In article ,
Joshua Putnam wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Then why have VOTING ballots in other languages? That IS "accomodation".
(and it costs a bunch of money)
Citizens are supposed to have basic English skills.

That is still a requirement for citizenship. I never had understood
that...

Actually, it's a requirement for *some* of the ways of achieving
citizenship, but not for *all* of them.

Last I looked it was a requirement for gettting by going through the
classes, etc. The way that ends up with some area big wig administering
the oath of citizenship to a bunch of people in front of TV cameras on
the 4th of july each year. The vast majority get it this way. Most of
the other ways probably require English in real life (for instance
serving in the military).

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:


So every parent will need to prove that they are US citizens to have
their child accepted as a US citizen. It's beginning to sound more and more
like a police state.

FWIW, the US in one of the few countries in the world that
automatically confers citizenship merely by born on our soil. Many
require you to be born of citizen parent(s) before citizenship is a
given. Hardly makes them a police state.

"MikeP" wrote in message
bal.net...
In article ,
says...

"MikeP" wrote in message
al.net...

I suppose that one example is indicative of a trend, eh?

Thousands of times a day is more than one.

Time for some stats, please. You know....links. Or, do you have spies in
emergency rooms around the country?

Just walk into an emergency room in the USA. There are
notices posted in emergency rooms, concerning the
emergency care must be provided. It does not matter if
the facility is private or public, by law anyone that
walks through the door will be evaluated and possibly
treated by a doctor. In order to provide the level of
care mandated by law, hospitals pay a premium for
bilingual staff and translators. FWIW, in the past, my
wife was 'on call' to sign for the hearing impaired.
Does this make her a spy? :-)

On top of the language issues, many of the non English
speaking legal/illegal immigrants do not have the cash
or insurance to pay for the care that must be provided
... you and I, the tax payers, end up footing their
bill and our own.


Many English speaking patients don't have the cash or insurance either.
Eight weeks ago, I didn't. We're going to need to see some stats to back up
your claims that within the set of people without cash or insurance, the
subset that doesn't speak English is a major one.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:MPYYf.11331$I%6.7272@fed1read12...
Doug Kanter wrote:

Great. A quote from one of the biggest sources of hot air in this
past century.



I have to admit. Next to you, he's pretty weak as a source of hot
air.

How is it that you're so smart, yet we have not yet seen you do
anything newsworthy?

Steve


T. Roosevelt dragged us into a war based on pretenses that were later
proven to be false. If you think that's newsworthy and worth
emulating, knock yourself out. I'll watch.




"LATER proven" to be false = armchair quarterbacking.


Do you know what I'm referring to, specifically?

"MikeP" wrote in message
bal.net...
In article ,
says...

"MikeP" wrote in message
bal.net...
In article ,
says...
"JerryL" wrote in message
...

My parents, their families and millions of others came here many
years
ago. They had to learn the language and went to night schools to do
so.

While they were learning, did they have servants to venture out into
the
world for them to buy food, or did they find merchants who spoke their
native language?


Mine, like most, had nether servants or merchants who
spoke their native language.

Neither did mine. As a result, I'm pretty happy that there were merchants
who displayed some information in other languages (which, in case
everyone's
forgotten, was the original subject of this discussion - Home Depot's
Great
Sin).

Me too.

One of my beefs is, *some* emigrants make little effort
to speak/learn English and believe that it is their
*right* that everyone else conduct business in their
foreign language.



I've got a better beef. Every presidential candidate should be vetted by a
panel of, say, 12 high school teachers. If even one of them says "Who IS
this asshole? Did he actually attend classes at any point after first
grade?", the candidate is rejected.

Until that happens, I don't care what language anyone wants to speak when
they come here.

In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:

I've got a better beef. Every presidential candidate should be vetted by a
panel of, say, 12 high school teachers. If even one of them says "Who IS
this asshole? Did he actually attend classes at any point after first
grade?", the candidate is rejected.

Yeah lets put the people who are making the US one of the least
educated countries in the world and graduating a fair number of
functional illiterates in charge of deciding who the pres. candidates
should be. THAT is a good idea.. NOT.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:

I've got a better beef. Every presidential candidate should be vetted by
a
panel of, say, 12 high school teachers. If even one of them says "Who IS
this asshole? Did he actually attend classes at any point after first
grade?", the candidate is rejected.

Yeah lets put the people who are making the US one of the least
educated countries in the world and graduating a fair number of
functional illiterates in charge of deciding who the pres. candidates
should be. THAT is a good idea.. NOT.

Teachers are doing that??? Too simple.

Here - I think you'll enjoy this:
http://www.digitalfog.com/gallery/invasion.html

"MikeP" wrote in message
bal.net...
In article ,
says...

"MikeP" wrote in message
bal.net...
In article ,
says...

Not if there are methods to do so that are cheaper/more
available.
There is no incentive to look precisely because the other way is
available. Illegal immigration that is studiously ignored by
government
essentially is a subsidy to farmers.
It is Econ 101.

Possible for some crops, but the fact remains that there *are* some
which
are simply too delicate to be managed with machinery.

Name one crop that can not be managed with machinery
that is *required* for adequate human nutrition.

That bit about "required" is ridiculous. Do you think that if we suddenly
had a huge shortage of farm laborers, people would suddenly be prepared
to
do without half the produce they're accustomed to eating?

"required" was not ridiculous and there will not be a
sudden huge shortage of farm laborers. The crops that
require hand labor would cost me more and my county
hospital tax should go down. (do taxes ever go down?)
And accustomed does not equal required.

But, I'll humor you anyway and give you a bit of an education, since
you're
obviously not a gardener. There's a large category of plants which
continue
producing after the first harvest. Tomatoes, cucumbers and summer squash
are
three examples. And, the parts we harvest are tender and can't be beat up
by
a machine. If you need to know more about this, go to Google, and search
for
the words "cooperative extension" along with the name of your state. Find
a
phone number and call them.

My garden does require more hand labor than the acres
of corn, cotton and grain grown within an hours drive.


You can't compare our gardens to 1500 acres of green peppers.

In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
..Or thru being born to an illegal who
birthed inside the US,making their child a citizen automatically;That
scam has gotta change.

I believe that 'scam' is the law of the land. Check out the 14th
amendment.

The scam, at least to my mind, is that the parents get to stay
because the kid is born here. The parents should be sent home, the kid
can stay if that is their wish. The kid is welcome back any time but the
parents can't jump the queue.

Yeah...that would simplify everything. :-)

What part is complicated? The kid is a citizen and can stay if the
parents want to abandon them (which sorta indicates that the kid was
essentially a way to green card instead of a kid). The parents want to
keep the kid, then they take the kid home with them.

"MikeP" wrote in message
bal.net...
In article ,
says...

I suppose wages might go up, although the subsequent chain of events
would
be interesting, to say the least. I'm referring to the ripple effect in
terms of food prices. People who don't allow for this possibility are
usually those who think grocers have enormous profit margins and have
plenty
of room to absorb price swings.

I agree. And would like substitute 'home builders' for
'grocers' ... and 'housing prices' for 'food prices'.



My family and I have been in the grocery biz for what seems like forever.
Believe me - for basic items like vegetables, the margins are NOT what you'd
probably guess.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
..Or thru being born to an illegal who
birthed inside the US,making their child a citizen
automatically;That
scam has gotta change.

I believe that 'scam' is the law of the land. Check out the 14th
amendment.

The scam, at least to my mind, is that the parents get to stay
because the kid is born here. The parents should be sent home, the kid
can stay if that is their wish. The kid is welcome back any time but
the
parents can't jump the queue.

Yeah...that would simplify everything. :-)

What part is complicated? The kid is a citizen and can stay if the
parents want to abandon them (which sorta indicates that the kid was
essentially a way to green card instead of a kid). The parents want to
keep the kid, then they take the kid home with them.

I think you'd need to address the problems surrounding foster homes, and
where in our always-flexible budget the money would come from when the need
for that service triples.

In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:


I think you'd need to address the problems surrounding foster homes, and
where in our always-flexible budget the money would come from when the need
for that service triples.

So you are essentially saying that most people of Mexican origin get
preggers solely to get a green card. Sorta racist outlook to me.
Split the difference then. The kid has to go back, but retains
citizenship for when M and/or Dad qualify for return or they hit 18.
From my reading, that is essentially how many European countries do it.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:


I think you'd need to address the problems surrounding foster homes, and
where in our always-flexible budget the money would come from when the
need
for that service triples.

So you are essentially saying that most people of Mexican origin get
preggers solely to get a green card. Sorta racist outlook to me.
Split the difference then. The kid has to go back, but retains
citizenship for when M and/or Dad qualify for return or they hit 18.
From my reading, that is essentially how many European countries do it.

No - I'm not saying anything about their reasons for coming here. I'm just
responding to your suggestion, which, if it became reality, might create yet
another layer of public assistance.

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
. ..
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:


So every parent will need to prove that they are US citizens to
have their child accepted as a US citizen. It's beginning to sound
more and more like a police state.

FWIW, the US in one of the few countries in the world that
automatically confers citizenship merely by born on our soil. Many
require you to be born of citizen parent(s) before citizenship is a
given. Hardly makes them a police state.

It sounds like it to me.


Why? Either way seems pretty innocuous. Our way is probably based
(unconsciously) on the idea that because it's such a big place, we can
absorb lots of new citizens. Other countries don't have to see things the
same way, although it's popular to not agree with that last idea.

In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:


No - I'm not saying anything about their reasons for coming here. I'm just
responding to your suggestion, which, if it became reality, might create yet
another layer of public assistance.

You are saying that most of the parents would leave their kids
behind, otherwise there would be no increase in public assistance. But
we would eliminate a layer of public assistance relative to that spent
on the parents. 100% of the parents a most of the kids since most would
take them back with them.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
..

There is no continent called "America". Apparently, you didn't go to
school at all.

You're also apparently unaware that there are several nations whose
official names are "The United States of ...", of which the USA is
only one. There are also the United States of Mexico, and the United
States of Brazil -- and the citizens of the two are called "Mexicans"
and "Brazilians" respectively.
People who live in the United States of America are "Americans".

Get it now?

I'd love to listen to you trying to convince a Canadian that he's an
"American". It would be even more entertaining to hear you trying to
persuade him that he's wrong, when he tells you he isn't.


Per the American Heritage Dictionary:

A·mer·i·can (.-mµr"¹-k.n) adj. Abbr. A., Amer. 1. Of or relating to the
United States of America or its people, language, or culture. 2. Of or
relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western
Hemisphere. 3. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples. 4.
Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and
animals. --A·mer·i·can n. Abbr. A., Amer. 1. A native or inhabitant of
America. 2. A citizen of the United States. --A·mer"i·can·ness n.

Do read #2


American
2. Of or relating to North or South America............
I rest my case.

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:


So every parent will need to prove that they are US citizens to
have their child accepted as a US citizen. It's beginning to sound
more and more like a police state.

FWIW, the US in one of the few countries in the world that
automatically confers citizenship merely by born on our soil. Many
require you to be born of citizen parent(s) before citizenship is a
given. Hardly makes them a police state.

It sounds like it to me.

So Germany (which actually publishes the fact that 100,000 kids or so
a year are born in the country but are not given automatic citizenship
(see Germany's listing on justlanded.com for the figure), Belgium and
even Mexico are police states?

In article ,
"

Why? Either way seems pretty innocuous. Our way is probably based
(unconsciously) on the idea that because it's such a big place, we can
absorb lots of new citizens. Other countries don't have to see things the
same way, although it's popular to not agree with that last idea.

Acutally the 14th amendment was a child of the Civil War and was
originally put in place largely to avoid people playing games with the
citizenship of freed slaves.

"Spike2" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
..

There is no continent called "America". Apparently, you didn't go to
school at all.

You're also apparently unaware that there are several nations whose
official names are "The United States of ...", of which the USA is
only one. There are also the United States of Mexico, and the United
States of Brazil -- and the citizens of the two are called "Mexicans"
and "Brazilians" respectively.
People who live in the United States of America are "Americans".

Get it now?

I'd love to listen to you trying to convince a Canadian that he's an
"American". It would be even more entertaining to hear you trying to
persuade him that he's wrong, when he tells you he isn't.


Per the American Heritage Dictionary:

A·mer·i·can (.-mµr"¹-k.n) adj. Abbr. A., Amer. 1. Of or relating to the
United States of America or its people, language, or culture. 2. Of or
relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western
Hemisphere. 3. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples. 4.
Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and
animals. --A·mer·i·can n. Abbr. A., Amer. 1. A native or inhabitant of
America. 2. A citizen of the United States. --A·mer"i·can·ness n.

Do read #2


American
2. Of or relating to North or South America............
I rest my case.

OK. You're right. Now, how are we going to arrange for all those Americans
south of the equator to vote in our next election?

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"

Why? Either way seems pretty innocuous. Our way is probably based
(unconsciously) on the idea that because it's such a big place, we can
absorb lots of new citizens. Other countries don't have to see things the
same way, although it's popular to not agree with that last idea.

Acutally the 14th amendment was a child of the Civil War and was
originally put in place largely to avoid people playing games with the
citizenship of freed slaves.


Then, that's enough to back up the idea that our method of granting
citizenship to newborns is no better or worse than anyone else's. Except, of
course, those evil Belgians.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Spike2" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
..

There is no continent called "America". Apparently, you didn't go to
school at all.

You're also apparently unaware that there are several nations whose
official names are "The United States of ...", of which the USA is
only one. There are also the United States of Mexico, and the United
States of Brazil -- and the citizens of the two are called "Mexicans"
and "Brazilians" respectively.
People who live in the United States of America are "Americans".

Get it now?

I'd love to listen to you trying to convince a Canadian that he's an
"American". It would be even more entertaining to hear you trying to
persuade him that he's wrong, when he tells you he isn't.


Per the American Heritage Dictionary:

A·mer·i·can (.-mµr"¹-k.n) adj. Abbr. A., Amer. 1. Of or relating to the
United States of America or its people, language, or culture. 2. Of or
relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western
Hemisphere. 3. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples. 4.
Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and
animals. --A·mer·i·can n. Abbr. A., Amer. 1. A native or inhabitant of
America. 2. A citizen of the United States. --A·mer"i·can·ness n.

Do read #2


American
2. Of or relating to North or South America............
I rest my case.

OK. You're right. Now, how are we going to arrange for all those Americans
south of the equator to vote in our next election?

Why would Americans vote in the US election, it is for US citizens only? Oh
and don't forget about the Americans that are north of us, they can't vote
in our election either. Those dad blasted govt schools again!

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:


No - I'm not saying anything about their reasons for coming here. I'm
just
responding to your suggestion, which, if it became reality, might create
yet
another layer of public assistance.

You are saying that most of the parents would leave their kids
behind, otherwise there would be no increase in public assistance. But
we would eliminate a layer of public assistance relative to that spent
on the parents. 100% of the parents a most of the kids since most would
take them back with them.

I guess. Maybe. Or, leave them with relatives. Who knows?

In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:


Then, that's enough to back up the idea that our method of granting
citizenship to newborns is no better or worse than anyone else's. Except, of
course, those evil Belgians.

Never said otherwise. As for Belgium.. what else could you expect:

"The reason the Earth has been shunned for so long is also due to a
language problem. On Earth, Belgium refers to a small country.
Throughout the rest of the galaxy, Belgium is the most unspeakably rude
word there is." -HHGG

"plug" wrote in message
...

American
2. Of or relating to North or South America............
I rest my case.

OK. You're right. Now, how are we going to arrange for all those
Americans south of the equator to vote in our next election?

Why would Americans vote in the US election, it is for US citizens only?
Oh and don't forget about the Americans that are north of us, they can't
vote in our election either. Those dad blasted govt schools again!

Well, earlier in this scholarly debate, perfesser Spike2 suggested that
"American-ness" in his hemisphere went beyond mere geography and labels - he
implied that people in places like Bolivia were part of our political
system, and that various political entities in the individual countries was
meaningless. When I called him on this, he either changed the subject, or
started acting childish and hurling insults. So, at this point, I'm just
toying with the perfesser.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Doug Kanter" wrote:


Then, that's enough to back up the idea that our method of granting
citizenship to newborns is no better or worse than anyone else's. Except,
of
course, those evil Belgians.

Never said otherwise.

I know - it was the other guy - what's-his-name.

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:52:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"plug" wrote in message
.. .

American
2. Of or relating to North or South America............
I rest my case.

OK. You're right. Now, how are we going to arrange for all those
Americans south of the equator to vote in our next election?

Why would Americans vote in the US election, it is for US citizens only?
Oh and don't forget about the Americans that are north of us, they can't
vote in our election either. Those dad blasted govt schools again!

Well, earlier in this scholarly debate, perfesser Spike2 suggested that
"American-ness" in his hemisphere went beyond mere geography and labels -
he
implied that people in places like Bolivia were part of our political
system, and that various political entities in the individual countries
was
meaningless. When I called him on this, he either changed the subject, or
started acting childish and hurling insults. So, at this point, I'm just
toying with the perfesser.


I don't recall him ever saying anything of the kind.



Read the entire thread again, up to the point where he abandoned the idea,
sort of.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:MPYYf.11331$I%6.7272@fed1read12...
Doug Kanter wrote:

Great. A quote from one of the biggest sources of hot air in this
past century.



I have to admit. Next to you, he's pretty weak as a source of hot
air.

How is it that you're so smart, yet we have not yet seen you do
anything newsworthy?

Steve


T. Roosevelt dragged us into a war based on pretenses that were later
proven to be false. If you think that's newsworthy and worth
emulating, knock yourself out. I'll watch.




"LATER proven" to be false = armchair quarterbacking.


Do you know what I'm referring to, specifically?




"Remember the Maine"?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:12:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:52:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"plug" wrote in message
.. .

American
2. Of or relating to North or South America............
I rest my case.

OK. You're right. Now, how are we going to arrange for all those
Americans south of the equator to vote in our next election?

Why would Americans vote in the US election, it is for US citizens
only?
Oh and don't forget about the Americans that are north of us, they
can't
vote in our election either. Those dad blasted govt schools again!

Well, earlier in this scholarly debate, perfesser Spike2 suggested that
"American-ness" in his hemisphere went beyond mere geography and
labels -
he
implied that people in places like Bolivia were part of our political
system, and that various political entities in the individual countries
was
meaningless. When I called him on this, he either changed the subject,
or
started acting childish and hurling insults. So, at this point, I'm just
toying with the perfesser.


I don't recall him ever saying anything of the kind.



Read the entire thread again, up to the point where he abandoned the idea,
sort of.


Just post the relevant quote. Otherwise, he never said it.



Sounds like you're as lazy or busy as I am. I'm not your secretary. Re-read
the thread.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

T. Roosevelt dragged us into a war based on pretenses that were later
proven to be false. If you think that's newsworthy and worth
emulating, knock yourself out. I'll watch.




"LATER proven" to be false = armchair quarterbacking.


Do you know what I'm referring to, specifically?




"Remember the Maine"?

So, you didn't like Rickover's analysis of the ship's demise?

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...

I just re-read every one of Spike2's posts in this thread. He never
even came remotely close to saying or even implying what you are
claiming.

Here's where he ventured into the absurd:

===========================
There's a big difference between what's correct in terms of geography, and
saying someone is "American", which indicates nationality, political
loyalties and certain ways of thinking.

no to me
===========================

See the paragraph beginning with "There's a big"? That's mine.

See the "no to me"? That's his response.

He is suggesting that everyone who lives on the continents which include the
word "America" share national & political loyalties, and ways of thinking,
with the citizens of the United States. If you agree with this, you're just
being silly, or playing games here.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...


I just re-read every one of Spike2's posts in this thread. He never
even came remotely close to saying or even implying what you are
claiming.


Here's where he ventured into the absurd:

===========================

There's a big difference between what's correct in terms of geography, and
saying someone is "American", which indicates nationality, political
loyalties and certain ways of thinking.


no to me
===========================

See the paragraph beginning with "There's a big"? That's mine.

See the "no to me"? That's his response.

He is suggesting that everyone who lives on the continents which include the
word "America" share national & political loyalties, and ways of thinking,
with the citizens of the United States. If you agree with this, you're just
being silly, or playing games here.



that should have been "not to me", I left the t off while typing in a hurry.
The "no to me" was referring to your assertion that:
""American", which indicates nationality, political
loyalties and certain ways of thinking."

My point is and was that American indicates where you were born, ie in
the Americas and now thanks to Mr Meehan I know it also applies to West
Indies.

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:07:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..

I just re-read every one of Spike2's posts in this thread. He never
even came remotely close to saying or even implying what you are
claiming.

Here's where he ventured into the absurd:

===========================
There's a big difference between what's correct in terms of geography,
and
saying someone is "American", which indicates nationality, political
loyalties and certain ways of thinking.

no to me
===========================

See the paragraph beginning with "There's a big"? That's mine.

See the "no to me"? That's his response.

He is suggesting that everyone who lives on the continents which include
the
word "America" share national & political loyalties, and ways of thinking,
with the citizens of the United States. If you agree with this, you're
just
being silly, or playing games here.


Man are you dense. He was disagreeing (as he has consistently) with
your absurd (and incorrect) stance that "American" always and only
means "US Citizen". You have been cock-eyed on this subject from the
get-go.

Go ask a hundred people from countries in South America, Central America and
Canada what word they use to describe their nationality. Let me know how
that goes.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"JosEnglish is THE language of business and science.

Religion is a unifying factor, do you also suggest that we
should make religious requirements? How about what sports we like,
that is also a unifying factor, let's outlaw rowing (too English).

That's BS. There never has been one overriding religion that
everyone needed to adhere to.

To the best of my knowledge there has never been one language that
everyone needed to adhere to.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

JerryL wrote:
...


This is America. English is spoken here. You want to speak your
native language, speak it at home amongst your friends and
relatives.

So are many other languages spoken here. Why do you think only
English should be spoken here?

Because if people don't speak AT LEAST English, then they have more
problems getting around, communicating with people, etc. Heck even in
China, they are teaching almost everyone English as it is the language
of business and commerce.

All that may be true, but don't you think it should be their business
not yours?

Don't have any problem with people speaking Esperanto if they want
to amongst their friends, relatives, etc. But English is still the
main language and for assimilation purposes, people need to speak it.


So what did they do before they learned English? Most Spanish
speakers in the US are learning or already know English. However I
see no reason to demand it. It should be their choice. I believe
the US is known as the land of the free. That freedom I would guess
should also include freedom of
speech and I don't recall the freedom of speech being restricted
to English.
How you get that, from the constitution, is beyond
comprehension,.


Why do we have to pay for
bilingual teachers to accomadate them when we can't afford to hire
English speaking teachers to educate our children?

That does sound hateful.
There are a number of studies showing that getting non-English
speaking kids out of bilingual classes and into English only schools
increases their grades, etc. Bilingual teaching is a method of
ghettoization.

So? What is your point?


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"JosEnglish is THE language of business and science.

Religion is a unifying factor, do you also suggest that we
should make religious requirements? How about what sports we like,
that is also a unifying factor, let's outlaw rowing (too English).

That's BS. There never has been one overriding religion that
everyone needed to adhere to.

I guess if we don't need one overriding religion to unify us, we sure
don't need one language.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...

Go ask a hundred people from countries in South America, Central America
and
Canada what word they use to describe their nationality. Let me know how
that goes.


Once again, you prove that you can be very dense when you really apply
yourself. Calling a resident of Mexico an American, defines where he
resides geographically. not his nationality. His nationality is
Mexican. He's an American, as well. He is not a U.S. citizen just
because he is an American. You have gotten used to the lazy speak
shortcut of calling yourself an "American" when you mean to say you
are a United States of America citizen. You are also an American, but
it's due to geography, not what flag you salute. The United States is
a subset of the landmass that makes up the continent.



Sorry, but I'm focused on THIS, and THIS ALONE:

There's a big difference between what's correct in terms of geography,
and saying someone is "American", which indicates nationality, political
loyalties and certain ways of thinking.

"no to me"

It says what it says. He believes one's place on the continent is synonymous
with their political and national characteristics. Then he says it doesn't.
Then it does. Then it doesn't.

Discussion over. Have a nice day.

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:15:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..

Go ask a hundred people from countries in South America, Central America
and
Canada what word they use to describe their nationality. Let me know how
that goes.


Once again, you prove that you can be very dense when you really apply
yourself. Calling a resident of Mexico an American, defines where he
resides geographically. not his nationality. His nationality is
Mexican. He's an American, as well. He is not a U.S. citizen just
because he is an American. You have gotten used to the lazy speak
shortcut of calling yourself an "American" when you mean to say you
are a United States of America citizen. You are also an American, but
it's due to geography, not what flag you salute. The United States is
a subset of the landmass that makes up the continent.



Sorry, but I'm focused on THIS, and THIS ALONE:

There's a big difference between what's correct in terms of geography,
and saying someone is "American", which indicates nationality, political
loyalties and certain ways of thinking.

"no to me"

It says what it says. He believes one's place on the continent is
synonymous
with their political and national characteristics. Then he says it
doesn't.
Then it does. Then it doesn't.

Discussion over. Have a nice day.


There was never a discussion on your part, stonewall. You are doggedly
insisting on being ignorant, which merely graduates you to "stupid".



I'll be talking to people in Panama and Brazil this week. I'll let you know
what they think of your stupid theory.

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:37:37 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:15:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
m...

Go ask a hundred people from countries in South America, Central
America
and
Canada what word they use to describe their nationality. Let me know
how
that goes.


Once again, you prove that you can be very dense when you really apply
yourself. Calling a resident of Mexico an American, defines where he
resides geographically. not his nationality. His nationality is
Mexican. He's an American, as well. He is not a U.S. citizen just
because he is an American. You have gotten used to the lazy speak
shortcut of calling yourself an "American" when you mean to say you
are a United States of America citizen. You are also an American, but
it's due to geography, not what flag you salute. The United States is
a subset of the landmass that makes up the continent.



Sorry, but I'm focused on THIS, and THIS ALONE:

There's a big difference between what's correct in terms of geography,
and saying someone is "American", which indicates nationality,
political
loyalties and certain ways of thinking.

"no to me"

It says what it says. He believes one's place on the continent is
synonymous
with their political and national characteristics. Then he says it
doesn't.
Then it does. Then it doesn't.

Discussion over. Have a nice day.


There was never a discussion on your part, stonewall. You are doggedly
insisting on being ignorant, which merely graduates you to "stupid".



I'll be talking to people in Panama and Brazil this week. I'll let you
know
what they think of your stupid theory.


It's not a theory and it's not an opinion. It's a stone cold FACT.

The only thing that's a fact is the continents contain the word "America",
and that the countries within can be called "the Americas", which they
commonly are, in such places as web sites and airline route descriptions.
But, to say the all the residents are "Americans" is simply to misuse a
word.

A couple of years ago, a political cartoonist depicted George Bush saying
"Inside every Iraqi is an American trying to get out". You probably think
that's a good way to think about other nationalities.

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:


All that may be true, but don't you think it should be their business
not yours?

When we are talking about giving citizenship and/or immigrant
status in the US, then it becomes my business and the business of anyone
else who is a citizen.


There are a number of studies showing that getting non-English
speaking kids out of bilingual classes and into English only schools
increases their grades, etc. Bilingual teaching is a method of
ghettoization.

So? What is your point?

That those who don't speak the language are much more likely to
relegated to the underclasses.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:07:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...


I just re-read every one of Spike2's posts in this thread. He never
even came remotely close to saying or even implying what you are
claiming.

Here's where he ventured into the absurd:

===========================

There's a big difference between what's correct in terms of geography,
and
saying someone is "American", which indicates nationality, political
loyalties and certain ways of thinking.

no to me
===========================

See the paragraph beginning with "There's a big"? That's mine.

See the "no to me"? That's his response.

He is suggesting that everyone who lives on the continents which include
the
word "America" share national & political loyalties, and ways of thinking,
with the citizens of the United States. If you agree with this, you're
just
being silly, or playing games here.


Man are you dense. He was disagreeing (as he has consistently) with
your absurd (and incorrect) stance that "American" always and only
means "US Citizen". You have been cock-eyed on this subject from the
get-go.


Go ask a hundred people from countries in South America, Central America and
Canada what word they use to describe their nationality. Let me know how
that goes.



I have been in Mexico and when asked where I was from naively replied
"America". I was told in no uncertain terms that the US did not own the
word America and that they too were Americans. Then I realized how
parochial and narrow minded I had been. I have not made that mistake
since, thanks to my friends south of the border.