Tomorrow's A Day With Out An Immigrant

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov, Gentleman wrote: Anyway, today was a day just like any other day. Nobody to clean my apartment, nobody to cook my meals...

No senoritas to drink your shampanyov with...

Just like any other day...

Why should it be any different, ha?

And that picture is obviously from before Lindsay Lohan decided that she really could do without a few pounds

And before someone told she'd look good as a blonde

Okay, the day is over. Time for bed.

Generic wrote: didn't notice any difference....well...we had 3 people call in...one was hispanic...but the other two are caucasian...

typical day in retail...

I noticed it. About 500K of them filled the streets waving the Mexican flag.

Somebody is obsessed with LL. :D

Taboo # 7 wrote: Here's my problem with the situation: every day when I work, I come into contact with Mexican and other Latino immigrants who come into the store and try to get food for their families. They're usually on food stamps, but they also have cash from the jobs that they work (and that a hell of a lot of "natives" I know wouldn't sniff at). To paint them all as "welching off the government without contributing something back" is borderline racist, at best.

Sure, there are some who live off the dole, but you can say that of every racial group. If you come to this country illegally but do your best to provide for your family and get naturalized, you shouldn't be penalized. And stop with the goddam "learn the language" crap, okay. English is easily the hardest language to learn, especially if you're past the early stages of childhood when the capacity to learn and distinguish between languages. Don't give me this bullshit that "they should learn our language", sure it would be nice if they were able to speak English but maybe we (us "natives" should try, just try, to learn a little Spanish. It wouldn't kill you to learn the preterite form of "tener", would it?

Actually, I disagree. I think you ought to learn the language. From my experience, because there are a lot of Puerto Ricans in Philly, at my job, it gets frustrating when a customer comes in to place an order but doesn't speak Engtlish. He might have a friend as a translator but when the translator gets it wrong - which is often in the case of food - the guy who doesn't speak Spanish gets upset. In this city, there are also a lot of Eastern European immigrants. Most of them try to learn the language so they can become fluent in it as well as English. When my relatives came as immigrants from the Ukraine, they had to learn English. No exceptions. If you couldn't speak English decently enough, you couldn't be employed. Some say we should become bilingual with Spanish, but why haven't we become bilingual with any other European language? Spanish is much closer in form and pronounciation than any Eastern European language is.

actually, in the ESOL endorsement class i had to take for my teaching certification, we learned that today's immigrants are in fact learning english at a faster rate than the immigrants of, say, 100 years ago, and more immigrants today make the effort to become fluent in english than in the past. we think of it as being the opposite because, as we weren't present during the early waves of mass immigration, we don't have practical experience with immigrants from that time period. also, ethnic communities are not as segregated from one another as they once were so learning english is easier and more practical in today's america.

AgentWood wrote: actually, in the ESOL endorsement class i had to take for my teaching certification, we learned that today's immigrants are in fact learning english at a faster rate than the immigrants of, say, 100 years ago, and more immigrants today make the effort to become fluent in english than in the past. we think of it as being the opposite because, as we weren't present during the early waves of mass immigration, we don't have practical experience with immigrants from that time period. also, ethnic communities are not as segregated from one another as they once were so learning english is easier and more practical in today's america.

That maybe the case, as I trust your word on this, however in Southern California alot of the immigrants do not speak English. At my graduation from high school back in 94, there were 34 illegal aliens that graduated next to me. . .and they didn't speak a lick of English. Here you are expected to speak spanish as well. . .however for Spanish speakers it's not that important.

Maybe I'm way off, but anyone that immigrates to another country should make every effort to speak that language. I'm not saying to give up thier original language, but a good honest effort to learn the language around them.

JHC

This blue-eyed boy that wants to be wrote:

Actually, I disagree. I think you ought to learn the language. From my experience, because there are a lot of Puerto Ricans in Philly, at my job, it gets frustrating when a customer comes in to place an order but doesn't speak Engtlish. He might have a friend as a translator but when the translator gets it wrong - which is often in the case of food - the guy who doesn't speak Spanish gets upset. In this city, there are also a lot of Eastern European immigrants. Most of them try to learn the language so they can become fluent in it as well as English. When my relatives came as immigrants from the Ukraine, they had to learn English. No exceptions. If you couldn't speak English decently enough, you couldn't be employed. Some say we should become bilingual with Spanish, but why haven't we become bilingual with any other European language? Spanish is much closer in form and pronounciation than any Eastern European language is.

When our President says to an English-speaking audience of citizens, "immigrants should learn English," I don't hear that quite the same way as when an immigrant says that to his fellows. You could say it is a "good idea," but that is taking the literal meaning of the words purely at face value, and they were not said with that intent, nor listened-to with that understanding.

I agree it is a "good idea" for immigrants to "learn English," just as I agree (to quote our President again), that we need to "unite our country," "leave no child behind" and "preserve our freedoms." Those are all "good ideas," taken on their literal meanings' merits. That's not at all what the debate is about though, as you recognize it isn't in the case of any of those other phrases.

I will fight this motherfucker even when he uses language that is unassailable, because he means to undo our country's inherent goodness.

This blue-eyed boy that wants to be wrote:

Actually, I disagree. I think you ought to learn the language. From my experience, because there are a lot of Puerto Ricans in Philly, at my job, it gets frustrating when a customer comes in to place an order but doesn't speak Engtlish. He might have a friend as a translator but when the translator gets it wrong - which is often in the case of food - the guy who doesn't speak Spanish gets upset. In this city, there are also a lot of Eastern European immigrants. Most of them try to learn the language so they can become fluent in it as well as English. When my relatives came as immigrants from the Ukraine, they had to learn English. No exceptions. If you couldn't speak English decently enough, you couldn't be employed. Some say we should become bilingual with Spanish, but why haven't we become bilingual with any other European language? Spanish is much closer in form and pronounciation than any Eastern European language is.

The problem with this problem is that there is no real problem.

Even with no "official" status, 97% of US residents speak English "well" or "very well". There is absolutely no existing evidence to suggest that that number would be higher if English would be made mandatory. In Spain, for example, Castillan was enforced for decades under the Franco regime, under penalty of prison. Today, less than 90% speak fluent Castillan, the rest speak Basque, Catalan, and about a dozen others.

In fact, groups like English Now, US English, and ProEnglish.org have consistantly lobbied hard against state and federal legislation that would provide tax subsidies to business that offer ESL education to their employees. These folks are not interested in the cultural advancement of minorities: they are interested in the further marginalization of them.

We can make both English and Spanish the official languages like Canada with English and French.

Then we can fight it out on the streets when 96% of the population has to deal with bilingualism for 4% of people who decide to set shit on fire when the majority speaks own their language. The minority can also call themselves oppressed when they make no effort to learn the majority language but insist the majority learn theirs.

At what point do we add different asian languages to the official language list?

...

no official language plz. When you make one official you lessen the others, and it makes a mess.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

If you want to build a wall on the Rio Grande, hey, go ahead. Just be prepared to work all day out in the orange and vegetable groves under the hot sun, that's all. Oh, and get paid barely enough to get by

Eh but the problem is indeed that those "dirty" jobs are paid poorly because the employers know they can save on labor costs since there's a blossoming market of cheap labor provided by the illegal immigrants.

Shut this market down and the employers will be reduced to pay higher to get ANYONE to work for them, including white Americans. Or: no oranges for you.

no. that's not true

we will get cheaper oranges and whatever from mexico and central america (and mushrooms from europe and africa) etc, only they will be much cheaper than they are now

Well they shouldn't have cultivated the lands in the US in the first place then! A simple calculation: it'd be cheaper to get fruits Costa Rica. What's the point in all those Californian garden haciendas.

Also, why are you so sure they'll be cheaper from Mexico etc. These countries may boycot their exports into US. Or the US government may raise custom duties for Mexican imports to make it up for the domestic exploiters.

Anyway, I didn't talk particularly about field and garden jobs. I meant the principle of economics.

I saw a guy from the garden association on the news yesterday speaking for immigration amnesty. He said that he has to pay (and is happy to pay) 8 dollars an hour to his workers while in Mexico etc they pay 8 dollars a day, and costa rica a quarter an hour. He has to sell his fruit to the distributers at only a slightly higher price as those with less overhead sell them for or he will not be able to sell and everyone will starve. It's the distributors who do not pass the price on to the consumers. With US farms out of the equation, fruit price will drop to match cost from foreign countries.

It's also not good for lands to go uncultivated, that's what they are there for.

The growers association said for every 1 foreign worker picking fruit in the US, 3 and a half jobs are created somewhere else along the chain. When pushed he said 1 illegal job brings 3 and a half citizens and legal immigrants jobs.

That's a good thing (tm) too

so how did you all survive over there? any inconveniences?

no taxis?

ChrissMari wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

ChrissMari wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote:

If you want to build a wall on the Rio Grande, hey, go ahead. Just be prepared to work all day out in the orange and vegetable groves under the hot sun, that's all. Oh, and get paid barely enough to get by

Eh but the problem is indeed that those "dirty" jobs are paid poorly because the employers know they can save on labor costs since there's a blossoming market of cheap labor provided by the illegal immigrants.

Shut this market down and the employers will be reduced to pay higher to get ANYONE to work for them, including white Americans. Or: no oranges for you.

no. that's not true

we will get cheaper oranges and whatever from mexico and central america (and mushrooms from europe and africa) etc, only they will be much cheaper than they are now

Well they shouldn't have cultivated the lands in the US in the first place then! A simple calculation: it'd be cheaper to get fruits Costa Rica. What's the point in all those Californian garden haciendas.

Also, why are you so sure they'll be cheaper from Mexico etc. These countries may boycot their exports into US. Or the US government may raise custom duties for Mexican imports to make it up for the domestic exploiters.

Anyway, I didn't talk particularly about field and garden jobs. I meant the principle of economics.

I saw a guy from the garden association on the news yesterday speaking for immigration amnesty. He said that he has to pay (and is happy to pay) 8 dollars an hour to his workers while in Mexico etc they pay 8 dollars a day, and costa rica a quarter an hour. He has to sell his fruit to the distributers at only a slightly higher price as those with less overhead sell them for or he will not be able to sell and everyone will starve. It's the distributors who do not pass the price on to the consumers. With US farms out of the equation, fruit price will drop to match cost from foreign countries.

It's also not good for lands to go uncultivated, that's what they are there for.

The growers association said for every 1 foreign worker picking fruit in the US, 3 and a half jobs are created somewhere else along the chain. When pushed he said 1 illegal job brings 3 and a half citizens and legal immigrants jobs.

That's a good thing (tm) too

I don't see how employing legal immigrants and citizens won't bring jobs in the forementioned chain? $ 8 per hour is quite good. Most people I know down here earn much less and those are citizens. So why should this good deal go into a foreign country's economy? If they'd pay $ 10 per hour, I may go work there. Yes, it'd increase the price of finished product but so what? I'm ready to pay 2 or 3 times more for fruits knowng there are no "issues" behind them.

do you really care where or how what you buy in your supermarket are produced. when was the last time you actually read the labels? you may get a big surprise when you do.

it's kinda simple...if you do not want to learn English, do not move to an English speaking place, I would have thought that was obvious to even the dumbest motherfucker on earth. I do not speak swahili, therefor darkest africa is not on my list of places I should like to live. Moving to a country and trying to live the way you did in your old one makes nothing but a sponging ecconomic migrant who wants to take take take and give nothing...the exact sort twat who will create extremists and call them down upon their much less arogant fellow countrymen who do make an effort.

Same thing holds true for English speakers in places like Spain, where a bunch of Brit spastics set up home, then refuse to speak spanish, and eventually set up a Brit based sub-ecconomy so the natives gain no benfit from the new arrrivals yet incur all the costs.

Simple rule, if you like it in the country you wish to live in, go there, if you don;t, don't. Anyone who deviates from this is too stupid and shitewitted to care about.

ich lernt Englisch really gut when ich moved hier.

NOOLigan wrote: do you really care where or how what you buy in your supermarket are produced. when was the last time you actually read the labels? you may get a big surprise when you do.

Okay, it's like with "Made In China" goods: a great deal of US companies have their products manufactured overseas, where production costs are cheaper, hence we get it cheaper, too.

Why should I support artificially the market that can't cope without illegal immigrants' labor. I'd better buy cheaper oranges from Costa Rica than California.

NOOLigan wrote: ich lernt Englisch really gut when ich moved hier.

Xactly, if you still wandered around speaking german, people would think you were very rude, and they'd be right.

thus speaks the chap who speaks not a word of Irish (then again i don't speak a word of either scots gaelic or "alster scats" (spide lingo) Either )

EDIT: and based on the number of edits i had to make, my english is kinda ropey and all, I should stick to grunting

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: do you really care where or how what you buy in your supermarket are produced. when was the last time you actually read the labels? you may get a big surprise when you do.

Okay, it's like with "Made In China" goods: a great deal of US companies have their products manufactured overseas, where production costs are cheaper, hence we get it cheaper, too.

Why should I support artificially the market that can't cope without illegal immigrants' labor. I'd better buy cheaper oranges from Costa Rica than California.

when buying orange juice here, it is almost impossible to get 100% Aussie juice. yet we have top oranges in this country. orange juice from Brazil or Argentina gets imported here at prices that our growers can't compete with. they are going out of business but, yet if we all just payed a couple of dollars more we could support out local growers.

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: do you really care where or how what you buy in your supermarket are produced. when was the last time you actually read the labels? you may get a big surprise when you do.

Okay, it's like with "Made In China" goods: a great deal of US companies have their products manufactured overseas, where production costs are cheaper, hence we get it cheaper, too.

Why should I support artificially the market that can't cope without illegal immigrants' labor. I'd better buy cheaper oranges from Costa Rica than California.

I agree, ian, I was simply saying that we`d still have oranges :)

Oddly enough...when George Bush was running for President (and for Governor of Texas) he seemed to be verrrry fond of breaking out the Spanish.

It was his way of "reaching out to the mexican american community"....convenient how he forgets that he courted them in spanish but now wraps himself in the flag.

BTW I do support English as the official language and do think that competency in English should be a requirement for citizenship. Just had to point out the irony of the politics being played here.

ChrissMari wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: do you really care where or how what you buy in your supermarket are produced. when was the last time you actually read the labels? you may get a big surprise when you do.

Okay, it's like with "Made In China" goods: a great deal of US companies have their products manufactured overseas, where production costs are cheaper, hence we get it cheaper, too.

Why should I support artificially the market that can't cope without illegal immigrants' labor. I'd better buy cheaper oranges from Costa Rica than California.

I agree, ian, I was simply saying that we`d still have oranges :)

I don't know if I'd trust those oranges from other countries. On the bright side, if you are a dieter, dysentery sure helps someone loose weight.

JHC

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Hydrapelican wrote: I'm really sick of this BS wedge issue completely fabricated by Karl Rove and the republicans for their "get out the base" vote for 2006. This is exactly the same thing as the gay marriage fabricated wedge issue that was used in the 2004 campaign.

Why wasn't this a "crisis" 6 months ago? Why wasn't there proposed legislation a year ago...because it didn't have any benefit for Frist and the republican majority.

All those that are marching today are being USED and manipulated so that fox news and the local papers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee etc can run stories about the mexican illegals "demanding more stuff" while "waving the mexican flag" and "singing the national anthem in spanish".

What will the Republicans benefit exactly by this "manipulation"? Do the Democrats stand behind those illegal immigrants?

Republicans use the fear of a mexican invasion to turn out their base in battleground states (mostly in the midwest and south that do not have large mexican/latino populations....obviously excluding florida here). The images of the mexican flag being marched down the street, the anthem in spanish and the huge numbers of marchers will be used in Republican propaganda pieces to suggest that if they don't vote republican and stem the tide of mexicans then they will be overrun.

This is a wedge issue...the whole point is to get your base fired up and out to vote...the "minutemen" on the border are a great example of how this image gets played out.

This is almost identical to when bush called for an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage in 2004...Rove and Bush knew that there was no way it would ever pass...but the impact was it made bush and the republicans look like the defenders of traditional family values and the threat of gays marrying was used by fundamentalist churches in the midwest and south to turn out the republican vote. Again the message was...if you dont vote for us the gays and liberals are going to destroy american family values.

Hydrapelican wrote:

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:

Hydrapelican wrote: I'm really sick of this BS wedge issue completely fabricated by Karl Rove and the republicans for their "get out the base" vote for 2006. This is exactly the same thing as the gay marriage fabricated wedge issue that was used in the 2004 campaign.

Why wasn't this a "crisis" 6 months ago? Why wasn't there proposed legislation a year ago...because it didn't have any benefit for Frist and the republican majority.

All those that are marching today are being USED and manipulated so that fox news and the local papers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee etc can run stories about the mexican illegals "demanding more stuff" while "waving the mexican flag" and "singing the national anthem in spanish".

What will the Republicans benefit exactly by this "manipulation"? Do the Democrats stand behind those illegal immigrants?

Republicans use the fear of a mexican invasion to turn out their base in battleground states (mostly in the midwest and south that do not have large mexican/latino populations....obviously excluding florida here). The images of the mexican flag being marched down the street, the anthem in spanish and the huge numbers of marchers will be used in Republican propaganda pieces to suggest that if they don't vote republican and stem the tide of mexicans then they will be overrun.

This is a wedge issue...the whole point is to get your base fired up and out to vote...the "minutemen" on the border are a great example of how this image gets played out.

This is almost identical to when bush called for an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage in 2004...Rove and Bush knew that there was no way it would ever pass...but the impact was it made bush and the republicans look like the defenders of traditional family values and the threat of gays marrying was used by fundamentalist churches in the midwest and south to turn out the republican vote. Again the message was...if you dont vote for us the gays and liberals are going to destroy american family values.

Keep hearing how this is a Republican wedge issue. . .but couldn't the same be said as the Democrates pushing for this as well? Hispanics are the growing voting group. Say they are behind them and they are ensuring that the presidency and senate belong to the Democrates this next voting go-round.

I seriously doubt any legislature that would make all those that illegal here now felons. It wouldbe too costly to partake in, let alone pissing off a large majority of voters. Not only that, Bush already tried to close off the borders, but legalizing all the illegals in the country as a grandfather clause. . .it fell flat.

Anyways, don't see how it's only a republican issue, as the democrates have more to gain from this.

JHC

68 Pontiac wrote:

Anyways, don't see how it's only a republican issue, as the democrates have more to gain from this.

JHC

Ditto.

Simply put...as a minority Democrats are unable to bring any legislation up for consideration in either the house or in the Senate.

This issue was brought up by Republicans for consideration in the Congress. They floated several initiatives including helping an illegal to cross the border, helping to hide them or employ them a felony. They also proposed a guest worker program as well but were very careful to make sure that they never proposed making them citizens etc.

I don't think that them proposing major legislation just came out of the blue or by accident. This is an election year and their base is apathetic about the war (occupation), high gas prices etc and they don't really have a compelling reason to be on fire to go out and vote in a midterm election. This all started about 3 or 4 months ago and all of a sudden the legislation proposals grew into a firestorm.

Democrats have very little to gain from raising this as an issue...democrats cannot propose legislation for consideration so to say that they created/inflamed this issue is false. They basically are put in the position of defending and supporting a lot of the immigrants because these same immigrant populations are a substantial part of their base in the blue states. So in the battleground states it forces the democrats to look weak on "crime and mexicans". This is just plain and simple media manipulation...and again it takes the war and gas prices off the front page of the paper.

I agree that this proposed legislation was never serious (just like the gay marriage amendment was never serious) but raising the issue and talking about it makes the republicans look tough on illegal activity and on mexicans.

The democratic base is very fired up about the war, on the other hand, and is ready to send some of the republicans packing....in midterm elections its all about getting your base out because turnout is usually very low.

BTW I'm not a democrat, I am a libertarian and am outraged about the war, the deficit and all of the civil liberties that are being eroded in our great country.

I want to hunt down and kill Osama bin laden and smash al qaida...not get stuck in the middle of a civil war in a country that was not really a threat to the USA.

I do think that a guest worker program makes sense as that way we can tax the workers and pay for the services that they end up using...and for many other reasons.

There are lots of issues that need to be taken seriously...including immigration...but none of these current efforts are serious...they are just politics in an elections year.

Thanks for theanswer. As I stated else where in this thread, I'm not that informed on this issue. Thanks for clarifying, and I agree to what you say. Such is politics.

JHC