Making It Hard For Immigrants To Get By

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi


So countries with more strict immigration laws than the US, and don't even have this debate, are just filled with racists? Or is the US the miracle exception?

The question of immigration is always one of race and culture: certainly in countries with older cultures (like Mexico), sentiment is far more nativist.

The difference is that US culture is not as staid and set as older ones. The culture and race debates in the US are different than say Mexico, or Europe or a place like Japan.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MRT144
am i the onyl one who imagines gepap talking with a lisp?

Ask Oerdin.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


The question of immigration is always one of race and culture: certainly in countries with older cultures (like Mexico), sentiment is far more nativist.

How so? They're government is based on an Aztec or Mayan system. Other than a few things that survived colonization, there isn't as much left of the old Mexican culture.

The difference is that US culture is not as staid and set as older ones. The culture and race debates in the US are different than say Mexico, or Europe or a place like Japan.

Cultures are always changing. What your arguing is drawing borders based on race. That is racist and nativist. Nor have you successful proven that the US is an exception. If you define it by "old" cultures than whatever length of time you decide is "old" is completely arbitrary, thus irrelevent to modern borders and states. It's like China controlling Taiwan for two days and saying that's enough to make it an inseparable part of the country.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GePap


Ask Oerdin.

Hey, I met you too...

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi


How so? They're government is based on an Aztec or Mayan system. Other than a few things that survived colonization, there isn't as much left of the old Mexican culture.

This discussion was had already. First of all, Nahuatl is still spoke, and 30% of the people of Mexico are decendends of the natives, and 60% mixed blood. They consider themselves as much decendents of Mesoamerican culture as of Spanish culture. The vey name of the country is that of what the Aztecs called themselves, Mexica. The symbol on the middle of the national flag is an Aztec prophesy. Mexicans today eat many of the very same foods the Aztecs and other mesoamerican cultures ate.

Plenty of Mesoamerican culture survived, but more importantly, Mexican themselves identify with the Mesoamerican past, they view themselves as a continuation of that culture mixed with Spanish culture.

Cultures are always changing. What your arguing is drawing borders based on race. That is racist and nativist. Nor have you successful proven that the US is an exception. If you define it by "old" cultures than whatever length of time you decide is "old" is completely arbitrary, thus irrelevent to modern borders and states. It's like China controlling Taiwan for two days and saying that's enough to make it an inseparable part of the country.

Wrong. What I am arguing is that nativist sentiment is drawn from a xenophobic worry that native culture will be destroyed by the coming in of foreigners. Hence all the hoopla about English as a national language, becuase nativsts assume that "American culture" must be in english. Certainly the US is different, in that the self-identity of the country is young. We do think of ourselves as a nation of immigrants, which is not hard when you think that a very large portion of people in this country need only go back three or four generations to find an ancestor born halfway around the world. The story of America (a name based not on a people, but a single guy who made a discovery) in the US is of a New World, one filled with a combination of people's from the old coming to create something brand new and to better themselves. Immigration is an inherent part of that narrative, as well as creating a new identity for oneself through labor.

In places were large numbers of native peoples did survive, or where the majority of the population were drawn as slaves the narrative is certainly different, but the US thinks of itself as a new culture.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Hey, I met you too...

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


This discussion was had already. First of all, Nahuatl is still spoke, and 30% of the people of Mexico are decendends of the natives, and 60% mixed blood. They consider themselves as much decendents of Mesoamerican culture as of Spanish culture. The vey name of the country is that of what the Aztecs called themselves, Mexica. The symbol on the middle of the national flag is an Aztec prophesy. Mexicans today eat many of the very same foods the Aztecs and other mesoamerican cultures ate.

Plenty of Mesoamerican culture survived, but more importantly, Mexican themselves identify with the Mesoamerican past, they view themselves as a continuation of that culture mixed with Spanish culture.

Yes, but run by a western government. And despite what they identify with, the culture of modern Mexico is entirely different from that mesoamerican cultures. Until I see some Sun god worshiping and human sacrifices, you ain't gonna convince that "old" culture is static and thus a reason to treat the US differently.

Wrong. What I am arguing is that nativist sentiment is drawn from a xenophobic worry that native culture will be destroyed by the coming in of foreigners. Hence all the hoopla about English as a national language, becuase nativsts assume that "American culture" must be in english. Certainly the US is different, in that the self-identity of the country is young. We do think of ourselves as a nation of immigrants, which is not hard when you think that a very large portion of people in this country need only go back three or four generations to find an ancestor born halfway around the world. The story of America (a name based not on a people, but a single guy who made a discovery) in the US is of a New World, one filled with a combination of people's from the old coming to create something brand new and to better themselves. Immigration is an inherent part of that narrative, as well as creating a new identity for oneself through labor.

In places were large numbers of native peoples did survive, or where the majority of the population were drawn as slaves the narrative is certainly different, but the US thinks of itself as a new culture. [/QUOTE]

I agree with you on this. The border policies of Mexico or France or Japan are just as nativist (well, more actually). The US is a country of immigrants, but it's no longer an open door. I fully support the entrance of more immigrants into America, but legal immigrants. If our current policy makes it too difficult for the people we need to have come here do so, then the policy must be changed. Until the citizens of the US have the final say as to who can come in.

I aslo agree with English being the national language of the US. Mostly because the majority of the population speaks English. This was the same reason that PuTongHua became the national language of China, despite there being a multitude of languages spread throughout the country. A national language unifies the country regardless of race and background and allows a distinctly American culture to flourish. When people are forced to live in Spanish communities or Chinese communities, factionalism results and can lead to hostilities like the riots in France last year. Immigrants needn't lose their culture when entering the US, but to become American citizens they need be able to join American culture as well. This unifying factor is especially important in a nation of immigrants.

[Ramo]

The Algerian rioters in Paris spoke French. In fact, France has had a long policy of promoting French over other languages. The riot certainly didn't occur because there was an enclave in the suburbs where only Arabic was spoken. Just as LA's black community in the early 90's wasn't foreign to English (ebonics notwithstanding).

A national language isn't going to magically heal the cultural and class antagonisms in our country. Depending on the severity of such legislation, it's only going to help to exclude people from our society.

I don't see how the English language is inherently tied to our conception of America. We are a nation of nations, united by fundamental political ideals of liberty, equality, and pluralism rather than specific cultural preferences (or so the story goes)).

[Ted Striker]

Well said Ramo

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Algerian rioters in Paris spoke French. In fact, France has had a long policy of promoting French over other languages. The riot certainly didn't occur because there was an enclave in the suburbs where only Arabic was spoken. Just as LA's black community in the early 90's wasn't foreign to English (ebonics notwithstanding).

A national language isn't going to magically heal the cultural and class antagonisms in our country. Depending on the severity of such legislation, it's only going to help to exclude people from our society.

I don't see how the English language is inherently tied to our conception of America. We are a nation of nations, united by fundamental political ideals of liberty, equality, and pluralism rather than specific cultural preferences (or so the story goes)).

Poorly said. A national language alone isn't enough. I don't know where you got the idea that it was being treated as a magical cure. However, without a common language it becomes more difficult to be united by "fundamental political ideals of liberty, equality, and pluralism." Language separates people. Imagine trying to have a debate here with everyone speaking the a different language. It won't happen. People who only speak one language would leave for a forum where that language is spoken. How many non-Finns post in the Suomo..whatever threads?

While hosting conversation groups for foreign scholars at Yale, I and others noticed a trend among the Chinese. Most of them had the worst English of the groups. This is because they usually only speak Chinese, at work and at home. Without these conversation groups most of them would have little experience of America outside of their isolated Chinese community. When asked why they didn't do more to interact with other Americans, the answer was uniformly that they were uncomfortable with their English.

Even from my own experiences in China, I can state that the biggest obstacle was the language. Few taxi drivers spoke English in Hangzhou, nor would I expect them to. So I had to learn the Chinese names of places I wanted to go or rely on someone else to communicate with them for me.

Without a national language, America could easily become factionalized and those unifying ideals misinterpreted and confused across cultural and language boundaries. You can't have this job because you don't speak Italian. Sorry, this school is French only. We'll try to find you a doctor who speaks Korean, until then please stop screaming.

There is no cohesive culture group where large numbers of its members integrate regularly with one another with sharing a common language. My point is simply that a common language is important to sharing a common culture, and English is that language in America.

[Ramo]

Total non-sequitur. Having a common language is a seperate idea from having a national language. The discussion is about the latter, not the former.

Let's start off with the definition of a national language that the Senate used.

After an emotional debate fraught with symbolism, the Senate yesterday voted to make English the "national language" of the United States, declaring that no one has a right to federal communications or services in a language other than English except for those already guaranteed by law.

The measure, approved 63 to 34, directs the government to "preserve and enhance" the role of English, without altering current laws that require some government documents and services be provided in other languages. Opponents, however, said it could negate executive orders, regulations, civil service guidances and other multilingual ordinances not officially sanctioned by acts of Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051800242.html

I don't see how this measure would encourage many people to learn English. Rather, it would have the opposite effect, pushing people into ethnic enclaves where they could avoid official communication. The idea that the IRS printing forms in Spanish is going to tear this country apart is insane.

[DaShi]

Why just Spanish forms? Why not Japanese forms as well? Why not French forms?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ramo
Total non-sequitur. Having a common language is a seperate idea from having a national language. The discussion is about the latter, not the former.

Non sequitur? Then where did this come from: "I don't see how the English language is inherently tied to our conception of America. We are a nation of nations, united by fundamental political ideals of liberty, equality, and pluralism rather than specific cultural preferences (or so the story goes))." ?

Separating the two in the manner that you are attempting is nonsense. A national language establishes a common language.

Let's start off with the definition of a national language that the Senate used.

After an emotional debate fraught with symbolism, the Senate yesterday voted to make English the "national language" of the United States, declaring that no one has a right to federal communications or services in a language other than English except for those already guaranteed by law.

The measure, approved 63 to 34, directs the government to "preserve and enhance" the role of English, without altering current laws that require some government documents and services be provided in other languages. Opponents, however, said it could negate executive orders, regulations, civil service guidances and other multilingual ordinances not officially sanctioned by acts of Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051800242.html

I don't see how this measure would encourage many people to learn English. Rather, it would have the opposite effect, pushing people into ethnic enclaves where they could avoid official communication. The idea that the IRS printing forms in Spanish is going to tear this country apart is insane.

The following measure does protect already established multi-lingual services and treats English as the common language of the US.

From your own source:

Further complicating the picture, moments after approving the Inhofe amendment, the Senate voted 58 to 39 to approve a competing amendment by Salazar. It declared English the "common unifying language of the United States," but mandated that nothing in that declaration "shall diminish or expand any existing rights" regarding multilingual services.

[Ramo]

Non sequitur? Then where did this come from

The point was that the American nation is suppoed to be international and ideological.

Why just Spanish forms? Why not Japanese forms as well? Why not French forms?

If there's a huge amount of Japanese or French speakers who lack English fluency, there's no reason not to. It's about pragmatism, rather than superiority about specific languages.

A national language establishes a common language.

No. It doesn't. That's totally absurd. This is part of that magic that I was talking about.

Nor is a national language necessary for a common langauge (see the US for the past few centuries).

The following measure does protect already established multi-lingual services and treats English as the common language of the US.

Yes, Salazar obviously disagreed with Inhofe, and undermined his Amendment to a great extent (and now only expansion of federal services in other languages is prevented). The point remains, that the Inhofe Amendment is ultimately what the National Languagers wanted, and the Salazar Amendment is simply a tamer version of the same principle.

[pchang]

Canada

Canada has more land than the US and only 1/9th the population. They've got tons of room for more immigrants. They should be letting in 9 times more people than the US.