<p>Well, I don’t see anyone seceeding anytime soon. The thing is, the ethnic background of America has always changed over time. Once a majority of Americans were of German ancestry. No more. Once we banned people of Chinese ancestry. That wasn’t right. I understand why people want to fight over the prize that America represents but I don’t feel that it’s right to say that that prize should simply be inherited by the children of those who are here now, and no one else gets a shot at it. If others are prepared to work harder for it, chances are they will take their place in the American hierarchy, like the Irish, the Jews, the Scots, etc. If my kids don’t like that I guess they can either work harder or learn Spanish (or maybe Russian - hasn’t anyone noticed how many Eastern Europeans seem to be coming here lately? What’s up with that?)</p>
<p>What in the world, no one is seceding from the Union. The same circumstances aren’t in place today. Today there is actually a lot more transparency in the actions of those in power due to communications revolution, so it isn’t like there are a few people making decisions before everyone else even finds about it. Besides the fact that it’s not really even in the best interests of those states to secede. Why do you think anyone is seceding?? </p>
<p>There is a referendum that applies to states, do you vote? I am sure issues similar to this have come up on the recent referendum and will come up again. You may join many interests groups to prove your point. Unfortunately much of the nation doesn’t even seem interested in feeling all that much even about who the President is, so I don’t see why any other national ballot issues would be very different. We have to balance states’ rights and without certain measures in place, some areas that are more politically active would have citizens and interest groups exerting undue influence on an overall national ballot.</p>
<p>Sorry for jumping on you, but the way you worded it made it sound as if you had a problem with Hispanic culture in general. I apologize.</p>
<p>I look forward to walking around unable to understand the dominant language of my native country. Much preferable to understanding what people are saying…</p>
<p>The Irish were certainly unwelcome, especially given the religious differences. “No Irish need apply” was a frequent slogan of employers.</p>
<p>I applaud the humanity Kluge displayed and America was built by the immigrant waves he mentioned, during its nation building days. </p>
<p>Op is saying: lets vote to decide if America should remain an “open tent” if that’s even possible ? </p>
<p>Should America be the “conjugate country” - where any group can come to try to make it there, even forcing their way in ?</p>
<p>Has this thread gone dead, like the senate bill that bears its name ?</p>
<p>The question is can the United States financially afford to accept virtually unlimited immigration and can America maintain the cultural values that make democracy possible and assimilate the numer of immigrants arriving on our shores.</p>
<p>The same folks who imply that anyone who wants a more restrictive immigration policy are racists who hate “brown people” are frequently the same ones who argue that democracy cannot work in a place like Iraq. Now I know they are not saying that just because Iraqis are a little on the brown side themselves but rather because the history, culture, and economics of Iraq has not in their opinion evolved to the point where a democracy can function.</p>
<p>If the USA were to grant citizenship to the 20 million illegal aliens currently in the country and institute a family reunification policy that would bring that many more relatives in to the USA in the comming decades one cannot honestly argue it would not change America in ways nobody can even imagine. Before we create a bilingual country we ought to look around and see how many successful and stable biligual democracies there are out there and how they differ from our own. Do we want what Canada has? Their system is much more decentralized than our and their federal government much weaker. Every decade or so they need to endure another referendum on Quebec independence which require the rest of Canad to throw more money and constitutional exemptions to the province to keep it in the fold.</p>
<p>I am sure no Americans want to become Yugoslavia and I fear very few Americans know anything aout the politics and liguistic divisions in Belgium or Switzerland and how there political systems have had to evolve in a very different direction than those in the United States.</p>
<p>The OP is correct that there ought to be a serious national debate aout the role and scope of immigration in the USA and the countries responsiility to the immigrant and the immigrants responsiility to his newly adopted homeland.</p>
<p>I agree with post #28 and do not appreciate the attempt to demean the character, values, tolerance, & open-mindedness of those who seek to look honestly at <em>consequences</em> and <em>long-term</em> solutions – preferring these to lazy answers, political rhetoric, or a position of passivity. Most serious, thoughtful Americans care mostly about practical consequences of immigration, as opposed to ideological, and merely want to examine & plan for a mostly literate, highly accessible society – educationally, economically, environmentally, a society that continues to support & advance a healthfully large middle class. To assume that everyone who wants an open discussion is reactionary or racist, narrow-minded or without idealism, is every bit as marginalizing as those on the other extreme end (who similarly want no debate).</p>
<p>Look at multi-lingual countries in the world and how they fared. Prime example is China. Before the communist takeover in 1949, most chinese provinces had its own language. The result was fracturous - divisive and controlled by war lords. China as a whole did not join the modern world until oddly Mao Tse Tung unified the country (so to speak) by defeating the Nationalists and mandating an official language - Mandarin. When the marxist regime finally collapsed in 1979, Mao’s legacy remained: A strong central government and one language (at least when used in official functions and when students are taught in school). When the pragmatist Deng Shao Ping finally took power, the underpinnings of modernization were already in place, laying the foundation to the economic engine of China today. Moving to other parts of the world, Yugoslavia was once a proud country led by a charismatic leader ( kind of like Mao ), but ethnic strife torn the country apart after Tito died. Today, there is no Yugoslavia.</p>
<p>Calif_dad, to be honest, I’m not really sure how your argument about China and Yugoslavia is relevant to the United States. Are you implying that the integration of a large number of Hispanics would threaten to tear the country apart because of ethnic strife?</p>
<p>It might do a job on America’s colon.</p>