Srsly?! – Schwab Says Boycott St. Paul

… we came over on boats and when my family members got here, there were no interpreters, there were no signs in 7 different languages, they didn’t know English and they learned it quickly, just to survive!  We were forced to change our last name to be more ‘American’.
 
Being forced to change a name borders on … I don’t know what. Certainly not a good thing, and not an “American” value we should hold close and dear to our hearts. Which is probably why it’s not done anymore. We’ve hopefully developed more cultural sensitivities.
 
Seven languages? Since when? Maybe four languages at the most around here, and that might even be a stretch at most public agencies. But I don’t see highway signs written in anything other than English. Oh, wait. Is Mille Lacs even an English word? Or Mahtomedi? Damn it, Liza. You should be bitching about all those damn “furrin” words that are being used before you get on your high horse about anything, or anyone, not being “American.”
 
Let’s face it, Liza: You’re a xenophobe, and exhibit little understanding or appreciation of the attributes that still make the US a beacon for many overseas (or south of the border). You are intolerant. You are a bigot. But I guess that’s in keeping with your German heritage, lol
 
(My ancestors came from Sweden. They, and their fellow villagers, were employed as mine workers by a German baron at the time of Sweden’s entry into the Industrial Age ca. 1900. Upon petitioning the King with a grievance regarding the right to public assembly — they could gather outside of work for church but nothing else — the whole village was “fired” by the baron and they migrated en masse to the US and Canada. Gotta love those old Germans. “My way, or ze highway!”)

@Rat: Was the email in English or Celtic?

@kc!: Exactly. If it had been the Founding Fathers’ intention to create a WASP nation, they would’ve written that into the Constitution. But they were liberal revolutionaries who had no intention of re-creating in the colonies what it was they had fought a war over for independence.

@mnblrmkr: I’m not so detached that I don’t know there have been “English-only” movements around the country for decades. My point remains the same, though: If it had been the Founding Fathers’ intention to create a WASP nation, they would’ve written that into the Constitution.
 
But they didn’t. Because they didn’t think along those lines.
 
Re: Alabama: Pure political B.S. because non-English speakers number so few in that state.
 
But this sort of thinking is not just a conservative disease. A DFL caucus I attended several years ago had in attendance someone who wanted Minnesota to enact an “English-only” law … because this person got all nervous being around people who didn’t speak English.

To address kc!’s post, what is required of a child before they can be enrolled in a school?
 
A social security number? Immunization records? Some schools might also require a transcript from the student’s previous school.
 
Legal citizens complain about all the hoopola they, as parents, have to go through to enroll their child(ren). Imagine how difficult it would be for illegal parents to the same.
 
I really, really believe the AZ law amounts to legal discrimination. (Even though the Latin culture is technically European, most Americans don’t see them that way. Italians suffered discrimination, too, because of their appearance — and where did the Latin language once thrive? So, if it isn’t racist this discrimination is, at the very least, cultural … and just as despicable.)
 
The Right — especially the wingnut factions — are simple hypocrites when it comes to legal, and cultural,  accountability.

@swandog: so the economic cost and social services costs of illegal immigrants are free?
 
OMFG. When did any of us say anything was free?
 
The simple fact is that for every illegal that’s in the country who might be receiving “free” medical care in an emergency room, there are many more times the number of LEGAL US CITIZENS who are doing the very same thing because they also do not have health insurance. It’s still you, the taxpayer, picking up the bill. So, it’s a strawman argument. If the wingnuts want to eliminate “free” medical care, so be it — but then they’ll be screwing their own kind, too, at the same time.
 
Education is another matter to explore. I would be interested to learn more from a parent just how complicated it is to enroll a child in school — because if it is as difficult as I’ve heard, it would be doubly difficult then for an illegal child to be enrolled. But, as kc! states, the numbers of illegals in public schools are but a fraction of the total enrollment.
 
So, any guesses as to how many legal Americans will take on the low-paying jobs left behind after we’ve chased all the illegals out of the country?
 

@Rat: Is the Anchor Baby a myth dreamed up by Republicans (and racists, I suppose), too?
 
How can something be a myth if it’s written into our Constitution? Btw, Mexico (and, I think, Canada) has the same policy: if you were born there, you are automatically a citizen. That might come in handy after the wingnuts have driven our country into the ground.
 
Wild estimates have been thrown around wrt to the number of “anchor babies.” IIRC, birthing in the US no longer gives the parents an automatic “visa” to stay or return to the US resulting in situations where the parents are deported and the baby becomes a foster child of the US — at taxpayer expense. Ironic? When the wingnuts fkcu with the system, it always winds up costing them more. When will they ever learn?
 

Out of adversity comes opportunity: “White-people masks offered to nervous brown people in Arizona.” [Wonkette.com]
 
😉
 

The accused bought the Pathfinder off Craigslist [Gawker]. Let’s overreact and ban the intertubes. It would be the American Thing to do.
 
But you can be a Real ‘Merican and want to bomb things [Strib], too. So, let’s also outlaw fertilizers. And diesel fuel. It would probably make for a better environment, anyway.

@Rat: It’s more fun-reading than the also-stereotypically-enhanced RedState, Powerline or Instapundit. And much, MUCH more intelligent than are Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin or Coulter, all of whom practice the fine art of stereotyping, too.
 
So, like, just chill out, dude. Life is all about stereotypes. (It’s because we like to categorize things.)
 

@mnblrmkr: And how does that differ from what I wrote? Wouldn’t “native born” mean a person has to have been born within the politcal boundaries of a specific nation? I couldn’t have, say, been born in Canada and claim “native born” US citizenship even if both my parents were naturalized US citizens.
 

@mnblrmkr: Again, there is a distinction that is made between how one becomes a citizen and how one becomes a natural-born citizen (the latter of which is a requirement for the Presidency). That McCain was born of American citizens is not in question … and he’d still be a US citizen had only one parent been a US citizen. The technicality was his birthplace — Panama — which was not considered sovereign US territory even when we controlled the Canal Zone.
 
McCain became a natural-born US citizen after the fact by Senate action in 2008. Read the whole article. Obviously, there were questions raised beforehand about his eligibility or the Senate would not have had to do anything of consequence to declare McCain eligible for election.
 

@kc!: Maybe it was the way I worded my post but I did not mean to imply that churches played a central role in refugee sponsorship. However, it is my understanding that even refugees are sponsored — the  migration of Tibetans refugees being the most recent group — by some kind of private organization. In that way, the Federal government would not be the sole provider of resources and aid … especially at the local level. And, yes, it would appear incongruent for Muslims to be sponsored by a Christian organization.
 
I was not aware of the change to sponsorship status! Ouch.

@mnblrmkr: Yes, it is all very confusing. The Constitution speaks of a “natural born” requirement and, yet, an immigrant can become “naturalized” after x-numbers of years of continuous residence.
 
As for SCOTUS, even the Court has issued conflicting arguments from its bench.
 
Btw, were you aware that a newborn can claim unintentional US citizenship if they were born in an airplane flying over US airspace?