Posted on 11/15/2007 4:39:26 PM PST by SmithL
Yes
sorry, but if they cant speak in court, then they need to hire a lawyer the same as I would. or laraza could spend some of their dinero manning the courts. or better yet, how about their own friggin government can speak for em.
Better yet, how bout we just photo & print em and send em back home one time, the next time its life at hard labor...making gravel Americans dont wanna make...
It is sickening that we're, as a society, willing to provide this to our own much less an immigrant who is here illegally. If we didn't have such entitlement in the first place (save for those very rare cases where a citizen among us cannot mentally or physically provide for themselves and do not have family to take up the burden), providing for immigrants would be a non-issue.
If you would go a tad deeper into the bible that just bringing up Jesus' name, you'd find many references to obeying laws:...
Interesting scripture quoting, particularly Matthew. I think you misrepresent the context of what was happening as Jesus was speaking. Your selective quoting makes it seem as though Jesus was a statist. Yet I caution you against making that conclusion. Jesus was sought out for persecution precisely because he bucked the establishment and broke the so-called laws of His day (John 5:1-15)
Perhaps Matthew 15:1-9 could be applicable to this discussion. Could we go so far as to include John 13:31-35 as well? I don't know, it's pretty tough.
Besides, I don't see the Roman Catholic Church opening themselves up to taking in tens of millions of illegals. They could afford it, certainly, and could have hundreds of taco stands in the parking lot of the Vatican City to generate revenue. It's hypocritical of ANYONE to say that others have to spend money and time to support anyone else. They need to put their money where their mouths are.
It is very rare for any businessmen that masquerade as altruists church to put their money where their mouths are. For they recieved their tithings fair and square. See John 12:1-6.
And send the governments of the countries in which they came from the bill, right?
Or, we could welcome them like we have always done and have their subsequent generations benefit us greatly. In the mean time they get no handouts. I served with many people from south of the border that were here with greencards. Some of the most dedicated and thankful people I have ever worked with, worked for, and led.
Wow! I am at the FREE Republic, right? Fedreal legislation that criminalizes private advertising in a foreign language? Are you serious!? Should Spanish speaking television shows also be outlawed?
Just so we're on the same page, can I glean from this that you are not of the "border/immigration" crowd? This would mean what? That you don't support border enforcement, or you are not against illegal immigration, or what exactly?
susie
Do you get their irony here?
susie
Susie, Let me know if the post in the link found below, in its context, answers your questions.
I'll also offer this "throw in" from Ronald Reagan's conclusion to his/our farewell address to the nation in 1989:
And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
And how stand the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.
We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.
And so, good-bye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
"The" or "their"? Also, which type of irony...irony comes in at least a few varieties on the periodic table.
Given the loss of value in the USD, that may not be a winning approach. The EU employees will break out in any of the EU languages and insist on payment in euros.
Nice Reagan quote. I think you are missing the point about the shining city on a hill, and the purpose of the walls and the doors. The walls are there to keep out those who would not contribute, or otherwise cost, the city. The doors are there to allow the city inhabitants to make intelligent decisions about who to let in and who to kick out.
So, how does this relate to making English the official language? Just this: failure to learn the language of the City is a sign that you are not interested in truly becoming part of the City on a Hill, but are coming just to loot or otherwise harm the City. Real immigrants learn the language of their new home. Looters, invaders, occupiers generally do not.
So, rules against those who refuse to learn English are some of the “doors” of which Reagan wrote. The doors should be closed to those who wish to do us harm.
Oh, and by the way, your “Xenophobic Kook” characterization of those of us who support English-only laws is foolish, as well as offensive. One of us (that would be me) can get by in six languages, has studied and worked all over the world, has multiple passports, and, by many accounts, has a deep understanding of many cultures. It makes you appear to be an idiot to call some “Xenophobes” just because we realize that failure to learn English is almost prima facie evidence of failure to become an American. I hope this was helpful to you.
Actually, I’m a dissenter on this one. A businessman can already fire someone IF their speaking spanish has a negative impact on the business. While I would be glad to go back to the old standard (a businessman can hire/fire who he chooses), that isn’t going to happen.
I don’t mind someone at McDonalds speaking spanish on their break, or between themselves behind the counter. It is when they want ME to order in spanish that I get pissed!
So, rules against those who refuse to learn English are some of the “doors” of which Reagan wrote. The doors should be closed to those who wish to do us harm.
Okay, but what does one so-called real immigrant do in the meantime while s/he is assimilating and learning the language, remain mute? Or, are you suggesting that before someone comes here, they better speak the language fluently before considering it?
Assuming you take one of the above positions, then how do we treat tourists who visit here? these are legitimate questions for anyone who suggests the legislation route...legislation is rarely simple or well thought out.
So, rules against those who refuse to learn English are some of the “doors” of which Reagan wrote. The doors should be closed to those who wish to do us harm.
Agreed, I don't want people to come here that would do us harm. But when do you want the immigrants to be fluent...before coming or are you willing to allow them to learn while staying?
Oh, and by the way, your “Xenophobic Kook” characterization of those of us who support English-only laws is foolish, as well as offensive.
My aim was to be offensive to that poster. I've written to be, what I consider at least, some provocative stuff in this thread that should have lowered the extra heated rhetoric and inspired some more rational discussion. very few responded but I was generally happy when someone did.
I hope this was helpful to you.
Likewise.
*APPLAUSE*
You didn’t answer my question. Do you think illegal immigration is ok?
susie
Your answer then, appears to be no, you don’t get it.
susie
Yes, I am suggesting that before someone comes here, they better speak the language fluently, or have someone here who is willing to help them. Coming here without knowing the language, then expecting to use the power of your would-be countrymen's gpvernment to force them to accommodate you is, like not knowing the language at all, evidence that you really are not going to fit in. This isn't just about knowing the language; it's about self-reliance and willingness to pull your own weight (or at least willingness to go out and find someone who will help you do that without picking the pockets of all the American taxpayers).
how do we treat tourists who visit here?
Same thing. If you can't speak English, and can’t hire someone to help you navigate the English-speaking world of the USA, then you are not really in a position to be a tourist here.
But when do you want the immigrants to be fluent...before coming or are you willing to allow them to learn while staying?
Either before coming, or, failing that, while they arrange to have someone help them through the English-speaking USA at their own expense. Either way, if someone who doesn’t speak English comes here and expects to get along, then there’s going to have to be some accommodation. I see no reason that the US society should be the entity doing the accommodating.
No, I do not support ILLEGAL immigration. However, I DO believe that Americans should make it easier for folks to come here LEGALLY by adopting some of the basic recommendation I laid it in that linked-to post. The toxic rhetoric coming from some on this issue, is in my opinion, disgusting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.