Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 113
  1. #41  
    My bad, I'm doing this on my treo.
    Good, I'm glad your welcoming the change. It's good for us. Nothing good has ever come from status quo.
  2.    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by treosome
    My bad, I'm doing this on my treo.
    Good, I'm glad your welcoming the change. It's good for us. Nothing good has ever come from status quo.
    I agree that gradual change, and blending is good. However when change is only expected by one side its not so good. Anyone who has been married knows that
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    I agree that gradual change, and blending is good. However when change is only expected by one side its not so good. Anyone who has been married knows that
    You don't know that it's only expected by one side. Don't assume that all are trying to change you to their ways. Live your life and allow others to live theirs, of course within the boundaries of the law. Please, just because one lives by the traditions of a culture different from your, it doesn't mean that our Nation is going down the sh!t hole.

    It's one thing to encourage people to speak english, but it's f'ed up to demand it. That's what freedom is to me.
  4. #44  
    I googled and found many references.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ion+conference

    The author of this blog entry claims to be an eyewitness at the event: http://michellemalkin.com/immigratio...04/24/11:52.pm
  5. #45  
    [quote]"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."[\quote]
    Doesnt this allready happen? and not just in the US.. 'the working class' is allways the biggest and least educated..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Probably a bit of both. But, rest assure that they love America and proud to live here. I see nothing wrong with new or old immigrants exercising both while being a proud citizen of this country. “Creating an extension of their own origin on American soil” while being a proud citizen of this country isn’t going to destroy it.
    Look at the Oklahoma City tragedy. McVeigh and Nichols weren’t new immigrants yet they have managed to kill the very best this country has to offer: Pride of being American.
    A bit of both is good. The lack of info as to where they're from leads me to wonder if "a bit of both" would be hard to defend though. My guess is they were enamored by the "American Dream". Which is great. Thats why people should come.
  7. #47  
    Since sxtg honored we with mentioning me in the title of the thread, I guess I have to add my 2 cents.

    The original "email" is full of errors: he mentions the ancient greek as a positive example while in fact in the good old days the Greek cities were constantly in war with each other (e.g. Sparta vs. Athens was famous). Also most of his current examples are wrong, e.g. Cyprus is divided because of a Turkish invasion, not because of mulicultural chaos. Canada is a highly successful nation despite being bilingual and multicultural, crime rate is lower, the economy is growing faster than in the US, etc.

    Interestingly, the writer left out Switzerland. For centuries, we have had three (or even four) official languages, we are multilingual and cultutally diverse, but still we live a very happy life as one nation - so language alone certainly cannot be the problem...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #48  
    Having said the above, I still think that totally open immigration is not only positive. Many aspects are very positive, but there are limits. Most immigrants move from poor countries to rich countries, and it is mostly only that sort of immigration which causes problems. I don't think the problem of poverty can be solved or even made much smaller through immigration. I think rich countries should do more to prevent poverty and make life in the poor countries better.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Denmark. I suppose it makes me Danish-American which sounds more like a pastry than a person….
    I kinda thought of you like that anyway
  10. #50  
    OK, let's address the main question, and look at some history:

    1) EVERY wave of immigration was met with the same kind of cries that it was going to destroy America. Mostly as a thinly veiled form of racism. Every immigrant group, from the British onward, feared or hated the group(s) that came after. Read some history and see what was said about the immigrants from China, Poland, Germany, Asia, and Jews, regardless of where they came from. Even the Irish faced discrimination, based on culture, if not language.

    2) The first generation of immigrants, and to a small extent the second, NEVER fully assimilate. The Germans who came to America never really learned to speak English well, but their children did. And their Grandchildren didn't learn (or forgot) how to speak German. The same was true of the Poles, the Chinese (remember the transcontinental railroad), Jews. Even the Irish had trouble because Irish English is so different than American English.

    The first generation of immigrants cling to their culture. It's what they know, and it's a comfort in a country where everything is so different. The second generation is sometimes torn -- combining elements of both cultures and languages. The 3rd generation only knows about their original culture throught books, photo albums and family stories.

    *****

    None of this is new, and none of it is different. A few examples:

    My next door neighbors are immigrants from China. The wife speaks little English, and teaches music lessons to other Chinese. The husband speaks heavily accented English, enough to get by. Their son speaks fluent English, with almost no accent (as well as Chinese). His children will probably learn no more than a few phrases of Chinese. He plays basketball, video games, listens to rock music, and is pretty much as Americanized as my kids.

    My sister-in-law is Vietnamese. She was one of the 'boat people' and was a teenager when she came to the U.S. Her mom speaks virtually no English, her dad some. She speaks with an accent. Her kids speak nothing but English, and know no culture but America's. They play baseball and basketball, watch TV, play video games, go to movies, just like any other kid.

    My sons are soccer players (travel league and high school). Many of their teammates are from other countries. Most of their parents still speak their native languages at home. The kids are bilingual. Their kids probably won't be.

    A family friend emmigrated from South America as an adult. He's in his late 60's now, and learned English in his native country. He speaks both languages fluently, but English with an accent. His kids, in their 30's and 40's also learned Spanish in their native country, but came to America as children. They are bilingual, and speak English with almost no accent. But they are fully Americanized in their life style. And their kids speak only a few phrases of Spanish.

    One of my employees was born in Vietnam, and came here at age 6 or 7. She speaks English better than she does Vietnamese (and better than some of my native born American employees), and her lifestyle is really no different than the other people her age who work for me. She's married to a man whos parents are from Spain. But while he speaks Spanish (and English), he lives a typical American lifestyle, too. When they have kids, I'm pretty sure the kids will grow up speaking only English.

    One of my best friends is of Chinese ancestry. His parents emmigrated here right after they married. He's as American as I am, and speaks no Chinese.

    See a pattern here? The children or grandchildren of today's immigrants won't be "Mexican," or "Arab," or "Asian." Just as I'm not "German," even though my ancestors emigrated from Germany.

    *****

    The truth is that those who fear change, or fear the loss of power and influence, will always find excuses to justify their fear. And will always find ways to stir up those who share their fear.

    But the initial post does point to some legitimate examples of countries suffering from ethnic, racial, religious or other multicultural issues. So what's the difference? Why hasn't the same thing happened in America?

    The answer is actually rather simple, and has been documented by historians and sociologists repeatedly. The difference is that America encourages assimilation. At least until recently. Those other countries do exactly the opposite. Political, religious and ethnic leaders foment discrimination, and separatism. Use whatever terms you like: apartheid, ethnic cleansing, separate-but-equal, racial purity, "state" religion. It's the failure to assmilate those from different cultures that leads to strife and violence.

    And think about it: What are these right wing leaders pushing? The same kind of division by race, ethnicity, religion and culture that has, throughout the world and throughout history, led to violence and civil war. Whether it's Christian vs. Muslim, "American" vs. Mexican (or Asian, Arab, Central European, African, French...), it comes down to "us vs. them." And in that sort of arrangment, one group always ends up second best, which gives them incentive to fight the group that has more.

    Establish an official language, and you just encourage those who speak a different one to fight for the right to do so.

    Teach your children that your group, whatever it be, is superior, and that the other group (religion, race, culture, heritage, tribe) is less worthy, and you end up with generations of hatred (see Somalia, Israel / Palestine, Boznia).

    Establish an "official" religion (whether by law, as in Saudi Arabia and Israel, or by tradition, as in the Balkans) and those who believe differently end up segregated, discrimated against, and more likely to have to fight for what they believe in.

    In fact, you can see examples of this in America right now, in reverse: In spite of the fact that Christians dominate virtually every aspect of American life, from television and radio, through school systems, and right into the political system, the right wing of the Christian faith is feeling threatened by what they see as the wave of secular, anti-religious activity in this country. Banning prayer from school, taking religious items from courthouses, abortion and birth control, trying to remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegience, etc. And they're fighting back! Mostly via legal means: the political process, protest marches, picket lines, etc. But some are pushing the line: web sites containing "hit lists" of abortion providers and clinics, and bomb making instructions. Armed militias funding their activities via internet fraud (and bank robberies). And some are flat out taking the law into their own hands, bombing abortion clinics (and Olympic visitors), shooting doctors, burning mosques, etc.

    The sad truth is that if the extreme right wing of the conservative movement gets it's way, it will cause the very problems it's warning about. The beliefs they hold, the things they teach, and the policies they push, will prevent or delay the assimilation of immigrant groups. Minorities (whether religious, cultural, racial or other) who feel marginalized, belittled and discriminated against will feel compelled to take action. At which point right wing leaders will shout "I told you so!" And never see their own hand involved in causing the problem.

    *****

    Want a more practical argument? Without the wave of immigrants willing to work for minimum wage (or sometimes less), employers of manual labor all over the country will have to pay significantly higher wages to attract "Americans" to those jobs. That will force them to charge more for their products or services. Which will both raise inflationary pressures and reduce the demand for those higher priced items. Which result in job losses among those making and selling the products. Which results lower tax payments to the treasury, both from individuals and companies. Which means higher deficits or fewer government services (and neither Repubs or Dems have a very good record when it comes to cutting government).

    Like it or not, much of the economic growth in America over the last 20+ years has been built on the backs of cheap immigrant (and illegal immigrant) labor.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  11. #51  
    Bob:

    Wow - long post, well thought out....

    My only issue is based on personal experience. I lived in Tucson, AZ for a number of years and found the assimilation of immigrants from Mexico not to be as you have described for a significant percent of the population.

    Though you are correct, they learned some english, it was clearly their 2nd language and within their neighborhoods the language used was almost exclusively Spanish - and this is for 4 generations on families.

    Perhaps this is what the article is referring to, though I cannot speak to the same experience taking place in California?
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I would imagine it is the exception not the rule.
    On being an exception, I do know similar circumstances exist through-out southern Arizona so I don't know that you can blanket it as being an exception to the rule? Trends do have to start somewhere...

    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Still, I can’t see how someone would draw a conclusion that the U.S. is faltering as a nation because immigrants use their native tongue at home or celebrate their native country’s holidays and rituals.

    I don't know that that is the conclusion that's being draw - at least I don't see it that way.

    Nor do I think it is based upon immigrants use of their "native tonge at home or celebrate their native country's holidays and rituals".

    I see it as a concern that, left unfettered, could lead to more difficult circumstances in the future. Keeping in mind the slow movement of social change, it seems to me having vision into the not so near future can serve a good purpose - though I don't believe a Chicken Little response is warranted...
    Last edited by treo2die4; 05/06/2005 at 02:01 PM.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Fair enough.

    What's left left unfettered?!
    I take it to be the march toward the required recognition of additional languages and all that comes with it?
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I guess reading Bob’s post would answer that best.
    In re-reading it, it struck me:

    I wonder if there is a difference as to the assimilation of different immigrant groups. For example, the Vietnamese he mentions - would you suppose it's safe to say they wish to assimilate and therefore are less of a "threat" to the article author then a group that does not have the "I want to be an American" mind-set?
  15.    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I guess reading Bob’s post would answer that best.
    Yes but Bob's post is BullS***
    ... more to come
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I googled and found many references.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ion+conference

    The author of this blog entry claims to be an eyewitness at the event: http://michellemalkin.com/immigratio...04/24/11:52.pm
    I looked over those results and like the ones I got they are all anti-immigration/rabidly conservative websites half of which all say the same thing, "A friend emailed me this".

    I believe this is COMPLETELY BOGUS and very much unethical to further this falsehood.
  17. #57  
    Welcome to Los Angeles

    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18.    #58  
    Language was a only a portion of the posted aritcle, but since that seems to be the common debate I will argue it.
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    OK, let's address the main question, and look at some history:

    1) EVERY wave of immigration was met with the same kind of cries that it was going to destroy America. Mostly as a thinly veiled form of racism. Every immigrant group, from the British onward, feared or hated the group(s) that came after. Read some history and see what was said about the immigrants from China, Poland, Germany, Asia, and Jews, regardless of where they came from. Even the Irish faced discrimination, based on culture, if not language.

    2) The first generation of immigrants, and to a small extent the second, NEVER fully assimilate. The Germans who came to America never really learned to speak English well, but their children did. And their Grandchildren didn't learn (or forgot) how to speak German. The same was true of the Poles, the Chinese (remember the transcontinental railroad), Jews. Even the Irish had trouble because Irish English is so different than American English.

    The first generation of immigrants cling to their culture. It's what they know, and it's a comfort in a country where everything is so different. The second generation is sometimes torn -- combining elements of both cultures and languages. The 3rd generation only knows about their original culture throught books, photo albums and family stories.
    While I agree with what is said here. This only makes reference to immigrants originating back to at least 40yrs ago. I think we all can agree that policies toward immigrants have changed significantly since then. Its not only possible to find a job without speaking english, its frowned upon to not hire someone simply because they cant.
    Forty years ago, foreign langauge if even offered at school, was elective. Now it is required.
    My point:
    Sure the second generation of kids were bilinqual. 40 yrs ago, having a private interpretor was a matter of survival.-Not true today! All large corporations have multilinqual support.
    It makes sense that the 3rd generation didn't speak the native toungue as the parents (being bilingual) had no need for their offspring to interpretate for them.
    *****

    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    None of this is new, and none of it is different. A few examples:

    My next door neighbors are immigrants from China. The wife speaks little English, and teaches music lessons to other Chinese. The husband speaks heavily accented English, enough to get by. Their son speaks fluent English, with almost no accent (as well as Chinese). His children will probably learn no more than a few phrases of Chinese. He plays basketball, video games, listens to rock music, and is pretty much as Americanized as my kids.

    My sister-in-law is Vietnamese. She was one of the 'boat people' and was a teenager when she came to the U.S. Her mom speaks virtually no English, her dad some. She speaks with an accent. Her kids speak nothing but English, and know no culture but America's. They play baseball and basketball, watch TV, play video games, go to movies, just like any other kid.

    My sons are soccer players (travel league and high school). Many of their teammates are from other countries. Most of their parents still speak their native languages at home. The kids are bilingual. Their kids probably won't be.

    A family friend emmigrated from South America as an adult. He's in his late 60's now, and learned English in his native country. He speaks both languages fluently, but English with an accent. His kids, in their 30's and 40's also learned Spanish in their native country, but came to America as children. They are bilingual, and speak English with almost no accent. But they are fully Americanized in their life style. And their kids speak only a few phrases of Spanish.

    One of my employees was born in Vietnam, and came here at age 6 or 7. She speaks English better than she does Vietnamese (and better than some of my native born American employees), and her lifestyle is really no different than the other people her age who work for me. She's married to a man whos parents are from Spain. But while he speaks Spanish (and English), he lives a typical American lifestyle, too. When they have kids, I'm pretty sure the kids will grow up speaking only English.

    One of my best friends is of Chinese ancestry. His parents emmigrated here right after they married. He's as American as I am, and speaks no Chinese.

    See a pattern here? The children or grandchildren of today's immigrants won't be "Mexican," or "Arab," or "Asian." Just as I'm not "German," even though my ancestors emigrated from Germany.
    Again, these "examples of evidence" point to immigration that originated over 40 yrs ago (at a min) The rate is much much higher and the term minority almost doesn't apply and soon will not.
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    Establish an official language, and you just encourage those who speak a different one to fight for the right to do so.

    The same argument about gun control is constantly dismissed by the libs!
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    Want a more practical argument? Without the wave of immigrants willing to work for minimum wage (or sometimes less), employers of manual labor all over the country will have to pay significantly higher wages to attract "Americans" to those jobs. That will force them to charge more for their products or services. Which will both raise inflationary pressures and reduce the demand for those higher priced items. Which result in job losses among those making and selling the products. Which results lower tax payments to the treasury, both from individuals and companies. Which means higher deficits or fewer government services (and neither Repubs or Dems have a very good record when it comes to cutting government).

    Like it or not, much of the economic growth in America over the last 20+ years has been built on the backs of cheap immigrant (and illegal immigrant) labor.
    Having employed well over 100 immigrants (Though I required documentation, I am certain a large portion of them were illegal) in the construction industry I can tell you that NONE of them were willing to work for less than the current pay scale.
    This assumption though common is bogus, at least in the construction industry. Unless however they are paid cash. Which abolishes the Bob's argument that this particular work force is somehow good for the economy.
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I’ll let Bob argue his points but I am hardly convinced that any of what Mr. Lamm said in his (alleged) speech is either true, documented and – most importantly (assuming he speaks the truth): The right steps to take. He seems to be alarmed about things that have no documented devastation.
    Oh? A few posts ago you rested your argument on "his" points.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    This country survived a civil war, for Pete’s sake. His debate (argument?) is full of mediocre predictions
    I think civil war is not a far reach. Thats what the article was trying to warn against.
    Do you remember who won? More importantly what happened to the culture that lost? Justified or not, change is immmenent!
    Last edited by sxtg; 05/06/2005 at 03:36 PM.
  20.    #60  
    Meyerweb,
    If this immigrated working class is SO "benificial" to the economy- Why is it that in Claifornia (which we all agree, has a HUGE immigration influx) that the average income is less than half of the required amount needed to qualify for the average price of a home?

    Is that the end result of a good economy?
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions