According to Kurt Ullman :

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.

That's more of an indictment of the US school system's ability to
give high grades to functional illiterates.

Bilingual teaching is a method of ghettoization.

The exact opposite.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Kurt Ullman :
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.

You're not very up on your religious history, are you?
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Joseph Meehan :

" Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest-tossed, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." (As long as
they speak English) ...

And will do my laundry for vastly less than minimum wage.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...

You are a very confused and angry person. Maybe try switching to the
coffee in the green can as a start. :^O



ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!

In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

According to Kurt Ullman :
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.

You're not very up on your religious history, are you?

In the US? Find me one.

According to Kurt Ullman :
In article ,

" Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest-tossed, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." (As long as
they speak English) ...

No, as long as they willing to LEARN to speak English. The Irish,
Italians, and every other wave of immigrants did that as part of their
assimilation to society.

What makes you think they _aren't_ willing to learn English?

Learning languages takes time.

They're just further back on the assimilation curve. Give them time.

Gee whiz guys, it's not as if the Irish, Italians and other waves of immigrants
were able to instantly abandon their native language within days of arriving.
They had stores they could go to and speak their own language, just as the latinos
do now. They _still_ do.

On a per-capita basis, Canada takes in between 10 and 50 _times_ as many
immigrants as the US does. 1 in five people in this country are immigrants -
double the US rate. Accents abound.

Certainly, each wave or group has problems. But they go away.

_No_ big problems here.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to Kurt Ullman :
In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

According to Kurt Ullman :
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.

You're not very up on your religious history, are you?

In the US? Find me one.

You've heard of Salem Mass, haven't you?
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

According to Kurt Ullman :
In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

According to Kurt Ullman :
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.

You're not very up on your religious history, are you?

In the US? Find me one.

You've heard of Salem Mass, haven't you?

Yep. I reiterate... in the US. The witch trials were 1600, LONG
before 1776. But nice try...

Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.

And you don't think they should have a choice?

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Chris Lewis wrote:
According to Kurt Ullman :
In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

According to Kurt Ullman :
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.

You're not very up on your religious history, are you?

In the US? Find me one.

You've heard of Salem Mass, haven't you?

I suspect that in the area that was to become the US, that there were
quite a number of other religions. I would guess that all Christian
religions put together would not equal the number of native Americans who
worshiped in other ways.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

According to Kurt Ullman :
In article ,
(Chris Lewis) wrote:

You've heard of Salem Mass, haven't you?

Yep. I reiterate... in the US. The witch trials were 1600, LONG
before 1776. But nice try...

Your first query didn't specify the US.

Your second iteration didn't specify _when_.

There have been LOTS of times and places where it was "my religion or
die|move|...".

The fact that the US hasn't institutionalized religious bigotry since
1776 to _quite_ that level [+], doesn't mean it gets a free ticket to
institutionalized language bigotry instead.

After all, institutionalized _race_ bigotry is something that the US
was quite good at, and in some sense still is. And is most of what's
at the root of this nonsense about language.

[+] Depending on your terms of reference. The US is the most overtly
"religious state" in the developed world.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

In article ,
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.

And you don't think they should have a choice?

Not if they want citizenship and no other group of legal immigrants
is let in without sponsors or someone willing to foot the bill for them
until they get set-up.

Jim Yanik wrote:
"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"?


Actually no. And damn few people do. But we have
current telephone tax to assure us of an
historical occurrence.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"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?




How long *after the fact* did that occur?
Do ya think Rickover's analysis had ANY meaning at the time the sinking
occurred?

Maybe I should have said "Monday morning QBing".
(but I did say "LATER-proven")
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

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.


You make a lot of ASSumptions.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

"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?




How long *after the fact* did that occur?
Do ya think Rickover's analysis had ANY meaning at the time the sinking
occurred?

Maybe I should have said "Monday morning QBing".
(but I did say "LATER-proven")

I wonder if you've ever read anything about the political & personal chess
game that was going on in Washington, in the time leading up to the war.
Have you?

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

Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.

And you don't think they should have a choice?

Not if they want citizenship and no other group of legal immigrants
is let in without sponsors or someone willing to foot the bill for
them until they get set-up.

Why should it be that way?

As I understand it, the very group you are talking about has a higher
percentage of employment than US citizens.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

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.


You make a lot of ASSumptions.

I see no valid arguments to support any other conclusion.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
news:WB8Zf.81241
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.

Good then, let's keep it that way.

Joey wrote:
Hi all,

Just heard on the Fox news that they reported a Home Depot store that
required (1) all inside signs had to have the Spanish equalivent under
the English heading and (2) it was against store policy to fly the
American flag anywhere on the store property.

Enough is enough about the illegal Mexicans but has anyone heard this
about HD ?

J
WAS YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED?

Jim Yanik wrote:
clifto wrote:
A good driver in a good car should be able
to do 70 MPH on a ramp marked 40 MPH here, barring potholes (which
for some reason are fairly scarce on exit ramps around here).

Of course,all vehicles on the road are NOT "good cars",many not even
"cars",but trucks or motorcycles.

Other states manage to post speeds that aren't based on the lowest
common denominator. I nearly killed myself and my family in Kentucky
years ago, trying to do 50 on a ramp marked 35.

Ever been on a ramp that gets tighter the further you get into the turn?

Yep. We have a fair number of those around here. They still underrate
them.

I can't know what the motivations of the Illinois DOT are. But I
can explain every single one of their idiot traffic munges by
attributing to them the idea that the ideal speed for traffic
is zero MPH, and that whatever they can do to approach that goal
for all traffic is their idea of the best possible situation.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Jim Yanik wrote:
"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 14th was enacted to prevent states from denying citizenship to
freed slaves and their families.

I know it's law;it's time to amend the Constitution to change that;that the
child must be born to US citizens to have US citizenship.

I believe it should be that the child must be born to someone who's
legally in the US at the time of birth. There's no reason to deny
citizenship to the babies who are legally born here.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
"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.

I know what you mean. Damn fascists required me to produce TWO
forms of ID to get my passport.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote...
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.

Say what you want, they make great waffles.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Kurt Ullman wrote:
So you are essentially saying that most people of Mexican origin get
preggers solely to get a green card. Sorta racist outlook to me.

1. What race is Mexican?
2. It's been documented for years that people DO come here to have
their kids, both for the free care and for the kid citizenship.

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.

I'm all for that. I'd say the kid could stay if the parents arranged
for the foster home themselves and the kid didn't need welfare support.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

George E. Cawthon wrote:
clifto wrote:
Walter R. wrote:
Most of the Western US were taken by the US from Mexico by Force.

Wrong. Texas petitioned the US for statehood. Mexico didn't like it
and went to war. When we won, the treaty they signed SOLD us New
Mexico and parts west for something around $15 million, and we
split off parts of then-Texas for inclusion in various other
surrounding states.

Don't forget the Gasden purchase.

Gadsden. Right.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

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.

Great way to have a one-party country.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

Doug Kanter wrote:
"MikeP" wrote...
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.

You can't use a reaper or a combine in a garden.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 16:04:09 -0500, clifto wrote:

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
"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.

I know what you mean. Damn fascists required me to produce TWO
forms of ID to get my passport.

Damn! ...and I had to show a certifed birth certificate to jet my job.
....but that was 30+ years ago.

--
Keith

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 16:03:02 -0500, clifto wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
"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 14th was enacted to prevent states from denying citizenship to
freed slaves and their families.

I know it's law;it's time to amend the Constitution to change that;that the
child must be born to US citizens to have US citizenship.

I believe it should be that the child must be born to someone who's
legally in the US at the time of birth. There's no reason to deny
citizenship to the babies who are legally born here.

Not just legally in the US, but to someone with permanent resident status.
*NO* other country grants citizenship to anyone who drops a kid within
their borders.

--
Keith

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 16:08:09 -0500, clifto wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
So you are essentially saying that most people of Mexican origin get
preggers solely to get a green card. Sorta racist outlook to me.

1. What race is Mexican?
2. It's been documented for years that people DO come here to have
their kids, both for the free care and for the kid citizenship.

....and the parents can't be shipped out if they have an *American* child
to take care of. ...even if they don't.

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.

I'm all for that. I'd say the kid could stay if the parents arranged for
the foster home themselves and the kid didn't need welfare support.

No, just get rid of the "born here" crap!

--
Keith

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"MikeP" wrote...
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.

You can't use a reaper or a combine in a garden.

Gimme one of them thar beers.

"clifto" wrote in message
...
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.

Great way to have a one-party country.

If that's what it takes, then...oh well.

clifto wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:

clifto wrote:

Walter R. wrote:

Most of the Western US were taken by the US from Mexico by Force.

Wrong. Texas petitioned the US for statehood. Mexico didn't like it
and went to war. When we won, the treaty they signed SOLD us New
Mexico and parts west for something around $15 million, and we
split off parts of then-Texas for inclusion in various other
surrounding states.

Don't forget the Gasden purchase.


Gadsden. Right.


Good catch! He's dead so it probably wouldn't
offend him.

According to Keith :

Not just legally in the US, but to someone with permanent resident status.
*NO* other country grants citizenship to anyone who drops a kid within
their borders.

Where do people pick up such BS?

Even the your next door neighbor to the north does just that:

Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 Section 3(1)(a)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_citizenship
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Keith :

Not just legally in the US, but to someone with permanent resident
status.
*NO* other country grants citizenship to anyone who drops a kid within
their borders.

Where do people pick up such BS?

Rush Limbaugh & Michael Savage. :-)

Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.

Yes, we've seen examples lately of how somebody who's been in the US
illegally for like 15 years with a couple of kids, held a steady job,
had tax withheld, and of course had no encounters of any kind with the
police, has now been deported, leaving the choice of uprooting the
kids, who've never been to their "home" country and don't even speak
the language, or cutting them off completely from their mother. After
all, that's not the kind of person we want in this country. We need
more Paris Hiltons.

"z" wrote in message
ps.com...

Kurt Ullman wrote:
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.

Yes, we've seen examples lately of how somebody who's been in the US
illegally for like 15 years with a couple of kids, held a steady job,
had tax withheld, and of course had no encounters of any kind with the
police, has now been deported, leaving the choice of uprooting the
kids, who've never been to their "home" country and don't even speak
the language, or cutting them off completely from their mother. After
all, that's not the kind of person we want in this country. We need
more Paris Hiltons.


You just one 12 beers. Place glass on CD drawer and press CTRL-SHIFT-ALT-~B.

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Why must they be willing to learn English. Is it just because it makes
you feel uncomfortable?

Let's teach the president to speak English first, then maybe it will
trickle down.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Chris Lewis wrote:
According to Kurt Ullman :
In article ,

" Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest-tossed, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." (As long as
they speak English) ...

No, as long as they willing to LEARN to speak English. The Irish,
Italians, and every other wave of immigrants did that as part of their
assimilation to society.

What makes you think they _aren't_ willing to learn English?

Learning languages takes time.

They're just further back on the assimilation curve. Give them time.

Gee whiz guys, it's not as if the Irish, Italians and other waves of immigrants
were able to instantly abandon their native language within days of arriving.
They had stores they could go to and speak their own language, just as the latinos
do now. They _still_ do.

And the Koreans. And the Jews. And the southern blacks who moved north.
And every wave of immigrants was decried as taking jobs away from
hard-working Americans because they work cheap. "But this time, it's
different!" Yeah, because they can hike over instead of taking a boat.
Well, the US is part of North America, like it or not. If your
neighbor's house is burning down, yours is at risk also, even if you
didn't toss your cigarette butt into the old newspapers.