Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

[Cody Carey]

Send them home, or funnel them through a transparent and just immigration system, but don't hunt them like terrorists, and don't legislate more ways to marginalize them, out of spite.

If it is illegal by our laws to come here through less than proper channels, then why shouldn't we treat those who do come here through those channels like criminals? If they tried to skip over the "transparent and just" system, why should they be shoved back into it? I agree that marginalizing a LEGAL minority is nothing but racist, but If the minority's very being here is breaking the law, then I don't see why they shouldn't be marginalized.

More on topic:


A national language would do nothing but help unify the people of the nation that adopted it. It would encourage those who were coming here to learn the language that everybody else speaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...#United_States

If other countries have absolutely no problem adopting English as their language, Then I don't se why the U.S.A. does.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Cody C

If it is illegal by our laws to come here through less than proper channels, then why shouldn't we treat those who do come here through those channels like criminals? If they tried to skip over the "transparent and just" system, why should they be shoved back into it? I agree that marginalizing a LEGAL minority is nothing but racist, but If the minority's very being here is breaking the law, then I don't see why they shouldn't be marginalized.

Why shouldn't you give them a chance? It's obvious that they want to be in the U.S., so put them through a broadly permissive immigration system, rather than kicking them out. Nobody wants to be a part of the immigration system that currently exists (skilled workers excepted), because it's deliberately very difficult to succeed at going through it. It's expensive, it's time-consuming and it's designed in such a way that if you screw up with a deadline or a payment, you can be kicked to the back of the line, setting you back up to a decade. So they cheat their way in, hoping to avoid a system in which they rightfully have little faith. They're not criminals in the same way that rapists and theives are criminals—their crime is neither against person, nor property, nor public order. Their crimes are against the state, and of all entities, the state is in the best position to offer them a way to improve their lives, rather than just eject them reflexively.

You know all of those jobs that get shipped overseas, because American workers want too much money for the task (or because their employers want to pay too little)? Let the immigrants ease their way into those roles. That's not far from what's been happening in Canada for decades—as one group of immigrants establishes modest prosperity after perhaps a generation of relatively low-brow jobs, another group tends to fill the roles vacated by the upwardly mobile. Contrast this with what America, where all too often, the minorities get trapped in the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum, often for generations at a time. (These are trends, and don't reflect every situation in these countries—but all the same, the contrast is worth noting.)

If America were overpopulated, or utopian, or otherwise unsuited to taking on more residents, I could see a restrictive immigration policy being useful. As it stands, though, perhaps the largest reason that America gets away with restricting immigration as much as it does is the high birth rate (as compared to all other industrialized nations).

Originally Posted by Cody C

We treat criminals like less than equal, do you have a problem with that?

A criminal is someone who breaks the law,

An illegal alien is a foreign national who resides in another country unlawfully,


You do the math.

Too easy. By your definition, by travelling at 61 mph on a road marked for 60 is makes the driver of the vehicle a criminal. Should we deport him? Or, if he's from America, should we imprison him?

If not, why not? The answer, of course, is that there's a wide variety of crime available to be committed. The supposition here is that being an illegal immigrant is hardly a big deal—it's like speeding, more than it's like murder. And so, the response should take into account more than just the fact that it's a crime; like speeding, it may be necessary to tolerate some amount of it, if it's impractical to write a law that accords violators a little flexibility. For the majority of immigrants (the peaceful, harmless ones), that flexibility should come in the form of the opportunity to contribute to American society, while simultaneously contributing to their own improvement. That is far more humane a solution than sending them back in a prisoners' bus.

Originally Posted by Cody C

If other countries have absolutely no problem adopting English as their language, Then I don't se why the U.S.A. does.

In parts of the developing world, communication in English serves as a means to rise out of poverty, through relations with the developed, English-speaking nations. In the developed world, it has become a language of commerce, because of its ubiquity. But note that few countries have adopted English to the exclusion of their native languages—in fact, you really ought to be arguing that the U.S. adopt Spanish or Mandarin, because those languages serve the same purpose in America as English does in India—facilitating communications with trading partners.

[Andrew Blair]

The majority of debate here has been discussing illegal immigration like a cafeteria. Why shouldn't you let the weird kids come sit at your table? It's not an infringment on your rights, there's lots of seats, right?

The problem with illegal immigration (Which, by the way, has hijacked the actual topic of this thread) is that it's not dealing with lunch tables, it's more like dealing with houses. Quite accurately, it's like having random children sneak into your house and eat your food.

Bottom line is that aliens use roads, schools, services, welfare through illegal channels, and sometimes even push citizens out of work. Sometimes. Problem is, these sneaky kids are deprived and hungry, and don't ask to come in by ringing the doorbell, because they might not get fed. They eat out of your cereal boxes, and sometimes push your own kids out of their seats. But only because they have less than those kids.

Problem is, the grayscale has returned.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On topic (kind of), I see why you brought this bill to our attention. We must act quickly! The Democrats are slowly converting our country to a confused ethnicity so that we might be a more marketable sell to Belgium!

Battle Stations!!!

[JaneYoung]

At the university where I work, we have students from all over the world. They come to our office seeking help/services. The information provided to them spoken, written, on-line, counseled - is in English. The forms distributed and the referrals given are in English. Sometimes interpreters are needed to help the students understand better. Our purpose is to help every student enrolled in the university to achieve success in their education, supporting them along the road to their goals: careers, more education, research - degrees.

- a thought -
- a friend of mine left a month ago to reside in Shanghai, China. Her husband has been hired by a company to teach English there. She is taking classes in Chinese.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Let me share with you a story.

I have tutored children in the sciences who burst into tears of joy when they realized I was bilingual. One of those kids, who could not understand math and science before, is going to attend a science and engineering magnet high school this fall, is planning to join a FIRST team, and wants to become an Engineer.

Did I mention his family immigrated illegally, that he is the only one who remotely understands English, and that both of his parents work 2 & 3 jobs (respectively) to ensure that their children have opportunities?

Put aside politics for just a moment, Chief Delphi! Start thinking about actual people, and maybe you won't be arguing among yourselves so much.

[Matt Attallah]

As cruel and cold-hearted as this sounds.

You have no one to blame but their parents.

It's proven that Illegal immigrants have taken millions in funds. Not to say that there is MORE than a fair share of legal immigrants/citizens that abuse the system, but it's stretched thin enough.

Again, my father went through this coming from Palestine with the war w/ Israel going on and yada, yada, yada. ANYONE can go through the process. Yes, it does take time - but is it DOABLE and is put in place for a reason.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

The majority of debate here has been discussing illegal immigration like a cafeteria. Why shouldn't you let the weird kids come sit at your table? It's not an infringment on your rights, there's lots of seats, right?

The problem with illegal immigration (Which, by the way, has hijacked the actual topic of this thread) is that it's not dealing with lunch tables, it's more like dealing with houses. Quite accurately, it's like having random children sneak into your house and eat your food.

Bottom line is that aliens use roads, schools, services, welfare through illegal channels, and sometimes even push citizens out of work. Sometimes. Problem is, these sneaky kids are deprived and hungry, and don't ask to come in by ringing the doorbell, because they might not get fed. They eat out of your cereal boxes, and sometimes push your own kids out of their seats. But only because they have less than those kids.

So, would you prefer a sneaky American freeloader to a sneaky Mexican freeloader? Because that's the distinction that we have to consider. There exist plenty of Americans who do everything that the illegal immigrants do, with respect to using American resources. All that distinguishes them from the Mexicans is their country of origin.

Note also, that there is a not-farfetched perception that America is the house with an excess of food, where it wouldn't be such a big deal, if a little bit of cereal went missing occasionally. Despite the best efforts of some of the fanatics out there, it's plainly obvious that the influx of illegal immigrants is not unsustainable, so long as they don't all crowd the foyer, so to speak. To prolong this analogy, if they spread out around the house, and do some cleaning, in exchange for food, they're not such a drain after all. They're making themselves useful. Give them half a chance to make themselves useful, and you'll be surprised at what they might accomplish.

Originally Posted by Andrew Blair

On topic (kind of), I see why you brought this bill to our attention. We must act quickly! The Democrats are slowly converting our country to a confused ethnicity so that we might be a more marketable sell to Belgium!

Battle Stations!!!

In the good old days, when ethnicity wasn't confused, which ethnicity was it? Be careful what you wish for.

[Andrew Blair]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

So, would you prefer a sneaky American freeloader to a sneaky Mexican freeloader? Because that's the distinction that we have to consider. There exist plenty of Americans who do everything that the illegal immigrants do, with respect to using American resources. All that distinguishes them from the Mexicans is their country of origin.

Oh yeah there are-way more of them probably than illegals. But, many of them pay taxes, and those that don't are pursued by welfare officers and the IRS.

There's always another side to the argument, everythings always a little blurred- hence grayscale.

[Ryan Dognaux]

My view is pretty simple with the whole thing. Regardless of whether English becomes the official language, I think if you live in this country then you should make an effort to learn English. Just as if you were living in France, you should learn French, and German if living in Germany. Learn the language of the country you're living in.

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Why shouldn't you give them a chance? It's obvious that they want to be in the U.S., so put them through a broadly permissive immigration system, rather than kicking them out. Nobody wants to be a part of the immigration system that currently exists (skilled workers excepted), because it's deliberately very difficult to succeed at going through it. It's expensive, it's time-consuming and it's designed in such a way that if you screw up with a deadline or a payment, you can be kicked to the back of the line, setting you back up to a decade. So they cheat their way in, hoping to avoid a system in which they rightfully have little faith.

Because they are here Illegaly, We don't let a theif take a car and keep it. The theif cheated his way into the car, hoping to avoid a system that is expensive and time-consuming, a system that makes it so that if he is late on a payment he loses his car. But we still take the car away Because it was wrong of him to take it in the first place!

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You know all of those jobs that get shipped overseas, because American workers want too much money for the task (or because their employers want to pay too little)? Let the immigrants ease their way into those roles.

Because that accomplishes the exact same thing that sending jobs over seas does, it takes a job away from a legal american citizen, and gives it to somebody else, who does not live in america rightfully.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Too easy. By your definition, by travelling at 61 mph on a road marked for 60 is makes the driver of the vehicle a criminal. Should we deport him? Or, if he's from America, should we imprison him?

No, we shouldn't. The penalty for speeding is a small ticket. The penalty for border hopping is being deported. That statement made absolutely no sense. He drives over the speed limit knowing full well that if he gets caught, he will get a ticket.They come over the boarder knowing full well that they will be deported if they are caught.

A Criminal is a criminal, different crimes earn different punishments. people can't hide behind their ethnicity. I don't care if you are Mexican, Chinese or any other nationality... to get into this country, you have to go through the proper channels, plain and simple. you don't sneak in and then expect to be able to stay. I wonder what happens at Disney World when they catch someone sneaking in.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

OK, let me step in for two seconds. No naming names.

Guys...it's 11:49 EST. Why are you awake? Go rest. You can reply to this tomorrow. Chief Delphi is probably not going anywhere.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Cody C

Because they are here Illegaly, We don't let a theif take a car and keep it. The theif cheated his way into the car, hoping to avoid a system that is expensive and time-consuming, a system that makes it so that if he is late on a payment he loses his car. But we still take the car away Because it was wrong of him to take it in the first place!

What do we do about squatters?

'Illegal' and 'wrong' are non necessarily the same things. And they, for better or worse, are necessarily interpreted on a situational basis, especially when the interests of a nation are involved. The thief analogy captures some of the problem, but it's inadequate to convey the complexities of the immigration question.

Originally Posted by Cody C

Because that accomplishes the exact same thing that sending jobs over seas does, it takes a job away from a legal american citizen, and gives it to somebody else, who does not live in america rightfully.

Who cares? Someone has a job, someone's doing better than they were previously. And frankly, if I had the choice between elevating a first-world citizen from unemployment to gainful productivity, and doing the same for a ex-third-world immigrant, I'd tend to pick the immigrant, because they have further to rise. True, America also has its destitute, and for them, I'd welcome a job placement where they can earn a living wage. But when a middle-class or higher citizen complains about a migrant taking his job, I've got very little sympathy. If the immigrant can do it cheaper, faster, better, etc., then why are we fostering an unproductive practice? Because it's patriotic? (Are you a capitalist or a jingoist, at heart?)

The problem is, the immigration system (in America) is principally constructed to keep people out. Every step of the way, there are hurdles and barriers to slow you down, to discourage you. And what's the point? Nearly none of that is devoted to getting people who can fill American needs; mostly, it's there just to get the number of immigrants down. And all this, when America clearly needs people to fill jobs in the service and manufacturing sectors. Apart from the fleeing criminals and sly terrorists (of which there are very, very few), illegal immigrants aren't sneaking in to steal your car or blow up your city. They see jobs unfilled in America, jobs that pay more than they're accustomed to, and wonder why the immigration system won't let them fill them. They skip around it, because they know that they don't stand a very good chance at all of getting in any other way.

So are they unwanted? Well, it sure seems that way, when you talk to a politician. But businesses will privately confide that they do value the services of the migrant workers, because that's the only way that they can compete with the offshore companies. They can't afford to pay American wages, because Americans aren't willing to pay commensurate prices for their goods. The immigrants aren't stealing jobs, they're filling jobs that would otherwise have disappeared, because of unsustainable wages.

The irony here, is that immigrants, be they illegal or otherwise, are prolonging the survival of many sectors of American industry. Without illegals, for example, the cost of California produce would rise dramatically. You'd end up importing much more from South America, because you wouldn't be able to afford domestic prices. The domestic industry would wither. So what do we do about it? Cut American wages? (Can't do that, American citizens object to low wages.) Bomb South America? (Let's not try that....) Among other possibilities, the most convenient compromise is really the one that exists now—look the other way at the illegals, because they, in large part, are the ones keeping prices down for the consumers.

[JaneYoung]

Following just one thought from Jaine's post regarding the disappearance of the indigenous languages - I lived in Louisiana for several years before moving to Texas. Through one of my Cajun friends, I learned that the Cajun language and music is being threatened because the younger generations are not learning it. With that slow disappearance goes much of the history/culture with it.
That was a great post Jaine, thank you.
Jane

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

What do we do about squatters?

We let them stay in a house... PAYING TAXES on said house for SEVEN YEARS; This proves that the rightful owner of the house does not want it any more and the AMERICAN who has been squatting gets it.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

What do we do about squatters?

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Who cares? Someone has a job, someone's doing better than they were previously. And frankly, if I had the choice between elevating a first-world citizen from unemployment to gainful productivity, and doing the same for a ex-third-world immigrant, I'd tend to pick the immigrant, because they have further to rise. True, America also has its destitute, and for them, I'd welcome a job placement where they can earn a living wage. But when a middle-class or higher citizen complains about a migrant taking his job, I've got very little sympathy. If the immigrant can do it cheaper, faster, better, etc., then why are we fostering an unproductive practice? Because it's patriotic? (Are you a capitalist or a jingoist, at heart?)

We have the world's most successful economy because we do things a certain way. Illegal immigration stands to change that. Have you ever stopped to think about the REASON we only want skilled workers? It’s because our lower-to-middle class is made up of 60% unskilled workers. We have enough, and when you add more... you get people without jobs. Have you ever been to Mexico? Do you understand that there is as much opportunity to work down there as there is up here? We paint Mexico as being an economic hell-hole, when it really isn't. People that migrate illegally are looking for an easy way out. They don't want to work to become an American citizen, but they want to reap the benefits of being one. That doesn't seem right. (And I assure you, sir, that I am no jingoist.)



Sometimes when I think about a national language, I think that we aren't that far from the faceless mass of people portrait is so many sci-fi movies, but when I look at communication, as a whole, has helped the world... I can't imagine anything but good coming from a shared language.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Cody C

We let them stay in a house... PAYING TAXES on said house for SEVEN YEARS; This proves that the rightful owner of the house does not want it any more and the AMERICAN who has been squatting gets it.

That's not an American phenomenon, and has nothing at all to do with whether the occupant is an American. That's British common law, which states, in principle, that any person may attempt to make such a claim. And the taxation is wholly separate from the issue of occupancy. Your claim to the property is not contingent on paying the back taxes (in most jurisdictions, at least). But the point is that even though we can probably consider it a crime, it's not treated in the same manner as an ordinary crime against property. It's intended as a counterexample for the supposition that every crime demands a swift response to counteract it.

Originally Posted by Cody C

We have the world's most successful economy because we do things a certain way. Illegal immigration stands to change that. Have you ever stopped to think about the REASON we only want skilled workers? It’s because our lower-to-middle class is made up of 60% unskilled workers. We have enough, and when you add more... you get people without jobs. Have you ever been to Mexico? Do you understand that there is as much opportunity to work down there as there is up here? We paint Mexico as being an economic hell-hole, when it really isn't. People that migrate illegally are looking for an easy way out. They don't want to work to become an American citizen, but they want to reap the benefits of being one. That doesn't seem right. (And I assure you, sir, that I am no jingoist.)

Alright; maybe you're not necessarily a jingoist, but you're going too far in attributing America's success to its "certain way" of doing things. (By the way, recall that you've also got 300 million people. When you look at per-capita GDP, on a working-time- and cost-of-living-adjusted basis, you're 4^th.)

Fundamentally, there's a problem with American labour, and with American companies: the workers want often wages that the economy can't support. (It's not exclusive to America, but it's certainly prevalent there.) Basically, if you want to earn $35/h, you need to contribute a proportional amount to the GDP. If you're not doing that, then your personal compensation represents a drag on the economy. This is neither the exclusive domain nor the fault of unskilled labour, though. America needs all sorts of labour that can do the job cheaper, or more productively. The thing is, cheap labour drags down wages—on one hand, the Mexican displaces an American, because the Mexican costs less to employ. On the other hand, by dragging down the wages in that industry, it is in a better position to compete with rivals overseas. Consequently, it can actually cause growth in that sector, restoring jobs (albeit at the lower pay scale). This is a simplification, covering only one facet of a big problem. But it's not insignificant, and represents a very good reason why immigrants in general can be good for the economy as a whole. Of course, American workers hate it, and since they, and not the Mexicans, vote for the government, is it any wonder that the U.S. government takes the stance that it does?

As for the surplus of unskilled labour, the cynic in me is coming out again: isn't there a surplus because in general, it didn't take much skill to earn a handsome wage? But with the competition from overseas increasing substantially in the last few years, shouldn't the focus be on training the workers who want to earn more with specialized skills (to be productive at a higher rate), rather than just paying them more, and hoping that the productivity will improve because of it?

Originally Posted by Cody C

Sometimes when I think about a national language, I think that we aren't that far from the faceless mass of people portrait is so many sci-fi movies, but when I look at communication, as a whole, has helped the world... I can't imagine anything but good coming from a shared language.

The issue isn't really with outsiders needing to learn English as a de facto language of society. It's with the potential for the government refusing to provide essential services in a way that is accessible to everyone (aliens and citizens alike); they're the government—when we need the official word, we turn to them, so it's only reasonable that they make substantial efforts to permit everyone access. It's also with the way that this movement gets tied to the same people who, to be blunt, don't like Mexicans (or perhaps foreigners in general)—that's correlative, not causative, but in the event that there is a firm link between these things, it's unconscionable to let even one iota of racial prejudice dictate policy in America.