I LOVE IT!!! You found a way to call me a racist without using the word. You learned a new trick CB. Here’s a little pat on your head, now go back into your room and try not to disturb the adults.
But I’m happy for ya, really.
Why try to deny it magellan? Anybody with an IQ above 60 can see you for what you are which is a racist piece of shit.
Whatever you say, amigo. But who told you?
Another fucking Mexican.
I’m a liberal, but I have to say that it is extremely poor form to accuse the other side of xenophobia or racism, as has been done by niblet_head, CBEscapee, and DMC in this thread (sometimes implicitly). Although the OP could have been more carefully argued, magellan01 does have a position worthy of being discussed reasonably.
There is already a requirement to pass an exam in basic English in order to naturalize (though there are also certain exemptions from the English-language requirement for certain very long-term permanent residents, as well as for people with certain mental or physical impairments).
And currently there is no requirement ever to become a citizen if one is residing legally in the U.S. as a permanent resident. In fact, off the top of my head I can’t think of any country in the world which requires long-term legal residents to naturalize; usually the situation is quite the opposite.
magellan01, I repeat the question others have asked you - have you ever learned another language in adulthood to any semi-functional degree of fluency/literacy? If so, did you think about how much harder it would have been if your education in your native language had been sparse at best, if only because you’d never had the opportunity to pursue a full education in your native country?
Will probably have more commentary later, but I’ve been out immersing myself in Macedonian culture after spending the day helping the huddled masses in their efforts to breathe free, so I haven’t read the whole thread in detail. So far I haven’t seen anything that differentiates it from its umpteen predecessors, however.
Kazakhstan is an odd choice for this particular argument, as until the collapse of the Soviet Union, close to half the population was Slavic and most of the population was Russian-speaking - the result of the past 150-odd years or so of Russian Imperial- and Soviet-sponsores colonialization by Russophones, not to mention systematic state-sponsored propagation of the Russian language for most official (and educational, and business) purposes.
Eva Luna, glad you’re here. Can you tell me or steer me where I can find info on what would have been the options for someone from Mexico to come here legally in the '60s? I’m trying to understand how the landscape has changed from then till now.
You’re right, there’s not much new here other than the study cited in the OP (which zut was able to find the original before). I know you and I are on differetn sides of the issue, but I offered it as further support for my side of the argument.
Actually, I’m thinking of taking up a language now. Either Italian, Spanish, or Latin, which I wish I had in school. I took Spanish in highschool and first year of college, so that would be the easiest of the three. Although it was many years ago. Let me ask you, do you think a fair degree of fluency in English is a sensible requirement for citizenship. Why or why not?
Thanks.
Very interesting. I just included it to show range. And also, of course, to pay tribute to the great and glorious Borat.
The problem is that information claiming that there is valid controversy against birthright citizenship is coming from crackpots that ignore case law, or racist sites.
Mind you, it is true that there are lots of discussion in some circles, unfortunately in those circles the discussion is settled against birthright citizenship, but it remains a fact that birthright citizenship has been accepted as settled law since 1898, after the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
Not familiar with magellan01, are you? I didn’t call him a racist in my previous post (although he is one). If you’re referring to my comment about the “brown” people, that’s what he calls them, which you can find in that nice little thread that CBEscapee linked to.
Ah, the old poison the well. Well, I shouldn’t be surprised. Yes, I used “brown” as shorthand for people coming from Mexico and points south. I wasn’t/am not aware that this is taboo. I’ve heard it on Sunday morning talk shows quite often. If it is offensive, please explain how? If it is, I’ll gladly find some other term or write around it.
Sorry to disappoint you. Not very racist of me I know. But please do answer my question. Fighting ignorance and all that.
The latter part is correct. The first part is NOT. Unless you consider all these people racist crackpots (click on “show sponsors”) for supporting this.
Thanks. I’ve never heard the term judgmental sample before - I suppose because the journals I read don’t accept papers with clearly biased samples. If you pick the bad boys as your sample, it looks like everyone is bad.
Sorry, but in practical terms it is in crackpot territory, even that bill in a friendly congress was never voted or taken to a vote.
Okay, so you’re 31 flavors of stupid, too. Once again, I didn’t call you a racist in my initial post in this thread, nor had I mentioned that the term “brown people” was originally from you. Since that is the post that Key Lime Pie was responding to, I can only guess that he thinks I was calling you a racist based of that “brown” comment (i.e., putting such words into your mouth), since nothing else in my post could be construed as anything remotely similar, but he’ll let us know.
Cute, I was giving you an out, but you insist in putting words in my mouth, it was not a single choice magellan01. A crackpot does not need to be a racist.
I stand corrected. My apologies.
If magellan01 were interested in the facts and arguments involved in the issue, he’d read one of the (at least) four illegal immigration threads he started in 2006. There’s nothing here that hasn’t been presented elsewhere (including the best recent study on the relationship between violent crime and Mexican immigrants – strongly negative, despite popular perception), and no more reason to believe any of it will have any effect on the OP. Nor are his arguments getting any smarter than the level he established when he was worried that Mexican immigrants were going to come to his home, give him dengue fever and impose Sharia law.
So why does this dead horse keep showing up? And why so regularly, with a new one showing up whenever the dust settles on its predecessor?
This is just a theory, but I think it’s advertising. magpie is creating a brand name for himself that he hopes will be identified with the One-English-Speaking-Nation-Under-God-With-A-Forty-Foot-Jesus-Fence-Around-It-America-Is-For-Us mindset. The strategy isn’t to persuade anybody: it’s to attract anyone within earshot (who may be too shy to participate in the discussion) who are also True Believers, and don’t need no stinkin’ facts or logic or fancy ethics to know what they know. Later, they can get together and discuss their plans to save the world from…well, basically, the world.
These threads are just the tactic of a latter-day Know-Nothing to portray himself as someone tough and charismatic enough for like-minded but more bashful nativists to follow. And the more you and others trounce him, the better it works.
Well, I was thinking we could post civilly. Okay, I’m stupid and you’re stupid-er. Okay? Now, I didn’t say you called me a racist in your first post. I understand you wanting to correct Key Lime Guy as to your words, but you did that AND added:
That is what I responded to.