Postscript; sentence in above post should read "I never MEANT to infer that illegal aliens...." Guess that's just part of being a redneck, huh? Sometimes forget to properly proofread!
Gonna try this one last time. "Anchor baby" is a colloquialism that Americans--be they native-born OR naturalized--use to describe children born within the borders of the United States, to a parent or parents who have entered this country illegally. Such birth provides the child with American citizenship under the citizenship rule of jus soli, which is Latin for "right of the soil". This is the opposite of jus sanguinis ("right of the blood") and is frequently used as a "key" to various social programs for use by the entire family. This subterfuge is used by illegal aliens OTHER than Latinos, of course, but--as with the 1070 instance--would apply mostly to peoples entering across the Arizona border. As such actions are generally part of a larger byzantine process, what I and most adults KNOW cannot be "proven", at least to your satisfaction. As such, if you wish to label these actions as more of my "hate-filled lies"; bon appetit. I never met to infer that illegal aliens were somehow automatically handed citizenship rights because of the birthright status of their anchor babies, merely that it made it easier for the entire family to disengenuously take advantage of a lot of taxpayer-funded social programs.
In my state, translators--in Spanish only--are provided to translate class instructions to elementary school students who are so inept at the mother language of English that they can't comprehend simple instructions in English. I personally believe this is because their "parent(s)" will not use English in their homes, preferring the "culture" of the language of a country they abandoned. While my state--as well as MANY others--have had a REDUCTION in its teachers' salaries, the Federally-mandated non-English proficiency program is a virtual third-rail. No cuts/reductions EVER.
Frankly, Enquirer, I don't give a tinker's damn about what color peoples' skin is, their country of origin, OR their damned mother tongue! I don't care if your mother was Waswahili and your father was an Eskimo. What I DO care about is people OF ANY COLOR OR BACKGROUND coming to this country in violation of the law and then expecting American citizens to believe that these peoples "needs" should allow them to be able to break whatever laws they choose in order to "better" themselves.
Then again; I'm sure you've already labeled me a racist, so no logic is welcomed on this subject. Perhaps this is why nothing is ever accomplished in this country anymore. Everybody's scared to death of being labeled a bigot.
@Enquirer; Less effort than would be required to have a Spanish-speaking translator made available at tax-payers' expense to teach the anchor-babies in their "home" tongue in every public elementary school. I'm SURE that answer won't suffice, Enquirer, but that is MY definition of a "modicum of effort".
Oddly, I no longer have a desire even to VISIT another country, let alone LIVE there, so I really don't NEED to learn another language, do I? WERE that knowledge needed to live in another country I'm sure I WOULD be willing to learn their language, rather than simply expect/demand the citizens of that country accomodate ME in MY language.
However, I will freely admit that these 1070 "Forums" have caused me to question my understanding of semantics, as they relate to English. Until "debating" with people who feel their "needs"--either real OR imagined--should be seen by others as a rationalization for them violating whatever law they feel NEEDS violating (to attain THEIR ends), I had always thought of myself as something of a radical. However, could a radical that believes in the rule of law and the necessity of that law to form and uphold a civilization actually BE a radical?
The quote IS: “Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or
leave the country.”
ANSWERS:
(A) William J. Simmons (reputed founder of the “new” Ku Klux Klan)
(B) The former Governor of Alabama, George Wallace
(C) Adolf Hitler (deceased Fuhrer und Reichskanzler of Germany)
(D) Theodore Roosevelt (26th President of the United States)
By the way; the quote addressed is NOT about discrimination, it’s about ASSIMILATION. If all you “immigrants” OR “illegals” feel that this little MODICUM of effort isn’t WORTH IT, then why don't you drag your sorry little asses BACK to the “culture” of the country you ABANDONED. To listen to YOU, it is soooo G*******d BEAUTIFUL, anyway!
PS; The “racist bastard” responsible for the quote was (D), and HE wasn’t talking about Mexicans, Latinos, Hispanics, or whatever the hell it is you want to be called TODAY! HE was talking about IMMIGRANTS from all over the world. THEY did, too, exert that little bit of effort in order to conform!!!!
@happyforeign; your point is quasiwell-made. I assure you, sir, that I do NOT have a "master o Phd" [sic], as I am not even aware of precisely what that particular educational degree IS.
If you believe that either myself or the VAST majority of persons supporting 1070 "....hate mexican people??" you, sir, despite your ambiguous degree, are a damned fool. I have several friends who are of hispanic descent. Whether they are "Mexican", "Latino", "Hispanic", or Eskimo WITH A "STRANGE" ACCENT has never come up. For the very simple and logical reason that neither myself nor any of my "racist" WHITE friends, give a tinker's DAMN where you or your family CAME from, as long as you're here and here legally! All of my "Hispanic" friends are successful business people, mostly with more money than myself, and very vocally DESPISE "the wets" (THEIR words, not mine!). They do realistic background checks prior to hiring ANY employees, require that their employees ALL be at least at "conversational" level in their English, and--since they DO wish to retain their "culture"--frequently RETURN to Mexico. I know this because they always return with tales of lawlessness, corruption of police, etc., etc.,etc.!
"Can (I) speak 'spanish' [sic] like (you)?" No, I can't. Were I planning to "move" my family into Mexico to take advantage of all YOUR society offers, via LEGAL or "other" means, I WOULD DAMNED SURE LEARN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To be clear, sir; I am NOT trying to enter into some sort of "debate" with you. I personally find racism to be offensive, be it "....americans (hating) mexican people??" OR the blanket condemnation of Americans that YOU use. Racism usually denotes a very low level of intellect in the people espousing that particular trait. Even ones with a "master o Phd" [sic] such as yourself. You also do not HAVE to be white (OR American!) to BE a racist. Since cynicism doesn't come across clearly in written form, please be aware that--from your posting--I consider YOU to be a racist.
Oh, one final thing: In English, the word "was" (as in "Half of US territory was property of Mexico...." [sic]) is a the PAST tense of the verb "be". i.e., it NO LONGER IS! Best brush up on your English a bit, sir. Otherwise, even WITH your master o Phd, you might end up sounding like one of us "Ignorant people."
This week, about 125 miles from my home (and just outside the park boundries of Yellowstone National Park), three campers were mauled (one fatally). Park rangers suspected the perpetrators were "....either grizzly or "brown" bears." and took three bears found in the vicinity "into custody".
My questions are these: (1) Does not publicly announcing that BEARS--especially "brown" bears-- were culpable (as opposed to coyotes, wolves, or mountain lions) constitute "profiling" on the part of the Park Rangers? (2) As the Rangers admitted publicly--very early on in their investigation--that they believed "....either grizzly or BROWN bears...." were guilty of this carnage, aren't they in effect ADMITTING blatant discrimination on the part of law enforcement? (3) Can we expect the ACLU and/or various ethnic organizations to demonstrate against the arrest of BROWN bears? And (4) Will the United States Attorney General pursue legal action against the Park Rangers in order to correct this OBVIOUS abuse of authority?!!!
One more question, A.C.: Could you see any LESS rationality, were these actions to actually occur, than what is happening to SB 1070 in ARIZONA??????????????
Point well taken, Angry Californian! One would assume you are NOT in favor of any sort of Arizona "boycott". I, too, wonder constantly why people would be so astounded and morally outraged that hispanics, who probably constitute--what?--75% of the illegal aliens in this country would be "questioned" regarding their resident status. Unless I am sadly mistaken, Arizona (along with YOUR state) share a BORDER with Mexico.
Even so, A.C., Arizona's SB 1070 specifically prohibits (A) questioning ANYONE'S legal residency unless coincidental to ANOTHER separate investigation by law enforcement and (B) using a person's race, skin color, etc. as sole justification for the residency question.
My own opinion of hispanic people has declined since I entered into these SB 1070 opinion sites. I dislike--not any race, religion, skin color, etc.--but people who declare themselves to be "victims" of whatever the cause de jour is!!! To me, THAT declaration is WORSE than the one which says people should be allowed to break "certain" laws because of THEIR circumstances. If you live in a society, and expect to partake of the fruits of that society, you must, in turn, respect the LAWS of that society. Que'?
Recent Comments
In my state, translators--in Spanish only--are provided to translate class instructions to elementary school students who are so inept at the mother language of English that they can't comprehend simple instructions in English. I personally believe this is because their "parent(s)" will not use English in their homes, preferring the "culture" of the language of a country they abandoned. While my state--as well as MANY others--have had a REDUCTION in its teachers' salaries, the Federally-mandated non-English proficiency program is a virtual third-rail. No cuts/reductions EVER.
Frankly, Enquirer, I don't give a tinker's damn about what color peoples' skin is, their country of origin, OR their damned mother tongue! I don't care if your mother was Waswahili and your father was an Eskimo. What I DO care about is people OF ANY COLOR OR BACKGROUND coming to this country in violation of the law and then expecting American citizens to believe that these peoples "needs" should allow them to be able to break whatever laws they choose in order to "better" themselves.
Then again; I'm sure you've already labeled me a racist, so no logic is welcomed on this subject. Perhaps this is why nothing is ever accomplished in this country anymore. Everybody's scared to death of being labeled a bigot.
Oddly, I no longer have a desire even to VISIT another country, let alone LIVE there, so I really don't NEED to learn another language, do I? WERE that knowledge needed to live in another country I'm sure I WOULD be willing to learn their language, rather than simply expect/demand the citizens of that country accomodate ME in MY language.
However, I will freely admit that these 1070 "Forums" have caused me to question my understanding of semantics, as they relate to English. Until "debating" with people who feel their "needs"--either real OR imagined--should be seen by others as a rationalization for them violating whatever law they feel NEEDS violating (to attain THEIR ends), I had always thought of myself as something of a radical. However, could a radical that believes in the rule of law and the necessity of that law to form and uphold a civilization actually BE a radical?
The quote IS: “Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or
leave the country.”
ANSWERS:
(A) William J. Simmons (reputed founder of the “new” Ku Klux Klan)
(B) The former Governor of Alabama, George Wallace
(C) Adolf Hitler (deceased Fuhrer und Reichskanzler of Germany)
(D) Theodore Roosevelt (26th President of the United States)
By the way; the quote addressed is NOT about discrimination, it’s about ASSIMILATION. If all you “immigrants” OR “illegals” feel that this little MODICUM of effort isn’t WORTH IT, then why don't you drag your sorry little asses BACK to the “culture” of the country you ABANDONED. To listen to YOU, it is soooo G*******d BEAUTIFUL, anyway!
PS; The “racist bastard” responsible for the quote was (D), and HE wasn’t talking about Mexicans, Latinos, Hispanics, or whatever the hell it is you want to be called TODAY! HE was talking about IMMIGRANTS from all over the world. THEY did, too, exert that little bit of effort in order to conform!!!!
If you believe that either myself or the VAST majority of persons supporting 1070 "....hate mexican people??" you, sir, despite your ambiguous degree, are a damned fool. I have several friends who are of hispanic descent. Whether they are "Mexican", "Latino", "Hispanic", or Eskimo WITH A "STRANGE" ACCENT has never come up. For the very simple and logical reason that neither myself nor any of my "racist" WHITE friends, give a tinker's DAMN where you or your family CAME from, as long as you're here and here legally! All of my "Hispanic" friends are successful business people, mostly with more money than myself, and very vocally DESPISE "the wets" (THEIR words, not mine!). They do realistic background checks prior to hiring ANY employees, require that their employees ALL be at least at "conversational" level in their English, and--since they DO wish to retain their "culture"--frequently RETURN to Mexico. I know this because they always return with tales of lawlessness, corruption of police, etc., etc.,etc.!
"Can (I) speak 'spanish' [sic] like (you)?" No, I can't. Were I planning to "move" my family into Mexico to take advantage of all YOUR society offers, via LEGAL or "other" means, I WOULD DAMNED SURE LEARN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To be clear, sir; I am NOT trying to enter into some sort of "debate" with you. I personally find racism to be offensive, be it "....americans (hating) mexican people??" OR the blanket condemnation of Americans that YOU use. Racism usually denotes a very low level of intellect in the people espousing that particular trait. Even ones with a "master o Phd" [sic] such as yourself. You also do not HAVE to be white (OR American!) to BE a racist. Since cynicism doesn't come across clearly in written form, please be aware that--from your posting--I consider YOU to be a racist.
Oh, one final thing: In English, the word "was" (as in "Half of US territory was property of Mexico...." [sic]) is a the PAST tense of the verb "be". i.e., it NO LONGER IS! Best brush up on your English a bit, sir. Otherwise, even WITH your master o Phd, you might end up sounding like one of us "Ignorant people."
This week, about 125 miles from my home (and just outside the park boundries of Yellowstone National Park), three campers were mauled (one fatally). Park rangers suspected the perpetrators were "....either grizzly or "brown" bears." and took three bears found in the vicinity "into custody".
My questions are these: (1) Does not publicly announcing that BEARS--especially "brown" bears-- were culpable (as opposed to coyotes, wolves, or mountain lions) constitute "profiling" on the part of the Park Rangers? (2) As the Rangers admitted publicly--very early on in their investigation--that they believed "....either grizzly or BROWN bears...." were guilty of this carnage, aren't they in effect ADMITTING blatant discrimination on the part of law enforcement? (3) Can we expect the ACLU and/or various ethnic organizations to demonstrate against the arrest of BROWN bears? And (4) Will the United States Attorney General pursue legal action against the Park Rangers in order to correct this OBVIOUS abuse of authority?!!!
One more question, A.C.: Could you see any LESS rationality, were these actions to actually occur, than what is happening to SB 1070 in ARIZONA??????????????
Even so, A.C., Arizona's SB 1070 specifically prohibits (A) questioning ANYONE'S legal residency unless coincidental to ANOTHER separate investigation by law enforcement and (B) using a person's race, skin color, etc. as sole justification for the residency question.
My own opinion of hispanic people has declined since I entered into these SB 1070 opinion sites. I dislike--not any race, religion, skin color, etc.--but people who declare themselves to be "victims" of whatever the cause de jour is!!! To me, THAT declaration is WORSE than the one which says people should be allowed to break "certain" laws because of THEIR circumstances. If you live in a society, and expect to partake of the fruits of that society, you must, in turn, respect the LAWS of that society. Que'?