Is that what you call a difference of opinion? I think it represents reprimanding a group on one hand, and pandering to them on the other. Obviously, you disagree. I am not going to try to change that opinion.
You DO have to read, write, and speak English to become a citizen. He didn’t say “if you want to live in America” or “if you want to work here”. All applicants (with the exceptions noted) have to demonstrate they can read, write, and speak English to become a citizen. They don’t have to be fluent, but they do have to prove to the adjudicator they have at least conversational English. That includes taking the naturalization test in English and giving the oath in English. Besides which, all the INS paperwork comes in English.
This lie works on people who don’t know the first thing about the legal process of becoming a citizen. Few people seem to understand what it takes (and what goes into demonstrating you are a person of “good moral character”, for example.) The only way this is not a lie is if he doesn’t know that the requirements are for citizenship, which he should if he’s a presidential candidate. This is a basic thing to look up. Or he misspoke, in which case he should correct his error. If immigration is going to be such a hot mess in an election, then it’s fair to hold candidates accountable for what they say.
Gah, here I am all hopped up over reading comprehension, and I myself failed to note that the quote is not substantiated thru a link. Fear Itself, can you provide a link, please?
Maybe he wants to get rid of the exceptions?
Doesn’t look like it. Here’s a snip of the article with a bit more context (which, frankly, makes him look even worser):
From here.
But there isn’t a lie. He doesn’t say that there is no requirement and there ought to be one to fix some (non-existent) hole in the system. And, even if a person is competent in English comprehension, it’s quite likely that the person can understand his native language better. Rudy is selling himself to the voters, so if their daily is language is Spanish, it makes perfect sense for him to communicate to them in Spanish even if he thinks they should be required to learn English to become a citizen.
I think the “lie” is in the insinuations behind the assertion that “you should be able to have to read English, write English, and speak English if you want to become a citizen.” By saying, as part of a campaign, “you should be able to…if you want to become…” he is implying that it’s not currently a requirement and he’ll change that. But it IS currently a requirement. Therefore his speech is like the joke about a politician saying “My opponent’s daughter is a thespian and his son is a homo sapien.” There’s no point to saying it, except to appeal to people’s ignorance and emotions.
Sailboat
By Guliani saying that, he gives the implication that this currently isn’t required and that he will change that. So he gets to look like the “get tough” candidate on illegal immigration while he actually hasn’t proposed anything. It’s certainly a deception…
They do generally understand this. That’s why the vast majority of the people who move to the US learn English.
It’s possibly a deception, and you’d have to be a pretty good mind reader to determine that. Remember, be was asked about what he would do to stop illegal immigration, and he was responding to the question. Also note that the blog being given as a cite here doesn’t quote his entire response. But given that we know the proposed legislation in Congress recently (McCAin/Kennedy) had a provision that required English proficiency, it’s quite possible that he was thinking of that part as one thing he did agree with, even if he doesn’t support the full extent of the bill.
Since he was asked about illegal immigrants, and his response included something about citizenship, it’s reasonable to consider that he was talking about the reforms he would push for to deal with that problem. Any package directed at giving illegal immigrants a path towards citizenship is almost certainly going to have to have some language requirement in it.
I guess we’re going to have to expect an avalanche of these political “gotcha” threads around here. The rabid partisans on both sides will be combing the blogs for their next “outrage” towards someone on the other side of the political fence. This one is a perfect example.
Ok, let’s assume that he was pushing - I guess more - language proficieny as some part of his plan to deal with illegal immigration. He still deserves to get pitted because one has nothing to do with the other. You can’t apply for citizenship *at all * unless you’re a legal immigrant in the first place. Which goes back to my point again, that a presidential candidate discussing a major political issue should have a working knowledge of the realities of that issue.
Look, any attempt to deal with the illegal immigration policy is going to be handled thru a change in the law. I don’t see what’s wrong with saying what he thinks one aspect of that law ought to end up being. He was probably pandering to the “lets get tough on immigrants” crowd, but if you’re going to be outraged every time a presidential candidates panders to one crown or another, well, it’s going to be a busy year here in this forum.
You are, of course, free to feel outrage at whatever you wish. And free to start threads or post in them about said outrage. And I’m free to note that I don’t share in that outrage and to explain why.
Dude, are you being deliberately obtuse? Whatever standards we decide to use/not use to gauge whether we will grant citizenship to an individual has no bearing on the illegal immigration issue. I doubt anyone is going to back letting folks go straight from being an undocumented immigrant to a US citizen. You have to become a permanent legal resident (a resident alien, a holder of a green card) first and maintain that status for a certain amount of time (depending on how you got your green card) before you can even apply for citizenship. These things are not the same. And Giuliani is confusing/confounding the issue either thru what you call deception and I call a lie, or he’s just as ignorant as you are about the differences between an undocumented immigrant and someone who qualifies for citizenship. In which case I state again, as a presidential candidate he should know this basic fact about immigration! There is a difference between legal and illegal immigration in your world, right?
Dude, we’ve been having a national discussion for over a year now about how (or if) we should have a program geared to bringing illegal immigrants into some sort of legal status. It has plenty of bearing on the question. I know this is the pit, and you’re free to call me obtuse, but I’m also free to say I’m done with this particular discussion, since you don’t seem interested in actually understanding it. I suppose if you’re predisposed to dislike Giuliani, which the OP is, then you will be predisposed to seek outrage in every innocuous comment he makes.
Christ, you’re an idiot. Since you’ve pulled out, I can only assume that you don’t understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration. There is absolutely NOTHING in what Giuliani said that would have any bearing whatsoever on stemming illegal immigration. It’s like saying that you want to stop a leaking toilet by having the city cut off the water to your house. Moreover, there is NOTHING in the linked article that indicates Giuliani was even addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Any moron reading that quote would assume that what he meant by people who are becoming citizens would be people who are eligible to become citizens. Which, by definition, are legal immigrants. Who, by law, have to show they can read, write, and speak English! Whether an applicant for citizenship (a legal immigrant) can read, write, and speak English has zero, zip, nada to do with the push/pull factors that incentize people to come here illegally. It has zero, zip, nada bearing on the question of illegal immigration and what we should do about it.
You’re stupid. Just stupid. You haven’t even shown that your wild-ass tangent/assumption re: the context of Giuliani’s quote is “reasonable” as you assert.
And another thing! If Giuliani believes so much that citizens should speak English, then why pander to the Cubans in Spanish? Any politico-douchbag that panders on the immigration issue like Giuliani has in these two instances merits my ire, and I don’t give a shit if it’s a left candidate or not.
Well, when I became a citizen (at or just after my birth) I was unable to read, write, or speak English. But I still became a citizen.
And I have worked with native-born American adults who are not able to read and write, yet have still become citizens.
Oh, go fuck yourself. The quote which you cited btw, just says he “ended” with the comment about illegal immigrants. We don’t know what he said in full.
And that is “worser”?
It annoys me to no end that my students - who couldn’t write a coherent sentence to save their lives and wouldn’t know what to do with a comma if they found one waiting naked in their bed - are all American citizens, while I - with my mad English skillz - will have to wait another 10-20 years at the very least to get my citizenship.
My fault for not being born here, I guess.
It seems unfair to demand that new citizens be able to answer questions that plenty of native-born American citizens would not be able to answer. But since American citizenship is considered a privilege to those of us not born to it, I suppose there’s nothing we can do, other than grab our ankles and think of Jesus.