Imigration in America

[Chesspiece_face]

This topic needs more justice then I'm about to bring to it, but with everything happening around the nation because of Arizona's new immigration laws, I feel the need to voice my opinion on the subject.

*Spoken in a gravelly voice*

"Justice? Justice comes at the edge of a Machete."

[NuurAbSaal]

*Spoken in a gravelly voice*

"Justice? Justice comes at the edge of a Machete."

Eagerly anticipated .

take care
Tarabulus

[Jester]

"Justice? Justice comes at the edge of a Machete."

Great, just what we need. Another documentary with an axe to grind.


-Jester

[kandrathe]

*Spoken in a gravelly voice*

"Justice? Justice comes at the edge of a Machete."

Oh. I thought you were talking about this *real* life case.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Try to find a State certified teacher who speaks Swahili, Thai, Chinese, Spanish, Hmong, and Russian just to name a few...

I think there's been a disconnect here. You claimed that having to learn a second language somehow hurt the school system's ability to teach the basics. Jester replied that he didn't accept that, since many school systems (in other countries) routinely teach second languages. To that, I would add that those school systems seem to teach the basics better than we do.

Now, your introduction of finding teachers who speak a second language is misleading. The only teachers you need in a school with foreign language ability are teachers of that language. Other than that, all teaching should be done in English. After religion, language is the greatest divisive force. If immigrants want to be part of our society, then they must be able to communicate with us and we with them. Not forcing them to learn English is a disservice to both them and to us.

It's hard. Believe me, I know -- I failed first grade because when I started it, I did not know much English. But, in the long run, it was a good thing. And I'm a strong supporter of the need to officially make English our native language and to require a spoken fluency for an immigrant to become a citizen.

--Pete

---

Hi,

. . . with an axe to grind.

Knife, not axe

--Pete

[Jester]

It's hard. Believe me, I know -- I failed first grade because when I started it, I did not know much English. But, in the long run, it was a good thing. And I'm a strong supporter of the need to officially make English our native language and to require a spoken fluency for an immigrant to become a citizen.

For what it's worth, this is a requirement in Canada. To become a citizen, you must speak either French or English well enough to understand and be understood.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think there's been a disconnect here. You claimed that having to learn a second language somehow hurt the school system's ability to teach the basics.

Yes, there is a disconnect. What I mean is that the school system needs to spend extra time and money to find people who can communicate with these children. They don't (can't) just throw them into an English speaking classroom, and expect them to keep up. By Federal law, we are required to accommodate children with special educational needs, of which, one of them is ESL. And... to make it worse, this is an unfunded federal mandate.

---

For what it's worth, this is a requirement in Canada. To become a citizen, you must speak either French or English well enough to understand and be understood.

Is it a requirement to attend school?

[Jester]

Is it a requirement to attend school?

For whom? Children under the age of 16? Yes.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

They don't (can't) just throw them into an English speaking classroom, and expect them to keep up.

You're right, they can't. Oh, wait a minute, they did -- with me and with a whole bunch of immigrants who came before me (and for a long time after me). I went to high school with a number of Cubans who spoke no English. And it worked a whole lot better than what they are doing now. If you want a polyglot nation and the divisions, mistrust, and hatred that engenders, then the present practice is the way to go.

By Federal law, we are required to accommodate children with special educational needs, of which, one of them is ESL. And... to make it worse, this is an unfunded federal mandate.

So? Doesn't make it right, just makes it another poorly thought out law.

--Pete

[Taem]

Our problem with illegal immigration starts with the willful breaking of the law by US citizens who are prohibited from employing illegal immigrants.

I will tell you right now that getting new SS-cards, legal ones, are no problem for illegals! When we tell these guys they can't work doubles because of the overtime, they will produce a new SS-card and don a new name. In my business, occasionally an employee will attract the attention of ICE and the employee will disappear for a few weeks, then reappear with a new SS-card. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, they can procure a new SS-card within days.

Let me tell you a little story too while I'm at it; I made a deposit for our business at our local bank. The teller, a young, but nervous looking Hispanic gal, asked for my personal information "in-case" I went over the magic $10,000 deposit number. I gave it too her, but sensing something amiss, told her I didn't have my wallet with me and gave her a different spelling of my first name. She said it was fine I didn't have my wallet with me, which really tipped me off that something was not right. I checked my credit-report later that year and sure enough, the different spelling of my name using my social security number already had a credit loan taken out on it. I disputed it and went back to the bank, but the lady was no longer employed there.

So Kandrathe, as a business manager, let me tell you penalizing employers for hiring illegals is bullshit when we have no possible way to determine who is illegal and who isn't! This whole system as it stands now is currently *broken*!

How fair is it that the ones who break the law, get to be the first in line?

And this is a part of the main issue that really pisses me off! California tried passing a law a decade or more back stopping illegals from leeching off our social services programs, but the measure was beat down - those strong lobbyists I was talking about earlier. It seems like pretty much a no-brianer to me, but I suppose this "minority" lobbied that had they not received these social services like everybody else, they would be an even bigger burden on the system because they wouldn't be able to pay any of their bills and would return to their country rather than face thousands in medical expenses.

And to make matters worse, I'm still not sure how this new Health Care system will affect illegals - will they receive coverage? I don't think hospitals can refuse care to someone who is dying. If they do receive coverage, you can bet your ass everyone single one of them will come here for free medical care, completely and utterly bankrupting this already troubled system.

EDIT:
I don't mind if someone is here legally with a visa, and I am certianly not racist - I am 30% Hispanic myself - but as the name implys, illegals have no place here in a legal society, that is not unless the laws have changed to reverse their status.

[Taem]

That depends on the ratio of producers to moochers, and how much the State offers in social welfare to all comers. Remove the socialistic benefits, and this scheme might work.

If you're really concerned by this (I wouldn't be), just set up a block of a few years on new migrants receiving benefits. Lots of countries do this. That will stop anyone who simply cannot work from coming and receiving benefits. But, overwhelmingly, migrants come to work. Work makes production, production creates taxes, taxes fund programs. They are an enormous net benefit to the social welfare system, not a cost.

It has been tried before! It will not work. See Prop 187. The outcry from illegals and their lobbyists is too great it would seem.

---

Hi,

They don't (can't) just throw them into an English speaking classroom, and expect them to keep up.

You're right, they can't. Oh, wait a minute, they did -- with me and with a whole bunch of immigrants who came before me (and for a long time after me). I went to high school with a number of Cubans who spoke no English. And it worked a whole lot better than what they are doing now. If you want a polyglot nation and the divisions, mistrust, and hatred that engenders, then the present practice is the way to go.

I agree with you about the time you attended school, however you failed to mention that schools now have a mandate to teach much more curriculum in a much shorter time. My kids started learning subjects in school, such as fractions and basic algebra such as variables, at least 1-2 years before I did in school. With this No-Child-Left-Behind act, schools are under a lot more pressure to teach twice the amount of information I learned in school - my kids only get off 2 months for Summer whereas I got off 3.5 months! Try combining this with a classroom full of people who don't speak English as their native language and your run the course for disaster in the making. Truly, the current system is broken.

By Federal law, we are required to accommodate children with special educational needs, of which, one of them is ESL. And... to make it worse, this is an unfunded federal mandate.

So? Doesn't make it right, just makes it another poorly thought out law.

EDIT: This forum just combined two of my posts and messed up the tags on them....

[Taem]

This topic needs more justice then I'm about to bring to it, but with everything happening around the nation because of Arizona's new immigration laws, I feel the need to voice my opinion on the subject.

*Spoken in a gravelly voice*

"Justice? Justice comes at the edge of a Machete."

I'm speechless that this is a real movie, and even more aghast that it would come out right now! I think a movie like this gives people here illegally the wrong idea. Oh well, whatever makes a buck. This is America after-all.

[Jester]

It has been tried before! It will not work. See Prop 187. The outcry from illegals and their lobbyists is too great it would seem.

---

That's not the same thing. I was talking about a delay of a couple years before a migrant (a then-legal one) could take advantage of certain social services, like welfare or child support, in order to prevent people from moving to the US entirely to use the public welfare services. There are requirements like this for migrants in lots of different countries.

Prop. 187 would have declared all illegal migrants totally ineligible for all public services except emergency health care. Period. That's a very different kettle of fish, and no kidding it didn't work. Such a law is utterly unworkable on a number of levels, humane, practical, and legal.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Prop. 187 would have declared all illegal migrants totally ineligible for all public services except emergency health care. Period. That's a very different kettle of fish, and no kidding it didn't work. Such a law is utterly unworkable on a number of levels, humane, practical, and legal.

California is used to the unworkable, hence the failed state.

---

So? Doesn't make it right, just makes it another poorly thought out law.

I used to believe that. But, I think now they do it to us on purpose.

[Jester]

California is used to the unworkable, hence the failed state.

/puts on best Rick James accent

"California's a hell of a state."

I think they'll be fine in the long run. There's a lot of serious mistakes that have been made, and the whole plebicite ballot initiative idea is behind at least half of them. But it's still a rich state, with some of the most innovative industry anywhere in the world. They'll manage. This ain't Somalia.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think they'll be fine in the long run. There's a lot of serious mistakes that have been made, and the whole plebicite ballot initiative idea is behind at least half of them.

True. California is in the unique position of suffering from too much democracy. We have ballot initiatives here, and they make havoc with the operation of the State. One side is successful in squashing any attempt to pay for the socialist state enacted by the other. In the long run, both sides lose. I'm more in favor of ideas like CSPAN, where voters can see their morons in action.

But it's still a rich state, with some of the most innovative industry anywhere in the world. They'll manage. This ain't Somalia.

True. We haven't seen guerrilla armies run by MS13 warlords in technical's terrorizing the streets... yet. Oh wait... In some places, but it's not systemic yet.

[Jester]

True. We haven't seen guerrilla armies run by MS13 warlords in technical's terrorizing the streets... yet. Oh wait... In some places, but it's not systemic yet.

While not to trivialize what is no doubt a large source of violent crime in LA, somehow, I don't think California is about to descend into gang-led warlordism.

But, if you're really terrified about it, my first two suggestions would be to cut off their sources of funding: human smuggling and the war on drugs, both easily accomplished by lowering the barriers at the border.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

The happy border fantasy may be close to true between two states not generally screwed up -- the US and Canada-- but between a political/social basket case, Mexico, and the leading democracy and economy in the free world, America, such is not the case.

The idea is what, that Mexicans are exporting their political instability along with their workers?

Yes. But we get some payback, since the illegal arms trade going south is a problem for them. Fair trade, as I see it, a nice steaming pile of quid pro quo.

Send us your crooks and your overpopulation, we'll send you some guns to make your lives more interesting.

Beyond the drug trade is human trafficking, which is a dirtier, nastier problem in its own right.

Get rid of that, and your problems are controlled - so long as you like having relatively open borders. If not, then closing them is going to remain a problem, and illegal migrants will continue to find ways through.

No, so long as you have controlled borders, whatever the ease, or difficulty, in crossing them. Robert Frost: Good fences make good neighbors.

The question is what happens to *Americans*. I somehow doubt they get treated the same, if only because their reasons for being in Mexico illegally would have to be radically different.

Last I checked, about 500,000 American expats in Mexico, though that number has gone down per a State Department memo in the past year.

No, they do not get treated with the laxness Mexicans do here.

I am sure there are some Americans in Mexico illegally, most of whom are fugitives, and some of whom will not return. The Mexican government won't extradite them, due to their having commited capital crimes and the Mexican government won't extradite to a country with the death penalty.

From the land of Santa Muerta, that's a rich irony indeed.

Actually, it's sickening, far, far beyond the French harboring Polanski for all these years.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

I agree with you about the time you attended school, however you failed to mention that schools now have a mandate to teach much more curriculum in a much shorter time.

Really? And on what do you base this conclusion?

My graduating class in high school could read and understand pretty much everything written in English. We'd read at least 150 major novels (triple that for the college prep programs). We could write in appropriate style for a report, a letter, and fiction. We'd each written at least one poem, with meter and rhyme. Oh, and we could diagram a sentence, two different ways, before getting to high school. Grammar wasn't taught in high school, but incorrect grammar cost you in everything you wrote. And most of us knew what a gerund is.

Everybody had at least one year of math and one of geometry. We could actually make change or figure the paint required for a room. The prep program took one up to the edge of calculus (some public schools went even further).

Two years of a foreign language were required (Latin qualified). Many of us took two of Latin and three of something else (Spanish, in my case). History and civics were covered, but unfortunately just from the American/English viewpoint. Knowledge of geography from elementary school was expected. Most of us could sketch a pretty good map of any continent, with most of its countries and most of their capitals (as well as some other major cities).

Biology, chemistry, and physics were offered. At least one was required to graduate, but all three were expected in the prep curriculum. One year of either music or art appreciation, and four years of religion rounded out the curriculum.

Both from the incoming college students I've had in my classes in the past, and from the children of my friends in the present, I do not think that the modern curriculum is any fuller or any more difficult than mine was fifty years ago.

EDIT: This forum just combined two of my posts and messed up the tags on them....

Yeah, that's been happening to me, too. It treats the second post as an edit to the first (I think).

--Pete

---

Hi,

So? Doesn't make it right, just makes it another poorly thought out law.

Actually, I was the one who wrote that. This ability to nest quotes is neat, but it adds a new opportunity to screw up.

--Pete

[Jester]

No, so long as you have controlled borders, whatever the ease, or difficulty, in crossing them. Robert Frost: Good fences make good neighbors.

If I recall my Frost, the message was a touch more ambiguous than that. But, even charitably, a fence is not just a boundary, it is a place of mutual agreement. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that in Mexico, and indeed in the US, there are plenty of things that do not love a wall. Unilateral enforcement is swimming against the current, at best.

Controlling a border is relatively easy when you're only looking out for a handful of wanted criminals. It's basically impossible when you're trying to stop the flow of hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars in drugs across a border two thousand miles long. How controllable a border is depends on what you mean by control, what your objective is. Change your objectives, and control will be much easier. Keep the existing ones, and I bet you never gain control of labour migration, let alone the drug trade, or violent gangs.

Beyond the drug trade is human trafficking, which is a dirtier, nastier problem in its own right.

Indeed, but only because there is a business in it. Trafficking people across borders where migration is not sharply restricted is a job for Greyhound, not for drug gangs. But so long as wage differentials persist, and yet the flow of migrants is sharply restricted, you're going to get human trafficking, and very ugly people are going to make money off of it.

-Jester

---

We'd read at least 150 major novels (triple that for the college prep programs).

This all sounds like my high school experience, except for this. I took IB higher-level English, which is pretty much the international gold standard these days for literature at that level. I read plenty of neat stuff - Joseph Conrad, Robertson Davies, Garcia Marquez, James Joyce (the easy stuff, not the crazy stuff) lots of Shakespeare, Borges.. but even if you count plays, short story collections, poetry, and everything else, I still don't think I'd come up to 50 works, let alone 150, or (holy hell) 450.

If I wanted to read 450 major novels, I'd have to set aside at least a whole year, just for that, and even then I doubt I'd get it done. That's a colossal amount of reading. Did they really get everyone to do this?

-Jester