The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   A Town Willing To Enforce The Law (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=13550)

rkzenrage 03-12-2007 05:55 PM

A Town Willing To Enforce The Law
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082101484.html

Quote:

Pa. City Puts Illegal Immigrants on Notice
'They Must Leave,' Mayor of Hazleton Says After Signing Tough New Law

By Michael Powell and Michelle García
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; Page A03

HAZLETON, Pa. -- An immigrant's grandson, Louis J. Barletta, the mayor of this once-sleepy hill city, leans forward behind the desk in his corner office and with an easy smile confides his goal.

Barletta wants to make Hazleton "the toughest place on illegal immigrants in America."

"What I'm doing here is protecting the legal taxpayer of any race," said the dapper 50-year-old mayor, sweeping his hands toward the working-class city outside. "And I will get rid of the illegal people. It's this simple: They must leave ."

Last month, in a raucous meeting, the mayor and City Council passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. (Barletta wore a bulletproof vest because, he says, Hazleton is menaced by a surge in crime committed by illegal immigrants.) The act imposes a $1,000-per-day fine on any landlord who rents to an illegal immigrant, and it revokes for five years the business license of any employer who hires one.

The act also declares English to be the city's official language. Employees are forbidden to translate documents into another language without official authorization.

The law doesn't take effect for another month. But the Republican mayor already sees progress. "I see illegal immigrants picking up and leaving -- some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent," Barletta says. "The message is out there."

So another fire is set in the nation's immigration wars, which as often burn most fiercely not in the urban megalopolises but in small cities and towns, where for the first time in generations immigrants have made their presence felt. In these corners, the mayors, councils and cops cobble together ambitious plans -- some of which are legally dubious -- to turn back illegal immigration.

Last year two New Hampshire police chiefs began arresting illegal immigrants for trespassing, a tactic the courts tossed out. On New York's Long Island, the Suffolk County Legislature is expected to adopt a proposal next month prohibiting contractors from hiring illegal immigrants.

Hazleton has upped that ante, and four neighboring municipalities in Pennsylvania and Riverside, N.J., already have passed identical ordinances. Seven more cities, from Allentown, Pa., to Palm Beach, Fla., are debating similar legislation.

"The ideas that these things are happening spontaneously would be mistaken," said Devin Burghart, who tracks the immigration wars for the nonprofit Center for New Community in Chicago. "What is driving folks is fear of change and changing demographics."

German, Italian and Japanese television crews have interviewed Barletta. He has received 9,000 favorable e-mails and has raised thousands of dollars for the city's legal defense on a Web site called Small Town Defenders. (Two staffers from Sen. Rick Santorum's staff prepared the site; Santorum, a Republican who is in a tight reelection race, has pushed for immigration crackdowns.)

But Barletta and the council just might walk off a legal cliff. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund have sued to block the ordinance, saying it could ensnare many who are here legally.
Even the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which organizes cities and towns to push for tighter immigration quotas and much tougher enforcement, says Hazleton's ordinance is overly broad.

"If you are going to use the word 'illegal immigrant,' you have to be very careful when you are defining that term that it corresponds to federal immigration classification," said Michael Hethmon, a lawyer with FAIR. "You can't use terminology that mixes and matches illegal immigrants and legal immigrants."

Hispanic demonstrators outside the Hazleton, Pa., city hall protest a law that makes it illegal to rent to or hire an illegal immigrant. (By Rick Smith -- Associated Press)

The Immigration Debate
The Washington Post's coverage of the immigration issue, from the politics of revising the nation's immigration laws to the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S.-Mexico border and the Washington region.

Life Along 'La Linea'
The U.S.-Mexico border is at the forefront of a growing debate over U.S. immigration and border security reform.


High in coal country, Hazleton sits perched on a rocky mountain ridge, and more than once immigration has been the agent of the city's deliverance.

Hazleton (it was supposed to be "Hazelton," but a clerk misspelled the name at incorporation) was founded in the early 1800s atop a thick vein of anthracite coal -- "black diamonds" -- and immigrants arrived by the thousands to mine it. The Irish came first, then Italians and Tiroleans, Poles and Slavs. There were mine disasters, and for decades bosses and workers fought pitched wars. Always there were complaints that the most recent arrivals didn't speak English or understand American customs.

Hazleton's city fathers, though, tended to be progressive. In 1891, the city became the third in the nation to electrify. And they helped silk and garment mills open. Not all of this was wholesome -- worthies from Murder Inc., not least mafia boss Albert Anastasia, owned a few mills. Sometimes politics was settled with fists or a carefully aimed pistol.

In the 1930s the coal mines closed, and then the mills moved south. Barletta was elected mayor in 2000, and he's credited with working hard at Hazleton's revival.

But the big change came half a decade back when Latinos -- Puerto Ricans, who are citizens of the United States, and Dominicans -- began driving west on Interstate 80, fleeing the high housing prices and cacophony of inner-city New York, Philadelphia and Providence. They found in Hazleton a city with an industrial base and cheap housing (an old Victorian could be had for $40,000 five years ago).

Latino-owned markets, restaurants and clothing stores sprang up along Wyoming Street, and property values tripled. Hazleton's population has jumped from 23,000 to 31,000 in the past six years.

Daniel Diaz stands behind the cash register in his supermarket filled with plantains and tamales and Goya products. The gray-haired grocer was born in the Dominican Republic but spent 31 years in New York City. He moved here in 2000. He loved the mountain air and bought properties and invited friends to move here, too.

"Five years ago?" He's incredulous you might think it was better then. "It was d-e-a-d. It's gotten better and better.

"Now? Business is down. I don't get it -- they don't like this revival?"

Barletta says it's not that simple. He says his epiphany came in May, when several illegal immigrants walked up to a local man at 11 o'clock one night and shot him in the forehead. One suspect had four false identity papers. "It took us nine hours of overtime just to run down who he was," Barletta said.

This, he said, came on the heels of crack dealing on playgrounds and pit bulls lunging at cops.

"I lay in bed and thought: I've lost my city," he recalls. "I love the new legal immigrants; they want their kids to be safe just like I do. I had to declare war on the illegals."

In truth, the crime wave is hard to measure. Crime is up 10 percent, but the population has risen just as fast. Violent crime has jumped more sharply, but on a small statistical base. Barletta insists there's no whiff of racial antagonism. "This isn't racial, because 'illegal' and 'legal' don't have a race," he says.

It's not hard, however, to discern a note of racial grievance. Many whites who attended the council vote serenaded Latino opponents with chants of "Hit the road, Jack!" A prominent Hispanic leader said Hazleton had become a "Nazi city."

But it's a complicated tapestry. To walk Sixth Street, near the ridge line, is to hear white old-timers warn about the gang graffiti and drug dealing on playgrounds, and then listen as Latino homeowners echo those complaints. A Puerto Rican metal worker and a ponytailed white truck driver swap stories about Mexican laborers driving down construction wages.

Connie and David Fallotovich sit on their porch on a cool summer evening. They sort of miss their sleepy old white city, and they favor a crackdown -- why should an illegal immigrant get a break? They also see their new Dominican neighbors as a big improvement.

David, a custodian, jerks his head at the house next door. "The couple now is really nice. Tell you the truth, buddy, a white family lived there for 20 years and they were a . . . nightmare."

On Lou Dobbs today it was stated that eleven legal immigrants have opened businesses in Hazelton since the law was enacted... it does not harm immigrants, just law breakers.

bluecuracao 03-12-2007 06:02 PM

Right, and Lou Dobbs is such a reliable, unbiased source on this subject.

How many fucking "illegal immigration" threads do we need here on the Cellar, anyway?

Aliantha 03-12-2007 07:17 PM

Lots?

rkzenrage 03-12-2007 07:29 PM

Until it goes away it is a viable subject, especially until people start realizing that it is not a race issue and is simply a legal one.
Don't like it, don't read it, don't post, you have free will.

piercehawkeye45 03-13-2007 01:47 AM

Deporting them won't solve anything. The best thing we can do is help them become citizens. It maybe unfair to the legal immigrants but leaving the illegals unchecked will hurt us a lot more than it helps.

BigV 03-13-2007 01:46 PM

Hmm. Maybe we should, in the interest of fairness, enforce other federal laws, while we're at it. Don't you think it's fair to require tax records of previous years to verify that the potential customers haven't committed tax evasion? Better get an audit while you're at it. Oh, and to prevent the appearance of discrimination, submit *all* such customers to this scrutiny.

And while we're being so evenhanded, why restrict your deputization of landlords and construction contractors? It seems fair that all other commercial transactions should be subject to exactly the same scrutiny. Make grocery stores and gas stations liable at $1000 per transaction for food or fuel sold to illegals. And strip them of their business license to prevent recidivism.

That'll show them. They won't be able to work, have no place to live, can't buy food to eat or fuel to drive. They'll be sitting ducks! Round them up, easy as pie! Don't deport them, though, they'll just come right back. And since we don't want them consuming any of our resources, putting them in prison is really expensive, so just dig a big hole, shoot them all and send the bill for the excavation to one of those brown countries down there. Don't forget the cost of the bullets, eh?

elSicomoro 03-13-2007 01:53 PM

Valley Park, MO (a small suburb of St. Louis) had its Hazleton-style law thrown out yesterday. It looks like there are still going to be more legal battles, though.

"It's impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are ingenious."--unknown

Kitsune 03-13-2007 02:55 PM

Quote:

The act also declares English to be the city's official language. Employees are forbidden to translate documents into another language without official authorization.
Good to see that they're enacting this. We wouldn't want to allow everyone to understand the word of the law unless they speak English, legal or not.

"Illegal" and "legal" may not have a race, but they do have a language?

elSicomoro 03-13-2007 03:14 PM

Given the complexity of many laws, I don't quite understand them when they are in English.

rkzenrage 03-13-2007 08:02 PM

They can always hire an interpreter until they can learn English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 322657)
Deporting them won't solve anything. The best thing we can do is help them become citizens. It maybe unfair to the legal immigrants but leaving the illegals unchecked will hurt us a lot more than it helps.

It is not unchecked... the idea is to make the US inhospitable to illegals. They just will not want to be here and will decide to comply with the law.
What should have been happening from the beginning. The idea of law enforcement.

xoxoxoBruce 03-13-2007 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 322739)
Hmm. Maybe we should, in the interest of fairness, enforce other federal laws, while we're at it. ~snip

If the feds insure that everyone is here legally you don't need any of that. Nothing. Nada. All they have to enforce is ONE law. The one that says you have to come through check points. :p

I noticed a bit on TV the other day, it seems in one section of the Mexican border, they have gotten tougher. Instead of just putting them on a bus home, they are jailed. Prints, mugshots, indentity positively established, then sent home, which takes from a day to two weeks waiting in jail. The Mexicans are very upset the processing has changed, but border crossing attempts in that sector have dropped on the order of 80%.

rkzenrage 03-13-2007 09:04 PM

That and that they are checking to see if they are wanted in the US or in Mexico. The percentage of those who were criminals in the special that I saw was unnerving.
That and that they felt that it was wrong and "unfair"... nuts.

Ibby 03-13-2007 09:19 PM

Why should they HAVE to learn English? The whole point of not having an official language is so we can SUPPORT immigrants of all types, among other reasons.

If they dont want to learn english, they don't have to - but at the same time, can't complain that they didnt.

Similarly, integration into society should be neither forbidden nor mandatory; integration is optional, but if you refuse to americanize yourself, don't complain about the consequences.

piercehawkeye45 03-13-2007 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage (Post 322865)
It is not unchecked... the idea is to make the US inhospitable to illegals. They just will not want to be here and will decide to comply with the law.
What should have been happening from the beginning. The idea of law enforcement.

Come on, do you really think that won't majorly backfire?

They won't leave...they will resort to crime.

WabUfvot5 03-13-2007 10:11 PM

I see nothing wrong with a stiff fine against those caught hiring illegals - be they citizens or businesses. Not only would it curb illegal immigration but it would promote better working conditions.

xoxoxoBruce 03-13-2007 10:32 PM

It's a band-aid, Jebediah. A band-aid on a sore caused by blood poisoning. It's shouldn't be necessary and distracts resources from the real problem. :cool:

rigcranop 03-14-2007 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 322898)
Why should they HAVE to learn English? The whole point of not having an official language is so we can SUPPORT immigrants of all types, among other reasons.

If they dont want to learn english, they don't have to - but at the same time, can't complain that they didnt.

Should we HAVE to support their refusal to learn the english (american) language? Should we provide translations for all the worlds languages in all forms of communications and media? Should we HAVE to train emergency personnel in the worlds languages (at our expense) so they can get the emergency care or services the refusers need? Should we HAVE to train everyone in heavy industry, so that those who refuse to learn the language, can be warned of a dangerous or possibly lethal situation?

rigcranop 03-14-2007 08:57 PM

This is Brian R,s home turf. Weigh in, sir.

piercehawkeye45 03-14-2007 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigcranop (Post 323136)
Should we HAVE to support their refusal to learn the english (american) language? Should we provide translations for all the worlds languages in all forms of communications and media? Should we HAVE to train emergency personnel in the worlds languages (at our expense) so they can get the emergency care or services the refusers need? Should we HAVE to train everyone in heavy industry, so that those who refuse to learn the language, can be warned of a dangerous or possibly lethal situation?

Please re-read what he wrote. He said if they refuse to learn the language they should expect not complain about the consequences.

rkzenrage 03-15-2007 12:07 AM

When you read the whole post I can't figure out what he stand for, having English as the standard language or not?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 322898)
Why should they HAVE to learn English? The whole point of not having an official language is so we can SUPPORT immigrants of all types, among other reasons.

If they dont want to learn english, they don't have to - but at the same time, can't complain that they didnt.

Similarly, integration into society should be neither forbidden nor mandatory; integration is optional, but if you refuse to americanize yourself, don't complain about the consequences.


Aliantha 03-15-2007 01:30 AM

What he means is if you don't learn the language you just don't get the same service as you would without. That is, no automatic interpretation at tax payers expense for example. So, if you choose not to learn the language, it's on your own head, but we're (you're) not going to subsidise your ignorance.

piercehawkeye45 03-15-2007 01:31 AM

What I got out of it is that we should not force someone to learn English but we should also not go out of our way to accommodate them if they choose not too.

That is my view too so maybe I misread it to satisfy my bias.

rkzenrage 03-15-2007 01:58 AM

That is my view as well. Our documents, schools, signs, courts, etc, should all be in/conducted in English alone.
If someone chooses to spend their life with their personal interpreter at their side... have at it.

Ibby 03-15-2007 02:25 AM

I think government functions - except maybe signs, just for simplicity - should be pan-lingual on demand. End of story.

Businesses, on the other hand, can make the choice for themselves. Immigrants can't complain if a business decides to internally conduct business only in english (though the business may suffer for it).

Standardizing a language for your business is NOT discrimination. Standardizing a language for a country that intentionally and deliberately has no official language just so the 'damn dirty mexicans' wont come over, is.

rkzenrage 03-15-2007 02:35 AM

Pan-lingual for simplicity? Suuuuuurrrre.
Who said Mexicans? Why is everyone who is Latino a Mexican? Why are all non-English speaking immigrants Mexicans?

I can never figure this out?

Ibby 03-15-2007 03:19 AM

What?

I said english signs for simplicity, panligualism on demand for all other government functions.

And I was making fun of stupid bigoted rightwingers who only want to make english the official language to spite immigrants, especially illegal ones from mexico - like the article.

xoxoxoBruce 03-15-2007 04:29 AM

How many languages are going to be on those sign? You going to let people drive that can't read the signs or the rules? Can you say 6 pound traffic ticket? :smack:

How many piles of instructions at the IRS? Or the Post Office? Motor Vehicle Department? Hospital? Menus?
Chinese? Portuguese (which is as common as Spanish in the Americas)? French? Italian? Hindi? German?
Be big signs/piles, methinks.
A common language gives people something is common instead of the division that's eating away Canada.

It's not bigoted to make the country function like a country instead of like the ineffectual UN. Start thinking beyond a hypothetical situation, a classroom exercise in what would be desirable in a perfect world.

The world doesn't work that way, when you look at the realities of execution. When you start putting up the poles and painting signs people can read without stopping in the middle of the road. When you have to take the neighbors house by eminent domain, just to house the piles of instructions.


And pay for it.

Ibby 03-15-2007 05:30 AM

Bruce, as long as I'm not allowed to vote, and dont have to pay taxes, I can be as unrealistic and utopian as I wish. Thats the great thing about being outside the system; you arent bound by it.

xoxoxoBruce 03-15-2007 07:07 AM

True, but best to understand it before getting there, because it will crush you in a most painful way if you don't know how, or when,to play it. :thepain:

Kitsune 03-15-2007 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323212)
How many languages are going to be on those sign?

I'd say two: English and Spanish. They're the most prevalent languages in our country right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323212)
How many piles of instructions at the IRS? Or the Post Office? Motor Vehicle Department? Hospital? Menus?

My workplace has all the legally required signs in both English and Spanish. Its not that big of a deal. But, IRS forms? That'd be crazy! Think of the hell it would be if they had to put IRS information in Spanish-- oh, wait, here it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323212)
Chinese? Portuguese (which is as common as Spanish in the Americas)? French? Italian? Hindi? German?

If you fly into Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta, you'll notice that the digital signs on the tram scroll through at least eight languages, including the ones you've listed as well as Japanese and Korean. This change, made during the 1996 Olympic games, probably isn't entirely needed, but is helpful to people navigating the airport. Another major international destination, Disney World, has a monorail that makes announcements in English and Spanish, as studies done by Disney show that guests to the park that speak other languages are highly likely to also speak English as a second language. Spanish was the only exception, statistically, so it made sense to provide two announcements. No chaos broke out from either of these changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323212)
The world doesn't work that way, when you look at the realities of execution. When you start putting up the poles and painting signs people can read without stopping in the middle of the road.

Admittedly, I had trouble "inspection", but road signs in Mexico aren't that difficult for non-Spanish speakers. I probably wouldn't speed through the red octagon marked 'ALTO' so, somehow, I don't think most English road signs are much more difficult for Spanish speakers in the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323212)
When you have to take the neighbors house by eminent domain, just to house the piles of instructions.

Agreed -- we can't translate everything into every language in the world. Now, what happens in our future when a US city/county/state becomes so populated with Spanish speakers that English becomes the minority? (For some cities and counties, I'm sure this already applies.) Will your suggestions still follow and will the dual signs come down in favor of Spanish only instructions? How would you feel navigating without the aid of English signs in one of these cities/states? Luckily, you won't be forced to learn Spanish, but...

Whatever our governments do, I'm strongly suggesting no one remove the required sign that reads "Lavarse Las Manos!" from any of the restaurants I dine in. :greenface

Happy Monkey 03-15-2007 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 323207)
I said english signs for simplicity, panligualism on demand for all other government functions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323212)
How many languages are going to be on those sign?

One?

xoxoxoBruce 03-15-2007 01:06 PM

Yeah you got me, HM. But you know as well as I do, that won't last. :lol:
To clarify, "that" refers to one language signs.

piercehawkeye45 03-15-2007 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323212)
It's not bigoted to make the country function like a country instead of like the ineffectual UN. Start thinking beyond a hypothetical situation, a classroom exercise in what would be desirable in a perfect world.

The UN should really work on creating a new language, and no, not Esperanto or whatever that was called. We need something simple that everyone can learn easily.

xoxoxoBruce 03-15-2007 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune (Post 323264)
I'd say two: English and Spanish. They're the most prevalent languages in our country right now.

Would that stand up to constitutional scrutiny?
Quote:

My workplace has all the legally required signs in both English and Spanish. Its not that big of a deal. But, IRS forms? That'd be crazy! Think of the hell it would be if they had to put IRS information in Spanish-- oh, wait, here it is.
That's not right, shouldn't be a legal requirement. If a business wants to go to the trouble and expense as a business decision, fine. Go for it. If I don't want to pay for it I can take my business elsewhere.
Quote:

If you fly into Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta, you'll notice that the digital signs on the tram scroll through at least eight languages, including the ones you've listed as well as Japanese and Korean. This change, made during the 1996 Olympic games, probably isn't entirely needed, but is helpful to people navigating the airport. Another major international destination, Disney World, has a monorail that makes announcements in English and Spanish, as studies done by Disney show that guests to the park that speak other languages are highly likely to also speak English as a second language. Spanish was the only exception, statistically, so it made sense to provide two announcements. No chaos broke out from either of these changes.
Business decisions, fine.
Quote:

Admittedly, I had trouble "inspection", but road signs in Mexico aren't that difficult for non-Spanish speakers. I probably wouldn't speed through the red octagon marked 'ALTO' so, somehow, I don't think most English road signs are much more difficult for Spanish speakers in the US.
I wasn't worried about traffic control signs, the international signs are pretty clear. I'm concerned with the signs like accident ahead, next gas 28 miles, and Slaussen cutoff. How about, " No stopping or standing 3 pm to 6:30 pm on weekdays, and Saturdays, during school year, except holidays." OK, that's not a real common sign, I admit.
But my problem is the people who think it's a yard sale sign and stop in the middle of the road to look around, get out a map, and/or argue about what it says. Two language signs have to be twice as big or reduce the lettering by half. That makes it more confusing, so they slow down more and make mistakes that can turn deadly when they realize it and try to recover with an outrageous maneuver. I've seen it too many times with just English signs and more so in Canada..... or maybe that was me?

Quote:

Agreed -- we can't translate everything into every language in the world. Now, what happens in our future when a US city/county/state becomes so populated with Spanish speakers that English becomes the minority? (For some cities and counties, I'm sure this already applies.) Will your suggestions still follow and will the dual signs come down in favor of Spanish only instructions? How would you feel navigating without the aid of English signs in one of these cities/states? Luckily, you won't be forced to learn Spanish, but...
That wouldn't be a problem if they weren't doing what they are doing now, now would it? There is no reason for a kid born in this country not to read, write and speak English. Go ahead, ask about the ones that aren't, go ahead. :lol:
Quote:

Whatever our governments do, I'm strongly suggesting no one remove the required sign that reads "Lavarse Las Manos!" from any of the restaurants I dine in. :greenface
No comprendi.

xoxoxoBruce 03-15-2007 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 323319)
The UN should really work on creating a new language, and no, not Esperanto or whatever that was called. We need something simple that everyone can learn easily.

The UN should move to Africa where I'm sure they would bring some improvement if they had to live and work there. :earth:

Kitsune 03-15-2007 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323326)
That's not right, shouldn't be a legal requirement. If a business wants to go to the trouble and expense as a business decision, fine. Go for it. If I don't want to pay for it I can take my business elsewhere.

The signs are government required and in some cases are produced by the government. "Wash your hands. Lavarse las manos." You'll see this one in any workplace that deals with food. Minimum wage and disability signs are all dual language. It is common sense to provide your taxpayers with information they can understand.

The forcing of private businesses to have signs in a specific language can get tricky. In Gwinnett County, GA, the issue came up some years ago because emergencies at some Asian businesses couldn't be responded to since emergency workers were unable to read the signs along crowded highways populated by international businesses and restaurants. The measure to have all private business signs have readable English as well as the Asian characters was defeated. You might not agree these businesses should be forced to have dual language signs, but there is a public safety factor involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323326)
But my problem is the people who think it's a yard sale sign and stop in the middle of the road to look around, get out a map, and/or argue about what it says.

Confusing street signs for yard sale signs? Stopping in the middle of the road to argue? This sounds more like bad driving habits than anything language-related.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323326)
Two language signs have to be twice as big or reduce the lettering by half.

City/county/state/federal signs all have regulations on lettering size for visibility reasons, so this simply isn't an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323326)
That makes it more confusing, so they slow down more and make mistakes that can turn deadly when they realize it and try to recover with an outrageous maneuver.

...so, you want to clear up confusion about what signs mean by making them unreadable by a significant percentage of the population? :confused: In many other countries, the signs are in two languages and I've not heard of any traffic issues related to that aspect. Important signs are usually simple, internationally understood symbols. Everything else, not a big deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323326)
There is no reason for a kid born in this country not to read, write and speak English. Go ahead, ask about the ones that aren't, go ahead.

We're talking about Spanish speakers, right? ;)

But, alright, I will ask about them. What of the children that grow up surrounded by families that don't speak English? What of the children that grow up in a community that doesn't speak English and interact with businesses that speak only Spanish? Have you ever sat in on an ESOL class and spoken with the kids that come out of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323326)
No comprendi.

"No comprendo." :)

I understand the need for clear communication between people, but it can't be forced, especially in many communities across the country. Passing a law that makes English the standard language and removes Spanish from documents and signs is simply going to put people in the dark. You might think isolating groups of people like that would force them to learn English, but the effect is exactly the opposite.

xoxoxoBruce 03-15-2007 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune (Post 323352)
The signs are government required and in some cases are produced by the government. "Wash your hands. Lavarse las manos." You'll see this one in any workplace that deals with food. Minimum wage and disability signs are all dual language. It is common sense to provide your taxpayers with information they can understand.

Yeah, I noticed all the janitorial supplies are almost entirely in Spanish. If I checked them closely, I'm sure there would be a small panel in English. Six years ago it was exactly the opposite.
Quote:

The forcing of private businesses to have signs in a specific language can get tricky. In Gwinnett County, GA, the issue came up some years ago because emergencies at some Asian businesses couldn't be responded to since emergency workers were unable to read the signs along crowded highways populated by international businesses and restaurants. The measure to have all private business signs have readable English as well as the Asian characters was defeated. You might not agree these businesses should be forced to have dual language signs, but there is a public safety factor involved.
Do they make them clearly number them? Most businesses I drive by, around here, I couldn't find the number without stopping. Must be hell for EMTs.


Quote:

Confusing street signs for yard sale signs? Stopping in the middle of the road to argue? This sounds more like bad driving habits than anything language-related.
Around here and in New England, I've seen it too. Driving down the street the car in front of you stops dead because they've seen a yard/garage sale. Usually the passenger will then get out and bee-line for the sale then the driver looks for a place to park. Thats what I was referring to with the yard sale sign. My bad, I though that was universal.:haha:
But my point was when people get confused by signs the natural reaction is to slow down and sometimes full stop...right in the damn road. I've even seen a woman on the Cross-Bronx Expressway (I-95 near the George Washington Bridge) stop and when the horns started, she rolled her window down and waved me around her, while she looked at the map. Unusual? Yes, but an example how dangerous confused people can be.
Quote:

City/county/state/federal signs all have regulations on lettering size for visibility reasons, so this simply isn't an issue.
Of course it's an issue. If they say x by y maximum, you have to squeeze twice the information on it. If they state the minimum lettering then the sign has to be twice as big, as do the supports. Bigger signs, less visibility if you have many in the same area. Some urban intersections can have dozens of official signs competing for your attention.

Quote:

...so, you want to clear up confusion about what signs mean by making them unreadable by a significant percentage of the population? :confused:
No, I want to clear up the confusion by not issuing licenses to people that can't read the goddamn signs or rules.

Quote:

In many other countries, the signs are in two languages and I've not heard of any traffic issues related to that aspect. Important signs are usually simple, internationally understood symbols. Everything else, not a big deal.
like in Paris where the cars are burning? Or Canada? Mexico has all the signs in English,too....right?

Quote:

We're talking about Spanish speakers, right? ;)
Only because they are the one making the demands. Every other ethnicity that came here learned English, because they wanted to be Americans.
Quote:

But, alright, I will ask about them. What of the children that grow up surrounded by families that don't speak English? What of the children that grow up in a community that doesn't speak English and interact with businesses that speak only Spanish? Have you ever sat in on an ESOL class and spoken with the kids that come out of it?
If they were born and raised here and go to public schools here, English should not be a second language. That's what I was referring to in my last answer, they wanted to be Americans.

I refuse to believe they are coming into this country legally, at a rate they can't assimilate, but they don't want to. They want to recreate back home, right here. They don't want to be Americans. Why should they be catered to? No other group ever was, were they?

Of course it's not only a familiar surroundings, it makes it easier to hide illegals, Even employ them in the underground economy. I don't remember hearing about any other group coming here and taking down the flag at the post office to put up there own, either.

Quote:


"No comprendo." :)

I understand the need for clear communication between people, but it can't be forced, especially in many communities across the country. Passing a law that makes English the standard language and removes Spanish from documents and signs is simply going to put people in the dark. You might think isolating groups of people like that would force them to learn English, but the effect is exactly the opposite.
What, they'll gather in enclaves, hoods, and only speak their own language? Do business, and interact with each other in Spanish? Create their own underground economy, hide and employ illegals? Run their flag up at the Post Office permanantly? :smack:
btw, I said nothing about passing a law making English the official language.

richlevy 03-15-2007 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 322889)
Instead of just putting them on a bus home, they are jailed. Prints, mugshots, indentity positively established, then sent home, which takes from a day to two weeks waiting in jail.

So how much does that cost us per person, $500?

xoxoxoBruce 03-15-2007 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 323395)
So how much does that cost us per person, $500?

Does it matter if they are catching fugitives from justice and cutting the influx of illegals? :question:
Especially considering the other expensive schemes that didn't work.

rkzenrage 03-15-2007 06:54 PM

Yes it matters and is what we should be doing, enforcing the law.

Toymented 03-15-2007 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 323319)
The UN should really work on creating a new language, and no, not Esperanto or whatever that was called. We need something simple that everyone can learn easily.

'
Genesis 11:6 comes to mind.

Would there be a benefit? Even with all speaking the same technical language, do we really understand or care to understand one another?

rigcranop 03-15-2007 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 323188)
What I got out of it is that we should not force someone to learn English but we should also not go out of our way to accommodate them if they choose not too.

That is my view too so maybe I misread it to satisfy my bias.

I agree with you but he was unclear.

rigcranop 03-15-2007 08:14 PM

Quote:

I'd say two: English and Spanish. They're the most prevalent languages in our country right now.
Is spanish a most prevalent language because of legal or illegal immigration? I don't know but it would be interesting to see some figures.

rigcranop 03-15-2007 08:37 PM

My point about about english in industry jobs was about safety issues and being able to communicate with other workers who do not speak english. In an emergency situation, they cannot be warned of a toxic spill, chemical fume release or some other situation that requires them to leave the area quickly. In the event of one of those situations, I won't hang around to get the idea across. I have no inclination to be a hero. And if serious injuries or deaths occur to the "refusers" that can impact MY employment.

piercehawkeye45 03-15-2007 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxobruce
No, I want to clear up the confusion by not issuing licenses to people that can't read the goddamn signs or rules.

I agree with this. Whether or not you can read or speak English doesn't bother me usually but once you get into a car you are putting everyone else in danger if you cannot read the signs. This doesn't mean to have to be fluent, just that you can read the signs (for example, having dead end on a stop sign and knowing that it says dead end).

Quote:

Originally Posted by toymented
Would there be a benefit? Even with all speaking the same technical language, do we really understand or care to understand one another?

Yes, it would save over a million dollars (or billion, I forget which one) a year for the UN and it will make discussions a lot easier to understand and we won't misinterpret each other. It will make things go a lot smoother even if we choose not to look from their viewpoints.

The language would also be good for civilians too. I won't have to worry about learning a native language if I travel when I can just speak an international language. We are already connected as a planet, we should have an international language as well.

Toymented 03-15-2007 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 323459)
Yes, it would save over a million dollars (or billion, I forget which one) a year for the UN and it will make discussions a lot easier to understand and we won't misinterpret each other. It will make things go a lot smoother even if we choose not to look from their viewpoints.

The language would also be good for civilians too. I won't have to worry about learning a native language if I travel when I can just speak an international language. We are already connected as a planet, we should have an international language as well.

I'm certain God would not allow it. Genesis 11:7-9.

Ibby 03-15-2007 09:17 PM

...So would he hurl thunderbolts or send floods to stop us?

piercehawkeye45 03-15-2007 09:17 PM

Sorry I forgot, God wants war and disagreements.

Toymented 03-15-2007 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 323472)
Sorry I forgot, God wants war and disagreements.

Can you think of any earthly interests that would like that, as well?

piercehawkeye45 03-15-2007 11:17 PM

Neocons?

rkzenrage 03-15-2007 11:49 PM

A Nazi in conservatives clothing.

richlevy 03-17-2007 11:35 AM

I don't think requiring people who want to rent to register with the government is a 'conservative' idea.

Quote:

Prior to the injunction, municipal workers set up an office on the third floor of City Hall from which they planned to issue occupancy permits required under the landlord tenant act.
To obtain a permit, renters were to pay $10 and submit identification such as a U.S. Passport or birth certificate to prove that they are United States citizens. Non-citizens were to show resident cards proving that they are in the country legally.
Quote:

If residents move to a new rental dwelling, they are to obtain a new permit.
A city is certainly within it's rights from a public safety perspective to have property owners register their properties as rentals, so that fire safety inspection, etc, can be performed. But forcing renters to register possibly violates the commerce clause, depending on how loosely you want to define it, as well as interfering with individuals attempts to procure a basic need such as housing. It's almost like requiring a permit to buy food or medicine.

xoxoxoBruce 03-17-2007 03:47 PM

What commerce clause, Rich? :question:

richlevy 03-17-2007 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 323922)
What commerce clause, Rich? :question:

Commerce clause of the Constitution. Forcing people to register with the government in order to rent housing would interfere in the 'channel of commerce'.

Other challenges would be the 14th, the 4th, and the 9th.

The city is forcing individuals to register and pay a fee in order to prove their citizenship in order to rent housing. If it doesn't request the same of individuals buying property, it fails the equal protection test. Since individuals are being forced to prove their citizenship, in effect proving their innocence, it fails a due process test and possibly constitutes an unreasonable search.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm just guessing on what grounds it will be challenged.

Read the use of 'penumbras' in Griswold vs. Conn.

xoxoxoBruce 03-18-2007 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richlevy (Post 323962)
Commerce clause of the Constitution.

OH, interstate commerce. ;)

TheMercenary 03-22-2007 04:19 AM

Send them all home or lock them up in camps until they apply for a guest worker program (which we don't have yet). It is not fair to all the other legal immigrants who went through the process, which often takes years, and did it the right way. We are paying out the ass for these people while they send home the majority of what they earn. This problem needs to be fixed asap.

piercehawkeye45 03-22-2007 12:51 PM

That would solve anything but just cause more problems. They will know that we going to come after them and then resort to an exile status life of crime. If we do not accept them they will turn against us instead of working with us.

Of course it isn't fair for the legal immigrants but life isn't fair and this is one of the problems that you have to make moral sacrifice for the greater good.

elSicomoro 03-22-2007 01:14 PM

Citizens/government 2, Valley Park 0

Griff 03-22-2007 03:36 PM

I still don't get so-called small government conservatives burdening landlords like this.

elSicomoro 03-22-2007 03:43 PM

Actually, the mayor is a Democrat, and I would suspect that most of the aldermen are as well. There are a lot of Dems in St. Louis that hate Republicans and their general agenda, but don't like minorities. I don't know what you'd call them, other than "fucked up." :)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.