There is a march tomorrow in Houston to protest the new Immigration Bill. I have just been told that anyone who participates in the march will be fired because the march takes place during business hours. Is that constitutional?
[ April 08, 2006, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
For whom do you work?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's probably wrongful termination if you take off work, and your contract doesn't specifically prohibit you from participating, in my uneducated opinion.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
The consititution/First Amendment doesn't say anything about employers being required to allow their employees to protest.
Still, what an annoying work policy! You get fired for missing one day?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I work for the Hilton. They're saying because we didn't request off the required 2 weeks in advance we can't have the day off. The march wasn't planned 2 weeks ago. and besides, they let people take off with short notice all the time.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Also, are you in an employment-at-will state? If so, it's probably legal as can be. It's dumb of your employer to try it, though, if you're a protected status minority.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It's certainly constitutional.
I would wager it's legal as well.
But it's bad press and you might have a case in that they let people out with short notice all the time.
Probably not worth the risk.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Who's "they", vonk? Your manager or is it a known policy in the region?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
So people can't be fired for participating in union rallies, but they can for participating in political rallies. harrumph. I think i may just have to take an extra long lunch and get a pink slip for it.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
we just recieved an email telling all of the managers to keep their nextels on all day in case they are called in due to short staff because of the march. I had been planning to attend, so I asked if people would be fired, and i got a resounding yes.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
hmm, that's a thought Pix, I'll call the rep. and see. But it is kinda short notice.
Edit: What the duece!? I swear there was a post from Pix right there ^
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I deleted it. Sorry.
I realized I could get in trouble if you pulled that off and got fired anyway. I am not a lawyer.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
You're seriously asking if it's constitutional for a private employer to fire you for walking off the job when you haven't had leave granted? Uh, yes. Of course. Duh.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
They would be making something that had not been a fireable offence fireable. (i'm not sure fireable is a word). Taking a long break, or calling in is not grounds for termination unless it is the 3rd time you do it.
and I thought that somewhere in the constitution it included something about citizens being protected from recrimination due to peacefull political protest. If i'm wrong, my bad, but there should be.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
If the company is saying "Anyone who participates in the march will be fired" then you'd have probably* have grounds for a wrongful termination suit. Particularly if somebody goes to the protest who wasn't scheduled to work that day anyway. *I'm not a lawyer, I don't know for sure.
But if they're saying "Anyone who misses their scheduled shift on this day will be fired, and we won't accept 'I was at the protest' as an excuse for missing your shift." then it's a harsh attendance policy but probably legal.
It seems more likely that the second example is really the case.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
The first amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble & to petition the government -- but that is a restriction on the government itself, not private employers.
If they are changing what constitutes a fireable offense, then you have a better case that they are acting unfairly, but the constitution still has no bearing.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think the school's have a more clear cut problem. They are making the punishment for missing classes to attend the rally more severe than simply ditching class.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Scholar's mention of schools doing something similar reminds me of another possibility: They may fear that a lot of people are going to miss work (or class) for this particular day, leaving them very understaffed, and so they're making a threat that they may not actually back up in hopes of discouraging skipping on that day.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Is this about that terrible Senate bill? Sounds like it's not going anywhere right now anyway:
It's been covered - no, it's not constitutional and it's probably legal, just as Pix said.
Further, Enigmatic is right about fears of too many people taking off. If they have a policy requiring two week's notice, they can likely enforce it when not doing so might lead to problems even if they only enforce it sporadically at other times.
That is assuming they're enforcing a no short-notice leave policy for tomorrow. If they make exceptions for people not attending the rally they could face trouble - I'm not really sure.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
The thing to take into consideration is that they aren't necessarily changing any of their official policies about what is a "fireable offense" likely as not, sudden leave of absence with out the requisite warning always was such an offense, which was just generally not enforced.
There are any number of things that most buisnesses COULD fire you for, but don't (such as my reading/typing on this forum from work). If they chose to, they would be perfectly within their rights.
That being said, I have the distinct impression that it would be a bad move of theirs politically to fire you for attending the rally, but a good buisness move to threaten you so that you would actually come to work.
With regards to unions there's probably 2 reasons that people generally don't get fired over strikes etc... 1) it may be in the union's legal agreements with the buisness that they can strike on valid grounds (maybe not, but it's a possibility I'd imagine) 2) Power in numbers: the whole point of the union is that if people team up its harder for the system to abuse them, and if someone was fired for such an offense, likely as not the entire union would react harshly with greater reprocussions...
For example, if all of the hotel staff took the day off it would be harder for them to fire anyone, because then others might quit, they'd have to fire everyone, etc... but if one or two people go, it might be easier for them to punish.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:With regards to unions there's probably 2 reasons that people generally don't get fired over strikes etc... 1) it may be in the union's legal agreements with the buisness that they can strike on valid grounds (maybe not, but it's a possibility I'd imagine) 2) Power in numbers: the whole point of the union is that if people team up its harder for the system to abuse them, and if someone was fired for such an offense, likely as not the entire union would react harshly with greater reprocussions...
It's illegal for most companies to fire someone for union activities (assuming the activities are legal, of course).
It is possible to permanently replace strikers, which somehow isn't the same thing as firing them, which is why I didn't take employment law.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
If they told you that you would be fired for not showing up, it doesn't matter what you were doing while not at work. It sounds like they are only specifically mentioning the march because you asked about it.
Incidently, I have read the summaries of the bill and I am trying to figure out what all the fuss is about. It seems to me that they are helping current and future aliens who are employed gain legal status and they are cracking down on everyone else. They are giving harsher punishments to those who come here illegally and either mooch off the U.S. or get in trouble smuggling narcotics or joining gangs. I just don't see anything wrong with that. Obviously I am missing something...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
MandyM--the version of the bill passed in the House would make all illegal aliens FELONs, with long prison sentences when caught. That is what the protests are about.
Vonk--if they passed out a notice that going to the protest would get you fired, then you would have grounds to sue them. They wouldn't want that bit of info getting into the public record so they'd probably settle. However, if they say you can't take off tomorrow because they fear being dangerously understaffed, then there is little you can do about it.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:The first amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble & to petition the government -- but that is a restriction on the government itself, not private employers.
That is the complete right answer to your specific question. The Constitution provides limits to Governmental action. The Bill of Rights proscribe the Federal Goverment from taking certan actions.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I asked my mom this question - she is not an employment lawyer so this by no means legal advice. She's just an HR manager with 30 years of experience.
Anyway, she said that in her understanding, they can enforce a particular policy like this one in a way they might not normally if circumstances call for it. She compared it to when really bad weather is forecasted and her stores are in need of every person they can possibly have. In that case, they might send out a notice to all employees that no sick time will be granted without a doctor's note. Normally, sick time for one day or two can be granted without a physician's excuse, but their written policies state that at any time the employee may be required to present official documentation of the illness from a physician. They usually don't enforce it, but if cirumstances call for it, they can.
She cleared that with their attorney, who said it was perfectly fine. So I would assume this is a similar situation - because of the circumstances, they can choose to enforce a policy that is already on the books. Where the employer might be in trouble is if they tried to invent a new policy for the situation, without prior notice. Doesn't sound like that is the case.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Yeah, I suppose they are within their rights, but I still don't like it. I think that if I ask for a half day off and I have a good reason, my bosses should give me the time off. They have always been understanding in the past. I guess I'm more disappointed in them than anything.
It is possible that enough people would skip work that day that it would cause problems. But it seems like I am being punished for other's offences, because I'm not skipping, I'm asking. And I would have my nextel so they could always call me back if its necessary.
So I guess there is really nothing I can do about it. I still might join the rally for an hour on my lunch break
MandyM - The bill also makes it a felony to offer humanitarian aid to illegal aliens. It expands the realm of what is a "smuggler" to include a far greater number of people. From what I read this originaly included religous and charity organizations, but they amended that after the first rally's in California.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I find it scary and annoying that, while cool that non-citzens are adopting the joys of a participatory goverment, illegal foreigners are able to influence Congress by these protests.
I’m all for immigration, but the preservation of a common language for the United States takes priority. And unfortunately the illegals from Mexico more often then not refuse to or cannot learn English…and hold Mexico as their homeland…not America. That will lead to a situation like Quebec or the shattering of the Roman Empire.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Telp, I think you're being a bit alarmist.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I find it very cool and interesting that we are now exposed to Spanish language signs and magazines and stuff here, and that Mexican culture in the form of Latin music and Mexican ingredients in stores is beginning to take hold here. I think the hostility and fear shown by the earlier immigrants to the U.S. are what's sad. Everyone on this continent is an immigrant, or their ancestors were. The only difference is how long ago. (Even the native Americans crossed over the Bering Strait from Asia only 20 or 30 thousand years ago. )
As for Spanish, I think it's a beautiful language, and our country would be stronger if people learned more than one language growing up, like Europeans almost all do. It's not that hard to learn enough Spanish to communicate, not for an educated person. It's a whole lot harder for a Mexican laborer who works long hours for very low wages, and with no schooling much in his first language, even, to learn a second language. Even so, many of them go to English tutoring centers, and there are not enough tutors to go around.
People who think Mexicans should learn English might want to look into becoming certified as a ESL tutor, and volunteering at one of the libraries or Red Cross offices who give English language instruction.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Have the whole world move here, that would be fine with me. But there needs to be one language that unifies America. We are a nation of many different ethnic breeds, religions, cultures... the two things that bind us together are the Constitution (and assembled documents) and our common laguage.
It doesn't have to be English, but there must be one laguage that everyone speaks. Otherwise we will fragment.
Many in the business sector want the illegals to keep coming because they can pay them at near slave wages. How can the middle-class compete with that? And also the threat from the near-slavery used in China and other places.
I think we need to have lots of volunteers teaching English. That's a great idea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The middle class most emphatically isn't competing for a single job with illegal immigrants. I dare you to find a job paying a middle class wage that might plausibly be filled by an illegal immigrant.
China's certainly bad in many ways, but on the whole is very modern as far as workplace practices. It costs less to live decently in China.
We've had far greater influxes (measured by percentage) of immigrants speaking a different language before. In some of those waves of immigrants it wasn't even that common to speak English, with entire communities speaking the language of the old country. We still assimilated them. There's no reason assimilation has to be immediate.
You know how to ensure we keep having problems with illegal immigrants? Keep creating them. The way you fight illegal immigration isn't to make it a felony, its to transform it into legal immigration.
Your characterization of "the business sector" disappoints me as well. Businesses are, on the whole, reasonable entities composed of reasonable people. They don't want to underpay workers, they don't want to break the law, et cetera. For businesses that need cheap labor at a rate few American citizens are willing to work, given a steady supply of legal immigrants or guest workers willingly working at a low but mutually acceptable wage, they'll be quite happy. Try to keep out such legal workers and such businesses will either, yes, choose to employ illegal immigrants (not necessarily at unacceptable wages, either), pay more in an attempt to entice citizens to work there (driving the costs of their services up many-fold), or go out of business.
And lastly, I think your entire premise about language is wrong. Most state collapses have nothing to do with language, and plenty of perfectly stable states have far more language diversity than we would have with even just two languages. Try looking at India! Those states that do collapse in part because of linguistic differences are particularly troubled by social iniquities perpetuated along linguistic lines -- take a look at the split of Pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh. Calls for linguistic purity strike me as a descent into a nationalism of absurdity, and I see no particular evidence linguistic variation is dangerous.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:China's certainly bad in many ways, but on the whole is very modern as far as workplace practices. It costs less to live decently in China.
Well of course it does.
And yes, China has very "modern workplace practices"; we'll just overlook all those nasty little problems of child labor and human rights violations in their common labor practices.
::Blink::
What?
I mean I'm with you to a certain extent, but then you throw out China's labor practices as some kind of model? That's just ghastly.
quote:Calls for linguistic purity strike me as a descent into a nationalism of absurdity, and I see no particular evidence linguistic variation is dangerous.
I agree with you in theory.
In reality, though, the argument for a unified language standard is (as it relates to my life) if everyone spoke English I could understand them.
I think the whole world should speak English, in fact. Let's just do away with all other languages. And change the name of 'English' to 'Basic', please. (Like in Star Wars!)
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
China's labor practices are not some kind of model, but on the whole they're not awful. Yes, the government has serious human rights issues, but they're not on issues like forcing people to work.
And you surely have some sources that child labor is more than a small problem in China?
Some useful info: based on standard of living, about 19% of the Chinese population was middle class in 2003. This might not seem like much, until you realize that about 49% of the urban population was middle class -- the vast majority of poor people are rural, primarily small farmers. How does this support the notion of China being a land of bad labor practices?
The GDP per capita in China is around $6.5k. For comparison, the GDP per capita in India is about $3.6k, only a bit more than half China's. Here's a high level overview that dispatches with most of the attacks on China's overall labor practices: http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=201
Yes, China still has issues with labor practices. But the government has put in place solid workplace protection laws, by far most non-farming jobs in China pay very decent wages, and workers in unsatisfactory working conditions are successful seeking improvement (strikes recently started to enjoy sufficient legal protection in China to be effective).
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Ummm, Hello? 6.5K is very bad. In the US it's 43K. 6.5K is far, far, far below poverty. (According to the U.S.)
And yet, here goes another thread devoted to China. Boy I love Hatrack. Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Nah, Blayne isn't here yet.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I have lots of sympathy for the plight of illegals. If I lived in Mexico in those kinds of conditions, I'd be heading north too. That said, something has to be done. Some kind of "work a while, go home, and if you're good you can come back/move here" thing.
What I don't like the the colonization attitude that I hear sometimes from some groups (a small fraction, for sure). It's almost like they have a right to cross the border however they wish, and we're evil when we try to stop them.
I'm annoyed with the Mexican government too. They have no reason to try to stop the northern flood. Hey, they end up with fewer people draining the treasury. It's a win. If we could export all of our poor to Canada without lifting a finger to do so, how many people do you think would actually care? Oh they'd say that they did, but inside?
I've heard the statistic that 20% of Mexico lives in the US. I expect that's a junk statistic, but I'm seriously amazed at how many mouths I've heard it from.
I must say, I'd be worried if vast amounts of white English speakers were here illegally, so it's not the language/racial thing that bothers me.
I just wish Americans had the kind of work ethic that these illegal immigrants seem to have. For that, they have my respect, and (IMO) much dignity. They don't come here looking for a hand out, just a hand up. We should watch, and learn.
Something has to be done, though. I just hope it's the right thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Reticulum, you're clearly not understanding how differences in income between countries don't mean significant differences in standard of living.
For instance, middle class in China, with a comparable standard of living to our middle class, starts at about $19k.
Here's a chart giving population percents below poverty line, as of several years ago:
The international poverty line is approximately $1 a day in 1985 dollars adjusted for local purchasing power parity. The basic result is that $6.5k is well over the poverty line in China.
Its extremely important to understand that the numbers printed on currency are essentially meaningless; they are merely units, with no value except what is given for them. The only useful numbers are how much of what one wants/needs one can buy with a particular income where one shops. When one shops in China, one can (in particular) buy a heck of a lot more food for much cheaper prices than in the US, and one can buy good housing for a heck of a lot less.
To elaborate some on China's labor situation:
China has a better labor situation than 4/5ths of the rest of the world. China's labor laws are modern, and compliance is constantly increasing. In other words, China's workplace practices are pretty dang good, generally speaking. Should they be much, much better? No doubt, but holding up China as an example of bad workplace standards is quite silly, when on the scale of how things actually are they're in about the top 20% or better.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:You know how to ensure we keep having problems with illegal immigrants? Keep creating them. The way you fight illegal immigration isn't to make it a felony, its to transform it into legal immigration.
I completely agree with this. IMO, if the US is good enought that enough people want to come here that we have to start arresting people on felony charges for giving humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants, we need to make it a lot easier to become a resident alien.
In Houston, the Spanish speakers far outnumber the English. I thoroughly enjoy the multitude of foreign languages that I hear from day to day. It makes me wish that I had been raised bilingual, but I've had to learn enough to communicate. So it would be a good thing if more languages became common in the US.
I don't know how many illegal immigrants I see on a daily basis, but I'm sure their there. And I see people working just as hard as I do, if not harder, to contribute to the econommy and raise a family and be at peace. And for as long as I can remember, la migra has been a bad thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:we have to start arresting people on felony charges for giving humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants,
It has been clarified by the bill's sponsor that humanitarian aid is not covered.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Ok, enough that we have come close to having a policy of arresting people on felony charges for giving humanitarian aid.
better?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:China has a better labor situation than 4/5ths of the rest of the world. China's labor laws are modern, and compliance is constantly increasing. In other words, China's workplace practices are pretty dang good, generally speaking. Should they be much, much better? No doubt, but holding up China as an example of bad workplace standards is quite silly, when on the scale of how things actually are they're in about the top 20% or better.
You go work there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think enough that there are very important people seriously advocating making illegal immigration itself a felony.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Ok, enough that we have come close to having a policy of arresting people on felony charges for giving humanitarian aid.
better?
Not really. If no sponsor of the bill intended that to be the case, how did we "come close" to that result?
quote:I think enough that there are very important people seriously advocating making illegal immigration itself a felony.
Which is very different than making it a felony to feed a hungry kid without making them fill out an I-9 form.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
TL: oddly enough, there's a decent chance I will. I'm aiming at a career in humanitarian assistance policy, and China both has problems of its own and is well-located for work related to many surrounding regions.
However, when about 80% of the world would jump at a chance to work in China, your attempt at a comeback takes on a decidedly comedic value.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, when about 80% of the world would jump at a chance to work in China, your attempt at a comeback takes on a decidedly comedic value.
Since 80% of world is everyone not in China, I think you might be overstating the case. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Which is very different than making it a felony to feed a hungry kid without making them fill out an I-9 form.
Dag: True enough, but that bears no resemblance to anything I've been saying .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(Crossed posts; my previous response was to your post regarding illegal immigration)
You're right, I misplaced about a billion due to talking about 4/5ths of the rest of the world, not including China before. 72 to 73% of the world would love to work in China .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Aw man, I thought I'd get some pie from that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*pies Dag, and his little dog too*
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Not really. If no sponsor of the bill intended that to be the case, how did we "come close" to that result?
quote:`(C) assists, encourages, directs, or induces a person to reside in or remain in the United States
quote:`(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (D) through (H), in the case where the offense was not committed for commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain, be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both;
I may be reading this wrong, but it says that anyone who assists someone that they know might be an illegal immigrant "to reside in or remain in" in the US goes to jail for 5 years. This probably doesn't mean if you feed a hungry kid you'll go to jail, but it does include missionary efforts by local religious and charity organizations.
After church today my girlfriend's mom was counting off different people she knew that did charity work through the church that would be arrested if that bill passed.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:However, when about 80% of the world would jump at a chance to work in China, your attempt at a comeback takes on a decidedly comedic value.
I'm sorry but I just don't think that's accurate. Furthermore, even if it was, since when is "other people have it worse" an accurate measurement of how horrible something is?
Your point is kind of like finding out somebody has cancer and saying, "At least you're not one of the millions of starving kids in Africa suffering through the AIDS pandemic. I mean, those kids would *kill* to just have cancer."
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Had an interesting discussion on immigration the other night with people I didn't know well - we'd basically just met. A woman whose husband owns a contracting business and I were commiserating on how difficult it is to make it in the construction industry if you are an honest contractor who tries to do things right. Then I mentioned what we went through to get our own house built and a bricklaying contractor asked me who did the brick on our house.
I told him I couldn't think of the name offhand. He then said "Was it Mexicans?" I responded "Absolutely not." He then said "Why not, they do good work."
I told him I was sure they did, but I didn't know a single bricklayer who hired legal workers from Mexico. His answer was of course they were illegal, that's why you got it at a good price. I then asked him if he saw anything wrong with using illegal workers to undercut competition and he didn't, which led me to believe he probably employs illegals himself.
I then told him why I had a problem with it. Companies that hire illegals don't cut taxes - they can't, without an I-9 on those workers. They also generally don't carry workman's compensation or insurance. I don't know if a workman's comp company verifies citizenship before they'll issue policies that cover your workers or not, but I know we had to send a lot of paperwork on each employee to them so I wouldn't be surprised.
Given all that, a company hiring illegals can undercut and underbid a legitimate company that actually hires legal Americans and pays insurance and cuts taxes and does what they're supposed to do. I don't think that's right - companies that do things legally and correct are punished. And, doing all those legal and correct things is what drove us out of business - our workman's comp rates tripled in one month, even though we'd never had a claim - simply because we were in a "high-risk" industry. It's almost impossible to stay afloat as a business if you're legit in the construction industry and companies that hire illegals and pay them cheap wages and don't insure them are a major reason why.
Personally, I think it should be felony for contractors to hire illegals and use their cheap labor to force down prices. They should have to hire people and pay taxes and unemployment and insurance on them like companies that hire legal workers have to do.
quote:I may be reading this wrong, but it says that anyone who assists someone that they know might be an illegal immigrant "to reside in or remain in" in the US goes to jail for 5 years.
I'm not that good at interpreting legalese, but I think you are reading it wrong. Charity work isn't aimed at keeping people in the US illegally, and it seems there is an exception if it's not "committed for commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain," That seems to except charity work, because no one who was providing food or shelter or ministering to illegals is doing so for financial gain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Personally, I think it should be felony for contractors to hire illegals and use their cheap labor to force down prices.
I think it IS, actually. At the very least, it's tax evasion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
When you're looking for a measure of how horrible things are, picking one of the better places on the planet for the sort of situation is a bad approach.
Furthermore, even in an "absolute" sense, China's pretty good, as the other evidence I provided should make clear. Heck, fewer people live in poverty there than here! (granted, that statistic relies on fairly different evaluations of poverty, but it should still make one think)
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Here's what I don't get: The people protesting 4437 at rallies and stuff... are waving around the flag of Mexico. At least, that has been what I saw at the protest at the capitol. If they want imigrints to live in the U.S., why not wave AMERICAN flags.
Could someone explain this me? It doesn't make sense.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't have a particular problem with felonizing at least some employment of illegal aliens, particularly if a system is put into place making it far easier for illegal aliens to legalize themselves.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well, why not instead of making it easier for illegals to legalize themselves, make it easier to become legal in the FIRST place? Or both?
[ April 09, 2006, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Reticulum ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Both, most definitely.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: If they want imigrints to live in the U.S., why not wave AMERICAN flags.
All the footage I've seen of the Dallas rally today had tons and tons of American flags. This rally had around 350,000- 500,000 people. Perhaps you were looking at smaller, less representative rallies.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
You're probably right Aman. I only saw a few pictures. I have no idea where they came from, but I find it interesting that they complain about how immigrints should live in the U.S., yet wave around flags of Mexico, and say how great it is.
Note: I am not racist. I hate everyone equally.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I see the illegal immigration as a vicious cycle.
We have people coming to the US to get better jobs and money. Then we have the greedy and desperate who cannot wait for the system to process them so they breach the boarder. They often leave families behind and since they have broken the law have a hard time bringing them across legally so do so illegally. Then we have illegals who make new families here. Now we have families who are part legal and part illegal.
All the while this huge influx of people is changing the culture. Foreigners, criminals now, changing the culture and language of the US. I resent that a little. These people are not guests, they are gate-crashers.
If they so badly want to be citizens of the US then why couldn’t they take the legal way? Can’t the America make it’s own decisions on who it lets in and who it does not?
My first reaction was to just give a huge blanket amnesty to all the illegals. That would solve the problem. Then I read up that every time this was done it did NOTHING to stop the flow of illegals. In fact it encouraged huge swarms more.
I say fortify the boarder, give a blanket amnesty, and then halt the flow to something tolerable.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Absolutely brilliant Tel. Absolutely.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:If they so badly want to be citizens of the US then why couldn’t they take the legal way? Can’t the America make it’s own decisions on who it lets in and who it does not?
The legal way is hardly guaranteed. If you're lucky enough to get a visa and come to America, there is still no guarantee of attaining citizenship.
Further, your post seems laced with the attitude that if you weren't born here, you don't deserve to live here. I think that is a very unfortunate way to view things. I enjoy seeing America as a land of opportunity for everyone.
Also, all of this talk about desperately needing to tide the flow of immigration is nonsense. The immigrants come to America because there are jobs available. When there stops being enough jobs for them, then we'd have a problem. But since the types of jobs that illegals take are far from coveted, I do not believe this will be an issue any time soon. Here in Texas, I know that our economy would crash if the flow of immigrants halted.
Illegal immigration is tricky. Our economy absolutely depends on it and yet if we made it substantially easier to become a citizen, the economy couldn’t absorb the rush of immigrants. I don't see any proposed solution that would create better results than the current status-quo.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Further, your post seems laced with the attitude that if you weren't born here, you don't deserve to live here.
I do not have this attitude. My agenda is the long term preservation of the USA, our ideals, and our strength. And I've said several times that I'm all for immigration, I think it's a great thing...as long as it is done with respect to our laws and culture.
One thing I am still completely convinced about, and what is laced in my posts, is the need for the US to have one language for our long term survival. Once a population cannot communicate with each other they cease to be a common people...or to put another way, will become separate peoples very quickly. I have no desire to see pieces of the Southwest breaking away.
I also disagree about our economy collapsing without illegals. I see this as a big lie from those businesses/politicians that are abusing the illegals for their own profit. They want to keep their cheep labor.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Telpy, long term preservation of our culture and way of life is exactly what the whites who fought so bitterly against the civil rights movement in the South in the 50s and 60s were fighting for. And you know what? Their culture and way of life is gone now. And you know what else? We're better off this way.
I am not trying to draw any conclusions about your motives or inner thoughts. I'm just pointing out something that sounds exactly the same to me, across the years. Nowadays we look back on those people and say they were racist. What will we think in 50 years about the anti-immigration people?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:All the footage I've seen of the Dallas rally today had tons and tons of American flags. This rally had around 350,000- 500,000 people. Perhaps you were looking at smaller, less representative rallies.
According to NPR this morning, the presence of so many American flags at Dallas was a conscious response to the criticism about the Mexican flags at earlier rallies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Amanecer: our economy doesn't depend on illegal immigration one whit. It does need a pretty hefty supply of cheap labor, but legal immigration and guest worker programs are both candidates for supplying that.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
You know, it really annoys me when people bring out the "whites against the civil rights" card when we're talking about immigration.
Wanting to preserve culture isn't necessarily evil.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think the obvious solution is to annex Mexico. The way they're running their country doesn't seem to be working for them since many of their citizens want to come here. So, if we annex them, we could make their country more American, then they wouldn't have to leave. See? Problem solved.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Hell, let's just take over all of Central and South America while we're at it.
Damn the rainforest.
-pH
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
What has the rainforest ever done for me? Nothing! I say we take it out once and for all so it can no longer spread its propaganda across the globe. Remember Ferngully? How many kids were brainwashed by the bats and other cute rainforest creatures? Too many. It's time to take back our children's minds and build some nice things out of the wood at the same time. Down with the rainforest.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:He then said "Was it Mexicans?" I responded "Absolutely not."
While I agree with the theory that illegal labor makes it harder for legal labor to thrive in certain industries, I find the above statement very troubling. To decide not to hire a contractor based on their nationality is incredibly prejudiced. I understand not wanting to hire someone who employs illegal immigrants, but there are other ways to avoid this than making a blanket decision not to hire anyone with Mexican heritage.
Such a policy and state of mind seriously negatively effects every other legal contractor of Latin American heritage who conducts business on the up and up. To assume that because a person's family comes from a certain part of the globe, that they therefore practice illegal employment techniques or in any other way make unethical business decisions is just plain racist.
It is very common to pass a corner in Houston with a couple of dozen very poor Latin American men, legal and illegal, jumping at the opportunity to climb in the back of a truck and work long hard hours for whatever money they can make. Contrasting that with the crowd of legal American homeless people living under the freeway and doing nothing more than begging to make money, and I am forced to wonder which group should be allowed continue.
The attitude regarding the hiring of minorities and the obvious desire to work on the behalf of the immigrants reaffirms my belief that we need to make it much easier to work legally in the US, and not arrest people on felony charges for trying.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:While I agree with the theory that illegal labor makes it harder for legal labor to thrive in certain industries, I find the above statement very troubling. To decide not to hire a contractor based on their nationality is incredibly prejudiced.
If you read the rest of that paragraph in my post, you'll note I said that I didn't know any contractors who hired legal Mexican workers, and the bricklayer confirmed they were illegal. If they were legal, they're more than welcome to work on my home. It's not the nationality I have a problem with, it's the illegality. It's two completely separate things. I would feel the same way if it were illegal European immigrants that were as white of skin as I am. This has nothing to do with race or nationality, it has to do with the contractor cutting corners by hiring illegal workers or not. And frankly, I don't want him working on my home if he's willing to cut corners that way, what other corners will he cut?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I have a solution to the immigration problem, we swap. Every time someone enters the country from one of the Latin American states, we send someone back in their place. This way we get all the labor, and we can be rid of our "undesirables" as well. So the next person who enters the country, I say we trade them Pat Robertson. From there we can give up every television political pundit from O'Reilly to Tucker Carlson and all their friends from both sides of every issue. I think immigrants are probably doing more for this country than they are anyway. It seems like a good deal.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I understand what you're saying Belle. From the quote that I took from your original post, I inferred too much maybe. There was probably much more to the conversation than just "Did you hire Mexicans?", "Absolutely not." You probably explained that, while you don't remember the nationalities of all of the people that you considered, the ones that stuck out in your mind did so because when you checked to see whether or not they hired illegal labor, it turned out that they did. I'm sure you would not refuse to hire someone based on their race without first checking to see whom they hire, and whom they don't.
And I'm sure you also realize that while the Mexican contractors that you know hire illegal immigrants, when a contractor that you don't know who happens to be of Latin American decent applies for a job, it is fair and reasonable to assume that they follow legal business practices until you know otherwise.
I was using your quote, not necessarily as an attack on you, but on the frame of mind that might perpetuate racism and unfair treatment of minorities.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
vonk, just to be clear, I'm not talking about Mexican contractors but rather American contractors who hire illegal labor, be it Mexican or otherwise.
Considering all you have to go through to be licensed as a contractor, I think it would be virtually impossible for an illegal immigrant to obtain a license. Of course, many aspects of construction (bricklaying amont them) don't require licensing. It's up to the consumer to check those things out.
Around here you usually find illegal labor in trades like bricklaying, framing, and painting. The specialty trades like plumbing and electrical contracting require proof of citizenship before you can obtain a license. And general contracting requires the same. So it's subcontractors in unlicensed trades that are the big problem.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm totally with Telp.
And we have a right to our land and culture because we were born here. (Yes, I'm part native american so don't give me that "give it back to the indians" crap unless you want to give me your house.)
They have their own land and their own culture. They come here, their culture will be waiting for them at home when/if they return (and many of them do.)
Now, the beautiful thing about American Culture is we absorb the cool things about other cultures and make them our own. We celebrate St Patty's day. Even if you have no irish blood. We celebrate Cinco De Mayo. American food includes Pizza, California rolls, Moo Goo Gai Pan, Burritos and Pho'. We love where we came from and always welcome in new people.
But we have to do something to keep the flow of people into our land under control. We annexed the whole of this country through unbridled immigration. Now Mexico is turning the tables on us. Once the culture in an area flips and no longer conciders itself part of the nation, they try to break away. Just like Texas broke away from Mexico in the first place.
Our culture will grow with the addition of new people. That's a good thing. We all want that. What we don't want is to be swamped.
Pix
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: What has the rainforest ever done for me? Nothing! I say we take it out once and for all so it can no longer spread its propaganda across the globe. Remember Ferngully? How many kids were brainwashed by the bats and other cute rainforest creatures? Too many. It's time to take back our children's minds and build some nice things out of the wood at the same time. Down with the rainforest.
--ApostleRadio
Yo! The name is Batty! The logic is erratic! Potato in a jacket! Found in the attic! I rock and I ramble! My brain is scrambled! Look like an animal, but I'm a mammal!
...oh, no! It's too late for me! Go! Leave me! You must carry out the mission!
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Good God! This is a response to 4437 that I would not have thought likely. It is truely heartbreaking and it makes me want to punch the assistant principle many times in very sensitive places.
quote:1st Walkout Death! Body: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEWS CONFERENCE Sunday, April 9, 2006 12:00 p.m. Our Lady of Guadalupe Church 710 S. Sultana Ave., Ontario, CA 91761
Louise Corales, whose 14 year-old son, Anthony Soltero, died on April 1 after committing suicide, will speak to the community and ask for a prayer for her son this Sunday, following the 11:00 a.m. mass at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church in Ontario, California.
Eighth grader Anthony Soltero shot himself through the head on Thursday, March 30, after the assistant principal at De Anza Middle School told him that he was going to prison for three years because of his involvement as an organizer of the April 28 school walk-outs to protest the anti-immigrant legislation in Washington. The vice principal also forbade Anthony from attending graduation activities and threatened to fine his mother for Anthonys truancy and participation in the student protests.
Anthony was learning about the importance of civic duties and rights in his eighth grade class. Ironically, he died because the vice principal at his school threatened him for speaking out and exercising those rights, Ms. Corales said today. I want to speak out to other parents, whose children are attending the continuing protests this week. We have to let the schools know that they cant punish our children for exercising their rights.
Anthonys death is likely the first fatality arising from the protests against the immigration legislation being considered in Washington, D.C. Anthony, who was a very good student at De Anza Middle School in the Ontario-Montclair School District, believed in justice and was passionate about the immigration issue. He is survived by his mother, Louise Corales, his father, a younger sister, and a baby brother.
Ms. Corales will speak to the community after mass on Sunday, April 9, 2006 at 12:00 p.m. at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church. She will ask for a prayer for Anthony, whose funeral and burial are scheduled for Monday, April 10 in Long Beach, where he was born.
This isn't directly related to the legislation, but it does show that there will be effects that we couldn't even have imagined.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That press release sounds awfully suspicious to me. So far, no one but bloggers and indy media groups are reporting it. Hopefully some real journalists who understand about sourcing and investigation will pick this story up to either confirm it or debunk it.
I wonder how many witnesses there are to the vice-principal's statements.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Telp- I'm sorry for attributing an attitute to you that you do not hold. What gave me that impression was your statement, "All the while this huge influx of people is changing the culture. Foreigners, criminals now, changing the culture and language of the US. I resent that a little." Even your clarification that "as long as it is done with respect to our laws and culture" rubs me the wrong way. I guess I don't understand why a change in culture is threatening. I also don't know that becoming a bilingual nation is that threatening. I don't have any hard data on this (and would be interested if somebody did), but I don't see the Spanish language being passed down generation after generation. It seems like the typical pattern is that the first generation speaks Spanish or is bilingual, the second generation is bilingual or only speaks english, and the third generation speaks only english.
To me, the idea of a nation limmiting its population growth by limmiting immigration has little moral difference from limmiting population growth through restrictions on how many children people can have. I think both should be used only when necessary and with awareness that even if it's needed, it's a bad thing.
quote:According to NPR this morning, the presence of so many American flags at Dallas was a conscious response to the criticism about the Mexican flags at earlier rallies.
Good to know Dagonee.
quote: our economy doesn't depend on illegal immigration one whit. It does need a pretty hefty supply of cheap labor, but legal immigration and guest worker programs are both candidates for supplying that.
Good point fugu. The economy does not depend on the illegality of the immigration. The reason I don't think your suggestion would work is because I believe that so long as there is opportunity here, there are going to be more people trying to get in than we are willing to let. Right now, the economy seems capable of absorbing the number of people that come. If we increased legalization and guest worker programs, I do not believe illegal immigration would be lessened. Could we handle that many people? If so, that would be a wonderful plan.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Nobody commits suicide because their vice principal is an asshole. Look, if he did say that stuff, he's a nut and he's completely dispicable... (But that's a wild assumption in and of itself).
You can't make someone commit suicide. This kid must have had real problems.
I smell "scapegoating in the furtherance of a civil cause." Which is a felony. Louise Corales is on her way to a three year prison sentence if she keeps this up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Increasing legal immigration substantially likely will slow illegal immigration, particularly if care is made to present legal immigration as a viable option within Mexico. There are not an infinite number of people trying to enter the US, merely a very large number. Part of reducing the number of illegal immigrants is convincing people they could become legal immigrants.
Furthermore, programs to legalize illegal immigrants (pretty much impossible if illegal immigration is made a felony) will reduce the effects of illegal immigration by mitigating them directly. I don't think a blanket amnesty makes sense, but a system for legalization does.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
fugu, I'm intrigued. What would potential immigrants have to do to become legal? How would you decide how many people could come each year?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I think the assumption of rationality is a bit of a stretch, fugu. For everyone, IMO, not just illegal immigrants. Yes, increasing legal immigration might funnel off some of the flood. But let's be realistic. Skipping over the border will be faster and easier, as well as the only resort for people who don't meet whatever requirements there are to enter the US.
Now, if we increased legal channels while doing a massive crackdown on illegal means, that might work.
I want to see some large program for legal immigration and temporary workers. But, I also want to see strictly enforced, stringent penalties for those who abuse the system. If you abuse the system (don't return when you're supposed to, try and sneak over the border, commit a crime), you go back to wherever you came from, and can't come back.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It would be bizarre not to attribute a good deal of rationality to illegal immigrants. They're clearly acting with very specific notions of how to better themselves. Whether those notions are in line with reality may be another question (though I suspect you'll find many illegal immigrants doing pretty well by their personal standards once in the US), but that's why education on alternatives is necessary.
If your statement about it being easier to skip over the border was all that was going through such people's minds, then we wouldn't have such a huge number of applications for legal immigration. Or are you asserting that the group of people who apply for legal immigration has no overlap with the group of those who illegally immigrate? I suspect there's a huge overlap, and that many more current illegal immigrants would apply if they felt there was a chance at acceptance.
I think border enforcement is important, but I don't think felonizing the very act of illegal immigration makes any sense whatsoever. I think it is extremely important we build a culture of acceptance; this doesn't mean letting everyone in under no restrictions, but it does mean letting as many people in as possible who want to come in, and acknowledging that those people who have already made it to the US and begun lives are not the enemy.
Amanecer: there are several proposals out there, I'm not sure exactly what would be best, its something that to evaluate would require a lot of close work with studies.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
fugu, I suppose I used the wrong word/concept - you're right that it doesn't make sense the way I wrote it.
Skipping over the border is the rational thing to do, if it's faster, easier, more likely to succeed, and easy to get away with.
As for overlap, I don't know.
A culture of acceptance? No. I don't accept that you can break our rules, come here illegally, and be accepted for that. Then again, you can't put the chicken back in the egg, or however that one goes. So, as a compromise, I'd accept some sort of legalization process for the illegals (with a heavy probationary period) coupled with a increase in immigration and a no tolerance policy for future illegals.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Nobody commits suicide because their vice principal is an asshole. Look, if he did say that stuff, he's a nut and he's completely dispicable... (But that's a wild assumption in and of itself).
You can't make someone commit suicide. This kid must have had real problems.
Whether or not it actually happened, I'm sure some people DO commit suicide at least partly because their vice principals were assholes. And whether or not a kid has "real problems," however you define such a thing, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's okay for principals to behave in such a manner.
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Straight from the mouth of an illegal immigrant:
quote:"We want some papers and we're not criminals. We're workers. We came here to work to help us," an illegal immigrant identified only as Nestor said. "None of y'all want to do our work. We do the hard work and they don't pay us good. If go to our country, you're not going to do it."
"We're out here to support all human race. They're trying to criminalize all illegal immigrants and yet they forget that America is made up of all immigrants," another protester said.
It was a pretty intense March. I didn't get to join rally, but I will be there for the vigil tonight. I wish I could have been there.
So they just want to be able to work legally, and I don't think that is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is a very very good thing. As long is there is a place for immigrants in the US, we should make it legal for them to take that place.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"We're out here to support all human race. They're trying to criminalize all illegal immigrants and yet they forget that America is made up of all immigrants," another protester said.
This strikes me as a rather ridiculous thing to say. It blurs the distinction between "immigrants" and "illegal immigrants." It is certainly possible to support criminalizing the act of remaining here illegally and still remember that most of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: You know, it really annoys me when people bring out the "whites against the civil rights" card when we're talking about immigration.
Wanting to preserve culture isn't necessarily evil.
I think the reason people bring this up is because this is so similar. I bet I could give you quotes from anti-civil rights people in the 50s and 60s mixed in with quotes from anti-illegal-immigration people from any time in the last century and you couldn't pick out which were which. This includes the people who were opposed to our parents and grandparents' immigration.
There's so much eugenics and racism that still is heavily laced throughout our whole immigration quota system. So many from this country and only thus many from this other country, etc. What's the deal with that? Don't we officially repudiate eugenics and racism as a nation now?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: its a rather emotional thing to say, based on a gut reaction to the situation I would guess. It may not be the most logical thing, but I'm glad in a way that there are people having that gut reaction.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Isn't the whole "You sound like a klansman" thing just another form of Godwin's law, anyway?
It's what Rand called an "anti-concept." Just as comparing someone with hitler is designed to shut someone up, so is calling them a racist.
Pix
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Without calling anyone a racist, I do think that it can become too easy to forget that the people who are coming into this country illegally are human beings, often desperate human beings. I think it is too easy to start thinking of "us" and "them", forgetting that those of us lucky enough to be born here are just that - lucky.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kmbboots: are you saying our culture is superior to theirs? Aren't they lucky to have been born where they were in the middle of their culture? *grin*
Pix
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee: its a rather emotional thing to say, based on a gut reaction to the situation I would guess. It may not be the most logical thing, but I'm glad in a way that there are people having that gut reaction.
The problem is that it's likely to alienate the people they need to convince.
They're not going to convince the people Tatiana has been alluding to - the people with some deep racist or superiorist motive for opposing changes.
They don't need to convince people who oppose the concept of immigration of any sort being illegal.
The vast middle ground consists of people who do see illegal immigrants as people but who might not know or appreciate the true hardships they face, who have some genuine concerns related to the consequences of immigration to security, cultural cohesion, law and order, and the economy.
That's a vast range of people, some who will be much easier to convince than others. Yet honest statements that acknowledge the concerns and show how they can be alleviated can work to convince people here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: Have the whole world move here, that would be fine with me. But there needs to be one language that unifies America. We are a nation of many different ethnic breeds, religions, cultures... the two things that bind us together are the Constitution (and assembled documents) and our common laguage.
It doesn't have to be English, but there must be one laguage that everyone speaks. Otherwise we will fragment.
Why do we need to have one unifying language? You state this as though it were an established fact, when it simple is not. Switzerland has 4 official languages and has survived as a Union for longer than the US.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: kmbboots: are you saying our culture is superior to theirs? Aren't they lucky to have been born where they were in the middle of their culture? *grin*
Pix
Nope. I'm saying that we are lucky to be in a position where we don't have to risk our lives crossing a border in order to break our backs working at a job that barely pays enough to survive.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm not calling anyone a klansman. I'm asking people to notice and realize on a gut level that the things they say are exactly like the things said by groups of people with whom they may not identify strongly.
Perhaps this will cause them to rethink the whole civil rights movement, and understand better the opposition point of view. I'm not sure. I just know this rings in my ears as something entirely familiar that I have heard many times before. And I remember where I heard it. I think that should be significant to those who are making these arguments. I'm just asking them to think about how much they sound like the majority of whites in the south during the civil rights movement, and to ponder if there are any parallels here, and decide what their grandchildren will think as they look back at the videos of this time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: In Houston, the Spanish speakers far outnumber the English. I thoroughly enjoy the multitude of foreign languages that I hear from day to day. It makes me wish that I had been raised bilingual, but I've had to learn enough to communicate. So it would be a good thing if more languages became common in the US.
What's crazy to me is that in my time in Barcelona, I always ALWAYS had the impression that the people who spoke English were considered more educated and better off. There they try and learn as many languages as they can, and here we get all phobic about how we're going to somehow be usurped by "foreign" cultures.
I never met a Spaniard who would rather speak English when I could speak Spanish, and I never met an older Catalonian who wasn't doing me a favor by speaking Spanish instead of Catalan. They don't lose their cultures by learning other languages, rather their understanding of our culture puts them at a huge social advantage.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Educated people should know at least two languages, and most (worldwide) know a goodly amount of three or more. What's the deal with learning more languages, anyway? It's fun and interesting, and not that hard!
-Thus says the ignoramus who only knows one. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Well, and a few bits of one more.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: All the while this huge influx of people is changing the culture. Foreigners, criminals now, changing the culture and language of the US. I resent that a little. These people are not guests, they are gate-crashers.
Though I understand that this is commonly the source of some angst, exactly what about the current American culture is so worth defending?
The language will survive on its own, and if we need to learn Spanish to get along with our neighbors, we won't be doing anything we aren't asking them to do in return. Did the floods of immigrants who came through Ellis island from the old countries change the culture for the worse? Or did they shape it and make it better, adapting to life in a new place, just as the place adapted to them living here. That's us, that's where we ALL come from.
The introduction of the horse into the Americas by the Spaniards transformed many native American cultures in less than a century. By the time the English colonies were being founded, the horse was a beloved animal in North America, did the native Americans bemoan its existance for making their lives easier? It was a far different thing from what colonization did, and that's what we are talking about: a new element in our culture, not a colony of foreigners in our yard.
Only mass sudden immigration from small focused community groups causes the kind of insularity your afraid of; and though it can and will happen, it can also be avoided with care. So I agree that the issue of immigration needs looking after, but it doesn't need discouraging.
Keep in mind to that the "huge influx," is partly a product of perception. Like polls that routinely show American fear of crime rising in the last quarter century, while crime rates drop steadily, its not altogether certain IMO, how much immigration has been made an issue simply because 24 news nets need SOMETHING to talk about. I'm not saying I know, but I am saying I feel very deeply that news services today have it completely in their interest to have Americans like you and me running around and scaring the crap out of each other like chickens with our heads cut off. This surprisingly sells ad-space.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: Have the whole world move here, that would be fine with me. But there needs to be one language that unifies America. We are a nation of many different ethnic breeds, religions, cultures... the two things that bind us together are the Constitution (and assembled documents) and our common laguage.
It doesn't have to be English, but there must be one laguage that everyone speaks. Otherwise we will fragment.
Why do we need to have one unifying language? You state this as though it were an established fact, when it simple is not. Switzerland has 4 official languages and has survived as a Union for longer than the US.
I'm on the fence on this issue. I don't think Switzerland is at all a good example. Switzerland is the size of what, New York? It wouldn't matter if it were the size of Texas, it's still a small country, and thus if there were a dozen official languages, people aren't going to be that far removed from wherever they are speaking them. Thus, they will probably have to grow up with some familiarity with those languages.
I think there needs to be one unifying language, though I am not against there being other languages. Having English be the standard language is just practical. A nation the size of America, with a population the size of America's needs to have a single language that is considered official for everyone to HAVE to know. If Hawaii switched to the original Hawaiian language and stopped speaking English, and we made Hawaiian on official language of America, it makes it A. Hard for Hawaii to take part in America, economically, politically, socially, culturally, etc. While I think it adds some luster to America's culture, it's also creating a sub-culture that is removed and outside of the mainstream, and that can be dangerous.
Tatiana -
While I agree that in the past, and to a lesser extent now in the present, our immigration quotas and what not have been racist, I don't necessarily think a lot of what is going on right now is racism. If America were being overrun by 11 million uneducated Frenchman, or Germans, the argument would still be the same. People aren't arguing they should all go home just because they are dirty, brown Mexicans who are inferior to us (at least, the vast majority aren't).
But let me ask you this, were we to let them ALL stay here, while at the same time not allowing an unlimited number of Africans, Asians, and Europeans in as well, wouldn't others call that racism as well? Either you treat everyone the same, or you throw the doors open and see what happens. The second thing will never happen, ever. The first thing is what the anti-amnesty people are fighting for.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You might find India an interesting example. There are currently 16 official languages, and over 800 languages spoken in the country. Its doing all right, overall .
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Tatiana, I don't really care who once said something similar. I'm not that person, nor do I condone those ideals. Just because there is some surface similarity doesn't mean that anything else is the same.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Fugu...how do you explain Quebec and the Basque separatists? Both wish to secede because they speak a different language.
As for India they do have a common language: English. Without that common laguage they wouldn't be able to talk to one another.
In this I agree with Lyrhawn. As long as everyone can speak the common laguage it is enough.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Another point, this whole thing for me has nothing to do with race or culture. It is all about laguage. When I say culture I mean laguage. America is better mixed, but only when we can all speak to each other.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While English is quite common in India, hardly everybody speaks it. (Though it does have I think the second largest population of English speakers in the world). This rather undermines your argument that the mere presence of a moderate population of Spanish speakers would lead to violence (edit: I'm not sure if this is exactly your position, though it seems to be from your examples; I'm more going for connotations of violence to the state, not necessarily physical violence).
In particular, see my previous note about Pakistan and Bangladesh. When one tries to make speakers of a different language second class citizens, much as you seem to be advocating, then violence erupts. That's what happened in Pakistan to a large extent, that's what happened in Spain to a large extent. I know of few better ways to create distrust and unease than to attempt to near-forcibly coopt a population linguistically.
As for Quebec, while there are certainly tensions, I don't exactly see Canada as a weakened state about to collapse. In fact, they seem to be getting along pretty decently (absent what are mostly a few noisemakers) with two major languages. Another, better example of a state with two languages (mixing to various degrees) is New Zealand.
[ April 11, 2006, 01:04 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I understand that there needs to be a unifying, official language, but I fail to see why Americans learning a compulsory second language in school, to cater to our neighbors, would actually wind up hurting the State as a whole.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
People aren't arguing they should all go home just because they are dirty, brown Mexicans who are inferior to us (at least, the vast majority aren't). [/QB]
Another peice of evidence to show that Hatrackers are hardly representative. I think quite a few people really feel that way. No way for me to prove it, and who's going to admit to a stranger that they simply don't like Mexicans? Yet I think there is an element of this that always comes into play. After all this is the same country which banned immigration from China because they were an "inferior" race. And kept mishegenation laws on the books until the 1960's. No I think racism is still a factor to be reckoned with. (Though admittedly not something you can easily lobby against or even identify all the time).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: I understand that there needs to be a unifying, official language, but I fail to see why Americans learning a compulsory second language in school, to cater to our neighbors, would actually wind up hurting the State as a whole.
You fail to see a reason because one doesn't exist IMO. But hey, its not just to "cater" to anybody. Alot of the population in California (my home) is hispanic, with roots in hispanic culture and history and literature in Spanish. Why shouldn't we all enjoy the literary and musical accomplishments of our latin forebears? Seems if you can't speak Spanish, you might be missing out on some good stuff.
What people who are phobic about other languages and cultures hate is the fact that they can't prove that learning a foreign language somehow retards your understanding of your own. Learning Spanish actually TAUGHT me alot about linguistics, and there was plenty room in my brain for both languages in the end. This is about the only situation by the way, where people actually expect you to believe that learning MORE will somehow hurt you.... How interesting! Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I was playing Carlos Vives the other day when my older friend came over. She raised her eyebrows and said "that sounds like the music I hear at my house", and laughed. I told her it was great, that she should listen to it. She's moving because her apartment complex has become home to many immigrant families, and to apartments which house what we consider a large number of immigrant men in each apartment. Apparently one way it's possible to live on $7 or $8 an hour and still send money home to family is to live with 10 or 12 other guys in one apartment.
It's hard to tell what percentage of it is racism and what percentage comes from things like more trash and cigarrette butts lying around, and more drinking, and other differences that stem from income levels, or from having large numbers of men without families living in close proximity.
She's someone who grew up in the north, and would presumably look at "white flight" in the south as being a racist-motivated thing. What she is doing now, though, is white flight.
My country largely made it through the racial injustices of the past, with grace and luck, and by the skin of our teeth. We already made all these mistakes. We don't need to set up a new underclass. I don't want to see my country repeat the same grievous mistakes that we were smart enough and lucky enough to fix last time without a major upheaval, or I should say with only a major political upheaval. This time we all know better. People who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.
I grieve deeply to see this happening again.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:She's someone who grew up in the north, and would presumably look at "white flight" in the south as being a racist-motivated thing. What she is doing now, though, is white flight.
No, it's not. It's quality-of-life flight, and there's a huge difference. Quadrupling (or more) the density of a development will make for a very different setting, and someone who selected a complex because it had one feel is not engaging in white flight.
BTW, white flight wasn't primarily in the south. It was a much bigger phenomenon in northern, midwestern, and western cities.
Further, large parts of white flight were triggered by real estate agents who would sell one house to a black family, then buy the entire block after whites panicked. It was motivated by greed, racism, and an expectation about what would happen to the quality of life in a neighborhood, not what had already happened.
This is a very different dynamic than the racial injustices of the past, and those who learn the wrong lessons from history will make things worse, not better.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The thing that binds us together as Americans is not a homogeneous culture or a single language, it is a shared adherence to an idea. You know the one. That truth we hold to be self-evident. If the people who are trying so hard to get here share that idea, they can only do us good by reminding the rest of us not to take it for granted.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I agree with Dagonee on the white flight idea. Tatiana, I'm afraid that you are looking at the current situation through lenses tainted by what happened in the past. Yes, there are many people who want Mexicans to go home simply because they are dirty Mexicans, but there are also reasonable, well-educated people who are not reacting on a gut-level racist sentiment, but on well articulated and thoughtful ideas. There is a difference between leaving a neighborhood because a black family moved in and you believe this will drive down the land value and leaving an apartment complex because it has become overcrowded, loud, or otherwise unpleasant for living. This can be a decision made completely seperate from racial considerations, and calling it white flight might be unfair to your friend.
In the same way, it is possible to hold a view on Latino immigration that calls for strict, or in fact nominal, enforcement of the laws of the United States of America. It is unfair to attribute racist sentiments to someone who holds that view simply because there are others who are racist. I'm in favor of having a language everyone can speak, but outside of areas of high 1st generation immigrant concentration, I don't believe this has yet become a problem we need to worry about. There are 293 million people in this country, and the vast, vast majority speak communicable English.
I've lived and worked with racists of all types, from those who hate blacks to those who hate whites to those who hate Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, or any other form of humanity. Racism is a horrible thing, no matter which end you are coming from. Those who are against immigration in general due to racist sentiments have a serious problem. Those who are against ILLEGAL immigration for reasons that have nothing to do with race do not.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
prolixshore, I think you all are seeing the past with tainted lenses. I was there. What did you think, that most white southerners were just inherently bad people? I tell you it was the same then as now. And the answer is the same now as then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm a little unclear what you're saying the answer is? Are you saying that unrestricted immigration (except for requirements such as convicted felons or something) is necessary to avoid racism?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
It would appear that you believe being against breaking the law is equivalent to racism. I hope this is not the case.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, many people are pushing for punishment out of proportion to the degree of lawbreaking this currently is (a misdemeanor).
Second, many are also pushing to make it a worse crime; that's not merely being against breaking the law, that's for reimagining illegal immigration as a worse crime, which is very different.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Fugu is right. Huge difference between saying that commiting crime X is going to be a 7 on the Bad Scale instead of a reasonable 4, and saying that since we are thinking the crime is more important, why not Make it Crime Y, which will allow us to punish people more severely. (All figures quoted from the Hague Convention on the Bad Scale )
How can we justify re-writing the law to make it harsher, when the nature of the crime changes not at all? It would be different if, for instance, you changed the law in New York so that flying an airplane in between buildings is a worse crime, because that is a reaction to the fact that this has become a more grievous offense. Illegal immigration is no more or less a criminal act than it was 25 years ago, the circumstances are the same (well not really the same, but not radically different).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: First, many people are pushing for punishment out of proportion to the degree of lawbreaking this currently is (a misdemeanor).
Second, many are also pushing to make it a worse crime; that's not merely being against breaking the law, that's for reimagining illegal immigration as a worse crime, which is very different.
Yes, but Tatiana's blanket condemnation applied to those who want to keep it the same type of crime.
quote:How can we justify re-writing the law to make it harsher, when the nature of the crime changes not at all? It would be different if, for instance, you changed the law in New York so that flying an airplane in between buildings is a worse crime, because that is a reaction to the fact that this has become a more grievous offense. Illegal immigration is no more or less a criminal act than it was 25 years ago, the circumstances are the same (well not really the same, but not radically different).
Because people think the previous law is too lenient, as witnessed by its utter lack of deterrent effect? Or because they think the circumstances have changed in the last 25 years as witnessed by the increased stratification of income?
I'm not saying either is true, but, once again, until people start acknowledging the concerns people have instead of cavalierly dismissing them, there will be no progress in the debate.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Exactly. I never proposed making the crime a different crime or making the penalty harsher. In fact, I would oppose both of those things on strictly legal grounds, yet Tatiana's statement that my beliefs are somehow racist still stands. I take offense at that, having never been called anything remotely like a racist in my life. You cannot dismiss people like me just by calling me racist. You could try to say that I am jaded because of my criminal justice and law enforcement background, and dismiss my opinion that way, but not by calling me racist.
I am for a decent guest worker program, like we see in other countries. I am even for a rewrite of the immigration laws, taking a fresh look at that old quota program, and streamlining the process to ensure that the people who want to immigrate feel doing it legally is a viable option. What I am not for, in any case or in any sense, is illegally immigrating to this country. I am not for making your first act upon entry to our nation an act of breaking the law. That applies to all people, everywhere.
I don't see why we should cover for people who break the law simply because they had good intentions, or just wanted to make some money for their family. They still did it in a way not allowed by our laws. They should still face the legislated punishment for breaking those laws.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I do think Tatiana's perspective is extreme.
Regarding the penalties for illegal immigration, I see no reason a punishment commensurate with the misdemeanor (note that it wasn't even that for visa overstays, a substantial portion of the illegal immigrant population, until recently) can't also exist with programs attempting to move illegal immigrants to being legal immigrants. After all, if the act of legalization requires positive effort, it is in a very real sense an attempt to undo the wrong.
One potential system would be to create an intermediate, probationary status illegal immigrants could join, admitting illegal status, paying a fine, and becoming subject to monitoring for meeting certain conditions for staying. If one fails to meet those conditions, one gets kicked out.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Regarding the penalties for illegal immigration, I see no reason a punishment commensurate with the misdemeanor (note that it wasn't even that for visa overstays, a substantial portion of the illegal immigrant population, until recently) can't also exist with programs attempting to move illegal immigrants to being legal immigrants.
Any advantage that illegals are given over law-abiding would-be immigrants is a de facto reward for their criminality.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Who says anything about giving them an advantage?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm not saying anyone is racist. I'm saying your justification of "saving our culture" is the same as that of mainstream whites in the South before and during the civil rights movement. That was their reason for opposing the changes. It's up to you to decide how to characterize that response. All I'm saying is that it's the same response in either case.
The answer I see, to clarify my post above, is that we ahould realize that our culture is changing, as it changes all the time, and determine to move ahead with a free society in which the human rights of all people are respected, and everyone's labor is valued.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
One potential system would be to create an intermediate, probationary status illegal immigrants could join, admitting illegal status, paying a fine, and becoming subject to monitoring for meeting certain conditions for staying. If one fails to meet those conditions, one gets kicked out.
This was done with the Chinese population in San Francisco in the early 20th century, I don't remember the year at the moment. It helped to seriously get a handle on what was then the huge problem of illegal immigration to Chinatown, and it legitamized thousands of working immigrants.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I used to wait tables and while most of the time the staff was fine with a rep taking a day off now and then there were certain holidays (Mother's Day, Father's Day and Thanksgiving especially) where they had a no call out rule. Everyone who was employed by the restaurant was scheduled for a shift on those days and the only reason someone could call out was if they were sick. Even though they didn't usually require it, on those days if you called out sick you had to have a doctor's excuse.
Of course, SC is an at will employment state so you can be fired from any job at any time for any/no reason so...
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The thing is, that you're working for a business. If everyone employed by the company just decided not to go to work one day business would suffer, especially if you work in the service industry. It's not like they can just shut down for the day because their staff wants to be elsewhere.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Who says anything about giving them an advantage?
How is being allowed to stay here not an advantage, unless we allow the immediate uncontrolled immigration of everyone else on the planet as well?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If they're only allowed to stay here after paying a fine and completing fairly stringent conditions under observation. Its not all that hard to qualify for legal immigration, we've just kept the numbers far too low. Putting even a moderate requirement on illegal immigrants if they want to become legal presences in the country quickly negates the notion of advantage.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)