The President shows defiance to the

[bean29]

Had they chosen to speak a mixture of english and spaninsh at home

Even hispanics call that Spanglish. The funniest descriptions of this were at a LaRaza Meeting DH dragged the family to. We were all rofl. It could describe my DMIL's language perfectly.
It is generally recommended to teach your children two languages that one parent speak one language consistently and the other speak the 2nd. It helps the kids differentiate the two languages.

MIL has about 21 grandkids. 3 are bilingual and learned english in school (I think) although their Dad speaks fluent english. Another one is bilingual and I think she learned spanish/english at home. My kids are bilingual (leared spanish from Grandma and Grandpa. The rest only speak english- even some others that had significant exposure to Grandma and Grandpa. (My IL's speak English we had to keep reminding them to speak spanish to the kids)

[weltschmerz]

Jun 27, 2012 14:16:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 14:07:19 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

If you went to another country with another language, had a child, and wanted your child to get the best education possible, would you speak only English at home,

if it is the only language i knew, YES. is that a trick question?

thus ensuring that your child will arrive at school not knowing the language, or would you speak enough of the language of the land at home so that your child would arrive at school with decent language skills? It is not at all uncommon for some immigrant groups to have parents who speak passible english who make darn sure their children aren't exposed to the English language until they go to school.

again, i am not sure what this has to do with anything. if you only know one language, that is the one you speak.

I'm confused. How could my parents speak to me in English at home after they emigrated from Russia? They couldn't speak English. At all!
I had to go learn it and teach it to them.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 14:27:16 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jun 27, 2012 14:16:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

again, i am not sure what this has to do with anything. if you only know one language, that is the one you speak.

I'm confused. How could my parents speak to me in English at home after they emigrated from Russia? They couldn't speak English. At all!
I had to go learn it and teach it to them.

my lead welder has Chinese parents. his mom basically speaks no English at all. he speaks almost no Cantonese (his parents were farmers). his dad speaks a little of both. he is the best employee i have ever had.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 14:11:50 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Today at 11:03am, djlungrot wrote:

my child required special services for his ADHD. that was costly for the state. was it more than an ESL student? i have no idea. but it was probably comparable.

again, i am not sure that the cost is really the issue here.

You didn't choose to have an kid with ADHD. Illegal immigrants choose whether or not to come into this country and they also choose whether or not they speak English at home and how much English they learn themselves.

My home state has a huge hispanic population, and it is extremely common to see parents who speak decent English acting as translators for their preschool children. Had they chosen to speak a mixture of english and spaninsh at home, these kids would arrive at school bilingual, but instead, many of them end up in expensive ESL classes (sometimes all the way through high school) even though they were born here and have parents who speak English.

One of my high school friends was raised in a home where his mother spoke excusively French with her kids. They attended a Hebrew day school until they transferred to public high school. Those kids were tri-lingual and everyone saw it as an asset. My friend passed out of his college language requirement, and their grasp of English grammar was better than the average mono-lingual student.

Coincidentally, in English, we capitalize proper nouns and their associated adjectives (like Hispanic and Spanish).

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 13:37:35 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Where does this end? You tell me.

The hard left, and many here will not be happy until the lifestyle enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of Americans is destroyed, and the economy decays back to an agrarian style economy.

You caught me. Let's be honest... is there anything quite as good as a nice heirloom tomato?

I admit, I look ridiculous in bib overalls, but really, it is a small price to pay.

[djAdvocate]

sarah et al: i am wondering to myself what the 14th amendment does for anyone if the child born here can't stay? after all, there are residency requirements associated with citizenship, as well. if you just pack up and leave after having your baby here, he or she will rapidly become a non-citizen, right? given that fact, does it not make sense that the 14th amendment is there to protect the rights of the children of alien parents? i have not really given much though to the meta-issue here, though. maybe i am missing something.

[zibazinski]

I think those of us who feel they they wish to sponsor illegals in this country should be given the right to. Those of us who wish not to should have the same rights. If you sponsor them you are totally responsible for them and their actions and debts. Not the taxpayers.

[TonyTiger]

Jun 27, 2012 15:00:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sarah et al: i am wondering to myself what the 14th amendment does for anyone if the child born here can't stay? after all, there are residency requirements associated with citizenship, as well. if you just pack up and leave after having your baby here, he or she will rapidly become a non-citizen, right? given that fact, does it not make sense that the 14th amendment is there to protect the rights of the children of alien parents? i have not really given much though to the meta-issue here, though. maybe i am missing something.

Perhaps a quick recap of the salient points may be of some help...

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

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court (1857) that had held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.[1]

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.

==========

Text:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[a href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/a]

[workpublic]

zib,

i agree. i've siad it years ago.

make them wards of their employers.

the employer should be responsible for transportation, housing, insurance, health care, education, etc.

why should a greedy, treasonous employer get to benefit to the detriment of the tax payer?

the illegals are here for the benefit of the few to the detriment of the many.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 15:00:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sarah et al: i am wondering to myself what the 14th amendment does for anyone if the child born here can't stay? after all, there are residency requirements associated with citizenship, as well. if you just pack up and leave after having your baby here, he or she will rapidly become a non-citizen, right? given that fact, does it not make sense that the 14th amendment is there to protect the rights of the children of alien parents? i have not really given much though to the meta-issue here, though. maybe i am missing something.

If one or both parents are deported, they should be able to say what happens to their child. The kid should be allowed to return to the parents' country of origin, stay in the U.S. with the other parent or relatives should any of them have legal residency status, or the parent can terminate their rights and place the child into foster care. The articles I have read suggest that may not always be how that works, and parents may not realize what their options are.

As I understand it, the residency rules apply if you are born abroad but one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens.

If the kid is a citizen, they are always a citizen unless they renouce their U.S. citizenship or commit treason. They should be able to return to the U.S. freely (presumably when they are adults) and they can sponsor their relatives when they are 21.

It is less clear what their rights are when they return to their parents' country of origin, where they may or may not hold dual citizenship.

[weltschmerz]

One of my high school friends was raised in a home where his mother spoke excusively French with her kids. They attended a Hebrew day school until they transferred to public high school. Those kids were tri-lingual and everyone saw it as an asset. My friend passed out of his college language requirement, and their grasp of English grammar was better than the average mono-lingual student.
-----------------
My mother spoke eight languages. I taught her some basic English, but when it came to French, she kept saying there was no more room in her head for yet another one.

Incidentally, I remember my teacher pulling me aside in grade six and saying, "Thank God your parents didn't try to teach you any English! I'm having a hell of a time getting the Greek students to unlearn all the bad English they were taught at home!"

[weltschmerz]

I admit, I look ridiculous in bib overalls, but really, it is a small price to pay.
---------------
Oh, I don't know. I think we can make it work....

[jkapp]

Jun 27, 2012 14:13:19 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Put your money where your mouth is. YOU sponsor and pay for an illegal citizen.

As others have pointed out if you are sponsoring someone for RESIDENCY, they are not illegal. If you are a resident alien it does not equate to citizenship. If you are a legal resident, you have to follow a certain procedure to become a citizen. I have spnosored a family. It was I think 6 people (DH's aunt & cousins) Paperwork was a nightmare and DH flew to Juarez to make sure everything went smoothly at the embassy. It has been about 15 years since that time - no problems, no expenses on our part. The family is quite successful and self sufficient.

I have never heard La Raza called a Gang Before. This is the LaRaza I am familiar with. I think some of the people that post here a quite Racist.

www.nclr.org/

I could not copy and paste their self described mission but it says "The Largest National Latino Civil Rights Advocacy Organization in the United States."

Not LaRaza...La Raza Nation - they are a gang.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 15:30:45 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Jun 27, 2012 15:00:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sarah et al: i am wondering to myself what the 14th amendment does for anyone if the child born here can't stay? after all, there are residency requirements associated with citizenship, as well. if you just pack up and leave after having your baby here, he or she will rapidly become a non-citizen, right? given that fact, does it not make sense that the 14th amendment is there to protect the rights of the children of alien parents? i have not really given much though to the meta-issue here, though. maybe i am missing something.

If one or both parents are deported, they should be able to say what happens to their child. The kid should be allowed to return to the parents' country of origin, stay in the U.S. with the other parent or relatives should any of them have legal residency status, or the parent can terminate their rights and place the child into foster care. The articles I have read suggest that may not always be how that works, and parents may not realize what their options are.

As I understand it, the residency rules apply if you are born abroad but one or both of your parents are U.S. citizens.

If the kid is a citizen, they are always a citizen unless they renouce their U.S. citizenship or commit treason. They should be able to return to the U.S. freely (presumably when they are adults) and they can sponsor their relatives when they are 21.

It is less clear what their rights are when they return to their parents' country of origin, where they may or may not hold dual citizenship.

yeah, i think i am getting this confused with section 1401 of the USC, which i have spent a lot of time looking at. thanks for the reply.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 15:12:04 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jun 27, 2012 15:00:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sarah et al: i am wondering to myself what the 14th amendment does for anyone if the child born here can't stay? after all, there are residency requirements associated with citizenship, as well. if you just pack up and leave after having your baby here, he or she will rapidly become a non-citizen, right? given that fact, does it not make sense that the 14th amendment is there to protect the rights of the children of alien parents? i have not really given much though to the meta-issue here, though. maybe i am missing something.

Perhaps a quick recap of the salient points may be of some help...

thanks, Tony. you're a gem.

[formerroomate99]

again, i am not sure what this has to do with anything. if you only know one language, that is the one you speak.

You are being deliberately obtuse. I am saying that I have often seen bilingual parents who make sure their preschool aged children only speak Spanish. When these children arrive at school, they don't speak a word of English, even though the children were born here and their parents do speak a little bit of English.

And again, if you went to live in another country, and started learning the language in order to work and do your day to day stuff, would you choose to speak only English to your preschool aged child, or would you do what you could to ensure that your child spoke the language of the country you were living in?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 16:33:31 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

again, i am not sure what this has to do with anything. if you only know one language, that is the one you speak.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

not really. i was responding to your suggestion that you need to speak the language you want your child to learn, or you are some kind of idiot slacker parent. i disagree with that position completely.

I am saying that I have often seen bilingual parents who make sure their preschool aged children only speak Spanish.

i have never seen that. every immigrant family i have ever encountered had at least one English speaking child.

When these children arrive at school, they don't speak a word of English, even though the children were born here and their parents do speak a little bit of English.

of course not. it is hard to pick up a language when you are harvesting field crops for 10 hours a day and raising 3 kids. but i don't think it is necessary for a parent to speak the language that they want their kids to speak, only that they encourage them to do so.

And again, if you went to live in another country, and started learning the language in order to work and do your day to day stuff, would you choose to speak only English to your preschool aged child, or would you do what you could to ensure that your child spoke the language of the country you were living in?

of course, but i don't think that in any way means that i have to speak that language, nor do i think that it makes me a shitty parent if i don't. i know some immigrants who want nothing more than to have their kids speak English BECAUSE they don't speak it well, or at all.

[cereb]

"Or are we now saying since the babies are legal, we must allow the parents to stay?
Where does this end? You tell me."

This is certainly an interesting dilemma. These children are US citizens and are afforded all rights and protections under the COTUS as well as human rights. It's certainly up for debate.

[cereb]

Today at 2:37pm, Savoir Faire wrote:
"Where does this end? You tell me."

"The hard left, and many here will not be happy until the lifestyle enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of Americans is destroyed, and the economy decays back to an agrarian style economy."



I just cannot take this kind of statement seriously since it's completely ridiculous.

[Value Buy]

Jun 27, 2012 9:19:50 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Jun 27, 2012 8:45:12 GMT -5 jkapp said:

A one-time expense...which ends up MUCH cheaper than paying for their children to adulthood with various welfare/assitance programs. The education costs alone are more than double that.

Which children are you speaking of? The same costs are associated with deporting children born outside of the U.S. as adults born outside of the U.S.

Or do you mean children born in the U.S.? It doesn't cost any more to educate those CITIZENS than it does to educate your kids or my kids or your neighbor's kids...

This last sentence is simply wrong.
It starts with Government preschool breakfast, and paid lunches.
Then they get the bi-lingual teacher placed in the room so they understand their teacher, and to learn "English".
How about all the extra classrooms, teachers and on and on and on..................................

[Deleted]

Sure... because we don't give free and reduced price lunches to poor Appalachian kids, or language help to refugee kids. We don't need more classrooms anytime there is population growth, only when we have more Hispanic kids....

I could go on and on too.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 19:23:34 GMT -5 cereb said:

Today at 2:37pm, Savoir Faire wrote:
"Where does this end? You tell me."

"The hard left, and many here will not be happy until the lifestyle enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of Americans is destroyed, and the economy decays back to an agrarian style economy."



I just cannot take this kind of statement seriously since it's completely ridiculous.

it is the rhetorical equivalent of a flame thrower.

[Value Buy]

Jun 27, 2012 19:56:14 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Sure... because we don't give free and reduced price lunches to poor Appalachian kids, or language help to refugee kids. We don't need more classrooms anytime there is population growth, only when we have more Hispanic kids....

I could go on and on too.

Be my guest.
Until then let's get some quotes for some longterm Greyhound bus rentals non stop to the southern border at Laredo.

[Deleted]

It's a $12-$23k bus ticket if you keep the Bill of Rights intact.

[Tennesseer]

The Browning of America train has left the station and that is not going to change.

[Value Buy]

I read today in our paper's "this day in history" column, in 1942 eight Nazi sabotours landed on the Eastern shore, of both Florida and Long Island N.Y. and were soon captured.
All were tried and sentenced to death, Six were executed but two were spared for having turned themselves in and cooperating with U.S. authorities.
Kind of harsh, in today's world, and accomplished swiftly not in decades.
Most here today would say execution might be wrong. Heck I even think it was harsh. It is not like they actually accomplished their deeds, but then probably 90% of our population was not alive when we were in our last real war.
I do wish the illegals would cooperate with U.S. authorities and report in. Wouldn't that be great? One way ticket back home, end of story.
And yes, whether we believe it or not the USA is at war on our southern border. Secure it now.
That said,

[TonyTiger]

Jun 27, 2012 13:37:35 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Where does this end? You tell me.

The hard left, and many here will not be happy until the lifestyle enjoyed by the overwhelming majority of Americans is destroyed, and the economy decays back to an agrarian style economy.

Sounds like you're having problems with the Voters Without Borders crowd... ;D

Shouldn't that be the goal of all good little Egalitarian Internationalist types?

If everybody can't live in a First World country, then everybody should live in a Third World s--thole...

After all... it's only fair...

Oh, and, the Voters Without Borders crowd will be in charge of telling you what to think and what to like and what is fair and what is not fair, on this particular issue... ;D

"Hi, I'm Billary President Barack Obama, a man I deeply admire,, and I'll be your politically correct bludgeon today." ... ;D

[Deleted]

Woot! Godwin's Law. We win!

[Value Buy]

Jun 27, 2012 20:24:35 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The Browning of America train has left the station and that is not going to change.

Browning, is nothing to be afraid of, especially if it is done legally
It is more like a "tanning of America". Heck, maybe our skin cancer rates will drop!
Our local county is considered overwhelmingly "lilly white" by most people.
In the last census, ten percent were classified as Hispanic, in a population base of about 110,000. They outnumber our black citizens by about five to one.

Many with Spanish surnames, look as white as my Scottish/Irish/Germanic gene pool, that I hail from.
Most are not as dark as Italian or Greek first generation families.
Nothing wrong with a colorful rainbow.

[TonyTiger]

Jun 27, 2012 20:33:35 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

"...Nothing wrong with a colorful rainbow."

Yeppers... so long as it's a Legal rainbow of law-abiders, end to end... ;D