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.
Most citizens, although they don't belong to any group, and therefore aren't supported by neo-Nazis, or white supremecists, oppose illegal immigration. They just want the immigration laws enforced.
Perhaps this person should look into who is funding these pro-illegal immigration groups also. Mirror, mirror on the wall.......
Nothing wrong except for the crippling effect it has on our ability to compete on an international level. The more languages you understand, the better. Furthermore, it goes against traditional tolerance for languages of immigrants, the diversity and mix of which in, say, New York or New Orleans define at least part of their greatness. We have tolerated bilingual Italians and Chinese. Are we all of a sudden going to change arbitrarily in a way that has no substantive advantage or purpose? Of what utility is banning any non-English language, so long as English is the common ground? I think there is at the very least a significant practical problem with English ONLY. We will not compete with India or China when they are bilingual or trilingual and we are "English only."
Uh; the Italians, Chinese and so on did NOT expect "anglo" society to cater to them in Italian or Chinese, they learned English. It was sink or swim back in the day and many of them couldn't make it here in the US so they went back home.
English is the language of money, airlines and so on. No need for an American to learn another language unless he's gonna be dealing with foreign people. I speak only English but I have NO plans to ever leave the US, even to visit.
That's your choice. As long as it's English first, we'll just have to adjust to a changing society. I intend to raise my children to compete on a global scale. They will learn several languages, beyond English, to distinguish themselves against their competitors. People can limit themselves if they want. They will not limit my choices or my children's, or my parent's.
And while the Italians and Chinese learned English (most of them), they were not forced to give up their native languages, like an English only policy demands. They were not prevented from other languages. It was expected and a show of respect and survival skill that they learned the language of their adopted homeland.
English first? No problem. English only? I have a problem with that.
Are you suggesting that regular Americans all be forced to learn a foreign language? What for? When would they use it? What language or languages are you suggesting they learn? Those who deal with foreign countries in the business world may have reason to learn another language however English is the language of business across the planet. Most Americans are not in that type of business.
Again, there is no English only legislation being considered. What has been suggested is to make English our official language. How would that jeapordize us in the business world? Many countries that do business globally have an official language. Are they showing intolerance for foreingners just because they have an official language? Since most may only know their country's official language how is that impeding business? I just don't know where you are going with this.
I never said a word about forcing. Someone mentioned there's nothing wrong with English only. I disagree, because English only precludes expression in other languages. English first is fine. I actually support that. I want the choice to learn and speak beyond English. There should be a common language, more from a cover-your-butt/disclosure/insurance standpoint of ensuring communication from the government and regulations. If Americans want to be non-competitive and learn only one language, fine. That myopia hurts the country and the economy, but I have never and will never promote a program forcing that.
I also do not think people shouldn't expand their knowledge or intellect except only if they have to. That lacks foresight. But if someone wants to live myopically, as long as they don't restrain my interest in expanding my knowledge, fine. I never advocated for forcing people; it should be a reflection of their motives, whatever they might be.
This was all a response to someone saying there's nothing wrong with English only. I have a right to reply to it, and disagree, and I did. And I believe I did so respectfully and attempted to use logic, not confrontation (at least I tried to minimize it, lol; maybe I was more confronting than I thought). It's a trigger point for me along with the blurring of illegal and legal immigration. While there is no legislation, that is inconsequential to debate about whether there is something wrong with it or not. There exist opponents of illegal immigration (an issue I agree with them on) who support English only (an issue I disagree with them on). This is an area I wish to transparently share my positions on.
If you really do not understand how a business that operates only in one language is disadvantaged, I can elaborate on my understanding of the relationship between a global economy, making money, negotiations, strategy, etc/why I feel it's imperative to increase the number of bilingual, multilingual workers, just like it's important to increase the number of engineers, scientists, many other skills. Same thing with defense. Just let me know. Sounds like it might have been a misunderstanding, and discussing the business issue could be a tangent. One I'm willing to take, if necessary.
That's your choice. As long as it's English first, we'll just have to adjust to a changing society. I intend to raise my children to compete on a global scale. They will learn several languages, beyond English, to distinguish themselves against their competitors. You can limit yourself if you want. You will not limit my choices or my children's, or my parent's.
And while the Italians and Chinese learned English (most of them), they were not forced to give up their native languages, like an English only policy demands. They were not prevented from other languages. It was expected and a show of respect and survival skill that they learned the language of their adopted homeland.
English first? No problem. English only? Never.
No one's forcing what amounts to Mexico's underclass to give up anything. If they find English too difficult to master they are more than welcome to stop breaking our laws and go back to Mexico. Instead they remain here in full defiance of our laws complaining at every turn that we haven't bothered to learn Spanish to make their lives easier.
The issue isn't bilingualism. The issue is Spanish being shoved down our throats by an arrogant group of uninvited invaders. Competing on a global scale does not mean telling Latin America's least able citizenry to come here without permission and get publically provided interpreters and other social services at American expense because they are fundamentally too lazy to learn this country's language or have not bothered to educate themselves for a global economy.
Go teach your kids Spanish if you like. No one's arguing against teaching foreign languages. We are arguing against being told to learn Spanish to cater to Mexico's monolingual arrogance. In the meantime, the rest of the world is learning English. Mexico's underclass, if wishing to finally succeed instead of relying on others to finance them, should follow suit.
Uh oh, White people are pursuing the best interests of their people. Oh noes!
If programs are funded by "The Race" or "NAACP", we must laud their efforts and kneel at the altar of minority achievement, if they are funded by "White Nationalists", we must denounce them and remind them that they have no right to pursue their interests in a country that their forebears founded.
That's your choice. As long as it's English first, we'll just have to adjust to a changing society. I intend to raise my children to compete on a global scale. They will learn several languages, beyond English, to distinguish themselves against their competitors. People can limit themselves if they want. They will not limit my choices or my children's, or my parent's.
And while the Italians and Chinese learned English (most of them), they were not forced to give up their native languages, like an English only policy demands. They were not prevented from other languages. It was expected and a show of respect and survival skill that they learned the language of their adopted homeland.
English first? No problem. English only? I have a problem with that.
You are misinformed. English as our official language (not English only) will not force anyone to give up their native language. Where are you getting this? Many states already have English as their official language. I live in Calif. and it is our official language. However, everywhere I go foreign languages are still being spoken, especially Spanish.
I never said a word about forcing. Someone mentioned there's nothing wrong with English only. I disagree, because English only precludes expression in other languages. English first is fine. I actually support that. I want the choice to learn and speak beyond English. There should be a common language, more from a cover-your-butt/disclosure/insurance standpoint of ensuring communication from the government and regulations. If Americans want to be non-competitive and learn only one language, fine. That myopia hurts the country and the economy, but I have never and will never promote a program forcing that.
I also do not think people shouldn't expand their knowledge or intellect except only if they have to. That lacks foresight. But if someone wants to live myopically, as long as they don't restrain my interest in expanding my knowledge, fine. I never advocated for forcing people; it should be a reflection of their motives, whatever they might be.
This was all a response to someone saying there's nothing wrong with English only. I have a right to reply to it, and disagree, and I did. And I believe I did so respectfully and attempted to use logic, not confrontation (at least I tried to minimize it, lol; maybe I was more confronting than I thought). It's a trigger point for me along with the blurring of illegal and legal immigration. While there is no legislation, that is inconsequential to debate about whether there is something wrong with it or not. There exist opponents of illegal immigration (an issue I agree with them on) who support English only (an issue I disagree with them on). This is an area I wish to transparently share my positions on.
If you really do not understand how a business that operates only in one language is disadvantaged, I can elaborate on my understanding of the relationship between a global economy, making money, negotiations, strategy, etc/why I feel it's imperative to increase the number of bilingual, multilingual workers, just like it's important to increase the number of engineers, scientists, many other skills. Same thing with defense. Just let me know. Sounds like it might have been a misunderstanding, and discussing the business issue could be a tangent. One I'm willing to take, if necessary.
If anyone said something about English only in here it had nothing to do with the freedom of anyone in our country to be able speak another language. It is about government documents being printed in English only and will save us a lot of tax dollars. That would occur by making English our official language. Again, there is no English only bill in regards to freedom of speech.
I have already addressed your repetitions of competing globally. For most Americans they don't have the types of jobs that would require another langauge and as I said English is the language of business across the world. Have we settled that one finally? You can learn all the languages you want just don't demonize mono-lingual Americans for not wanting or needing to do so also.
No one's forcing what amounts to Mexico's underclass to give up anything. If they find English too difficult to master they are more than welcome to stop breaking our laws and go back to Mexico. Instead they remain here in full defiance of our laws complaining at every turn that we haven't bothered to learn Spanish to make their lives easier.
The issue isn't bilingualism. The issue is Spanish being shoved down our throats by an arrogant group of uninvited invaders. Competing on a global scale does not mean telling Latin America's least able citizenry to come here without permission and get publically provided interpreters and other social services at American expense because they are fundamentally too lazy to learn this country's language or have not bothered to educate themselves for a global economy.
Go teach your kids Spanish if you like. No one's arguing against teaching foreign languages. We are arguing against being told to learn Spanish to cater to Mexico's monolingual arrogance. In the meantime, the rest of the world is learning English. Mexico's underclass, if wishing to finally succeed instead of relying on others to finance them, should follow suit.
I think this comes down to a fundamental principal I cannot escape, and underlies this "catering" issue.
When an aspiring immigrant seeks citizenship, what he's seeking is the protection of a sovereign's laws and rule. Legal immigrants follow and respect this process, essentially a hazing process which every sovereign has a right, if not duty, to implement. Illegals, don't respect the first rule, which is following and respecting a nation's laws on presence. And it creates a presumption that's difficult (though not impossible) to rebut of a lack of respect for that sovereign. If I move to India, I want to learn Hindi, or whatever the language is in the section of the country I move to. Both for my convenience and comfort and out of respect for that sovereign.
And despite the best intents of those who created the immigration laws, nothing is fair in life. There are waits. And just because it takes to long does not entitle you to cut in line. "The rules of the sovereign I seek citizenship from are too inconvenient I don't want to wait like other people" is not an exception for legal presence in any nation that I am aware of.
This is a world, and a nation, of limited resources -- unfortunately. It is compassionate and responsible to distribute those resources first to one's citizens -- natives and nationalized. That's the duty of sovereigns. But it is the blurring of legals with illegals, and the spin machine that compassion requires the compromise of our duties to our own that covers up the message that people who have not earned citizenship think they are entitled to it. I'd much rather force all native born to have to take a citizenship test at 18 than spit on the immigration process that my parents suffered through by granting asylum (the proposed process of which still does not solve any fairness concerns).
Illegals are winning the message war. They are succeeding in blurring illegal and legal. They are succeeding in defining compassion. I am not seeing a push back. At least one that I don't cringe at. There was a Mexican-American woman down in Tucson back a few years ago that spoke up passionately and eloquently about the earning of citizenship. Those are the stories that would solidify the support for distinguishing illegal from legal immigration, and not allowing them to cut in line. Although the mainstream media may not be sympathetic to such stories -- which they can't portray as driven by a vitriolic ranter -- that does not mean that those stories and argument should not be recorded somewhere (I don't know where). For me, this is a fight in defense of legal immigration.
I think this comes down to a fundamental principal I cannot escape, and underlies this "catering" issue.
When an aspiring immigrant seeks citizenship, what he's seeking is the protection of a sovereign's laws and rule. Legal immigrants follow and respect this process, essentially a hazing process which every sovereign has a right, if not duty, to implement. Illegals, don't respect the first rule, which is following and respecting a nation's laws on presence. And it creates a presumption that's difficult (though not impossible) to rebut of a lack of respect for that sovereign. If I move to India, I want to learn Hindi, or whatever the language is in the section of the country I move to. Both for my convenience and comfort and out of respect for that sovereign.
And despite the best intents of those who created the immigration laws, nothing is fair in life. There are waits. And just because it takes to long does not entitle you to cut in line. "The rules of the sovereign I seek citizenship from are too inconvenient I don't want to wait like other people" is not an exception for legal presence in any nation that I am aware of.
This is a world, and a nation, of limited resources -- unfortunately. It is compassionate and responsible to distribute those resources first to one's citizens -- natives and nationalized. That's the duty of sovereigns. But it is the blurring of legals with illegals, and the spin machine that compassion requires the compromise of our duties to our own that covers up the message that people who have not earned citizenship think they are entitled to it. I'd much rather force all native born to have to take a citizenship test at 18 than spit on the immigration process that my parents suffered through by granting asylum (the proposed process of which still does not solve any fairness concerns).
Illegals are winning the message war. They are succeeding in blurring illegal and legal. They are succeeding in defining compassion. I am not seeing a push back. At least one that I don't cringe at. There was a Mexican-American woman down in Tucson back a few years ago that spoke up passionately and eloquently about the earning of citizenship. Those are the stories that would solidify the support for distinguishing illegal from legal immigration, and not allowing them to cut in line. Although the mainstream media may not be sympathetic to such stories -- which they can't portray as driven by a vitriolic ranter -- that does not mean that those stories and argument should not be recorded somewhere (I don't know where). For me, this is a fight in defense of legal immigration.
"I am not seeing a push back. At least one that I don't cringe at".
That you said IS probably gonna happen before the FEDs wake up force back the tide of illegal aliens and their La Raza homies. Yes; MOST illegals are Hispanic; it is what it is.
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.
