I don’t think so. If employers are offering decent jobs at decent wages, legal workers will want those jobs, and hiring practices will be scrutinized more carefully. At present, there’s a huge lack of oversight on sweatshop-type work simply because most workers don’t consider those jobs worth competing for.
Yes, the key is enforcement on the employment side. And if we start by properly enforcing labor law for all jobs, then we have legal workers actively contributing to enforcement efforts because they don’t want their jobs degraded.
These are really crappy analogies. I personally have no problem with people using my pool, and would happily invite them to do so. For your analogy to even come close to fitting, one of my neighbors would have to want to override my wishes and keep them out of my pool. I’m not for illegal immigrants coming to America. I’d be much happier having people be able to come here legally if they wanted. America isn’t your pool, it’s our pool. It’s a pretty nice pool, and I am willing to share it with those who won’t piss in it. You aren’t.
I know John Tanton (a racist, not to put too fine a point on it) is one of the founders of U.S. English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton But what does J. Philippe Rushton (definitely a racist, and a bad scientist to boot – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Rushton) have to do with it? He’s not even an American, he’s Canadian.
The original question was how to get illegal immigrants out. MY answer is you can’t get 11 or 12 million people out. If you don’t like that answer, fine.
Effort spent on formulating a plan to get all illegals out is wasted time.
Some important obstacles are the southwestern US agricultural corporations and the agricultural trade associations plus those of the construction industry, various service industries like janitorial services, etc… Illegal immigrants are good for them as of labor that dare mot complain about unfair labor practices, sub-minumum wages, unsafe unsafe working conditions and the like.
The failure to act over such a long period says a lot about who really calls the shots that politicians follow.
“Alameda County (CA) Medical Center has 18 full-time interpreters on staff in addition to 19 on-call translators.”
How are doctors supposed to treat patients who don’t speak English, “translators be supplied by advocacy groups”, and if you don’t have a group for your language?
I know medical charades! Doctors will just love that!
“The Virginia Supreme Court has certification programs for Spanish court interpreters and is considering certification programs in Vietnamese and Korean.”
Cool, lets get rid of court translators, I’ll commit my crimes with only non-English speakers as witnesses.
No translator, no testimony, no conviction!
“The total cost of providing multilingual services for the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be between $114 million and $150 million annually.”
Can’t see any reason INS would need non-English speakers!
While we’re at it, how much money are we wasting on multilingual services in the State Dept. and the CIA? magellan01 I’d still like you to address my question in post #41
Do you mean the Wiki quote? Here’s a pretty complete (though brief, better than Wiki) history of the treaty. (PDF)
Well, the SCotUS disagrees (almost, money but no land)!
[
Look, your little game of “oh that website is affiliated with so-and-so, and I don’t like so-and-so, therefore the information is tainted in some way” has become tiresome.
Earlier, you objected the words of a fucking treaty because you didn’t like the website it resided on. (Which, by the way, I had just googled to find the wording.) You could have looked up the treaty and checked if the Article I supplied was accurate, but no, instead you just whine. Still, I went and provided another link to the treaty, which, of course, showed the exact same words.
Before that it was an article on VDARE, that I did not even cite. And because of that one article you want to discount the whole website. Good for you. Knock yourself out. Oh, and FAIR, oh yeah, they’re racist, too. Anyone who disagrees with you is racist, glad to hear it.
And now, you object to a website of an organisation that was started by Senator S.I. Hayakawa, because he started it with Tanton, who, of course, must be a racist. So does that make Hayakawa a racist too? And people like the esteemed Jacques Barzun, Saul Bellow, and James Schlessinger who sat on the board? It’s nice, neat little world you live where everyone who you disagree with can be written off as racist or some other term that allows real debate to cease. Nice. Very convenient.
Newsflash: you and I are on oppositite sides of this and many issues. The cites I give will likely contain information that you don’t agree with. That site will probably have some link to other sites, groups, or individuals you disagree with, so here’s an idea, don’t click on them. Why should you? No doubt they will be from people or organisation you deem as racist. Or be tied, in some way to similar people or organizations.
If you have nothing to offer, why not just stop typing? The contribution to the discussion will be the same and you could go march with the illegals. See? Everybody wins.
When you’re done marching though, you might want to check out this.
I just hit preview and saw that you had supplied this brillaint analysis. It cause me to want to temper my response as this whole analogy/debate thing may be new to you. So, I’ll go slow.
The pool is the U.S.
The person wanting to swim in the pool would be a foreigner wanting to come to the U.S…
Now that person has some options:
Ring your doorbell and ask you if it’s okay to take a swim. A request which you may or may not grant, for any reason you like.
Simply long to swim in your pool. In fact, he might find the idea so attractive that he figures out how to build one of his own.
Invite himself in and start swimming.
Translated for the purposes of the analogy:
Seek permission to come to the U.S., apply for a visa, for instance.
Improve his own country so it more resembles what he finds attractive about the U.S.
Sneak into the U.S. (Or come here legally and then overstay his visa.)
Are you following so far? I’ll continue by pointing out, specifically, the errors in logic you made in you analysis.
It’s one analogy.
If you invited them, it wouldn’t fit the analogy. Can you not see that. And cannot you not see that although you personally wouldn’t mind anyone who feels like from coming to swim in you pool without permission, there are probably some people who would?
Bingo. Let’s assume you’re not actually as benevolent as you profess and that your pool isn’t open willy-nilly to anyone who happens to see or learn about it. Then that person taking it upon himself to just come swim on property he has no right to be on without your permission is, thusly, expressing an override of your wishes to keep people you don’t know out of your pool.
Great. But the question remains: what do you do when someone comes here illegally? Let’s say you redo all the immigration laws so it is very easy for people. many people, to come here legally. Surely, you would have some restriction, right, even it’s 50 million people a year. What do you do one more sneak in?
I’m absolutely williing to share it. Anyone who comes here legally I welcome with open arms. But if you come into my pool against my wishes (U.S. immigration laws), you deserve nothing but the same contempt you have shown for my rules.
Now if you are so intent in sharing what is yours with those who can’t come in legally, why don’t you work to have a family come and stay with you in your home? Serioulsy. I’m sure having a sponsor like you would improve their chances and speed things up.
Damn. Nobody ever tells me anything. In any case, money compensation doesn’t restore the sacred Black Hills to those originally in possession . And money was given in compensation because it is for all practical purposes impossible to restore the * status quo ante* just as in the case with the illegal immigrants who have been here for years.
Fine. That’s your answer. But I asked in the OP that this not be about whether we should oust illegals, but what the best way was. Regardless, we now have your answer. Thank you.
You are 100% correct. I agree. But what point are you trying to make. Please see the OP, particularly step #1.
That the people were welcome to choose to stay and become citizens, but thet they would be expected to assimilate into the American culture (whatever it was at that time) and not hold on to the Mexican culture. It seems rather explicit, even if the term “culture” is inherently broad.
How do you read it?
Overall, I think the article expands on that very point,that these people who so choose would be granted all the rights and priveleges of citizenship.
I can think of no better reason to learn English quickly. Possibly, before you get here.
I see no reason why the state may choose to hire translators in order to prosecute crimes. It is a vested state interest. Then, I guess the argument is that public defenders should have the same tool at their disposal. I’d probably have to agree with that. Good point.
Again, the state can do it because it is a tool to enforce laws and/or ensure national security.
Well, reviewing it again, I see no indication that they were required to surrender their language or customs:
“Character of citizens” addreesses citizenship: those who stop voting in Mexican elections, surrender the right to run for office in Mexico, surrender or abandon their Mexican passports, etc. Those are “characters” of citizenship. Regardless whether they take siestas in the heat of the day, celebrate Christmas with piñatas, celebrate Día de los Muertos, or conduct all their business transactions in Spanish, only their actions as citizens appears to be adddressed in the treaty.
“The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States. and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without; restriction.”
This? It means they aren’t Mexican. There Americans “protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without; restriction.” Which means they can eat a taco or sing ¡Feliz Navidad! at Christmas time without running afoul of the law.
In any case, money compensation doesn’t restore the sacred Black Hills to those originally in possession . And money was given in compensation because it is for all practical purposes impossible to restore the * status quo ante* just as in the case with the illegal immigrants who have been here for years.
“ICE camps”?