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.
