“Why Aren’t You Speaking English?”

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
Anyone here speak Lakota? I'm Native American.
2nd

thank you , for raising the point , how many immigrants back then and even today bothered to learn to speak the local langauges or dialects ?
NONE
is it taught in schools no !
the arguement by that senator is total rubbish

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Totally , do you think that immigrants of yester year , where no more illegal than today , accept that maybe 100 years ago they had less security at borders to stop illegal immigrants .
100 years ago there were probably illegal immigrants in their thousands compared to today i think the number is significantly less , especially with gung ho americans taking the law into their own hands and defending the american border from illegal immigrants.

Borders are imposed by the governments that we all hate and discuss here on ATS on a daily basis , its those borders that seperate us and divide us imaginary lines drawn on a map , where wars are fought over territory and rights on who should be allowed to cross!

In America, illegals just coming over the Southern border amount to around 1 million a year. Or wait, that was the number I heard back in 06 or so. Here are some numbers:

This analysis demonstrates that the December, 2003 Department of Homeland Security estimates of 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States and 700,000 new illegals entering and staying per year represent significant undercounts. This analysis shows that it is reasonable to state that at least 20 million illegal aliens reside in the United States and that up to 12,000 illegal aliens enter the United States every day, or, as Arizona Senator John McCain reports - more than 4 million per year.

www.desertinvasion.us...

Here are some numbers for legal immigration

Since the removal of ethnic quotas in immigration in 1965,[2] the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled,[3] from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.[4] 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading emigrating countries to the United States were Mexico, India, the Philippines, and China.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

oh yah and the guy testifying is an Open Borders activist

www.americanthinker.com...

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Your problem isn't with their legal status, friend. Stop pretending it is.

The change from illegal to legal wont fix the problem of massive unsustainable immigration rate, it may even make the numbers greater, nor will it fix bad educational, economic, health and cultural (drug and criminal culture) background of immigrants. It wont change the economic fact that once rate of immigrant influx is greater than rate of new job creation, unemployment inevitably increases.

"Unsustainable" my ass. Know what? When YOUR ancestors were heaving off that boat, the people who got there before them were complaining about how "unsustainable" immigration was. The truth of the fact isn't that immigration is unsustainable, it's that the current population of any given immigration period is generally locked into an attitude of "screw you, I've got mine." The plain fact of the matter is we have lots of damn room; but here in this country, a golf course is valued higher than a homestead.

Immigrants need to be well-educated and wealthy before they come to America? If they could be well-educated and wealthy where they are, why are they moving here, exactly? Why do we crow about being "the land of opportunity" and then only allow in people who've already got it made (which is often what we do - our current system is heavily biased towards wealth)

And what, do you think we're so awesome with regards to our education, economics, health, and drug cultures? That if we lock down all our borders, these problems would magically vanish? Of course not. Do immigrants excaberate the problem? Sure, but so do natives. The solution is to address the actual goddamned problem, NOT scapegoat a particular category of the victims of that problem.

As for jobs... Good lord. All it takes is paying a little attention; Immigrants aren't killing the job market, the corporate owners are. Of course, in our "culture" (if you want to call it that) we're trained that the corporate owners are flawless, semidivine beings, and that it is "socialist" (i.e., evil and utterly un-American) to criticize or blame them; instead we must blame the Italians. We must blame the Irish. we must blame the Poles. We must blame the negros. We must blame the Vietnamese. We must blame the Mexicans.

There are a lot of factors at hand. There are several aspects of our culture that are toxic to the entire population, but that perversely encourage us to single out and scapegoat a single segment of that population rather than addressing the cause.

This is in essence becoming a problem of local overpopulation (diminishing wealth or resources / people ratio because of increasing denominator), just like in the third world, this time not caused by excessive breeding, but by high immigration influx (and excessive immigrant breeding then).

edit on 18/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

What, only immigrants breed "excessively"?

The main factor in the state of the third world is NOT overpopulation. Most third world nations are actually pretty sparsely populated. Some, such as Haiti, ARE so small that they are overcrowded, but most have rather small populations. The trouble isn't an inability to sustain a population, it's the fact that someone's big heavy thumb is tipping the scale; the third world is by no means self-created. It is a product of the first world.

Originally posted by sapien82

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
Anyone here speak Lakota? I'm Native American.
2nd

thank you , for raising the point , how many immigrants back then and even today bothered to learn to speak the local langauges or dialects ?
NONE
is it taught in schools no !
the arguement by that senator is total rubbish

Especially given that the name of his state is a Caddo word with a Spanish pronunciation.

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
Anyone here speak Lakota? I'm Native American.
2nd

That is the best answer...... all of you are imigrants in America!!!!!!! At one point in the last 500 years someone in your family, left god knows what country and settled in what now is called, the USA.

The new settles DID NOT LEARN THE NATIVE LANGUAGES OR TRIED TO INTIGRATE, instead they stole the land and killed the Native population !!!!! And brought MEN from Africa as Slaves.....

Remember, you are aliens in the land you claim......, so why do you complain sooooo much about new migration????

You all did the same,!! Lets try and be more understanding with other cultures, please!! Every nation has the right to speak and belife different.

Originally posted by sapien82
hhahaha you'd think that with all the arrogance of being american they would have invented their own language by now instead of using English !

Seriously , who cares if he wanted to use his native tongue , alot of people prefer to speak in their first langauge as it makes them more comfortable and they can express themselves better .
Learning another language is difficult especially for older people .
fair enough the guy has been in the country for a long time he probably can speak english pretty well but chose not to !

Immigration is what made america , and now your complaining cus some guy is speaking his first langauge.
America has far greater problems than whether or not immigrants can speak the langauge.
I'd think that since america has alot of immigrants there are more people in america that dont speak english as a first langauge than there are that do !

Scotland? Yah well I do have Scottish ancestry, thank you very much. Do I sound like the Highlander? No. Did my ancestor fight in the Revolutionary War ? Yes. Do I expect Robbie Burns poetry be read in all public schools? No. Did my ancestors fight against the Brits in the 1200's? How about you answer that one. Battle of Stirling?

this sounds contrary to a NWO Spokesman/Official.It must be a Division of their Assault Psychological Weaponry. The New Age Agenda 101. #7 would never be believed true unless it was said by the New Age Division and #10 well they seem to think using highly toxic Immuinization drugs to force Nature to work for their agenda as well. I doubt Mother Nature will bend to their demands like Humans have.

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

Originally posted by xavi1000
English is the language of NWO so...

I was thinking more along the lines of Esperanto...

THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

Esperanto - engineered language

I think native speaker Mr. Soros would agree...

Originally posted by sapien82

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
Anyone here speak Lakota? I'm Native American.
2nd

thank you , for raising the point , how many immigrants back then and even today bothered to learn to speak the local langauges or dialects ?
NONE
is it taught in schools no !
the arguement by that senator is total rubbish

The only schools Native language is taught in are the ones that are predominately Native. When I was in grade school (in the 70's) we were not allowed to speak our native language. We were taught that you will only get ahead in life if you speak english and forget everything else. We were told to assimilate. But as time went on, the elders of our tribe and many people started to see what a mistake it was. It was hurting more than helping our people to forget our language and ways. It's been a struggle to keep it alive but now the kids are being taught their language along with english.

It bothers me that no one would want anyone to speak their native tongue just because they are in America. I don't have a problem with this. When living in California, I heard so many different languages being spoken in one place. Walk into a shopping mall and you do. It actually made me feel happy. We can't forget who we are or where we come from. We should ask that people learn english, since that is the dominant language here, like it or not, but, we can't force them or bash them for wanting to retain who they are.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


This personal isn't advocating on behalf of illegal immigrant, he's trying to get a law stopped that would allow people to 'check papers' regarding immigration status...which is just a bit too fascist for my taste. Obviously this would be targeted at Latin Americans as opposed to white people who could be illegally here from Eastern Europe.

What's sort of crazy is that nowhere in the story nor any other source does it claim that the man giving testimony was unable to speak English, merely that he was more comfortable in his original language. He's been here legally for 23 years, so far as everything seems.

Granted, it's a lot easier to generalize and throw out the old 'they're here illegally aka criminals' line. This isn't a law targeting illegal immigrants, it's a law targeting all immigrants. Nobody should be forced to carry around citizenship or immigration papers constantly.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Compare America's original ILLEGAL immigrants, aka probably your ancestors, to today's legal immigrants...oh, and also the fact that American immigration policy is incredibly skewed towards white Europeans. I should know, being a white European who immigrated to America....and even that was hard.

I like it when people entirely ignorant of immigration policy spew out talking points.

So, seems like quite a few here support Open Borders? Then do you support the NAU? Just wondering.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


@ thunder heart woman ,

its sad that langauge and cultures are forgetton through assimilation , its the same in scotland , we have almost lost our local dialects and auld scots slang as its not longer considered a langauge and is not taught in schools , alot of peopls assume that gaelic is original scots langauge but its not . Auld scots is and should be taught in schools as the langauge varies all across scotland with different local dialect.

@madnessinmysoul , its extremely hard for anyone to immigrate to america now , I've always wondered why though on the border control form on the planes they ask if you were involved in any nazi activity during the years 1942 - 1945 , now I realise why , its so that they can give you american citizenship and a job in NASA

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

R ancestors were heaving off that boat, the people who got there before them were complaining about how "unsustainable" immigration was. The truth of the fact isn't that immigration is unsustainable, it's that the current population of any given immigration period is generally locked into an attitude of "screw you, I've got mine."

You cannot compare this situations. In the past, America was a virgin land, full of resources and empty land, and people coming there were also very educated compared to domestic population (western european vs. native american level of science and technology), which is in essence also a resource (imagine all immigrants have Ph.Ds - that would be correct analogy for now).

Immigrants need to be well-educated and wealthy before they come to America?

It may be not nice, but thats a fact - the western civilisation no longer needs more unqualified work. Increasing automatization makes manual workers redundant, and this trend will only increase in the future. This is also a new thing, nothing like this was present in original american colonisation. Couple it with education needing huge initial investments especially in America (if you had free universities like we have here it may not be so much of a problem), and it is clear huge influx of poor, unemployable and uneducated immigrants is a recipe for social catastrophe.

And what, do you think we're so awesome with regards to our education, economics, health, and drug cultures? That if we lock down all our borders, these problems would magically vanish? Of course not. Do immigrants excaberate the problem? Sure, but so do natives. The solution is to address the actual goddamned problem, NOT scapegoat a particular category of the victims of that problem.

Then annex Mexico, dismantle corrupt government, legalise soft drugs, and deploy the Army against the hard drug gangs, provide free universities and welfare for all Mexicans so their society will reach developed world standards.
Unreal? I know. The next best and far more possible solution how to prevent the south into slowly turning to the third world is protecting the border and limiting immigration.

We dont live in an ideal world. Sometimes you have to choose between bad and far worse. Sometimes you have to choose theoretically suboptimal but possible solution, than dreaming of an unreal world.

As for jobs... Good lord. All it takes is paying a little attention; Immigrants aren't killing the job market, the corporate owners are.

Automatization is killing the unqualified job market. Corporate owners are killing it also. FED and government is killing it with bad economic policy.

Until you fix FED, government policy and corporate owners (good luck with that), influx of more unemployable people is harmful for the economy and society as a whole. Even after that it wont be benefiting (the developed world simply does not need more unqualified people), just not so harmful.

What, only immigrants breed "excessively"?

Yes, the birth rate is higher in the lower and immigrant segments of the population than in higher class domestic population. This birth rate is also not backed by wealth required to provide for the kids properly (welfare moms..). The higher classes could have opposite problem - too small birth rate, altrough I believe this "problem" is greatly exagerrated by the media - 2.1 is replacement rate in developed world.

The main factor in the state of the third world is NOT overpopulation.

Overpopulation is defined as situation when number of individuals exceed carrying capacity (or ability to sustain them with good standard of living - we are not animals but people) of the habitat. Reasons why are irrelevant, especially if they cannot be realistically fixed (such as fixing the whole world economic and political establishment).

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So, seems like quite a few here support Open Borders?

Actually, yes. Humans migrate. we move all over the damn place. The concept of a "Thou Shalt Not Cross!" commandment thundering down on high on the principle that one government in a city far far away made an agreement with another government in another city far far away is frankly rather silly. The nation-State is still a very new invention and the "secure border" even moreso.

Much like efforts to legislate race-mixing, this too will fall to the wayside, an for just about hte same reason; people will go where htye wsant to go, and there's really nothing you can do about it.

Then do you support the NAU? Just wondering.

In the same way I support adding invisible pink unicorns to the endangered species act.

reply to post by Maslo


I read a post here on ats the other day which stated that
farmers in Georgia have 11,000 jobs unposted ?
are you sure america doesnt need unskilled work force ?

reply to post by sapien82


So you don't want to talk about how the Scots kicked the Brits out but you wonder why you cannot immigrate here, and yet you are not questioning masses of illegals over the border possibly getting amnesty and a path to citizenship? Where's the sense of true justice?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So, seems like quite a few here support Open Borders?

Actually, yes. Humans migrate. we move all over the damn place. The concept of a "Thou Shalt Not Cross!" commandment thundering down on high on the principle that one government in a city far far away made an agreement with another government in another city far far away is frankly rather silly. The nation-State is still a very new invention and the "secure border" even moreso.

Much like efforts to legislate race-mixing, this too will fall to the wayside, an for just about hte same reason; people will go where htye wsant to go, and there's really nothing you can do about it.

Then do you support the NAU? Just wondering.

In the same way I support adding invisible pink unicorns to the endangered species act.

So then you want your cake and eat it too. You want freedom to go where you want, but not the NAU? NAU supports all this Open Borders stuff. No Borders is NWO. But then every post I've seen of yours is like that.

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by Maslo

 

I read a post here on ats the other day which stated that
farmers in Georgia have 11,000 jobs unposted ?
are you sure america doesnt need unskilled work force ?

So now this is about the poor illegals just wanting jobs and doing the bad ones Americans don't want? Interesting jump from being here for 23 years and refusing to testify before a State legislature in English.

Originally posted by Maslo
You cannot compare this situations. In the past, America was a virgin land, full of resources and empty land, and people coming there were also very educated compared to domestic population (western european vs. native american level of science and technology), which is in essence also a resource (imagine all immigrants have Ph.Ds - that would be correct analogy for now).

Even if you were correct - and you certainly are not (sigh, Eurocentric Mythology disguised as history runs amok again!) I was not talking about the initial colonial period. Even if I WERE, the point would stil lstand. The people standing on hte docks are looking up at the people on the boats and going "Not enough room! GO AWAY!"

It may be not nice, but thats a fact - the western civilisation no longer needs more unqualified work. Increasing automatization makes manual workers redundant, and this trend will only increase in the future. This is also a new thing, nothing like this was present in original american colonisation. Couple it with education needing huge initial investments especially in America (if you had free universities like we have here it may not be so much of a problem), and it is clear huge influx of poor, unemployable and uneducated immigrants is a recipe for social catastrophe.

The catastrophe then exists long before we inject immigrants into it. Imagine - take all immigrants out of the equation, imagine you're just talking about natives. Can you see the society you describe working any better then? Of course not.

Then annex Mexico, dismantle corrupt government, legalise soft drugs, and deploy the Army against the hard drug gangs, provide free universities and welfare for all Mexicans so their society will reach developed world standards.
Unreal? I know. The next best and far more possible solution how to prevent the south into slowly turning to the third world is protecting the border and limiting immigration.

We dont live in an ideal world. Sometimes you have to choose between bad and far worse. Sometimes you have to choose theoretically suboptimal but possible solution, than dreaming of an unreal world.

I'm sorry, you don't get to try to pass stupidity off as realism. Your attempts to paint an either-or picture, where either we must refuse to address our own problems and instead blame them on the immigrants, OR outright attack the immigrants in their home nations and try to re-structure their nations while still ignoring our problems is, well, dumber than a sack of rocks.

Automatization is killing the unqualified job market. Corporate owners are killing it also. FED and government is killing it with bad economic policy.

Until you fix FED, government policy and corporate owners (good luck with that), influx of more unemployable people is harmful for the economy and society as a whole. Even after that it wont be benefiting (the developed world simply does not need more unqualified people), just not so harmful.

Strange how at the same time they are "unemployable" they still manage to "steal jobs."

You're not going to change things by bowing to the status quo.

Yes, the birth rate is higher in the lower and immigrant segments of the population than in higher class domestic population. This birth rate is also not backed by wealth required to provide for the kids properly (welfare moms..). The higher classes could have opposite problem - too small birth rate, altrough I believe this "problem" is greatly exagerrated by the media - 2.1 is replacement rate in developed world.

I think my question is on the "excessive." Who judges, exactly? You? because, well, so far your reasoning ability is coming across as rather flawed.

Overpopulation is defined as situation when number of individuals exceed carrying capacity (or ability to sustain them with good standard of living - we are not animals but people) of the habitat. Reasons why are irrelevant, especially if they cannot be realistically fixed (such as fixing the whole world economic and political establishment).

Duck your head low, move along, nothing to see here. So long as you have legions of excessively-breeding, unemplpyable, superfluous nonpeople working in slave conditions to ensure you have the latest sneaker styles.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Country house analogy. Having borders is as good as having doors on your house. Do you let local homeless people live in your house?