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

[swansont]

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

 

No, it's not a state, but they are still citizens (albeit missing some rights that statehood endows). I was wondering if you had some information about the immigration rules, given what you previously said. But some of those right go missing when you live in DC, too (e.g. house rep has no vote, no senate representation) and you can freely move in and out of DC (as long as you are willing to deal with things like the paperwork and lines at the DMV)

[swansont]

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%.

 

Difficult to tell, because of the unfortunate choice to use not-very-different shades of green.

 

Re Ellis Island' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

I was under the impression that Ellis Island was a response to not having control, or enough control, if the immigrants coming in. And the quotas that were established were not for creating diversity, but limiting it to preserve the status quo.

[ecoli]

I was under the impression that Ellis Island was a response to not having control, or enough control, if the immigrants coming in. And the quotas that were established were not for creating diversity, but limiting it to preserve the status quo.

 

And, anybody who came through Ellis island was a LEGAL immigrant. They were subject to health inspections, and things like that. Granted, legal status was probably easier to attain back in the day, but the laws change and even immigrants should respect the laws.

 

Currently, it is not required to speak English, but maybe it's time to reconsider that. There's a difference between English evolving as a language and Spanish replacing english as the national language. Though, as I said before, there are some enforcement issues that go along with this.

[Jim]

I was under the impression that Ellis Island was a response to not having control, or enough control, if the immigrants coming in. And the quotas that were established were not for creating diversity, but limiting it to preserve the status quo.

 

I don't know the history and agree it would bear research. My point is that with oversees immigration we always had the ability to shut off the valve. If we did not seek to control entry, that was a choice caused by our desire to fill sparsely populated areas.

 

Maybe that's what we have been doing these last five years. Illegal immigration has increased by 25% yet business and politicians have had the ability to shut this down, with a wall, employer sanctions, etc. As a nation, we've allowed millions, including children, to come into this country with shadowy legal rights.

 

This is the best argument I have heard for amnesty - Americans have and are permitting this to happen knowing that families will move here and put down roots. When they finally have had enough, and they will some day, we suddenly remember that they are illegal.