I just received this letter in an email. It is beautifully written and should be shared with all Americans!
------------------------------------------------
NOT printed in the Orange County Paper...................
Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your help it will get published via cyberspace!
Dear Editor: So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times.. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought alongside men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans.. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are in 2009 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules; one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country.
I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
(signed) Rosemary LaBonte
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 111
A couple of patriots wanted to do me harm because I was a wetback. I assure you that my parents, grandparents have never been to Mexico.
But here were these Patriots out to harm me but their own prejudices made them wary when I stood my ground.
Why don't he run?
There was also a cross burning just a 30 minute drive from here.
I live close to Hunt Camp a WWII concentration camp that housed Americans of Japanese decent.
I remember stories and there is documentation of Americans of Hispanic decent were deported during the great depression.
Even now, Kurds in Turkey are getting their heritage destroyed. Turkey wants to destroy their Kurdish identity. The are not allowed to congregate together, whole towns are destroyed. The Language , customs, dress, everything must be destroyed.
What is it that drives some to destroy a group’s heritage and call it good.
Now, I must agree with the author of this e-mail however, as the newest ILLEGAL immigrants who have come here want their cake and be able to eat it too. It's unfortunate that most of them are Mexican, and it seems like a lot of people in this country can't tell the difference, or in their attempts to be politically correct, lump all Hispanics from all countries together in their hatred.
I believe that this is just another area in our society where many people don't have the ability or understanding of where to draw the line.
Having said this, I agree that this letter is well written, to the point, and needs to be seen and understood by our CITIZENS, who will be voting on this and all issues that concern our society.
For starters, the notion that "[n]one of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from" is ridiculous, given that many of their parents had been declared "enemy aliens" by the US government. Over 10,000 Germans and German-Americans were interned. Over 100,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans were interned. And while Italians and Italian-Americans were, for the most part, spared internment, they were still discriminated against and often threatened with arrest and/or internment.
Immigrants have often been treated harshly throughout the history of the United States. It's nothing new, and it doesn't have anything to do with "a new kind of immigrant." Nationalist bigotry has been around for a long time. I was reading, in John Shy's A People Numerous and Armed: reflections on the military struggle for American independence, about prejudice against immigrants in Colonial America:Amazing how familiar it all sounds, isn't it? A "new kind of immigrant? No, just the same kind of national bigot.
These same people were discriminated against when they were in Ireland. They eventually immigrated to the U.S. where they met the same kind of discrimination and they eventually moved to the Appalachian mountains. Billy Ray Cyrus did a nice piece on the History Channel concerning this group. If this isn't the group that you are talking about Wilbur, feel free to correct me.
But concerning this group of Scottish immigrants, they are among the most racist and prejudiced of people. We have a fellow from Hazard, Ky living here in Murray. One day when he was in the store where I work, he saw one of our male black employees talking to one of our white female employees. This guy actually had me paged to the front so he could file a complaint where he told me " We don't allow niggers to talk to our white girls in Hazard. If they do, we will hang them from the nearest tree"
Back in the mid -1980's , the company that I was working transferred me to eastern Kentucky ( Appalachia ) and since I wasn't originally from there, I was never accepted into their clannish society. I found that quite amazing since my ancestors of Scottish descent moved from Appalachia and settled here in the Jackson Purchase area of Western Kentucky.
Think about it........
I find it amazing that recent Chinese immigrants call Chinese Americans ' Bananas ' who they describe as ' yellow on the outside but white on the inside '
Looks like the ' new kind of immigrant ' is a ' new kind of bigot '
I heard no anti-American rhetoric, sure there were flags from all over the world but an ingenious entrepreneur sold hundreds of little American flags. THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN FLAGS TO EVERY FOREIGN FLAG.
There were 15,000 of us "illegals" at that rally.
There was one Nazi who did hurl insults but the cops dragged him away.
Several years ago there was a klan cross burning a half hour drive from here and the Idaho Militia has trained close by.
Study history, during the Great depression the hysteria got so bad, AMERICANS who looked foreign, were deported.
Hmm, I wonder how many times I have been told to go back to Mexico?
Really? Then I wonder why, if they were so polite and proper, and so willing to assimilate into American culture, some of them were so viciously discriminated against. I was reading in a book called Mexico and the United States about how assimilation was often deliberately hampered, particularly in the Southwest, by things like racial covenants, and refusals of bank loans to Mexican Americans, in order to segregate neighborhoods. Here are a few excerpts from that book:I'm not sure how an immigrant from Mexico was supposed to assimilate into that sort of culture, given that even US citizens of Mexican descent were being so actively discriminated against.So I'm guessing, Robert F. Protectionist, that you' and Cynthia would prefer it if todays immigrants were a bit more polite, kept their mouths shut, and had their weddings and funerals down in the basement where they belong, right? According to the book, in the 1930s in the Southwest, 85% of school districts had set up special Mexican schools so they could keep Mexican American children segregated. And when they finished school, they were often refused membership in craft unions (plumbing, carpentry, etc.), so even if they had the skills and could do the work, they couldn't work on union jobs, and didn't get paid union wages.Man, those were the good old days, huh Robert F. Protectionist? Back when immigrants, an even American citizens of Mexican ancestry, were put in their place and knew they damned well better stay there. In fact, it sounds a lot like your proposal in another discussion thread to discriminate against U.S. citizens based on the citizenship status of their parents.
The people being discriminated against include immigrants. That makes it very on-topic. So far neither you or Cynthia has provided any evidence showing that todays immigrants are different. You claim that in the past, immigrants were more interested in assimilating. I've provided evidence showing that nationalist bigots purposefully tried to stop them from assimilating. If the immigrants of yesteryear were all so wonderful (in comparison with today's immigrants), why weren't they welcomed with open arms? Why were they so hatefully discriminated against?
You've claimed that immigrants 100 years ago were all legal immigrants, never demanded anything, never flew a foreign flag, never spoke a language other than English in public, never sent money back to their families in their homelands, and always assimilated into American culture (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) as quickly as possible. But you've provided absolutely no evidence to back up those claims.
If the immigrants 100 years ago were all speaking English in public and assimilating nicely, what in the world was Teddy Roosevelt bitching about back in the last years before his death, with all that stuff about one language and one flag, and no hyphens?
What was Woodrow Wilson bitching about in 1916 when he said "Hyphenated Americans have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty and anarchy must be crushed out."
Why were foreign-language newspapers like La Prensa (Spanish, est. 1913 in NYC), Arbeiter-Zeitung (German, est. 1877 in Chicago), Den Danske Pioneer (Danish, est. 1872 in Omaha), and Freie Arbeiter Stimme (Yiddish, est. 1890 in NYC) doing so well back then?
If immigrants 100 years ago didn't send money back to their homelands, why did the Quarterly Journal of Economics report in 1923 that "...the remittances during 1920 of Greeks settled in the United States effected through this bank [the National Bank of Greece] reached the sum of about 840,000,000 drachmas [about $88 million in 1920, $900 million today]....[T]he high level of income in the United States and a period of high prices for confectionery, fruit, restaurant diet, flowers and shoe-shines, afforded huge savings in America, which were transmitted in large measure for the private economy, largely family savings, and the national economy, largely patriotic loans, of the Hellenic kingdom." The author (Eliot G. Mears) goes on to say that "...there is every indication that the flow of Greek-labeled remittances from the United States to the mother country is never-ceasing, widely distributed with reference to both countries, and of impressive size." According to the numbers provided in the article, about 70% of the Bank's total deposits were remittances sent from the US.
And that's just one country, and one bank, and one year. Are you guys seriously going to try to convince people that immigrants 100 years ago didn't send remittances to their home countries? Clearly, that's simply not true.
And that goes for the international students and international faculty at Murray State University. The Koreans only associate with other Koreans. The Chinese only associate with the Chinese. And neither group will associate with American born Chinese or Koreans. I have managed to strike up breif friendships with a few of these folks. But once they tried to impose their cultural rules on me, I offered them a one way plane ticket back to their country of origion.
In Clarksville, Tn, which isn't far from Murray, there is a population of about 6,000 Koreans. They have their own Korean churches. They even have a Korean village out in the countryside and American aren't welcome there. Now that's the way to assimilate isn't it?
Didn't immigrants often associate with each other in the past, voluntarily or because they were left little choice?
Didn't they form their own churches, and foreign-language newspapers, and community groups in the past, just as they do in the present?
Isn't that fairly typical behavior for first-generation and/or temporary immigrants (such as students who plan to return to their home country after finishing their education)?
And weren't people bitching about it in the past, just the way they are now? Over 250 years ago, Ben Franklin asked:and yet the last time I checked, Pennsylvania didn't end up overly "Germanized". I don't think too many people are likely to get confused between Pittsburgh and Hamburg, or between Philadelphia and Berlin. Nor between Clarksville and Gwangju.
3. Don't wave foreign flags inside our borders. Our family is proud of our heritage and will wave our flags everyday outside our home.
4. Speak English here, only (out in public). Maybe it is none of your business what they are speaking about....and then if you go visit their country, speak their language only. Can you speak Romanian? If not, don't come to our country.
5. Don't pillage our economy by sending money back to the homelands. Supporting family members isn't harming you, it is their paycheck, taxes are coming out of it already.
My husbands family came during a civil outbreak and before his grandfather could be hunted down and killed, he snuck his eldest son and wife away and they came to the US. The baby died during the first week here because the american doctors refused to see him. They became american citizens, but they had to change the spelling of their last name because the man who did all the paperwork couldn't spell it and told them they had to americanize the name.
The sad part of all of this is that there are Americans such as me who would love to expand their circles of friends and invite these people in, however they pretty much block that with their bigoted and racist thoughts.
Of course if I were in China, I could understand their point. In fact, if I was planning a short trip to China, I would do some research on Chinese culture before my travel. If I were planning a lengthy stay in China, I would do my best to learn as much about Chinese culture before my travel. But I'll be damned if I'm going to learn about Chinese culture because the Chinese come here to work and study here in my own country. No freaking way.
Americans don't have a monopoly on racism, bigotry or nationalism, and I've never claimed that they did. But again, how does this apply only to new immigrants? Isn't it likely that some immigrants 100 years ago were also racists, bigots and/or nationalists?
"I have managed to strike up breif friendships with a few of these folks. But once they tried to impose their cultural rules on me, I offered them a one way plane ticket back to their country of origion."
"But I'll be damned if I'm going to learn about Chinese culture because the Chinese come here to work and study here in my own country. No freaking way."
Then why claim that you're interested in making friends with them, or that you want to "invite these people in"? It sure doesn't look that way to me, Tim.
Could be Wilbur. Makes me wonder why people call the U.S. a melting pot.
"Then why claim that you're interested in making friends with them, or that you want to "invite these people in"? It sure doesn't look that way to me, Tim."
I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way. But then again, I wonder how many friends I would make in a foreign country if I said ' In America' ...or ' In American culture ' ? Probably not very many.
In part, I think you've provided a good example of why. You mentioned earlier that you were of Scottish descent, and yet I'm guessing that you think of yourself as an American, rather than a Scottish American. I don't recall you talking about your Scottish heritage in past comments and articles, so I'm also guessing that it's not a big part of your personal identity, or has much impact on the way you live. I think that's fairly common for a lot of native-born Americans who are descended from immigrants, so in that sense, the "melting pot" might be an accurate way to think of it, as long as you keep in mind that the melting might take a while. From what I've read, and based on my personal experiences, a couple of generations isn't uncommon.
But to some extent, I think the whole "melting pot" idea is just another part of the American myth. A look through our history as a country (including a few of the things I've mentioned in earlier comments in this thread) makes it clear that some people, cultures, races, etc. weren't considered proper "ingredients" for the pot. I mean, how can people say they want a melting pot if they pass anti-miscegenation laws? How can they say they want a melting pot if a person's racial or ethnic background determines where they can live and work, and what water fountain or time clock they can use?
As an immigrant myself, I don't think it makes much sense to try to force immigrants to "assimilate". I don't think it makes such sense to try to force them to forget or ignore or keep quiet about their home country and/or culture.
"I wouldn't expect you to see it any other way. But then again, I wonder how many friends I would make in a foreign country if I said ' In America' ...or ' In American culture ' ? Probably not very many."
Maybe some day you'll venture outside the U.S. and find out for yourself, Tim. My guess is that how many friends you make will depend on a lot of things, including how you say it and who you're saying it to. I think it's a fairly natural thing to do, and my experience has been that a lot of people ask.
One thing that can be pretty funny is when you start talking about "In America..." or "In American culture..." and there happens to be another American around and it becomes clear that your views, experiences, cultures and traditions are very different. I think sometimes people don't really understand that the size of the US, and the diversity within and between different states, regions, etc. often make it difficult to say how things are in the U.S. as a whole.
Or when you're doing your "In America..." or "In American culture..." thing (because you've been asked a question) and you're told that you're wrong, you're lying, you don't know what you're talking about, etc. and you discover that the person making the accusation has never actually set foot in the United States, but insist that they know what they're talking about because they watch a lot of American TV. LOL!
I'd say that second or third generation is common. But then again, the children of the first generation immigrants in a way were forced to assimilate simply because they were meshed in with Ameican children through the school system.
I wonder if even the children would have assimilated if their parents were able to develope their own school systems? Take for example the Amish. They still have their own communities and they have their own school system. The result? They haven't assimilated...even down to the current generation. We have an Amish community just a few miles south of Mayfield. I arranged a tour with their American contact and I saw all of this firsthand..even the schoolhouse. I took a couple of Chinese students with me. ( yes, I've managed to make a couple of Chinese friends from MSU ) The Amish didn't know what to think of the Chinese and the Chinese didn't know what to think about the Amish. It was quite funny, actually. I wish i had some pictures, but the Amish don't allow cameras on their property. Oh well, I still have the memories.
Yeah, how about it, Robert F. Protectionist? Where's your evidence? You saying it doesn't make it real. As we both know, you make stuff up all the time.
"Exactly, And we notice that you were careful to pick one which would be illustrative of your desired point with the idea of trying to construe that all immigrants were acting that way then."
No, I didn't say, or imply, that all immigrants were acting that way. On the other hand, you did say that immigrants 100 years ago weren't "sending money back to the homelands." I provided evidence to show that once again you're wrong. That you're making stuff up that isn't true. In short, that you're lying, Robert F. Protectionist.
"Spoken like a true internationalist imbecile."
Spoken like a nativist bigot who's been caught lying again. Tim has provided an excellent example of why it's difficult to pin down exactly what is and is not "American culture." The Amish have been in the US throughout its entire history, arriving in what would eventually become the United States back in the early 1700s. But I don't think many people associate Amish lifestyles with "American culture." In many cases, English tends to be their second language, and they refer to non-Amish Americans as "the English". But as far as I know, there's no big push to force them to assimilate and to speak English only. Or are they on your hit-list too, Robert F. Protectionist?
"Only difference is that today's international burglars (immigrants sending remittances) are doing it without all the violence of the Viking years. It's still immoral and extremely HARMFUL to the American people and our economy. $45 Billion/year X 20 years = $900 Billion out of our economy, and reinserted into the other countries' economies. Harmful. Very, very harmful."
It's not the least bit immoral, Robert F. Protectionist. Nor is it harmful, despite all your whining and crying about it. It's perfectly legitimate and legal, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many immigrants who send remittances to other countries also contribute significantly more to the US economy than you do.
Oh, you were referring to the May Day immigration reform demonstrations. You could've just said so, Robert F. Protectionist. In case you're unaware, I hear there were also marches on 1 May, 2008, although apparently they were smaller than in previous years (link. And you offer those demonstrations evidence of "million of loudmouth, rude, disgustingly disrespectful, illegal alien lawbreakers demonstrating how "different" they are from past generations immigrants"? I can't help but wonder how in the world 300 million Americans can tell whether or not a person is an illegal immigrant by watching them on TV. LOL! I've seen some of the coverage of the marches on TV, read lots of news stories about them, and seen lots of photos, and from what I can tell, they've generally been attended by a diverse group of individuals and organizations with a wide range of views and issues, including some that seem to have little to do with immigration or immigration reform. I think these photos from the 2000 LA marches, and to a lesser degree this slideshow of photos taken at a 2008 San Francisco march, illustrate that diversity.
"Any intelligent person (who isn't lying) could easily see that it is meant to say, IN GENERAL, that immigrants 100 years ago weren't "sending money back to the homelands". In other words, as opposed to today's immigrants who do it a great deal, in past generations whole entire families immigrated here together (young and old), and IN GENERAL, there was no one to send money back to in those days. "
And your evidence to back up those statements is....where? In your imagination? Are you once again making stuff up, Robert F. Protectionist? Because I would imagine that it is highly unlikely that, generally speaking, entire families migrated to the US, leaving no family member (no grandparent, no cousin, no great uncle, etc.) behind who they might later send a bit of money. And even if that were the case, I can't imagine why anyone would think that money sent from one country to another always involves money sent to family members. In addition to the money I send to members of my family, I also send money to friends, to various organizations I support, to businesses, etc. And as I quoted from the article about remittances to Greece in 1923, some of the remittances were "patriotic loans" to help support the Greek government during and after the Greco-Turkish War. Wow, it's almost as if people moved from Greece to the U.S., but still cared about what was happening in Greece. What a concept.
He died for a country that criticizes him.
AS Joh McCain said.
"We will secure our borders, but we have to be humane and compassionate about it. I got to look you in the eye. I'm not interested in calling a soldier in Iraq and telling him that I'm deporting his mother"
They're doing the jobs Americans don't want to do, fighting for this country.
Yeah, they hate America.
Yeah, they hate America. "
Blanket statement. You can't apply this example to immigrants as a whole.
Also, I'd like to know where you got the idea that Americans won't fight for this country. Your entire comment is flawed and full of rhetoric as are most of your comments.
I dunno Wilbur. But after looking at some of the pictures from one of the links that you posted, could it be that one of the people in the pictures was holding up a sign that read " I'm illegal..not a criminal ' ?? Just askin'
Could be, Tim. But are you just as willing to take peoples' word for it if their sign says they're not an illegal immigrant? Just askin'.
Wow Wilbur...I guess that it's possible that we have people running around our country claiming that they are illegal immigrants when they aren't. I would have never thought of that. Thanks for the insight! LOL!
Yes, you repeat yourself frequently, Robert F. Protectionist. But without any evidence to back up what you say, I see no reason to believe that you're not just making it up.
"I don't have to have evidence."
And I don't have to believe that you're not a nativist bigot who can't provide evidence to back up his claims because he's just making them up.
Robert...those people weren't actually illegal. They were lying to you!
They could've been yanking Robert's chain, or Robert could be lying about what they said. Neither would surprise me.
I'm pretty sure you don't speak on behalf of "most people in Gather", so clearly that's another thing you're just making up.
"For those real Americans, like me, who live here (and don't reside somewhere else, permanently), we've got more evidence than we care to have."
Real Americans live wherever in the world they choose to, Robert F. Protectionist. We don't need your approval or your permission. If that bothers you, then I guess you can just add it to what I imagine must be quite a long list of things that piss you off and that you can do absolutely nothing about.
"The only thing he's relable for is trying to control Gather members by blabbing about evidence and then offering con job studies (like the Samson one) as his "evidence". "
I don't know what "Samson one" you're talking about, but if you've got a link to the article or comment where you proved it to be a "con job", please post it and refresh my memory.
"50+ years ago, immigrants didn't have telephone operators answering in their native language, or library sections in their native language (at the expense of English books and English readers), foreign language voting ballots, foreign language billboards, etc.
We don't have to read about it in a book."
Of course you don't have to read it in a book, Robert F. Protectionist. Because you're making it all up. You're telling lies and trying to convince people that you're telling the truth. But not only have you not managed to offer any evidence that you're telling the truth, evidence has been presented showing that you're not. Like with your claims about remittances. And drivers handbooks and exams in languages other than English. And now with the foreign language library sections as well (link). You make up this BS and time and time again the facts prove you wrong.
I suspect that if a person were to spend a bit of time and energy, they'd discover evidence showing that telephone operators in the United States have been capable of speaking languages other than English for quite some time, and that advertising in languages other than English has been around for just about as long as there's been advertising in the U.S.
And no doubt additional historical evidence could be discovered that would show that, for as long as those things have been going on, people like yourself have been complaining about them. How's all that complaining working out for you, Robert F. Protectionist? The Migration Policy Institute says that an average of 1.8 million new immigrants arrive in the United States each year, so I guess it's not really working out for you at all, is it?
And I've provided evidence showing that what's happening is that you're making stuff up, Robert F. Protectionist.
"Of course, you'll never be able to go back, in time, to the 1940s & 50s, to see that the foreign language library sections, foreign language telephone operators, etc. didn't exist back then. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it in that one, if you can get past all that "you're telling lies" bluster of yours."
But I've seen enough evidence to know for a fact that many libraries did have foreign language sections, Robert F. Protectionist. Not just back in the 1940s and 1950s, but even back in the 1840s and 1850s. So why in the world would I want to "take your word for it" when I know that you're lying?
"I'm talking about what they did or didn't do, not what they were capable of."
You can talk about what you think they did or didn't do until the cows come home, Robert F. Protectionist. But until you produce some evidence, I'd say you're probably just making it all up. In any case, I'm not really sure why you think it matters what languages telephone operators can and do speak. Is this part of your argument that today's immigrants don't "assimilate" like they did back in the good old days?
"As for the 1.8 million immigrants/year arriving here, IF that's correct, that's not working out for anyone in the US, when we're as badly overpopulated as we are, didn't you know?"
It's a shame you weren't worried about the US being "badly overpopulated" when you and your wife decided to increase the population by having kids. I suppose you could always do your bit to decrease the population by choosing to pack up and go live somewhere else. Maybe you could even convince your children and grandchildren to do the same. But maybe your concern about the current and future population of the U.S. isn't really all that strong after all, eh?
Of course. It's evidence that your claim that 50+ years ago immigrants didn't have library sections in their native language is total and complete bullshit.
"I just did, not that I needed to."
No you didn't. You've made a claim that the Hillsborough County library system has had a Spanish-language collection since 1980, but you've offered absolutely no evidence to show that your claim is true. And since you've already been caught lying, I see no reason why I or anybody else should accept your claim without evidence.
That may or may not be true, but that's not what you said earlier, Robert F. Protectionist. Changing your story again, I suppose. I've noticed you often do that when you've been caught being dishonest.
"I know of no such case, but I know of one where you were caught lying."
I've pointed out your lies, quoting your comments and then providing evidence that proves them wrong. Why don't you do the same when you accuse me of lying, Robert F. Protectionist?
"Sure I did."
No, you didn't. You made a claim, offered no evidence to support it.
"This isn't nuclear physics. Call them up and ask them. Simple enough."
We could call every public library in the US and ask them if they have any foreign language materials and if so, how long they've had them, but since it's already been proven that you were lying when you said that 50+ years ago, immigrants didn't have library sections in their native language, I don't really see the point.
I don't know why your local public library didn't have a foreign language section until relatively recently. Maybe there simply wasn't a demand for one. Or maybe there was a demand, but it was ignored. Or maybe the library deliberately discriminated against those who wanted foreign language materials included in the library collection.
In any case, I think it's great that they've expanded their collection beyond English-language materials, and I hope they continue to do so.
Our local public library system here has materials available in 30 languages other than English, and I think it's fantastic. Not only does it provide a valuable service to native speakers of those languages, but also to those interested in learning them. I know my children, who are learning Japanese at school, find some of the Japanese language materials at the public library to be both helpful and entertaining. Our library also provides a lot of resources for those who would like to learn English or improve their English language skills, and I think that's great, too.
"So move back here, feel the pain, then complain, or else, refrain."
Real Americans live wherever in the world they choose to, Robert F. Protectionist. We don't need your approval or your permission. We also don't need your approval or permission to talk about whatever we choose to talk about. If you don't like it, that's just too bad for you.
No need to be. Here's their phone number (813-272-3652). This isn't nuclear physics. Call them up and ask them. Simple enough."
I didn't need to call them to find out that the information you provided wasn't true. On their website (link) it says:1933. Pretty sure that came before 1980. It's not nuclear physics, is it?
You're a nationalist, nativist bigot and a proven liar, Robert F. Protectionist, so I don't think you ought to be lecturing me or anybody else about decency and correctness. You wouldn't know decency and correctness if they bit you on the ass.
Cry and complain about your pain all you like, but when you post lies, don't be surprised if I choose not to refrain from pointing them out, and providing evidence that proves that they're lies.
You can put the word 'generally' in quotes, and even CAPITALIZE it as many times as you like, Robert F. Protectionst, but that doesn't change the FACT that it wasn't in your earlier statements. You said:And you also said:As it turns out, neither statement was true. And neither was this one:"Thanks for the confirmation, but sorry, I'm not paying you anything. You're not on my payroll."
The only thing that's been confirmed that is that you weren't telling the truth, Robert F. Protectionist. And you don't have to apologize for not paying me. I don't need or want your money. I have no interest in being on your payroll.
"So where is this big, high-falutin 'proof' that i lied about something. I haven't seen it."
You lied when you claimed to speak on behalf of the American people, and then it was proven that you don't (by Americans saying that you don't speak on their behalf).
You lied when you said you'd provide links or references to sources (specifically, GAO and CBO reports about remittances) to back up some of your claims, and then you failed to do so.
You lied when you claimed to have used a number of sources to write an article about increased regulation of pharmaceutical companies, when the truth was that you hadn't read those sources (which you later admitted).
You lied when you claimed that two of Peter Wimsey's articles included links to a paper by Kristen Butcher when they didn't.
You lied when you asked me to give you money ("currently I'm accepting donations - you may participate" and "maybe you might be inclined to "donate money to help" others (in this case, me)"), and then claimed that you hadn't.
You lied when you said that 50+ years ago, immigrants didn't have library sections in their native languages, when it's clear that at least some of them (and possibly many of them) did.
Those are some that I can think of off the top of my head, Robert F. Protectionist. Should I spend some time trawling through your comments to find others?
" In addition to being an improper writer who shamelessly tells people in countries other than your own, what they should and shouldn't do, you're hot air, to boot.
Should I be lecturing you about decency and correctness ? Hell yeah.
Let me add something to my message about staying out of my threads. Stay out of Gather when you mean to tell Americans what to do. You have no right to do that."
LOL! And yet here you are trying to tell an American (and an American who is currently in a country other than your own) what to do. That's just too funny, Robert F. Protectionist.
"You may visit my articles just to read them though, although I don't know how they would concern you."
Based on your latest "efforts", if I want to read "your" articles, it might be easier to just go to the original source and read them there. Your copy and paste skills aren't that impressive.
I've wondered that myself; in particular the day I watced many illegals march (against what? .. I didn't care then and I can't remember now)... carrying terrible signs, signs saying they were proud to be illegal, that this land was theirs, and we are the interlopers and we should learn spanish etc etc. Oh, another several signs and one woman proclaimed into the camera, "I am illegal." And she was proud of it. It was all chip-on-the-shoulder-ful and nanny, nanny boo-booish. "Grown" people ...
There was more, wish I had recorded it ... It's like the coverage of the Palestinians cheering and celebrating in the streets irt the things which happened on 9-11; never saw it again. And like that bit of film, it's almost as if the film of all those events attended openly by badly ill informed and arrogant illegals (how is someone who is illegal grow them so big as to be arrogant to the people and country under whose blanket they live?) .. in any case that video seems to have been tossed in a deep dark abyss so as not to surface again to embarrass or to be used against the "cause" of the illegal (ah well ... I haven't looked for it so maybe it *is* floating around out there somewhere, but it's not gettin into the news where it's needed is all I know).
"What is it that drives some to destroy a group’s heritage and call it good?"
I don't know; perhaps some of those very badly behaving illegals have the answer as to why they do it to their own heritage.
What is it that drives some to destroy a group’s heritage and call it good.
Rude D., Mar 10, 2009, 12:25am EDT
Mmmm... I wonder if it was the coverage of those events I am remembering (see my comment above)?
Robert said:
During the Mayday protest marches in 2006 and 2007, I went among the protesters and
heard what dozens of them had to say. It was disgusting. Just as Cynthia said in this article, they waved Mexican flags, demanded immediate citizenship (while polite legal immigrants wait in line), supported imposition of their Spanish language on the US, and bragged about all the remittance money they were sending back to their homelands.
Some Irish illegals were also in the crowd and they were almost a bad as the Mexicans.
Not a single Mexican in these rallys spoke English. I had to speak Spanish to every one.
Amazing how familiar it all sounds, isn't it? A "new kind of immigrant? No, just the same kind of national bigot.
Wil B., Mar 14, 2009, 8:24pm EDT
Old Fashioned Idea?
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
BUT this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American..."
No, I don't believe she is talking about illegal aliens vs LEGAL immigrants.
"Illegal aliens, the kind the author is referring to anyway, can never be called immigrants."
Sure they can. They're illegal immigrants. See? It was easy. An immigrant may be defined as a person who leaves one country and settles in another. People who do so without satisfying the legal requirements for settling in the new country may be called illegal immigrants. So we could just refer to them as immigrants, but that seems to confuse people.
Yes ...mmmm, no uhh ... yes.
It does confuse the issue and opens the door to false and specious accusations of bigotry.
Legal immigrants are here legally usually having jumped through all the aggravating, time consuming, expensive hoops they should have to jump through in order to gain U.S. entry and citizenship; those who come here illegally are illegal aliens and are like those cars and trucks that swerve around the traffic and drive on the shoulder to get to the front of the line of stopped cars; holding up the whole line and putting every car they pass in danger on the way. Or are like the exotic poisonous spider that hitch hikes in on imported fruit.
Anyone who does not want to confuse the conversation will make the distinction in language. Not that my language is always so precise; but in this instance it helps to stick to the actual topic of the article and not bring in the "talking points" of the illegal aliens and their supporters.
They are not immigrants
They may certainly be very good workers, great people personally, law abiding, peaceful, only looking to better themselves and their families; but unless they are legal, they are neither legal *immigrants* nor illegal *immigrants*. They are illegal aliens. Changing the language used to describe this particular group of people does not change their status; but it does confuse the issue.
Confuses the issue, but not the people talking about the issue. And when someone tries to change the terms used to describe this particular group, that means they either don't realize the reason for the term change (to confuse and obfuscate), or they have an interest in confusing the issue.
There may be people who don't like immigrants. But maybe I don't run in the right circles because I have never met anyone who was against immigrants per se. I have met many people, including those with the actual right and privilege and honor to be called immigrants, who do have a problem with illegal aliens. +shrug+
So we could just refer to them as immigrants, but that seems to confuse people.
Wil B., Mar 31, 2009, 4:50pm EDT
Yes, they are. They really are. And as far as I can tell, when the author of the letter mentioned "a new kind of immigrant" she was not referring only to illegal immigrants or illegal aliens, she was referring to immigrants.
Wil answered: Yes, they are. They really are.
My response:
Okay. I'll give this to you - that anyone who travels to one coutry from another country in order to live etc is, by strict definition of the actual word symbol ... an immigrant.
But the word "immigrant" has, for me anyway (and maybe others here in the U.S.), a dignity, a feeling ... or connotation to it, and/or a finality that illegals cannot claim due only to their actual status as illegals.
They are more migrant than immigrant because they have made no legal, formal, actual committment to being anything more than that. Some illegals seem to think (or they are being told they have a "right" to think) they are "entitled" to many things simply because they were sly enough to be able to make it here and stay here without being thrown out. So, like the author seems to have implied, I think giving illegals the coveted title of 'immigrant' somehow insults actual legal immigrants to the U.S. and confers on illegals a legitimacy they do not own.
As for differentiating between immigrants with legal and illegal status, I guess I tend to think more about the people, rather than the status. I'm not saying that the status doesn't matter, because I think it's a much better situation if everybody in any particular country is there legally rather than illegally. But I don't think a person's immigration status should necessarily be considered some sort of defining characteristic. Just like I don't think that whether or not a person has a perfectly clean driving record, or police record, or not should necessarily be considered some sort of defining characteristic.
"Some illegals seem to think (or they are being told they have a "right" to think) they are "entitled" to many things simply because they were sly enough to be able to make it here and stay here without being thrown out."
I don't know what kind of things you think they think (or that you think they may or may not be being told they have a "right" to think) they may be entitled to, but there are things that people are entitled to just because they were able to make it into the U.S. The Constitution mentions a number of rights that apply to all individuals in the U.S., regardless of their citizenship and/or immigration status. That's why when those two border patrol agents shot an illegal immigrant a few years ago, they ended up in prison for, among other things, violating his rights.
But as I said before, I don't think the author of the letter was referring only to illegal immigrants in her letter. I believe she was expressing a notion that many of today's immigrants, including legal immigrants, are somehow significantly different from immigrants back at the beginning of the twentieth century.
There seems to be a common misperception that back then (or at some other time that might be thought of as "the good old days"), immigrants all started learning English and assimilating into American culture (whatever that's supposed to be) as soon as they stepped off the boat. A great deal of historical evidence, including accounts from many immigrants themselves, indicates that this simply isn't and wasn't true.
"I think giving illegals the coveted title of 'immigrant' somehow insults actual legal immigrants to the U.S. and confers on illegals a legitimacy they do not own."
I don't know, Lee. I'm not an immigrant to the U.S. But I'm an immigrant to Australia (from the U.S.), and I can tell you that if somebody refers to a person who's here in Australia illegally as an immigrant, I don't feel insulted or slighted or offended in any way. And I can't say that I ever coveted the title of immigrant.
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen you post here at Gather, Robert F. Protectionist. That makes no more sense than if I went around posting things claiming to speak on your behalf, whether you agreed with what I was saying or not.
Those ARE the references - If you go to their websites, do you think you'll have trouble finding info about remittances ? What are you trying to do ? Have me do all your work for you. You got your sources. Go check them, and quit whining.
You said you'd provide a link. You didn't. You lied. It's not my job to find the information that you claim will back up your statements.
"I referred to them by finding the parts of them that were relevant to my article ?"
I strongly suspect that you didn't, but since I can't prove it, I retract my accusation that you lied about your references.
"Do you think, for one second, that Peter Wimsey couldn't have simply edited out the reference to the lame PPIC paper of Butcher & Piehl, when, after my criticism, he realized how lame and easily refutable it was ? (and you came on board late - after the deletion)."
No I don't, Robert F. Protectionist. Because when people edit their articles after publication, a note with a time stamp automatically appears next to original time stamp under the title. Peter's article (link) wasn't edited after it was published. You lied.
"Only problem here is YOU lying when you pretend to think I was seriously asking you for money, when you know I was joking."
You asked for a "donation", then claimed that you hadn't. You claimed that you'd done it in response to something I'd said, but you asked for your "donation" before I said it. You lied.
"Maybe you just don't know how to handle American English ? Why should you ? You're not an American."
I know how to handle American English just fine. And I am an American. A bona fide American citizen. Not that that makes any difference, since I know many people who are not American citizens and who have in fact never set foot in the United States who handle American English much better than you. You said immigrants didn't have library sections in their native languages. They did. You lied. I suppose it's possible that you were simply wrong, but given your history of dishonesty, I see no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you were wrong, you could've just admitted it and moved on. Instead you tried to change your story and make a different claim, that would be harder to refute. And you've provided absolutely no evidence to back up the new claim. Your 'people my age just know these things' type of "evidence" doesn't do much for me, Robert F. Protectionist.
Your personal opinion doesn't make me (or anybody else) an American or not. Your statement makes no more sense than if I were to claim that you're not an American just because I say your not. Let's see how it works out. Robert F. Protectionist, you're not an American! Did it work? Do you accept that you're not an American now?
If not, will it work if I pretend to speak on behalf of a bunch of other people? I'll give it a shot. Every sentient creature in the universe knows that you're not an American, Robert F. Protectionist! Now do you accept that you're not an American? If not, I'm sure I can make it happen by pretending to be psychic. You know that you're not an American, Robert F. Protectionist! See, that time it had to work for sure! LOL!
I think copying and pasting can be very useful. I do it all the time. I don't think copying somebody else's content and then pasting into the editor to create a Gather article is particularly useful for the creator of the original content. I guess it's useful for people who want to get Gather points without having to go too much effort, and for people who want to earn Gather points by viewing content from other sources that's been copied and then pasted here at Gather. But as I said, I think it's probably better to go to the original source rather than read your copy-and-paste job.
Gotta love it. Cross the border illegally with illegal drugs and you are granted the same rights as U.S. Citizens...and there will be special interest groups ( fueled by drug dealers and employers wanting dirt cheap labor) waiting to defend your rights. Fantastic stuff!
Robert....I'm sure he does! LOL!
Speaking on one's behalf means speaking to their favor, advantage, support, benefit. It
isn't dependent upon the view of the beneficiary of the speech. For you convenience I here offer you a defintion from Wiktionary for the word behalf. Please don't screw this up again (after this, you'll have no excuse)."
According to the Hutchinson Dictionary of English Usage, to "speak on behalf of someone or on someone's behalf is to do so as their representative." You're not my representative.
According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, "on behalf of" means "as the agent of". You're not my agent.
According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, it means "in the interest of" or "as a representative of". Again, you're not my representative, and you also don't speak in my best interest. And I'm very confident that there are a lot of other Americans you don't represent, and in whose interests you don't speak, never have spoken, and never will speak.
"Wimsey's article linked to the Butcher/Piehl article and my responses, back then, were directly derived from that link with information i would not have known had I not been given the link."
No it didn't. You're making stuff up again, Robert F. Protectionist. The link went to a Yahoo! news article.
" Looks like, despite your many "liar" claims, Gather members are reading my articles in quite healthy numbers. Here's a few samples of some "evidence" which I know you cherish so much:"
Wow. Two hundred views. Good job, Robert F. Protectionist. Dora Grows Up has over 14,000 and David Letterman getting married has over 11,000. But I don't know if they're getting many views from the xenophobic hate group crowd. Maybe you're beating them in your niche. LOL!
Not the same rights as U.S. citizens, Tim. But rights nonetheless. And believe it or not, you don't have to be a member of a special interest group to care about human rights.
You don't speak on my behalf in any way, no matter which definition you choose. You don't speak on behalf of other Americans, no matter which definition you use. Get it?
"I've already explained this situation. Done."
I know. You lied. Done.
"In some cases, the illegals have more rights than American citizens."
Regardless of whether you believe this to be true or not, that doesn't mean they aren't protected by the Constitution of the United States. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
"Like the right to be more eligible for a job or college admissions due to an affirmative action program, giving then preference over Americans."
Do you have any evidence, or are you just making this up, too?
"Or the right to pay in-state tuition (a much lesser amount), whereby many Americans are relegated to pay the higher out-of-state tuition rates, depending on the state."
So you'd prefer that illegal immigrants who've graduated from high school don't go to college? Personally, I don't like the laws that allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition if they can't prove that they've been living in-state, just like everybody else who wants to pay in-state rates. I think passing the DREAM Act is a better alternative.
Of course I'm an American, Robert F. Protectionist. You're the one who's not an American. Oh wait, haven't we already played this game before?
"I don't recall ever saying that they aren't, do you ?"
If you had read the comment I quoted before my response, you might've realized that I was responded to Tim. Not you, Robert F. Protectionist.
"Is this a crude joke, or are you really saying you don't know that minorities (Mexicans, Asians, Blacks from various countries) get preference over Whites in affirmative action programs ?"
You didn't mention anything about Mexicans, Asians, or Blacks from various countries. You mentioned illegal aliens. You said "In some cases, the illegals have more rights than American citizens. Like the right to be more eligible for a job or college admissions due to an affirmative action program, giving then preference over Americans." Do you have any evidence of illegal immigrants having a right to be given preference over Americans through an affirmative action program? If so, I'd like to see it.
"The issue isn't if they're in-state or not (I've never heard that before), it is that they shouldn't be in this country, period, to get a preference of any kind, over any American."
If they're in-state, how are they getting a preference over an American? Do you mean an American that isn't in-state? If the American is from out-of-state, then they're going to be paying out-of-state tuition regardless of whether or not in-state illegal immigrants are paying in-state tuition or not. That's the way it works.
"Of course I prefer that they don't go to college (here in the USA), or have a job (here), or buy a house (here), or rent an apartment (here), or go to a baseball game (here), or use hospital facilities (here), or send their kids (wherever they're born) (here), or drive on our roads (here), or do anything HERE."
Yeah, but they are there. And since they're going to continue to be there, I think it makes sense to offer those who graduate from high school there the opportunity to go to college there. The DREAM Act is one way of doing that.
"Once the return to their homelands, they can go to college, or do whatever they want."
Given your complaints about how unfair it was that your job went to Mexico, I think it's obvious that you don't mean that.
"The DREAM Act is another act of treason by government officials who ought to be locked up for it."
Heh. But no government official has ever been locked up for treason for proposing a law that you don't agree with, have they, Robert F. Protectionist. Oh well, I guess it sucks for you, but I for one am very happy that it doesn't work that way.
The same way you do. Just because I say so.
"WHY ? Do you think that non-White illegal immigrants wouldn't get affirmative action preference over White Americans ?"
Again, that's not what you said earlier. You said "In some cases, the illegals have more rights than American citizens. Like the right to be more eligible for a job or college admissions due to an affirmative action program, giving then preference over Americans." I don't know of any law that gives illegal immigrants the right to be more eligible for a job or college admissions due to an affirmative action program, giving them preference over Americans. I think you just made that up. Do you have any evidence to prove your claim? Or do you want to just keep changing it?
"Of course that's what I mean. The problem isn't that the out-of-state Americans are paying out-of-state tuition its that they're doing that WHILE illegal aliens are paying in-state tuition, when they shouldn't even be in the country."
They're supposed to pay out-of-state tuition, and they'd be paying it whether any illegal immigrants are paying in-state tuition or not.
"Well, job market or not, all that's necessary to get rid of these parasites is to stamp out document fraud (not too hard), and then enforce the 1986 IRCA Act to the hilt (also not hard), and preferably pressure Mexico to better care for its poor (not hard)."
I suspect that doing those things would be harder than you think. But hard or not, I don't think it's going to be happening any time soon.
"What does my job going to Mexico have to do with illegal aliens going there ?"
You said that if they'd just go back to their homelands, they can do whatever they want, as far as you're concerned. I don't think that's true. The Mexican who took "your" job was in Mexico, wasn't he? Taking a job that was offered to him? And yet you've been bitching and moaning about it ever since.
"I'm not sure if they have or not ? Are you ? Do you have some EVIDENCE that they haven't ?(not one in 233 years ?)"
LOL! Are you claiming to be 233 years old, Robert F. Protectionist? I think you'd better take your meds.