[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]How about they don't get a license until they can read the signs...which are in English.:| They are gonna drive.. i would rather they get a license and learn the road signs and safety regulations. They can only drive if they pass the requirements for driving....otherwise they are driving illegally. Are you proposing we get rid of all laws because someone might break them anyway?[QUOTE="weezyfb"]
he is counting on dividing people and stirring the pot. Giving tests to new immigrants in their native tongue makes sure they know the road safety before they learn the language. i dont know about you but i prefer everyone on the road know what they are doing
weezyfb
republicans need to stop
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] How about they don't get a license until they can read the signs...which are in English.:|They are gonna drive.. i would rather they get a license and learn the road signs and safety regulations. They can only drive if they pass the requirements for driving....otherwise they are driving illegally. Are you proposing we get rid of all laws because someone might break them anyway? the tests are already being offered it other languages though.LJS9502_basic
They can only drive if they pass the requirements for driving....otherwise they are driving illegally. Are you proposing we get rid of all laws because someone might break them anyway? the tests are already being offered it other languages though. Which should be changed. And a reading proficiency test administered for renewal.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="weezyfb"] They are gonna drive.. i would rather they get a license and learn the road signs and safety regulations.weezyfb
[QUOTE="weezyfb"]the tests are already being offered it other languages though. Which should be changed. And a reading proficiency test administered for renewal.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] They can only drive if they pass the requirements for driving....otherwise they are driving illegally. Are you proposing we get rid of all laws because someone might break them anyway?LJS9502_basic
I agree with LJS...
The only problem with the English-only approach is that it fails to take into account the historical diversity of the territory that comprises the United States. Everyone should understand that much of this country was originally a part of the Spanish "ultramar". Spanish was spoken in such places as South Texas, New Mexico, California, Florida, and Puerto Rico since long before the United States even existed. When the US annexed those territories, certain guarantees of liberty were made to the people of those regions. They could keep their religion, their culture, and their language. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of making English the official langauge, but I insist that exceptions be made for those parts of the country that have had a continious Spanish-epeaking presence for nearly 500 years now. A lot of people forget that not all hispanics immigrated to the US. For a great many people the US expanded right over them, and justice demands that those people be left in peace.
I think that we can all agree that English should not be the official langauge of Puerto Rico, for example. This is beyond question. To attempt to impose English on the people of Puerto Rico would, in fact, be considered a crime against humanity under international law as a form of cultural genocide.
We don't want to advocate genocide, do we?
Those people from 500 years ago are no longer living and I'm sure they and their families have adapted to the English language by now. You're talking how many generations? It's the new immigrants that are not adapting and they were certainly not here 500 years ago. By the way....forcing people to learn the language is not at all analogous to genocide. Way to appeal to emotion.The only problem with the English-only approach is that it fails to take into account the historical diversity of the territory that comprises the United States. Everyone should understand that much of this country was originally a part of the Spanish "ultramar". Spanish was spoken in such places as South Texas, New Mexico, California, Florida, and Puerto Rico since long before the United States even existed. When the US annexed those territories, certain guarantees of liberty were made to the people of those regions. They could keep their religion, their culture, and their language. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of making English the official langauge, but I insist that exceptions be made for those parts of the country that have had a continious Spanish-epeaking presence for nearly 500 years now. A lot of people forget that not all hispanics immigrated to the US. For a great many people the US expanded right over them, and justice demands that those people be left in peace.
I think that we can all agree that English should not be the official langauge of Puerto Rico, for example. This is beyond question. To attempt to impose English on the people of Puerto Rico would, in fact, be considered a crime against humanity under international law as a form of cultural genocide.
We don't want to advocate genocide, do we?
dkrustyklown
Which should be changed. And a reading proficiency test administered for renewal.LJS9502_basic
That is rather discriminatory to new immigrants. Adjusting to a new country is tough enough without having them deal with the more tests and red tape. They will learn the language as they need to to but you dont need to speak english to drive a vehicle. The current system works fine
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Which should be changed. And a reading proficiency test administered for renewal.weezyfb
That is rather discriminatory to new immigrants. Adjusting to a new country is tough enough without having them deal with the more tests and red tape. They will learn the language as they need to to but you dont need to speak english to drive a vehicle. The current system works fine
Yet why is it that since the US became a country it's welcomed many immigrants from many countries that DID learn English. Sink or swim if you choose to move to a country that has a different language. YOU adapt...not the country.In a nation built by immigrants, how do you choose which should be declared the national language? By who got here first? Then we should start learning a Native American tongue because the first established language in this land was certainly not English. We can't learn most of the Native American languages anyway, because they were made extinct by Europeans.albatrossdrums
Most spoken language is english, thus use english. Down here signs are in english and spanish so I don't mind us giving the test in two languages. But we certainly shouldn't give it in more than that.
[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Which should be changed. And a reading proficiency test administered for renewal.LJS9502_basic
That is rather discriminatory to new immigrants. Adjusting to a new country is tough enough without having them deal with the more tests and red tape. They will learn the language as they need to to but you dont need to speak english to drive a vehicle. The current system works fine
Yet why is it that since the US became a country it's welcomed many immigrants from many countries that DID learn English. Sink or swim if you choose to move to a country that has a different language. YOU adapt...not the country. Adaptation doesn't happen overnight nor can a language be learned overnight. Immigrants are a necessary part of our society and the transition is difficult enough without having to jump through hoops to get something as basic as a license. Your proposition doesn't benefit new immigrants which in turn doesn't benefit us. This politician is merely trying to generate some steam with his "screw the immigrants" campaign. You cant make immigrants lives harder and in turn allow more and more to come in as they are a integral part of our economy. Its like those people who want more Medicare and lower taxes...we cant have it both ways.Adaptation doesn't happen overnight nor can a language be learned overnight. Immigrants are a necessary part of our society and the transition is difficult enough without having to jump through hoops to get something as basic as a license. Your proposition doesn't benefit new immigrants which in turn doesn't benefit us. This politician is merely trying to generate some steam with his "screw the immigrants" campaign. You cant make immigrants lives harder and in turn allow more and more to come in as they are a integral part of our economy. Its like those people who want more Medicare and lower taxes...we cant have it both ways.weezyfbActually immigrants aren't necessary to society. It's more advantageous for the immigrant than it is to society. The US has a large population already. Again if someone is interested enough in a country to immigrate there then they have more than enough time to learn basic English. You assume that I have the idea to leave my country and poof....I'm in the US. That does not happen with legal immigration. And frankly if said immigrant wants to be successful here than it's VERY important that he know the language. English is one of the most common languages in the world....it's not like we speak a language that has zero exposure around the world. Either we want the US to be a successful country or we want it to become a backward country. I don't know about you but I'd rather be successful than not and you can't be successful if your people cannot communicate with each other. I notice you had no comment about the millions of legal immigrants since inception that DID adapt to the country. Yeah they may have an accent....but they speak English. If they wish to be bilingual and speak with family and friends in their native language...cool. But they NEED to be able to maneuver in the common language of the country they adopt. That's just common sense. If they have no interest in doing so...they have no interest in becoming a viable member of said society. And totally unnecessary to that society.
Actually immigrants aren't necessary to society. It's more advantageous for the immigrant than it is to society. The US has a large population already. Again if someone is interested enough in a country to immigrate there then they have more than enough time to learn basic English. You assume that I have the idea to leave my country and poof....I'm in the US. That does not happen with legal immigration. And frankly if said immigrant wants to be successful here than it's VERY important that he know the language. English is one of the most common languages in the world....it's not like we speak a language that has zero exposure around the world. Either we want the US to be a successful country or we want it to become a backward country. I don't know about you but I'd rather be successful than not and you can't be successful if your people cannot communicate with each other. I notice you had no comment about the millions of legal immigrants since inception that DID adapt to the country. Yeah they may have an accent....but they speak English. If they wish to be bilingual and speak with family and friends in their native language...cool. But they NEED to be able to maneuver in the common language of the country they adopt. That's just common sense. If they have no interest in doing so...they have no interest in becoming a viable member of said society. And totally unnecessary to that society. that is a great eventual goal but i dont see how taking the test in their chosen language affects the endgame you posted. Im not saying they shoudlnt or wont learn English as most immigrants do but the transition period is smoother with the laws the way they are currently.[QUOTE="weezyfb"] Adaptation doesn't happen overnight nor can a language be learned overnight. Immigrants are a necessary part of our society and the transition is difficult enough without having to jump through hoops to get something as basic as a license. Your proposition doesn't benefit new immigrants which in turn doesn't benefit us. This politician is merely trying to generate some steam with his "screw the immigrants" campaign. You cant make immigrants lives harder and in turn allow more and more to come in as they are a integral part of our economy. Its like those people who want more Medicare and lower taxes...we cant have it both ways.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="weezyfb"] that is a great eventual goal but i dont see how taking the test in their chosen language affects the endgame you posted. Im not saying they shoudlnt or wont learn English as most immigrants do but the transition period is smoother with the laws the way they are currently.LJS9502_basicThey can use public transport until they can take the test in English. Again driving is a privilege and not a right. Society can put restraints on it.
As taxpayers they are entitled to that privelage as much as you or I and shouldnt be denied that or face extra requirements and tests on the basis of a language barrier. This is starting to sound like the `literacy tests`blacks had to take in order to vote . Its just to divisive and discriminatory.
They can use public transport until they can take the test in English. Again driving is a privilege and not a right. Society can put restraints on it.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="weezyfb"] that is a great eventual goal but i dont see how taking the test in their chosen language affects the endgame you posted. Im not saying they shoudlnt or wont learn English as most immigrants do but the transition period is smoother with the laws the way they are currently.weezyfb
As taxpayers they are entitled to that privelage as much as you or I and shouldnt be denied that or face extra requirements and tests on the basis of a language barrier. This is starting to sound like the `literacy tests`blacks had to take in order to vote . Its just to divisive and discriminatory.
No. Paying taxes does not mean one has driving privileges. Paying taxes is your share of providing the necessary means to society. Not the extras. It's nothing like voting which IS a right.No. Paying taxes does not mean one has driving privileges. Paying taxes is your share of providing the necessary means to society. Not the extras. It's nothing like voting which IS a right.LJS9502_basic
Their taxes go to services like roads, bridges, and highways ...it is only fair that they get to drive on them.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. Paying taxes does not mean one has driving privileges. Paying taxes is your share of providing the necessary means to society. Not the extras. It's nothing like voting which IS a right.
weezyfb
Their taxes go to services like roads, bridges, and highways ...it is only fair that they get to drive on them.
Fair to use them.....and public transport does. Not drive on them.[QUOTE="weezyfb"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. Paying taxes does not mean one has driving privileges. Paying taxes is your share of providing the necessary means to society. Not the extras. It's nothing like voting which IS a right.
LJS9502_basic
Their taxes go to services like roads, bridges, and highways ...it is only fair that they get to drive on them.
Fair to use them.....and public transport does. Not drive on them. You are suggesting that they be left out of a privilege which they have every right to, which is wrong. If they can drive, have insurance, obey and understand the rules of the road as most immigrants already do everyday, the initial language barrier is then a non-issue. They will learn english buts should be allowed to participate fully in society until that day. You can take the test in most languages in all the states and there have been no problems, messing with that will only cause problems.Those people from 500 years ago are no longer living and I'm sure they and their families have adapted to the English language by now. You're talking how many generations? It's the new immigrants that are not adapting and they were certainly not here 500 years ago. By the way....forcing people to learn the language is not at all analogous to genocide. Way to appeal to emotion.LJS9502_basic
I suggest that you spend some time visiting with the old Hispanic families of New Mexico. Yes, for the most part they do understand English, but that is not a universal truth, especially in some of the more rural areas. Land grants originally written by Carlos I and Felipe II of Spain are still, to this very day, considered valid titles of ownership under US law. These are farmers and ranchers that have lived continiously on their land and have maintained their cultural traditions without interruption for several centuries now, surviving the wars for independence and the annexation by the US.
Then you have Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a US territory that is overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking. 90% of Puerto Ricans do not speak English fluently. The island has a cultural and linguistic heritage that goes back 500 years. Spanish is the primary language of commerce, government, and education on that island. To attempt to impose the English language on the people of Puerto Rico would constitute an attempt to destroy, in part or in whole, the culture of a distinct ethnic group.
The attempt to willfully destroy the culture of a distinct ethnic group, is genocide.
Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide:
In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religous group, such
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
To meet the definition of genocide, actions need not kill or cause death of members of a group. Merely suppressing a group's linguistic and cultural heritage is sufficient to constitute genocide.
An ethnic group is defined by the convention as: a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.
Since most Puerto Ricans do not speak English fluently, to impose English on them would cause serious mental harm to them as a group by depriving them of an essential part of their ethnic heritage. Keep in mind that they did not come to the United States. The United States came to them, by war and force of arms no less. We're not talking about immigrants that come to America, here. We're talking about people who live in their own homeland where they have practiced their own cultural traditions and have spoken their native langauge for generations before the United States annexed them by force. To demand that they learn English, a language which is foreign to them, is unjust and cruel.
As I said earlier, I do not oppose making English the official language of the United States. In fact, I support such a notion. What I do argue for, however, are regional exceptions. For example, I firmly belive that Hopi should be allowed equal status in the four corners area of the US. Spanish should be allowed equal status in those parts of New Mexico that have continiously spoken Spanish for generations. French should be given similar status in those parts of Louisiana where some people still speak it. Spanish should have equal status in Puerto Rico, as well.
Do we, as a country, generally need to use English? Of course we do, but we also need to recognize that this country was formed from the union of many cultures, not just English hegemony. As a matter of fact, the British flag never flew over most of this country's land. Frenchmen and Spaniards were important factors in this nation's birth, as attested to by the inclusion of the descendants of many French and Spanish soldiers in the Sons of the American Revolution.
I'm a conservative man. I'm proud of the United States. I don't think that illegal immigrants should be given amnesty because their entry into this country is illicit. I am also hispanic, however, and as I respect America, I also demand respect from my fellow Americans and especially my government.
When some of my fellow conservatives thump their chests and demand that English be the only language used, regardless of the unique regional histories, then that is the cleaving point at which I must take my leave from their company. I will not be a part of subjecting people that have been minding their own business for centuries to cultural imperialism.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="weezyfb"]Fair to use them.....and public transport does. Not drive on them. You are suggesting that they be left out of a privilege which they have every right to, which is wrong. If they can drive, have insurance, obey and understand the rules of the road as most immigrants already do everyday, the initial language barrier is then a non-issue. They will learn english buts should be allowed to participate fully in society until that day. You can take the test in most languages in all the states and there have been no problems, messing with that will only cause problems.Their taxes go to services like roads, bridges, and highways ...it is only fair that they get to drive on them.
weezyfb
Of course it is.. How are they suppose to communicate to a police officer or another person in a car crash if they can not speak english? :|
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment