Friday, January 4, 2008

DISCUSSION ABOUT S. 2453 CONT'D

This is in response to the comment posted by THATBOYAINTRIGHT in my previous post.  The first point I would like to make addressess whether or not an employee is here legally or not, and that employers may fire legal immigrants under this bill.  For the purpose of this discussion, legal or not makes no difference.  There are large numbers of Hispanics that come here legally, but have no desire to become Americans.  They do not assimilate with our culture.  They turn entire geographic areas into extensions of their own country.  And, many will not learn English.  All S. 2453 says is that an employer does not have to retain someone that will not learn the language so they can work for that employer.  We all know that without some type of protection, businesses would be forced to accomodate non-English speaking employees.  Leftist organizations such as the ACLU are just waiting in the wings to once again bypass our entire legislative process and file their lawsuits for such accomodations.

Next is who determines what constitutes "basic English".  Here the bill would have to be "fine tuned" some to stop the lawsuits before they even started.  Senator Alexander had to write this piece of legislation in a very short time in order to stop the out-of-control Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  This bill has been referred to committee for review.  The "fine tuning" needed will undoubtedly take place here, that is, if the Democrats don't kill it completely.

The next thing that was pointed out was that the two employees at the SALVATION ARMY were hired to sort clothes in a back room and therefore, their ability to speak English was a moot point.  First of all, how can a supervisor give any kind of directions to employees if the employees don't understand what's being said? Without S. 2453, guess what?  The EMPLOYER would have to learn Spanish.  My question is, why should they?  Employers in foreign countries do not learn English to accomodate English-only speaking Americans, and I don't blame them.  According to the article in the BOSTON GLOBE, the SALVATION ARMY contends that sorting in the backroom was not their only job.  I have shopped in SALVATION ARMY THRIFT STORES before, and I have asked people in the back if they had an item or where I could find it.  I understand the Salvation Army's point.

The last point is that of having an official language.  The reason given for Congress defeating such measures is that the government would no longer have to accomodate other languages.  Why should they?  For generations, immigrants have been coming to our country and assimilating into our society.  They learned our language, adopted our way of life, and observed their homeland customs in their homes.  They were very grateful of the opportunity and blessing to be here, and were only too happy to adapt.  There were no demands that we adapt to them.  No other country in the world does it, and why should we, and why do we?  The one thing I don't understand . . . what makes the Hispanics so vastly different from all the other immigrant groups?  It has gotten to the point now that not only do we have more and more radio stations that are Spanish only, but billboards with not one word of English on them.  And I'm talking about Latino-owned businesses either.  I'll just go ahead and say it - one of the companies is MCDONALD'S, and one of their Spanish-only billboards is in MARIETTA, GEORGIA.  There's another in the Atlanta area advertising BUDWEISER beer, and it's Spanish only.  No other group has enjoyed such "service." 

Unfortunately, in this case, the resources the Salvation Army will have to use to litigate this case will mean a large number of disadvantaged people will not be able to receive their assistance.  The Salvation Army doesn't have a choice but to litigate, because if they don't, they and ALL other businesses will have to hire job applicants that can't communicate with customers.  Warm bodies just drawing  paychecks I guess.  But, we all know that if the Federal government ever sues you, you have already lost.  They keep up the litigation with their unlimited (taxpayer funded) resources until the defendant's resources are gone.  Pretty tyrannical, huh?  I'm sure the EEOC doesn't care anything about the people they're hurting.  They feel invincible, and for all intended purposes, they are.  We can't vote them out, nothing. The EEOC has sunk to a new low, even for a Government agency.

Thank you again to THATBOYAINTRIGHT for this discussion.  All commentary is welcome, including differing points of view.  This journal is all about exercising your rights under THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

10 comments:

ma24179 said...

Yes, the hispanics are going to stand out more because there are more of them. They are accomadated more than other immigrants because they are a huge chunk of our population. Not that I agree with it. I had a 55 year old hispanic man call me at work tooday. I got an interpreter on the line for him. He was calling about his loan but the entire conversation ended being about us not having OPTION 2 for spanish! Our option is option 9 lol and he couldn't stand it. Are they well accomadated? Yes, they are... to the point that they are spoiled. Have a great night. -Missy

nelishianatl said...

I agree with Missy below who says they are spoiled.  I think all businesses should have PRESS 1 for English, PRESS 2 for LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH.  I mean come on,  this is an English speaking founded country, run by us.  Who invited them to crawl over the wall and say NOW GIVE ME EQUAL RIGHTS WITH YOU?  I always look at those refusing to assimulate and feel invaded.  WE never do this for other nationalities.  Nor would another nation do it if we crawled over there wall.  That is if we could survive the crossing.  Which is another issue on my mind.  Why aren't they shot point blank and why is it 'discriminating' to protect our borders from too many people being on our land?  THERE ALREADY ARE.  I wouldn't let another freakin' person on this continent if I had my way.

Doing a great job here.  Most people feel the same way, just not everybody says it.

NELISHIA
http://journals.aol.com/nelishianatl/PrayingandBelieving/
http://journals.aol.com/nelishianatl/Crocheted-Creations/
http://journals.aol.com/nelishianatl/The-Tents-Of-Deborah/

nelishianatl said...

CORRECTION:  I meant country not continent.  OOPS.

NELISHIA
http://journals.aol.com/nelishianatl/PrayingandBelieving/
http://journals.aol.com/nelishianatl/Crocheted-Creations/

jckfrstross said...

i agree with you on this! Like i said i have had people who can't speak english work for me what a mess

Deb

thatboyaintright said...

Good discussion & I appreciate the dialogue.

This bill has some serious unintended consequences. While I would agree that everyone speaking English is preferred, let’s remember that the exact same arguments you’re making were once used about the Chinese, Vietnamese, French, Germans, Scandinavians, & a host of other nationalities. Even the Irish got the same smack, though the argument was not about language as much as it was about culture/religion.

The bill makes no distinction between legal & illegal immigrants. That means while we can talk about illegals all day, this bill can be used to discriminate against legals. There has to be a standard that would determine “Basic English.” Who is it? What are the defined parameters? It is impossible to make that a qualifiable test since it would be entirely subjective.

The national language is the biggest problem here. You asked “Why should we accommodate?” Very simple:  Let’s assume that the invasion does continue & Spanish speaking peoples become the largest single group. Once we have set into place the ability to mandate English, we must then acknowledge that another language can take its place as the official language. As it is now, the gov’t accommodates. If there is an official language, your scenario is complete: everyone must learn the official language & there is no need for accommodation. That means English may no longer be accommodated by gov’t & we English-only speakers would not be able to communicate with our own gov’t. It is a dangerous Slippery Slope on to which this Bill embarks.

Remember, the Indians said the same things about us when we came here. It can happen. Once we set the legal precedent, it cannot be undone.

I agree that the language barrier is difficult, but the alternative that this Bill gives is even worse.

queeniemart said...

If you live the U.S., you need to know how to speak English well enough for an average American citizen to be able to understand you. There is nothing more difficult than working with the public, like me in retail, and a customer has a need for you to fill and you can not understand a word of what they want. So, you all stand around like dumbasses and say "huh" a lot. A person begins to use sign language or use their hands to try to get you to figure out their need. Sometimes no one can figure it out and everyone leaves frustrated. If i moved out of the U.S. i would know the native language of the country i was going to BEFORE i ever stepped foot there. That is common sense. If they want rights, they need to become an American citizen and work for everything they have.

lisa

peytonswater said...

This is a very interesting blog! I have never seen anything like it!  Thanks for stopping by and will see you around
Pey

luvrte66 said...

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for visiting my journal. Looks like we may agree on some things, disagree on others, but the important thing is to stay informed. Your journal is very well-written!

Beth

jimsulliv3 said...

Agreed !

Jimmy

stargazer2052 said...


            Dirk thank you for your comment on my blog but the address to get the information about how the Senators voted on the "Dream Act" Immigration/Amnesty Bill is fairus.org not .com I have sense then corrected my mistake. Thanks Star.