going to be horrible..............what ever shall we do to ensure that these damn immigrants completely put aside their heritage and culture because they moved a thousand miles north and assimilate to the real American Culture...................hell yeah I will be first in line to learn the language of the Real Americans! Yessir, the only problem is that there are so many different dialects, Apache, Commanche, Croe, Utes, Navajo, Going to take us a long time but I think I can learn them all and get me a good job!!!! Woohoo!!! Quick question, how long will it take me and the other immigrants to "rise" to your obviously superior level?
So basically, by passing this bill we:
1. Reduce the government A one page application for a drivers license hardly qualifies as shrinking government.
2. Save some trees and paperwork (When you make a statement on the side of your stance, try not to make it so ridiculous. The United States uses more lumber than any country in the world and it isn't because Pedro failed his drivers license test twice.
3. help all Americans operate on equal footing(Certainly you mean United States citizens? Sure thing, this will make us all equal......Bill of Rights couldn't do it but you just wait until we make you learn English, then you will be considered my equal in all phases of life. Yessir we will all pay the same amount in fines, and do the same amount of time for the same crime and everything. Come to the UNITED STATES, learn our language and I assure you that even though you are still a dishwasher at Petey's Bungalow, not one affluent yenta will look down her nose at you when you stop in the Racetrack to pick up a quart of Dos Equis.
I don't see this as a "lost of freedom" but a reduction of government. People will always be free to speak whatever they wish.
Absolutely agree, people will always be free to bitch about the fact that our newest citizen in the United States of America, here to pursue the same dream our forefathers did, are not so verbose as those of us that have known no other language in their lifetime and yet still do not know the proper application of "loss of freedom" as compared to "lost of freedom".............................You aren't one of those educated beaners that has a better paying job and a drivers license and have been shown the secret "I'm an American and your not" handshake, are you?
-----------------------------------------------------------
If we have a "Drama Queen of the Year" award, I nominate this post.
By the way.......The most laughable part of this whole thread, is a bunch of guys who slaughter the written English language, worrying about others needing to learn it!
By the way.......The most laughable part of this whole thread, is a bunch of guys who slaughter the written English language, worrying about others needing to learn it!
please yyz....no names (lol).
please yyz....no names (lol).
AR182 said:
:142smilie :142smilie
More smoke from this administration.
English is the global languague and it is a shame and a fundamental disadvantage if someone living in the U.S. chooses not to learn it. But that is his/her choice.
Y:
You and I haven't openly disagreed since you posted those ludicrous statements in favor of the death penalty for the insane several years ago. Since then I thought you took the wise approach with me and steered clear.
Eddie
You and I haven't openly disagreed since you posted those ludicrous statements in favor of the death penalty for the insane several years ago. Since then I thought you took the wise approach with me and steered clear.
Eddie
