Justice Dept Files Suit Against Arizona.

[MMI]

In the first place, American Sign Language is English. Just not spoken English.

In the second place, no one is claiming that someone is not American just because English is not their first language. But how does someone live in a country for 18 years without learning the language? If you were to emigrate to, for example, Finland, would you expect the Finnish government to provide English language signs and documents to ease your way? Or would you learn Finnish?

And let's not forget, regardless of the reasons, we are speaking of illegal immigrants here. Not just Hispanics, but ALL illegals. I defy anyone to name any other country in the world which allows illegal immigrants to affect government policy! It's not only stupid to do so, it's insane!

It's not for me to contradict you, Thorne, but, according to the US Census-takers, ASL is another language. I simply defer to their greater wisdom.

What puzzles me is why everyone is making such a fuss because someone else speaks the nation's second language (eventually to be its first) - as if that, in itself, was reason for deportation. It's not at all surprising that a Spanish speaker would speak Spanish in a state that belonged to Spain or has been under Spanish influence from the middle of the 16th century until about 160 years ago.

I can assure you that the British government publishes documents in a variety of European and Asian languages ... even Celtic languages on occasion, and runs Asian and Celtic language radio & tv stations, too. If there were sufficient demand, I'm sure the BBC would open a new Spanish channel, too. If a speaker of a foreign language comes over here and discovers he needs help to avail himself of the vast array of benefits and services we gladly provide to such parasites (for no other reason than we're insane) then there is a vast array of leaflets and other publications in every tongue you can imagine so that he doesn't have to miss out on a single week's benefits for lack of understanding!

Why, we even have road signs in French, German, and God knows what other languages reminding these interlopers to drive on the left - although our free health service is always available in case of accident.

And, Thorne, I shall be visiting Finland shortly. I expect to be able to confirm that most Finns will speak to me in English, and that there will be many signs in airports, hotels and elsewhere in English designed to help me get about. If I visit museums, cathedrals or other sights, there will be brochures in English explaining the exhibits etc.

Finally, I don't believe ther is a single government in the world that doesn't have an immigration policy affected by the immigrants it wants to receive and those it doesn't. Basically, if you're wealthy or have a special skill, you're welcome. If you're poor and uneducated, you can just fuck off.

[steelish]

It's not for me to contradict you, Thorne, but, according to the US Census-takers, ASL is another language. I simply defer to their greater wisdom.

Basically, if you're wealthy or have a special skill, you're welcome. If you're poor and uneducated, you can just fuck off.

ROFLAMO! If you view the US Census-takers as having great wisdom, that explains a lot.

As to that second statement, I guess you aren't familiar with the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door." by Emma Lazarus.

We INVITE those who are poor, uneducated. Basically - those who are "outcasts" for their poverty in other nations. There are thousands upon thousands who have come here LEGALLY and made a good living for themselves. America is a land of opportunity FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK FOR WHAT THEY WANT.

Before it was even put in place, the Arizona immigration law was already working because illegal immigrants were self deporting themselves to avoid prosecution. It does seem strange that a court would be so afraid of a law that specifically forbids law enforcement from racially profiling - but that wasn't enough for the courts (and a Clinton appointed Judge) to jump to the rescue of the paranoid left - who worry about kids being scooped up while they enjoy an ice cream cone.

[Thorne]

It's not for me to contradict you, Thorne, but, according to the US Census-takers, ASL is another language. I simply defer to their greater wisdom.

I guess it's just semantics. I'll concede the point.

What puzzles me is why everyone is making such a fuss because someone else speaks the nation's second language (eventually to be its first) - as if that, in itself, was reason for deportation.

It's not because they speak Spanish, but because they haven't bothered to learn to speak English as well. Again, if I were moving to another country, I would make damned sure I learned the dominant language of that country. It only makes sense.

If a speaker of a foreign language comes over here and discovers he needs help to avail himself of the vast array of benefits and services we gladly provide to such parasites (for no other reason than we're insane) then there is a vast array of leaflets and other publications in every tongue you can imagine so that he doesn't have to miss out on a single week's benefits for lack of understanding!

See? By your own admission, it's insane to provide benefits for every person who enters the country, whether legally or not. That's all we've been saying: DON'T provide those benefits, DON'T make things easy for them, DON'T allow them to stay illegally. IT'S INSANE!!

And, Thorne, I shall be visiting Finland shortly. I expect to be able to confirm that most Finns will speak to me in English, and that there will be many signs in airports, hotels and elsewhere in English designed to help me get about. If I visit museums, cathedrals or other sights, there will be brochures in English explaining the exhibits etc.

Naturally. You're a tourist, and they want tourist money. I don't have any problem with that. I don't have a problem with companies who provide signs and ads in both English and Spanish. It only makes economic sense. What I object to is the government providing aid to criminals (aka illegal aliens) who have not, and will not, payed into the system they are destroying.

Finally, I don't believe ther is a single government in the world that doesn't have an immigration policy affected by the immigrants it wants to receive and those it doesn't. Basically, if you're wealthy or have a special skill, you're welcome. If you're poor and uneducated, you can just fuck off.

Exactly! So why do you assume that the US should be any different. Why castigate the American people because they want the same policies as any other country. Despite the fact that our government doesn't care to enforce those policies. There are enough poor and uneducated people in this country without importing more.

[chuck]

I came across this article. If the author is correct, why hasn't this point been brought up previously? Also if the author is correct, this shows how the Constitution is no longer relevant.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

FTA (emphasis and formating lost in the cut and paste):

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).
[...snip...]
Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you
[...snip...]
...Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!
[...snip...]
Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

[DuncanONeil]

After a careful reading of both the Constitution and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81 (13th para) I am forced to concluded differently than both you and Publius Huldah. Though the language seems clear the meaning is not. The "State" in question is not a subordinate member of the Union, but that of a Foreign State as is shown by Hamilton's repeated references to sovereigns and consuls.

I came across this article. If the author is correct, why hasn't this point been brought up previously? Also if the author is correct, this shows how the Constitution is no longer relevant.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

FTA (emphasis and formating lost in the cut and paste):

[chuck]

After a careful reading of both the Constitution and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81 (13th para) I am forced to concluded differently than both you and Publius Huldah. Though the language seems clear the meaning is not. The "State" in question is not a subordinate member of the Union, but that of a Foreign State as is shown by Hamilton's repeated references to sovereigns and consuls.

I don't claim to be an attorney or even a student of law, but as a layman, I don't see how you come to your conclusion. In the paragraph above the one in question (in Article III Section 2.) I find this list: "--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

In that list, the wording uses the term "foreign states" to differentiate between states of the USA and other states. I don't see why you assume the usage of the word "state" would be different in the very next paragraph. (The Eleventh Amendment also is careful to include the descriptor "foreign" when referencing a foreign state.)

[DuncanONeil]

I explained in my original response. Since when is the Governor of a state referred to a soverign? Since when does a member state have a consulate with the national Government or vice versa. These references clear make "state" to have the meaning of "the body politic as organized for civil rule and government" as opposed to "any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America."
Therefore the subordinate courts do have jurisdiction.

I don't claim to be an attorney or even a student of law, but as a layman, I don't see how you come to your conclusion. In the paragraph above the one in question (in Article III Section 2.) I find this list: "--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

In that list, the wording uses the term "foreign states" to differentiate between states of the USA and other states. I don't see why you assume the usage of the word "state" would be different in the very next paragraph. (The Eleventh Amendment also is careful to include the descriptor "foreign" when referencing a foreign state.)

[chuck]

I can't disagree with you and I respect that you have more background and have done more research than I have. My original question reflected that I had doubts about the validity of the premise of an article from a source that is obviously biased. But my doubts are based on the fact that I have seen nothing in the way of that concept being raised by the parties involved... parties that have more incentive, background, and research capability than either of us. But other than that, I still have not heard anything that refutes the contention of the author. Frankly, your response confuses me more than it explains.

I explained in my original response. Since when is the Governor of a state referred to a soverign?

I did not find a reference to a governor of a state being referred to as a sovereign in your response or in the original article. However, I did find the State of Arizona named as a defendant in the article.

Since when does a member state have a consulate with the national Government or vice versa.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

These references clear make "state" to have the meaning of "the body politic as organized for civil rule and government" as opposed to "any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America."
Therefore the subordinate courts do have jurisdiction.

"These references" I have to assume are the Constitution and The Federalist Papers yet I cannot find the quotes you provided in them. As mentioned before, the Constitution seems to contradict your concept that the word "state" excludes the states in the USA. I have not read the Federalist Papers as you have indicated that you have, but I did refer to the paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph that was referenced in the article. In both of those paragraphs, the word "state" was clearly used to address the states in the USA. In the paragraph following the paragraph under discussion, the word "nation" was used when a more general term was needed.

I appreciate your effort to explain why the contention of the article is wrong, but so far, you have only supplied references that support it.

[DuncanONeil]

I guess it's just semantics. I'll concede the point.

I won't concede! The question as asked by the Census is "Does this person speak a language other than English at home?". Based on that and the other two questions it is to develop an understanding of how people are doing at becoming American!

It's not because they speak Spanish, but because they haven't bothered to learn to speak English as well. Again, if I were moving to another country, I would make damned sure I learned the dominant language of that country. It only makes sense.

I have recently learned that many, if not most, of the illegals have Spanish as a second language!

Naturally. You're a tourist, and they want tourist money. I don't have any problem with that. I don't have a problem with companies who provide signs and ads in both English and Spanish. It only makes economic sense. What I object to is the government providing aid to criminals (aka illegal aliens) who have not, and will not, payed into the system they are destroying.

I can not speak to Finland though I can get info on Sweden as my son recently visited there. I do know about Japan. You can find sign written in English letters but that is about it. Most all highway signs are in Kanjii, while signs on transit platforms can be found in Kanjii, Kana, and Romajii. Romajii is likely the only that you will recognize. if it is the name of the town you might be able to know what to do. I am sure you can read "Fuji", "Tokyo" and the like but they are not in English! But pray tell what is 東京 or 日本 or even 中川?(

[MMI]

I guess it's just semantics. I'll concede the point.

Thank-you

It's not because they speak Spanish, but because they haven't bothered to learn to speak English as well. Again, if I were moving to another country, I would make damned sure I learned the dominant language of that country. It only makes sense.

Good for you.

I don't know if we still have any monoglot Gaelic or Welsh speakers, but it's not so long ago that we did. Should they have been made to learn English, simply because most people spoke that language? I do believe there are native indians in USA who don't speak English. What are you going to do about that?

We do have second generation Asian families in this country who do not speak English: they do not need to. Their friends and acquaintances speak their language, so why should they have to learn an alien language. If they need to communicate with a monoglot English speaker, they'll find an interpreter (who will also be an imigrant). Wouldn't it be a courtesy if some of us learned their language instead?

The trouble with Americans is that they have inherited from us that dreadful Anglo-Saxon arrogance which leads them to believe that everyone else must learn English, while all an English speaker has to do when in a foreign country is shout louder. All we've succeeded in doing is erase countless cultures.

Which language would you have everyone in India speak? What about China? Should everyone be made to learn Cantonese?

See? By your own admission, it's insane to provide benefits for every person who enters the country, whether legally or not. That's all we've been saying: DON'T provide those benefits, DON'T make things easy for them, DON'T allow them to stay illegally. IT'S INSANE!!

Evidently, my sarcasm went straight over your head.

Naturally. You're a tourist, and they want tourist money. I don't have any problem with that. I don't have a problem with companies who provide signs and ads in both English and Spanish. It only makes economic sense. What I object to is the government providing aid to criminals (aka illegal aliens) who have not, and will not, payed into the system they are destroying.

They are NOT fucking destroying your system, and if only you'd let them, they'd contribute just as much as your forefathers did after they entered America. It's the blinkered, isolationist, self-righteous bigots who want to keep America pure who will destroy the system.

Exactly! So why do you assume that the US should be any different. Why castigate the American people because they want the same policies as any other country. Despite the fact that our government doesn't care to enforce those policies. There are enough poor and uneducated people in this country without importing more.

Why? Because it's wrong!

Wouldn't it be a much better idea simply to improve your education system? Then, the invitation Steelish has quoted to me with such pride would once more have meaning, rather than sounding as hollow as the Statue they appear on. Just try getting a Green Card and you'll see why so many give up and cross the border illegally.

[Thorne]

I don't know if we still have any monoglot Gaelic or Welsh speakers, but it's not so long ago that we did. Should they have been made to learn English, simply because most people spoke that language?

Why? Most likely they are in their own country (illegally appropriated by the British?). They aren't really all that interested in speaking with the English.

I do believe there are native indians in USA who don't speak English. What are you going to do about that?

I don't know about that! They've had to learn English in order to run their casinos. Either that or they are speaking Spanish, because when Spain, and then Mexico, owned those territories they sure as hell weren't interested in learning Apache!

We do have second generation Asian families in this country who do not speak English: they do not need to. Their friends and acquaintances speak their language, so why should they have to learn an alien language. If they need to communicate with a monoglot English speaker, they'll find an interpreter (who will also be an imigrant). Wouldn't it be a courtesy if some of us learned their language instead?

A courtesy, yes. But it shouldn't be a requirement. It's getting to that point here in the US, if it hasn't already. If WalMart, for example, wants to post bi-lingual signs in order to accommodate Spanish speaking customers, more power to them: it makes good business sense. But if a Mom-and-Pop restaurant doesn't care to entice Spanish speaking customers, because they don't speak Spanish themselves, why should they be required to post signs in Spanish?

The trouble with Americans is that they have inherited from us that dreadful Anglo-Saxon arrogance which leads them to believe that everyone else must learn English, while all an English speaker has to do when in a foreign country is shout louder. All we've succeeded in doing is erase countless cultures.

Oh, so THAT'S where that comes from! Well thanks a pant load!

Fortunately for me I come from Eastern European stock, so I managed to miss that particular disease, though it embarrasses me no end when I hear about such things.

Which language would you have everyone in India speak? What about China? Should everyone be made to learn Cantonese?

Personally, I don't give a damn what they speak. That's their problem, not mine.

Evidently, my sarcasm went straight over your head.

Well, if you're going to make your sarcasm so sensible, it's your own fault.

They are NOT fucking destroying your system, and if only you'd let them, they'd contribute just as much as your forefathers did after they entered America. It's the blinkered, isolationist, self-righteous bigots who want to keep America pure who will destroy the system.

Well let's see now. They come into the country illegally, costing billions of dollars in an effort to keep them out. But wait! You say it's wrong to keep them out! We can do away with the border patrols and the border crossings. We'll just let anyone in who wants to come. Drug dealers, gang members, terrorist. What the hell! They're only looking for their part of the American dream, right?

But they're utilizing infrastructure, despite the fact that they don't pay taxes to help pay for that infrastructure, thereby costing us billions more dollars. Perhaps if we didn't have to pay for illegals we could afford better health care for tax paying citizens.

Wouldn't it be a much better idea simply to improve your education system?

And if we didn't have to pay for educating the children of these illegals we could afford a better education system for our own children.

Just try getting a Green Card and you'll see why so many give up and cross the border illegally.

So basically, you're saying that the American people should feel responsible because the Mexican and Central American governments can't support their own populations? But when we try to do something to help a foreign country regain control of itself we are accused of being modern-day conquistadors, slashing and burning our way through peaceful civilizations.

Well maybe the solution is to send all of the illegals entering the US over to England. After all, you'd be more than happy to help them. Wouldn't you?

[MMI]

So basically, you're saying that the American people should feel responsible because the Mexican and Central American governments can't support their own populations? But when we try to do something to help a foreign country regain control of itself we are accused of being modern-day conquistadors, slashing and burning our way through peaceful civilizations.

Maybe I am saying both of those things, but without the connection you are making.
(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.
(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over

(I know Britain is just as bad, but at least we don't enact laws that are designed to allow Hispanics to be persecuted in such a way.)

[QUOTE=Thorne;882909]Well maybe the solution is to send all of the illegals entering the US over to England. After all, you'd be more than happy to help them. Wouldn't you?[/QUOTE

Tell you what, I'll take your Hispanics: you take our Anglo-Saxons.

[Thorne]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Not quite. I resent being forced to help those who commit crimes against me and my country. I resent being forced to help those who demand that help without making any effort to help themselves. I resent being forced to help those who would spit on me because I refuse to learn their language, while they in turn refuse to learn the language of those they seek help from.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over

Sadly, there has been far too much of that.

(I know Britain is just as bad, but at least we don't enact laws that are designed to allow Hispanics to be persecuted in such a way.)

And yet the law is not specifically aimed at Hispanics, but at ILLEGALS! Of ANY nationality. True, Hispanics make up the vast majority of those illegals, especially along the southern borders, but that's more an accident of geography than any hostility towards Hispanics in general. Are there those who discriminate against Hispanics. Sure there are, and they are wrong. Just as those who discriminate against African-Americans are wrong. Or those who discriminate against Irish, or Scots, or Italians or any other nationality you care to name. Personally, I don't discriminate against anyone. I only ask that those who violate the law be treated as criminals, not as poor unfortunates who don't know any better and deserve more than an actual law-abiding citizen.

Tell you what, I'll take your Hispanics: you take our Anglo-Saxons.

Tempting, tempting, but no, you'll have to take all the Irish as well.

[denuseri]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Excuse me our Country also does far more than any others to help those same people.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over.

You mean like we did with England, France, Italy, Germany and Japan...some of which are among the most prosperous nations on earth?

[MMI]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Excuse me our Country also does far more than any others to help those same people.

It's true that the US provides much more foreign aid than any other country, but it needs to be noted where that aid goes before you claim to be doing more than any other to help poorer nations. By far the greatest part of US foreign aid goes to "front-line" states (according to my out-of-date sources, to Israel and Egypt, mostly, neither of which is a developing country, but I'm sure a significant amount is going to Afghanistan and Iraq, too) to support USA's military and political objectives, while the development needs of countries like India receive relatively miniscule amounts. On the other hand, Nordic countries, which give significantly more per head of population than America gives, although less in dollar terms, channel their aid towards the regions where they believe it will do most good.

It's not for nothing that the richest country in the world is known as a "generous miser," because it is recognised that aid from America is given for the donor's benefit, not the recipient's.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over.

You mean like we did with England, France, Italy, Germany and Japan...some of which are among the most prosperous nations on earth?

I don't know what you are referring to; the Marshall Plan perhaps? It took us until at least the year 2000 to repay the credit you gave us, so, like I said, when you take into account the profits you made on the goods you supplied to help our recovery, plus the interest you received for the credit extended, then the aid you gave was for your benefit rather than ours.

Whether you did mean the Marshall Plan or not, it is true that the countries you mention are all under your direct influence ... so much so that we in Britain frequently call ourselves the 51st state. However, you did not change our government, nor France's.

Finally, if you add the economies of those five nations together, the total would compare with the size of the American economy, yet you'd probably find that the aid given by those five nations far exceeds the aid given by America (I can only find stats for 2002, where those countries' aid donations were twice those of America).

If I've missed the point, i apologise: please explain.

[DuncanONeil]

You have noticed that manufactures of the products we use every day are not labeling in both English and Spanish.

What about the Hmong, why do they have to learn one of these two languages to get along??

Why? Most likely they are in their own country (illegally appropriated by the British?). They aren't really all that interested in speaking with the English.


I don't know about that! They've had to learn English in order to run their casinos. Either that or they are speaking Spanish, because when Spain, and then Mexico, owned those territories they sure as hell weren't interested in learning Apache!


A courtesy, yes. But it shouldn't be a requirement. It's getting to that point here in the US, if it hasn't already. If WalMart, for example, wants to post bi-lingual signs in order to accommodate Spanish speaking customers, more power to them: it makes good business sense. But if a Mom-and-Pop restaurant doesn't care to entice Spanish speaking customers, because they don't speak Spanish themselves, why should they be required to post signs in Spanish?


Oh, so THAT'S where that comes from! Well thanks a pant load!

Fortunately for me I come from Eastern European stock, so I managed to miss that particular disease, though it embarrasses me no end when I hear about such things.


Personally, I don't give a damn what they speak. That's their problem, not mine.


Well, if you're going to make your sarcasm so sensible, it's your own fault.


Well let's see now. They come into the country illegally, costing billions of dollars in an effort to keep them out. But wait! You say it's wrong to keep them out! We can do away with the border patrols and the border crossings. We'll just let anyone in who wants to come. Drug dealers, gang members, terrorist. What the hell! They're only looking for their part of the American dream, right?

But they're utilizing infrastructure, despite the fact that they don't pay taxes to help pay for that infrastructure, thereby costing us billions more dollars. Perhaps if we didn't have to pay for illegals we could afford better health care for tax paying citizens.


And if we didn't have to pay for educating the children of these illegals we could afford a better education system for our own children.



So basically, you're saying that the American people should feel responsible because the Mexican and Central American governments can't support their own populations? But when we try to do something to help a foreign country regain control of itself we are accused of being modern-day conquistadors, slashing and burning our way through peaceful civilizations.

Well maybe the solution is to send all of the illegals entering the US over to England. After all, you'd be more than happy to help them. Wouldn't you?

[DuncanONeil]

There is a great deal I coukld say about this post of yours but I am a bit tired or being repetitious.

So since everything I would have to say boils down to one thing that is what I will say.

YOU ARE WRONG!

Thank-you



Good for you.

I don't know if we still have any monoglot Gaelic or Welsh speakers, but it's not so long ago that we did. Should they have been made to learn English, simply because most people spoke that language? I do believe there are native indians in USA who don't speak English. What are you going to do about that?

We do have second generation Asian families in this country who do not speak English: they do not need to. Their friends and acquaintances speak their language, so why should they have to learn an alien language. If they need to communicate with a monoglot English speaker, they'll find an interpreter (who will also be an imigrant). Wouldn't it be a courtesy if some of us learned their language instead?

The trouble with Americans is that they have inherited from us that dreadful Anglo-Saxon arrogance which leads them to believe that everyone else must learn English, while all an English speaker has to do when in a foreign country is shout louder. All we've succeeded in doing is erase countless cultures.

Which language would you have everyone in India speak? What about China? Should everyone be made to learn Cantonese?



Evidently, my sarcasm went straight over your head.



They are NOT fucking destroying your system, and if only you'd let them, they'd contribute just as much as your forefathers did after they entered America. It's the blinkered, isolationist, self-righteous bigots who want to keep America pure who will destroy the system.



Why? Because it's wrong!

Wouldn't it be a much better idea simply to improve your education system? Then, the invitation Steelish has quoted to me with such pride would once more have meaning, rather than sounding as hollow as the Statue they appear on. Just try getting a Green Card and you'll see why so many give up and cross the border illegally.

[DuncanONeil]

Many, if not most, of the illegal immigrants speak Spanish as a second language when they walk across the border! Why then is it so hard for them to pick up another language. Especially when they can use it every day?

Nobody has said that immigrate to US is a picnic. But is that sufficient grounds to aborgate the law and allow wholesale ignorance thereof? The issue, as has been said often enough, it is not a matter of race but legality!~!

It's not for me to contradict you, Thorne, but, according to the US Census-takers, ASL is another language. I simply defer to their greater wisdom.

What puzzles me is why everyone is making such a fuss because someone else speaks the nation's second language (eventually to be its first) - as if that, in itself, was reason for deportation. It's not at all surprising that a Spanish speaker would speak Spanish in a state that belonged to Spain or has been under Spanish influence from the middle of the 16th century until about 160 years ago.

I can assure you that the British government publishes documents in a variety of European and Asian languages ... even Celtic languages on occasion, and runs Asian and Celtic language radio & tv stations, too. If there were sufficient demand, I'm sure the BBC would open a new Spanish channel, too. If a speaker of a foreign language comes over here and discovers he needs help to avail himself of the vast array of benefits and services we gladly provide to such parasites (for no other reason than we're insane) then there is a vast array of leaflets and other publications in every tongue you can imagine so that he doesn't have to miss out on a single week's benefits for lack of understanding!

Why, we even have road signs in French, German, and God knows what other languages reminding these interlopers to drive on the left - although our free health service is always available in case of accident.

And, Thorne, I shall be visiting Finland shortly. I expect to be able to confirm that most Finns will speak to me in English, and that there will be many signs in airports, hotels and elsewhere in English designed to help me get about. If I visit museums, cathedrals or other sights, there will be brochures in English explaining the exhibits etc.

Finally, I don't believe ther is a single government in the world that doesn't have an immigration policy affected by the immigrants it wants to receive and those it doesn't. Basically, if you're wealthy or have a special skill, you're welcome. If you're poor and uneducated, you can just fuck off.