When they align with established opinions. Duh.
Except our own. It would be - to coin a phrase - unAmerican.
Well here, ironically, you capture in one sentence the problem with the argument that they could come here legally. Yes, indeed, it’d be great if the immigration system was so conceptually advanced as to accurately reflect the pressures of supply and demand. However, it does not. The legal pipeline for immigration is hopelessly constricted. It’s all very well to turn round and say that your gardener should have immigrated legally, when he would have needed a computer science degree and a significant expansion of the H1-B program to do so. This does not reflect reality, however.
If you really want to decrease illegal immigration, let legal immigration reflect the economic realities. Saying “let’s really fuck over illegal immigrants in the fond hope that they’ll bugger off” is a complete abdication of responsibility for thinking sensibly about the problem. This is all the more distressing because you’re clearly aware of the real problem. Why not campaign for a realistic legal immigration policy, rather than for stupid, expensive and authoritarian measures that will simply fuck over hard-working people and their children for no real benefit other than some imagined sense of retribution?
Oh; because it’d be politically difficult. Silly me.
Give me a break, would you. It was an example. Whatever we need—be it fruit pickers, construction workers, medical professionals, engineers, factory workers, whatever—if we need them, we can bring them in. Is it clear now?
It certainly would not. The current interpretation runs counter to the intent of the amendment, whcih was drafted following the Dred Scott decision to ensure that blacks born in newly formed states were viewed as citizens.
That politically skewed interpretation of the amendment blatantly ignores over two centuries of American history.
Because God knows, nobody had ever entered the country illegally when they drafted that ammendment. Otherwise, they’d have certainly included language excepting illegal immigrants from the 14th’s protections.
Right?
[QUOTE=Miller]
And having a national language would help with this goal… how, precisely?/QUOTE]
It helps define the culture. It gives us a common tongue with which to operate our society and government. (As you offered.)
I’m not cleart on your first paragraph here. As to the second, no. There should be a citizenship test that requirtes a working command of English. people can then become as fluent as they wish. I think it good that the workings of society encourage them to greater fluency.
How so? And how is it a skewed interpretation?
Such a change would be unwise, though, I think, because when a system of citizenship is set up like that, it can lead to a permanent underclass…you set up a sort of dual population. Take, for example, the German “guest worker” problem. The German “guest workers” were immigrants. mainly from Turkey, who the German government encouraged to come to the country in the 60s to do manual labor. However, because they were seen as “guests”, they never fully assimilated, were discriminated against, and were treated by the government as “second class”. So now you have people whose grandparents immigrated, but who still aren’t citizens, and who are still poor, and marganized.
But wouldn’t that problem be avoided if the laws effecting guest workers were enforced?I think Canada has a program where you can come in to work for 8 months or so. They way I see it working is like that. If you are found to be here illegally after your time is up you are deported and are barred from further guestwork for a period of years (3? 5?). So the only people who would be here permanently would be those here legally NOT through the Guest Worker Program.
They don’t. See below.
Notice what that says?
Sorry, the brown people still aren’t the major problem you’d like for them to be. Keep plugging.
How is it more helpful to define the culture as monolingual, instead of polylingual? What damage is being done by not having a national language? Please be specific, if you can.
But how does a “national language” do this? I mean, say we pass a law tomorrow that says, “English is the national language of the United States.” And some legal immigrant or resident alien goes down to the post office to buy stamps, but he doesn’t speak English very well. How is the country improved by making it harder for him to interact with his government?
The government offers voting materials in Spanish because there are Spanish speaking legal citizens in this country who are more comfortable in their native tongue, and who have lobbied their government representatives to supply them with voting material in that language. I’m curious as to why you object to this perfectly legitimate exercise of political power, and moreover, why you feel it’s necessary to dictate to your fellow citizens how they are allowed to interface with their own government.
Are they expected to have this command of the language before they get here, or are they allowed to learn after they arrive? If so, how long do they have to achieve an acceptable level of fluency? What if, despite a good faith effort to try, they cannot achieve the required minimum fluency? Do we deport them? Even if they’re otherwise productive, useful, law-abiding citizens? What do we do with families who want to move here, if they cannot all meet your requirements? It becomes increasingly difficult to acquire langauges with age. Should immigrant families be required to leave Grandpa behind if they want to live here? What if you’ve got a brilliant scientist who wants to immigrate here, but he’s got a retarded child who is never going to speak English well enough to pass your test?
And finally, why do we need to make English the official language to institute this particular policy in the first place?
Doesn’t society (in the form of economic and social advancement) already provide sufficient encouragement to achieve fluency? What do you expect the federal goverment to be able to achieve, that the free market is not already taking care of by itself?
Elucidator, would you mind answering the questions I asked you in Post 50? Thanks
Here they are again to make it easier:
I’m not aware of anything draconian or xenophobic about getting a valid license to drive in the States. Educate me.
Here’s some testimony about the relationships between and among illegals, drugs, & terrorists.
I don’t have a problem with with bringing in transients and migrant workers. Legally. And I don’t see why they can’t get drivers’ licenses. But it also seems to me we really need to know who’s crossing the border and what they’re doing.
It’s helpful because it helps define it. If you do not have a national language it is a missed opportunity to define the culture—one less thing defining it. And this does not mean that the culture at large cannot be polylingual, my guess is that it still would be.
That person now has more incentive to learn English. I view this as a good thing for both the individual and society.
Here you go: District A is heavily Chinese, they elect a congressman who is fluent in Chinese but has poor English. District B is heavily Vietnamese… District C is heavily Brazilian… District D is heavily Guatamalan… E, Ghanan…, F, Russian… G, Italian, H, Iranian… I, Norweigan… etc. They all elect congresspeople to their likiing. All these congresspeople have a language other than English as their first language with caryiing degrees of fluency in English. Then they go to the House and hold session. Sound like a good ideas to you? And how useful would it be to you to listen to a candidate’s speech and not understand a word of it? Should a Senator be allowed to address the chamber in any language he chooses?
All laws can have exceptions. Sure we can make one for Gramps, and the retarted child, etc. But for those who do not pass the test without such an exemption, what happens to people who don’t pass the test now? I guess they have a certain amount of time to take it again. I hope there is a mechanism in place that if you don’t pass the test, you cannot become a citizen, and at some point you might have to leave. These tests are rather easy, so if someone is able but refuses to do the minimum amount of work to pass it I have zero sympathy. Send him back. There are plenty of people eager to come here and pass that test and become part of our society.
Huh? See above, I guess. I’m not sure I understand you.
Very little. Which makes it all the more important we use the tools available. The free market is actually pushing in the opposite direction, giving individuals what they want, as it should.
There is a certain set of people who would prefer to attempt a revisionist interpretation of that amendment in order to deny citizenship to some born in the U.S. They are ignoring the fact that even before the amendment, a person born in the U.S. was a U.S. citizen. This has always been the case. Both history and jurisprudence, and, in fact, the amendment itself, show that this has always been the case. The amendment was passed in special circumstances, and was intended to emphasize the fact that, yes, this applies to blacks too.
Those who which to change this grant of citizenship are simply going to have to belly up to the bar and pass a constitutional amendment to do so.
magellan01, we’ve been down and down and down this fucking road a million times, and you never learn a thing. You simply drag out the same dead horse every single time and claim it’s trotting.
It’s helpful because it’s helpful? Try again, please. How is it helpful? What specific advantages does a nation have that says, “Our official language is X” over one that says, “Our official languages are X, Y, and Z,” or one that says, “We don’t have an official language.” What is the first country able to accomplish or avoid that the other two nations are not able to accomplish or avoid? If a country says, “We, as a nation, do not have a national language,” is it no less defined than a country that says, “We, as a nation, have English as our national language?” Both are ways to define your country. Why is one definition better than the other?
Sounds to me like he has an even stronger incentive to just stay the hell out of America. I mean, if I lived in a country that went out of its way to make buying stamps as difficult as possible for me, I’d read that as a pretty big, “Fuck you, Mr. Foreigner.” Is that a desirable goal, in your view? Referring specifically to legal immigrants, of course.
Well, that strikes me as an extra-ordinarily unlikely scenario, and once again, largely non-responsive to the question I asked. I was talking about voters, not representatives. Although, for the record, yes, I think a Senator should be allowed to address Congress in any language he wants. He’s not going to be able to accomplish much for his constituents if he can’t (or won’t) communicate with his fellow congress people, and if he can’t accomplish anything for his constituents, he’s not likely to get re-elected. Of course, immigrants are not, as a group, stupid. So the odds of them voting for someone whom they know, ahead of time, will be unable to do his job seems vanishingly remote in the first place, and wholly unprecedented in the history of this nation.
But getting back to the question I actually asked, allow me to try a different tack:
My native language is English. I consider myself an excellent speaker of the language. I’ve got a degree in English literature. I do not think I’m bragging when I say I have a better command of the English language than 90% of the native English-speaking population. And yet, when I vote, I usually have to read ballot iniatives two or three times to understand exactly what they’re saying. And that’s for a native speaker with a degree in the language. I have difficulty imagining that a legal immigrant who has met your “basic competency” standard (which I’d like to see better defined, if you’re able) would have much, much more difficulty understanding a ballot if he can only get one in English. Do you not think that it’s more desireable to have voters who are as informed as possible on the issues on which they are voting? Should we not make any reasonable accomodation to help those in the electorate who wish to become more informed, become more informed? Yes, I suppose voter disenfranchisement is yet another “incentive to learn the language better,” but learning a new language doesn’t take place overnight. Should someone who is working as hard as they can to learn as much English as they can simply accept that they will be disenfranchised until they learn the language better? And would not such a policy have the effect on these immigrants of discouraging them from participating in the political process even after they’ve learned English? We may disagree on this point, but I think its far more important for immigrants to learn respect for participatory democracy than English. If we make it as difficult as we can for people who do not speak English fluently to participate in their government, how are we to teach them the importance of the democratic system of government?
How do you know how easy these tests are? Have you ever taken one? Do you speak any languages other than English? At what age did you learn them? What if someone does do the minimum amount of work, and still can’t speak the language to your satisfaction? Do you still have no sympathy for them? What if, in the time they’ve been here attempting to learn the language, they’ve started a family, some of whom do meet your minimums? Is your commitment to language purity in America more important than their families?
The bottom line is, I simply do not see anyway to implement the law you want that won’t end up being grossly unfair and destructive, and all to no perceivable gain.
If you want to force immigrants to learn English, pass a law saying, “Applicants for citizenship must pass Text 174669/B.” I don’t see the need for a second law that says, “English it the official language of the United States.” Why not just pass the law about the test, and skip this national language nonsense altogether?
Okay, now I’m confused. Are you admitting that your proposed law would have little effect? Are you saying that the free market is encouraging people not to learn English? Are you saying that we should prevent people from getting things that they want? Please clarify this last bit of your post, I can’t make heads or tails of it.
It was specifically deisigned to address blacks. You know what I think? I don’t think you know what your talking about.
That is one way. A judge can also hand down an opinion reflecting the correct interpretation of the law. Maybe more difficult with all the precedence set, but possible.
So much for expecting a civil discussion from one the lightweight mod. And it’s nice to see that you are so certain of your position. Easy to feel that way with all the cushions you have around you for support. Doesn’t mean it’s so. As far as revisionist history, you’ve got it backward. Here is what the person who drafted the amendment—Michigan Senator Jacob Howard—had to say about it back in 1866 when he proposed it:
So we can go with the intent it was drafted with or pass another Amendment. I’m fine either way.
Actually much of the debate was about limiting citizenship based on race. Denying citizenship to people considered racially inferior.
“Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania added “Are the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are being overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongrel (Chinese) race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by the Chinese? I think not…there are nations of people with whom theft is a virtue and falsehood a merit… it is necessary, a part of the nature of things, that society shall be more or less exclusive. It is utterly and totally impossible to mingle all of the various families of men, from the lowest form of the Hottentot, up to the highest Caucasian, in the same society””
Your not a descendent of this guy, are you magellan?