What would be the best way to expel illegals and start over with legal immigration?

[magellan01]

@Unregistered Bull

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.

The question was, as I’d bet you knew full well, is what do these words mean?

…shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic,…

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

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.

Um . . . Yes, magellan, VDARE is pretty racist – much more so now than when it was founded, in fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vdare; http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=285

FAIR apparently is less so but there’s definitely some guilt-by-association there. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=498

[Unregistered_Bull]

@magellan01

The question was, as I’d bet you knew full well, is what do these words mean?

I answered it. Ya contesté (oops, where’s La Migra )

[magellan01]

@tomndebb

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.

That definitely is one interpretation. Although the religious protections are covered elsewhere. And the “voting” and “office holding” characteristics are covered in the concept of single, as opposed to dual citizenship, which is expressly prohibited.

You latest post seems to me to puch the answer toward language or something else. The reason is that all the other things are mentioned separately. And given the time and the actons of the governement up until then to unify the country with a common language (of government), it seems reasonable to me, although admittedly just one interpretation, that the passage intended to Americanize the people in question in ways not discussed explicitly in the articles.

[BrainGlutton]

And Tanton definitely is a racist. From Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, by Christopher Hitchens (Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1990), discussing the “official English” movement of 1988:

U.S. English, it emerged, was a project of “U.S. Inc.,” a tax-exempt body which underwrote a number of other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, Americans for Border Control, and Californians for Population Stabilization. There was no mistaking the timbre of this joint output, which had little to do with the teaching of “the Queen’s English” except as this bore upon the connection between that English and certain inherited conceptions of race and tribal security. Dr. John Tanton, the originating author of this cluster of groups and initiatives, was himself in no doubt that “the question of bilingualism grows out of U.S. immigration policy.”

So much might have seemed obvious, at least until Dr. Tanton wrote a paper which, phrased in the poor and affected English which is often found among the language’s more ostentatious upholders, created a crisis for his hitherto blue-chip WASP and Jewish campaign. As he coarsely put it:

“Gobernar es poblar” translates as “to govern is to populate.” In this society, will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile? Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva if borders aren’t controlled?

Having rather clumsily Latinized or Romanized his argument, Tanton moved to a more demotic style. He warned sternly of such alarming cultural imports as "the tradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, and Roman Catholicism with its tendency to “pitch out the separation of church and state.” He continued to skirt around these aspects of the problem – the most conspicuous opponents of church-state separation in the 1980s have been fundamentalist Protestants – making an excursion through allegedly low “educability” before returning with relish to his main theme, which was, as ever, sex and fertility:

Perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down. As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night. Or will there be an explosion?

This piece of inadvertence – the shift to “white” as the key word speaks volumes in the extract above, as well as showing the secondary significance of ideas like “culture” and “language” – led to the resignation of many of the U.S. English board members, among them Walter Cronkite and the neoconservative Hispanic Linda Chavez. It also led to closer scrutiny of the network of which Dr. Tanton was the convenor. The chairman of the Florida English campaign, for example, had advocated the elimination of emergency telephone services in Spanish in order to supply what he called an “incentive” to the learning of the tongue of Shakespeare and Dickens. His Dade County equivalent had warned that “the United States is not a mongrel nation.” Rusty Butler, an aide to Senator Steven Symms of Idaho, had forwarded the senator’s call for an English-language amendment to the Constitution by saying that "the language issue could feed and guide terrorism in the U.S. Finally, it was discovered that among the donors to Dr. Tanton’s network was the Pioneer Fund, established in the unpropitious year of 1937 to proselytize for what it then called “applied genetics in present-day Germany.”

The general connection between white racism and the anti-immigration movement was explored in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310401

[magellan01]

@Unregistered Bull

I answered it. Ya contesté (oops, where’s La Migra )

Please show me where you offered your interpretation of that specific passage.

[Unregistered_Bull]

@magellan01

Please show me where you offered your interpretation of that specific passage.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7285123&postcount=97

Same thing goes for the biq quote tomndebb posted of it. Or is this some other passage?

[Unregistered_Bull]

@magellan01

it seems reasonable to me, although admittedly just one interpretation, that the passage intended to Americanize the people in question in ways not discussed explicitly in the articles.

And you’d be wrong.

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

And Tanton definitely is a racist. From Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, by Christopher Hitchens (Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1990), discussing the “official English” movement of 1988:

This is just the kind of shit that stifles any meaningful debate, which is very often the intent. But let’s say the Tanton is a racist. (I don’t know and I bet you don’t know, but let’s say he is. Does that mean that every position he’s held on everything is racist? Does that mean the every organization he might have founded is racist. Does that mean that anyone associated with said organizations is a racist?

If it is your position that there is no—NO—argument for a country having a single official language other then racism, state so and defend it. If not, please stop with these so objective observations that do not give weight to the merits of either side of the debate.

@BrainGlutton

The general connection between white racism and the anti-immigration movement was explored in this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310401

And a fine thread it is. But these very problems were pointed out right after your OP.

Now, please reread my OP and weigh in in the manner I asked. If you have nothing to offer, that’s fine, too.

Thank you.

[even_sven]

In any case, even if this treaty did mention culture and language, it’s legal and moral hold would be questionable. It’s not like the actual people involved got to vote on it. If we were to make Puerto Rico a state today, we would need a vote by the people of Puerto Rico, not a sale by it’s leaders. While we can’t hold the past up to our standards, it’s ridiculous to say “well, they agreed to it” and use this treaty as proof.

Incidentally, how do you guys feel about the bans against the Kurdish language in Turkey?

[Unregistered_Bull]

@Unregistered Bull

And you’d be wrong.

BTW would you also propose kicking out of the country the legal descendants of these folks that were here during this treaty if they weren’t Anglo enough for you? Or would you suggest some other kind of punishment do you have in mind for them?

[magellan01]

@Unregistered Bull

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7285123&postcount=97

Same thing goes for the biq quote tomndebb posted of it. Or is this some other passage?

Never mind. I can now see you’re being intentionally evasive. I have better things to do with my time than respond to your non-responses.

[tomndebb]

@magellan01

That definitely is one interpretation. Although the religious protections are covered elsewhere. And the “voting” and “office holding” characteristics are covered in the concept of single, as opposed to dual citizenship, which is expressly prohibited.

You latest post seems to me to puch the answer toward language or something else. The reason is that all the other things are mentioned separately. And given the time and the actons of the governement up until then to unify the country with a common language (of government), it seems reasonable to me, although admittedly just one interpretation, that the passage intended to Americanize the people in question in ways not discussed explicitly in the articles.

I see no other interpretation for a legal document. Religion was probably singled out as an issue because the Know-Nothings and Nativists were actively campaigning to harrasss Catholics at that period and the treaty simply let the inhabitants know that the U.S. government did not intend to enshrine anti-Catholic bias in law.

I see nothing in the entire treaty that addresses anything other than citizenship. Article VII stipulates that no person shall be deprived of property, regardless of citizenship or the period in which the property was acquired and further sets forth the rule that there was a limited period during which any person could opt to remain a Mexican citizen (or they could becme U.S. citizens either by actively choosing or by default).
Article IX then states that no one shall be harrassed for having chosen to remain a Mexican citizen or choosing to become a U.S. citizen.
Anything talking about culture is simply an imposed wish from the 21st century that is not included in the document.

I am also curious as to your claim that the government was actively moving to unify the country regarding language (governmental or otherwise). At that time, (late 1840s) French was commonly heard in Detroit and Michigan as well as Louisiana, German was prevalent in Pennsylvania (where a variety lingers on among some groups), and no other significant immigrant group had begun to arrive to get people upset. I have never encountered any actions (originating in Washington, Detroit or Lansing, New Oreleans or Baton Rouge, or Philadelphia or Harrisburg) that attempted to set boundaries on language, so what did this effort to unify in language look like?

[magellan01]

@Unregistered Bull

And you’d be wrong.

Well that clears that up. Thanks for your input.

Next.

[Unregistered_Bull]

@magellan01

Never mind. I can now see you’re being intentionally evasive. I have better things to do with my time than respond to your non-responses.

So it was another passage?

[magellan01]

@even sven

In any case, even if this treaty did mention culture and language, it’s legal and moral hold would be questionable. It’s not like the actual people involved got to vote on it. If we were to make Puerto Rico a state today, we would need a vote by the people of Puerto Rico, not a sale by it’s leaders. While we can’t hold the past up to our standards, it’s ridiculous to say “well, they agreed to it” and use this treaty as proof.

And that is a very sensible position to take. One that does not try to weasle out of anything. Thank you!

[Eva_Luna]

On the off chance that anyone reading this is a) local, and b) interested in informed, reasonable discussion of the immigration issue, I just wanted to call your attention to this lecture at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. (I volunteer for this nonpartisan group, and this particular event is free and open to the public - registration required.)

OK, feel free to carry on whacking each other now…

[crowmanyclouds]

@magellan01

…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…

We agree to disagree with your cite then!

You can’t complain about the Costs of Multilingualism (as U.S.ENGLISH does) when those costs are necessary and legitimate.

@magellan01

…it seems reasonable to me, although admittedly just one interpretation, that the passage intended to Americanize the people in question in ways not discussed explicitly in the articles.

I doubt Scalia (and his fellow thinkers) will agree with you!

CMC fnord!

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

This is just the kind of shit that stifles any meaningful debate, which is very often the intent. But let’s say the Tanton is a racist. (I don’t know and I bet you don’t know, but let’s say he is. Does that mean that every position he’s held on everything is racist? Does that mean the every organization he might have founded is racist. Does that mean that anyone associated with said organizations is a racist?

No, but it does mean a very heightened level of scrutiny is urgently necessary when evaluating the arguments of such persons and organizations. Ad hominem is indeed a logical fallacy – but that does not change the fact, of great practical importance, that the most important piece of information is the name of the messenger.

@magellan01

If it is your position that there is no—NO—argument for a country having a single official language other then racism, state so and defend it.

No, I’m sure there are non-racist reasons (though at that I have yet to hear a good one). But some suspicion of racism is warranted when evaluating them – see above.

In any case, this thread isn’t about “official English,” is it? It’s supposed to be about driving illegals out of the country. And even if we accept the OP’s premise that that is an important goal, nobody has yet suggested a means that would not cause even more damage than any it might cure.

[magellan01]

@BrainGlutton

No, but it does mean a very heightened level of scrutiny is urgently necessary when evaluating the arguments of such persons and organizations. Ad hominem is indeed a logical fallacy – but that does not change the fact, of great practical importance, that the most important piece of information is the name of the messenger.

Wow. You don’t really believe that do you? That’s the most important piece of information? My guess is that you simply overstated your position. I s that right?

@BrainGlutton

In any case, this thread isn’t about “official English,” is it? It’s supposed to be about driving illegals out of the country.

Yes. Thank you.

@BrainGlutton

And even if we accept the OP’s premise that that is an important goal, nobody has yet suggested a means that would not cause even more damage than any it might cure.

I, for one (maybe the only one), disagree. The steps I outlined in the OP and some of the others offered would all be difficult, if not painful. But I think they are worth every ounce of the discomfort.