A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

BWhite · 2004-08-11 10:46:19

From Alan Keyes web-site:

We have forgotten the principle that our rights come from God and must be exercised with respect for the existence and authority of God.

I didn't interject God into our political discussions, the Republicans did. I do believe in God, I just read the words in a different way that Mr. Keyes does.

= = =

The EU is not now nor has it ever been a nation.

But they are trying to become one.

= = =

India is largely an artificial entity, created by the British Empire through force.

So is Iraq.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 11:00:55

I agree with Bill Maher that the American right fails to realize that a significant percentage of Islamic males might well choose Saddam if the alternative was permitting their wives, sisters and daughters to walk down the street in mini-skirts, along with everything else that image entails.
= = =
al Qaeda is not a "Marxist" movement. Its not about up-lifting the Muslim poor. Its about maintaining a patriarchal society where women wear veils and are not allowed to drive.

*Just saw a Yahoo! article about Iraqi Christians fleeing for refuge in Syria. They said the fundie Muslims were forcing Christian women to wear Muslim veils.

That's all religious wars are about, isn't it? Death and life (God) and sex (controlling women).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 11:07:22

I didn't interject God into our political discussions, the Republicans did. I do believe in God, I just read the words in a different way that Mr. Keyes does.

Yeah, Keyes thumps the ol' Bible a little too much for my tastes.

Quote
The EU is not now nor has it ever been a nation.
But they are trying to become one.

Which is essentially meaningless. A single currency and a powerless parliament does not a nation make.

Quote
India is largely an artificial entity, created by the British Empire through force.
So is Iraq.

Ah, somehow sensed this was coming.
Indeed it is. Fragmentation may yet occur as things develop, but one thing at a time.

clark · 2004-08-11 11:41:36

Or when it's easier, or they think they can get away with it, or they don't like the people that they're cheating, or...

When it's easier? Make it harder to commit crime. When they think they can get away with it? Make it harder to get away with. Those are solutions to problems.

They don't like the people they are cheating? Force em into a group hug.

They're all factors. Ignoring a set because you don't like the implications isn't an answer.

Culture is not a factor. It's a cop out.

Yes, all well and good. Then reality kicks in. If you're an employer, you want people who can speak English, since the bulk of your customers are likely to speak English. If someone can't, you don't hire them. I don't hire them either. Then Bill doesn't hire them. Oh no, they can't get a job! So by your own reasonign they resort to crime because it's the only way, then end up in prison. Oh, it's all our fault, we should have given this poor soul a chance.

Look, I'm not asking you to feel guilty. No one is forcing you to act guilty. They resort to crime because they can't get ahead. Make it easier to get ahead, don't put up any extra unneccessary hurdles, and they will be less inclined to commit crimes. I don't personally care if some jack ass chooses to be ignorant- they come in all colors and creeds. They make their choices, they pay the price. However, we become responsible if we create artifical sitautions that make it harder for people just to get by- to make a better life for themselves and their family.

Not being able to speak english, choosing not to, means you are making it harder on yourself by limiting your own choices. We don't need a law to make people more self responsible.

Or realisitically prepare them for life in this country by making it very clear that English is the language spoken by the vast bulk of the popualtion and is vital from an economic standpoint.

Sure, convince them. Don't force them. There is a vast difference.

India is largely an artificial entity, created by the British Empire through force.

So is half the world.

And it has fragmented. We call one of the pieces Pakistan.

Along religious lines! :laugh: Because the States choose a national religion.

Canada has problems with the Francophiles in Quebec constantly, every few years they have a referendum on secession over the language issue.

Well, I attribute it to speaking french. But the point remains, they overwhelmingly remain Canadian, even if they have an easy time to get a referendum. believe me, I'm from Cali, I understand the problems with refernedums.

China has cultural bonds to unite it.

But not language, yet somehow they cope. Why can't we?

The EU is not now nor has it ever been a nation.

They are begining. It's bit like expecting America to be a nation right after the articles of confederation.

American common culture has at it's foundation a set of values.

Language is not one of them.

A common respect for the principles behind our Constitution is far more important than the certainty that some immigrants from Sudan know who Britney Spears is and that La Shish is open next to Taco Bell.

So it is more important that we agree on the meaning, not on the language it is written in? There are other ways to achieve that than forcing everyone to speak the same language.

Whatever the overwhelming majority of people in a nation speak is the language of that land. If Congress wants to make our official language Togalog it's meaningless. What we need is to acknowledge that English is the de facto language of this country an stop pretending that encouraging new arrivals to learn it is racist or some kind of cultural imperialism.

Encourage, fine. Force, no. If it is superior to learn the native tongue, then people will naturally learn it. But hey, be more like the French.

When someone comes here and demands that I change for them it's imposing on me.

Who is demanding that you change Cobra? Who is making you speak abother language? Who is making you hire people who don't speak English?

But we need to understand that there are profound cultural differences that can't be reconciled, and that for our own safety and their prospects for success here, we should make some effort to assimilate those that come here.

They come here for a better life for themselves, and for their children. We can assimilate them by helping them make a new life here that is successful. We cannot, and we should not force them to behave in a way they are not comfortable with. We have rules, let them follow them. Let them change them if they are able. That's the basic building block of our society.

Cindy, keep guessing.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 11:58:51

I agree with Bill Maher that the American right fails to realize that a significant percentage of Islamic males might well choose Saddam if the alternative was permitting their wives, sisters and daughters to walk down the street in mini-skirts, along with everything else that image entails.
= = =
al Qaeda is not a "Marxist" movement. Its not about up-lifting the Muslim poor. Its about maintaining a patriarchal society where women wear veils and are not allowed to drive.
*Just saw a Yahoo! article about Iraqi Christians fleeing for refuge in Syria. They said the fundie Muslims were forcing Christian women to wear Muslim veils.
That's all religious wars are about, isn't it? Death and life (God) and sex (controlling women).
--Cindy

Cindy, just so we are clear.

Ending such patriarchal systems is a "good thing" - - NO question here.

That said, Abram tanks, B-2 bombers & young Marines patrolling with M-16s may not be the best tool to accomplish that goal. Remember the sitcom "All in the Family" ??

Anyway, suppose 150,000 foreign troops entered NYC and told all the Archie Bunkers to start treating women equally. How well would that work out?

Our goal in Iraq can be noble but our current means and budget are far too meager for the task for creating sexual equality in a Muslim society.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

= = =

Encourage, fine. Force, no. If it is superior to learn the native tongue, then people will naturally learn it. But hey, be more like the French.

A few weeks ago I googled "French nucelar arsenal" - - I decided to be worried about froggie revenge for Le Big Mac - - over 400 H-bombs with MIRV SLBMs. De Gaulle had no intentions of being subservient to Uncle Sam.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 12:05:18

Cindy, just so we are clear.
Ending such patriarchal systems is a "good thing" - - NO question here.
That said, Abram tanks, B-2 bombers & young Marines patrolling with M-16s may not be the best tool to accomplish that goal. Remember the sitcom "All in the Family" ??
Anyway, suppose 150,000 foreign troops entered NYC and told all the Archie Bunkers to start treating women equally. How well would that work out?
Our goal in Iraq can be noble but our current means and budget are far too meager for the task for creating sexual equality in a Muslim society.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

*We're on the same page, Bill. I agree.

Anyway, suppose 150,000 foreign troops entered NYC and told all the Archie Bunkers to start treating women equally. How well would that work out?

:laugh: Yeah, I know...

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 12:27:39

When it's easier? Make it harder to commit crime. When they think they can get away with it? Make it harder to get away with. Those are solutions to problems.

But that's the thing, it's easier to steal something than to work for it by its very nature. Crime is easy, if it required special skills it wouldn't be so widespread. Harder to get away with, that's a whole other discussion.

Culture is not a factor. It's a cop out.

That's a cop out.

An individual's cultural background, their beliefs and values can't help but influence their behavior. It's not an immutable set of instructions, but it's a powerful factor.

Not being able to speak english, choosing not to, means you are making it harder on yourself by limiting your own choices. We don't need a law to make people more self responsible.

I'm not saying we need a law, merely that we look around and notice that most people here speak English, then realize "hot damn, maybe this is important."

Sure, convince them. Don't force them. There is a vast difference.

But what we do now is make a half-assed effort to convince them, then if they don't want to learn it we throw up our hands and use their language. "Please learn our way, but we'll happily work in yours if you don't want to." Try raising a kid that way.

Quote
China has cultural bonds to unite it.
But not language, yet somehow they cope. Why can't we?

Culture and language are twin pillars. One can take some slack from the other, but we are willingly eroding both.

Quote
American common culture has at it's foundation a set of values.
Language is not one of them.

They are intertwined historically. But Culture and Language serve different purposes. Culture unites a people by giving them common values, common history, a common frame of reference. Language is more mundane, providing a mutually understood framework for communication. With common culture language can be compensated for to a degree. Common language tends to blend culture. Lacking either negates the possibilty of maintaining a coherent nation.

Quote
The EU is not now nor has it ever been a nation.
They are begining. It's bit like expecting America to be a nation right after the articles of confederation.

Best of luck to them. But so far they've proven nothing, which was my point.

Who is demanding that you change Cobra? Who is making you speak abother language? Who is making you hire people who don't speak English?

No one's making me speak another language because I don't have to. We speak English here. But for example there is the recent debacle in the Detroit area regarding mosques and the call to prayer. Most people don't want to hear passages from the Koran blasted from loudspeakers five times a day, but are so deathly afraid of being labeled as racists (it's in a predominately Polish area) that they consent. When an immigrant commits a crime, we must tread carefully while investigating lest some interest group perceive a bias and scream racism. We are expected to be tolerant of everyone that enters our communities, but when we ask for the same we're imposing our values, intolerant, or outright racist. It's absurd.

So in short, no one is forcing me to do anything because so far they can't. But now I must adapt to people who came to America knowing full well what America is, yet refusing to be a part of it instead preferring to be hostile, passive and at times actively, toward those who welcomed them to come here for a better life. Damned ungrateful if nothing else.

That said, Abram tanks, B-2 bombers & young Marines patrolling with M-16s may not be the best tool to accomplish that goal.

It's one of many tools available. We don't want to use the hammer for everything, but sometimes a nail needs driving...

Not specifically pertaining to Iraq, but in general.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 12:48:30

So in short, no one is forcing me to do anything because so far they can't. But now I must adapt to people who came to America knowing full well what America is, yet refusing to be a part of it instead preferring to be hostile, passive and at times actively, toward those who welcomed them to come here for a better life. Damned ungrateful if nothing else.

*Agreed.

I recently heard a young Muslim immigrant to England say (on TV) he hopes some day to see an Islamic flag flying above #10 Downing Street. The UK as an Islamic theocracy.

These people seem not to understand that the wealth, technological advancements, etc., which the West enjoys didn't just drop from clouds or happen by random accident. A certain set of cultural values, norms, mores, etc., allowed the science, technology, wealth, capability and power to *flourish* and grow. As contrasted to the stunted, backwards "3rd world."

We're progressive, they are not. Try and get them to see that, though...(and the fact they wouldn't enjoy the luxuries we have -- electricity, telephones, etc. -- if it weren't for Western culture in the first place).

Oh well.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2004-08-11 12:53:09

LO

La douce France:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_t … rians.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_t … rians.html

HA HA HA
I do live north of Paris close to the 93rd so "hot" suburbs,
where I do go teach science experiments in some hot schools.
I can say that the journalist who wrote this never got out of his hôtel and made a compilation of press reports.
To begin with, not any kid can break any parking meter to get the coins out of them because all the parking meters have long been replaced by credit card working ones.
All that is written are the same one eyed carricatural stances.
Put toghether, this should be such an alarming report, but reported to the whole territory, and the 60 millions froggies, it makes a very tiny criminalty rate, some american cities would dream of such a rate.
Make me think about a question by LA Chief of Police Dpt visiting his City of Lyon's homologue : " How many homicides a day in your district ?" (~1 million inhabitants district)
After french police officers ketp silent for a while, amazed by such a question, they answered
"we don't have enough homicides to register them any other way than yearly."

clark · 2004-08-11 13:02:39

But that's the thing, it's easier to steal something than to work for it by its very nature. Crime is easy, if it required special skills it wouldn't be so widespread. Harder to get away with, that's a whole other discussion.

Guess what the biggest predictor of crime is: The possibility of getting away with it. Don't believe me? Think about it next time you're on the freeway.

The criminal mind dosen't really evaluate punishment with a given crime- no amount of punishment really deters someone when they've made up their mind on something. The ability to get away with it is what determines criminal activity.

People, by and large, do not want to commit crimes. If they did, we wouldn't have much of a stable society.

An individual's cultural background, their beliefs and values can't help but influence their behavior. It's not an immutable set of instructions, but it's a powerful factor.

no culture I know of legitimately validates crime. Of course, they do differ on what is and what is not a crime- which is where we end up with a disconnect.

I'm not saying we need a law, merely that we look around and notice that most people here speak English, then realize "hot damn, maybe this is important."

most people are white. Is that important? Most people are Chrisitian. Is that important? Come on, you can do better than this Cobra.

But what we do now is make a half-assed effort to convince them, then if they don't want to learn it we throw up our hands and use their language.

Public TV is all in English. Classes are taught in English. Ads are predominently in English. Social services, which all americans pay into, should be offered in a manner that all americans can take advantage of. They pay their taxes, they have a freaking right.

Culture and language are twin pillars. One can take some slack from the other, but we are willingly eroding both.

On what do you base your sociological theory? I fail to see real evidence of what you keep claiming.

Culture unites a people by giving them common values, common history, a common frame of reference.

That would be the WASP's then? The Spanish settlement? The slaves? The french? The Dutch? The commercial settlements? The Polynessian influence? The Irish? The Roman Catholic? The German? The Amish? The Quakers? In all of these disparate cultures and languages, what is the one common denominator? A bunch of friggin people who came over here to be left the f*ck alone and live how they chose. That's pretty much our common history, our culture. Why you want to change that is beyond me.

Language is more mundane, providing a mutually understood framework for communication.

Language changes, it is not static. When it is, it dies. Just ask a Roman... in Latin. I fail to see how communication is being undermined given that we can communicate with people of different lands, races, and cultures, in an easier manner.

The EU, made up of several different lands, with different languages manages to teach their children several languages. They seem to be doing okay. Your theory has serious holes Cobra.

No one's making me speak another language because I don't have to. We speak English here.

Yet you wish to make others speak English here. YOU speak english here, many others do not.

But for example there is the recent debacle in the Detroit area regarding mosques and the call to prayer. Most people don't want to hear passages from the Koran blasted from loudspeakers five times a day, but are so deathly afraid of being labeled as racists (it's in a predominately Polish area) that they consent.

No one can make you feel guilty but yourself. There are such things as noise ordinances, and there are such things as Church bells that ring throughout the day, every hour on the hour.

But now I must adapt to people who came to America knowing full well what America is, yet refusing to be a part of it instead preferring to be hostile, passive and at times actively, toward those who welcomed them to come here for a better life.

Guess what, yuo do have to adapt. I have to adapt. We all have to adapt. that's the f*cking point. No one gets a free ride. Just because you were here first dosen't give you any more inherent rights over someone else.

BWhite · 2004-08-11 13:35:12

LO
La douce France:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_t … rians.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_t … rians.html
HA HA HA
I do live north of Paris close to the 93rd so "hot" suburbs,
where I do go teach science experiments in some hot schools.
I can say that the journalist who wrote this never got out of his hôtel and made a compilation of press reports.
To begin with, not any kid can break any parking meter to get the coins out of them because they are all only credit card working.
All that is written is the same one eyed carricatural stances.
Make me think about a question by LA Chief of Police Dpt visiting : " How many homicides a day in your district ?"
After french police officers ketp silent, amazed by such a question, they answered
"we have not enough homicides to register them any other way than yearly."

I wonder is this http://www.cybercollege.com/fog33.htm]article is true?

Can't believe everthing you find on the internet.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 13:43:36

*Seems to me monolingualism is a unifier.

I've seen U.S. military recruitment brochures printed in non-English languages. What is the point? If they can't read or speak English before joining the Army... :hm: Can't have a solid, strong military operating under multiple languages. What chaos that would be.
:-\

It's also important to keep in mind that the ancestors of most folks of European descent in this nation -didn't- speak English as their native tongue. My father didn't learn English until he was sent to public school at age 5, from the family farm (where they spoke Czech mostly).

My father had to learn English. So did his parents. So have millions of other immigrants (whether from Asia or Mexico or Norway).

Why should non-English languages in the U.S. be catered to NOW, after hundreds of years of immigration and change?

Simplify and unify. One official language.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 13:45:11

Guess what the biggest predictor of crime is: The possibility of getting away with it. Don't believe me? Think about it next time you're on the freeway.

Absolutely right. But actually making it harder to get away with is difficult and would likely involve measures we'd all find objectionable. Open societies are easy pickings from a criminal standpoint. People need an internal check as well as external pressures.

no culture I know of legitimately validates crime. Of course, they do differ on what is and what is not a crime- which is where we end up with a disconnect.

Which is precisely the point.

Quote
I'm not saying we need a law, merely that we look around and notice that most people here speak English, then realize "hot damn, maybe this is important."
most people are white. Is that important? Most people are Chrisitian. Is that important? Come on, you can do better than this Cobra.

We can both communicate with black, yellow or green non-Christians if they're speaking English. White Christians speaking Gaelic? A bit more problematic. Language is important as it's the means that allows us to express complex ideas. Undermine that and we'll be grunting and pointing at pictures of a Big Mac in short order.

Social services, which all americans pay into, should be offered in a manner that all americans can take advantage of. They pay their taxes, they have a freaking right.

Social services are not a right. And if paying into them makes us entitled, then it follows that only those paying in are entitled. In which case we should all just keep our freakin' money. ???

Quote
Culture and language are twin pillars. One can take some slack from the other, but we are willingly eroding both.

On what do you base your sociological theory? I fail to see real evidence of what you keep claiming.

Throughout history there are three elements that have bound nations together. Culture, Language, and force. Culture and language work together and support each other. In their absence, force works for as long as you can maintain it. Without external and/or internal means uniting people, they split.

That would be the WASP's then? The Spanish settlement? The slaves? The french? The Dutch? The commercial settlements? The Polynessian influence? The Irish? The Roman Catholic? The German? The Amish? The Quakers? In all of these disparate cultures and languages, what is the one common denominator? A bunch of friggin people who came over here to be left the f*ck alone and live how they chose. That's pretty much our common history, our culture. Why you want to change that is beyond me.

Yes. All kinds of Europeans came here to be left the f**k alone and spent centuries living amongst each other, gianed independence, fought numerous wars internally and against aggressors, and built a nation based on principles they all came to share. And now we are to believe that allowing hostile elements into our society who have no intent to adopt those values and in some cases wish to see them displaced is sensible? I know you mean well clark, but this isn't a happy-warm-fuzzy let's all get along world. Not everyone shows up, looks at the bounty of the West and resolves to become a law-abiding productive member of society while enriching it with their own culture diversity.

Language changes, it is not static. When it is, it dies. Just ask a Roman... in Latin. I fail to see how communication is being undermined given that we can communicate with people of different lands, races, and cultures, in an easier manner.

I'm not speaking of language as a set of rigid vocabulary and grammar rules codified in a book, but as mutually understood form of communication. If I say Zark and we both picture a burrito, it's works. But If I'm thinking burrito and you're thinking "what the hell is this a$$hole talking about?" Well, there we are.

That's the kind of communication that holds a society together, not communicating "with people of different lands, races, and cultures".

The EU, made up of several different lands, with different languages manages to teach their children several languages. They seem to be doing okay. Your theory has serious holes Cobra.

Again, the EU is not a nation. It is a collection of nations that while increasingly intermixed remain separate, with their own distinct language and culture.

Guess what, yuo do have to adapt. I have to adapt. We all have to adapt. that's the f*cking point. No one gets a free ride. Just because you were here first dosen't give you any more inherent rights over someone else.

We're increasingly finding ourselves adapting to hostile people who would not do the same for us and are unwilling to meet us halfway. This can't continue without some serious backlash, mark my words. It's going to get real nasty in the coming decades if nothing is done to alter these trends.

clark · 2004-08-11 13:46:19

Simplify and unify. One official language.
--Cindy

And, in a nutshell, that is how I know I am right. :laugh:

clark · 2004-08-11 14:06:41

But actually making it harder to get away with is difficult and would likely involve measures we'd all find objectionable. Open societies are easy pickings from a criminal standpoint. People need an internal check as well as external pressures.

More cops dosen't sound too difficult. I have routinely called for the Big Brother State on Mars for exactly this reason. I admit it isn't easy, but most things worth doing are not.

I don't think language will provide any kind of check to reduce criminal behavior. Most criminals speak english, what does that tell you?

Which is precisely the point.

I understand that, and hey, when in Rome. Beat em and throw em in jail when they screw up. Not all people who live in cultures that observe honor killings go about doing it.

Language is important as it's the means that allows us to express complex ideas. Undermine that and we'll be grunting and pointing at pictures of a Big Mac in short order.

Have you watched Jerry Springer lately?

Seriously, I understand your point, but I just can't agree to allowing the federal government choose the language we all have to speak. I don't want anyone telling me what language I may or may not use- ever. Just how I feel about it, and because I feel that way, because I try to see it from the other side of the coin, I wouldn't want to impose myself, my language on another who dosen't freely approach it. It's their loss, not mine.

Social services are not a right. And if paying into them makes us entitled, then it follows that only those paying in are entitled. In which case we should all just keep our freakin' money.

Yeah, well when your house is burning, or your child drinks something and you're calling poison control, you may thank your lucky stars that someone is there to help. Compassionate Conservatism my ass. (just teasing the heartless Republican)

Throughout history there are three elements that have bound nations together. Culture, Language, and force. Culture and language work together and support each other.

I don't buy it. Common purpose, common threats, and common pursuits bind people. Force just imprisons, and culture and language are just derivitive of geography and history. Civil War should have taught you more.

And now we are to believe that allowing hostile elements into our society who have no intent to adopt those values and in some cases wish to see them displaced is sensible? I know you mean well clark, but this isn't a happy-warm-fuzzy let's all get along world.

A very, very small percentage. A minute fraction of half a fraction. One rain drop does not a hurricane make.

. If I say Zark and we both picture a burrito, it's works. But If I'm thinking burrito and you're thinking "what the hell is this a$$hole talking about?" Well, there we are.

Yeah, I don't eat, and you don't make a dollar. I think if we are both hungry enough, we will figure out a way to understand one another- all without the beneift of some law.

We're increasingly finding ourselves adapting to hostile people who would not do the same for us and are unwilling to meet us halfway.

Last i checked, unilateral was not synonymous with "meeting half-way". Perhaps we should look at the current leadership for reasons why we are so disliked. When 9/11 happened, they were a lot of heart felt sorrow for our loss around the world. And now, ashes to ashes, dust to dust...

DonPanic · 2004-08-11 14:17:45

LO

I wonder is this http://www.cybercollege.com/fog33.htm]article is true?
Can't believe everthing you find on the internet.

Don't know
If a high majority of froggies say they are baptised christians, the french churches are quite empty on Sunday mornings,
less than 15% of population attend offices,
in some towns and villages, bells must be kept mute up to eleven or twelve o'clock on Sundays to allow non attending citizens to sleep and rest,
people dont care a lot what the Pope says about anticonception means, abortion or homosexuality,
french Church lacks of seminarists and have to "import" priests from Poland or Africa...

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 14:26:34

I don't think language will provide any kind of check to reduce criminal behavior. Most criminals speak english, what does that tell you?

??? No one suggested it will. However, people with a culture that looks down at our people doesn't help.

Seriously, I understand your point, but I just can't agree to allowing the federal government choose the language we all have to speak. I don't want anyone telling me what language I may or may not use- ever. Just how I feel about it, and because I feel that way, because I try to see it from the other side of the coin, I wouldn't want to impose myself, my language on another who dosen't freely approach it. It's their loss, not mine.

I don't want the Federal government telling me I have to anything to tell you the truth, which is why I'm not saying that Congress make English the official language. But since the vast majority of people in this country speak it as a primary language...

I don't buy it. Common purpose, common threats, and common pursuits bind people. Force just imprisons, and culture and language are just derivitive of geography and history. Civil War should have taught you more.

Common purpose and pursuits are largely based on cultural similarities, common threats are implied force. The civil war is a case of economic and cultural divergence splitting a nation, which was then re-unified through force. A combination of cultural assimilation and force, facilitated by a common language allowed that new union to endure when the force was removed.

A very, very small percentage. A minute fraction of half a fraction. One rain drop does not a hurricane make.

Which is why I'm not calling for ending immigration, but making sure that small fraction either doesn't get in or is sufficiently aware and compliant with our ways before entering the population.

Last i checked, unilateral was not synonymous with "meeting half-way".

Dude, how is expecting people who came to live in our country to at least try to fit in to some degree and obey at least the real important laws unilateral?

BWhite · 2004-08-11 14:32:21

A quote on the role of religion in Iraq. From the Christian Science Monitor.

In his sermons from Kufa, Sadr has often made specific parallels between himself and Hussein (a historic Shia martyr) and compared the United States with King Yazid. The Americans, like Yazid, are tyrants, he has said, who are leading good Muslims away from their religion. It is the duty of any Muslim to fight against such a tyrant, he says, even if it means provoking one's own death.

and more

Now, Sadr may have put himself into a classic win-win scenario. If he is killed while fighting in such a holy site, he would become a martyr, drawing thousands of Shiites to his cause. If American and Iraqi forces pull back from a final assault on Najaf - and indeed, intense negotiations have been conducted since the beginning - and create another truce with Sadr, Sadr may be seen by many as a man who stood up to the Americans.
Experts say it's a strategy that plays on the deepest cultural urges of Shiite Islam's traditions. And it just might work.
"He's a shrewd politician, because he knows that the Americans will never enter the holy tomb of Najaf," says Amatzia Baram, a noted scholar on Shiite Islam at the United States Institute for Peace in Washington. "The Americans will never do it. The Iraqi government might send in troops, but that's not a simple decision to make. So Sadr is pretending to be a martyr."
Mr. Baram laughs: "He gets to be a martyr without much chance of dying."

Trebuchet · 2004-08-11 14:38:32

I generally agree with Cobra Commander on this issue (as I usually end up agreeing with him - why oh why did I root for GI Joe as a child?). I've met and talked to immigrants of both kinds (those actively trying to assimilate and those who haven't) and the gap in what they accomplish is huge. This is without government prodding, mind you, so this is probably influenced by the amount of ambition those immigrants have, as well. But when comparing the two groups, I see successful people who have started their own businesses or are definitely on their way up, contrasted with people down at the local welfare office. I think that strongly 'suggesting' English (No bilingual education, etc) is the best way to go here. Sink or swim - people pick up language fastest that way anyhow, total immersion. And you come down like a ton of hammers on cultural ideals that violently clash with your own - like sharia law and the subjugation of women. We 'oppressed' the Mormons by strictly outlawing polygamy, we can sit on someone else's views of women and marriage we find objectionable as well.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 14:47:13

I'm not saying that Congress make English the official language. But since the vast majority of people in this country speak it as a primary language...

*Why not?

Maybe an explanation is in order.

Look, I don't have a problem with people using secondary languages (their native/ethnic language). My spouse and I often frequent restaurants where the menu is printed in both English and Spanish. I can order a meal in Spanish, can converse to a point. My father kept up his Czech. Being bilingual/multilingual is an asset.

But what I was referring to are road/mileage signs, public school textbooks, etc. Which is basically what we have today anyway. -However-:

There have been calls for road signs, class courses, Federal/state building signs, etc., etc., to be bilingual or multilingual. At what cost? To what extent? Should New Yorkers have to pay for road signs in English...and Spanish, Cantonese, Vietnamese, German, Italian, Swahili, Arabic, etc.? I'm imagining road signs 50 x 50 feet just to accommodate it all. This is a PC nightmare. Everyone must be accommodated (who yell loud enough for it) or we stick to 1 language orientation. Are there other options?

I don't want Congress yelling down orders and acting like oafs either. I don't like being told what to do anymore than the next American does, I suppose. But everyone's got to sacrifice a little for the greater good.

E Plurbus Unum (out of many - one): Isn't that our national motto?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 14:50:45

I generally agree with Cobra Commander on this issue (as I usually end up agreeing with him - why oh why did I root for GI Joe as a child?).

Media bias. :laugh:

I think that strongly 'suggesting' English (No bilingual education, etc) is the best way to go here. Sink or swim - people pick up language fastest that way anyhow, total immersion. And you come down like a ton of hammers on cultural ideals that violently clash with your own - like sharia law and the subjugation of women.

Precisely. That's all I'm suggesting, we offer English or... not, while demonstrating that you kinda need it in most situations. Everyone has to choose for themselves of course, we're just sayin'... And since we're not just a place for the huddled masses to start over, but also a home to some 300 million people we have a responsibility to ensure that we aren't letting in people who are a danger to those already here. Downright sensible if you ask me. :;):

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-11 15:02:20

Quote (Cobra Commander @ Aug. 11 2004, 16:26)
I'm not saying that Congress make English the official language. But since the vast majority of people in this country speak it as a primary language...
*Why not?
Maybe an explanation is in order.

I must explain myself again. :laugh: Very well.

There was a time, not too long ago when I was very supportive of the idea of making English the official language. Now, I'm not opposed to it but I don't think it's really necessary, or even the best way to go about it. Congress declaring that English be the official language of this country really doesn't address the problem unless we teach it properly, not only to immigrants but in our schools. We need to get the states to accept it as well, since each state is responsible for administering its own welfare system. Do we need that application in Arabic or Vietnamese? Surely it's not too much to ask that someone seeking to reside in this country and partake of the social safety net try to read the application. It's only two pages, not much seeing as how there's six languages on it. Making English the official language doesn't mandate anything be done, except at the federal level. No Federal Election Commission forms in Spanish? Not a huge impact.

What's needed is a recognition that English is the language of the land and that it's important that we all be able to communicate reliably. If they want it official I won't try to stop them, but I won't think much of it if that's all they do.

Dook · 2004-08-11 15:08:14

I agree. Making English the 'official language' would save some money because documents would then only be printed in English but is it really that big of a deal to have a few forms printed in Spanish or Chinese?

Now if someone comes here from Zabudisgan and only speaks Zabudisga then he/she should expect that they will have problems communicating and that it's not the fault of the government in that case.

Palomar · 2004-08-11 15:18:01

Look, I don't have a problem with people using secondary languages (their native/ethnic language). My spouse and I often frequent restaurants where the menu is printed in both English and Spanish. I can order a meal in Spanish, can converse to a point. My father kept up his Czech. Being bilingual/multilingual is an asset.
But what I was referring to are road/mileage signs, public school textbooks, etc. Which is basically what we have today anyway. -However-:
There have been calls for road signs, class courses, Federal/state building signs, etc., etc., to be bilingual or multilingual. At what cost? To what extent? Should New Yorkers have to pay for road signs in English...and Spanish, Cantonese, Vietnamese, German, Italian, Swahili, Arabic, etc.? I'm imagining road signs 50 x 50 feet just to accommodate it all. This is a PC nightmare. Everyone must be accommodated (who yell loud enough for it) or we stick to 1 language orientation. Are there other options?
I don't want Congress yelling down orders and acting like oafs either. I don't like being told what to do anymore than the next American does, I suppose. But everyone's got to sacrifice a little for the greater good.
E Plurbus Unum (out of many - one): Isn't that our national motto?
--Cindy

*Want to add this:

Another concern in relation to this goes back to the anti-assimilation/racism issue.

Around 1994 a news story came out of a Midwestern state. A woman who'd immigrated from a Latin American nation (forgot which) obtained a lawyer, demanding her needs be met in Spanish. In order words, she wanted to be catered to. An accusation wasn't made but the insinuation was there: She was a victim of racism. She shouldn't have to speak English in a Midwestern state where probably 98.9% of the people then spoke English. She was being "picked on," etc.

How strange, then, to recall my mother talking about moving to the same state in 1958 to marry my father. She'd been born speaking English. Now she's going out to the dance hall in a small nearby town with my father, hearing people laughing and talking in Czech and German (as they often did during private get-togethers, etc.). Those folks had to learn English as well, to get along in day-to-day American life. So the complaints of the Latina lady in 1994 sure seems like a slap in the face to non-Latino immigrants who had to learn English to get by.

Again, I feel this goes back to the "assimilate or not" issue. And again, I don't mind if people are bilingual or multilingual. But Federal, state, municipal, etc., literature and proceedings, etc., should (IMO) be and remain in English. I think of those U.S. military recruitment brochures in a non-English language. :hm:

--Cindy

P.S.: Cobra, I see your response. Sorry...I didn't mean to make you repeat yourself.

Gennaro · 2004-08-11 15:18:13

Sorry Cindy, but I’ll have to address this unmitigated nonsense. (Clark, sorry I'll have to do this to you.)

I subscribe to a basic premise, a man is a man, no matter his skin color, his god, or his language.

Ok. So what?

Some are good men, some are bad. Look to your own prisons and you will see the common denominator among those who have committed violent crime is their level of intelligence, and their socio-economic background. Basically, their lack of choice and opportunity that causes them to turn towards violence.

Maybe. So what? Why should I import a lot of people, creating tough socio-economic backgrounds, so I’ll then have to care about readjusting them into the community? You’re putting the wagon in front of the horse.

After all of that, guess what, they get to go live their life as they choose. Not as you or I may choose, but their own choice. If that means they celebrate strange holidays or observe weird things, so much the better. I routinely paint hard boiled eggs every year and pretend an imaginary bunny hides them. Whose crazy?

If you think this is about egg painting, or whether I care if native Polynesians celebrate summer solstice in honor of the great pink fertility bunny, you need to wise up, pal.

Now, I see talk of integration and assimilation, and you know what, that would be great. But I doubt any of you have the stomach for what that would require. It would require the subsidization and forced integration of entire neighborhoods.

Well it’s my stomach isn’t it? Why should a country be forced to accept a lot of immigration in the first place?

When you're an immigrant, to anywhere, you generally don't know the lay of the land. You end up gravitating towards places that speak your native tongue, or that you can afford. Presto! Instant ghetto. Instant reinforcement of cultural values based on proximity within a specific geographical location that prevents full cultural assimilation.

Ok, and what of it? People are free to move and live wherever they want, yes?

It's an economic problem because American's, natural born, end up with more choices, ergo, they end up with more socio-economic prosperity by and large, which leads to them living on one side of town, and those with less socio-economic prosperity living on the other side of town.

Which isn’t the fault of America’s natural born, at all.

It isn't religion that is doing this, it's life.

How do you know? And again, so what? If I get uninvited guests thanking for the pudding by breaking my windows you’d be damn sure I throw them out of my house.

And just because the media throws you a few hot-button quotes from some ignorant jack asses to grab your eyeballs, you feel justified in generalizing this attitude to a religion and culture that encompasses millions upon millions. Brilliant deducing Watson.

Well, those quotes were almost like once in a lifetime for this particular mainstream publication. A momentary lapse of the informal censorship regulation.
Still, I could dig up so many references about ‘exotic behavior’ by certain nationals I’d literally drown you in it. It’s clear you haven’t got the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
Neither do you seem to understand the meaning of the exchange you referred to.

If you read your history, which it seems some do not, you might realize that "immigration" has been an issue that is routinely used by the media and by politicans to drive a wedge between people. Just like playing one color off another, or one class off another. Divide and conquer.

Oh, come now, Sherlock! I’ve read more history than you can imagine. Besides, we’re not discussing some half-imagined ‘routine fact’ of history here, but today. If you believe European media is anything but extremely immigration friendly and multiculturalist to the point of daily reality distortion and self denial, trying to bring the native population into submission by feeling bad about itself, you should come over here and take a look for yourself.

The immigrants are not the problem. Some bad people are. Them's the breaks. You can either give in to the knee jerk reaction, and never actually solve anything- or, you can say, "hey, maybe we need some more cops, or we need some more politicans to work on bringing jobs into the community."

Some people are good, some people are bad. A fourth time (I’m losing count), so what? Why should I work to bring jobs into a community, pay for cops and try scoping up the shattered lives of my kin, because of accommodating some people who have no justification for entering it in the first place?
States are sovereign, see? Their responsibility is to their citizens. Rights follow from citizenship. There’s no cosmic law allowing universal trespassing.

Whatever, the choice is yours. But most end up taking the easy one. The one that does nothing, but makes you feel like you did.

Yeah, it’s obvious you won’t take the easy way out. You’re trying to put a carriage in front of a horse.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-08-11 10:46:19

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#27 2004-08-11 11:00:55

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#28 2004-08-11 11:07:22

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#29 2004-08-11 11:41:36

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#30 2004-08-11 11:58:51

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#31 2004-08-11 12:05:18

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#32 2004-08-11 12:27:39

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#33 2004-08-11 12:48:30

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#34 2004-08-11 12:53:09

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#35 2004-08-11 13:02:39

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#36 2004-08-11 13:35:12

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#37 2004-08-11 13:43:36

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#38 2004-08-11 13:45:11

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#39 2004-08-11 13:46:19

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#40 2004-08-11 14:06:41

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#41 2004-08-11 14:17:45

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#42 2004-08-11 14:26:34

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#43 2004-08-11 14:32:21

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#44 2004-08-11 14:38:32

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#45 2004-08-11 14:47:13

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#46 2004-08-11 14:50:45

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#47 2004-08-11 15:02:20

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#48 2004-08-11 15:08:14

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#49 2004-08-11 15:18:01

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

#50 2004-08-11 15:18:13

Re: A Small Report From Europe - It's about immigration

Board footer