Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good lord, I would hope not. If Amazon wants to put up a Athabascan website and Fedex wants to send out a Navajo speaking driver to deliver the goods, let them knock themselves out.
Just don't force them to do it.
But these businesses would seek to hire people who spoke a language other than English, taking a job from a red-blooded, monolingual Real American, and pandering to people who have a different language, and thus, by extension, a different culture than Real Americans do.
Not so easy. Why not the top 9? Why not the top 11? Is it because we (mostly) have 10 fingers?
Which documents are translated? The aforementioned drivers license manual? All ten trillion pages of state regulations that come through various agencies? Tax forms (and there's more than you might think)? Internal documentation within government? Library card catalogs? Should government deal with incoming documentation in all the top 10 (or 9, or 11) languages?
What about the lawsuit from the Xhosan click language speaker?
Reality has the nasty ability to whittle away at simple rule sets.
The next set of lawsuits you might expect could even be on the quality of translation. Not just a poor job by the legion of government translators, but by increasingly widespread use of automated translation.
Like I said, the EU will end up being a huge lab for this kind of thing. Personally, I feel it will blow apart at some point, but if it doesn't, they'll have to permanently settle scores of similar problems over time.
That's a strange argument to make from someone who is advocating the most simple ruleset possible?
I don't really have much opinion one way or the other on an official language, other than the observation that many of the louder proponents for making English the national language motives are incredibly suspect. (not saying you are one of those, however)
I will say that if we are so worried about Hispanic immigrants learning English it's probably not a good idea to force them into increasingly insular communities by treating large portions of them as second-class inhabitants through over-zealous pursuit of illegal-immigrants.
As has been repeatedly pointed out over and over again we don't need low skilled high school drop outs from Latin America who don't speak English. We certainly don't need them in middle of a huge recession.
Yes, you've repeated this over and over but you have yet to prove anything. Farmers in GA disagree and want help right now as a matter of fact.
Yes, you've repeated this over and over but you have yet to prove anything. Farmers in GA disagree and want help right now as a matter of fact.
The existence of greedy employers who want slaves instead of employees still doesn't mean that we need to import millions of people who don't speak English, have very little education and want their dependent children educated at public expense in a foreign language.
You've repeatedly to the contrary over and over again. Your point is still ludicrous. Especially when millions of our own citizens are unemployed. Stomping your metaphorical foot and calling everyone an evil racist does not negate those facts.
Perhaps you can explain or provide sources proving your conflicting statement that we don't need them since GA farmers are crying for immigrant help and losing hundreds of millions of dollars?
The existence of greedy employers who want slaves instead of employees still doesn't mean that we need to import millions of people who don't speak English, have very little education and want their dependent children educated at public expense in a foreign language.
You say we don't "need" these illegal immigrants,then someone points out that plenty of employers do in fact want them, and you just handwave it away as "well they're greedy." I'm sure the CEO of just about every major corporation is greedy by most standards, but they are still a part of our economy. We may not "need" these workers in your opinion, but those farmers want them, so I'm not sure exactly what criteria you are utilizing. I'm sure you could handpick Frank, a random factory worker in Detroit, and say the country doesn't "need" him. And you are probably right. But that doesn't mean Frank should be denied the right to work.
That's a strange argument to make from someone who is advocating the most simple ruleset possible?
You are misreading what I'm getting at.
Looking back at the post, which you've probably parsed closely for any misspellings, poor grammar, or logic flaws, I can' see where I'm proposing much beyond pushing for legal statutes in English plus pointing out the difficulty in defining the edges of language requirements.
Just to restate, I can see two simple rule sets. All English, or everybody. Anything else is a hairball of negotiated settlements. This does not imply a preference. Lacking a list of all potential government and private documents affected by this sort of law, it's impossible to have an opinion.
If a business cannot find decent workers then the business should rethink their business practices. What if Georgia's farmers wanted to employ ten year olds? Would you be okay with that as well? What if they wanted to use dangerous chemicals on the food? Pollute the rivers?
You still haven't explained why we supposedly need to import millions of people here who don't speak English and have very little education. Our own high school drop outs can't find work. Why do you think that Hispanic foreign national high school drop outs be any more successful?
Ultimately much of this debate really is about the desire of greedy employers, low skilled foreign morons and santimonious, short sighted, delusional ninnies. None of those people really deserve to be heard, let alone accommodated by the hard hit American taxpayer.
You say we don't "need" these illegal immigrants,then someone points out that plenty of employers do in fact want them, and you just handwave it away as "well they're greedy." I'm sure the CEO of just about every major corporation is greedy by most standards, but they are still a part of our economy. We may not "need" these workers in your opinion, but those farmers want them, so I'm not sure exactly what criteria you are utilizing. I'm sure you could handpick Frank, a random factory worker in Detroit, and say the country doesn't "need" him. And you are probably right. But that doesn't mean Frank should be denied the right to work.
If an employer says he "needs" to employ a ten year old is that okay as well? What if he needs to avoid paying overtime? Needs to avoid paying payroll taxes, funding an employee's pension, providing safety equipment? What if he says he wants to employ people for less than minimum wage or ask them operate dangerous equipment for days at time without a break?
What then? Why do our labor laws just get waved away as if they are of no consequence? This is the perfect illustration of part of the problem with the idiot illegal lobby. Once you've argued against rational immigration laws it is only a small step towards arguing against any rational laws.
I think I'll stick to civilization instead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
