Posted on 08/15/2002 11:23:35 AM PDT by gubamyster
August 15, 2002
As more information from the 2000 Census is released, it's increasingly clear that this is not our parents' country. Ethically, it stopped being their country in the 1960s. Ethnically, it now resembles not a united nation, but a United Nations, with divisions along class, racial, religious, language and ideological lines. Our national motto, E pluribus unum ("out of many, one,") no longer applies.
Census figures show that one out of every nine residents is now foreign-born. The response from politicians? Many are signing up for Spanish lessons. They should be telling immigrants to sign up for English lessons.
Yes, we are a nation of immigrants. There is a difference, however, between the way immigrants were treated a century ago during the Great Wave, and how they are treated today.
Then, they were expected to become part of America, which included speaking our language, knowing our history and respecting our traditions. Now, they are allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- to remain who they are and not bother to learn English or care about American history. Then, we sought to make Americans of immigrants. Today, we hyphenate their citizenship and tell them they may continue to bear allegiance to other countries and causes.
Here are only a few examples of how bad the situation has become: The safety video on the Delta Shuttle between Washington and New York is delivered in both Spanish and English; this November, Denver and several other Colorado counties designated as bilingual counties must print election ballots in English and Spanish; the Department of Justice has ordered Harris County, Texas (which encompasses Houston) to start providing ballots and voting materials in Vietnamese.
Part of the reason for this forming of a less perfect union is that we are no longer sure of ourselves. Embarrassed by our success and riches, we think we're doing the world a favor by engaging in self-flagellation, refusing to repeat for the next generation what was handed to us by the previous one.
A Texas schoolteacher wrote to express his frustration:
"We were raised with 'ultimate consequences' which would dictate punishment when there was no discipline ('When your father gets home...,' 'Your mother wouldn't approve of this...')," he noted. "Now, it's a question of how people can beat the law, rather than uphold it." This especially applies to those immigrants who have seen that if they can get to America illegally, their chances are good of winning amnesty and remaining in this country.
King Solomon warned: "Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint" (Proverbs 29:18). The casting off of restraint is what characterizes us now, from corporate boardrooms to private bedrooms. If immigrants know only how to get here and do not learn what made America so attractive to them, they will live by their own standards, just as we who were born here are doing in increasing numbers, further undermining our strength and cohesiveness.
In his 1992 book, "The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era: 1890-1920," John Whiteclay Chambers wrote of the great immigration wave of a century ago, noting that a majority of arrivals in this country never intended to stay. Many hoped that "after a few years of work, they could save enough money to return home to an improved position for themselves and their families."
"Although the majority of new immigrants permanently settled in America, a significant number left (with a departure rate of 35 percent for Croatians, Poles, Serbs and Slovenes; 40 percent for Greeks; and more than 50 percent for Hungarians, Slovaks and Italians; the rate among Asian immigrants was much higher, more than two-thirds)," Chambers wrote. Today the departure rate is only about 15 percent and anyone who gets here, even illegally, can now expect his or relatives to legally follow.
Many of those who stayed a century ago had poor skills and became part of large ghettos in major urban areas, where poverty continues to drain human and financial resources. The 1990 Census indicated that ethnic enclaves were huge and growing. In the city of Miami today, about half of the population speaks English poorly or not at all, new census figures show, and 74 percent of residents speak a language other than English at home.
A source for additional facts about how we have failed to assimilate immigrants can be found on the Web page of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (www.fairus.org/).
It would help if we would re-discover what once was considered "self-evident" truths about America, disdaining relativity. If we can't do that for those already here, we will be of no use to current and future immigrants and cannot sustain ourselves as the United States.
First, Muscovy was considered Asian by Western Europeans at the time...what time? Are you referring to the time when Western Europeans thought the East Indies could be reached by sailing across the Atlantic, with nothing in between? Given the geographical knowledge of the world at the time, Russia by way of comparision to Western Europe could indeed be considered Asian and/or exotic but keep in mind that for much of Europe's history, there were only 3 continents even known.
You will have to excuse me as I will respond in greater detail in a day or so.
From your perspective, which you state to be a neo-conservative perspective, I understand your view. I don't disrespect that viewpoint, but I disagree with your initial perspective. Western Civilization is about far more than a capitalist economy and democracy.
You need to recheck your numbers. The Latin vote was pretty evenly split.
Not even close. Bush won the Hispanic vote only in one state, FL. He came close to breaking even in Texas. Everywhere else, he was crushed. http://www.vdare.com/pb/election.htm
You might also be interested in this article. http://www.vdare.com/awall/mexicans.htm
Given how many European immigrants stay on the east coast, and how solidly the east coast goes to the Dems I don't think they're helping us out much.
I don't have the figures for the 200 election but regarding Mayoral races, white immigrant neighborhoods went for Giulliani Bloomberg, while non-white immigrant neighboorhoods went Democrat 4 times in a row.
Of course, I would argue that regardless of race, all immigrants who are not refugees froim Communist countries are natural Democrats for the first few generations.
Of course the real punchline is that it's perfectly legal to be a leftist in this country. If we start basing immigrant policy on how we think they're gonna vote we'll get serious fuqed next time the Dems are in charge. And we won't be able to cry foul because we did it first.
No, the Democrats did it first in 1965. Kennedy sponsored the immigration act and Humphry lied about its results.
Again I have yet to see where the hispanics/ third worlders/ Mexican or whatever the hell you want to call them today are assimilating AT ALL differently than the European immigration boom from the late 19th and early 20th century. You keep insisting it, but you haven't proven it, and I ain't buying it.
For the moment, let me assume that you are correct that third-world immigration today is little different than that 100 years ago. Gues what, thos immigrants voted for Progressive Republicans and Democrats. They were the backbone of the northern FDR coalituion. It took 2 generations to assimilate them and have them vote like other Americans. So regardless of who is right about race, iun the near term, we are importing Democrat votes.
What's "holding a die"?
A die in is when protester pretend to have been killed. They also said that with the BBQ, we were symbolically roasting their ancestors. i told them that people are treif and that I am not an Aztec. They did not find the quip amusing and campus security was called.
And we don't get Columbus Day BBQ's because it's not a holiday because the black community talked us into trading it for MLK Day so we could get a Super Bowl.
You do understand the importance of national unification holidays like Columbus day ?
I don't see the Mexicans as either second class (hoo boy there's a racist statement if I've ever seen one) or racially disaffected.
I called Mexicans a disaffected class, like blacks. I never said second. I suppose no one has yelled at you, "(Yanqui/Gringo/Blanco/Anglo) this is no longer your country."
All I know is the facts. And the facts are a big group has thrown its support to Simon. What effect it's gonna have, who knows. But it does show that your blanket statement is incorrect.
Bush had support of some groups. He lost the Hispanic vote about 35-62%.
Hey, America has had a good influence on the world. Of course on the other hand we also gave the world Brittney Spears.
Her music sucks (although great remake of Joan Jett's "I love Rock and Roll!"), but she is damn easy on the eyes.
. And of course just because we went away doesn't mean our positive influence would end. Looking forward, what are the FUTURE contributions that would be lost if America went away? I do love this country, but I'm not stupid. The world goes on.
AS I said, if the US fails, I believe that the ideals of our founding will be discredited. The world will also have lost the only country to liberate and rebuild its enemies.
As free as us the last 50 years or just any old 50 years? The last 50 years nobody. Any old 50 years, The Roman Republic is good, the Athenian Republic kicked butt.
Athens had more slavery and Rome enslaved whole countries, even as a Republic.
Western Europe wasn't "lost". It was right there. It went through some changes, mostly for the worst, but they came out the other side in pretty good shape. And the Eastern Empire sucked.
1. It took 1000 years for Western Europe to be rebuilt. That sucks.
2. Byzantium was better than Visigoth Hispania.
Of course by the time it became the Roman Empire the experiment we're repeating was already over.
One of the reasons for the fall of the Republic was the expansion and introduction of foreign cultures.
Of course you forget why the Germans invaded also. They invaded because they hated Rome, they'd always hated Rome, and Rome wouldn't leave them the hell alone. Rome finally conquered them, and when Rome got weak they struck back. But again, by that point Rome was an Empire and not a Republic. The Republic was dead.
The Germans pretty much left Rome alone for 240 years after they destroyed the 17th 18th and 19th Legions in the battle of the Teutoburg Forest. In the 4th century, the Romans tried Romanizing the Germans. All they did was make the Goths want to take over Rome.
We have a policy towards Fox? All I've seen is that him and GW like to hang out. Other than letting Fox give his speeches I haven't seen a policy. I see no problem with treating him as a friend, you get to keep a better eye on friends.
When the PAN candidate Fox defeater the PRI oligarchs after 70 years, I rejoiced. However, I have seen little change.
Again, I ain't buying what your selling. You have YET to show that Mexican immigrants are behaving at all differently from any other group of immigrants in history. Since the previous groups weren't a problem there is no impricial evidence that the Mexicans will be a problem. Show how they're different and there's something to discuss. Until then it's just racist ranting against a people that have done nothing to deserve your ire.
1. Prior immigrants were a problem for generations.
2. Immigrants from a neighboring country are a big difference from those across the ocean. Mexico found this out at San Jacinto. Why should we ignore our shared history?
Then find another job.
But that sure was a snappy one liner. Real sarcastic. Would it be acceptable to you for him to say that to his co workers?
"Don't like english? Then find another job".
If he's that annoyed about it, there is absolutely nothing stopping him from getting another job. His employer is apparently not annoyed with the situation, and the employer's opinion is what counts, not Jamten's.
But that sure was a snappy one liner. Real sarcastic. Would it be acceptable to you for him to say that to his co workers?
"Don't like english? Then find another job".
Jamten was the one whining, not his co-workers. If his co-workers started whining about Jamten, I'd say the same thing.
If he's that annoyed about it, there is absolutely nothing stopping him from getting another job.
Who said someone was stopping him from getting another job? Red herring.
His employer is apparently not annoyed with the situation, and the employer's opinion is what counts, not Jamten's.
This is a speculation and an assertion, and again doesn't address my question.
Jamten was the one whining, not his co-workers. If his co-workers started whining about Jamten, I'd say the same thing.
It doesn't matter who you think is whining, My question was would it be acceptable for Jamten (or, more to the point, his employer) to say "Find another job"?
Neither of your questions, as written, were relevant--an
If he's that annoyed about it, there is absolutely nothing stopping him from getting another job.
Who said someone was stopping him from getting another job? Red herring.
I'm just responding to his statement that he hates his work. I cannot engage in mind-reading to discern what he really meant; I am forced to merely read his writings and apply the rules of standard written English.
His employer is apparently not annoyed with the situation, and the employer's opinion is what counts, not Jamten's.
This is a speculation and an assertion, and again doesn't address my question.
It is a logical inference based on the statements made by Jamten. The employees are apparently keeping their job; this indicates that the employer is satisfied with their performance.
A logical inference can be made that your linguistic skills could use some serious improvement, based on your apparent inability to differentiate between the concepts of "speculation," "assertion," and "logical inference."
Jamten was the one whining, not his co-workers. If his co-workers started whining about Jamten, I'd say the same thing.
It doesn't matter who you think is whining, My question was would it be acceptable for Jamten (or, more to the point, his employer) to say "Find another job"?
If the employer is not satisfied with the language skills of his employees (or any other aspect of their job performance), he is perfectly right to terminate their employment and seek employment elsewhere. It wouldn't be Jamten's place to do that unless he has been granted the authority to do so.
The second way that Mexico is different is that we have defeated them in war, and now possess what they used to possess, by purchase, treaty, and other legal means. The reason that fact is important to this discussion, is that if Mexican education and political propaganda teaches that the southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, then that is what the immigrant believes in his heart. From there springs the animus and eventual disrespect for our immigration laws, and by extension, our culture and our country.
The great and powerful Poohbah has spoken! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The great and powerful Poohbah has spoken!
A logical inference is a conclusion that derives from a speculation or an assertion or other unconfirmed information and is not factual. It is an inference.
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.