Posted on 05/06/2002 4:21:05 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
(WSVN) Zita Wilensky loves to help people. In fact she is a foster mother to kids with special needs.
Zita Wilensky, a victim of discrimination, says "Right now we have a little boy. We are in the process of adopting and he is learning delayed, but he is coming along great."
Professionally, Zita is not doing so well. She says, "I really do feel I was discriminated against and if I didn't I wouldn't be telling you."
Zita worked for Miami-Dade County for 16 years. The last two in the Domestic Violence Unit.
Her file is full of letters of praise, but she began to encounter one major problem.
She says, "I was referred to as the gringa, the Americana. Did they mean it in a polite way or a deragatory way? In some ways at times it was joking. But then it was like every single day and you know what? I have a name."
Zita was the only Anglo in the County Unit. All of her co-workers were Hispanic and she says they liked to play tricks on her.
She says, "My boss presented me with an envelope one day when the anthrax was going around and told me "come here could you smell this? This just came in the mail." Big joke in front of the whole department. Made me look like an idiot."
Then Zita was told she had to speak Spanish in the office. She was given 60 days to learn. After 30 days her boss disguised her voice and called her.
Zita says, "So she called pretending to be someone who didn't speak English. And when you could not communicate she fired you? Yes...that's how it happened."
According to a county document, Zita was fired for transferring the call to the clerk's office. Zita said she transferred it because she wanted what she thought was a Spanish speaking caller to talk to someone.
Either way, despite her protests, after 16 years with the county, Zita was fired and replaced by an Hispanic.
Now her question: can an Anglo be fired for not speaking Spanish on the job?
Howard Finkelstein, 7News Legal Expert, says "The Florida Constituion says that English is the official language of the government. So you can't fire someone simply because they don't speak Spanish and you can't fire them simply because they are Anglo. That's discrimination. That's illegal."
Howard says you cannot be discrimated against based upon national origin, religion, sex, and race. Such as blacks, whites, hispanics, asians, and on and on.
and howard says that includes the treatment employees like zita receive on the job.
"An employer cannot allow an employee to be subjected to racial slurs like gringo, or to be ridiculed or intimidated...thats called a hostile work enviroment and thats illegal."
Zita would like to go back to work for Miami-Dade County, not in the same office, but in a place where no kind of discrimination is tolerated.
When we talked to a county official, we were told Zita was fired because she transferred calls improperly.
They also deny she was fired because she was an anglo and she was not required to speak Spanish.
Her boss just requested that she learn Spanish. But contradicting that, this letter from her boss says its a necessity that she speaks Spanish.
Howard says if Zita sues the county, she has an excellant chance of winning.
Zita says right now she simply wants to find a job.
Problems don't discriminate - so race to the phone. We'll have an answer clear in any language.
Unarmed Mexicans?
An illegal alien in Southern California just murdered an LA County Deputy Sheriff by shooting him through the face at point blank range and then fled back to the safety of Mexico. And a good percentage of illegal aliens in our southwest jails are there for being armed and murdering people.
Do you see the contradiction between the ending of the statement and the beginning? If we cannot judge the intention (something the court decision in Wong Kim Ark explcitly DID), then how can we accept the interpretation, which rests on the intention?
That IS the crux of the multitudes of critiques of the current misapplication of the 14th. Note that the Wong Kim Ark case was in reference to the nationality of a child born to legitimate permanent residents, as they would be called today. That it has been extended to the children of those here illegally would be harder to defend.
It is relevant for the courts to attempt to ascertain the intent of Congress. They've been doing it since Marshall. Where they go wrong is when they fabricate intent to effect outcome (Roe, Plyler).
But all that aside, H.R. 190 is a legitimate attempt to clarify the situation. If you say that you don't want the government making the citizenship decision, I would say that they already do, e.g. with regard to the children of diplomats, and that they have for centuries, with requirements for the validity of birth certificates and the assertions made on them.
It's not difficult to do - the birth certificate simply lists the nationality of the parents, and their status if non-citizen. And it is a legitimate interest for the people of the United States - we have a right to decide who will live among us and vote in our elections. It's why we have immigration laws. If those laws can be circumvented by not getting caught while crossing the border "uninspected", then we have a contradictory situation which must and can be remedied by Congressional action. If not, the immigration laws are meaningless.
Somehow I knew the famous Preamble controversy over the 2nd would creep in. You said in the first part that we must accept the way that one segment of the 14th has been interpreted, and I assert that it has been incorrectly interpreted for altruistic reasons, and that that needs to be rectified. To then say that we are bad people for wanting to interpret the 14th is contradictory! And, failing that, we can refine it with 190. Sorry, I just don't agree that we then slide down the slippery slope. It's not going to be U.S. v. Miller, for instance, where one decision (or in this case, a law) leads to the wholesale denial of rights to those who are entitled to it.
And I wasn't referring to Elian: I was referring to, say, children born to Cuban illegals. You say that that is not the case, that you are basing it on the Founders; I would remind you that the 14th was written by a Republican Senator whose words on the subject we know, and have a record of the debate. It is completely within the purview of the Congress to examine the situation with reference to past debate, and propose remedies, consistent with their power as regards the Constitution. H.R. 190 does that. But it has not been brought to a vote.
And that would be the subject of another long debate.
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction, of the English Sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
And furthermore, at III.:
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth." 3 Pet. 164.
Let's Repeat That: while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto
The second statement clarifies the first. But I ask any honest person - er, citizen - could we EVER fit the illegal alien parents into the second statement? Are they "under the protection of the government"? Do they "owe a temporary allegiance thereto"? Only under the thinnest, most liberal interpretation.
Wong Kim Ark resorts to English Common Law to establish the definition of allegiance or jurisdiction. English Common Law, at 3 Pet. 164, requires the acquiescence of the government, and voluntary allegiance on the parents. NEITHER conditions exist in the case of parents in the country illegally, as they are deportable to the land of their sovereign - i.e., that government to which they owe allegiance.
I do not know how the legitimacy of citizenship by nativity is conferred on the children of illegals through the action of this decision, although I am told "this is it". If anyone can deconstruct these statements in a technical way to so encompass such parents, I'd love to see it.
I have extensively researched the legislative intent behind the 14th amendment, and believe that the US Supreme Court reached a ridiculous conclusion in Wong Kim Ark (wherein the current understanding of the 14th amendment received its legal underpinning) based on the assertion that British common law governed American immigration practices. Moreover, I believe that the whole concept that a mere accident of birth can confer citizenship is illogical, and should be repudiated.
No doubt the justices believed that the impact of their decision would be de minimis -- certainly there were very few Chinese women who entered the United States in the mid 19th Century, before immigration was shut off. Moreover, the likelihood that Europeans, Central Americans, or South Americans would have boarded a ship for several days so as to have their child in the US would have appeared an absurdity.
Yet today, the impact is hardly de minimis. In fact, other nations, including Britain, have moved away from this standard. Yet we retain this ill-considered rule, apparently as much from fears of being labeled racist as for any credible reason.
It SAYS and, not or. ILLEGAL aliens are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the US - only of their OWN countries.
Read whatever makes your bell ring.
BORN HERE....that's what it says.
Tell you what, let's go talk to the SCOTUS and see whose "interpretation" of the 14th. amendment they recognize, yours or mine.
Oh! Wait! They already have! They read it just as I do!
Of course, now you and every other soccer mom on the thread will try to convince me that the SCOTUS is wrong.
BTW, I am fluent in TWO languages, and can do this in both of them.
How about you?
Oh! Wait! They already have! They read it just as I do!
The SCOTUS also "discovered" a woman's "right" to kill her unborn, the government's "right" to ban so-called "assault weapons", the government's power to tax Peter to pay for Paul's retirement/health/education and a "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution during 20th century that obviuosly weren't there during the 18th and 19th centuries so....your point is?
As for your catty little remark about being a "soccer mom": you should kindly keep your mouth shut about things you quite obviously know nothing about as I am very happy to report that I have neglected to join that particular little "happy" crowd with their heads stuck in the sand.
As far as your "article" (or whatever you want to call it) goes, I'm happy for you. Happy, but not particularly impressed as I write a weekly column (on education) myself that is currently carried on four different web sites and that I get a lot of positive feedback from while also maintaining a rather extensive educational web site AND working a full time IT job AND homeschooling two teenagers (that I am tutoring in TWO additional languages).
What I AM impressed with is the fact that you took the time and made the effort to become a US Citizen (not to get in line for hand-outs but, rather, to take advantage of this Nation's boundless opportunities) and the fact that you have obviously encouraged your son toward becoming a productive American citizen who speaks "the" language. My hat is off to for these two accomplishments even though we strongly disagree on the subject of FOREIGNERS being required to speak OUR language ----- when in Rome.......
Is it just me or is there nothing like this happening in any other country on this planet ??
I don't remember hearing any mention of the French Government starting to use 8 different languages in their state-sponsered information. So that any incoming aliens (legal or otherwise) would have no trouble disappearing --err-- melding into the French countryside.
I remember when Quebec (I think) dropped all use of English and went strickly to French - even went so far as to 'outlaw' any store fronts to use any English in their windows. But, here in the Land of the Free, we are kow-towing to any person (from any nation) to save the possibility of NOT being truly Diverse. . .
. . . more's the pity. . .
And you talk about the Cubanos? We fought back...and were betrayed by the same people who sold us out before. You're just sitting in front of a computer bitching, and watching YOUR COUNTRY being taken from you.
Oh yeah, we know all about you heroic cubanos. You never mustered the courage to throw off Spanish rule, even in its decrepitude. You had to wait for McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt to free you.
You couldn't make democracy work. You had a string of corrupt goverments. And then you lost your country to a small band of bandidos spouting Marxism. Instead of fighting Fidel and his ratty band to defeat, you all cut and ran.
Laugh all you want, loser. I'm just thankful I come from stock that fought the British Empire to a standstill. And you ought to be too, or you wouldn't have had somewhere to run away to, where you could display your lack of gratitude and lack of breeding.
P.S. You can debate the later part of what he asserts. I won't go there
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.