Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Trump talks immigration

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3870
(3881 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/5/2017 at 08:43 PM
quote:
Most people get alot done in 6 months. Can Congress? End Obamas unconstitutional dreamer handout as part of comprehensive immigration reform. Dissolve the executive action and deal with the ones here.


Explain why Trump pardoned a guy who violated the Constitution and now is all in favor of this. BTW, DACA was never declared unconstitutional.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3630
(3625 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/5/2017 at 09:22 PM
Maintain campaign promise
Taking tough stance on immigration
Accumulating lawsuits and clogging courts

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 26342
(26353 all sites)
Registered: 8/12/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 07:24 AM
So it's not an over reach of presidential power to issue a ban on who can enter the country. But it is an over reach to put protections in for those who are here and are productive members of society.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18638
(18698 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 11:43 AM
quote:
He didn't say the must learn English, they have to speak it to come here. Where in the Constitution does it say that we are an English speaking country? Hint: it doesn't say it. We do not have a national language.


We should

 

____________________


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9095
(9094 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 12:11 PM
quote:
quote:
He didn't say the must learn English, they have to speak it to come here. Where in the Constitution does it say that we are an English speaking country? Hint: it doesn't say it. We do not have a national language.


We should
Did the Native Americans speak English when the europeans arrived to steal their land?.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5097
(5097 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 12:31 PM
If second language skill were required for work and travel to foreign countries most Americans would not qualify.

Whenever I have gone overseas I have been impressed by how many people know English, even in the Third World. Many Europeans speak multiple languages, embarrassed me into realizing what a lot of provincial lazy dumbasses we Americans are, skating through school with passing grades in a second language without learning it, on top of the national disgrace of not even learning English beyond the most basic.

Can't speak a second language, and rapidly losing the finer command of the first. Better to put energy into education than bellyache about people who don't speak English. The biggest threat to English is not dilution from abroad, it is from atrophy in a dumbed down America.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3630
(3625 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 01:08 PM
quote:
We should


Maybe, but we didn't like the Native American's language, so we just adapted an already-existing European one as our own. Which language do you prefer we make our own? Sioux? Algonquin? The foreign English language that we've been borrowing? Should we make one up called American?

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5097
(5097 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 01:36 PM
Forget bloody Redcoat English, how about Jive for national homegrown language, like the old lady in "Airplane"?

"Excuse me stewardess, I speak Jive." hahaha



 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3870
(3881 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 02:35 PM
quote:
quote:
We should


Maybe, but we didn't like the Native American's language, so we just adapted an already-existing European one as our own. Which language do you prefer we make our own? Sioux? Algonquin? The foreign English language that we've been borrowing? Should we make one up called American?


BigV lives in a part of the country that was stolen from Mexico in a war started just to expand our borders. Maybe that area should be given back to Mexico and its inhabitants forced to speak Spanish.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3630
(3625 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 02:40 PM
As for ending daca, lest anyone think those 800,000 will voluntarily leave, they will not. Unless Trump implements a task force to track down all 800,000 and raid homes, then Trump just increased illegal aliens by 800,000. That should make his supporters thrilled. And let's hope cooler heads prevail, and we spend $20 Bilion to rebuild Houston instead of a wall.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18638
(18698 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 08:18 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
We should


Maybe, but we didn't like the Native American's language, so we just adapted an already-existing European one as our own. Which language do you prefer we make our own? Sioux? Algonquin? The foreign English language that we've been borrowing? Should we make one up called American?


BigV lives in a part of the country that was stolen from Mexico in a war started just to expand our borders. Maybe that area should be given back to Mexico and its inhabitants forced to speak Spanish.


"Stolen"...Hahahahaha......And how did Mexico "Acquire" this part of the country that now exists under the Stars and Stripes?.....Did they "Appropriate" this from the indigenous people already living there?...My guess is the native people did not speak Spanish prior to the arrival of the Conquistadors.

quote:
Since when do Americans speak English?


Since the nation's inception?



 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3870
(3881 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/6/2017 at 09:53 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
We should


Maybe, but we didn't like the Native American's language, so we just adapted an already-existing European one as our own. Which language do you prefer we make our own? Sioux? Algonquin? The foreign English language that we've been borrowing? Should we make one up called American?


BigV lives in a part of the country that was stolen from Mexico in a war started just to expand our borders. Maybe that area should be given back to Mexico and its inhabitants forced to speak Spanish.


"Stolen"...Hahahahaha......And how did Mexico "Acquire" this part of the country that now exists under the Stars and Stripes?.....Did they "Appropriate" this from the indigenous people already living there?...My guess is the native people did not speak Spanish prior to the arrival of the Conquistadors.

quote:
Since when do Americans speak English?


Since the nation's inception?






Not true. Most people in the Louisiana area spoke French when admitted to the US. In Florida, they spoke mostly Spanish. Same with the entire Southwest, including California. English came much later to those parts of the country. I guess if Perot RICO becomes a state, everyone will have to start speaking English.

[Edited on 9/7/2017 by jkeller]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18638
(18698 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/7/2017 at 12:26 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
We should


Maybe, but we didn't like the Native American's language, so we just adapted an already-existing European one as our own. Which language do you prefer we make our own? Sioux? Algonquin? The foreign English language that we've been borrowing? Should we make one up called American?


BigV lives in a part of the country that was stolen from Mexico in a war started just to expand our borders. Maybe that area should be given back to Mexico and its inhabitants forced to speak Spanish.


"Stolen"...Hahahahaha......And how did Mexico "Acquire" this part of the country that now exists under the Stars and Stripes?.....Did they "Appropriate" this from the indigenous people already living there?...My guess is the native people did not speak Spanish prior to the arrival of the Conquistadors.

quote:
Since when do Americans speak English?


Since the nation's inception?






Not true. Most people in the Louisiana area spoke French when admitted to the US.


False. The French language made its "debut" in Louisiana decades after the first settlements in Virginia.

 

____________________


 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5097
(5097 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/7/2017 at 02:31 PM
I don't get why this is even an issue. How has this inconvenienced anyone, other than immigrants who all know that it is good idea to learn English.

English is strong language, market forces will drive anyone who wants better opportunities to learn the language. No need to mandate

Exposure to different languages and cultures is a positive influence, and serves to make the nation more well-rounded and competitive.

If you love English, as I do, how about spending more time enjoying the fruits of the language, literature, and communicate that enthusiasm by say helping someone learn to read, or volunteer at a second language class?

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5125
(5124 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/7/2017 at 03:24 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
We should


Maybe, but we didn't like the Native American's language, so we just adapted an already-existing European one as our own. Which language do you prefer we make our own? Sioux? Algonquin? The foreign English language that we've been borrowing? Should we make one up called American?


BigV lives in a part of the country that was stolen from Mexico in a war started just to expand our borders. Maybe that area should be given back to Mexico and its inhabitants forced to speak Spanish.


Partly right.

The war happened because of border raids committed by the Mexicans, after they attacked an outpost of troops commanded by Zachary Taylor at Rancho Carricitos. The area was in dispute since both the US and Mexico claimed ownership. Twelve soldiers were killed and 52 were captured.
The US had already offered to purchase the disputed territory (for $25 million), and when the Mexicans attacked another outpost, war was declared.
After their defeat, Mexico offered to sell all the territory to the US for $15 million and $3.25 million in debts owed to US citizens by Mexico.

The war was claimed by some as "an aggressive, unholy, and unjust war".
The House of Representatives drew up a bill praising Zachary Taylor for fighting " a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States". I guess they had forgot they had voted to declare that war.

Interesting reading on that little war. Didn't know that Polk had brought Santa Anna back from exile to fight on the Mexican side. Polk had agreed to pay Santa Anna $2 million to come back hoping that he would quickly agree to the earlier purchase.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3870
(3881 all sites)
Registered: 12/18/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/7/2017 at 04:30 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
We should


Maybe, but we didn't like the Native American's language, so we just adapted an already-existing European one as our own. Which language do you prefer we make our own? Sioux? Algonquin? The foreign English language that we've been borrowing? Should we make one up called American?


BigV lives in a part of the country that was stolen from Mexico in a war started just to expand our borders. Maybe that area should be given back to Mexico and its inhabitants forced to speak Spanish.


Partly right.

The war happened because of border raids committed by the Mexicans, after they attacked an outpost of troops commanded by Zachary Taylor at Rancho Carricitos. The area was in dispute since both the US and Mexico claimed ownership. Twelve soldiers were killed and 52 were captured.
The US had already offered to purchase the disputed territory (for $25 million), and when the Mexicans attacked another outpost, war was declared.
After their defeat, Mexico offered to sell all the territory to the US for $15 million and $3.25 million in debts owed to US citizens by Mexico.

The war was claimed by some as "an aggressive, unholy, and unjust war".
The House of Representatives drew up a bill praising Zachary Taylor for fighting " a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States". I guess they had forgot they had voted to declare that war.

Interesting reading on that little war. Didn't know that Polk had brought Santa Anna back from exile to fight on the Mexican side. Polk had agreed to pay Santa Anna $2 million to come back hoping that he would quickly agree to the earlier purchase.



Yes, there was a border dispute, but James Polk wanted to extend our borders to the Pacific Ocean and this gave him the chance.

http://www.history.com/topics/mexican-american-war

President James K. Polk, who believed the United States had a “manifest destiny” to spread across the continent to the Pacific Ocean. A border skirmish along the Rio Grande started off the fighting and was followed by a series of U.S. victories. When the dust cleared, Mexico had lost about one-third of its territory, including nearly all of present-day California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico.



There was no legal justification for taking those lands from Mexico. It was a form of imperialism by the US.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5097
(5097 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 9/7/2017 at 06:49 PM
It was imperialism. Mexico was imperialistic as well. There was a dirty war. They lost. Done.

The real injustice came after, and continues into the present. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, still in force, has not been honored with regard to Mexican property rights guaranteed by the treaty: Mexican Americans were treated as foreigners and were dispossessed by the US.

from Yale Law School

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp

ARTICLE VIII

Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.
Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.
In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.

ARTICLE IX

The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States. and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the mean time, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without; restriction.

Following is a breakdown of how the US systematically robbed the Mexicans in the new territories, and continues to do so:

from University of Dayton
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/guadalu7.htm

Jon Michael Haynes

Excerpted from "Saying We're Sorry? New Federal Legislation and the Forgotten Promises of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo , 3 Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues 231-264, 232-236 (Spring 2001)(221 footnotes omitted)

Recently in Texas, Mexican-American families have begun to fight for the return of their ancestral lands, lands taken from them throughout decades of injustice at the hands of predominantly Anglo courts. In fact, the entire Southwest has seen a slow but steady rise in the number of active voices calling for accountability and compensation for the theft of land formerly granted under Spanish and Mexican rule. Only a handful of these claims have resulted in successful outcomes for Mexican Americans; and of these, none were based on the seemingly forgotten promises of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (the Treaty).
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was ratified in 1848, ending the war between Mexico and the United States and effectively handing over control of the modern Southwest from Mexico to the United States. Under the terms of the Treaty, Mexican property holders were to retain full enjoyment and protection of their property as if they were citizens of the United States. Furthermore, where there existed any doubt as to whether property was validly owned or not, the laws under which these grants of land were made were to control. Thus, where there was an issue concerning the title to real property, Spanish or Mexican title should have been sufficient to prove ownership according to the terms of the Treaty. However, as claims began to arise citing the protection of the Treaty, the United States government and judiciary continually managed to deny these claims through a combination of legislation and judicial decisions.
Due to the Treaty's unenforceability and an historic inability to adjudicate claims in American courts under other existing legal doctrines, *233 those bringing land-related claims under the Treaty have recently turned their attention to the federal legislature. To date, there have been only a small number of bills introduced in Congress that examine the validity of these claims and propose some form of restitution to dispossessed landowners and their descendants. In 1997, House Resolution 2538 sought to create a presidential commission to determine the validity of these claims. Additionally, a bill introduced before the Senate in 1998 proposed to acknowledge these property claims outright and to develop a method to compensate the dispossessed families. Neither of these potential measures ascended beyond bill status. Nevertheless, their existence evidences a measure of hope for dispossessed landowners and their descendants as it demonstrates an increasing acknowledgement of the history of these lands by the United States government. Such proposed legislation also signifies the overdue recognition that citizens of the United States have been denied rights guaranteed to them for a period exceeding 150 years. Finally, in 2000, Senate Bill 2022 was introduced in the 106th Congress. In drafting the proposed legislation, Congress *234 made findings which recognized that the loss of property subsequent to the war with Mexico has had serious repercussions in the Mexican-American community in the southwest United States. In addition, the proposed legislation specifically questioned whether the United States fulfilled its obligations under the Treaty. Congress acknowledged that actions taken by the federal government as well as the Territory of New Mexico in the mid to late nineteenth century were central to the dispossession of Mexican American landholders. The findings also indicated a disparity in the outcomes of land grant adjudications in New Mexico when compared to California. Although not directly placing blame, the legislation questioned whether adjudications in New Mexico were fairly and equitably administered. Instead of squarely addressing the issue, however, the bill concludes with a nebulous promise to remedy any "lingering injustice" from the failure of the United States to meet its obligations under the Treaty. The legislation provides that alternative methods will be prepared and the President shall then submit to Congress recommendations to resolve these claims within six months of the submission of the GAO report. The notable caveat is added that "n no *235 event shall these recommendations include the divestiture of private property rights."
While the proposed legislation represents a long overdue acknowledgement of the problem, it does not sufficiently address the root of that problem. The proposed legislation fails to mention the United States' blatant failure to adhere to the provisions of the Treaty and only touches on the long history of social and economic oppression that Mexican Americans have suffered as a result. In addition, it is significant to note that Mexican Americans are the only minority group in the United States, other than Native Americans, to be annexed by conquest and to have their rights allegedly safeguarded by treaty. Therefore, while this overdue progress is necessary, there remains the issue of accountability on the part of the federal government. It is vital that an official apology be issued to those wrongfully and illegally dispossessed of their property. Without this public apology, no measure for righting the wrongs of the past can be considered complete.
A general survey of this era in American history reveals one constant: the United States, through an unwritten policy of territorial expansionism via political and judicial avenues, has denied Mexican Americans their Constitutional rights both as landowners and as citizens in general. In addition, the history of the Treaty and the United States' subsequent failure *236 to adhere to the Treaty's spirit and intent reveals a microcosm of race relations throughout United States history.
This comment illustrates one chapter of this history; a history of accumulated injustices premised upon racist notions and fueled by self-serving political and judicial institutions. In doing so, this comment demonstrates the United States government's culpability for the dispossession of Mexican- American landholders. More specifically, this comment focuses on the federal government's and judiciary's actions subsequent to ratification of the Treaty and the 153 years of inequality under the law that have followed. By tracing the political and legal history of the Southwest, this comment makes evident the underlying force behind this era of injustice--United States economic policy. This comment specifically illustrates the United States' desire to acquire and control land. The war, Treaty, federal legislation, and judicial opinions that followed have all resulted in the dispossession of Mexican-American landholders and the simultaneous enrichment of White America. A survey of the relevant historical, political, and judicial actions during the middle to late nineteenth century demonstrates that the acquisition and control of land was the primary factor behind the disenfranchisement of Mexican Americans at the precise moment that they became a substantial component of the population of the United States.

 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com