English as the national language of the U.S.A.

[zyncod]

The phrase "looks racist" is a dodge. Have the guts to say you think I am a racist, if that is what you are implying, or don't say anything at all.

 

You say I "look racist" while ignoring every substantive point that I make regarding the difference between this wave of ILLEGAL immigration and the legal immigration of the past. The primary point I made - listen real close now, this isn't that hard - is that this wave is out of control. This group comes from a contiguous country and has gained almost insurmountable political power and, if we are going to put some limits as we have with EVERY other immigrant group in the past, the time to do so is now.

 

Like Pangloss said, I'm not calling you a racist. The use of the soccer game as a piece of anecdotal evidence, however, does have racist connotations in that you're giving the Mexican flag a significance that other flags would not have. If a group of Irish immigrants got together a kid's soccer team and they were all speaking Gaelic (I know, I know, not many Irish people speak Gaelic anymore), I doubt that you would read very much into it. In a racially-charged debate (and you cannot argue that the immigration issue is not this), you have to be careful using anecdotal evidence.

 

For example, I was hit by a group of black motorcyclists while skating two weeks ago, and one of them ran over my hand. They didn't even stop afterward. But for me to use this as any sort of evidence of criminality among black people in general would be racist, as it would be silly for me to indict white people if a group of white motorcyclists hit me (I don't, however, have any scruples about castigating people riding around on one of those stupid crotch-rockets that hit me). I don't think you're a racist Jim, I'm just saying you have to be careful about how you use your evidence.

 

As far as the Confederate flag goes, I think that people that display it are being ignorant and hurtful, but I don't reflexively think that they are separatists (which was the original point of the flag), nor do I think that they have any great love for slavery. My point here is that the Mexican flag has no more connotations for anti-Americanism than the Swedish flag does, whereas the Confederate flag does have these connotations. And yet most people displaying the Confederate flag are simply proclaiming a love for their heritage, however misguided the symbol they chose might be.

 

I will admit that I don't have any real evidence that most illegal immigrants want to become Americans. But the fact is, illegal immigration is increasing rapidly, meaning that more people are coming to our country than are leaving. Which implies that most illegal immigrants like it here, and, were amnesty for citizenship offered, I have no doubt that a large majority would jump at the opportunity.

 

And, by the way, I do agree that illegal immigration is a serious problem. We simply cannot handle the social services needs of millions upon millions of indigent people, who, unfair as it might be, were not lucky enough to be born in this country. I don't make much money, but I don't feel that it's my obligation to invite the homeless people in my neighborhood to share my bed for the night simply because they're worse off than I am.

 

As a side note on this whole situation: my neighborhood is overwhelmingly Dominican. A few months after I moved in, I went to this restaurant in the neighborhood called "China Star," which, I assumed, sold Chinese food. It actually sold burritos. So the restaurant was basically Chinese people selling Mexican food to Dominicans.

[Jim]

Like Pangloss said, I'm not calling you a racist.

 

Great. I'm not a racist but my argument has "racist connotations." Okay, I'll settle for that small dirty bone and declare peace.

 

The use of the soccer game as a piece of anecdotal evidence, however, does have racist connotations in that you're giving the Mexican flag a significance that other flags would not have. If a group of Irish immigrants got together a kid's soccer team and they were all speaking Gaelic (I know, I know, not many Irish people speak Gaelic anymore), I doubt that you would read very much into it. In a racially-charged debate (and you cannot argue that the immigration issue is not this), you have to be careful using anecdotal evidence.

 

You're still not listening. You are imputing the worst possible motives for my point instead of accepting the motivations I've given.

 

There is no questions that Irish Americans are first and foremost, Americans. They came to this Country legally, applied for and received citizenship and, although they retain their ethnic identity, there is no question as to their primary allegiance. When they came to the "New World," there was no going back.

 

Illegal immigrants, by definition, have not pledged allegiance to this Country. (I know that drives you nuts; sorry, I can't help myself now). Some of them might and others might not. Once legal, they will be able to go back and forth easily and inexpensively to their country of origin. This is something new.

 

I have repeatedly said that we can talk about assimilation but what we are really talking about is whether any immigrant group, particularly illegals, owe a first allegiance to this C.... er... America. (Is that better?) When I see them waiving flags or naming a team, "Team Mexico" it raises a question that is not raised in your analogies. I admit this is anecdotal but I have a view of the change that is occurring that you do not.

 

Let's be blunt about my concern: What happens when the majority of Texas, Oklahoma and other Southwestern states are controlled by first or second generation Mexicans and S. Americans? I gave you the percentages for Irish Americans in 1870 and nothing allowed then approached the levels that we could be facing with amnesty and then an influx of relatives.

 

There are several concerns not raised by other examples:

 

1. America's melting pot has worked. It doesn't dissolve diverse cultures but it does value diversity. In large sections of the country we are not talking about importing diversity but creating a new majority.

 

2. America's culture, for whatever reason, has succeeded militarily and economically whereas Mexico's has not. Culture does matter which, again, argues for mixing in new immigrants in controlled numbers, not a wholesale substitution.

 

3. When entire sections of America are controlled by first and second generation newly legal immigrants, our ability to control future influxes will be destroyed. Politicians are already pandering to the new voters. When, not if, this occurs, the question of the primary allegiance of the new majority is not trivial.

 

4. As I said above, these immigrants will be able to go back easily to their native country. How do we know that they will put America first and foremost? Sure, prior immigrant groups favor their native country but there are going to be many huge issues with Mexico - primarily being an ability to limit future immigration.

 

I hope you will note that none of these arguments has jack to do with with race. The most suspect would be the cultural argument but the only two books I've read on why western culture has succeeded do not have have racial explanations (J. Diamond & V. Hansen).

 

For example, I was hit by a group of black motorcyclists while skating two weeks ago, and one of them ran over my hand. They didn't even stop afterward. But for me to use this as any sort of evidence of criminality among black people in general would be racist, as it would be silly for me to indict white people if a group of white motorcyclists hit me (I don't, however, have any scruples about castigating people riding around on one of those stupid crotch-rockets that hit me). I don't think you're a racist Jim, I'm just saying you have to be careful about how you use your evidence.

 

 

Yes, but this isn't what I did.

 

I wasn't questioning their intelligence, capabilities, ethics, willingness to work, lawful vrs criminal nature (except as it pertains to our immigration laws), morals, or anything else that typically has "racist connotations." I am questioning (and here i really mean questioning, not judging) their primary allegience. If they break the law to come, wave Mexican flags, refuse to speak the language to an extent that no legal immigrant group has heretofore (ever heard, press 1, for Vietnamese?), what non-racist measure do I use? For that matter, why should illegal aliens have primary alleigence to America?

 

It is an important question and shouldn't not be deflected by playing the race card. Yes, raising the race issue can make us all more "careful with our evidence." I'm not sure that is a good thing, necessarily, if you want candid discussion.

[Pangloss]

When entire sections of America are controlled by first and second generation newly legal immigrants, our ability to control future influxes will be destroyed. Politicians are already pandering to the new voters. When, not if, this occurs, the question of the primary allegiance of the new majority is not trivial.

 

You don't know that, nor is there any actual evidence that that would occur. It's purely speculative.

 

I respect your opinion on it, but I really think you're stretching. I've seen zero evidence to suggest that this country's laws or its moral integrity would be lessened by immigration just because those immigrants happen to be coming from Mexico instead of Europe. Nor have I seen any evidence to question the "primary allegiance" of any particular new group of citizens.

 

Waving a bunch of flags around certainly doesn't constitute evidence of any of that. And I don't think anybody would be speculating that it does do that if those flags came from anywhere other than Latin America.

[Jim]

You don't know that' date=' nor is there any actual evidence that that would occur. It's purely speculative.

 

I respect your opinion on it, but I really think you're stretching. I've seen zero evidence to suggest that this country's laws or its moral integrity would be lessened by immigration just because those immigrants happen to be coming from Mexico instead of Europe. Nor have I seen any evidence to question the "primary allegiance" of any particular new group of citizens.

 

Waving a bunch of flags around certainly doesn't constitute evidence of any of that. And I don't think anybody would be speculating that it does do that if those flags came from anywhere other than Latin America.[/quote']

 

I did not say that illegal immigration threatened the country's "moral integrity." I have repeatedly said the opposite. What I have consistently stated is that we are shortly going to reach a point of critical mass where politically we will not be able to control our own border. The illegals who are protesting en masse perhaps believe that we have already reached that point. I think they may have miscalculated the timing but we will get to that point eventually.

 

I have never criticized "immigration." To the contrary, I have consistently stated that we should figure out the numbers that we need and want to accept, while promoting the concept of diversity in who we take, and make that legal. I have only criticized out of control illegal immigration.

 

I have also consistently agreed that waiving flags is anecdotal but that we DON'T know the allegiance of the 14-20MM and counting illegals that come into this country. I have argued that the difference in Mexico being a contiguous border makes this more of an issue because they can stay more connected to their country of origin. I have stated that we do not have an objective measure of this issue, so this is why these few anecdotal bits of evidence are rightfully concerning.

 

My argument about the unique nature of today's issue has not been merely that many of these illegal immigrants "happen" to be from Mexico rather from Europe. My argument has been that this a different situation because we have a contiguous border. I have also argued that we should promote diversity in our legal immigration because culture does matter and we shouldn't allow any one immigrant group (legal or illegal) to come to dominate politically and culturally entire regions of the country within a short time of their arrival. I have provided statistics to show that we did not do this with the Irish in the 1800s and no one has provided a counter example.

[gcol]

I am a litle concerned at talk of preserving the English language.

It is not and never has been preseved in aspic. It is alive, evolving, ever changing. It has absorbed so much from other languages. Just have a quick scan through an etymological dictionary to see this for yourself. I place a considerable wager that in a couple of hundred years from now, "english" speakers will look back at 20th century speak and giggle at its quaint and archaic nature. Who now, apart from literature students fully understand the nuances of Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Spencer. As for Anglo-Saxon, the original english, I'm afraid it is all Greek to me.

[ecoli]

You know, the illegal immigrant community in New York is enORmous. And New York is quite far away from Mexico. So that kind of demonstrates a desire to become American. Actually, if the illegal immigrants were planning on going home, I don't think that anybody would be all that bothered. The fact is that almost all of these people want to become Americans.

 

 

However, most of the illegals latino's living in New York are Puerto Rican, I believe.

[Jim]

I am a litle concerned at talk of preserving the English language.

It is not and never has been preseved in aspic. It is alive' date=' evolving, ever changing. It has absorbed so much from other languages. Just have a quick scan through an etymological dictionary to see this for yourself. I place a considerable wager that in a couple of hundred years from now, "english" speakers will look back at 20th century speak and giggle at its quaint and archaic nature. Who now, apart from literature students fully understand the nuances of Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Spencer. As for Anglo-Saxon, the original english, I'm afraid it is all Greek to me.[/quote']

 

I have no problem with english evolving so long as the country has a common language.

[ecoli]

I have no problem with english evolving so long as the country has a common language.

 

Actually, I'm worried about that too. I refuse to learn how to speak 'ghetto gangsta'

[gcol]

Ah, so nothing wrong with the evolving american english that a little ethnic cleansing won't put right, then.

 

Man the linguistic barricades!

[swansont]

It would be nice if Bush would learn to speak the English language before making laws about it...

 

 

Unfortunately, AFAIK federal elected officials are made exempt from many of the laws that they pass.

 

But do I consider not being able to pronounce "nuclear" to be in the "high crimes and misdemeanors" category.

[ecoli]

Unfortunately, AFAIK federal elected officials are made exempt from many of the laws that they pass.

 

that's not true... unless you're taking about corruption

[swansont]

However, most of the illegals latino's living in New York are Puerto Rican, I believe.

 

How can that be? Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

[gcol]

How can that be? Puerto Ricans are US citizens.

 

Yes, but he did specify illegals..... or are illegals US citizens too? How ultra democratic of you to say so.

[swansont]

that's not true... unless you're taking about corruption

 

Well, first of all, there's congressional immunity (it's in the Constitution, and still gets used). And many laws have had self-exemption clauses written into them. So when I read statements like "Some believe the Hill reformed itself in 1995 when it passed the Congressional Accountability Act to end its exemptions from civil service rules. Congress even set up an Office of Compliance to enforce the new rules. But it all was a sham. Congress carefully forgot to end its self-exemption from the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act." from here I have to think the exemptions are still around.

[swansont]

Previous waves were at times driven by limited discreet events (e.g. potato famine' date=' Vietnamese war). In all cases, because the countries of origin was separated by an ocean, the connection to that country was severed although the culture remains. The United States determined kit needed the immigrants and determined to let them come in. Neither of us was alive back in those days but, I suspect, having crossed the ocean the entire notion was to become Americans. Irish Americans, etc, but Americans. There was a commitment to this country not a foreign power.

 

None of these waves threatened to become political self-sustaining. None were illegal.

 

As I've posted before, the Irish were motivated by the potato famine and per the 1850 census almost a million US citizens had been born in Ireland. At the peak of the immigration in 1870, as you can see, in most areas of the country, the percentage of Irish was in single digits. With the lessening of immigration, the Country could then go about assimilating this culture into the "melting pot."

.

 

But by the same token, in some places the population was 15% or higher. And as far as I can find, there were no immigration laws were in place back then that would make a "legal vs illegal immigration" distinction relevant. According to Wiki, the first one (after Naturalization Act of 1790) was passed in 1882, the Chinese exclusion act.

[Pangloss]

But do I consider not being able to pronounce "nuclear" to be in the "high crimes and misdemeanors" category.

 

I think Carter used to make the same mistake. Which was even odder given the fact that he majored in Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech!

[swansont]

I think Carter used to make the same mistake. Which was even odder given the fact that he majored in Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech!

 

And was a nuclear propulsion officer in the navy (I recall a discussion of what it would have been like to have Ensign Jimmy Carter in your class, back when I taught in that program)

[swansont]

Yes, but he did specify illegals..... or are illegals US citizens too? How ultra democratic of you to say so.

 

Yes, he did. I was questioning how a Puerto Rican, who is by law a US citizen, can be classified as an illegal immigrant.

[Jim]

But by the same token, in some places the population was 15% or higher. And as far as I can find, there were no immigration laws were in place back then that would make a "legal vs illegal immigration" distinction relevant. According to Wiki, the first one (after Naturalization Act of 1790) was passed in 1882, the Chinese exclusion act[/url'].

 

With respect to prior immigration laws, the country did make a decision not to have quotas in the 1800s because we needed people to settle the frontier. However, we had complete control over oversees immigrants coming through Ellis Island.

 

Only in three states, two of them being North & South Dakota, was the majority of the geographic area > 15%. If the 20 million number of current illegals is correct, that is 6.8% of the total US population of 295 million being comprised of illegal aliens. If we grant amnesty and the relatives who get in under US immigration law is even a 1:1 deal, we would be looking at 12.7% of the total population having been caused by illegal immigration. Obviously, this is going to be distributed heavily in certain areas and the distribution will be very different than what we had in 1870 from Irish Americans.

 

This is only looking at the immediate and conservative impact of amnesty. Other numbers have been used which, to me, sound reasonable. I would think that these 14-20 million would, on average, want to bring in relatives on more than a 1:1 basis. Because Mexico is contiguous, there is a far easier movement of people than there ever was in previous American history.

 

FWIW, I have no problem with 15% or 20% of our work force coming from legal immigration in a generation BUT (i) I want us as a country we have made the decision that we need these workers and invite them to come; (ii) I want control over who comes in for security purposes and (iii) I want the immigrants drawn from diverse backgrounds so that no one foreign country immediately influences American politics. I wouldn't want Denmark to have a quick 10% of the US population.

[zyncod]

the country did make a decision

 

us as a country

 

Yay!!!

[sabbath]

Not making English the official language of the US is a great idea. Next time I get pulled over by the cops' date=' I will speak jibberish and say "no speaka no English." That would make those coppers think twice about pulling me over, haha. I guess the police forces around the country will have to employ linguists so that any perp who doesn't know English will know that the good old US has provided an interpreter for their convenience.

[/quote']

 

Isn't this happening already? Well I can't really say but I read in a Michael Crichton novel that there's a special department in the police bureau in dealing with foreigners. I don't know whether these foreigners had to be diplomats. I forgot. It was entitled Rising Sun. I know it's not reliable at all though, being a work of fiction and all.

 

*shrug*

[swansont]

With respect to prior immigration laws' date=' the country did make a decision not to have quotas in the 1800s because we needed people to settle the frontier. However, we had complete control over oversees immigrants coming through Ellis Island.

 

Only in three states, two of them being North & South Dakota, was the majority of the geographic area > 15%.[/quote']

 

Ellis Island did not start processing immigrants until the 1890s, and not all immigrants would have had to go through there, anyway.

 

And geographic area isn't the right metric, since it doesn't correlate with population density. Some of the high-density areas are in the heavily-populated areas of the northeast. Three Irishmen in a pub (not to reinforce any stereotypes) might be 15% of the population in many areas of the Dakotas.

 

 

If the 20 million number of current illegals is correct' date=' that is 6.8% of the total US population of 295 million being comprised of illegal aliens. If we grant amnesty and the relatives who get in under US immigration law is even a 1:1 deal, we would be looking at 12.7% of the total population having been caused by illegal immigration. Obviously, this is going to be distributed heavily in certain areas and the distribution will be very different than what we had in 1870 from Irish Americans.

 

This is only looking at the immediate and conservative impact of amnesty. Other numbers have been used which, to me, sound reasonable. I would think that these 14-20 million would, on average, want to bring in relatives on more than a 1:1 basis. Because Mexico is contiguous, there is a far easier movement of people than there ever was in previous American history.

 

FWIW, I have no problem with 15% or 20% of our work force coming from legal immigration in a generation BUT (i) I want us as a country we have made the decision that we need these workers and invite them to come; (ii) I want control over who comes in for security purposes and (iii) I want the immigrants drawn from diverse backgrounds so that no one foreign country immediately influences American politics. I wouldn't want Denmark to have a quick 10% of the US population.[/quote']

 

 

Some of the numbers I have read are 11-12 million, not 20 million, and your percentage creeps up from 12.7 to 20, when some estimates have it at 4. Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican. Why does it matter that the distribution will be different? The Irish example did not have a uniform distribution. This is the first mention here, I think, of a specific plan that addresses bringing in family, so I think that this is by no means a "conservative" view of the impact. (Unless you mean the view from a conservative.) I think it leans more toward an alarmist impact.

[Jim]

Ellis Island did not start processing immigrants until the 1890s' date=' and not all immigrants would have had to go through there, anyway.

 

And geographic area isn't the right metric, since it doesn't correlate with population density. Some of the high-density areas are in the heavily-populated areas of the northeast. Three Irishmen in a pub (not to reinforce any stereotypes) might be 15% of the population in many areas of the Dakotas.[/quote']

 

Yes, I thought the 15% in the Dakotas, which were 2 of the 3 states you cited, wasn't very meaningful. Those were not a highly populated areas. I only see one area in the Northeast in excess of 15%.

 

I wish I had a table with the totals nationally and by city but that is the best I could find.

 

Re Ellis Island, you miss my point - because they were coming from oversees the United States had control. At any point we could have shut down the flow coming through a limited number of ports. . We allowed these people in when the country was expanding and population was sparse. We had control but as a matter of policy, we let them in. When we wanted to establish quotas as the country filled, we did.

 

It is Mexico and S. America's proximity which makes this different and the fact that the driver of the immigration was not an event of limited duration (e.g. potato famine, Vietnam war) but economic pressure which will continue until Mexico gets its house in order.

 

 

Some of the numbers I have read are 11-12 million, not 20 million, and your percentage creeps up from 12.7 to 20, when some estimates have it at 4. Not all illegal immigrants are Mexican. Why does it matter that the distribution will be different? The Irish example did not have a uniform distribution. This is the first mention here, I think, of a specific plan that addresses bringing in family, so I think that this is by no means a "conservative" view of the impact. (Unless you mean the view from a conservative.) I think it leans more toward an alarmist impact.

 

As I think one of my posts stated, I've read between 14-20MM. Even at 14MM that was a 25% increase in five years, as I recall. The conservatism I was mentioning was bringing in relatives on a 1:1 basis. I do not see why it would be so limited. Right now it is a bit of a journey and I bet many families are not brought along.

 

It is a stinging indictment of current policy that the number could be off by 9 million people.

[Jim]

Yay!!!

 

 

My Country, right or wrong! J/k

[ecoli]

Yes, he did. I was questioning how a Puerto Rican, who is by law a US citizen, can be classified as an illegal immigrant.

 

I'm sorry, I don't know how strict the immigration laws are between the US and puerto Rico (which is not a state)