Full Version: Birthright Citizenship
US Constitution
When a child is born on United States soil, they are automatically granted the status of US Citizen. There are no if, ands, or buts about it. One of the central themes of the immigration debate is that the cildren of many illegal immigrants are born in the United States and thus automatically become US citizens. This is a great incentive for many people to come here without fear of being sent home because they will not be separated from their child. It is quite a clever loophole that the legislators probably did not foresee. I am not completely sold on the idea, but I think it would be interesting to debate.
EDITED TO ADD 14TH AMENDMENT:
Questions for Debate:
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
2) What do you think the law should say?
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
I was thinking that perhaps a reasonable measure towards naturalization was that the parents of the child must also be US citizens for the their offspring to automatically qualify. This would encourage legal immigration of the parents so that their children will be considered US citizens.
QUOTE(Article I @ Section 8)
The Congress shall have power...
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
When a child is born on United States soil, they are automatically granted the status of US Citizen. There are no if, ands, or buts about it. One of the central themes of the immigration debate is that the cildren of many illegal immigrants are born in the United States and thus automatically become US citizens. This is a great incentive for many people to come here without fear of being sent home because they will not be separated from their child. It is quite a clever loophole that the legislators probably did not foresee. I am not completely sold on the idea, but I think it would be interesting to debate.
EDITED TO ADD 14TH AMENDMENT:
QUOTE(14th Amendment)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Questions for Debate:
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
2) What do you think the law should say?
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
I was thinking that perhaps a reasonable measure towards naturalization was that the parents of the child must also be US citizens for the their offspring to automatically qualify. This would encourage legal immigration of the parents so that their children will be considered US citizens.
Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
Thinking back to the revolutionary era immigration wasn't controlled at all. I think the founding fathers saw things like this coming and simply liked the idea.
No rule change, it gives to much power to the government to deny franchise and legal rights.
Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
Many illegals are driven by more immediate circumstances and often leave their families in their home country... so not really.
Thinking back to the revolutionary era immigration wasn't controlled at all. I think the founding fathers saw things like this coming and simply liked the idea.
No rule change, it gives to much power to the government to deny franchise and legal rights.
Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
Many illegals are driven by more immediate circumstances and often leave their families in their home country... so not really.
Questions for Debate:
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
As I read the 14th, reforming our naturalization laws would be inadequate. We would have to amend the Constitution. I'm open to doing so, but I haven't given this one much thought.
2) What do you think the law should say?
The upshot of the policy should be that an individual born in the US is automatically a citizen if the parents are either citizens or legally here. However, we can impact the illegal immigration by removing the "child shield" of mixed status families. If your kid is a citizen, and you aren't, tough tookies. Deportation, you can take your kid with you, he/she can return when he's an adult, or when the parents are legally able to return.
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country? Yes, it would both ease deportations, and reduce the incentives to jump the borders. This change would be only one of a plethora of law and policy changes necessary to address the illegal immigration problem.
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
As I read the 14th, reforming our naturalization laws would be inadequate. We would have to amend the Constitution. I'm open to doing so, but I haven't given this one much thought.
2) What do you think the law should say?
The upshot of the policy should be that an individual born in the US is automatically a citizen if the parents are either citizens or legally here. However, we can impact the illegal immigration by removing the "child shield" of mixed status families. If your kid is a citizen, and you aren't, tough tookies. Deportation, you can take your kid with you, he/she can return when he's an adult, or when the parents are legally able to return.
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country? Yes, it would both ease deportations, and reduce the incentives to jump the borders. This change would be only one of a plethora of law and policy changes necessary to address the illegal immigration problem.
As incentives to come to the states go, citizenship for the kids is not high on the list for our main sources of illegal immigrants.
Typically these are men looking to work. They will still need well-paying jobs if their kids aren't citizens, actually they'll probably be needing them the more.
This would be a major waste of an amendment.
Change the war powers of the executive, grant the right to an education, secure the seperation of church and state more thoroughly.
This is just reactionary, we didn't even recognize "illegal" immigration until the Chinese showed up in California.
Typically these are men looking to work. They will still need well-paying jobs if their kids aren't citizens, actually they'll probably be needing them the more.
This would be a major waste of an amendment.
Change the war powers of the executive, grant the right to an education, secure the seperation of church and state more thoroughly.
This is just reactionary, we didn't even recognize "illegal" immigration until the Chinese showed up in California.
Let me see if I'm reading this correctly...
Illegal immigrants come to US, then have children here for the purpose of gaining, if not citizenship, increased protection from deportation.
I actually want to propose the idea that this is a good thing: the greater threat would be immigrants who come and go, creating a certain instability in our work force, and sending a lot of our capital back home to Mexico. Personally, I guess this makes me a traitor, but Mexico needs the money, so part of me says all power to 'em.
However, considering our own national self-interest for a change: Don't some of us think it's good for Mexican immigrants to come here as a family with children in tow and become rooted here-- instead of just the men running back and forth as the home construction market dictates?
One of the great thing about the Ellis Island immigrants was their total separation from their various homelands-- separated by a thousand miles of ocean, they were all but forced to buy into the American dream and become rooted in American soil in a process that today -- with iChat, telephones and the Spanish channel -- is not necessarily shared by Mexican illegal immigrants. I actually prefer the idea of Mexican illegals coming over here and raising families -- hopefully with the intent for their children to grow up here and take part in the American way -- than the idea of Mexican labor coming in and out in waves.
A sensible immigration policy would provide outlets for assimilation as it closes down porous borders. I say, if we need the workforce, let's do everything we can to attract Mexican families to come here legally. Such a policy would be well within the Ellis Island tradition, which encouraged working immigrants to sponsor their wives and children over to America. Since the dawn of soldiering, packs of wife-less men have been a notoriously volatile addition to any neighborhood.
Illegal immigrants come to US, then have children here for the purpose of gaining, if not citizenship, increased protection from deportation.
I actually want to propose the idea that this is a good thing: the greater threat would be immigrants who come and go, creating a certain instability in our work force, and sending a lot of our capital back home to Mexico. Personally, I guess this makes me a traitor, but Mexico needs the money, so part of me says all power to 'em.
However, considering our own national self-interest for a change: Don't some of us think it's good for Mexican immigrants to come here as a family with children in tow and become rooted here-- instead of just the men running back and forth as the home construction market dictates?
One of the great thing about the Ellis Island immigrants was their total separation from their various homelands-- separated by a thousand miles of ocean, they were all but forced to buy into the American dream and become rooted in American soil in a process that today -- with iChat, telephones and the Spanish channel -- is not necessarily shared by Mexican illegal immigrants. I actually prefer the idea of Mexican illegals coming over here and raising families -- hopefully with the intent for their children to grow up here and take part in the American way -- than the idea of Mexican labor coming in and out in waves.
A sensible immigration policy would provide outlets for assimilation as it closes down porous borders. I say, if we need the workforce, let's do everything we can to attract Mexican families to come here legally. Such a policy would be well within the Ellis Island tradition, which encouraged working immigrants to sponsor their wives and children over to America. Since the dawn of soldiering, packs of wife-less men have been a notoriously volatile addition to any neighborhood.
I would not want the present situation to change in regards to this. What does need to be changed is a slow, archaic system whereby people have to wait an inordinate amount of time for something that should only take a matter of weeks. Until that issue is resolved in a respectful, encouraging way, efforts such as changing this provision of citizenship will just be a superficial cosmetic change.
Questions for Debate:
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
No. That would be against our constitution for one and secondly, that would be a cumbersome task. That would require an awful lot of oversight to be effective. Personally, I don't see a problem with immigration, even illegal. STudies have shown a slight gain from illegal and legal immigrants:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2...ries/01edit.htm
To impliment a change in laws with large oversight would increase spending dramatically, with NO gain. One has to remember that we live in a global society where businesses see globally, not nationally. I'd rather have control over labor laws, which we are restricted to our country, than have very little say, which would be the case globally.
2) What do you think the law should say?
I think we should allow for easier immigration and allow for amnesty.
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
No. Most people do not come here to give birth, rather to work. Pulling themselves up from their bootstraps, if you will. That is something we usually admire.
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
No. That would be against our constitution for one and secondly, that would be a cumbersome task. That would require an awful lot of oversight to be effective. Personally, I don't see a problem with immigration, even illegal. STudies have shown a slight gain from illegal and legal immigrants:
QUOTE
In a report released Thursday in Sacramento, the Palo Alto-based Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy presented a strong case that legal and illegal immigration, while incurring costs to the state, produce a net economic gain for the country.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2...ries/01edit.htm
To impliment a change in laws with large oversight would increase spending dramatically, with NO gain. One has to remember that we live in a global society where businesses see globally, not nationally. I'd rather have control over labor laws, which we are restricted to our country, than have very little say, which would be the case globally.
2) What do you think the law should say?
I think we should allow for easier immigration and allow for amnesty.
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
No. Most people do not come here to give birth, rather to work. Pulling themselves up from their bootstraps, if you will. That is something we usually admire.
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
2) What do you think the law should say?
Instead of it being an automatic process, I would say that any child of an illegal alien, upon reaching the age of majority, should be fast-track eligible for citizenship, upon taking an oath of citizenship, which would involve renouncing any and all allegiance, citizenship, or other political connection to any foreign state, government, or ruler. The granting of citizenship to them should be contingent solely on their becoming a full American and nothing else.
But naturalization most certainly was controlled, which is what's being discussed here. And they certainly understood the need for it:
And this was long before multiculturalist ideologies created any sense of cultural entitlement among minority ethnic groups in the U.S.
2) What do you think the law should say?
Instead of it being an automatic process, I would say that any child of an illegal alien, upon reaching the age of majority, should be fast-track eligible for citizenship, upon taking an oath of citizenship, which would involve renouncing any and all allegiance, citizenship, or other political connection to any foreign state, government, or ruler. The granting of citizenship to them should be contingent solely on their becoming a full American and nothing else.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 6 2007, 03:44 PM) 
Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
Thinking back to the revolutionary era immigration wasn't controlled at all. I think the founding fathers saw things like this coming and simply liked the idea.
Thinking back to the revolutionary era immigration wasn't controlled at all. I think the founding fathers saw things like this coming and simply liked the idea.
But naturalization most certainly was controlled, which is what's being discussed here. And they certainly understood the need for it:
QUOTE(Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Viriginia)
Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale, against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers, by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society, to harmonize as much as possible, in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps, are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English Constitution, with others, derived from natural right and reason. To these, nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.
And this was long before multiculturalist ideologies created any sense of cultural entitlement among minority ethnic groups in the U.S.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
But naturalization most certainly was controlled, which is what's being discussed here. And they certainly understood the need for it:
Best answer to that:
Sorta Kinda
QUOTE
The Continental Congress and individual states rewarded foreign soldiers with lands and citizenship and offered similar grants to those who deserted from the British army. The path to citizenship was even easier for noncombatants. Several states required only evidence of commitment to the American cause, by oath (or affirmation) of allegiance and renunciation of all other governments or potentates. For states with residency requirements, one or two years were the norm; all states provided access to full civil and political rights[...]In the mid-1780s New York, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia all passed laws to bar American Loyalists from political office and to prevent British traders from regaining their economic stranglehold on American markets. Yet at the same time states such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware publicized their eagerness to welcome and enfranchise the Loyalists and foreigners shunned by other states.
By the end of the Revolution, the American naturalization process was a confusing amalgam of disparate practices that varied over time and place. In Pennsylvania the oath administered by justices of the peace in the 1770s to ferret out British sympathizers was used in the 1780s to naturalize foreign-born immigrants. From Massachusetts to Georgia state legislatures conferred citizenship on immigrants seeking asylum, foreigners hoping to perfect land titles or escape customs duties, and repentant Tories. In 1783 Benjamin Franklin, then in France to negotiate a peace treaty with Great Britain, drew up and administered an oath that naturalized the Scottish-born father-in-law of Franklin's grand-nephew.
In the summer of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized the need to rationalize the motley assortment of state procedures into a single national avenue to U.S. citizenship. However, the daunting magnitude of that task was soon revealed. Rather than grapple with yet another divisive issue, convention delegates handed Congress the mandate to create a uniform code of naturalization. In 1790 the First Congress elected under the new Constitution did create a unique, national mode of naturalization—requiring a two-year residence, an oath of allegiance, and proof of good character. However, this national procedure did not supercede state law but was merely added to the mix. In 1795 Congress finally overcame states' rights arguments and enacted a new national, and exclusive, naturalization code. All free, white foreigners arriving after June 1795 would be required to meet the same naturalization requirements, including a five-year residence and a declaration of intent to seek citizenship at least three years prior to naturalization.
By the end of the Revolution, the American naturalization process was a confusing amalgam of disparate practices that varied over time and place. In Pennsylvania the oath administered by justices of the peace in the 1770s to ferret out British sympathizers was used in the 1780s to naturalize foreign-born immigrants. From Massachusetts to Georgia state legislatures conferred citizenship on immigrants seeking asylum, foreigners hoping to perfect land titles or escape customs duties, and repentant Tories. In 1783 Benjamin Franklin, then in France to negotiate a peace treaty with Great Britain, drew up and administered an oath that naturalized the Scottish-born father-in-law of Franklin's grand-nephew.
In the summer of 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized the need to rationalize the motley assortment of state procedures into a single national avenue to U.S. citizenship. However, the daunting magnitude of that task was soon revealed. Rather than grapple with yet another divisive issue, convention delegates handed Congress the mandate to create a uniform code of naturalization. In 1790 the First Congress elected under the new Constitution did create a unique, national mode of naturalization—requiring a two-year residence, an oath of allegiance, and proof of good character. However, this national procedure did not supercede state law but was merely added to the mix. In 1795 Congress finally overcame states' rights arguments and enacted a new national, and exclusive, naturalization code. All free, white foreigners arriving after June 1795 would be required to meet the same naturalization requirements, including a five-year residence and a declaration of intent to seek citizenship at least three years prior to naturalization.
Link
So it was regulated thusly:
Hang around and you're in... as long as you're white.
Jefferson's fears proved largely unfounded and the law reflected that for a very long time.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
And this was long before multiculturalist ideologies created any sense of cultural entitlement among minority ethnic groups in the U.S.
"Cultural entitlement" has been a bedrock of the country even when it was restricted only to Europeans. The US has always been multicultural (much like it has always been a democracy) it just hasn't always extended freedoms to every group.
Opponents of Birthright citizenship won't get much help from the Revolutionary Era.
It would take a constitutional amendment. All we really need to do is enforce existing laws. We don't have the will to do that. Not sure how changing the Constitution (highly improbable politically) would do much good. Let's not mess with the Constitution.
As others have mentioned it would be smart to greatly shorten the legal immigration process. It can take years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to immigrate here legally.
As others have mentioned it would be smart to greatly shorten the legal immigration process. It can take years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to immigrate here legally.
I agree that the process is almost laughably difficult but it won't do much about illegal immigration unless we change our quota system to allow more poor immigrants from the Americas.
Many people come here illegally because they know they don't have a chance of making the legal cut.
Many people come here illegally because they know they don't have a chance of making the legal cut.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 8 2007, 01:48 PM)
I agree that the process is almost laughably difficult but it won't do much about illegal immigration unless we change our quota system to allow more poor immigrants from the Americas.
Many people come here illegally because they know they don't have a chance of making the legal cut.
Many people come here illegally because they know they don't have a chance of making the legal cut.
You can only allow so many immigrants in without suppressing wages. At some point there has to be some enforcement of laws against illegal immigrants and border protection.
Best not to get into a wholesale immigration debate here I guess, though I'd say there are some troubles I perceive with that logic and leave it at that. 
My point was simply that simplifying legal immigration procedure would not affect illegal immigration unless performed in tandem with a quota change.
My point was simply that simplifying legal immigration procedure would not affect illegal immigration unless performed in tandem with a quota change.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 8 2007, 02:42 PM)
Best not to get into a wholesale immigration debate here I guess, though I'd say there are some troubles I perceive with that logic and leave it at that.
My point was simply that simplifying legal immigration procedure would not affect illegal immigration unless performed in tandem with a quota change.
My point was simply that simplifying legal immigration procedure would not affect illegal immigration unless performed in tandem with a quota change.
My point is there cannot be a quota change large enough to satisfy the demand for those south of our border for US jobs.
We already have the measure of a de facto quota change: The current rate of illegal immigration.
It is hardly deterred by current enforcement measures.
It is hardly deterred by current enforcement measures.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 7 2007, 09:42 PM)
Hang around and you're in... as long as you're white.
However uncouth that last requirement was, it did limit naturalization to those of a particular cultural background. I'd say that doesn't entirely help the case of those who cite the founding generation's attitudes for support. Still less does this:
QUOTE
QUOTE(Blackstone)
And this was long before multiculturalist ideologies created any sense of cultural entitlement among minority ethnic groups in the U.S.
"Cultural entitlement" has been a bedrock of the country even when it was restricted only to Europeans.
No, the founding generation did not feel the least bit obligated to celebrate diversity. What they prized was unity and assimilation, and that's what they insisted upon from all newcomers. The "diversity" fetish is of quite recent vintage.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
However uncouth that last requirement was, it did limit naturalization to those of a particular cultural background.
Not really, the range was not infinite but neither was it singular. Europe had and has a variety of cultures.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
No, the founding generation did not feel the least bit obligated to celebrate diversity. What they prized was unity and assimilation, and that's what they insisted upon from all newcomers. The "diversity" fetish is of quite recent vintage.
Celebrate... who knows?
But they certainly did not interfere. I noticed you left the last bit out of the quote but it is key, the US has always been multicultural.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 9 2007, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE(Blackstone)
However uncouth that last requirement was, it did limit naturalization to those of a particular cultural background.
Not really, the range was not infinite but neither was it singular. Europe had and has a variety of cultures.
But there wasn't much variety among those who actually came here in the early days. It was mostly British, Irish, French, and German, the cultures that most closely resemble our own. And for quite a number of years, there weren't all that many of them anyway.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Blackstone)
No, the founding generation did not feel the least bit obligated to celebrate diversity. What they prized was unity and assimilation, and that's what they insisted upon from all newcomers. The "diversity" fetish is of quite recent vintage.
Celebrate... who knows?
But they certainly did not interfere.
Not by passing laws requiring people to assimilate. That wasn't necessary, because the culture took care of that by itself, unlike nowadays.
QUOTE
I noticed you left the last bit out of the quote but it is key, the US has always been multicultural.
There's a difference between multicultural and multiculturalist, which was the point of my "cultural entitlement" comment. One is a condition, the other an ideology. And this ideology is no more than about a generation old. Two, tops.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
But there wasn't much variety among those who actually came here in the early days. It was mostly British, Irish, French, and German, the cultures that most closely resemble our own.
Highly subjective. The cultures where substantially different, especially the Anabaptists, Catholics and the like.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
Not by passing laws requiring people to assimilate. That wasn't necessary, because the culture took care of that by itself, unlike nowadays.
So that explains why the Ahmish and Quakers are a myth. Glad that's cleared up....
That is simply untrue, assimilation occurred much the same as it occurs now. In patches. At anyone's own pace.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
There's a difference between multicultural and multiculturalist, which was the point of my "cultural entitlement" comment. One is a condition, the other an ideology. And this ideology is no more than about a generation old. Two, tops.
A difference that plays no part in this discussion.
If the purpose of ending Birthright Citizenship includes the "protection of the culture" than it is the condition that is key.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 10 2007, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE(Blackstone)
But there wasn't much variety among those who actually came here in the early days. It was mostly British, Irish, French, and German, the cultures that most closely resemble our own.
Highly subjective. The cultures where substantially different, especially the Anabaptists, Catholics and the like.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
Not by passing laws requiring people to assimilate. That wasn't necessary, because the culture took care of that by itself, unlike nowadays.
So that explains why the Ahmish and Quakers are a myth. Glad that's cleared up....
This is just completely specious. Religious differences are not at issue here. And immigrants during this time made up a small percentage of the population.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Blackstone)
There's a difference between multicultural and multiculturalist, which was the point of my "cultural entitlement" comment. One is a condition, the other an ideology. And this ideology is no more than about a generation old. Two, tops.
A difference that plays no part in this discussion.
If the purpose of ending Birthright Citizenship includes the "protection of the culture" than it is the condition that is key.
Only if you make the assumption that ideology has no effect on the condition. That's quite an assumption.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
This is just completely specious. Religious differences are not at issue here. And immigrants during this time made up a small percentage of the population.
I choose the Amish and Quakers for a reason. Religion and culture are often linked, these groups are both religiously and culturally different from th mainstream in ideology, behavior, language, the works.
French and Irish Catholics and German Anabaptists are two well know groups of early immigrants
Quibble numbers if you choose but the fact is assimilationism did not rule revolutionary America. Racism rather than cultural assimilation formed US immigration policy for most of its history.
QUOTE(Blackstone)
Only if you make the assumption that ideology has no effect on the condition. That's quite an assumption.
Non-zero but negligible.
There is a saying about legislating morality.
Legislating culture is even harder and has been meet with universal failure.
Assimilationism is not only harmful to the ideals of individual liberty, it doesn't work.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 11 2007, 02:39 PM)
Religion and culture are often linked, these groups are both religiously and culturally different from th mainstream in ideology, behavior, language, the works.
When it came to political ideology, the only significant difference between Quakers and the rest of the citizenry was pacifism, and their numbers were never high enough to really affect decisions on war and peace. As for language, they spoke English, so that's pretty much taken care of. And despite their pacifism, their loyalty was to this country alone.
As for the immigrant groups, they made up only a tiny percentage of the citizenry for at least a generation after the founding era.
QUOTE
Quibble numbers if you choose but the fact is assimilationism did not rule revolutionary America.
Only because you've just defined "assimilationism" to mean passing laws, something I just got through saying was unnecessary. In fact (to paraphrase Reagan), legislation in modern days hasn't been the solution to the problem, it's been the problem. Such things as multilingual ballots, affirmative action, and laws forcing employers and landlords to sign on people they don't want, lest they be charged with "discrimination" (real or imagined) - these were all completely unknown in the founding era, right on up through the "Ellis Island" era. Instead, our culture was allowed to defend itself, free of any shackles imposed by special legislation, or haranguing by tax-exempt groups like the La Raza and MALDEF.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 12 2007, 11:43 AM)
QUOTE
Quibble numbers if you choose but the fact is assimilationism did not rule revolutionary America.
Only because you've just defined "assimilationism" to mean passing laws, something I just got through saying was unnecessary. In fact (to paraphrase Reagan), legislation in modern days hasn't been the solution to the problem, it's been the problem. Such things as multilingual ballots, affirmative action, and laws forcing employers and landlords to sign on people they don't want, lest they be charged with "discrimination" (real or imagined) - these were all completely unknown in the founding era, right on up through the "Ellis Island" era. Instead, our culture was allowed to defend itself, free of any shackles imposed by special legislation, or haranguing by tax-exempt groups like the La Raza and MALDEF.
CAN I GET AN AMEN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
I have been going to the same dry cleaners for nearly 7 years here in Dallas. I've gotten married, changed jobs, and moved twice since I began going there. It's a little out of my way, but I like to see my buddie Charlie. He's hilarious, does a great job, and at a fair price.
Know why it's pertinent to this conversation? Charlie's last name is Wong. I think his first name isn't really Charlie. He's in his mid-50's and Chinese. He moved to the US in 1986 and has been in Dallas since the very early 90's (I think).
Why does he go by Charlie? Well, in his words "because his first name is too hard for Americans to pronounce". Charlie eats Turkey on Thanksgiving, puts up Christmas trees in his shop at the holidays, and loves the Texas Rangers. Charlie drives a little pick up and his kids went to private school and now one is at the University of Texas. Charlie is an American citizen.
He never asks me to learn to speak Mandarin. He allowed his kids to become Christian (not sure if he is or not), he pays taxes, mows his lawn, and wears Nikes. I go there because I really like the guy. He doesn't close on the Chinese New Year (or whatever other Chinese holidays exist), and doesn't have Chinese music blaring in his shop. Why? He's American now. He embraces it. He loves it as near as I can tell.
Turnea, you usually put together an argument I can understand if not agree upon. In this case, I believe that the angle on revolutionary America has nothing to do with contemporary USA, in that the US was relatively homogeneous demographically at that time. We didn't have Cubans, Chinese, and S. Haitians running around Manhattan then. Guess what? We do now.
Reagan was right. Our government's need to legislate race relations doesn't bring us together, but rather quite the contrary. It draws lines in the sand where realistically those lines are generally non-existent and/or dotted.
I was kind of not responding to that post because I thought it was self-evidently wrong-headed.
I guess I was wrong again.
Equal housing and employment laws are shackles?
...and they say minorties are wallowing in false victimhood, shee-eesh!
Had a friend in high school who did the same thing. Asked her actual name, turns out it wasn't very hard to pronounce. Most names aren't.
By hard to pronounce he likely meant unusual and therefore unsettling to people who prefer not to extend the same courtesy to others they receive themselves.
Maybe its my Southern heritage kicking in but if you can't speak my dang name because it's too hard, I can talk to somebody else. Don't let the door hit you...
This type of thinking is just disrespectful. My house, my music, free country.
Sometimes I listen to Chinese music, I must hate America
I guess I was wrong again.
Equal housing and employment laws are shackles?
...and they say minorties are wallowing in false victimhood, shee-eesh!
QUOTE(aevans176)
Why does he go by Charlie? Well, in his words "because his first name is too hard for Americans to pronounce"
Had a friend in high school who did the same thing. Asked her actual name, turns out it wasn't very hard to pronounce. Most names aren't.
By hard to pronounce he likely meant unusual and therefore unsettling to people who prefer not to extend the same courtesy to others they receive themselves.
Maybe its my Southern heritage kicking in but if you can't speak my dang name because it's too hard, I can talk to somebody else. Don't let the door hit you...
This type of thinking is just disrespectful. My house, my music, free country.
Sometimes I listen to Chinese music, I must hate America
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 12 2007, 01:52 PM)
I was kind of not responding to that post because I thought it was self-evidently wrong-headed.
I guess I was wrong again.
Equal housing and employment laws are shackles?
...and they say minorties are wallowing in false victimhood, shee-eesh!
I guess I was wrong again.
Equal housing and employment laws are shackles?
...and they say minorties are wallowing in false victimhood, shee-eesh!
The thing is that hand-out based laws are shackles. They force mediocrity and apathy onto generation after generation.
Assimilation and self-sufficiency is expected in basically any immigrant based situation. The US is the only place that has a group of its population that believes that immigrants should stay "hyphenated citizens" indefinitely.
Let me tell you my anecdote. I hope it helps. My wife's family is literally from Italy. Her grandmother lived there until she was 12, and her uncle until he was 25. She has cousins, aunts, and uncles that still live in Naples and Scalea. We were there the first 2 weeks of June.
Does her Grandmother or Uncle call themselves "Italian Americans"? Do they believe that the good people of Louisiana should learn to speak Italian? Do they call the radio station and request music from Italian singers? When their kids went to school, did the cafeteria have to serve mortadella?
No. Of course not.
Why? They came to be Americans. I really don't mind a first or 2nd generation immigrant holding on to their identity. It's natural. But 8 or 10 generations? Seriously. When does it end?
What really happens is it becomes a circus and a mockery of the original culture. Do people in Dallas Texas that call themselves African-American really have African roots? Furthermore, how am I Irish or Welsh? You know the answer... I'm not.
As soon as I step off the plane overseas, they immediately know where I'm from.
QUOTE(aevevans176)
The thing is that hand-out based laws are shackles. They force mediocrity and apathy onto generation after generation.
The passed these things in '64 how many generations have you even looked at? I mean you've got a total of... one... maybe two.
The growth to the black middle class belies that idea.
and did you read what Blackstone posted?
Victimhood is grand...
QUOTE(aevans176)
The US is the only place that has a group of its population that believes that immigrants should stay "hyphenated citizens" indefinitely.
We call it liberty.
QUOTE(aevans176)
Why? They came to be Americans. I really don't mind a first or 2nd generation immigrant holding on to their identity. It's natural. But 8 or 10 generations? Seriously. When does it end?
When we feel like it...
No one has any obligation to let go of their heritage, cultural, genetic or otherwise.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 12 2007, 02:41 PM)
No one has any obligation to let go of their heritage, cultural, genetic or otherwise.
But people do have an obligation to their communities to distinguish heritage from what might be apparent in American culture.
America's the only place that says "hey- you make your heritage what you want it to be" and accepts it. Seriously, El Chico doesn't taste like food in Mexico, and rap music is nothing like what you'll find in Africa.
If you share a language, food, music, art, and customs with your supposed "origin" I think it's probably just fine. That's generally not the case here. That's a fact jack.
If you share a language, food, music, art, and customs with your supposed "origin" I think it's probably just fine. That's generally not the case here. That's a fact jack.
The answer here goes...
so what?
African-American culture was formed more by the hardship we suffered in this country than our origins in Africa. Does that make it any less valuable?
The answer here goes...
so what?
African-American culture was formed more by the hardship we suffered in this country than our origins in Africa. Does that make it any less valuable?
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 10 2007, 02:14 PM)
It was mostly British, Irish, French, and German, the cultures that most closely resemble our own. And for quite a number of years, there weren't all that many of them anyway.
Don't forget the Native Americans and Spanish. St. Augustine, FL and all...
And there were big differences with religion and culture. That can't simply be dismissed. As to driving wages down, businesses are not nationalistic. They don't have a love of nations, so I think that you miss that the largest contributor of lower wages has been globalization. Would you rather have control over wage requirements? Or would you rather be subjected to another country's standards? The reason I ask this is because at face value I can understand some people worrying about decreased wages, however, if you examine it more closely, this country does quite well with more people- remember supply and DEMAND. More people=more demand. Now, in this country, we can have a say so on how low wages go. When businesses move overseas, you don't have a say whatsoever. Also, when businesses move overseas, the money the workers make stay in that country. So their country benefits. Have a look at India. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are not the cause of decreased wages, greed is. Remember that while working wages are lowering, CEO salaries are going through the roof. Immigrants are not responsible for that, although they seem an easy scapegoat. We should be careful of that.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 12 2007, 03:07 PM)
If you share a language, food, music, art, and customs with your supposed "origin" I think it's probably just fine. That's generally not the case here. That's a fact jack.
The answer here goes...
so what?
African-American culture was formed more by the hardship we suffered in this country than our origins in Africa. Does that make it any less valuable?
The answer here goes...
so what?
African-American culture was formed more by the hardship we suffered in this country than our origins in Africa. Does that make it any less valuable?
WHUHHHHHHH???????
How the heck is it African then? Why is it not just "brown(er) American" culture? Who exactly is African anyway?
What exactly makes a part of American culture specifically "African American"?
Are you saying black people eat specific foods that others don't, you listen to music that others don't, you create art that no one appreciates, etc? Seriously. Where's the line?
Oh- and again, why exactly is it African?
QUOTE(aevans176)
Are you saying black people eat specific foods that others don't, you listen to music that others don't, you create art that no one appreciates, etc?
No one can say that anymore, welcome to the Global Village.
QUOTE(aevans176)
How the heck is it African then? Why is it not just "brown(er) American" culture? Who exactly is African anyway?
Those of African descent... the people who couldn't get into the Ole Miss without a security detail.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 12 2007, 05:19 PM)
QUOTE(aevans176)
Are you saying black people eat specific foods that others don't, you listen to music that others don't, you create art that no one appreciates, etc?
No one can say that anymore, welcome to the Global Village.
QUOTE(aevans176)
How the heck is it African then? Why is it not just "brown(er) American" culture? Who exactly is African anyway?
Those of African descent... the people who couldn't get into the Ole Miss without a security detail.
I think Turnea has given a good answer aevans176.
Just in case you need a refresher course, Click Here.
The connection is the same type thing many white people claim, for example Pat Buchanan, in his book, State of Emergency. Click Here
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 12 2007, 02:52 PM)
Equal housing and employment laws are shackles?
In the context of this discussion, they most certainly are. Freedom of association is the principal means by which a culture flourishes. It's funny how you started out objecting to "assimilationism" on the grounds that it requires some kind of legislation which would be a bad thing, but then did a complete 180 when it turned out you were arguing against the exact opposite position from what you though you were.
Now if you're in favor of these laws, that's your prerogative, but then don't start lecturing me about "liberty", and don't pretend to be the one who's carrying the founders' banner in this discussion. Like I said, they and all subsequent generations until relatively recently insisted on newcomers becoming Americans and Americans only, and the last thing they would have approved of were laws that created special protections for those who refused to do so. You're entitled to your own opinions here, but not to your own facts.
As for my opinion, I say that if we're going to keep using special legislation to undermine freedom of association, which is our culture's (any culture's) natural self-defense mechanism, then it might just behoove us to be a little bit more particular about whom we admit to the ranks of citizenship.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 14 2007, 11:20 AM)
Now if you're in favor of these laws, that's your prerogative, but then don't start lecturing me about "liberty", and don't pretend to be the one who's carrying the founders' banner in this discussion. Like I said, they and all subsequent generations until relatively recently insisted on newcomers becoming Americans and Americans only, and the last thing they would have approved of were laws that created special protections for those who refused to do so. You're entitled to your own opinions here, but not to your own facts.
Out of curiosity, what laws are you talking about? I can't think of any laws that create "special protections" for those who do not assimilate. And what does that really have to do with birthright?
And aevans earlier made the statement that sometimes 8-10 generations of immigrants remain unassimilated...Do you even have proof for this kind of statement? From all the research that I've read, most generations are fully assimilated by the second and third generation, which is about the same rate that they have always been "assimilating." Most people have not even been here for 8-10 generations, unless they can trace their roots all the way back to the Mayflower, or they are Native Americans.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 14 2007, 01:36 PM)
I can't think of any laws that create "special protections" for those who do not assimilate.
The laws turnea and I were discussing most certainly do create special protections. I doesn't matter at all that the text of the laws don't specifically refer to those who don't assimilate. I'm talking about the practical effect. These laws are next to useless to those who are already part of the main culture.
QUOTE
And what does that really have to do with birthright?
It has to do with citizenship policy. It needs to be centered around keeping us a united society. If we have laws that inhibit that by granting special protections, then citizenship policy would have to be somewhat stricter.
QUOTE
From all the research that I've read, most generations are fully assimilated by the second and third generation, which is about the same rate that they have always been "assimilating."
I guess it depends exactly on how you define "assimilate". Look at the flak that third-generation "Latina" Jessica Alba caught for considering herself an American only. Sorry, I just don't buy the notion that assimilation is proceeding the way it had in the past. That entire column is worth a good read.
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
Yep, I'm in favor of doing that.
2) What do you think the law should say?
Reduce it to egg/sperm terms.
One citizen egg + one citizen sperm = autocitizenship for child(ren).
Work it the same way for legal immigrants.
One citizen egg/sperm + one undocumented egg/sperm = choice for child(ren) at age of consent. The undocumented have citizenship somewhere.
One undocumented egg/sperm + one undocumented egg/sperm = undocumented child(ren). To the US legal system, the child(ren) don't exist.
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
Probably, but not by much. The main attractions for undocumented immigrants are outfits willing to hire the undocumented to save labor costs. Reducing supply = reducing demand. We should of course tighten up our ID systems.
Yep, I'm in favor of doing that.
2) What do you think the law should say?
Reduce it to egg/sperm terms.
One citizen egg + one citizen sperm = autocitizenship for child(ren).
Work it the same way for legal immigrants.
One citizen egg/sperm + one undocumented egg/sperm = choice for child(ren) at age of consent. The undocumented have citizenship somewhere.
One undocumented egg/sperm + one undocumented egg/sperm = undocumented child(ren). To the US legal system, the child(ren) don't exist.
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
Probably, but not by much. The main attractions for undocumented immigrants are outfits willing to hire the undocumented to save labor costs. Reducing supply = reducing demand. We should of course tighten up our ID systems.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 14 2007, 12:28 PM)
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 14 2007, 01:36 PM)
I can't think of any laws that create "special protections" for those who do not assimilate.
The laws turnea and I were discussing most certainly do create special protections. I doesn't matter at all that the text of the laws don't specifically refer to those who don't assimilate. I'm talking about the practical effect. These laws are next to useless to those who are already part of the main culture.
QUOTE
And what does that really have to do with birthright?
It has to do with citizenship policy. It needs to be centered around keeping us a united society. If we have laws that inhibit that by granting special protections, then citizenship policy would have to be somewhat stricter.
QUOTE
From all the research that I've read, most generations are fully assimilated by the second and third generation, which is about the same rate that they have always been "assimilating."
I guess it depends exactly on how you define "assimilate". Look at the flak that third-generation "Latina" Jessica Alba caught for considering herself an American only. Sorry, I just don't buy the notion that assimilation is proceeding the way it had in the past. That entire column is worth a good read.
However, those laws that you're discussing with Turnea are generally only available to legal residents or citizens (at least, from my knowledge in Colorado, that is mostly the case); so I am unsure where the issue lies. And I think you're making a huge logical leap by saying that assistance programs creates "special protections" for those who don't assimilate. Care to provide some hard proof? I don't even know how it would work. Because you're poor, all of a sudden you're not American?
Additionally, there are numerous articles and books on the subjects of "assimilation." I would suggest reading Immigrant America: A Portrait, which discusses this subject at length, and provides ample evidence about today's current immigrants, and their success (or not) at assimilating. The book does an excellent job of comparing various empirical studies, that basically affirm that assimilation happens at around the 3rd generation (in this case, the grand children of immigrants speak English fluently, and have very little cultural ties to their "native" culture). Although not directly related to this, David Montejano provides some evidence to the contrary also (while responding to Sam. Huntington's idea that Mexicans will ruin America)Link:
QUOTE
He [Huntington] places considerable attention, for example, on the challenge to the English language presented by Hispanics. Yet he acknowledges that “over 90 percent of the U.S.-born people of Mexican origin spoke English fluently.” So he attempts to shore up his argument by “supposing” that with the rapid expansion of the Mexican immigrant community, people of Mexican origins would have less incentive to become fluent in and to use English
What Huntington does not report, although he has the data in his hands, is that the intermarriage rate for third-generation-plus Latinos in Los Angeles County was 57 percent! In other words, over half of the third-generation-plus in Los Angeles, the epicenter of his feared reconquista, is marrying outside the group. Huntington deliberately ignores contrary data.
snip
But if fighting in America’s wars is a key indicator of assimilation, why didn’t Huntington ascertain the service record of Mexican Americans? The estimated half-million Mexican Americans who fought in WWII, and the one-hundred-thousand-plus who fought in Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq deserve some recognition from this Cold War scholar. The most prominent Mexican American soldier lately has been Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, until recently the commanding general of the armed forces in Iraq.
What Huntington does not report, although he has the data in his hands, is that the intermarriage rate for third-generation-plus Latinos in Los Angeles County was 57 percent! In other words, over half of the third-generation-plus in Los Angeles, the epicenter of his feared reconquista, is marrying outside the group. Huntington deliberately ignores contrary data.
snip
But if fighting in America’s wars is a key indicator of assimilation, why didn’t Huntington ascertain the service record of Mexican Americans? The estimated half-million Mexican Americans who fought in WWII, and the one-hundred-thousand-plus who fought in Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq deserve some recognition from this Cold War scholar. The most prominent Mexican American soldier lately has been Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, until recently the commanding general of the armed forces in Iraq.
So how aren't people assimilating? They mostly speak English, they're intermarrying with other Americans, and they're fighting in American wars...What do you mean exactly?
So what if Jessica Alba created a stir by not refering to herself as Latina, or whatever. That actually has nothing to do with anything. As a third generation Latin American female, would you consider Jessica Alba fully assimilated? Wouldn't that actually make her a prime example of what we're discussing?
And you don't have to buy the notion, but without reading the empirical studies on the matter, then your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
Also, we've been basically saying the same things about immigrant groups since wide-spread non-European immigration started in the United States. And excellent essay that documents the rhetoric employed against Mexicans is by Mark Reisler, and it's called, "Always the Laborer, Never the Citizen: Anglo Perceptions of Mexican Immigration during the 1920s." Not much has really changed since then.
1) Should we reform our naturalization laws so that being born on US soil does not automatically make you a full citizen?
Nope- there is absolutely no need. If we want to end illegal immigration- it is pathetically easy. Start arresting business owners that hire them, without jumping through some hoops to be sure everyone they hire is legal. DNA database or something. Whatever- if the illegal is using an alias identity- to get around the hire system- then you can make that law with draconian sentencing. Illegals run here for work- nothing else. We pay more, that is all.
2) What do you think the law should say?
Leave it alone. It has worked fine as it is.
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
Not one bit- illegals come here looking for work, not for citizenship. All the arguments against mulitculturalism and multi-lingual stuff are just racist really- no reason to call it anything else. I get used to celebrating it up here- I go to all the different cultural events up here with my kids- big fun. I make them learn other languages too. Since thier mama is Russian, they can even hyphenate a bit if they want
I don't know what white poeple are so afraid of when it comes to other cultures and races, and them possibly taking over here someday- I have no problem with it, and I am as white as the driven snow
the only group I am against would be muslims that wish to impose thier religious beliefs on me through legisltating thier practices and religion- same as christians like to be all controlling of others. Or any religion it seems.
Nope- there is absolutely no need. If we want to end illegal immigration- it is pathetically easy. Start arresting business owners that hire them, without jumping through some hoops to be sure everyone they hire is legal. DNA database or something. Whatever- if the illegal is using an alias identity- to get around the hire system- then you can make that law with draconian sentencing. Illegals run here for work- nothing else. We pay more, that is all.
2) What do you think the law should say?
Leave it alone. It has worked fine as it is.
3) Whether or not you agree with changing the law, do you think that a change would impact the illegal immigration problem in this country?
Not one bit- illegals come here looking for work, not for citizenship. All the arguments against mulitculturalism and multi-lingual stuff are just racist really- no reason to call it anything else. I get used to celebrating it up here- I go to all the different cultural events up here with my kids- big fun. I make them learn other languages too. Since thier mama is Russian, they can even hyphenate a bit if they want
I don't know what white poeple are so afraid of when it comes to other cultures and races, and them possibly taking over here someday- I have no problem with it, and I am as white as the driven snow
the only group I am against would be muslims that wish to impose thier religious beliefs on me through legisltating thier practices and religion- same as christians like to be all controlling of others. Or any religion it seems.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 14 2007, 06:19 PM)
However, those laws that you're discussing with Turnea are generally only available to legal residents or citizens (at least, from my knowledge in Colorado, that is mostly the case); so I am unsure where the issue lies.
You do realize that citizenship is the focus of this discussion, right?
QUOTE
And I think you're making a huge logical leap by saying that assistance programs creates "special protections" for those who don't assimilate.
I don't think so. Let's try a little scenario: you're a landlord, and you reject an rent application from an Hispanic in favor of another person whom you feel more comfortable with (who may or may not happen to be white) because you and he both share the same cultural background. And you're very open about the reason. Do you think the disappointed applicant has grounds for a discrimination lawsuit?
It's even worse if you're an employer. If your workforce isn't sufficiently "diverse", that's considered evidence against you.
QUOTE
So how aren't people assimilating? They mostly speak English, they're intermarrying with other Americans, and they're fighting in American wars...What do you mean exactly?
A couple things should be mentioned: If they're learning English so well and so quickly, then why the big push for multilingual ballots? And although it's encouraging (if true) that most of them are assimilating, that doesn't dispel the concerns about those who aren't.
QUOTE
So what if Jessica Alba created a stir by not refering to herself as Latina, or whatever. That actually has nothing to do with anything. As a third generation Latin American female, would you consider Jessica Alba fully assimilated? Wouldn't that actually make her a prime example of what we're discussing?
She herself an example of your side of the argument, but the controversy surrounding her comments is an example of my side. It shows that there are fairly strong political forces in this country against assimilation. Another example is the mass amnesty rallies from about a year ago, featuring Mexican flags galore. They disappeared rather quickly and were replaced by Old Glory once the organizers realized belatedly that Mexican flags probably weren't the best way to appeal to the American voter, but it was too late; their true "colors" were shown. Then you have the Chicano movement to reclaim Aztlan - which you'd no doubt point out constitutes only a minority, but it's hardly an ostracized minority. The fact that the Mexican government has also been actively pushing for legislation that would have given their "emigrants" a path to citizenship here also raises concerns that need to be addressed.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 16 2007, 12:46 PM)
QUOTE
So how aren't people assimilating? They mostly speak English, they're intermarrying with other Americans, and they're fighting in American wars...What do you mean exactly?
A couple things should be mentioned: If they're learning English so well and so quickly, then why the big push for multilingual ballots? And although it's encouraging (if true) that most of them are assimilating, that doesn't dispel the concerns about those who aren't.
Honestly, I don't care if there's a push for bilingual ballots; however, one argument could be that older, naturalized citizens have difficulties reading and writing English. This is totally natural, and not really a huge problem. Nonetheless, if they want to vote, wouldn't it be fair that they have their ballots in Spanish, so they could be fully informed? Honestly, what's more important here? The fact that these people speak Spanish or the fact that people are voting? I'd rather have a citizen voting, regardless of what language they happen to speak better. Additionally, this has nothing to say about their fluent English-speaking children, who will probably not need a ballot in Spanish when it comes time for them to vote. So this is essentially a nonissue.
And SO WHAT if there aren't people that aren't assimilating? Unless you can provide evidence that 1) this is harmful to society and 2) this is happening on a large scale, this is also a nonissue. Interestingly, while there is may be a lot of contradicting research about immigrant assimilation, I have yet to see anyone actually prove that its a detriment.
What we're experiencing, we've experienced numerous times over throughout our history. Similar sentiments have been stated about different immigrant groups...yet, somehow, American society has not collapsed. Our culture is incredibly adaptable, and we'll absorb things that we like about some cultures and reject other things, and thus is how culture functions everywhere.
The alarmist sentiments that bring people to decry citizenship by birth are incredibly scary. Do you not realize that culture is *never* stagnant? That you can't stop the processes of change as their occurring? The countries that require citizenship solely by blood (regardless of where you were born) are generally more backwards than the United States (with perhaps, the exception of Japan...And that's somewhat arguable). When you start seeing your ancestry as superior to others (which is what inherently happens when citizenship is allowed according to blood lines), it will reinforce ethnic superiority. America was at the forefront of its citizenship requirements at the time, why take the step back to colonial English law?
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 16 2007, 04:54 PM)
I'd rather have a citizen voting, regardless of what language they happen to speak better.
I'd rather have a person not be granted citizenship if he can't speak English fluently, and I'd rather he not vote if he can't understand the political debate in this country which is overwhelmingly conducted in English.
QUOTE
Additionally, this has nothing to say about their fluent English-speaking children, who will probably not need a ballot in Spanish when it comes time for them to vote. So this is essentially a nonissue.
Good, then let's make the ballots English-only. You may consider it a non-issue, but the many activists who are absolutely insistent on multilingual ballots apparently do not, and that makes me more than a bit skeptical that immigrant populations are learning English as fast as some are saying they are.
QUOTE
And SO WHAT if there aren't people that aren't assimilating? Unless you can provide evidence that 1) this is harmful to society and 2) this is happening on a large scale, this is also a nonissue.
The first question almost answers itself. I consider it nearly self-evident that the safety and success of a republic depends upon its citizens considering themselves one nation, with no divided loyalties. As to the 2nd, my only evidence is the way our own culture is rapidly losing any kind of attachment to its own self-preservation. Your mileage may vary, but this isn't a trend that makes me very comfortable.
QUOTE
Similar sentiments have been stated about different immigrant groups...yet, somehow, American society has not collapsed.
There was only one other wave of immigration comparable to the current one, and that was during the period from the 1880s to the 1920s. No, our society didn't collapse, but it did suffer some severe strains. It's easy to look back now and think it was no big deal, but it hardly appeared that way at the time. Finally, we'd had enough and reduced immigration to more rational levels.
QUOTE
America was at the forefront of its citizenship requirements at the time, why take the step back to colonial English law?
It also had a political culture which was unabashed about insisting on assimilation, without getting caught up over politically correct concerns about "intolerance". That's the essential difference between then and now.
You're absolutely wrong that we "insisted" on assimilating immigrants that entered America. Immigrants have almost always been subject to harassment from the American government, and its racist citizens. I'm pretty sure I've already cited several sources that document this, but it might have been in another thread. The first wave of immigrants that you claim simply gave up their culture, and assimilated so well, was constantly tracked by authorities because of their socialist leanings and their desire to start unions. (i.e. Finninsh, Italian, Irish). In fact, identity politics is one of the consequences of our policies of not assimilating immigrants. From Immigrant America, p. 119.
Also, you're grossly mistaken about naturalized citizens not assimilating, or even those who are granted citizenship by birth. Did you know that the citizenship test has to be in English? Where do you get off assuming that Latino citizens (immigrants or not) do not speak English? There are only a few exceptions where the citizenship test is administered in a language other than English, and it's generally if the person applying is extremely old (you may not realize this, but the older you get, the more difficult it is to learn a language. I don't think this is an unreasonable adjustment, but something tells me that you'll object).
And, again, there are several studies that already debunk the idea that Latino immigrants (and their descendants, mostly US citizens, yet apparently not allowed to claim that citizenship because they *might* be bilingual!) speak English fluently. Perhaps the most recent is a study called "Linguistic Life Expectancies", published in 2006 (you can look it up, I found it in a journal database, but you might be able to find some summaries on Google) which observes that for immigrants of Mexican origins:
QUOTE
Campaigns against the first generation [of immigrants] have had a peculiar political consequence, however. Because their targets have been largely illusory, they have never visibly succeeded in their declared goals, be they rooting out political extremism, or restoring linguistic integrity. What these campaigns have accomplished, above all, is stirring ethnic militancy among subsequent generations. More attuned to American culture and fluent in English, the offspring of immigrants have gained "voice" and have used it to reaffirm identities attacked previously with so much impunity. The resilient ethnic identification of many communities and the solidary ethnic politics based on it can be traced directly to this process of "reactive formation." As Nathan Glazer and others have noted, ethnic resilience is a uniquely American product...
Also, you're grossly mistaken about naturalized citizens not assimilating, or even those who are granted citizenship by birth. Did you know that the citizenship test has to be in English? Where do you get off assuming that Latino citizens (immigrants or not) do not speak English? There are only a few exceptions where the citizenship test is administered in a language other than English, and it's generally if the person applying is extremely old (you may not realize this, but the older you get, the more difficult it is to learn a language. I don't think this is an unreasonable adjustment, but something tells me that you'll object).
And, again, there are several studies that already debunk the idea that Latino immigrants (and their descendants, mostly US citizens, yet apparently not allowed to claim that citizenship because they *might* be bilingual!) speak English fluently. Perhaps the most recent is a study called "Linguistic Life Expectancies", published in 2006 (you can look it up, I found it in a journal database, but you might be able to find some summaries on Google) which observes that for immigrants of Mexican origins:
QUOTE
[T]hose who worry about linguistic balkanization because of heavy immigration from Spanish-speaking countries have nothing to fear, because use of Spanish dies out rapidly across the generations, even in the area of highest Hispanic immigrant concentration in the United States (p. 448).
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 29 2007, 11:22 AM)
You're absolutely wrong that we "insisted" on assimilating immigrants that entered America.
We insisted that they assimilate themselves. The burden was considered to be on them, not on us. That's a type of thinking that's gone out of fashion in today's PC environment.
QUOTE
Also, you're grossly mistaken about naturalized citizens not assimilating, or even those who are granted citizenship by birth. Did you know that the citizenship test has to be in English?
Good! Then let them vote in English, too. Quoting studies is all well and good, but not when it goes up against reality. The political reality is that there's a huge push by activists for multilingual ballots along with multilingual everything else. That, not studies (which are inherently subjective), constitutes the primary evidence for the way things either are or are headed. When I see that go away, then I'll be more receptive to arguments that fears of linguistic balkanization are nothing to be worried about.
Hmm...most people are voting in English...Wouldn't that make sense since most people are speaking English? Can you provide proof for me that second and third generation Latinos are voting in Spanish? A brief glance at the Census Bureau for voting information did not provide that information. I am going to guess that ballots in Spanish are actually a minority, and yet white nativists continue to sound the fears that people who speak Spanish can't possibly be American.
And also, the burden of assimilation has not changed today. Guess who still has to "assimilate"? The immigrants. However, we're talking about citizenship, and you've provided NO proof that their children (you know, the ones who were born here, and are US citizens by birth) are not assimilating. I've provided ample evidence that they have: intermarriage rates, speaking English, voting.
In fact their parents, who may not be citizens are also assimilating: more Hispanics are asking for citizenship than ever before (in stark contrast to two decades ago when many feared giving up their citizenship) and many are starting businesses in the United States. Unless you think that starting a business is unAmerican?
And again, you're entirely wrong. Immigrants in the past assimilated much as the immigrants today are assimilating: not really. Of course, there are exceptional cases where a family did fully cast off the traditions of their home country, but they weren't that common. Many people did not learn the language beyond a rudimentary vocabulary, and they tended to settle in ethnic enclaves, where they were not forced to learn the language. Many of them came from countries that were not fully formed (such as Lithuania...And you know where the first Lithuanian newspaper was printed? In the United States) or places with social/political unrest (Ireland). They had a fairly healthy distrust of the government, which carried over to their new home. Most of these immigrants stayed tied to their home countries: starting political organizations in the US that dealt with issues at home (such as freeing their country or something like that). Gee, is this all this familiar? It was their children who grew up speaking fluent English, and who started taking advantage of the system.
Immigration patterns are nothing unusual, but those unschooled in history will tend to repeat the same things, as if this wave is incredibly different from the last. It's not, and xenophobic calls to end birthright citizenship will merely take the United States in the wrong direction.
And also, the burden of assimilation has not changed today. Guess who still has to "assimilate"? The immigrants. However, we're talking about citizenship, and you've provided NO proof that their children (you know, the ones who were born here, and are US citizens by birth) are not assimilating. I've provided ample evidence that they have: intermarriage rates, speaking English, voting.
In fact their parents, who may not be citizens are also assimilating: more Hispanics are asking for citizenship than ever before (in stark contrast to two decades ago when many feared giving up their citizenship) and many are starting businesses in the United States. Unless you think that starting a business is unAmerican?
And again, you're entirely wrong. Immigrants in the past assimilated much as the immigrants today are assimilating: not really. Of course, there are exceptional cases where a family did fully cast off the traditions of their home country, but they weren't that common. Many people did not learn the language beyond a rudimentary vocabulary, and they tended to settle in ethnic enclaves, where they were not forced to learn the language. Many of them came from countries that were not fully formed (such as Lithuania...And you know where the first Lithuanian newspaper was printed? In the United States) or places with social/political unrest (Ireland). They had a fairly healthy distrust of the government, which carried over to their new home. Most of these immigrants stayed tied to their home countries: starting political organizations in the US that dealt with issues at home (such as freeing their country or something like that). Gee, is this all this familiar? It was their children who grew up speaking fluent English, and who started taking advantage of the system.
Immigration patterns are nothing unusual, but those unschooled in history will tend to repeat the same things, as if this wave is incredibly different from the last. It's not, and xenophobic calls to end birthright citizenship will merely take the United States in the wrong direction.
A little info from the Mumford Center
Using 2000 Census data
Hispanics are assimilating. I believe it is the massive influx of hispanics that gives people the opinion they are not i.e. they are encountering a lot of first generation hispanics. We do need to control immigration, Enforcing existing employment laws would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. I am skeptical of any new immigration reform when we do not have the will to enforce already existing laws.
Using 2000 Census data
QUOTE
● Bilingualism is common among second-generation children, i.e., those growing up in immigrant households: most speak an immigrant language at home, but almost all are proficient in English. Among Hispanics, 92 percent speak English well or very well, even though 85 percent speak at least some Spanish at home. The equivalent percentages among Asian groups are: 96 percent are proficient in English and 61 percent speak an Asian mother tongue.
● In the third (and later) generation, the predominant pattern is English monolingualism: that is, children speak only English at home, making it highly unlikely that they will be bilingual as adults. Among Asians, the percentage who speak only English is 92 percent. It is lower among Hispanics, but still a clear majority: 72 percent.
● The very high immigration level of the 1990s does not appear to have weakened the forces of linguistic assimilation. Mexicans, by far the largest immigrant group, provide a compelling example. In 1990, 64 percent of third-generation Mexican-American children spoke only English at home; in 2000, the equivalent figure had risen to 71 percent.
● Much third-generation bilingualism is found in border communities, such as Brownsville, Texas, where the maintenance of Spanish has deep historical roots and is affected by proximity to Mexico. Away from the border, Mexican-American children of the third generation are unlikely to be bilingual.
● In the third (and later) generation, the predominant pattern is English monolingualism: that is, children speak only English at home, making it highly unlikely that they will be bilingual as adults. Among Asians, the percentage who speak only English is 92 percent. It is lower among Hispanics, but still a clear majority: 72 percent.
● The very high immigration level of the 1990s does not appear to have weakened the forces of linguistic assimilation. Mexicans, by far the largest immigrant group, provide a compelling example. In 1990, 64 percent of third-generation Mexican-American children spoke only English at home; in 2000, the equivalent figure had risen to 71 percent.
● Much third-generation bilingualism is found in border communities, such as Brownsville, Texas, where the maintenance of Spanish has deep historical roots and is affected by proximity to Mexico. Away from the border, Mexican-American children of the third generation are unlikely to be bilingual.
Hispanics are assimilating. I believe it is the massive influx of hispanics that gives people the opinion they are not i.e. they are encountering a lot of first generation hispanics. We do need to control immigration, Enforcing existing employment laws would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. I am skeptical of any new immigration reform when we do not have the will to enforce already existing laws.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jul 29 2007, 12:35 PM)
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 29 2007, 11:22 AM)
You're absolutely wrong that we "insisted" on assimilating immigrants that entered America.
We insisted that they assimilate themselves. The burden was considered to be on them, not on us. That's a type of thinking that's gone out of fashion in today's PC environment.
Blackstone, in my waning years, I would prefer not to see my nation get bogged down in an “us vs. them” mentality. I wouldn’t be too sad about the lack of political incorrectness. Lou Dobbs is on CNN every weekday, Pat Buchanan had a best seller called State of Emergency, and Tom Tancredo is much in evidence among the Republican candidates for president. That’s ample political incorrectness.
The title of the chapter on California in Buchanan's book was "Mexiafornia." Really cute!
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Jul 29 2007, 12:54 PM)
Hmm...most people are voting in English...Wouldn't that make sense since most people are speaking English? Can you provide proof for me that second and third generation Latinos are voting in Spanish? A brief glance at the Census Bureau for voting information did not provide that information. I am going to guess that ballots in Spanish are actually a minority, and yet white nativists continue to sound the fears that people who speak Spanish can't possibly be American.
I cannot speak for other parts of the country where the percentage of latino immigrants is much smaller, but I do live in the greater Los Angeles area and I have had a bird's eye view of the cultural interactions. There are signs in many parts of L.A. (those that are heavily populated by latinos -- yes, many illegally here) that are in Spanish. There are whole cities, or at least sections of cities that are nothing but Spanish enclaves where you do not need to assimilate into the American way of life. It is a feeling as if one was in Tijuana.
Necessity is what causes people to make changes. There is really no necessity to learn English because the Spanish-speaking population is so huge that their voice is becoming the majority.
QUOTE
And also, the burden of assimilation has not changed today. Guess who still has to "assimilate"? The immigrants. However, we're talking about citizenship, and you've provided NO proof that their children (you know, the ones who were born here, and are US citizens by birth) are not assimilating. I've provided ample evidence that they have: intermarriage rates, speaking English, voting.
They are NOT assimilating here like they may be in other parts of the U.S. There is no need to because they are communicated to in their native tongue of Spanish. The truth is this: if you plan on working in the L.A. area in the coming years you better speak Spanish or you will not get the job. There is no mandatory English and some of you may consider that a good thing. But I don't. It harbors resentment on both sides because there is no way to come to an understanding as human beings when we do not share a language.
QUOTE
Immigration patterns are nothing unusual, but those unschooled in history will tend to repeat the same things, as if this wave is incredibly different from the last. It's not, and xenophobic calls to end birthright citizenship will merely take the United States in the wrong direction.
We are talking about immigration on a much larger scale than what occurred in the 19th century. Also, there were controls on who could and could not get into the country. As it stands today, at least on the Mexico/California border, if you can get across, you are in. The poorest and most uneducated are the ones who are the most desperate to get to the U.S. They have children who attend public schools and do poorly because their parents do not speak the language and do not hold education in high esteem. It's a cycle that is continual.
I know it is the popular thing to say that every human being deserves to come here and work and reap the benefits of the opportunties and infrastructure that makes America so prosperous. But they must do it legally or it will get out of control as it already has here in SO-CAL. The massive influx of illegal immigration is to the detriment of the country and its citizens, as a whole, and granting citizenship to children of illegals does nothing but exacerbate the situation.
America became the land of opportunity because individuals created an infrastructure and system that gives people a chance. It is a real shame that the people of Mexico do not stand up and effectively change the corrupt system that has in essence caused the massive and never-ending flow of people coming to America, not because they want to be a part of this great country, because they simply feel it is the only option and, the Mexican government encourages them.
QUOTE(doomed-planet)
Necessity is what causes people to make changes. There is really no necessity to learn English because the Spanish-speaking population is so huge that their voice is becoming the majority.
..which then begs the question of why it matters. If they can succeed doing what they're doing.. who cares?
QUOTE(doomed-planet)
It harbors resentment on both sides because there is no way to come to an understanding as human beings when we do not share a language.
Not if people simply mind their own business...
That is the failing of assimilationism, it's busy-boding on a national scale.
QUOTE(turnea @ Jul 30 2007, 07:42 AM)
QUOTE(doomed-planet)
Necessity is what causes people to make changes. There is really no necessity to learn English because the Spanish-speaking population is so huge that their voice is becoming the majority.
..which then begs the question of why it matters. If they can succeed doing what they're doing.. who cares?
Well................would you like the U.S. to remain a sovereign nation? What is the problem with requiring someone to follow the rules in getting into the country and once they are here, learning the language and customs. I would do that if I ever lost my mind and tried to move to Mexico.
QUOTE
QUOTE(doomed-planet)
It harbors resentment on both sides because there is no way to come to an understanding as human beings when we do not share a language.
Not if people simply mind their own business...
That is the failing of assimilationism, it's busy-boding on a national scale.
Have you ever been in a foreign country, where you don't speak the language? Then you come across someone who speaks your language, and instantly you feel a degree of likeness for them, simply because they know your language. It is vital that one language be the dominant one, if we want assimilation to take place. Which I happen to want.
If we don't demand they learn English NOW, we WILL be forced to learn Spanish down the road. żUsted entiende?
QUOTE(doomed-planet)
Well................would you like the U.S. to remain a sovereign nation? What is the problem with requiring someone to follow the rules in getting into the country and once they are here, learning the language and customs. I would do that if I ever lost my mind and tried to move to Mexico.
Sovereignty has nothing to do with language or customs, we were a sovereing nation long before we even bothered to control immigration.
We only started that because some people got upset over the Chinese
I might learn the language, but my behavior is mine to control. I'm not a conformist and I see no reason why anyone else should be.
QUOTE(doomed-planet)
If we don't demand they learn English NOW, we WILL be forced to learn Spanish down the road. żUsted entiende?
There are many multi-lingual countries in this world, they get along just fine.
Everyone else has had to learn English to deal with us, that's just life.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.