Friday, April 28, 2006

Immigration and the National Anthem

When I got into work this morning, I saw the headline in the Freep about a Spanish version of the National Anthem, which actually got the blood going a bit.

Now, I am as liberal as anyone, but this crap has to stop. Where do we draw the line here? Do we need a Spanish, French, Hindi, and Portugese version of our national anthem? How about Swahili(sp?), Russian, and German too? For goodness sakes, this is America dammit, and our national language is English. Why in the world do we have to have our anthem in another language? To me that is just ludicrous. As my wife pointed out, there is an exception up in Canada with their anthem being in French and English, but they have two official languages, we have one, case closed.

Now on to immigration. Why can't we have the same policies as other countries when it comes to immigration? If I was to move to Canada, I would have to find a job, establish residence, and THEN wait for two years in order to become a citizen. If I was to move to Canada, and found to be there illegally, I wouldn't be given some golden key like Bush wants to do, I would be tossed out of the country. There is the argument that we accept illegals from Mexico because they will do the menial labor Americans won't do. Hogwash, they would do it if they had to, and if the welfare system in this country actually changed. The reality of it is Americans are too damn lazy to work in a field, or do what it takes to make ends meet. Most would rather sit in a welfare line, collect from the government, and make more babies so they can collect more welfare and mooch off the government. If the US actually forced the unemployed to work, or volunteer, we wouldn't have some of the problems we have with immigration. There wouldn't be jobs for these immigrants!! Yowzers, American's would actually be working!!

What I want to see is for this country to do a couple of things. First of all, if one is to move here, learn the language. I have run into so many people who have been here for years, and have no clue how to speak, or read the language. How is one supposed to survive if you don't know how to speak English? (Charity, am I turning into a conservative?) Secondly, tighten the borders. How we do this is simply beyond me, but I am just a guy who sits in front of a microphone by day and writes by night.

Off to New Hampshire for a board meeting tomorrow. Go Sox!!!



TourPro said...

"Liberal as anyone...."

Hmmm, interesting claim. This single issue seems to be uniting various factions of both sides and the respective "leaders" haven't a clue.

A Rasmmussen poll released yesterday indicated that an independent running on a strong immigration platform would outperform candidates of either major party.

English requirement, no amnesty, welfare reform, I'm thinking your actually just as Conservative as the rest of us!

charity said...

"Charity, am I turning into a conservative?"

Short answer: yes.

I was reading the post out loud to my husband (because immigration is one of his hot-button issues) and I said, "I can't believe this guy thinks he's a liberal." And then I read that line and burst out laughing.

Heck, you're more conservative than Bush is!

odum said...

Here ya go dude. You should feel right at home:

Fells said...


I think I am becoming more of a moderate than anything, and not the liberal I once was. There are a couple of issues that make me look conservative, but I am so passionate about help for the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged that makes me lean more towards the left. When you consider my views against the war, I think I am still liberal...

Haik Bedrosian said...

The United States does not have an official language and immigration has not increased in recent years.

What has increased is the right-wing's need for a red-herring issue to distract from their crimes and their f*ck-ups.

Way to fall for it, Fells.

And what was all that venom you spewed about 'making babys to collect welfare'? That architype represents a tiny minority of people on public assistance, which is itself a tiny fraction of public expenditure. It's another distraction.

For a news man, you're sure not keeping your eye on the ball. Maybe you should quit WVAA and apply for a job at 'The Zone.'

Fells said...


I think my head and three braincells got the best of me......Yeah, after further review, that line about welfare was way over the top. Note to self.....Proofread before hitting the "publish" button......

charity said...

"I am so passionate about help for the poor, disabled, and disadvantaged that makes me lean more towards the left."

This misunderstanding makes me so crazy. Conservatives DO care about the poor. Look at the charitable giving in red states versus blue states.

Conservatives just think that private charities and churches should do the work because it is not what the government is for, plus they are much, much more efficient and are able to look at individuals' situations on a case by case basis because they are not run by a bureaucracy. Ugg. I could go on and on.

This is funny because I was just thinking about doing a blog entry on this very subject, but I decided to ride bikes with the kids to Oakledge today instead of blogging this morning.

I am just curious. Do you do anything to help the poor, etc. or do you just want the government to? If you just want the government to do it all, you are a liberal.


charity said...

Haik, you are right that it is a small percentage, but that line reminded me of back when my oldest son was a baby and my neighbor, who was young and on welfare, had a child the same age and found out that she was going to have another baby. Her boyfriend was kind of stressed, but he said, "Hey, at least that means more money."

Now there is a class of people who need an economics lesson - yes, more money, but not enough to support the expense of another child!

Fells said...


I am a volunteer baseball coach in the Center City Little League in the Old North End of Burlington. I enjoy working with the kids, and hopefully I can become a role model for them, so they can succeed later in life.

I believe helping the elderly, poor, disadvantaged, etc should not only be done by the government, but by society as a whole. I don't just mean we need to throw money into organizations, but give time, even if it is only a few hours a year. Not only does time help, so organizations don't have to ask for so much money, but it is a valuable experience for the individuals being served, as well as the volunteer.

Time for more ice on my aching knee....


charity said...

I hate to break it to you, Fells, but you really aren't a liberal!

Fells said...

Call me a moderate, but I guess I have changed over the years.


Jon Hastings said...

I think the "jobs Americans won't do" and "Americans are too lazy" lines are canards: Americans will do those jobs, but illegal immigrants will do them for lower wages.

If you are a liberal and you are concerned about poor Americans (that is poor people who were born American citizens as well as poor people who immigrated here legally) then you should be against open borders and amnesty for illegals. Why? Having lots of illegal immigration drives wages down, which makes it harder and harder for poor Americans to earn "living wages".

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing: Bush and the majority of the Republicans in Congress favor open borders and amnesty because it is good for big business. (That's also why the Wall Street Journal is such a big open borders booster).

I think that, in general, whether at the town, city, state, or national level, a government should be concerned first and foremost about the welfare of its (legal) citizens - espcially those that are the worst off economically and otherwise. Until we do something to solve the problems facing the poverty stricken populations that we already have, it is irresponsible to encourage the growth of new poverty stricken populations.

Of course, our government just about defines "irresponsible".