Author |
Message |
Sifo
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Did you know that in the rest of the world, most people speak 2, 3, or more languages? Like I said in my above statement, as long as they can read or the road signs (or at least recognize the characters, which is easy), I could care less if they can ready the rest of the language. Some things are pretty universal, like arrows and numbers. Most people that don't speak English primarily also know a language or part of one to understand numbers and most road signs. I personally just think that the American culture is lazy, and has lead us to all sorts of problems because of it. Phelan, Why do you see Americans as lazy for not learning other languages, yet defend those who want to live in America but are too lazy to learn the language that dominates America? EDIT:I could go on and on about this type of thing, but it's not really worth IMHO at this time. Some things are within reason, and some aren't. Even though most things in USA are ran in English, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be accomodating to a certain extent to other languages, since we do NOT have an official language. At the same time, the system we have now works for the most part and we can't accomodate everywhere. I really think the issue mentioned by the OP is best handled at the State level. Here in Texas, that would never fly. We have a huge part of the community que solo habla Español. It would be political suicide to suggest requiring the population to learn English. Too many bilinguals would use it to light their torches and march into election. And you make the point that it would "never fly" in TX. Again defending the laziness of those who just refuse to learn the dominant language of our country. One of the things that has made the US great is that people have assimilated into it, "The Great Melting Pot" thing. Now we have large populations who are refusing to assimilate. That does lead to divisiveness and needs to be addressed. (Message edited by SIFO on April 29, 2010) |
Phelan
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:28 pm: |
|
I'm not saying that they shouldn't learn English. I'm saying that, at least in this part of the country, it needn't be required for a DL. If they can't get a DL, they'll drive illegally anyway and we'll pay the price for it. I think their $24 fee for a DL will pay for what it cost to have the test translated to Spanish, which would be almost nothing, since the tests are on PC now anyway. I'm saying that if we work to learn more languages, we can open more doors. I can bet you most of the immigrants are working to learn English. As someone else stated though, it's one of the hardest languages to learn. However, if one of them speaks 1/2 English and I speak at least 1/2 Spanish, we can communicate pretty damn good and make a deal. I can tell you that as a Red-headed waiter in a Tex-Mex restaraunt, I get a lot more respect for my ability to speak Spanish than otherwise. Likewise, I can communicate very well with the cooks (all hispanic) on a level that most of the servers can't (except the Hispanic ones). (Message edited by phelan on April 29, 2010) |
Hootowl
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:35 pm: |
|
People also need to remember that the inhabitants of what we call Texas and other parts of the Southwest were speaking Spanish long before they became a part of the US. Being bilingual where I live is almost a requirement, and I wish I had taken Spanish when I was younger. I'm struggling to learn now, though since the languages have much in common, I can read it better than I speak it. I don't see Spanish as a foreign language here. People speak both. It is part of the heritage of the region, IMHO, and I don't see anything wrong with being bilingual in America. |
Blake
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Lies and political fantasy/propaganda are sucky. Truth is good. Note the section below entitled "Language."
Requirements to become a Citizen of the United States of America Age Applicants must be at least 18 years old. Residency An applicant must have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Lawfully admitted for permanent residence means having been legally accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws. Individuals who have been lawfully admitted as permanent residents will be asked to produce an I-551, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as proof of their status. Residence and Physical Presence An applicant is eligible to file if, immediately preceding the filing of the application, he or she:
has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence; has resided continuously as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to filing with absences from the United States totaling no more than one year; has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous five years (absences of more than six months but less than one year break the continuity of residence unless the applicant can establish that he or she did not abandon his or her residence during such period); has resided within a state or district for at least three months. Good Moral Character Generally, an applicant must show that he or she has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period (typically five years or three years if married to a U.S. citizen or one year for Armed Forces expedite) prior to filing for naturalization. The Service is not limited to the statutory period in determining whether an applicant has established good moral character. An applicant is permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has ever been convicted of murder. An applicant is also permanently barred from naturalization if he or she has been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act on or after November 29, 1990. A person also cannot be found to be a person of good moral character if during the last five years he or she:
has committed and been convicted of one or more crimes involving moral turpitude has committed and been convicted of 2 or more offenses for which the total sentence imposed was 5 years or more has committed and been convicted of any controlled substance law, except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana has been confined to a penal institution during the statutory period, as a result of a conviction, for an aggregate period of 180 days or more has committed and been convicted of two or more gambling offenses is or has earned his or her principle income from illegal gambling is or has been involved in prostitution or commercialized vice is or has been involved in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States is or has been a habitual drunkard is practicing or has practiced polygamy has willfully failed or refused to support dependents has given false testimony, under oath, in order to receive a benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act. An applicant must disclose all relevant facts to the Service, including his or her entire criminal history, regardless of whether the criminal history disqualifies the applicant under the enumerated provisions. Attachment to the Constitution An applicant must show that he or she is attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. Language Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:
have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 15 years and are over 55 years of age; have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over 50 years of age; have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English. United States Government and History Knowledge An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the principles and form of government of the United States. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who, on the date of filing, have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn U.S. History and Government. Applicants who have been residing in the U.S. subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for at least 20 years and are over the age of 65 will be afforded special consideration in satisfying this requirement. Oath of Allegiance To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.; renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title; and bear arms for the Armed Forces of the U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when required. In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she is opposed to any type of service in armed forces based on religious teaching or belief, USCIS will permit these applicants to take a modified oath. Spouses of U.S. Citizens Generally, certain lawful permanent residents married to a U.S. citizen may file for naturalization after residing continuously in the United States for three years if immediately preceding the filing of the application:
the applicant has been married to and living in a valid marital union with the same U.S. citizen spouse for all three years; the U.S. spouse has been a citizen for all three years and meets all physical presence and residence requirements; and the applicant meets all other naturalization requirements. There are also exceptions for lawful permanent residents married to U.S. citizens stationed or employed abroad. Some lawful permanent residents may not have to comply with the residence or physical presence requirements when the U.S. citizen spouse is employed by one of the following:
the U.S. Government (including the U.S. Armed Forces); American research institutes recognized by the Attorney General; recognized U.S. religious organizations; U.S. research institutions; an American firm engaged in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the United States; or certain public international organizations involving the United States. Veterans of U.S. Armed Forces Certain applicants who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces are eligible to file for naturalization based on current or prior U.S. military service. Such applicants should file the N-400 Military Naturalization Packet. Lawful Permanent Residents with Three Years U.S. Military Service An applicant who has served for three years in the U.S. military and who is a lawful permanent resident is excused from any specific period of required residence, period of residence in any specific place, or physical presence within the United States if an application for naturalization is filed while the applicant is still serving or within six months of an honorable discharge. To be eligible for these exemptions, an applicant must:
have served honorably or separated under honorable conditions; completed three years or more of military service; be a legal permanent resident at the time of his or her examination on the application; or establish good moral character if service was discontinuous or not honorable. Applicants who file for naturalization more than six months after termination of three years of service in the U.S. military may count any periods of honorable service as residence and physical presence in the United States. An applicant who has served honorably during any of the following periods of conflict is entitled to certain considerations:
World War I - 4/16/17 to 11/11/18; World War II - 9/1/39 to 12/31/46; Korean Conflict - 6/25/50 to 7/1/55; Vietnam Conflict - 2/28/61 to 10/15/78; Operation Desert Shield/ Desert Storm - 8/29/90 to 4/11/91; or any other period which the President, by Executive Order, has designated as a period in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or were engaged in military operations involving armed conflict with hostile foreign forces. Applicants who have served during any of the aforementioned conflicts may apply for naturalization based on military service after qualifying service and the requirements for specific periods of physical presence in the United States and residence in the United States are waived. http://www.us-immigration-attorney.com/citizenship .htm |
Phelan
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:40 pm: |
|
As far as the lazy comment, I back it up 1000%. I'm not against your right to not learn another language, and I'm all for teaching immigrants to learn English. But, in this part of the country especially, if you run a business and more than half of your population speaks another language like Spanish, and you don't work to learn as much of it as you can, you're robbing yourself of more business in a time that business is crucial for survival. If they are recently moved to the states, they're not going to know English. The language is so difficult that we're taught for 12+ years how to speak it. How can we expect someone to learn it overnight? Even if they learn to speak it pretty good in 6 months, that's a long time to go without driving in a mostly rural community with little public transportation. |
Nevrenuf
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:43 pm: |
|
hmmmm. go figure!!! |
Blake
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:44 pm: |
|
>>> People also need to remember that the inhabitants of what we call Texas and other parts of the Southwest were speaking Spanish long before they became a part of the US. You can take it back further than that given all the native Americans who lived here before the Europeans showed up. Do they administer driving license exams in Mexico City in the Aztec language? |
Ft_bstrd
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:47 pm: |
|
As far as the lazy comment, I back it up 1000%. I'm not against your right to not learn another language, and I'm all for teaching immigrants to learn English. But, in this part of the country especially, if you run a business and more than half of your population speaks another language like Spanish, and you don't work to learn as much of it as you can, you're robbing yourself of more business in a time that business is crucial for survival. If they are recently moved to the states, they're not going to know English. The language is so difficult that we're taught for 12+ years how to speak it. How can we expect someone to learn it overnight? Even if they learn to speak it pretty good in 6 months, that's a long time to go without driving in a mostly rural community with little public transportation. It might be good for us to provide alternative language services for our "guests", but these folks were not invited and are unwanted. If you are going to come into our country, take jobs, sponge off the system, birth children who in turn will sponge off the system, the least you could do is learn the dominant language. |
Fast1075
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:51 pm: |
|
We have two people that work at our shop that are of hispanic culture...one is from Puerto Rico (an american possession btw) and the other is from central Mexico...we recently had a person that was of Cuban/Guatemalan descent....the funny thing is that among the three, there was enough difference between the language each spoke, that there was trouble conveying some ideas between them selves. The fellow from Mexico said that there were a lot of regional dialects he could not understand....and some of our customers speak dialects that none of the three could understand... |
Hootowl
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Do a significant number of people in Mexico City speak Aztec? |
Drkside79
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Sifo, I believe that the 1st amendment does not specify what manor of speech it is protecting just that it is protected. |
Sifo
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Sifo, I believe that the 1st amendment does not specify what manor of speech it is protecting just that it is protected. And how would any of this be a 1st amendment issue? |
Hootowl
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:59 pm: |
|
This thread is not about citizenship requirements, it's about having to know English to legally operate a motorized vehicle on a public roadway. I don't see why that should be a requirement. If you're driving, I'm more interested in making sure you have demonstrated some fundamental ability to do so more than I am interested in making sure you have taken the time to learn English. |
Phelan
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Again, I'm not talking about the illegals. Many of them in this part are legal immigrants with Visas. Not all, but many. This is one of many things that people will never agree on. We have very different perspectives. I eat, work, speak, live, and break bread with Hispanics, so I see things from both sides. Not all situations are equal. |
Texastechx1
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 12:59 pm: |
|
we do have the freedom to speak any language we want... |
Hootowl
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 01:02 pm: |
|
Free Speech means the federal government can't arrest you for speaking out against the government. The first amendment has been horrible misinterpreted. |
Drkside79
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 01:05 pm: |
|
Let me find the definition of speech. Oh look at #6 speech –noun 1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity. 2. the act of speaking: He expresses himself better in speech than in writing. 3. something that is spoken; an utterance, remark, or declaration: We waited for some speech that would indicate her true feelings. 4. a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker before an audience for a given purpose: a fiery speech. 5. any single utterance of an actor in the course of a play, motion picture, etc. 6. the form of utterance characteristic of a particular people or region; a language or dialect. 7. manner of speaking, as of a person: Your slovenly speech is holding back your career. 8. a field of study devoted to the theory and practice of oral communication. |
Sifo
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 01:12 pm: |
|
Drkside76, Congratulations on your ability to use the internet to find a definition of speech. Do you care to comment on how anything being discussed may infringe on 1st amendment rights? |
Hootowl
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 01:13 pm: |
|
You're saying we needed the first amendment in order to protect our right to talk? "Speech" in the first amendment refers to the expression of views that defy the government, and the ability of the press to write things that are in direct opposition to the will of the government. |
Paw
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 01:26 pm: |
|
America's culture is getting lazier with every immigrant that enter the U.S.A. Just Speak the freaking language it is the easiest to learn the the world!!! |
Reindog
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 01:43 pm: |
|
Were youse guys sleeping in Mexican History class again? The language the Aztecs spoke was called Nahuatl, not Aztec. BTW, Mexican history is one of the most interesting histories one can read, especially the Mexican Revolution started in 1910. None of the constitutional mumbo-jumbo: it is mostly a big shoot out from the moment Cortez landed in 1519. |
Hootowl
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 04:10 pm: |
|
*snort* what? Sorry, I fell asleep again |
Buellkowski
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 04:46 pm: |
|
What about the constitutional protection of due process? I don't believe a defendant in court can be compelled to testify in English if it's not their native language. Forcing the defendant to hire a translator to defend themself violates due process. |
Ft_bstrd
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:14 pm: |
|
What about due process? How is that even remotely germane? In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), the Supreme Court determined that illegal immigration enforcement was an administrative function not a judicial matter (different rules). The Federal Government is required to provide an interpreter for non-english speaking immigrants, and the immigrant may be represented by an attorney. The Government isn't required to provide the attorney for free, though. |
Buellkowski
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:25 pm: |
|
How is that even remotely germane? Thought my point was clear. You can't make someone defend himself differently than everyone else. Enacting an English-only law to eliminate the requirement for non-English-speaking accomodation can violate due process. Isn't that what this Alabama gubernatorial candidate is advocating? |
Aesquire
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:30 pm: |
|
.....it is mostly a big shoot out from the moment Cortez landed in 1519. So true. Then there was the time the French invaded....to "collect a debt". |
Sifo
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:42 pm: |
|
Thought my point was clear. You can't make someone defend himself differently than everyone else. Enacting an English-only law to eliminate the requirement for non-English-speaking accomodation can violate due process. Isn't that what this Alabama gubernatorial candidate is advocating? It's easy enough to craft the law to avoid that sort of pit fall. I don't see where that is being advocated at all, but you are free to present any evidence to the contrary. |
Ft_bstrd
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:46 pm: |
|
Thought my point was clear. You can't make someone defend himself differently than everyone else. Enacting an English-only law to eliminate the requirement for non-English-speaking accomodation can violate due process. Isn't that what this Alabama gubernatorial candidate is advocating? Not at all. He's merely advocating that the state not pay to accommodate those who are here illegally AND refuse to learn english. The side effect is two fold: 1) Illegal immigrants will be forced to learn english in order to obtain a driver's license. 2) Illegal immigrants who refuse to learn english will not be able to obtain a driver's license. This will result in making Alabama less attractive as a place to live since the immigrant will be unable to drive without a license, OR Alabama will have multiple drivers without licenses. When stopped, law enforcement will have a charge of driving without a license as well as the illegal status to prosecute. Ultimately, the goal of the law is to make Alabama less attractive to illegal aliens. I think you are going to see more of these kinds of laws. No one said, though, that interpretors are going to be unavailable. Only that the test will be administered in english. |
Buellkowski
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:46 pm: |
|
From Tim James' website: 4. Enforce Alabama’s Constitutional Amendment declaring English as the state’s official language OPPORTUNITY: In 1990, Alabama voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment declaring English as the state’s official language. But, the law is not currently being enforced. TIM’S COMMON SENSE SOLUTION: Right now Alabama offers drivers license exams in multiple languages. This not only violates the intent of Alabama law, but also wastes taxpayer money. Tim will not allow activist courts to trample on the will of the people. Does anyone know why the Alabama's English-only amendment is not being enforced? I do not know... |
Buellkowski
| Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 06:51 pm: |
|
I also don't see where he makes a distinction between illegals and legal residents in this English-only campaign promise. |
|