NO ENGLISH REQUIRED HERE ...

Just a quick update for our L.A.W. readers. In case you weren't aware, our esteemed politicians recently voted on whether to make English the official language of The United States of America.

Here is a list of those Senators who voted AGAINST making English the official language:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)   (yup...he's one of our guys!)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI) (yup...she's one of our gals!)
Wyden (D-OR)

The one thing that makes us a cohesive nation - our common language of English - tossed out the window with a wave of the hand. By jove - we can't have a single thing that makes us solidified - not even our shared language!!! The lengths our politicians will go to keep us divided and not united is unbelievable.

I'll leave you with this little ditty....

Hi Ho,  Hi Ho, it's off to work they go...
Not for me and not for you...
They make us broke and spend our dough...
Hi Ho, Hi Ho...

Comments

[Ryan]

Not one of the better efforts from the Local Area Watch.

What next, a posting telling me Microsoft will really, truly, pay me if I participate in a new email program?

To say this copy-and-paste of an email leaves a lot unsaid would be an understatement.

Bridget, what do the illegal aliens have to do in order to receive Social Security benefits? I'll give a hint that "nothing" isn't the answer.

Also, could you tell me what bill numbers you are referencing, thanks.

-Ryan

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Ryan.

Bridget will post those those Senate bills numbers for you after she tracks them down.

Regards, Bill

[Ryan]

My guess is the one is Senate Bill 2611, which had 227 proposed Amendments.

The original bill had this language in Section 767:

Section 767 -
States that English is the national language of the United States.
Requires the government to preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States.
Provides that: (1) unless otherwise provided for, no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the government act, communicate, perform, or provide services or materials in any language other than English; and (2) the English language version of any federal form is the sole authority for all legal purposes.

With 227 Amendments you can just imagine how many votes were taken on various ideas. There were two Amendments dealing with English as the national language question.

Levin voted for 2611 and Stabenow against. I'm too lazy to figure out where they stood on all 227 Amendments...and what objections they might have had to one or the other.

The other part of the post dealing with Social Security is now gone with no explanation.

Really, I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak.

It's just this posting is from a mass-email making the rounds, and doesn't strike me as being up to previous LAW stadards; which I deem to be original reporting not being done by others.

The email/post is taking a lot out-of-context (and certainly left a lot to be desired as it related to the Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants).

Best,
Ryan

[Dan]

I used to enjoy reading your stuff but this is crazy. What would you do with the islands that are apart of the united states; virgin islands, puerto rico or even guam. Most all of us have come here from other countries and worked our way into americana. http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/englishvote.asp

[Brandon]

Like Ryan, I don’t have a proverbial dog in this fight. In fact, the whole debate is an utter waste of time, in that regardless of how anyone feels about the issue, ‘English Only’ has about as much chance of becoming reality as a Berlin Wall-style fence across the entire US-Mexico border – i.e., none. Not that I don’t have opinions on the matter – some of them even partially informed. I just find the idea of debating it has little practical use.

However, also like Ryan, what motivates me to post a comment is the disingenuous portrayal of a congressional bill as if it were some simple, up-and-down, town hall vote on a single issue. I’m hardly of a mind to defend the average Washington politician, Republican or Democrat, but the cynical use of voting records like the one posted above is illustrative of what’s wrong with political discourse today.

Take John Kerry, for example (a candidate I neither liked nor supported). He was beat over the head time and again for making the alleged flip-floppy statement about voting for an $87-billion supplemental appropriation [for support of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan] “before voting against it.” Okay, granted, on its face it sounds rather oxymoronic. Heck, it even sounds downright stupid. But for anyone who bothered to spend 30 seconds researching the issue, it would have been clear that his statement made perfect sense.

There were two versions of the bill. The one that Kerry voted for – and the one George Bush threatened to veto – contained the exact same $87 billion; the only difference being that Kerry’s version would have stipulated that we actually pay for the appropriation (a novel and fiscally conservative idea if there ever was one), whereas Bush’s version put the tab on the national credit card for our children and grandchildren to worry about. In the end, Kerry did indeed vote no on the final version, but he did so only to make a political statement about the bill’s fiscal irresponsibility, and only because he knew it would pass with an overwhelming majority. In other words, the troops were going to get the $87 billion no matter what. No one with an ounce of integrity can or should try to suggest that Kerry was ever going to risk not giving our troops everything they needed, but that’s the way it was (successfully) portrayed.

I haven’t given the ‘English Only’ issue enough thought to figure out if it’s good or bad (or a little of both), but the perpetuation of “voting records” like the one cited above is a poor substitute for thinking critically about the issue.

[ryan]

Just to take this farther afield.

Brandon where was Kerry getting the $87 billion from? Could you detail the $87 billion in cuts and/or new revenue he proposed to pay for this?

Those same children and grandchildren you reference will also inherit the largest economy in the world...and, at the current rate debt as a percentage of GDP isn't that bad.

But, really, I'd like to hear where Kerry was getting this $87 billion from.

Thanks,
Ryan

[The Editor - Bridget]

Hello Ryan, Dan & Brandon...

First...let me clarify a few things.

1.) About the Illegal Alien Social Security benefits section. We choose to remove that because none of the congress people from MI voted on that bill and thus, the final result was not directly relevant to our reporting on local, county and state issues which is where our main focus is. So, we removed it.

2.) The information sent to us about the English language bill was done through two historically accurate and reliable sources. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 was where this amendment was originally considered and voted upon. Amendment 4046 was specific for giving consideration to English being the offical language of the United States and for patriotic integration. Amendment 4073 followed thereafter saying it was common and unifying language and to perserve English in this country. As Dan notes, you can go to Snopes.com (menu tabs - politics - immigration- language vote) they have clarified the earlier issue as some of the data and research provided over the past few months is partly off. Some confusion ensued due to two of the amendments seeming to over-lap and/or contradict one another in places and the over-all different number of for or against each of the amendments within the complete bill.

Access Senate.gov for the exact content of the original bill and each amendment along with the voting record to see how Levin and Stabenow representing The State of Michigan voted on this legislation.

3.) As much as we pride ourselves on personal research and data, there are times when we rely on outside leads, sources and information to post our articles. We are not a large enough organization to do everything ourselves. Thus, well known, reliable and accurate outside sources can and must be used. We have been an operating site for over five years now. As noted in posts now and then over the years, if we don't get something 100% right, we are more than happy to correct the record.

Feel free to keep an eye on our Congress and their voting record by going to sites such as - Congress.org, Senate.gov, House.gov, Washington Post.com, etc. Many of these sites will even email you results on a regular basis if you sign up.

Continue to keep abreast of issues - it matters to all of us.

Finally, Dan in response to your question, "What would you do with the islands that are apart of the united states; virgin islands, puerto rico or even guam. Most all of us have come here from other countries and worked our way into americana?"

You are correct, almost all Americans and their ancestors came from somewhere else at one time. You can pretty much say that for anyone around the world if you think about it. Most people came from somewhere else at some point in time due to land disputes, political and religious wars, disease, famine, etc. causing groups to relocate. As for America in particular, we are a warm nation. Diverse groups of people coming to America from all parts of the globe is not only A-OK but, are a welcome part of this nation's fabric. Legit objections come from people on a few important points:

1) Come to this country through legal means
2) Come to this country and abide by it laws, rules and regulations
3) Learn this nations history and development in order to respect it's customs
4) Learn the language of English that has dominated this nation from it's birth
5) Bring your history of differnt languages, foods, cultures, traditions and beliefs but, assimilate in time if you truely want to be an American in America.

I had an American-Polish grandfather, a WWII Navy Vet who passed away 1 1/2 years ago at 85 years old. He was a proud American Catholic who saw the world through clear eyes. He was the son of immigrant Polish parents who did not speak a word of English, they were truely poor - penny pinching poor during the depression, he and his brothers dropped out of school early to take odd jobs to help the family heat their home and put food on the table but, his parents made it clear - ALL the sons (4 of them) would speak English fluently, they would learn history whether at home or in school and they would work hard so, they could give back to this land all that it would give them in time. They paid additional dues in the war and in later years as they tried to give their family better opportunities than their forefathers did.

My grandfather was very much for immigrants but, he saw great changes in the attitudes and ways of newer immigrants over those from decades before. I paraphrase him here...."America is truely home of the brave and land of the free. Not everyone is brave and not everyone is free but, the greatness of this nation is that we are able to strive for both. Many nations allow you neither of those things. He believed anyone coming here needs to respect that they are a guest in this great land first. Anyone coming to this country for a visit or to live long term owes it to the people who came before them to respect this country. People can and should come to America with different race, religions, ethnic traditions, beliefs and languages. It helps make this country diverse and unique. But, to reject American traditions and American culture is to turn away from what this country is all about and why it is so wonderful and great. Previous immigrants came here for opportunity and a better life. They cherished their heritage of other lands but, knew it was equally important to learn English, get an education and learn about this nation and work hard at your job. They didn't come here just to use up the services (education, medical, government, etc.) and give little in return to their adopted nation of long standing consequence - they understood this land provided opportunity and a leg up in life but, in return, respect needed to be returned for that opportunity."

I imagine many of the readers have similar experiences with their older relatives as well.

So, yes...you are correct immigrants have a place here. A wonderful place here. No reason they can't bring their history which shaped and defined them but, also honor the new nation they are coming to and embrace and assimilate in their new land versus standing apart from it. That includes speaking the language of the home country.

As to your thoughts on language Ryan...I personally find the issue of the English language important. It has only been the last 4-5 years that signs in stores, restaurants, malls, phone messages at businesses and written documents are going bi-lingual. To be honest, I don't care for it. Reason - historically this country has been dominated by the English language in terms of customs, laws, government rule and language. When I go abroad to other nations - I don't expect them to speak English. I make a point of learning their language (French, Italian, etc.) and to observe their customs. I do this so, I can enjoy their culture and to show them respect. I consider myself a guest in their home and show it. I don't assume since I am the visitor that they should change their ways for me. In turn, I would like to see the same respect to this country when people come here whether to visit or to stay. It's that simple.

I think alot of us watching the world from a distance see serious issues occurring in Europe, Asia, Canada, Nordic countries and other places where immigrants are not assimilating (language, culture, work ethic etc.) and a breakdown in society is beginning to show. We may be next so, hopefully the socially aware will see this issue as more important than just a simple dialect issue.

Thanks for all your important feedback and thoughts. They definately spur converstaion!

[Ryan]

Bridget,

I appreciate the response.

With respect to point #1, if you're going to stand behind the original report of yours (only removing it because it didn't fit with the focus of the blog) then I would re-submit my question: what do the illegals have to do in order to collect the benefits?

The story of your heritage is touching, but under Inhofe's amendment (the one you castigate people for voting against) your great-grandparents wouldn't have been allowed into the country.

Or, were they here they would have been here illegally.

And nothing in any of the Bill/Amendments would have made it illegal for businesses to provide bilingual services. Which you cite as an issue you don't like.

And to claim they threw the English language out the window is a bit much. Throughout the entire debate the vast majority - if not all - expressed support, and voted, for English as the common language.

In haste it seems you copy and pasted an email that simplified a complicated subject; I trust on further study you will find this to be the case.

Ryan

[Brandon]

Ryan,

Under the version of the amendment that Kerry [initially] voted for, the $87 billion was to come from a partial repeal of some of the [phased-in] Bush tax cuts.

My point in bringing it up was not to stake a position on the relative merits of such financing, but merely to illustrate the fact that congressional bills and their various amendments are often intertwined with so many other variables that it's silly and disingenuous to take a myopic snapshot of something like an 'English Only' amendment and use it to portray a third of the senate as somehow intent on dividing the country.

Unless I misread your earlier post, I believe we generally agree on that point.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Ryan.

Actually immigration to the U.S. has been severely and arbitrarily restricted in the past. The current immigration regime is one of the loosest in our history, especially in regard to the general absence of policies encouraging assimilation.

The "English only" amendment was one such step towards a renewed practice of assimilation. You're right that the amendment addressed only the government and not business. That's as it should be. The language people want to use in their private affairs is up to them, not the Congress. However, for example, it is not unreasonable to expect an immigrant turned citizen to know enough his chosen country's language to read a ballot printed in English. The government should not have to provide him one in his native language. To the extent that the "English only" amendment would have effected such policies, it was good law.

Hi, Brandon.

To be clear, the tally Bridget posted was for the "English only" amendment.

You're right that the House and the Senate routinely engage in the disreputable practice of tacking on non-germane or controversial amendments to large bills to sneak them through the back door.

As for the intent of congressmen to divide the country, well, they do. There's nothing wrong with that in most cases. There are two sides to most issues. Let the partisans fight it out, but let us hope that they do so on the substance of the policy being debated rather than the battle of personalities that, unfortunately, these things seem to degenerate into lately.

Regards, Bill

[Ryan]

Bill,

You're missing the point. I think being "for" the Bill or "against" the Bill could be considered "reasonable" as you state.

I just didn't care for how you characterized the debate; especially the now-pulled Social Security part of it.

Also, the underlying Bill said, "...no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the government act, communicate, perform, or provide services or materials in any language other than English."

Here's what the Amendment states:
"...no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English."

The problem (near as I can tell) some Senators had with the Amendment was this part:
(c) GOALS FOR CITIZENSHIP TEST REDESIGN.--The Department of Homeland Security shall establish as goals of the testing process designed to comply with provisions of [8 U.S.C. 1423 (a)] that prospective citizens:

1. demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the English language for usage in everyday life;

--------------------

Now, I don't have a dog in the fight on whether this is a good or bad idea. But, oppostion to it hardly seems akin to throwing the English language out the window. Maybe those in opposition think it's a good thing when folks like Bridget's great-grandfather come to America.

You've let me have my say - which I thank you.

Brandon,

You're right, we're on the same page. I have quibbles with whether one has to forfeit their integrity to believe Kerry was 'playing politics' with the $87 billion vote; but, it was probably better left unsaid since it wasn't vital to the discussion.

-Ryan

[Brandon]

Ryan,

Just a minor clarification:

I concede without reservation that Kerry was absolutely playing politics with his vote -- no question about it. I just think it's beneath contempt for those who take it several steps further and suggest (or state outright) that his intent was to somehow leave the troops twisting in the wind.

[The Editor - Bridget]

Hi Ryan…

You have noted more than once that you have no dog fight in this issue of English being the official language of the U.S. But…I’ve noticed for someone saying they don’t have a stake in this, you have had plenty to add to the conversation. I’m teasing you in case it doesn’t come across as clearly as it should… :-) On the positive side, I’d say you care enough to have put some thought into this and that’s a good beginning.

I spent little time on the first posting as I was just putting a snippet of information out there to see if anyone cared or had noticed the status of this bill and all it’s amendments. Sometimes we post very detailed first articles, sometimes we write minimal postings. It varies. When a reader wants to go into more detail well, that’s what comment boards and our private email at info@localareawatch.org is for.

On Senate Bill #2611 (passed 62 to 36 w/2 not voting) with all it’s wonderful 227 amendments, dealing with Immigration Reform in the U.S., I was concerned first and foremost with how our Michigan Senators voted on the two critical amendments #4064 (I accidentally noted this as 4046 last time – sorry about that) and #4073.

Amendment #4064 statement of purpose “To amend title 4 United States Code, to declare English as the national language of the United States and to promote the patriotic integration of prospective US citizens”. Levin’s vote – Nay, Stabenow’s vote – Nay
Final over-all vote 62 -35 -3

Amendment # 4073 statement of purpose “To declare that English is the common and unifying language of the United States, and to preserve and enhance the role of the English language.” Levin’s vote – Yea, Stabenow’s vote – Yea
Final over-all vote 58-39-3

I felt like their votes cancelled one another out. They agreed that English is custom to our country and unifying but…they refused to take it to the next level and make it the official legal and binding language of our nation. That means in the end they voted that we can speak any language we want while here for business and pleasure and for governmental activities. English is given consideration but, barely. As if it has some minor rather than major role in the lives of everyday Americans. For me, the one vote for and other vote against was a cop out. In turn, additional amendments found later in this bill basically diluted some of the strength of earlier amendments and thus…the whole thing was watered down and/or fairly limited at the end.

Is this unusual activity for a Senate bill – no.

Is it typical – yes.

Was I disappointed – mildly so.

Did I hope for better from our state Senators – definitely.

Did I get it – no.

I could have gone on and on about this Immigration Reform Act as there were many critical items in the bill and it’s amendments ranging from restricting local police on arresting suspected terrorists, causing the government to foot larger immigrant medical bills, possibly hurting small businesses, creating temporary worker programs that are not truly temporary, insufficient border security and possibly causing millions of more immigrants to cross the border. This was an important bill with many good amendments but, like the English language request…many amendments that started out sound were gutted and or altered altogether later in the bill. It was a frustrating example of how ineffective our government can be at important times.

Senator Salazars later amendment weakened the original bill and some earlier amendments. It appears immigrants at this point can require the US government to converse with them in the language of their choosing instead of that of the host nation – The U.S. and the language of English. You and I have chosen to view the final result differently.

I may not be pleased that at some businesses I have trouble reading, writing or understanding their foreign language but, I know it’s their right (I wish I didn’t feel this way but, I do. I’m just being honest. I don’t like feeling like I’ve traveled to a foreign country in my own backyard sometimes). I had no legal issue with people speaking any language of their choosing at home or at their place of business – it’s up to them. But…once you hit governmental places of activity (secretary of state for license & voting, public schools, public medical establishments, etc.)…I feel English should be instituted as a common and unifying language for purposes of communicating and also for integration reasons. I think English should rightly dominate and be supported by law.

I believe it’s in the best interests of all immigrants to learn the customs and language of the land they are choosing to call home. When they don’t understand the history, the culture, the language – then barriers arise and a new level of class warfare can begin. Those who are assimilated versus those who chose to stand apart and not assimilate. We shouldn’t want that for our newest citizens and neither should they.

By asking everyone to follow the same laws, it shows respect for all those who went through the proper guidelines to come to this country. Their time filling out forms in their home country, filling out forms in the U.S., the endless waiting that often takes years and then finalizing immigration guidelines and rules once approved is no small task. Allowing millions to by-pass this necessary component is harmful and hurtful to those who did it the right way. We tell our kids not to take cuts, we tell our kids to play fair, we teach out kids not to break the law...shouldn't the adults follow these rules too?

Since you asked me to address another issue again….The Social Security benefits section in the amendments section was noted briefly on our web site but, then removed since the two Senators from Michigan did not take part in this vote. Without local ties, the vote had reduced meaning to us. We try not to post general comments that are arbitrary and don’t have some local, county, or state wide implication to us. Yes, the federal government is critical and we focus there when our House or Senate members have completed an activity we should be watching and viewing. In the SS section – they did not vote so, my tangent was not well directed and needed to be omitted.

I will answer the question you asked me – what do illegals have to do in order to collect benefits?

Answer – I don’t believe they should be collecting benefits at all. Why? They are illegal. Those who break the law should not qualify for perks that come within the law. My initial instinct is to deport everyone here illegally. Many say we can't but, they found a way in, we can help them find a way out.

Next question - what should they do then?

Answer for those here legally…

1.) Stay legal
2.) Adhere to our laws and regulations
3.) Qualify accurately and honestly for what they are eligible for legally
4.) Learn the history of the U.S. and become proficient in English
5.) Assimilate over time to this country (if you are in America, you should
want to become an American)

Answer for those who are here illegally...

1.) Don't be illegal (oops - too late for that one)
2.) Pay any back taxes owed to the government
3.) Pay any alloted fines for breaking the law (maybe substantial)
4.) Register with the government and get legal ID w/legal documents to support
all claims
5.) Do all items noted 1-5 in the legal section
6.) All the above must be done within a short amount or they are deported
7.) Those choosing not to do the above or found to be a criminal/terrorist
etc. can be deported at the home country's cost and/or sent to prison

Other items would have to be done prior to the above as well - locking down the borders (new fences/security guards and systems), instituting new ID programs to combat all the fraudulent ID/SS and other docs done to date, getting with businesses to institute new hiring practices, create new programs for deporting those not meeting the necessary law requirements, re-evaluating current immigration volume and consider increases where appropriate and so on. Are these great options? No, because we all pay the price for letting this go on for so long and getting so bad.

You may not feel my grandfather’s history of legal immigration from Poland to the U.S. has any real modern relevance but, his journey and that of millions of others legal immigrants of their time is what helped to solidify, stabilize and allow this nation to grow to the 300 million it has. We would never have gotten to the nation as we know it today if each immigrant group spoke only their original language, continued their traditional customs and stayed within their own lives and did not venture forth and slowly assimilate to the new world. Previous immigrants learned that they had the best of both worlds – one from the old country and another from their newly adopted nation. Fortunately for my grandfather, his family and others like him, they did come here under the legal laws of the day. Likewise, today’s immigrants should follow the laws of their time. In the end I really don't think we are required any longer to allow just anyone into this country. We have the right to turn people away and we shouldn't feel bad when we have to. Those who are here first have rights as well. The rights of keeping our freedom, our happiness and our safety among other things.

I recommend you consider reading the three books I reviewed so far – Steyns, Blankleys and Gabriels. They all touch on the issue over-seas of mass immigration, lack of assimilation, debilitating social welfare programs, lack of demography, political and religious radicalism and other issues that are creating increasing global crisis’. Much of the rest of the world has seen the effects of these issues - America has only seen a hint of what could happen one day if things spiral out of control.

These three books and others show that issues that start out quietly like mass illegal immigration and lack of assimilation (refusing to speak the native language), if left unchecked, can break down historically strong countries and peoples in a short amount of time. Little issues can become very big problems before you know it.

I guess it will be up to each of us to decide where we stand on this issue when the time comes.

Sorry this is so long but, I did want to try and answer most of your earlier posted questions.

Thanks.

[Ryan]

Bridget,

Thanks, again, for the reply. You said, "But…once you hit governmental places of activity (secretary of state for license & voting, public schools, public medical establishments, etc.)…"

The Amendement you support didn't do anything more than the underlying bill in this regard. So, this is a non-issue (see my previous post).

Folks had problems with Inhofe's Amendment primarily because, for the first time, it required people to learn English - among other things - prior to asking for citizenship.

Virtually every point you and Bill have brought up - regardless their merits - either wasn't addressed in the Bill or the Amendment you support (e.g. neither applies to business), was equally covered in the Bill and the Amendment (both said no one can expect to be given gov't docs in English, and only English language ones were binding), or is unlikely to be solved by either.

I'd say your arguments were, probably inadvertently, Straw Men; but there are so many that Straw Army would be more accurate...

You said (also, sorry, I'd bold or italicize, but not sure how or if possible):
"Allowing millions to by-pass this necessary component is harmful and hurtful to those who did it the right way. We tell our kids not to take cuts, we tell our kids to play fair, we teach out kids not to break the law...shouldn't the adults follow these rules too?"

You and I are solely discussing the route taken by those choosing to go the legal route. Again, the Amendment has no superior quality over the underlying bill to deal with Illegals. Illegals are unlikely to learn English prior to coming here - whether that Amendement passed or not.

"The Social Security benefits section in the amendments section was noted briefly on our web site but, then removed since the two Senators from Michigan did not take part in this vote."

They did partake in the vote. Bouchard used it in his campaign against Stabenow.

"Answer – I don’t believe they should be collecting benefits at all. Why? They are illegal."

This is where it would be helpful to have a Bill/Amendment number. I believe, from the voting record you posted, that the Bill had provisions to get illegals (who've been paying Social Security) to become legal.

This involved paying a few thousand dollars, waiting several years, among many other provisions (and why I asked you what they had to do in order to collect their Social Security). The 'big' issue here hinged on whether they should get credit for previous amounts paid into the system, i.e. prior to becoming legal. As it stands now, illegals are paying for current recipients SS benefits.

Which, okay, their illegals so too bad for them. This Bill envisioned a way to mainstream them - at a cost to them.

They weren't just voting to give illegals SS benefits (here Jose, have Grandma Smith's SS benefits); in fact, to get the benefit you'd have to become legal.

"Answer for those who are here illegally..."

Well, a lot of the things you request are in the Bill you first mocked.

"You may not feel my grandfather’s history of legal immigration from Poland to the U.S. has any real modern relevance but, his journey and that of millions of others legal immigrants of their time is what helped to solidify, stabilize and allow this nation to grow to the 300 million it has."

I do fell your grandfather's story has relevance; it just seemed ironic that the very Amendment you so support (which does nothing for the problems you illuminate) would have kept, at least, your great-grandfather out of the country. Which might have kept your grandfather out too. Who knows...and maybe that's a good thing. But, like Bill said earlier on another matter, it doesn't seem "unreasonable" to think otherwise.

"We would never have gotten to the nation as we know it today if each immigrant group spoke only their original language, continued their traditional customs and stayed within their own lives and did not venture forth and slowly assimilate to the new world."

You may be correct; but it seems from studies I've read about (albeit seconhand) claim that the U.S. economy benefits from immigration (both legal and illegal).

Seems to me, immigrants often looked down upon on the immigrants that followed; especially if they were from a different country/region (they often competed for the same jobs). So, there's nothing startingly, or new, in your grandfather's view that the later generations didn't seem to rate.

Can you point me to studies that back up your claim that today's immigrants A) don't assimilate like those of past generations and B) their costs outweigh their benefits?

That would be helpful.

"These three books and others show that issues that start out quietly like mass illegal immigration and lack of assimilation (refusing to speak the native language), if left unchecked, can break down historically strong countries and peoples in a short amount of time."

Again, that's a great, valid point. It also, as it so happens, has nothing to do with the Amendment we're discussing.

I may be inferring this, but you seem to think this amendment was the square root of the universe.

-Ryan

[The Editor - Bridget]

Hi Ryan...

An important issue of clarification.

My argument for the most part was my disappointment over English not being recognized legally at the end.

The issues dealing with English language being common, unifying and legal, any feedback I provided on this was tied directly with Senate Bill 2611 and both amendments in question - 4064 and 4073. I was discussing both content in the bill and my thoughts on the resulting voting action. By referencing the bill specially, I was tying both my opinion and the language of the bill into the discussion and I hope I was clear there.

There is a very good reason many of the legal/illegal immigration issues I discussed were not in the bill as you so, wisely pointed out...it's becasue I was not referencing the other 225 amendments in my answer to you. You asked me a question and I answered it. I misunderstood you and answered your question personally - not based upon what the bill did or did not contain. I am well aware - as are you - that the bill had 225 other amendments of all varying shades and forms dealing with immigration (work, visas, health care, language and citizen requirements, etc. etc. etc.). I never said the bill was all encompassing, nor did I say the bill was great, nor did I relate back and forth to it. For good reason -I was answering you one on one. If you thought my answers tied directly into the document I can see why nearly everything I noted you had to challenge and debunk.

If/when I am tying my ideas to a direct article, book or report - I always try to reference or note it for readers to consider. In the section on the illegals - I was speaking on a personal level so, no refernces back to the bill were given. Thus, it was a conversation about immigration from one person to another. I gave my thoughts and expected to hear yours.

I didn't mean to confuse you and imply as you say..."the amendment was the square root of the universe for me". Sorry for any confusion.

In terms of the over-all Immigration Act, parts of the bill had substance and some parts were highly lacking. Based upon feedback from constituents like you and me and millions of others plus high paid lobbyist groups, I imagine they put amendments in the bill of highest priority and argued them in or out. Like all things in government, it is going to take a good amount of time to fix the issue and try to make all parties as comfortable as possible - historic immigrants, new immigrants and natives. There is a sound solution for all - it is just going to take time to get there.

As for my grandfather's view that today's immigrants are not assimilating as well as those from past generations,he may not be so far off from the truth. Large numbers of today's immigrants - both legal and not legal - are electing not to embrace their new nation as they did their old country, they are choosing to stand apart from America and Americans (English language, U.S. history, customs and culture) while eagerly accepting it's education, medical, financial benefits and work options - I'd say some may not like that but, he is not so far off in the reality from what is happening. I'm not sure how unified and solid America can be long term if our newst residents don't like us but, use us?

As I recommended to you earlier, books like Steyn, Gabriel and Blankley and others show what can happen to our nation if we pretend this issue isn't important and reduce it to a phobia about different languages, cultures and peoples. It's much more than that. Americans warmly welcome other people - including my grandfather and me. It's what happens when the system breaks down during this welcome mat party that is the worry.

Do read up some more on this issue and we can talk further.

Thanks!

[Amie]

Above all else, it's shameful that these people are being re-elected over and over again (ie Levin and Stabe-youintheback-now) to represent and vote the way that they want to; not the way that the people of Michigan want them too.

[The Editor - Bridget]

Hi Amie...

It is a shame that many of our lawmakers stay in office not only for a few years but, often 10, 20 and more years. That's way too long for me and I'm guessing you too.

George Washington did the right thing over 200 years ago when he made clear that he would be President and Commander in Chief but, only for one term. He refused to go for more time as he was well aware that to stay in power too long always corrupts - no matter how good your original intentions were. He understood the importance of rallying the troops and winning the war (Revolution) and then coming into office (as our first President) and serving his country with honor and dignity. He made the most of the time at hand. He left as promised once his time was up so, he could make room for new ideas, thoughts and progres via another Commander and President.

Washing did not decide he was the almighty and decide to stay as long as he could. He did his work and bowed out gracefully. The way the good ones do.

Foreign governments and countries (like the King of England) at the time commented on how amazing a man Washington must have been to turn power back over once he held it in his hands. He and others were befuddled and amazed but, also impressed.

I only wish the same could be said for today's elected officials. Unless it's written into law, very few government officials have the decency to commit to short time in office and do the maximum impact, and then return to the public sector again.

I am firm that like the President, who only gets two terms now by law (we had to create a law for this as you know a previous President couldn't seem to let go of the notion that two terms was enough), that those in Congress - both the House and the Senate, should also be held to term limits.

It may not make goverment perfect but, it would help to bring the real world into politics again as elected officials would come from the populace and have to return there in a short amount of time. I am hopeful less hanky panky would go on as less time on one's hands might mean less mischief, slacking and over-spending. I think the cushion of long term service with no ramifications for bad service makes a strong man/woman - weak and a solid democratic system - less effective.

People like Stabenow, Levin, Conners and more have gone over-board. No good can come from someone who has been out of the real world for so long.

So, I say two terms for the President, House and Senate and they are done. Do your work - make it good - and then you are gone.

I guess in the long run it remains up to the people to vote them in and out. They have the ability and they have the choice. Until people pay attention and get fed up with the status quo...these government officials will continue their time and service and enjoy the endless ticking of a clock that doesn't seem to stop for them.

Thanks for the thoughts!