In June, 2006, our country had just experienced the May Immigration marches and the cable channels were raging about illegal immigration. Pundits like Pat Buchanan were bloviating as the media played and replayed canned footage of illegal immigrants crossing the old Mexican Borders. This footage was from the 1970´s. It was obvious the footage was old since the border crossers were wearing their hair in mullets, clothed in flowered shirts and leisure suits.
As the media channels were raging, the anger of the red-faced ANTIs was bubbling to the surface.
I saw this.
I saw this on the various cable channels and I decided I wanted to know more. I wanted to understand what everyone was so angry about.
On June 5, 2006, I watched the Alma Awards. Stars like Eva Longorio and Jimmy Smits were distributing awards.They talked about the Immigration issues and vocalized a call for unity, for understanding.
I believed them.
During one of the Alma Awards commercial breaks, there was an ad for MATT.org. This organization requested people join their website.
They professed to be a “Foundation encouraging Mexicans and Americans to think together and take action to understand and solve the major problems” of Immigration we are facing today.
I decided to visit their site.
I viewed the site the same evening. I wanted to understand the issues. I wanted to help find a solution.
When I viewed the Discussion Board, I was in shock. There was a group of (what I would later term) ANTIs angrily overtaking every thread and every discussion on the board. I did not understand why they were so angry. I did not understand how they could overtake the whole website. Most of the ANTIs on the board were well-educated. They spewed their anger and attacked any member that did not agree with them. They ganged up and drove out every PRO member from the website.
The first night, I did not post. I just read.
The second night, I did not post. I just read.
Those first two night, I read all the posts and digested.
As a business woman, I researched and googled their references. I found most of the ANTI comments were subjective and were based primarily on opinions.
I debated with myself.
Should I join this site? I did want to learn more, but I decided if I did join this site, I would have to join the frey. I would have to stand up for my beliefs. I would have to conduct research. I could not be afraid. I would be in battles with some very angry, negative people. It would take over my free time. If I joined, I would need to be committed and join the battle. I could not be afraid.
I decided to join.
I joined the battle on June 7, 2006 as an active, participating member. I was not afraid. I decided to devote my personal time to the battle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
78 comments:
So I gather from your remarks that an illegal invasion of our country is acceptable to you and anyone who opposes it is deemed red-faced and angry? Have you given any thought as to why they are angry? I notice that you call yourself a Mexican-American, is that why you don't mind this invasion because they are mostly Mexicans?
You seem to be one of the few who conclude that there is no problem because networks are prone to use stock footage of photos for various purposes and some of them inevitably are dated. I didn't see anything like you describe in the photos used on NBC Nightly News. They all looked modern day to me.
It is difficult for those of us who put our country first to comprehend your difficulty in understanding: (1) why loyal Americans are angry at being overrun by legal and illegal immigrants to the extent that 40% of our population is now foreign born; and (2) why taxpayers object to the burden of welfare for illegals, crowded schools, 14th amendment babies,bilingual signage and classes, EO 13166, opposition to Official English,gangs, crime, drug and human smugglers, etc. Instead, you should be asking why isn't every loyal American angry about this?
Unjustified red-faced anger and violence also occurs regularly among the illegals and their fellow travelers. They who have no such right demonstrate for rights no guest should expect and certainly no foreigner who retains his allegiance and citizenship in a foreign state.
It is indeed very puzzling why there is so much misunderstanding about these rather elementary facts.
Probably what angered people who are anti-illegal immigration were those marches. American citizens were shocked at the enormous amount of illegals marching carring their Mexican flags and the American flag upside down, demanding amnesty. All those hispanics marching and demanding! It was a true eye opener for the whole country. Come here illegally and demand! As far as Matt, you were always showing red faced anger every time somone did not agree with you Dee. Illegals are coming across the border every day--this is a fact. The news coverage I've seen shows recent crossings.
1. Dee does not advocate an "illegal invasion" of the United States.
2. The nationality breakdown of illegal immigrants shows that Mexicans do make up the majority, however, it is largely overestimated.
3. 40% of the population is NOT foreign born. That has to be a typo.
4. There is no such thing as welfare for illegals; crowded schools occur everywhere regardless of the backgrounds of students; English IS the official language of the United States, at least at the de facto level; gangs are a result of poverty across the country, not immigration; the crime rate is declining while the illegal immigrant population grows; drug and human smuggling are encouraged through our growing demand to get high, pay less for products, and our economy which grows through consumer spending, largely pushed by population growth.
5. "In Mexico nothing ever happens until it happens." That Mexican saying, and truth, is why not even close to "most" of the demonstrators were illegal or even legal immigrants from Mexico, or any other Latin American country.
6. Those same marchers--Americans displaying an American tradition by marching in defiance of the government in the first place--stopped displaying the Mexican flag--which was used as a symbol, not as a display of allegiance to a country they know NOTHING about--and began to wave their American flags.
7. Hanging American flags upside down and even the burning of the American flag are also AMERICAN traditions.
I recall the on-the-scene interviews the demonstrators had on NBC, Fox, ABC, etc., in them they spoke perfect American English; on Univision they spoke BROKEN American Spanish. How am I, or anyone, supposed to believe that they were from Mexico or from any other Spanish speaking country?
And IIRC, most of those demonstrations were organized by AMERICAN organizations, not La Raza or any other similar outfit.
mirrorism---you sound so ridiculous-
the marchers were Americans who spoke broken Spanish?--what a joke!
The subsequent marches had less Mexican flags as the illegals, mostly Mexicans were so critized from the first march for carring the Mexican flag. Those were NOT AMERICANS marching in those demonstrations--get your facts straight! You say most of the marchers were not Mexican of from any latin American country---Take a look at some film footage!
Hi, Dee.
I'm hoping you will read this and reply directly to me at books@pagetopage.net. I'm working on a college textbook and my author would like to reprint your blog page from August 7, 2007. Could you contact me to discuss?
thank you.
marcy
LOL. I knew you weren't going to listen or understand anything I said.
From your comment, this is what you believe:
1. Mexicans speak broken Spanish.
2. The demonstrators PASSED your VISUAL test for Mexicans.
3. Subsequent marches had less Mexican flags.*
4. The demonstrators FAILED your VISUAL test for Americans.
5. Film footage--another form of VISUAL data--confirms your belief that they were Mexicans.
From your comment, this is what I think you believe:
1. Anyone who speaks Spanish is not American.
2. You can tell where someone is from just by looking at them.
3. You can tell the legal status of someone just by looking at them.
*Your lone astute observation.
mirror-Most of the marchers were illegal hispanics, mostly Mexican.
You are so out of touch with reality, it is mind boggling the things you post as facts. Why would anyone carry a Mexican flag in they are not Mexican????? So you think most of the marchers were I don't know white people with really good tans? Or you think all the Americans of any hispanic ethnicity decided to march and carry mexican flags? All the Americans of any hispanic descent stayed home from work and marched for the illegal aliens? How noble!
Wow... You claim to have the ability to know a person's nationality and legal status simply by looking at him or her and I'm the one who is out of touch with reality. Uh huh...
"Why would anyone carry a Mexican flag that isn't Mexican?"
A flag is simply a piece of cloth that is used as a symbol; a flag can then be used to symbolize an idea or cause as much as it can be used to symbolize a nation.
Most of the flag bearers in those demonstrations used the Mexican flag as a symbol that represented their specific cause; immigration reform.
They had no ties to the Mexican flag besides that, that is why they had no problem giving up their Mexican flag in favor of an American flag; most Mexicans would have problems with that just as most Americans would have problems carrying a Mexican flag.
"So you think most of the marchers were I don't know white people with really good tans?"
White =/= American
"Or you think all the Americans of any hispanic ethnicity decided to march and carry mexican flags?"
Yes, all 40 million (?) "Hispanic-Americans" decided to march and carry Mexican flags.
"All the Americans of any hispanic descent stayed home from work and marched for the illegal aliens?"
As I understand it, most of the demonstrators were young "Hispanic-American" students--as is usually the case with most demonstrations in history; the youth protest.
1. The blog owner certainly does
approve of an illegal invasion
of our country obviously by her
remarks about fighting the
battle and questions why
Americans are angry over it.
2. The percentage of illegals
from Mexico is not
overestimated.
3. Not sure what the percentage
of foreign born is in this
country but it is rising at
an alarming rate.
4. Welfare is obtained by
illegals with fraudulent
documents and through their
U.S. born children. Our
schools would be much less
crowded if we weren't
educating children of illegal
aliens either foreign born or
U.S. born. There is no valid
reason why English shouldn't
be the Official language of
our country rather than the
national defacto one. Gangs
are formed for various
reasons, two of them are
cultural and poverty. Most
illegals live here in
poverty. Do the math. Crimes
may be descreasing in certain
catagories but increasing in
others. The more population
there is the more crime there
is.
5. There was mostly a mix of both
Hispanic citizens and
illegals in the marches. Blood
is thicker than water or our
laws I guess.
6. The marches stopped carrying
the Mexican flag for the most
part because they knew it just
made Americans mad and it
backfired on them. Waving
the Mexican flag was a symbol
of what?
7. I know of no American
tradition that makes flying
our flag upside down or
burning it acceptable to most
Americans. It is radicals
who do this.
Dear Mr.Ms. Anonymous,
Your best statement was the last sentence in Number 5. It is honest, forthright and very telling. It is 100% accurate.
Your statement: "I guess"
1. No she does not. She wants mostly the same things you want, save for the deportation of all immigrants.
2. It's a little over 40%; which surprised me when I heard it from someone much like yourself.
3. Show me this alarming rate.
4. U.S. born children are Americans and therefore eligible to welfare, unlike illegal immigrants.
U.S. born children are Americans and therefore eligible to public education; take out all the illegal immigrant students from our public school system and there would still be overcrowding; there parents, even illegal, pay the taxes that pay for the schools.
English is already the official language of the United States; make it official if you want, but be prepared to alter our sacred first amendment.
The idea of gangs traveled down to Latin American countries, not up to America, so it is not cultural; unless you want to admit that the idea is cross-cultural.
Crime rate has been decreasing while the illegal-immigrant population has been increasing.
5. It is not so much blood as it is our insistence to separate each other into these inane categories that cause those marches as well as promote the for-profit organizations such as La Raza, NAACP, and the Aryan Nation.
6. Immigration reform.
7. And hippies and anti-war protesters and anti-ecowar protesters and anti-bushies... All it is is a form of protest; it's protected by the constitution, honest.
Just to clarify #5 a bit... The protests might yet have occurred, but not in the manner that it did; there would have been similar minded peoples joined by their lot in life, not by their history.
Mirror,
1.Not wanting illegal aliens deported is giving approval of the invasion of our country.
2. 60% of illegal aliens have crossed our borders illegally, 40% are visa overstayers. Of that 60%, Mexicans make up 80% of illegal entrants.
3. I read from a reputable source that the number of foreign born is growing by leaps and bounds. If I could remember the source I would post it here.
4. The point that seems to go over your head is that if not for the presence of illegal parents, their foreign born children would not be here nor would they have had any U.S. born children for us to educate and pay welfare for. These illegal parents are mostly at poverty level so they do not pay enough taxes to cover their children's costs to our society. How would making English our Official language violate the First Amendment? Other countries have an Official language but I get the feeling that doesn't bother you. Please supply a reputable source for your claim that all crime rates have been decreasing while illegal immigration is increasing.
5. It is mostly Hispanics who support illegal aliens. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why since most illegal entrants are Mexicans.
6. It doesn't make sense to fly a certain foreign flag for immigration reform. What has that to do with it? Immigrants come from everywhere.
7. I know of no constitutional law that allows or protects illegal aliens protesting in our streets. If one wants to migrate legally to our country, why would they fly our flag upside down and/or burn it? Seems like defeating their purpose and guess what, it did!
1. Right... And not supporting the war in Iraq is supporting terrorism...
2. Link?
On Matt I read a few posts from people who think just like you, that Mexicans make up 40% of the illegal immigrant population. Which is still more than any other nationality, but nothing close to 70% or whatever you believe to be the case.
Take this quiz, it says that 25% cross illegally, not saying I agree with that... But it's not close to 60%.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/newamericans/quiz.html
3. It's right on the tip of your tongue... Get back to me soon.
According to the above link, the census bureau says 11.1% of the population were foreign born.
4. Ok.. So your beef is with the 14th amendment.
So your beef is with the poor.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to speak whatever language you wish.
www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou061017_cd_immigrantcrime.4b337fd2.html
www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
www.iblnews.com/story_en.php
5. There are very few Hispanics in Washington, zero in the White House, for example, LOL.
6. Most come from Mexico.
You don't have to understand it, and neither do the demonstrators for that matter, but they used it as a symbol more than a display of allegiance.
7. The 14th amendment does just if I'm not mistaken.
I'm pretty sure Americans did that, again as a form of protest. And we have to understand that those situations were extremely rare.
Most Mexican immigrants, don't care one way or another for America, and don't particularly care so much for Mexico, they just care about their job, which is what we get when we only care about their labor.
Guess I need to clarify #1...
If Dee were really advocating an invasion she wouldn't be calling for more border security and tougher penalties for employers of illegal immigrants.
#3... 11.1% in 2000. Since then it couldn't have quadrupled.
#6... As a symbol of their support for the cause of illegal immigrant, which is immigration policy reform. Not allegiance to Mexico, which they do not have; even if they wanted it they would like absolute fools because they know nothing about Mexico.
#7... The 14th amendment is, obviously, the most disputed amendment, but for now, we treat every PERSON equally regardless of their nationality or legal status because of our current interpretation of it. That is why illegal immigrants are usually allowed due process and things like that.
The Pew Hispanic Center state that 57% of illegal aliens are of Mexican origin and about 24% are of non-Mexican Latin American origin. [24] They also report that while the number of legal immigrants (including LPRs, refugees, and asylees) arriving has not varied substantially since the 1980s, the number of illegal aliens has increased dramatically and, since the mid 1990s, has surpassed the number of legal immigrants.
Note: I don't know when this study was done but note that when you combine Mexican illegal aliens with other illegal aliens from Latino countries, that brings the total Latino percentage of illegal aliens to 81%. If this study was done even two years ago, the numbers of Mexican illegal aliens has increased dramatically since then. If the study was done 5 years ago, Mexicans would far surpass any other Latino country.
Mirror,
You are mixing apples with oranges here. There is no law that says we have to support the war. But there is a law against illegal entry into our country.
I have no beef with the poor citizens of this country but I do have a beef with illegal aliens poor or not poor. Yes, the 14th Amendment needs re-assessing.
Making English the Official language will not restrict freedom of speech. Since Mexico's Official language is Spanish, does that mean that no other languages are allowed to be spoken there?
When I mentioned that Hispanics support illegal aliens I was mostly talking about regular Hispanic citizens in this country. However, you can't argue the fact that just about all Hispanic politicians are sympathizers too. Non-Hispanic politicans who are sympathizers are led by greed for their corporate buddies and the Hispanic vote. Please don't say We when you refer to us wanting their cheap labor. That is not the way that most Americans feel, only the corrupt do.
You say that Dee is in favor of border security. Is she in favor of the fence? You say that she wants employers punished for hiring illegals. How did she feel about the raids then and the subsequent upcoming trials and possible fines for the accused employers? Can't she speak for herself?
If it was truly about being concerned about all illegal aliens rather than just those from Mexico, why just fly Mexico's flag in the marches? Just because they are the majority of illegal aliens doesn't justify the flying of only their flag. Did Hispanics fly any other flag other than Mexico's? That is why we all know that it was about race to the marchers whether they were Hispanic citizens or illegals marching.
This country(government) "big business" is creating a underclass---don't you see this? Mirror--stand up for the illegals and let them know they are being used--Help
these people stand up to the Mexican government! What's the matter with you? You seem intelligent. Help these poor people stand up to their own government
Mirror-you and Dee are both Texans with Mexican ethnicity--Do you see the connection? You cannot be that ignorant! The American citizen part is not displayed on any of your posts.
57% gets closer, although I imagine it to be closer to 50%, and I'm still curious about the 40% number.
There's a law against smoking marijuana but millions of Americans do and a majority of those Americans support its legalization. Point being, just because it's against the law doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral or unsupportable.
Illegal immigration is almost tabboo; nobody wants to admit that they support it, but millions still do, even if it isn't consciously.
Ok, so what does making English the official language entail?
Will its sole purpose be to placate those who are uncomfortable with hearing or reading foreign languages?
If that's all, then no, it won't restrict free speech. But if it forces private companies and American citizens to stop talking, advertising, publishing, or communicating in any other foreign language, then yes, it would restrict free speech.
Regular citizens do not make policy in this country...
Most Americans are happy with their low prices for goods and services; if they didn't have them they wouldn't be able to afford their big houses, pickup trucks, SUVs, HDTVs, etc. etc. Admitting it is tabboo... The rub.
Lots of people who are against illegal immigration are also against the gigantic waste of money that that fence will be--especiall Texans who own that land.
Who do you think kicked the wacko minute men and Cindy Sheehan out of Texas? Texas property owners!
There were other flags; the American flag for one-LOL-, Puerto Rican flag, I know a couple of people who flew their parent's Argentinian and Uruguayans flags, the Brazilian flag, Irish, etc.
But we're deviating from the original point; most of those flying Mexican flags were Americans using the Mexican flag as a symbol.
I agree that they were influenced by their family history, but also influenced by American history in that they were protesting in the first place, and they were organized by American organizations--again, not La Raza or any other outfit like that.
How many anonymouses are there?
Anyway... and the under class creates a middle class... middle class creates an upper class... upper class creates an elite class.
LOL... How am I supposed to help them? I know next to nothing about Mexico and you know absolutely nothing about Mexico if you believe that the government can help its people.
Which anonymous wrote the last comment?
Jackass. LOL.
So a under class creates a middle class and a upper class. Is this the way it is in Mexico? The future of this country will be much like Mexico now--a huge underclass and an upper class. Don't you see this?
P.S. I like your new name "jackass". Sign off on all your posts like that. Somehow it fits you.
You say you know nothing about Mexico---study all you can about it--it will be the future of this country.
This situation where the middle class is the majority and it keeps growing while at the same time the inequality between the elites and that middle class--and lower--is also growing is unique to the United States. At least it is not at all like Mexico or any other Latin American country.
There are economists who are worrying about the US economy and some are even predicting a collapse. The reasons they give, however, have absolutely nothing to do with illegal immigration. The cost of illegal immigration, no matter what number you come up with, is miniscule in comparison to the US's growing gigantic deficit, peak oil, China, the declining dollar, war spending, etc. etc.
Do some research on something other than Mexican illegal immigration and you will see that there are bigger problems in this country. In fact, you may realize that you are wasting your time obsessing about this leak when your entire roof can collapse at any moment.
I've been civil in this discussion... anonymous thinks I'm ignorant, and possibly, very ignorant... well I think that that was a jackass move, therefore anonymous is a jackass for that, at the very least, he was imitating one.
Mirror makes some interesting points. Let me respond.
1.What does Dee advocate? The invasion has already taken place and is continuing. If she supports the invaders present in our society, I suspect it is reasonable to conclude that she supports or advocates an illegal invasion. Of course, another way to look at that is to say she advocates legalization of the invaders thereby making moot the question of whether they are in fact invaders.
2.Do you have a reference for a study of the breakdown of illegal immigrants by nationality?
3.I will check the 40% figure. I may have relied on a faulty memory of something I read recently.
4. What do you call the thousands of amendment 14 babies born to indigent, illegal mothers in the Dallas Parkland Hospital? I call it welfare. All Medicaid expenditures are welfare. Aid to Dependent Children, another racket for illegals, is also welfare. And those are just the tip of the ice berg. Not all schools are crowded even where the majority of students are Mexican. Several have been closed here in Denver because of declining enrollment due to white flight to the suburbs away from gang violence. If English is the de facto Official Language of the U.S. as you say, then no one should object to making it official with a constitutional amendment and a repeal of EO13166. Tell your story about poverty and gangs to the cops who have to battle them every day including some from Central America who keep returning after deportation. Naturally if you import poor people, you can expect more immigration-driven gangs and violence. While it’s true drug smuggling is driven by the demand, if we use the same logic on immigrants the problem can be solved by reducing the demand through heavy employer penalties and sanctions against those who aid and abet the illegals. Is an economy driven by population growth sustainable in the long run? If not, should we be curbing our appetite for it now when the solution may be less draconian than it would be later?
5.That leaves unanswered the question of why citizens would support demonstrations that were clearly not in their own enlightened self interest? Maybe the demonstrators were briefed like they were on the flag business, i.e. if anyone asks, tell him or her you are a citizen not an illegal. How do you explain so many demonstrating for what they already possess as legal residents or citizens? Doesn’t sound right to me. Either that or immigrants are so dense they don’t understand the adverse effects of what they advocate on their own quality of life. When in our history have there ever been demonstrations like these in favor of foreigners and opposed to the national interest?
6.It is amazing that you think that most of the demonstrators knew nothing about their homelands. You have heard about dual citizenship and its sister, dual allegiance, haven’t you? What is that?
7.Citizens performing this despicable act is one thing, foreigners doing it is another thing, even if they are 14th amendment babies. Our stupid representatives failed in their responsibilities to protect the flag and eliminate this unnecessary form of free speech. It’s not just free speech. It is a personal insult to every loyal American and should not be tolerated just as certain other forms of speech are not tolerated. Calling this a tradition is another of those euphemisms. I recall some idiots burned the American flag during the Viet Nam war but I don't recall anyone flying it upside down beneath a foreign flag.
8. If the demonstrators spoke perfect English or broken Spanish, what in the hell were they doing in the streets? Do you suppose the interviewees were handpicked? Merely interviewing these folks proves nothing unless there was a truly statistically representative random sample involved. Even then the key questions were probably not asked: Why are you demonstrating? What would it mean to your quality of life and standard of living if your demonstrations were successful?
9.If the demonstrations were instigated by American organizations not La Raza, does that mean La Raza is an un-American organization, a fifth column as it were? Who or what are the organizations that arranged the demonstrations? I believe Spanish language radio and television stations had a large hand in this. The more viewers and listeners they can get, the more money they make.
I can do nothing about your ignorance. Study history, study the fall of the Roman Empire. You think it can't happen here. You are fooling yourself.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/foreignborn.htm
The foreign-born population of the United States exceeded 33 million in 2002, slightly more than the entire population of Canada, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's latest American Community Survey (ACS).
Of the total U.S. population, 11.8 percent were foreign-born and accounted for 44 percent of the nation's population growth in 2002. A majority of the foreign-born residents live in four states: California (28 percent), New York (11.8 percent), Texas (9.8 percent) and Florida (8.9 percent).
Anonymous, I bet that you haven't truly studied the fall of the Roman Empire--don't worry, I haven't either--the fact that you believe that there is only one theory behind it proves that. And I've heard that argument before--the Roman Empire fell because of foreign immigrants, in their case, German(?)--however, there are also a couple similar parallels to be drawn; the Roman army was overextended; the Roman trade deficit; the Roman currency was devalued; there are also various natural causes that contributed to its decline.
But of course you are knee deep in cognitive dissonance when it comes to those factors... Anyway, whatever the reasons, it wasn't solely immigration.
army overextended, trade deficit,
illegal invasion---yes you are right--Rome or the US?
1. Bah, I shouldn't speak for her anymore... Where are you Dee?
2. I'll get back to you on Monday.
4. I think I would just be repeating myself if I respond here.
5. Why were white males demonstrating for blacks and white females?
Blacks weren't American either, at least not a whole American...
Who the rights would and do favor or oppose is a matter of opinion.
We think we can sustain our way of life on our own, obviously those well informed in charge of policy believe otherwise.
6. Yeah, I've heard of that, and it's extremely rare that any American ever gets the drive to go for dual allegiance because of its stringent requirements from Mexico.
Which again proves that there are very few strong links between the American children of Mexicans and Mexico besides the parents themselves.
7. Why do you take it so personal that some Americans, from all kinds of backgrounds, don't agree with everything America does and are willing to protest?
8. So you agree that anonymous does not have the ability to distinguish the nationalities and legal status of people simply by looking at them? Fine, so do I.
9. No, it means that you can't say that those types of organizations organized them.
All La Raza is is the result of our insistence to separate Americans into pointless categories. That insistence has created a "niche" in which people--of whatever category--could get rich in.
If you want to call them un-American--because they are exclusive?--then you also have to say that other similar organizations are the same.
IMO, because they are a result of American policy, they are American; even though it is not one that we agree with.
I don't remember who organized them, but I do remember that they were from Washington. At any rate, if they were organized by La Raza or whoever I'm sure you would have received an e-mail telling you.
anonymous, read this article.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/80fa0a2c-49ef-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html
Yeah, yeah.. It doesn't focus on immigration--it barely mentions it--as the main cause of the decline of the American civilization so you may not agree with its tone, but it--and the US comptroller--does agree with me in that there are bigger factors at work here.
I especially liked that he advocates universal health care, because it can avoid the natural causes of Rome's decline.
I would also like to add, that the over confidence in this country was also present in Rome; hubris.
We also see it in this immigration issue with people who believe that the quality of life will not only not decline, but improve, without any immigrants in the US.
But this is a one of those intangible factors--like a decline in morality; AS IF!--that can be argued, but they are probably just ad-hominem.
A final comment for the weekend; the US won't ever fall, it may decline, but it will not be a doomsday scenario.
It will, more than likely, simply be a reality check, a humbling experience for all of us who believe that; (a) the US is the world super power; (b) taxes should never be raised; (c) any form of government assistance is welfare; (d) we must buy more stuff, consume more energy, and waste more, more, and more money, no need to save; etc. etc. etc.
In other words, it will be a reality check to those that believe that our system of government--right wing, capitalist, neo-liberal, whatever you want to call it--is the only system that is viable.
Before I provide some feedback on the comments, let me say that Mirror has been doing an absolutely wonderful, fantastic and amazing job, at taking on the madding crowd.
Mirror,
Again you mix apples with oranges. Some citizens wanting to make Marijuana legal is no comparison to illegal immigration. It is about changing laws for citizens, not giving rights to foreigners who are here illegally.
Making English our Official language will stop the need to publish all kinds of government documents in other languages. It will save us a tremendous amount of tax dollars. It is also about claiming one of our cultural identities on paper. Funny how those opposed to building the fence claim it is a waste of money and yet they don't mind wasting our tax dollars on documents being published in several languages.
Speaking of the fence. It has already been proven to work in the San Diego area. Do you not think that the fence around the White House helps keep people out? I couldn't care less what Texans think. They are only one of 50 states and they are no more important than any of the others. We need to do what is best for the entire country not just what Texans think is best for just them.
There were mostly Mexican flags carried at the marches. So few others that they don't even warrant mentioning. Who are these American organizations that you are claiming organized these marches?
Responding to Anonymous´1st comment: 1. False Statement: Not wanting illegal aliens deported is giving approval of the invasion of our country.
True Answer: Most legitimate leading economists, most Congressmen and media say Mass Deportation of the 12M will have a devastating impact on our American economy. Those that have been here 5 - 20 years, who have not committed felonious crimes, and have been working and contributing, should have an opportunity for an earned path to citizenship. Even Ultima agrees some measured approach should be taken.
Since the turn of the last century, Business and Govt have brought undocumented workers into this country. They have put in place Immigration policies starting with the Immigration Act of 1924 to exclude certain immigrants. Yet since the early 1900´s, these groups proceeded with Bracero-type programs. Since the 1986 Immigration Act, Business and Govt have not enforced the Immigration laws and they have allowed the numbers to accumulate to the current 12M. Bernanke and other high level economists have stated the 12M has helped America avoid a Recession. They have indicated a mass deportation of the 12M would create devastating impacts to our economy. Most Congressmen and the media has reported the same. Other economic indicators (e.g. Comptroller Strayhorne´s Report) have indicated the 12M are a positive net gain due to their rate of sales tax, purchasing power, etc.
Anonymous: You and the ANTI crowd continue to push for:
1. Change in the 14th Amendment – Jus Soli, birthright citizenship: First, this amendment will not change. Even if, for some remote reason it did change, the citizenship of these so called “anchor babies” you continue to condemn will never revert. So stop going on about it.
2. English Official Language: English is the National Language of our USA. One key aspect of this proposal would only allow English printing of all Government publications. Some local areas that put in place English only laws saw some significant disasters, including job terminations, law suits, customer service and sales decline, etc. For some ANTIs, the only answer is to force all people to speak English only, period. People in our country speak many languages. People in Europe speak many languages. This change in amendment will not pass either.
Ulty, I looked up your reference on US Foreign born population. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/foreignborn
from Robert Longley. Here is info on the answers.com responder, Longley: Robert Longley is a landscape architect and planner who knows and understands the Federal Government.
Hmmm.. answer.com, anyone can submit these comments.
I will respond to your foreign born comment next.
Ultima, the US Census does provide a report with similar percentages, but does not portray them the way you do. For example, let´s first understand the term Foreign Born:
The foreign born are (US CITIZENS) those who were not U.S. citizens at birth. Natives are those
who were born in one of the following areas — the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, or the Northern Mariana
Islands — or were born abroad of at
least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.
So the bottom line is, we are talking about LEGAL US Citizens who were not born in the US.
Ultima, I thought your issue was about illegal immigrants. Why are you questioning the birthplace of legal US Citizens?
Dee said, "Here is info on the answers.com responder, Longley: Robert Longley is a landscape architect and planner who knows and understands the Federal Government."
He could be a ditch digger. The question before us is are his numbers correct and if not what are the correct numbers? I have to admit I was thrown by the U.S. Gov tag on the site I referenced. Let's get the right numbers from an authoritative source and post them here.
dee,
If the corrupt have had to rely on unlawfull hiring practices to create a huge economy that we don't really need, then it is time to pay the pauper and get back to being a country based on morality again. We should deport the illegals and get back to business. I will put my statistics on their overall negative impact against yours to the contrary any day. You believe what the media, our congressmen and economists have to say that only care about money? I suggest you listen to people who really care about this country and think with morality instead. That is if you put such things above money.
I wouldn't bet my last dollar that the 14th won't be appealed and that English won't be made the Official language. All the things you brought up about it are all lies. Try reading the actual bill in congress instead of making things up about it.
Anonymous, Read what I said. Let´s say the 14th Ammendment is changed tomorrow, this will not change the citizenship status of the current citizens you term as anchor babies. They are citizens and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change their citizenship status by changing the 14th ammendment.
Also, Ultima´s comments regarding "Foreign born citizenship" having NOTHING to do with what you term as "anchor babies" or the 14th ammendment.
The foreign born are legal US citizens who were not U.S. citizens at birth. The so called "anchor babies" were born in this country.
Anonymous, Please study the immigration history in our country. The hiring of Guest Workers and undocumented workers has been going on since this country began. The Bracero-like programs started in the 1800´s and early 1900´s. We have had ebbs and flows of migrant workers allowed (and returned) into this country for centuries. This is how our country was formed, through the back breaking sweat of laborers. Think of the slave trade, the Chinese workers, and all the migrant labor from south of the border. They built the railroads, harvested the crops and built this country. Don´t act as if this is new to anyone.
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
or here:
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/index.html
Excuse me but as owner of this blog don't you think you should be a little more honest and don't put words in other's mouths?
Where did I say that I wanted to rescind any citizen's birthrites born under today's laws? I never said that. I said that the 14th needs to be re-assessed and that means we need a bill to change it so that from that point forward birthrite citizenship would be disallowed for children of illegal aliens. Where did I call them anchor babies? I didn't. But it is the common term used and I understand the concept behind it. Illegal parents gave birth on our soil so they could anchor themselves unto our country.
I don't care what corrupt business or governmental practices occured in the past. There is no justification to the American people for doing so. Case you don't remember, our government in particular is obligated to uphold the laws of this country and they didn't. It is time to change that and has been long past due. Are you taking sides with them instead of your fellow American citizens?
"Anchor Baby" is a demeaning term. No one should use it. "Breeding" is a demeaning term. No one should use it in referencing human birth. I hope we all agree not to use these words again.
I am glad you agree with me that any possible changes to the 14th ammendment will not be retroactive nor impact citizenship status of any current citizens.
When you disavow previous policies or "lack of enforcement" of immigration laws which created this country, then you are disavowing the very basis on which America was formed.
Mirror says, "English is already the official language of the United States; make it official if you want, but be prepared to alter our sacred first amendment."
No need to alter the first amendment; just make English the Official Language of the United States to be used for all official business and official publications as all level of government. It's just that simple. Moreover, this new amendment by itself would solve half of the illegal immigration problem and make everyone more amenable to reasonable solutions the remainder. I believe you and Dee are suffering from a large fear factor relating "1984" type language police. Can't you conceive of amendment language that would remove your fear in this regard.
Many besides Mirror and I disagree with Ulty. Here are a few examples:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said that making English the nation’s official language could have negative consequences.
“That means in a place like New York City you can’t print ballots in any other language. That means you can’t have government pay for translators in hospitals so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency there’s nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctor,” she said.
Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who is fluent in Spanish, also opposed making English the official language.
“I’m proud of the fact I speak two languages. But we ought to be encouraging more of that in the country and not talking about how we have one official language in our nation. That’s not helping our country,” he said.
In addition, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said that the question about official English from moderator Wolf Blitzer of CNN was designed to be divisive.
“Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is: How can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy,” he said. “And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.”
dee,
I wasn't disavowing that our government has been lacking in immigration enforcement of late or that they aren't partly responsible for this problem. But to say that our country was founded on corruption and lawlessness is utterly ridiculous. We were founded on Christian values but some in high places have swayed away from that.
Are we to join forces with them rather than hold them accountable for their dirty deeds and then take a stand that this country was never a country of Christian values? Because that is what you are doing. How absurd!
I notice all or most of the politicians you quote as saying they don't want English as our Official language are liberal, minority loving Democrats. I have no use for politicians that don't honor the the will of the majority of American citizens and don't hold our language and culture as something to be revered and cherished.
It has only been since this large influx of illegal non-English speaking immigrantsfrom mostly from Mexico that all of a sudden claiming our national language as Official seems to be a problem. It is mostly that group and their sympathizers that are raising a rucus over it and of course our pandering politicians want their votes.
I will always fight for what is right for the majority of Americans in this country, not some disgruntled minority group who sympathizes with illegals because they have some ancestoral roots with them.
Anonymous, Please provide us a screen name so we can differentiate you from other Anonymous posters. I see you give a lot of thought to your responses, so I would like to know to which Anonymous I am responding. Thank you.
I will respond to your post shortly.
Anonymous, It isn´t that our government has been lacking in immigration enforcement lately, they have utilizing immigration laws and enforcing or not enforcing them “at will” since the 1800´s. Please read the links I provided. Think about how Americans brought in Chinese laborers to build railroads then had them ousted them via the Chinese Exclusion Act. Think of the African Slave trade and the labor they performed in building the south. Think of Mexican Migrant Labor – all versions of the Bracero Program since the early 1900´s and the work performed in harvesting crops, building the railroad, now working construction and rebuilding after Katrino. Think of Operation Wetback (more ebbs and flows). All of this importing of cheap labor has been going on for centuries. These are not indictments; they are just historical facts on how our country was formed.
In America, all of us have been complicit to our history and yet we separate our religion and family values from all of this history. I am not saying our country was founded on corruption, but please don´t be in denial to our country´s own history.
What is different of late is the sudden attention your side is giving to the increasing rate of Hispanics in our country. The census bureau has been telling us since the 1950´s that we will experience a minority majority (citizens) in the 21st century. Now we are here. The sleeping giants(the ANTIs) have awakened and are reacting.
There were no immigration laws in the 1800's. I believe we have only had them since the 1920's so what happened with immigration prior to that is irrelevant as far as legal or illegal.
What you seem to be doing here is approving of illegal immigation today just because of some prior and current lack of enforecement of these laws. That does not justify it at least not to the American people. You keep pointing to our public officials as if we should accept their dirty deeds and accept illegal immigration today because of that. You are trying to justify illegal immigration today because of lack of enforcement when you should be on the side of your fellow citizens and not those who refused to enforce our immigration laws. Why don't you want them held accountable by saying "no more, we Americans insist that you do enforce our laws from now on"? Why isn't that on your plate? You want illegals to be rewarded instead of being deported for our politician's dirty deeds and make American citizens pay for their dirty deeds instead.
A2, Thank you for changing your name. You are still anonymous. Why not change it to Adam or Amy? You will still be anonymous, I promise.
I neither approve or disapprove of anything.
We are not talking about future illegal workers coming in to this country. We all agree to secure borders. We are purely talking about the 12M.
What I am saying is, we have 12M people in our country today who are, as you term them, illegal.
The majority have been here, working and contributing for 5 – 20 years. If all 12M packed up tomorrow and left, our country would face devastating impacts. Every major economist (Bernanke, Greenspan, etc), most politicians,all of Big Business and every person who has studied this issue agrees.
There are people like you that do not agree, but you are the vast minority.
Someone on your side who is very knowledgeable and frequents my blog, Ultima, agrees.
We are all loyal Americans. We know how the number accumulated. We know the contributions. We know the impacts if we had mass deportations. Most of us agree that at a minimum, we need some way of bringing the 12M out of the shadows and either help them on a path to earned citizenship or some systematic path of returning to their country of origin with some possibilities of earned citizenship or Guest Worker status.
Dee psoted, "... I thought your issue was about illegal immigrants. Why are you questioning the birthplace of legal US Citizens?"
No, I have many issues: percentage of our population that is foreign-born is one of them. The others are illegal aliens, unfettered population growth, decline in available natural resources, dual citizenship and dual allegiance, tax policy, social security funding, Medicare funding, income tax reform, government corruption, lack of astute leadership for our nation, pork barrel spending,and immigration policy.
So the bottom line is, we are talking about LEGAL US Citizens who were not born in the US.
Yep!
Dee posted, "Some local areas that put in place English only laws saw some significant disasters, including job terminations, law suits, customer service and sales decline, etc. For some ANTIs, the only answer is to force all people to speak English only, period. People in our country speak many languages."
I don't think there are many English Only zealots. Those who are must be stupid. As Mirror has suggested this would require a change to the 1st amendment. I haven't heard anyone advocate that although I have been in favor of the flag amendment with its narrow application.
The advocacy for Official English merely believes that if English is our national language we should act like it is by limiting government publications and oral proceedings to that language at all levels of government. I think this would have a very great incentive for many to learn English that they do not currently have.
I don't believe anyone but a kook is an advocate of Orwellian language police or against any private use of foreign languages. That is simply not the issue. I hope we all can keep that in mind.
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said that making English the nation’s official language could have negative consequences.
That means in a place like New York City you can’t print ballots in any other language. That means you can’t have government pay for translators in hospitals so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency there’s nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctor."
Well, good ole Hillary is on the campaign trail; what do you expect her to say.
She's got the ballot issue correct but the hospital issue dead wrong. To say we couldn't have interpreters in hospital would be like saying we couldn't have doctors in hospital. Interpreters like doctors can be billed and, as I have posted on numerous occasions, public interpreters could be provided for those who cannot afford them. I can't imagine what negative effect Official English would have on the U.S.. I can think of many positive results from such an amendment.
“I’m proud of the fact I speak two languages. But we ought to be encouraging more of that in the country and not talking about how we have one official language in our nation. That’s not helping our country,” ... Senator Dodd.
He's on that same campaign trail as Hillary. No one is against encouraging the teaching and learning of other languages. A friend of mine took a PhD in Japanese literature. Official English would help our country and would be a major contribution to the solution of other immigration problems.
The question is: How can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy,” he said. “And when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people.”.. Obama
That is where he is dead wrong. The question of Official English is not a distraction. It is a vital part of the immigration debate. If he thinks this is taking away from the main debate, he should give it his strong support and get it our of the way. Dealing with this vital issue is not a disservice to the American people. He should be ashamed of himself for saying that it is. Official English would be a major step forward in solving the immigration reform issues. The quicker that element is taken care of the quicker we will be able to find a solution to the other issues. Official English is of paramount importance to most Americans. If Obama is correct and every immigrant will learn English, then there is absolutely no reason for opposing it.
Ulty,
I am going to start a new blog on these issues. I am modifying my position just a bit and also think we should separate "Other" issues from Immigration reform. I think it is important we be clear in the intent of these recommendations so all Americans understand what is being requested.
Ok, anonymous 2 will now post under the name Patriot.
I will try to address a few of your points. If you say we are all for secure borders, whoever we is, does that include the fence? If not, then no, not all are for secure borders.
Sorry to disagree with you but this country would not be devastated if the majority of the illegals left. Why do you put so much faith in politicians, businesses and economists who are only interested in money making? Do you actually think any of them would tell you the truth? How did this country survive before without illegal aliens? We did you know.
Sorry to burst your bubble again but those who think like myself are among the majority in this country, not the minority. The majority do not want illegal aliens here no matter how long they have been here.
I don't know where you are getting your statistics but illegal aliens are not a net gain, they are a net loss to our country.
The thing with official English-what makes it a possible first amendment issue-is the reason most people want it to be; they don't want to hear or read Spanish ANYWHERE-the government documents are not what offends most.
They don't want to hear Spanish in public places; they don't want to hear an automated machine saying "oprima dos para español"; they don't want to see taquerias, carnecerias, and mercados; they don't want to see Univision on their tv guide or estereo latino on their FM dial; they don't want to see Latin American countries' flags at car dealerships; they don't want to see "se hadla español" signs, etc. etc.
If it's just for government documents-that will apparently save us so much money that we will not have to collect taxes anymore-and government preceding then I don't have much of a problem with it, but if official English ever infringes on the rights of the people in America and the businesses in America, then it would be something I would disagree with.
So everyone who wants official English--in the form that you guys want it--will have to accept that they will still hear and read Spanish basically everywhere they hear and read Spanish today.
As long as our taxes do not pay to have government documents printed in Spanish.
Mirror, You are right. Most ANTIs complain about HEARING or SEEING Spanish. The bill does not address this as it stands. We are talking about this in detail on the next blog.
Mirror posted, "f it's just for government documents-that will apparently save us so much money that we will not have to collect taxes anymore-and government preceding then I don't have much of a problem with it, but if official English ever infringes on the rights of the people in America and the businesses in America, then it would be something I would disagree with."
No one has suggested that we will save so much money that we won't have to collect taxes anymore, as I'm sure Mirror knows. People do find the pervasiveness of Spanish signage and conversation in public gatherings somewhat distasteful and uncomfortable. In the case of conversation, this may have something to do with not knowing what insults or derogatory remarks are being made under the cover of the Spanish language. That discomfort and the extra cost we all share for bi-lingual signage, etc. is not sufficient to allow any infringement on the first amendment. The conversation aspect is simply a matter of common courtesy.
Telemundo and Univision are neither necessary nor desirable in a nation in which all people are committed to learning English. However, although that is my belief and preference, I would not suggest any infringement of the right of private business to conduct its affairs in any language it chooses. I remember well some Polish language radio programs in Wisconsin many years ago. I doubt that they exist today. Linguistic assimilation has taken place in that sector of our population.
Bottom line: Any Official English amendment must be written to avoid any suggestion of a change in the first amendment and the right of people to study and speak any language they wish and the right of businesses to conduct their affairs in whatever language they think will grow their profits. Those who have signage issues should promote
boycotts of companies who post bi-lingual signs and those who advertise on Telemundo and Univision. Economic boycotts sometimes work. Telephone systems can be developed that by pass the the usual press 1 for English. At least the second time around by recording one's preference with the single digit indicated.
There remains the issue of bi-lingual education. I am not in favor of curtailing any program that has the ultimate goal of learning English and becoming successful in other academic subjects. More objective studies are needed to prove what works best. We must assure that those whose first language is other than English have every opportunity to succeed.
Dee posted, "Mirror, You are right. Most ANTIs complain about HEARING or SEEING Spanish. The bill does not address this as it stands. We are talking about this in detail on the next blog."
What language would either of you add to S1334 to make you comfortable with it?
Mirror says, "The thing with official English-what makes it a possible first amendment issue-is the reason most people want it to be; they don't want to hear or read Spanish ANYWHERE-the government documents are not what offends most."
While it is true most people don't want to hear or read Spanish, that doesn't mean they are in favor of an infringement of our right of free speech. I believe two factors are involved in the antithesis to pervasive foreign language signage and speech: (1) it suggests a polyglot society that few believe contributes to national unity, and (2)it makes them uncomfortable because it suggests longer term adverse consequences or outcomes in spite of all of the protestations that everyone wants to and must learn English.
Mirror posted, "4. The demonstrators FAILED your VISUAL test for Americans."
This is probably correct but for a different reason than you suggest. They failed the visual test for Americans because they are demonstrating in favor of foreigners. Why would any American do that? Have they given any thought to whether or not what they want would be in the long term national interest or even their own enlightened self interest? I doubt it.
Mirror posted, "Why do you take it so personal that some Americans, from all kinds of backgrounds, don't agree with everything America does and are willing to protest?"
This is a very good question. I probably do take some demonstrations too personal. On the other hand we have little choice if we disagree with the demonstrators. I have always found particularly distasteful those who demonstrate in favor of foreigners. I also find distasteful those who demonstrate against our troops and veterans. As I recall some of these demonstrators spit on returning Viet Nam soldiers. I can't abide that or anything that approaches that kind of personal affront. This is not to say that I agreed with our policy in Viet Nam going back to the Eisenhower days when the French wanted us to help preserve their colonial empire. In retrospect, we should have invited Ho Chi Min to the U.S. and taught him all we could about democracy and freedom while asking what we could do to help his country achieve independence from France. I'm not sure I fully understand the breadth of our policy failure in Iraq. Perhaps that is yet to be determined.
"you call yourself a Mexican-American, is that why you don't mind this invasion because they are mostly Mexicans?"
Anon raises an interesting question above. How would all of feel if there were millions of some other variety such as Hmongs, Haitians, Chinese, etc. chattering away in their native tongues and insisting on ballots and other services in those languages. I suggest there might be a level which even the most liberal among us would find objectionable especially if they were all illegal.
Mirror posted, "A flag is simply a piece of cloth that is used as a symbol; a flag can then be used to symbolize an idea or cause as much as it can be used to symbolize a nation.
Most of the flag bearers in those demonstrations used the Mexican flag as a symbol that represented their specific cause; immigration reform."
And how do you know this? Isn't it possible that the demonstrators were trying to show allegiance to a foreign government and to foreigners who have violated the law? Isn't it possible that they were trying to insult other non-Hispanic Americans? (If so, they soon learned that was counter-productive!) Isn't it possible that they were saying "the Mexicans are coming! the Mexicans are coming!" There are a lot of explanations other than the one you offer. The bottom line is they were demonstrating in support of foreigners -- illegals mostly of their own ethnic origin.
"you call yourself a Mexican-American..."
Here is why:
Back in the 80´s I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper complaining that I was labeled Mexican American and people would not allow me to say “American” without asking, “Yes, but what are you?”
An African American gentleman replied to my letter and said, “Stop complaining about it. Rejoice in your ethnicity. There is something “cozy” about being part of a minority group.”
I took his comments to heart. From that point on, I did not bluster about the label. I knew I was American.
In case you didn´t understand my previous response, here is my meaning: I title my blog this way so visitors will be able to immediately recognize my cultural background and for blog purposes, this is important. I am not offended by the term anymore. I know I am an American.
I believe two factors are involved in the antithesis to pervasive foreign language signage and speech: (1) it suggests a polyglot society that few believe contributes to national unity, and (2) it makes them uncomfortable because it suggests longer term adverse consequences or outcomes in spite of all of the protestations that everyone wants to and must learn English.
So you admit that the issue isn't only about documents.
1. Separating people on faux racial, cultural, and democrat/republican lines doesn't contribute to national unity either.
2. This is dependent on your worst nightmare; increased illegal immigration. One way or another, that's not going to happen, because of the attention this issue has received.
With decreased immigration this is what will happen:
The foreign language speaking population in America will decrease-->foreign language speaking will decrease-->bilingual speaking American population will also decrease.
They failed the visual test for Americans because they are demonstrating in favor of foreigners. Why would any American do that? Have they given any thought to whether or not what they want would be in the long term national interest or even their own enlightened self interest? I doubt it.
Some people believe that illegal immigrants are being unjustly discriminated against and since they cannot speak up about it for themselves they'll do it for them.
And, again, whether their cause is in the national interest is up for debate.
Isn't it possible that the demonstrators were trying to show allegiance to a foreign government and to foreigners who have violated the law?
I do not believe that you can be for a country that you know absolutely nothing about. For example; the majority of those waving the Mexican flag would not even know the story that is depicted on it.
The bottom line is they were demonstrating in support of foreigners -- illegals mostly of their own ethnic origin.
The issue is much more complicated than that.
We're talking about foreigners who makeup a significant percentage of America's work force and therefore help America be America. Foreigners who pay taxes-unlawfully through falsified documents, but the taxes are collected unlawfully, at the very least, immorally, by our government. Foreigners who contribute to our economy by driving down the prices of goods and services which allows America to do what is vital to its economy; consume as much as possible-see recent rate cut. Foreigners who contribute to American growth through population growth-the current system requires perpetual growth.
I'm not saying that all of that is right, but it is the de facto system we are currently in; we have to take the bad with the good.
This link breaks down the foreign population of the US:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf
It doesn't help us much though... I'll keep looking.
One more example:
When I lived in the MA a few years back, a very high rate of Portugese Immigrants lived in the area and worked in the fishing industry. They are similar to Hispanics in skin color (olive), eye color, hair color. When I bought my house there, I sat across the table from the former owners. They were a nice middle aged couple. They started to talk to each other in Portugese. It is sort of like Spanish. I got every few words. They said, "Don´t you see, she is not Portugese, she is Mexican."
And I was sitting there quietly smiling, American me. (my husband wasn´t with me, but I did have his power-of-attorney for the home purchase agreement)
It doesn't matter who is offended by hearing foreign languages in our country, the bill will not take deny freedom of speech in any language. So your point lacks validity.
If illegal immigration is brought to a halt and legal immigrants become assimilated as they always have in the past, we won't be hearing a lot of Spanish or other languages all the time as we are today anyway.
Post a Comment