Why doesn't it surprise me

[The_Tick]

If Spanish becomes the most dominant language in the US, by your own standards, you should expect your great great grandchildren to accept it.

In Los Angeles we may see Spanish become the dominant language within the next ten years. As a conservative, you are a local government supporter, no? Does that mean that places like LA should have Spanish language instruction as the primary language in public schools?

Edit: For that matter, Kern county may already have a majority of Spanish speakers in the public school system.

I live in the most conservative county in California. We could have 95% Spanish speaking folks and English would still be expected.

Look...it isn't like I am an asshole. My wife has been teaching Saturday School to ESL kids who meet a few requirements:

1. Spanish is first language at home.
2. Family has been in US for less than 3 years.

You have to meet those requirements to be able to attend Saturday school. She has done this for 7 weeks and this next week is the last week of the program. This is done specifically so that these kids can get the support that they need so they can pass the state testing. BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SUPPORT AT HOME.

Folks don't speak or understand English, so it is harming their child.

This is America. We speak English. It is our native tongue. To change it to anything other than English would have to be ratified by someone in office. No one in office has the balls to do shit, so I don't worry about having to learn Spanish anytime soon.

[il Padrino Ute]

I live in the most conservative county in California. We could have 95% Spanish speaking folks and English would still be expected.

Look...it isn't like I am an asshole. My wife has been teaching Saturday School to ESL kids who meet a few requirements:

1. Spanish is first language at home.
2. Family has been in US for less than 3 years.

You have to meet those requirements to be able to attend Saturday school. She has done this for 7 weeks and this next week is the last week of the program. This is done specifically so that these kids can get the support that they need so they can pass the state testing. BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SUPPORT AT HOME.

Folks don't speak or understand English, so it is harming their child.

This is America. We speak English. It is our native tongue. To change it to anything other than English would have to be ratified by someone in office. No one in office has the balls to do shit, so I don't worry about having to learn Spanish anytime soon.

[RobinFinderson]

I live in the most conservative county in California. We could have 95% Spanish speaking folks and English would still be expected.

Look...it isn't like I am an asshole. My wife has been teaching Saturday School to ESL kids who meet a few requirements:

1. Spanish is first language at home.
2. Family has been in US for less than 3 years.

You have to meet those requirements to be able to attend Saturday school. She has done this for 7 weeks and this next week is the last week of the program. This is done specifically so that these kids can get the support that they need so they can pass the state testing. BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE SUPPORT AT HOME.

Folks don't speak or understand English, so it is harming their child.

This is America. We speak English. It is our native tongue. To change it to anything other than English would have to be ratified by someone in office. No one in office has the balls to do shit, so I don't worry about having to learn Spanish anytime soon.

Tick, you are a brother in arms. I've had your back when you were planting the bomb, and you have had my back on many occasions. Once people have been in combat together, all of the trite political differences matter not. You and I are brothers of the Mosh, and I know that you are not an asshole.

Anyhow, English isn't the official American language, and there may come a day when there are more native Spanish speakers in the US. If that happens, folks who think that everyone ought to assimilate to the common language (currently English) will presumably advocate the same for Spanish.

[Indy Coug]

In my community, Latinos that are proficient in English are substantially better off financially than those who aren't.

It's not racist to expect them to speak English, it's wanting them to be financially independent as quickly as possible.

[Indy Coug]

In my community, Latinos that are proficient in English are substantially better off financially than those who aren't.

It's not racist to expect them to speak English, it's wanting them to be financially independent as quickly as possible.

A member in my ward couldn't speak English 4 years ago. What did he do as a result? Worked in a chocolate factory and jewelry factory for <$10/hour.

He has taken several English classes from the local community college and requires English to be spoken in his home. Now, he works as an network administrator, which is what he was trained to do before coming to America but couldn't get a job due to the language barrier.

[RobinFinderson]

In my community, Latinos that are proficient in English are substantially better off financially than those who aren't.

It's not racist to expect them to speak English, it's wanting them to be financially independent as quickly as possible.

There are plenty of good reasons for everyone to become multilingual. I would be willing to bet that the gringos who speak Spanish are substantially better off financially than those who don't. Should everyone be required to learn Spanish, so that everyone can be more financially fit?

In America, people are free. This means that people define success by all kinds of measures. Being financially well off may not be the best indicator of 'success.'

[The_Tick]

Tick, you are a brother in arms. I've had your back when you were planting the bomb, and you have had my back on many occasions. Once people have been in combat together, all of the trite political differences matter not. You and I are brothers of the Mosh, and I know that you are not an asshole.

Anyhow, English isn't the official American language, and there may come a day when there are more native Spanish speakers in the US. If that happens, folks who think that everyone ought to assimilate to the common language (currently English) will presumably advocate the same for Spanish.

I will freely admit...since I have starting gaming with you and your kid I like you a ton more.

You on PS3 and you on the Internet don't come across as the same person.

[UtahDan]

So I finally started looking at what the challenges to this law are going to be, and the answer has very little to do with what most of the complaining is about. Numerous legal scholars are asserting that a state simply doesn't have the power to make a law respecting immigration or immigration enforcement because that is an area where only the federal government can make laws because it has "preempted the field."

There are many areas where both states and the fed have power to legislate. However, if the fed enacts legislation that is so comprehensive on a particular topic that it "occupies the field" no state law on the same topic will be valid. It is also true that even where the fed has not preempted or occupied the filed that when there is a conflict between federal and state law, so long as it is an area that constitution allows the fed to legislate it, the fed wins. This is called conflict preemption.

The argument I am seeing that is persuading me is that the United States Code, I think section 8, already sets for the circumstances under which a state law enforcement officer can arrest and detain an illegal. When you compare the two laws side by side, it appears that the AZ law conflicts with federal law because it gives the office more power. It is going to get struck down for this reason.

But this for me sets up an even more interesting question, which is, what rights does a state have to protect it self in a preempted area when the federal government refuses to act. IOW, take an extreme hypothetical where the fed pulls out of Arizona and completely refuses to enforce the border or immigration law. I'm not a constitutional scholar but is seems like there would be an argument that preemption is inapplicable where all you have is law on the books, but you don't have the fed actually acting to enforce it. I think preemption must involve actual regulation and action and not just a law on the books. Of course that is not what is happening in AZ, but the reality there is somewhere between no enforcement at all and the very, very muscular enforcement they want.

The problem from AZ's perspective is not that federal law is inadequate, it is that enforcement is inadequate. What is AZ to do? Also, I do see that there are some 4th amendment challenges to the law being filed, but I am convinced on second look that I am right about those.

[BlueHair]

What does this have to do with the current discussion?

I'm going to assume here that you are using this to point out that the U.S. welcomes immigrants.

If my assumption is correct, what are you aiming at? Open immigration?

Do you favor open immigration? Do you think we ought to abandon our borders? Do you think it is unreasonable to have a measured approach to whom we let pass through our borders?

I'm not sure what the answer is. Part of me doesn't really believe in citizenship. I mean, why am I more deserving than a mexican to live here? My mother happened to live 1000 miles north of where a mexican guy's mother lived when she gave birth. That's really it.

[Indy Coug]

I'm not sure what the answer is. Part of me doesn't really believe in citizenship. I mean, why am I more deserving than a mexican to live here? My mother happened to live 1000 miles north of where a mexican guy's mother lived when she gave birth. That's really it.

Why are you more deserving? Because one of your ancestors did what was required at the time to become a citizen.

If a Mexican or anyone else does what is required now, they are equally deserving.

[BlueHair]

Why are you more deserving? Because one of your ancestors did what was required at the time to become a citizen.

If a Mexican or anyone else does what is required now, they are equally deserving.

Thats kind of the point. My ancestors did something, I didn't. Maybe we could make everyone, including current citizens, apply to stay in the U.S. Every year we could kick the bottom 10% out of the country and replace them with fresh immigrants. Either that or just kill the bottom 10%. Either way, production would go way up.

[RobinFinderson]

Thats kind of the point. My ancestors did something, I didn't. Maybe we could make everyone, including current citizens, apply to stay in the U.S. Every year we could kick the bottom 10% out of the country and replace them with fresh immigrants. Either that or just kill the bottom 10%. Either way, production would go way up.

Exactly. Conservatives like to 'conserve' the status quo, because they lack the imagination to think of something better. They can't understand that the way things are now represents just one way that things might be. What if we were to end the idea of inheritance? What if honored the idea of private property, but required that one's personal property consist only of those things attained as the fruit of personal labor. There would be an exception for sentimental items, with the stipulation that each person could only identify one sentimental item per child, and the child could not sell the sentimental item. All of the surplus stuff would be turned over to the government, upon death, and it would be redistributed among the babies, as a sort of universal inheritance to be spend on education, until one was married, finished school or had a baby. Then it could be spent on property.

Why not? Inheritance rewards people for being born into wealth. It is a way of creating a highly stratified society that is not built on merit.

[Uncle Ted]

Exactly. Conservatives like to 'conserve' the status quo, because they lack the imagination to think of something better. They can't understand that the way things are now represents just one way that things might be. What if we were to end the idea of inheritance? What if honored the idea of private property, but required that one's personal property consist only of those things attained as the fruit of personal labor. There would be an exception for sentimental items, with the stipulation that each person could only identify one sentimental item per child, and the child could not sell the sentimental item. All of the surplus stuff would be turned over to the government, upon death, and it would be redistributed among the babies, as a sort of universal inheritance to be spend on education, until one was married, finished school or had a baby. Then it could be spent on property.

Why not? Inheritance rewards people for being born into wealth. It is a way of creating a highly stratified society that is not built on merit.

I can see 100% "death tax" having some problems. First, it would cause people to blow their money on foolish things before they die. For example, more very wealthy people may take russian joy rides into space (and the government wouldn't even get to collect sales tax). If the government is just going to take it all then they will most likely just blow the money before they do. The current estate taxes already discourages efficient allocation of resources such as in investing and making more money and, therefore, paying more taxes. In short, increasing the estate tax would further penalize hard work and thrift in favor of large-scale consumption.

Second, family run businesses die with its owner. For examle, everyone's favorite deli on the corner may be out of business when the owner dies. (What is the government going to do with a family deli business and why would the children help the government to sale it if they get nothing? They would most likely just throw a match on it and let it burn to the ground on the way out.) There may be no such thing as private companies. All companies would most likely need to be public so the ownership could be sold when a stockholder dies. There would be less of an incentive for people to start small businesses. If small businesses all die unemployment may be really ugly.

"Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult. " -Andre Marrou.

[byu71]

Anyhow, English isn't the official American language, and there may come a day when there are more native Spanish speakers in the US. If that happens, folks who think that everyone ought to assimilate to the common language (currently English) will presumably advocate the same for Spanish.

I vascillate back and forth on this anmnesty thing for undocumenteds. Then I hear shit like this and knee jerk back to "no way in hell".

Welcome immigrants. You are coming to America. If you want to come so badly you can, learn to speak English. I don't have to spend tons of my tax dollars accomodating you, I just have to give you a fair opportunity, which is to allow you to learn to speak English or get by as best you can without speaking it.

If you are coming to America and want to be a citizen, you become a citizen. You may consider yourself Mexican-American, but I only do for cultural reasons. Other than that I consider you an American and you don't get special treatment, because enough of you have illegally entered the country.

Sometime Finderson your ideas and concepts are downright f'ed up. I still like you though.

[RobinFinderson]

I can see 100% "death tax" having some problems. First, it would cause people to blow their money on foolish things before they die. For example, more very wealthy people may take russian joy rides into space (and the government wouldn't even get to collect sales tax). If the government is just going to take it all then they will most likely just blow the money before they do. The current estate taxes already discourages efficient allocation of resources such as in investing and making more money and, therefore, paying more taxes. In short, increasing the estate tax would further penalize hard work and thrift in favor of large-scale consumption.

Second, family run businesses die with its owner. For examle, everyone's favorite deli on the corner may be out of business when the owner dies. (What is the government going to do with a family deli business and why would the children help the government to sale it if they get nothing? They would most likely just throw a match on it and let it burn to the ground on the way out.) There may be no such thing as private companies. All companies would most likely need to be public so the ownership could be sold when a stockholder dies. There would be less of an incentive for people to start small businesses. If small businesses all die unemployment may be really ugly.

"Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult. " -Andre Marrou.

These are some decent points. The larger purpose of such a redefinition of 'ownership' would be to create a merit-based society rather than what we have now. As such, it isn't really a liberal, conservative or libertarian idea. Board conservatives may be surprised that this idea comes from Ayn Rand, who defines 'property' thus:

Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.

Ownership is the byproduct of the application of knowledge and effort. The magnitude of one's claim to property should be proportional to the work one has done to improve it.

This idea addresses the 'family business' problem you propose. CUF isn't the place to establish all of the details of how a new system of ownership would be protected by the government, but we can talk about the idea in a broader sense. A parent could establish a 'family business' by making sure that the offspring materially contributed to improvement and growth of the business. Upon the parent's death, ownership of the business would be transferred to all of those people who worked to make the company what it is. If a parent wanted a child to maintain principle ownership of the company, the parent would need to make sure that the child's work had sufficiently improved the company. All of a company's workers would be stakeholders in the company. The role of government would be to maintain a record of stakeholders' investments, for the smooth transfer of ownership after the death of the original owner. Family businesses could remain in the family, but it would take work, not inheritance. If children weren't willing to do the work, ownership would naturally transfer to those people who did the work.

Your other point, that this would discourage saving, you might be right, but I'm not sure that that would be a problem.