If posters would rather everyone ignore the poster in question, that's a fair comment. I chose not to, maybe I should, maybe I shouldn't.
But Flash saying we're 'embarrassing' ourselves in this thread is nothing but a drive-by cheap shot at us. Not called for, and definitely not appreciated.
And still hasn't said anything since.
If you are going to make a drive by post at least clarify what you meant.
Too late. No room for open discussion. The late night comedians have already made their conclusion that it's racist. Making a immigration policy where there are points given for speaking English is a non-starter.
I haven't put enough into it to have a really well supported opinion as to if it's racist or not as of yet, I'm willing to be swayed either way.
However.
Any policy that comes out of Stephen Miller, or is supported by Stephen Miller, or comes within a 5m radius of Stephen Miller, and that on it's face looks reasonable, I really have to ask what's the racist part I'm missing or what's the secondary effect that few are seeing that'll have the kind of effect Miller desires.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
I think there still is value in showing a certain amount of respect to the institution of the president.
We have seen from Trumps behaviour how much of governance is based on the respect of processes that aren't law. This type of cover pushes that disrespect
Of institutions further. It encourages the losers next time to focus on winning at all costs. It might be idealist but the press should do better.
I don't necessarily agree that Newsweek went too far with its cover, but you raise an interesting topic about respect for the institution, vs. respect for the office-holder.
When they are so intertwined, how could someone both (a) show respect for the office, and (b) express the level of disrespect that the office-holder warrants? Do you think people should withhold valid criticisms because it might impugn the vaunted institution? Or do you think that they should simply do more to criticize the "man" as opposed to "the president?"
In this case, you have to make it clear how much the office-holder disrespects the office...and in doing so clearly indicate that the office itself is worthy of much greater respect. They can't be disentangled.
I haven't put enough into it to have a really well supported opinion as to if it's racist or not as of yet, I'm willing to be swayed either way.
However.
Any policy that comes out of Stephen Miller, or is supported by Stephen Miller, or comes within a 5m radius of Stephen Miller, and that on it's face looks reasonable, I really have to ask what's the racist part I'm missing or what's the secondary effect that few are seeing that'll have the kind of effect Miller desires.
At least you're going to put some thought that research into it. These guys won't.
Colbert's "I'm sure glad my ancestors came in 1828 har har har" is just ignorant.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
At least you're going to put some thought that research into it. These guys won't.
Colbert's "I'm sure glad my ancestors came in 1828 har har har" is just ignorant.
Why?
It's a comment about coming here when being part of the "poor and huddled masses" was okay. Most of the commentary has been centered around the class of people, not the race of people.
It was never ok. It's always about the class of people. Those guys in 1828 weren't commoners. They were usually sons of wealthy merchants getting on that boat. Or be an unmarried women going to make babies.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
With all due respect, Mr. President and Attorney General Sessions, it appears you can't handle the truth.
I understand that the press has been a mighty check on the lies, inconsistencies, and cynical ploys that have been coming out of this White House. I understand that it has led to public outcry and a wide ranging criminal investigation by a Special Counsel. I understand that much of this reporting has been based on leaks and unnamed sources, from inside the Administration and from especially the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
The exercise of a free and independent press has been the exact bulwark against a government in need of accountability - just as our Founding Fathers envisioned. I shudder to think where we would be without it today.
So the news that the Justice Department is devoting significant resources to tracking down leaks and changing the rules to target the press is a chilling development. There are certainly times when an issue of great national security should not be shared with the public. And most of the journalism organizations I have known or been a part of take that responsibility very seriously.
There are some cases where prosecuting leakers may - may - be warranted. But that is not what is going on here. The goal is very clear. The President has complained bitterly of leaks because he doesn't want to be questioned, even when he has been caught in lie after lie.
“We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited,” Mr. Sessions said. “They cannot place lives at risk with impunity.” That is true. So the question is, what lives have been put at risk with all this reporting? And with impunity? Please save us the disingenuousness.
The free press is performing exactly as it needs to. And the proof of that is how seriously those who wish their actions remain undetectable consider the press to be their enemy.
Most reporters I have known take a naked threat such as this as further inspiration to dig even harder to expose the truth. News, as I have said, is what the powerful want to keep hidden.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
It was never ok. It's always about the class of people. Those guys in 1828 weren't commoners. They were usually sons of wealthy merchants getting on that boat. Or be an unmarried women going to make babies.
It was the Irish, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Germans certainly weren't wealthy when they came over. Lost of persecuted religious groups.
The Chinese and Eastern Europeans were actively prevented from common Ming but in general pre-war the Statue of Liberty was reasonably accurate.
How is the Newsweek cover any different than some of the ones the National Review did of Obama?
Given that magazines are well past their prime in any case, it shouldn't really matter.
I would argue that the lack of respect the conservative way gave the office of the president is one of the issues that led where we are today. It wasn't appropriate when it was done to Obama and it isn't appropriate now.
One of the key differences between Canada and the United States is that Canada has official languages, while the United States does not.
In Canada you must be able to access Federal services in both French and English - by law - but that's it, no other languages must be accommodated. This official language policy can then be folded into our fairly stringent immigration policies.
In the United States, however, there is no official language. Head down to a federal building in the US and see how many different language forms are available. It will be very surprising and reflect the demographics of the area. Likewise, legal services and translations are available for multiple languages beyond English. There is not even a requirement to speak English in Congress.
This lack of an official language has greatly benefited the US throughout its history, making it a very desirable destination for immigrants. (which mostly happened AFTER 1828, mainly 1840 - 1920 with the peak year being 1907). Hell, on the eve of WWI there were something like a thousand German-language newspapers being published in America.
Given the non-legal status of English in the United States, and the past benefit to the nation of this non-legal status, any current push to include English ability as a requirement in immigration is possibly illegal, definitely short-sighted, and - while not specifically racist - very deliberately classist, and furthermore it's idiotic considering the reliance of the US agricultural and hospitality (5.5% and 2.7% of the economy, respectively) sectors on temporary visa-holders.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
It was never ok. It's always about the class of people. Those guys in 1828 weren't commoners. They were usually sons of wealthy merchants getting on that boat. Or be an unmarried women going to make babies.
Where did you come up with this information/theory?
One of the key differences between Canada and the United States is that Canada has official languages, while the United States does not.
In Canada you must be able to access Federal services in both French and English - by law - but that's it, no other languages must be accommodated. This official language policy can then be folded into our fairly stringent immigration policies.
In the United States, however, there is no official language. Head down to a federal building in the US and see how many different language forms are available. It will be very surprising and reflect the demographics of the area. Likewise, legal services and translations are available for multiple languages beyond English. There is not even a requirement to speak English in Congress.
This lack of an official language has greatly benefited the US throughout its history, making it a very desirable destination for immigrants. (which mostly happened AFTER 1828, mainly 1840 - 1920 with the peak year being 1907). Hell, on the eve of WWI there were something like a thousand German-language newspapers being published in America.
Given the non-legal status of English in the United States, and the past benefit to the nation of this non-legal status, any current push to include English ability as a requirement in immigration is possibly illegal, definitely short-sighted, and - while not specifically racist - very deliberately classist, and furthermore it's idiotic considering the reliance of the US agricultural and hospitality (5.5% and 2.7% of the economy, respectively) sectors on temporary visa-holders.
One of the key differences between Canada and the United States is that Canada has official languages, while the United States does not.
In Canada you must be able to access Federal services in both French and English - by law - but that's it, no other languages must be accommodated. This official language policy can then be folded into our fairly stringent immigration policies.
In the United States, however, there is no official language. Head down to a federal building in the US and see how many different language forms are available. It will be very surprising and reflect the demographics of the area. Likewise, legal services and translations are available for multiple languages beyond English. There is not even a requirement to speak English in Congress.
This lack of an official language has greatly benefited the US throughout its history, making it a very desirable destination for immigrants. (which mostly happened AFTER 1828, mainly 1840 - 1920 with the peak year being 1907). Hell, on the eve of WWI there were something like a thousand German-language newspapers being published in America.
Given the non-legal status of English in the United States, and the past benefit to the nation of this non-legal status, any current push to include English ability as a requirement in immigration is possibly illegal, definitely short-sighted, and - while not specifically racist - very deliberately classist, and furthermore it's idiotic considering the reliance of the US agricultural and hospitality (5.5% and 2.7% of the economy, respectively) sectors on temporary visa-holders.
I had no idea that the US had no official language. However I think being classist is okay when designing an immigration system. You can't accept everyone so taking the best people is good policy. And being able to speak the language that businesses is done in is a reasonable thing to add points for.
I don't think on temporary agricultural worker visas that you would have an English requirement as that wouldn't make much sense.
Whether this is good policy or just xenophobic policy will be in the details of the program. The cutting of numbers though is stupid.
Where did you come up with this information/theory?
I was thinking more of the British and French as they colonized in the 1700s. But the Irish, although persecuted, still those with money got farther. It was more expensive to go to America then to Canada. It's similar to today. If you're Syrian you have to pay to get on the boat to flee, otherwise you're stuck and probably dead.
So I don't think immigration has changed much over the centuries. You need money to go anywhere. My dad paid off someone to get on a boat.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I was thinking more of the British and French as they colonized in the 1700s. But the Irish, although persecuted, still those with money got farther. It was more expensive to go to America then to Canada. It's similar to today. If you're Syrian you have to pay to get on the boat to flee, otherwise you're stuck and probably dead.
So I don't think immigration has changed much over the centuries. You need money to go anywhere. My dad paid off someone to get on a boat.
I don't know how it worked in the 1700s. I do know that in the 1970s when my parents and siblings came over as refugees, it had nothing to do with money. They had to stay in a camp in Italy for 2 years, learn basic English and find a company to sponsor my father for work before they were allowed to immigrate to Canada. And they had nothing but the clothes on their backs (literally) when they left. Fortunately, the Catholic Church at the time was have clothing drives for newcomers and they were able to get in on that. Then my father had to work for a forestry company at a reduced rate to pay back the government for the cost of the the tip and to pay his employer for rent (the employer owned the accommodations). It was practically indentured labour.
I'm sure people with money had a much easier time coming over though.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I was thinking more of the British and French as they colonized in the 1700s. But the Irish, although persecuted, still those with money got farther. It was more expensive to go to America then to Canada. It's similar to today. If you're Syrian you have to pay to get on the boat to flee, otherwise you're stuck and probably dead.
So I don't think immigration has changed much over the centuries. You need money to go anywhere. My dad paid off someone to get on a boat.
A lot of migration was done via indentured servitude. If you didn’t have the money to pay for a spot you worked it off when you got here. It’s illegal now but still happens, unfortunately.
