El Cezino, Texas... official language, Spanish!
Lord Haw-Haw
August 27, 1999
(
ALBUQUERQUE) - Demonstrators converged on downtown Albuquerque in
protest of what their calling racist radio. The protest came after
radio talk show hosts Don and Mike at Hot Talk 920 phoned the El
Cezino, Texas City Hall after hearing their council meetings were
being conducted in Spanish. They told El Cezino officials they were
angry because the city made Spanish its official language. But what
made protesters even more angry is that Dan and Mike urged Spanish
speaking people who don't speak English to get on their burros and
go back to Mexico. The Don and Mike show originates at WJFK radio
in Baltimore.
--
/\/\ike
of the local residents only speak Spanish. The very idea for creating an
organized community is to serve the residents of the community itself, not
to appease people who have never even been there. If El Cezino is happy
with Spanish as the language it conducts city business in, then that's all
that really matters.
/\/\ike
Duane Phinney
/\/\ike <man...@brokersys.com> wrote in message
news:7qhrl7$e9h$1...@news.hal-pc.org...
Mike Angwin
>
I speak English and have even been told I speak better Spanish that English
because I speak English with a very deep Texas drawl.
So what is to be frightened of, that two or three generations from
now words may be used that as not being used today?
It makes no difference at all and people are really the same, who
ever they are. I live in and out of the Hispanic community with total
fluidity, both cultures have shared this land for two centuries.
It's the end of nothing, but it may very well be the beginning of
allowing what has always occurred to be realized and understood by all. We
should all be free to be who we are.
/\/\ike
dot...@dot.com
See Mike, you have moments of lucidity that make me just want to hug you.
Not that I make it a habit of hugging, no sir, not me!
rrcrumb
The Mayor was an illegal and the Mexican population
there in that 1,500 person shithole have all come from
Mexico in the last two decades......
......Illegally and some legally.
This little dump started off as a colonia.
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure. But
consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican foreign policy
is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens to the United States by
lobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of legal immigration and fighting or
attenuating U.S. laws and strategies designed to challenge illegal
immigration. Mexican officials concerned about a labor surplus in their
country even have spoken openly about creating an Israeli-type lobby for
Mexico among people of Mexican origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national sovereignty
is well known. But even libertarian conservatives in the business community
are indifferent to the matter. They tend to be fearful of any rhetoric or
action that might impede the mass influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
phil <pkitkowski@worldnet.*spammersareworsethanillinoisnazis.att.net> wrote
in message news:7qn4n8$alh$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> A point most Americans of European descent often miss is this:
>
> In many cases (almost certainly in a place like El Cezino), most of those
> people they wish would "go back to Mexico" have never moved. They have
been
> there for hundreds of years. The US, led by James Polk, fought a war of
> imperialism to add to the potential slave states as a balance against the
> North.
>
> The border moved. The people didnt.
>
> Phil
>
>
phil
Mike Angwin
>See Mike, you have moments of lucidity that make me just want to hug you.
>Not that I make it a habit of hugging, no sir, not me!
>
/\/\ike
Douglas Long
>Mike Angwin wrote:
>> >It's also the beginning of the end.
>> Of what? I have no fear of Spanish. I speak Spanish as fluently as
>> I speak English and have even been told I speak better Spanish that English
>> because I speak English with a very deep Texas drawl.
That's really swell, Mike.
>> So what is to be frightened of, that two or three generations from
>> now words may be used that as not being used today?
What is the Spanish word for *corruption*?
>> It makes no difference at all and people are really the same, who
>> ever they are. I live in and out of the Hispanic community with total
>> fluidity, both cultures have shared this land for two centuries.
First of all, as language *is* culture, people who sopeak
different languages have different attitudes, values, and behaviors.
And second, both cultures have *not* shared this land for two
centuries. Americans have dominated this land.
>> It's the end of nothing, but it may very well be the beginning of
>> allowing what has always occurred to be realized and understood by all. We
>> should all be free to be who we are.
Everybody know the words to Kumbaya? Hold hands and sing...
Mike Angwin
from
>>> now words may be used that as not being used today?
>
> What is the Spanish word for *corruption*?
Corupcion. In fact, once your ear is attuned to Spanish, you'd be
surprised how much you understand and can probably read even more. Our
languages have far more in common than divide them. Still, even if a
signifigant segment of the American population one day spoke Spanish, that
doesn't mean English would simply disappear. I think you give too little
credit to English to think it would just be discovered to be too erractic in
it's spelling, pronunciation, and verb congegation to hold up to competiting
with a language which has a far more consistant structure. I think I have
mroe faith in English than others appear to.
Still, English and Spanish have existed side by side here in Texas
for a long, long, time and English hasn't disappeared or been "corrupted".
True, we have rodeos, and patios, and may even get caught saying frejoles
once in a while. We may eat the occasional taco or go to San Antonio to
visit the Alamo, but I would call any of this influx of Spanish into our
vocabulary or our experience "corruption". What it is, is an increased
richness earned by tolerance of diversity.
> First of all, as language *is* culture, people who speak
>different languages have different attitudes, values, and behaviors.
Awe come on now. I eat blackeyed peas and buttermilk with
cornbread. I wear boots and still listen to Hank Willians Sr.. I also
speak fluent Spanish and like to dance the merenge.
The Hispanics I know are conservative, religious, family oriented
people with a work ethic that would put most Americans to shame. Now
exactly which of these attitudes, values, and behaviors do you find fault
with?
>And second, both cultures have *not* shared this land for two
>centuries. Americans have dominated this land.
Actually it's been about fifty/fifty with Angols having control of
the second haf of that period. Still there is much of Texas where Hispanic
control has never been fully relinquished from San Antonio to Laredo and all
along the lower Rio Grande Valley. Yet despite who has had the reins of
power, we have always shared this land because both cultures and both
languages have always been here. Neither has dominated the other to the
point of extinction and, for the most part, we have lived in relative
harmony with one another, each gaining from the other.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>In many cases (almost certainly in a place like El Cezino), most of those
>people they wish would "go back to Mexico" have never moved. They have
been
>there for hundreds of years. The US, led by James Polk, fought a war of
>imperialism to add to the potential slave states as a balance against the
>North.
>
>The border moved. The people didnt.
>
Texans fought side by side in a revolutionary war against Mexico and we won
our own independence, establishing the Republic of Texas. By whatever
account one chooses to accept we became an American state by a treaty
between our nations and Zachary Taylor, to Polk's delight, provoked a war
with Mexico by engaging Mexican forces in the disputed Nueces strip. An
area, by coincidence, that includes the city of El Cenizo today.
In any event you are right. It was not the people who moved but the
border itself and when we merged our two nations into one, one of the few
things we asked from the Americans was that the duality of languages in
Texas be respected by the United States. In our treaty, accepted by a rare
joint session of the American Congress, that right is preserved. We fully
expect the United States to live up to it's agreement with us.
/\/\ike
Douglas Long
<pkitkowski@worldnet.*spammersareworsethanillinoisnazis.att.net>
wrote:
>A point most Americans of European descent often miss is this:
>In many cases (almost certainly in a place like El Cezino), most of those
>people they wish would "go back to Mexico" have never moved. They have been
>there for hundreds of years. The US, led by James Polk, fought a war of
>imperialism to add to the potential slave states as a balance against the
>North.
Actually, El Cezino didn't exist until sometime in the past 20
years. It was a colonia; that is, a piece of land developed without
sewer system, water system, or any such infrastructure. Colonias have
sprouted up along the border, and Texans recently passed a bond in the
billions to provide the squatters with the infrastructure the
squatters should have installed in the first place. As to your
history, you don't know what you're talking about.
>The border moved. The people didnt.
The border moved, and the people weren't anywhere near the old
one or the new one. Where do you come up with this crap?
Douglas Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>> What is the Spanish word for *corruption*?
> Corupcion. In fact, once your ear is attuned to Spanish, you'd be
>surprised how much you understand and can probably read even more. Our
>languages have far more in common than divide them. Still, even if a
>signifigant segment of the American population one day spoke Spanish, that
>doesn't mean English would simply disappear. I think you give too little
>credit to English to think it would just be discovered to be too erractic in
>it's spelling, pronunciation, and verb congegation to hold up to competiting
>with a language which has a far more consistant structure. I think I have
>mroe faith in English than others appear to.
You miss the point. Here's a hint: Mexico is the lamentable
place it is because it's filled with Mexicans who have certain
attitudes, values, and behaviors; that is, *culture*. To retain a
language is to retain a culture. If you want Texas to become more and
more an approximation of Mexico, then fill it with Mexicans.
>Eglish and Spanish have existed side by side here in Texas
>for a long, long, time and English hasn't disappeared or been "corrupted".
Rubbish. English and Spanish have never existed
*side-by-side* here in Texas. The small group of Mexicans who've
lived in Texas - before the onslaught in the past 20 or so years -
spoke Spanish in their own homes, but business and government have
always been conducted in English.
>True, we have rodeos, and patios, and may even get caught saying frejoles
>once in a while. We may eat the occasional taco or go to San Antonio to
>visit the Alamo, but I would call any of this influx of Spanish into our
>vocabulary or our experience "corruption". What it is, is an increased
>richness earned by tolerance of diversity.
You've got the senseless lingo down, don't you -
"richness...diversity." Look at Kosovo and East Timor and the former
Soviet Union and a hundred other places in the headlines everyday and
then tell me about "richness" and "diversity."
>> First of all, as language *is* culture, people who speak
>>different languages have different attitudes, values, and behaviors.
> Awe come on now. I eat blackeyed peas and buttermilk with
>cornbread. I wear boots and still listen to Hank Willians Sr.. I also
>speak fluent Spanish and like to dance the merenge.
> The Hispanics I know are conservative, religious, family oriented
>people with a work ethic that would put most Americans to shame. Now
>exactly which of these attitudes, values, and behaviors do you find fault
>with?
The ones that have allowed Mexico to be an over-populated,
thoroughly corrupted ditch ruled by a greedy oligarchy. The ones that
make bribery the occupation common to everyone in the country. The
ones that take advantage of our health, education, and welfare systems
- the Dallas County hospital tax is going up, by the way, and if you
walk the corridors in the middle of any day, you'll understand who is
in our pockets.
>>And second, both cultures have *not* shared this land for two
>>centuries. Americans have dominated this land.
> Actually it's been about fifty/fifty with Angols having control of
>the second haf of that period. Still there is much of Texas where Hispanic
>control has never been fully relinquished from San Antonio to Laredo and all
>along the lower Rio Grande Valley. Yet despite who has had the reins of
>power, we have always shared this land because both cultures and both
>languages have always been here. Neither has dominated the other to the
>point of extinction and, for the most part, we have lived in relative
>harmony with one another, each gaining from the other.
What a complete load. Read some Texas history, will you. The
Mexican population, including in the lower Rio Grande Valley, was
until the past couple of decades way less than 50%. I really would
like to know why you believe that "both cultures and both languages
have always been here." Where does that come from? Do you know what
the Mexican population was in Texas in 1835, in 1900, in 1950? Find
out and be surprised. In 1835, for example, about 2000 Mexicans lived
in San Antonio and Victoria and nowhere else in Texas because the
Comanches kept them in place. About 35,000 American lived in Texas
then. Find out for yourself. But don't try to peddle this richness
in diversity we've lived side by side crap. Such rubbish...
> /\/\ike
>
>
>
Douglas Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
> You are close, actually, in the case of Texas, Anglo and Hispanic
>Texans fought side by side in a revolutionary war against Mexico and we won
>our own independence, establishing the Republic of Texas. By whatever
Uh-huh. Four or five Mexicans participated on our side.
Exactly why do you seem to wish to distort history?
>account one chooses to accept we became an American state by a treaty
>between our nations and Zachary Taylor, to Polk's delight, provoked a war
>with Mexico by engaging Mexican forces in the disputed Nueces strip. An
>area, by coincidence, that includes the city of El Cenizo today.
Taylor was camped near the Rio Grande, and Mexican troops
crossed the river and attacked. And to you Taylor provoked a war?
> In any event you are right. It was not the people who moved but the
>border itself and when we merged our two nations into one, one of the few
>things we asked from the Americans was that the duality of languages in
>Texas be respected by the United States. In our treaty, accepted by a rare
>joint session of the American Congress, that right is preserved. We fully
>expect the United States to live up to it's agreement with us.
What are you talking about? Texas and Mexico had been at war
for years just before statehood. Mexicans have been the natural enemy
of Texans well into the 20th Century. The American and Mexican
culture and languages have not lived "side-by-side" or even in near
proximity. Is what you're claiming being taught in public schools
these days? Where does it come from?
hc23hc
>
> You miss the point. Here's a hint: Mexico is the lamentable
> place it is because it's filled with Mexicans who have certain
> attitudes, values, and behaviors; that is, *culture*. To retain a
> language is to retain a culture. If you want Texas to become more and
> more an approximation of Mexico, then fill it with Mexicans.
> You've got the senseless lingo down, don't you -
> "richness...diversity." Look at Kosovo and East Timor and the former
> Soviet Union and a hundred other places in the headlines everyday and
> then tell me about "richness" and "diversity."
If the USA isn't Mexico, then neither is Mexico "Kosovo and East Timor",
so somewhere down the line, your argument's consistency is severely
compromised here on its way to grappling with those nightmares of an
inevitable Doomsday scenario, which is really all you're displaying
in terms of your own attitude, value and behavior.
> <man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
> > The Hispanics I know are conservative, religious, family oriented
> >people with a work ethic that would put most Americans to shame. Now
> >exactly which of these attitudes, values, and behaviors do you find fault
> >with?
>
> The ones that have allowed Mexico to be an over-populated,
> thoroughly corrupted ditch ruled by a greedy oligarchy. The ones that
> make bribery the occupation common to everyone in the country. The
> ones that take advantage of our health, education, and welfare systems
> - the Dallas County hospital tax is going up, by the way, and if you
> walk the corridors in the middle of any day, you'll understand who is
> in our pockets.
So if it's the attitude of less enfranchised people which caused the
oligarchy to evolve out of nowhere, and your attitude toward America
is pessimistic to the extreme, then America will evolve into exactly
the hideous wart that's growing in your imagination, until all you
can remember is the Alamo ? Sequitur.
Your problem, Doug, is that you wish you had more power than you do.
More than people who might have originated in Mexico. But you don't.
.
.
.
Mike Angwin
>>The border moved. The people didnt.
>
> The border moved, and the people weren't anywhere near the old
>one or the new one. Where do you come up with this crap?
>
Strip was sparsely populated, it was populated almost exclusively by
citizens of the state of Coahuila Mexico after the Texas revolution. Even
while the Republic of Texas and Mexico argued over who had claim to the
area, the population, what of it there was, was Mexican. When the border
moved, whether you consider the movement having taken place when it moved
south from the San Antonio River to at least the Nueces River, if not the
Rio Grande at the end of the Texas Revolution, or whether you consider it to
have moved from the Nueces River to the Rio Grande upon the signing of the
treaty between the United States and the Republic of Texas in 1845, or even
whether you consider it to have moved to the Rio Grande as a product of the
conquest of Mexico later than same year, the border did move and when it
moved, it encompassed a Hispanic population whose descendents are still
living in the area.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
> Uh-huh. Four or five Mexicans participated on our side.
>Exactly why do you seem to wish to distort history?
Let history determine which of us promotes distortion. Eight Tejanos
died in the Alamo. Eighteen more died among Fannin's troops at Goliad.
Captian Juan Segiun, who survived the Alamo by an act of fate, led over 30
Tejano calvary into the center of the Mexican line at the Battle of San
Jacinto. Lorenzo de Zavala co-authored our Declaration of Independence and
served as the first Vice President of the Republic of Texas. The Ruiz
family from Velasco alone donanted the funds to purchase two of the four
vessels in the Texas Navy.
In the seige of San Antonio in the fall of 1835, 160 Tejanos
participated in the atttack of general Cos. A service, which President
Lamar later lamented, for which "they got no pay or credit." In the Battle
of Salado in October 1835, Seguin commanded 37 Tejanos. Salvado Flores 21,
and Manuel Leal 41. All volunteeers in the fight against Mexico.
Oddly enough, during the attack on San Antonio, fourteen Bexareños
who had been pressed into service by Cos defected and joined the seige.
During that seige Palacio Benavides also brought up twenty eight Tejanos
from Victoria who, on the way, were joined by another 20 Tejanos from
Goliad. After Cos capitulated, the commander-in-chief of the makeshift
Texas Army, General (sounds strange) Austin wrote, "The native Mexicans were
essential to our cause." He also wrote, "Cap, Seguin and his men were at
all times willing to go on any service they were ordered. They uniformily
acquited themselves to their credit as patriots and soilders".
Seguin's men also saw action with Bowie in November at san Jose and
Concepcion. In December at the fighting at the Veramendi house, one Tejano,
Antonio Cruz, so distinguished himself during the fighting as to attract
commendation by so fierce an anti-Mexican as Travis.
Another Tejano patriot was maria Jesusa de Garcia who was wounded
and permenantly disabled attempting to drag a mortally wounded Ben Milam out
of the line of Mexican fire. An act of bravery than astonished the Texas
Army.
I can go on and on if you like, but suffice it to say, brave Texas
patriots with names such as Juan Antonio Padilla, Miguel Galan, Paulino de
la Garza, Tomas Amador, and hundreds of others who fought in every
signifigant engagement of the Texas Revolution, point to a powerful and
dedicated participation by Tejanos in the War for Texas Independence.
Tejanos not only fouth in signifigant numbers in our revolution,
but they fought with as much bravery and patriotism as any Anglo. I suggest
your assertions are, again, in contrast with fact.
>
> Taylor was camped near the Rio Grande, and Mexican troops
>crossed the river and attacked. And to you Taylor provoked a war?
Without the conset of the government of the Republic, which had a
standing agreement with Mexico that if we would not send troops into the
disputed Nueces Strip, they would not, Zachary Taylor landed American
troops, well before the Treaty of Annexation was signed between the Republic
and the United States in an obvious attempt to start a war. The Mexicans
refused to take the bait and instead offered the Republic a fairly generous
treaty, through British agents, recognizing Texas independence if Texas
would not join the United States. It was only after Texas turned down full
recognition by Mexico and joined the United States that Mexico sent troops
into the Nueces Strip to stake it's own claim. The Mexican troops, contrary
to your assertion, were immediately attacked by Taylor.
> What are you talking about? Texas and Mexico had been at war
>for years just before statehood. Mexicans have been the natural enemy
>of Texans well into the 20th Century. The American and Mexican
>culture and languages have not lived "side-by-side" or even in near
>proximity. Is what you're claiming being taught in public schools
>these days?
No, quite the converse actually. You must be willing to take a look
at history, do serious research, and understand the differnence between real
Texas history and the Americanized version of history.
We were not at a constant state of war with Mexico between 1836 and
1845. At most it was what might literally be called a "Mexican standoff".
There were two occasions during that period when Mexico made semi-official
raids into Texas and on one occasion even held San Antonio for a few days,
but there were also several occaisons where Texas made semi-official raids
into Mexico and, on one occasion, held Monterrey for a couple of days.
Generally, however, Mexico had pretty much accepted Texas indpendence by
default.
Conflict along the Mexican-Texan border has started up sporatically
douring the latter half to the 19th century. At one time relations have
been excellent and at others rather testy, but relations between our
governments and relations between our peoples have often been at odds with
one another. While Texas Rangers were looking for a group of obscure
radicals who wanted to "kill all Anglos and return the southwest to Mexico",
in some places the senseless panic was used to settle old scores by pointing
fingers and making false accusations, while in others those accused where
being sheltered by friends and neighbors.
The Rio Grande Valley is, and has been, a land of contradictions,
myths, and legends. To attempt to describe it, or Texas for that matter, in
simplistic cut and dried terms is like trying to express the meaning of the
universe with one letter.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>place it is because it's filled with Mexicans who have certain
>attitudes, values, and behaviors; that is, *culture*.
No, Mexico is the lamentable place it is because it has tradtitions
of highly centralized government and division based upon social class. It
seems to me by seeking to declare one culture superior to another and allow
the federal government to dictate to people what language they can speak, it
is you that is attempting to emulate Mexico's failures and drag the United
States into the same trap.
To retain a
>language is to retain a culture. If you want Texas to become more and
>more an approximation of Mexico, then fill it with Mexicans.
First of all, not even the majority of Hispanic immigrants coming to
Texas are Mexican, they are Central American, and while I am sure you see no
difference between the two cultures there is an enormous one. Secondly,
Hispanic immigrants who come to Texas do not retain the traditions of their
homelands more than a generation or two, they become Tejanos. You see, we
have another culture here in Texas that other states do not have. A native
Texas Hispanic culture that asorbs Hispanics just as the native Texas Anglo
culture asorbs Anglos. In the end, we are always where we began, a land of
two rich cultures bound together by a common love of Texas, each sharing the
riches of the one with the other.
Your fears are not our fears. With two hundred years of constant
immigration you might be where we are today and I can tell you, you have
nothing to fear. People can live together in harmony.
> Rubbish. English and Spanish have never existed
>*side-by-side* here in Texas. The small group of Mexicans who've
>lived in Texas - before the onslaught in the past 20 or so years -
>spoke Spanish in their own homes, but business and government have
>always been conducted in English.
You say here in Texas, are you from Dallas or up in the panhandle?
Those are about the only areas of Texas I can imagine where such an
impression could even remotely be formed. Either that, or you have led a
VERY sheltered life.
>
> You've got the senseless lingo down, don't you -
>"richness...diversity." Look at Kosovo and East Timor and the former
>Soviet Union and a hundred other places in the headlines everyday and
>then tell me about "richness" and "diversity."
What makes these places the stinkholes they are are those who
catagorically dislike others for who they are, not as individuals, but as a
group. This is normally based upon a simple lack of understanding. When
you get to know people it becomes much harder to hate them. Rather than
promoting ideas such as those you are promoting, ideas which lead to the
creation of devisive sentiments producing Kosovos, is it not much wiser to
learn to appreciate the values of those different from ourselves and build
bridges between our cultures?
> The ones that have allowed Mexico to be an over-populated,
>thoroughly corrupted ditch ruled by a greedy oligarchy. The ones that
>make bribery the occupation common to everyone in the country. The
>ones that take advantage of our health, education, and welfare systems
>- the Dallas County hospital tax is going up, by the way, and if you
>walk the corridors in the middle of any day, you'll understand who is
>in our pockets.
Ah Dallas, I see. We let me tell you this. Dallas has some unique
problems being so close to the Red River and all, but I would suggest that
if y'all would spend a little more time working to eleminate all these
federally mandated social programs and a little less time looking for people
to blame their cost on, you'd be invilved in a lot more productive pursuit.
>
> What a complete load. Read some Texas history, will you. The
>Mexican population, including in the lower Rio Grande Valley, was
>until the past couple of decades way less than 50%.
I would sure like to find the source of this information. The oldest
Texas Almanac I have here right now is the 1973 version which shows the
population of Hidalgo County, for example, to 317,808. The ethnic makeup
was:
Black .02%
American Indian .02%
Asian .01%
White 9.4%
Hispanic 81.4% (today 85.2%)
Other 9.1%
Looking though some other counties along the Rio Grande, 26 years ago,
the Hispanic populations were:
Cameron County (Brownsville) 78.3% Hispanic (now 81.9%)
Brooks County 87.1% Hispanic (now 89.4%)
Culberson County (West Texas) 71.4% Hispanic (now 71.0%)
Dimmit County 85.8% Hispanic (now 83.3%)
Duval County 91.2% Hispanic (now 87.2%)
EL Paso County (West Texas) 68.3% Hispanic (now 69.6%)
Frio County 63.2% Hispanic (now 72.4%)
Hudspeth County 71.1% Hispanic (now 66.4%)
Jim Hogg County 93.7% Hispanic (now 91.2%)
Kinney County 51.7% Hispanic (now 50.3%)
La Salle County 77.3% Hispanic (now 77.4%)
Maverick County 94.4% Hispanic (now 93.5%)
Since I like numbers and I'm curious, let's go to the 1996-1997
Texas Almanac, I know, I need a new one, and see what the percentages are
today
compared to a quarter century ago....
OK, based on these numbers I would be willing to make a couple of
assumptions.
1) The population in the Rio Grande Valley of Hispanics was NOT
below 50% two decades ago and, in fact, on average it approached 80%.
2) The relative percentage of population over the past two
decades has remained relative stagnent. Hispanics seem to be declining a
little in most rural counties and increasing a little in most urban counties
as a percentage of the overall population.
3) The overall percentage of Hispanics in the Rio Gande Valley,
over the past quarter century, has remained about the same.
Hopefully, a few real facts about what is happening will shake you
out of the popular, and false, mindset that prevails today. I put a little
work into this first, because I was curious myself, and second because I
knew beforehand the facts were contrary to your assumptions. I also did
this because as a fellow Texan I believe it is important that you know the
truth about Texas, learn to understand how Americans are being lisled by
their government, and, of course, hope that you will look into these things
a little deeper for yourself and understand the true richness of Texas.
Seeing one one side of it deprives you of half of what we are.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>so somewhere down the line, your argument's consistency is severely
>compromised here on its way to grappling with those nightmares of an
>inevitable Doomsday scenario, which is really all you're displaying
>in terms of your own attitude, value and behavior.
Bingo, what he is opposing, by his very opposition, he is attempting
to create.
/\/\ike
Douglas Long
That's all really fascinating, but the fact is that few, very
few Mexicans lived between the Rio Grande and Nueces. Furthermore,
whatever descendants might be living there now, they are vastly
outnumbered by mostly illegal arrivals who've populated the place in
the past 25 years or so. The Rio Grande Valley was until the late 60s
dominated by a majority American population. The Mexicans came in and
now the place is overrun by Mexicans - not Texans, not Americans, but
Mexicans.
Douglas Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
> No, Mexico is the lamentable place it is because it has tradtitions
>of highly centralized government and division based upon social class.
And the traditions of government and division based on social
class are expressions of culture.
>It
>seems to me by seeking to declare one culture superior to another and allow
>the federal government to dictate to people what language they can speak, it
>is you that is attempting to emulate Mexico's failures and drag the United
>States into the same trap.
First of all, the Mexican culture doesn't work. If it did,
Mexicans by the hundreds of thousands per year wouldn't be voting with
their feet and arriving here. To give equal standing or even respect
to Mexican culture in a contest with American culture would be unwise,
given the yearly evidence, don't you think? Also, as English is the
language of this country, it isn't too much to expect those who arrive
here voluntarily to learn our language. If they want to retain their
old ways, and thereby their old failures, they might as well have
stayed home.
> To retain a
>>language is to retain a culture. If you want Texas to become more and
>>more an approximation of Mexico, then fill it with Mexicans.
> First of all, not even the majority of Hispanic immigrants coming to
>Texas are Mexican, they are Central American,
The vast majority of *hispanics* here are Mexican.
>and while I am sure you see no
>difference between the two cultures there is an enormous one. Secondly,
>Hispanic immigrants who come to Texas do not retain the traditions of their
>homelands more than a generation or two, they become Tejanos. You see, we
>have another culture here in Texas that other states do not have. A native
>Texas Hispanic culture that asorbs Hispanics just as the native Texas Anglo
>culture asorbs Anglos. In the end, we are always where we began, a land of
>two rich cultures bound together by a common love of Texas, each sharing the
>riches of the one with the other.
Oh boy.
> Your fears are not our fears. With two hundred years of constant
>immigration you might be where we are today and I can tell you, you have
>nothing to fear. People can live together in harmony.
Really? You mean I should get all harmonious when the schools
are bursting with Mexicans, which not only drags down the level of
performance and the level of academic rigor in the schools, but also
raises my taxes to build new schools to handle the Mexican overflow.
And I should feel throughly harmonious that the county hospital
district is raising its taxes because of the thousands of Mexicans
giving birth and not paying a bill? And I should be tremendously
harmonious about the hit-and-run accidents, the graffitti, the trashed
neighborhoods, the Spanish language everywhere in public?
>> Rubbish. English and Spanish have never existed
>>*side-by-side* here in Texas. The small group of Mexicans who've
>>lived in Texas - before the onslaught in the past 20 or so years -
>>spoke Spanish in their own homes, but business and government have
>>always been conducted in English.
> You say here in Texas, are you from Dallas or up in the panhandle?
>Those are about the only areas of Texas I can imagine where such an
>impression could even remotely be formed. Either that, or you have led a
>VERY sheltered life.
I"m in Dallas, and I tend to avoid the homeboys. Dallas, by
the way, in the past five years, has been absolutely inundated by
Mexicans. Whole sections of the city and some suburbs have gone
Mexican.
>> You've got the senseless lingo down, don't you -
>>"richness...diversity." Look at Kosovo and East Timor and the former
>>Soviet Union and a hundred other places in the headlines everyday and
>>then tell me about "richness" and "diversity."
> What makes these places the stinkholes they are are those who
>catagorically dislike others for who they are, not as individuals, but as a
>group. This is normally based upon a simple lack of understanding. When
>you get to know people it becomes much harder to hate them. Rather than
>promoting ideas such as those you are promoting, ideas which lead to the
>creation of devisive sentiments producing Kosovos, is it not much wiser to
>learn to appreciate the values of those different from ourselves and build
>bridges between our cultures?
If you believe that the ethnic demogogues who lead the
Mexicans in this state are interested in equality, then you ought to
think again. For example, Jose Angel Guttierrez, a professor at UT
Arlington, has spoken before audiences and said: "The white population
is dying off. I love it." We in this state and elsewhere in this
country are in a culture war, and people such as you, who want
everything to be okay, either don't realize it or refuse to
acknowledge it. And get aquainted with the idea of *group* identity
and how it differs from individual identity. You might like an
individual, but he is also a member of a group, and when push comes to
shove, he'll side with his group.
>> The ones that have allowed Mexico to be an over-populated,
>>thoroughly corrupted ditch ruled by a greedy oligarchy. The ones that
>>make bribery the occupation common to everyone in the country. The
>>ones that take advantage of our health, education, and welfare systems
>>- the Dallas County hospital tax is going up, by the way, and if you
>>walk the corridors in the middle of any day, you'll understand who is
>>in our pockets.
> Ah Dallas, I see. We let me tell you this. Dallas has some unique
>problems being so close to the Red River and all, but I would suggest that
>if y'all would spend a little more time working to eleminate all these
>federally mandated social programs and a little less time looking for people
>to blame their cost on, you'd be invilved in a lot more productive pursuit.
I'm with you on getting rid of the programs. They've become a
kind of chow line for Mexicans.
I'll have to give you that one. I've been reading *Means of
Ascent*, the book by Robt. Caro about LBJ, and I confused some numbers
and dates. On the other hand, the population of the Rio Grande Valley
has grown tremendously since 1960, and while the percentages have
remained roughly similiar, the real numbers of Mexicans has grown
considerably. And if you've been down there much, you know that south
Texas looks, sounds, and smells amazingly like Mexico, and more so
than it ever has. Exactly how are Texans benefitting from this
Mexican presence?
Douglas Long
The paragraph that you're agreeing with was so senseless that
when I read it in the original I ignored it. I'm not trying to create
anything. I'm acknowledging the reality of conflicting cultures. A
hundred places around the world are experiencing that kind of conflict
today, and yet you claim there's nothing to it, that by my
acknowledging it, I'm trying to create it. My claim is that by
allowing massive legal and illegal immigration, especially from
Mexico, we're planting the seeds of a civic disaster. Already we're
experiencing an educational and healthcare disaster in this state,
owing to immigration. Welcome to the "richness of diversity."
Douglas Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>>
>> Uh-huh. Four or five Mexicans participated on our side.
>>Exactly why do you seem to wish to distort history?
>
>
> Let history determine which of us promotes distortion. Eight Tejanos
>died in the Alamo.
Right. Eight out of 180 + defenders.
>Eighteen more died among Fannin's troops at Goliad.
Right. Eighteen out of what ... 300 +?
>Captian Juan Segiun, who survived the Alamo by an act of fate, led over 30
>Tejano calvary into the center of the Mexican line at the Battle of San
>Jacinto. Lorenzo de Zavala co-authored our Declaration of Independence and
>served as the first Vice President of the Republic of Texas. The Ruiz
>family from Velasco alone donanted the funds to purchase two of the four
>vessels in the Texas Navy.
Do you have the numbers of Tejanos who fought against the
Texans, and what was the name of the Tejano who at first was with the
Texans, but then changed his mind and betrayed the Texans?
So a hundred Tejanos fought among a couple of thousand Texans,
and you claim the Tejano participation was significant?
>> Taylor was camped near the Rio Grande, and Mexican troops
>>crossed the river and attacked. And to you Taylor provoked a war?
> Without the conset of the government of the Republic, which had a
>standing agreement with Mexico that if we would not send troops into the
>disputed Nueces Strip, they would not, Zachary Taylor landed American
>troops, well before the Treaty of Annexation was signed between the Republic
>and the United States in an obvious attempt to start a war. The Mexicans
>refused to take the bait and instead offered the Republic a fairly generous
>treaty, through British agents, recognizing Texas independence if Texas
>would not join the United States. It was only after Texas turned down full
>recognition by Mexico and joined the United States that Mexico sent troops
>into the Nueces Strip to stake it's own claim. The Mexican troops, contrary
>to your assertion, were immediately attacked by Taylor.
Actually, my sources on who attacked first are several,
including the Memoirs of US Grant, who participated in the war. Also,
yourreview of events is a snapshot: given the larger context of
Mexican-Texan relations - never good - and US-Mexican relations -
never good either, your snapshot is a distortion. Taylor was there to
assert ownership merely by his presence, and the Mexicans, believing
they owned the land, did cross the Rio Grande and attacked.
S.BM
REALLY..how many illegals are going to actually, 1- GET a census form, and
2- Actually fill out the correct information EVEN if they DO get one?
One thing is for sure, in Southern Cali, Mexicans are the majority.
Period..
Everyone keeps saying, this is not a problem....I guess if they were at the
Hoover Dam, and a small crack formed, they would keep stating that it wasn't
a problem until the dam broke and THEN, they would try to hide THAT.
Mike Angwin <man...@brokersys.com> wrote in message
news:7qpvci$8d4$4...@news.hal-pc.org...
S.BM
you want to call them, compromised of Whites, Blacks...hell..Japanese
descendents..etc, and run across the border to Mexico, find a nice sized
town there, throw out the locals, outlaw Spanish as the spoken language, and
conduct ALL business in English. See how long that lasts...what? about...3
hours before the Mexican government went ballistic and removed that problem?
Douglas Long <DKL...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37d0cf42...@news.mindspring.com...
Mike Angwin
> That's all really fascinating, but the fact is that few, very
>few Mexicans lived between the Rio Grande and Nueces. Furthermore,
>whatever descendants might be living there now, they are vastly
>outnumbered by mostly illegal arrivals who've populated the place in
>the past 25 years or so. The Rio Grande Valley was until the late 60s
>dominated by a majority American population. The Mexicans came in and
>now the place is overrun by Mexicans - not Texans, not Americans, but
>Mexicans.
Several things need to be considered here and a couple others need
outright correction. At the time of the Texas Revolution very few people
lived in the Nueces Strip, Hispanic or Anglo, but of those who did live
there, they were almost exclusively Hispanic. A few towns, such as Laredo
and Presido were on the north bank of the Rio Grande and Corpis Christi was
south of the Nueces, however these were all three virtually exclusively
Hispanic as were the cross river settlements near Matamoras. Meir, and San
Patricio.
While there are, not doubt, many in the Valley who can probably trace
their ancestry to someone who entered the country illegally, it must be
remembered thre were no immigration restrictions enforced in the Valley
until the 1960s and it was only in the 1980s that such restrictions were
even taken seriously. However, I would be quite reluctant to say even a
majority of Hispanics now living in the Valley are not desecendents of those
who were there before Anglos marched in a declared themselves in charge.
The Rio Grande Valley was NOT dominated by an Anglo majority until
the late 1960s. I have no idea where such an idea comes from. Hispanic
populations in the valley counties has always rested in the 80-90% ranges.
There has never been a signifigant Anglo population in the region.
Also we need to be clear about one thing. Despite waves of
immigrants from the north and from the south, the vast, vast, majority of
those living in the Valley are America citizens. There are some Mexicans in
the area, or course, the Valley is right on the frontier with Mexico, but
the vast majority of Hispanics in the area are United States citizens, not
Mexicans. They can be called Americans, or Hispanics, or Texans, or even
Tejanos, but to call them Mexicans is not only inaccurate but disrespectful.
Just as we can be called Americans or Texans or Anglos, but to call us
Yankees, in our own land, is a sign of disrespect.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
Yes, eight out of 186. Which alone is twice the number alluded to
as having fought in the entire revolution. Considering the attidue of
Travis towards Tejanos, even eight is surprising. While Tejanos fought and
played varying roles in every signifigant battle in the Revolution, Travis
could have easily inspired ten times the number of Tejanos to join him had
he not been as narrow minded as he was. Travis's poor recognition of, and
lack of respect for, Tejano patriots, may have, in fact, led to the fall of
the Alamo itself. With another 80 defenders holding the fort until even
more reinforcements could arrive, the outcome could have beenentirely
different. No other Texas commander ever made the same mistake.
>
>>Eighteen more died among Fannin's troops at Goliad.
>
> Right. Eighteen out of what ... 300 +?
309 were killed outside of Goliad, 23 more, including Fannin,
were killed in their hospital beds inside the fort, and 16 escaped of which
1 was a Tejano. Again, this represents a number many times greater than the
number you alluded to. However, I will point out that almost the entire
command of Fannin was, like the units under the command of Travis, makeshift
units of volunteers from outside Texas and stragelers who had defied
Houston's orders for a gneral retreat of the Texas Army. Most of the
Tejanos who fought for Texas made an early commitment to the Texas side and
were regular army forces under Houston's general command.
>
> Do you have the numbers of Tejanos who fought against the
>Texans, and what was the name of the Tejano who at first was with the
>Texans, but then changed his mind and betrayed the Texans?
Tories were common during the Texas Revolution, just as Royalists
were common during he American revolution. I have no doubt that
individuals, including one Harry O'Neill from San Particio, changed sides
during the ebb and flow of the war. I am not aware of the individual you
are referring to, though I am aware of several such cases and the vast
majority of them did involve Tejanos, though not all of them. Some Anglos
did the same as the war appeared lost. Yet there were notable defections by
Tejanos, pressed into duty by the Mexican Army, to the Texas side as well.
Is not such the nature of all civil wars?
The divison among Tejanos varied wildly from place to place. San
Antonio and Refugio were bastions of pro-indpendence Tejanos. In San
Patricio the reverse was true and even most of the Anglos sided with the
Mexican central government.
I think the best description of what side everyone was on probably came from
Austin himself when he said most people want to wait and see who will win
before they take sides. From the accounts I have read this seems as
applicable to the Tejanos as is was to the Anglos in San Felipe Austin was
referring to.
> So a hundred Tejanos fought among a couple of thousand Texans,
>and you claim the Tejano participation was significant?
No, at the height of troop strength the Texas Army has a little over
3,000 men in arms. Of these around 500 were Tejanos. Over half of those in
the Texas Army were Americans who arrived to participate in the war. The
actual ration of Tejanos in the army to resident Anglos in the army was
about 1:2, which was about the same as the pre-revolutionary population
which, incidently, is about the same as the population ratios are still
today. The Tejano contribution to the Revolution, in manpower, was constant
with the populations. However, the Tejano contribution to the war
financially, was way beyond population ratios. Tejanos literally funded the
entire Revolution.
>
> Actually, my sources on who attacked first are several,
>including the Memoirs of US Grant, who participated in the war. Also,
>yourreview of events is a snapshot: given the larger context of
>Mexican-Texan relations - never good - and US-Mexican relations -
>never good either, your snapshot is a distortion. Taylor was there to
>assert ownership merely by his presence, and the Mexicans, believing
>they owned the land, did cross the Rio Grande and attacked.
Taylor landed several weeks before the Treaty between the United
States and Texas was formalized. He landed without the consent or awares of
the Republic. His act was essentially an invasion of Texas by the United
States. However, during these weeks Mexican forces did not challange the
American forces who were obviously wanting a war to provoke Texas into
accepting annexation. A Mexican Treaty, recognizing Texas was also before
the Congress of the Republic and under consideration.
I must admit, I don't have the book here I want to fully assert my
claims, but there is a book by the Austin Press, written by a former Texas
Ranger, that deals with the Mexican-American War from a Texas perspective.
It's quite contradictive of the American version of that conflict and goes
into detail about the Mexican response to Taylor as well as their reaction
to annexation. If I had it here I could at least offer some better detail.
In any event, despite the Americans premature and unprovoked
occupation of the Nueces Strip, the Mexican government did show restraint
and it was only upon annexation of Texas by the United States that Mexico
moved to assert it's claim to the disputed territory. My resources indicate
Taylor immediately moved to attack the Mexicans and despite a numeric
advantage he got the worst of the battle, though the Mexican army did
withdraw back across the river.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>when I read it in the original I ignored it. I'm not trying to create
>anything. I'm acknowledging the reality of conflicting cultures.
By asserting cultures are in conflict when they are not, you are
creating something. Our cultures have shared this land for two centuries in
relative harmony. Yes, there have been good times and bad times, but on the
whole neither has attempted to drive the other into the sea or conduct some
process of ethnic purification. Both cultures ghave endured and we are
enrichened from the experience. The assertion of conflict creates, in the
minds of those ignorant of fact, conditions which do not exist and
therefore, create in their minds a false image which can only lead to
mistaken judgements.
A
>hundred places around the world are experiencing that kind of conflict
>today, and yet you claim there's nothing to it, that by my
>acknowledging it, I'm trying to create it.
The hundred places you point to are examples of the reasoning you
exercise being allowed to run amok. If we all thought as you we would be
just like those places, entangled in endless conflicts, hatreds, and
violences, but we are not like those places and when someone appears whose
reasoning seems dedicated to the proposition of dragging Texas down the same
senseless path, I find it a necessity to point out the error of such
resoning.
My claim is that by
>allowing massive legal and illegal immigration, especially from
>Mexico, we're planting the seeds of a civic disaster.
First, there is no established fact that such a thing exists or
ever has existed. There is a steady flow of immigration, regulated by
ecconomic conditions, that remains relatively consistant, across all our
rivers, but in a century and a half the relative ratio of Anglos to
Hispanics has remained pretty constant. As for allowing immigration, I
suggest, despite the taxes we waste in such an effort, despite the liberties
that we would be called upon to sacrifice in such an effort, mere
governments do not have the power to signifigantly alter immigration.
Social isolationism is not an achievalbe propostion...nor by the way, do I
consider it even a desirable one.
Already we're
>experiencing an educational and healthcare disaster in this state,
>owing to immigration. Welcome to the "richness of diversity."
You are missing the target entirely as I demonstrated to you,
factually, in an earlier post. Scapegoats do not solve problems, they only
create more problems. The solution to the flawed theories of social
liberalism is to reject them, not spend billions and billions of more tax
dollars in and attempt to shore up these programs by attempting yet another
massive government project doomed to failure which is increasing immigration
controls.
Big government, more government, more government spending, and
asking government to provide expensive solutions to imaginary problems is
silly. You federalists who love to look to Washington for more and more
government truly amaze me. How much will you have to pay before you realize
government doesn't offer solutions, it only offers more problems.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>> No, Mexico is the lamentable place it is because it has
tradtitions
>>of highly centralized government and division based upon social class.
>
> And the traditions of government and division based on social
>class are expressions of culture.
In some ways yes. Hispanic immigrants tend to be respectful of
government and respectful of others, especially those in authority, traits
which do not conflict with our culture. Once these immigrants are here for
a generation or two, their descendents adapt, like those of all immigrants,
to one of the native cultures of Texas.
> First of all, the Mexican culture doesn't work. If it did,
>Mexicans by the hundreds of thousands per year wouldn't be voting with
>their feet and arriving here.
It is Mexico's centralized form of government, not it's culture
which doesn't work. Latin culture is rich and beautiful and has many, many
attributes in it's favor. In the early part of this century Mexico had a
popular revolution freeong it from the grip of a series of petty dictators
who had been proped up in power by the United Staes and other western
natons, who were bleeding Mexico of its resources. These corrupt
governments were sustained in power by a ruthless upper class that
controlled all of Mexico's land, all of her resources, and all of her
industries.
Well into this century Mexico fought a bloody and drawn out
revolution. During this revolution Mexico as laid to ruin, her upper class
was wiped out, and she was left in a state of total ruin. Though the
Mexican people won the revolution, they were infected with a false belief in
social liberalism and the PRI set about to create a socialist state. For a
while the promises of socialism seemed to work wonders in Mexico and the
standard of living rose dramatically, but by the 1960s socialism had run
it's course and Mexico again plunged into the depths of economic depression
from which it has not yet escaped.
Social liberalism and the leaders of a powerful centralized
government have replaced the Dons of the old fascist state as the absolute
rulers of Mexico and the Mexican people, again, find themselves trapped in
poverty and hopelessness. It is not their culture, their work ethic, or
their character that has created the conditions in which they live, but
rather some very poor choices in forms of government.
To give equal standing or even respect
>to Mexican culture in a contest with American culture would be unwise,
>given the yearly evidence, don't you think?
Not at all. The two cultures are different in many ways, but they are
also complimentary in many ways. In recent years the American culture has
become one of wild violence, broken families, rampant drug use, extreme
selfishness, and poor character. There is much in American culture that
could be learned from Latin culture which still places strong values on the
family, helping others, and the church.
Also, as English is the
>language of this country, it isn't too much to expect those who arrive
>here voluntarily to learn our language.
This is a quite mistaken belief. English may be the language of the
American heartland, or of the east and west coasts, but it has never been
the exclusive language of Texas nor, of New Mexico. Hispanics have always
played a signifigant role in Texas and a dominant role in New Mexico. While
Americans may choose to ingore these facts, it does not alter them.
Americans, as a part of the process of naturalization, require immigrants to
learn and speak English with some modicum of proficiency, but no such demand
applies to the millions of Spanish speaking native born American citizens.
Today 20 million American citizens speak Spanish as their first language.
In Texas they are close to 30% of the population and in New Mexico more than
half.
If they want to retain their
>old ways, and thereby their old failures, they might as well have
>stayed home.
There are many places in the United States, outside Texas and New
Mexico, that Americans can make such claims, but not here. What is here has
always been here and they have stayed at home.
>
>> First of all, not even the majority of Hispanic immigrants coming
to
>>Texas are Mexican, they are Central American,
>
> The vast majority of *hispanics* here are Mexican.
Actually "Mexicans" are third on the list of Texas Hispanics. The
majority are native born Texans, Tejanos who were born in Texas. These
individuals and their culture are as native, and in many cases, more native
to this land than the majority of Anglos, many of who only recently came to
Texas across one of our other rivers.
The second largest group of Hispanics in Texas, by far, are Central
American immigrants who flooded into Texas in the 1970s and 1980s during the
conflicts in Cenral America. Mexican nationals actually are now the third
largest identifiable group of Hispanics in Texas and nowhere near the
largest, much less a "vast majority".
> Really? You mean I should get all harmonious when the schools
>are bursting with Mexicans, which not only drags down the level of
>performance and the level of academic rigor in the schools, but also
>raises my taxes to build new schools to handle the Mexican overflow.
First of all the number of "Mexicans" you see is an illusion of
your own mind created by your own inability to distinguish one Hispanic from
another. You them make the gross mistake of believing every Hispanic you
see is a "Mexican". This only reflects your own lack of understanding about
what you are talking about.
Second, Texas is a rather unique place. Out educational system
is funded, almost exclusively, by two sources. The first is the permenanr
school trust fund and the second is property taxes. While our property
taxes are high, which I suggest is a product of our reliance on socialized
education, they also allow every member of our society to pay those taxes.
The average apartment dweller, where lower income Texans now tend to live,
pays local school districts an average of just over $1,000 a year in
property taxes through his or her rent. I own a reasonably nice home here
in Houston and my school property taxes are arounf $900 a year. I would
suggest your claim that the tax burden is not being fairly distributed is as
falsely based as the assumption that every Hispanic you see is a "Mexican".
Perceptions can create emotional responses, but they can also lead to so
very false and inaccurate conclusions.
If you really wish to work for a less expensive, more
productive educational system in Texas, I would encourage you to fight for
an end to socialized education and encourage others to support a voucher
system in Texas. By doing so we could cut the cost of education in half and
double the performance of our schools.
>And I should feel throughly harmonious that the county hospital
>district is raising its taxes because of the thousands of Mexicans
>giving birth and not paying a bill?
There are three points to this I would like to make. First,
again, your perceptions of "Mexicans" heavily shade your judgement.
Hispanics are the largest minority group in Texas and where ever you go that
our poorer citizens are concentrated, you will most certianly find large
number of them. However, be careful not to let your emotions overstrip your
reason.
The Harris County Hospital District in Houston just went trough
a major financial crisis after runaway cost over runs, as is always the case
with government projects, during the construction of new facilities. During
the controversy the issue of people not paying their bills, and bill
collection by the hospital district, created a huge debate. As with all
such debates race was drawn into the mix. As a sidebar it was discovered
that Hispanics were by far, the most likely of the two most likely groups to
pay bills sent by the hospital. Even more likely than Asians which were a
close second. It was also noted that Hispanics were the least likely of the
three largest ethnic groups to use public hospitals and public services in
general.
These facts underscore something about Hispanic culture that
those not familiar with Hispanic culture probably don't understand. In
Hispanic culture a debt is a debt and though repayment may be slow and
painful, debts must be paid. In the HCHD article it was noted that former
Hispanic patients here in Houston were payiong their bills, even without
notices being sent them, from as far away as Chile.
Another part of Hispanic culture is that you first turn to
family, then to the church, and only after all other resources have been
exhausted, to the state for assistance. It was noted that Catholic churches
in Houston were operating large scale "free clinics" that needy Hispanics
were using before using public services. Something that was saving
taxpayers "a signifigant amount" according to a member of the county
commissioners court.
I would also like to point out that public hospitals, like
public schools, are supported by property taxes and, again, apartment
dwellers pay property taxes, through their rent, at a rate which you and I
would never tolerate. So even
though poorer Hispanics are using these services at a rate lower than either
poorer Anglos or poorer Blacks, they are also contributing their fair share
to the system while being far, far more likely than anyone else to repay any
debts they incur.
Misconceptions are a dangerous opponent.
However, if you are as alarmed as I am about the waste and
unnecessary costs of government operated hospitals, then I encourage you to
join me in opposing such operations. Long before government decided to get
into the hospital business, those in need had a wide range of charity
hospitals available to them funded by private and commercial donations.
Goverment operated hospitals have caused these donantions to evaporate and
most charity hospitals have now closed their doors. What I would like to
see is the removal of government from the medical industry here in Texas
entirely which would address both the reality of the unnecessaritly high
taxes we pay, and even the misconceptions about abuse of the system by your
imaginary "Mexicans".
And I should be tremendously
>harmonious about the hit-and-run accidents, the graffitti, the trashed
>neighborhoods, the Spanish language everywhere in public?
Grafiti is an American invention, not a Hispanic one. Gangs, BTW, are an
American invention, not a Hispanic one. These are products of the American
culture of the decentralized and broken family unit which has affected the
Hispanic culture in American as it has all cultures in America. Personally
I believe socialized education and the constant harping on ethnic divison
are the primary culprits, along, of course, with the insanity of the War on
Drugs. Some very bad choices have been made by the American government over
the past four decades, attempting to force Washington solutions of Texas,
and what you are seeing is the result of a blind commitment to federalism.
As for trashed neighborhoods, I think you are again crossing a
perceptual line that only exixts in your mind. There are other American
ethnic groups where, in neighborhoods of the poor, tend to do a far worse
job of keeping up the neighborhood than Hispanics do. I can demostrate to
you the contrasts and changes, all to the better, if you wish to come to
Houston, but it really isn't necessary. If you look in your own area with
an eye towrds what is being done, as opposed to an eye towrds what absent
landlords and negligent city officials are doing, you can see clearly what I
am talking about. Yet, to see this and to understand, you must already be
willing to do so. If your mind is made up ahead of time based upon present
convictions sight is beyond the realm of your capability.
I will concede one point for you, though I will reserve a
counterpoint. When we are talking about illegal immigrants, whcih represent
only a very small fraction of the Hispanic community, hit and run accidents,
especially in accidents involving relatively minor vehicle damage, do occur
with greater frequency. Why is not really important, but let me at least
tell you why.
For a human being whose very existance has been declared illegal
by a government, life is a very difficult proposition. At any moment that
individual is subject to arrest and exile. Subject to losing the job they
feed their family with, subject to being torn away from their family leaving
them without income or sustanance, subject, in the case of a single parent,
of being forced to abandon their child without warning or foreword, subject
to losing all of their worldly posessions, subject to disappearing without
warning or opportunity to even prepare to leave.
This does place an enormous hardship, not only upon the
individual in question, but upon their spouse and upon their children. Once
ripped away from their lives by the government, it may take as long as a
month before word can reach the family what happened. While the individual
himself must endure the suffering of what amounts to nothing less than an
abduction, the family must fear the worst and cannot seek the help of the
police to find out. It amounts to one of the most horriffic experiences an
individual or a family can go through.
When a minor traffic accident occurs, and a tail light is
broken, some people are left with a decison of where they must place their
importance, upon a taillight, or upon their life and their family. I have
seen, time and again, selfish and unconcerned people call the police and
destroy a persons life over something as trivial as a tail light lens
despite desperate pleas to let them make amends and not call the police.
Each time this occurs, others are encouraged to simply leave rather than to
face the horrible consequences of remaining and have their lives destroyed.
You may view this as you choose. There are any number of
curt responses that can be made like "well they shouldn't be here in the
forst place" and on and on, but the reality is they are here and this is the
choice the American policy of making human beings illegal creates, and that
is my counterpoint.
Finally, as far as the Spanish language being "everywhere" in public,
you are right, it is. Spanish and English have been on equal footing in
Texas since those forst shots were fired at Gonzales in 1835. People have
just as much right to post a sign in Spanish as they have in English. Funny
thing is, I never hear anyone complaining about all the English signs.
The fact is, you can't eleminate Spanish from Texas even if you
wanted to, neither legally nor practically. Legally, even an American
constitutional amendment declaring English the official language of the
United States would not be applicable in Texas, half of New Mexico, and
parts of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming. These lands entered the
United States under a treaty between the Republic of Texas and the United
States of American, two soverign and independent republics, that included a
provision that the duality of English and Spanish would be respected as
languages of Texas. An international treaty, according to the constitution
itself, actually carries more weight than the constitution and any
amendments that at attached to it. English Only people, even if they we
sucesful in their paranoid panic, can not affect Texas unless, of course,
the US agrees to allow us to recreate the Republic of Texas and negociate a
new treaty. Personally I would like that idea, but I would never tangle
Texas up in the Ameican mess again.
It is funny though that one would oppose Spanish signs, of all
places, in Texas. Can you imagine a travel brochure encouraging you to go
to Saint Anthony and see the Cottonwood. Shall we remember the brave men
who died outside (unspeakable word)? Or consider the city of (unspeakable
word) where our Revolution began. Maybe we could all meet in the Body of
Christ down on the Nuts River in Holy Birth Bay at the north end of Father
Island one day and discuss the possiblities. Of course before we do that
we'd have to decide whether our new state name would be Friends or Allies,
Texas, after all, is an indian word and that just wouldn't do would it?
I'm apologize for delving into satire, I just find the
propostion of removing Spanish from Texas to be akin to removing the pea
from peanuts.
> I"m in Dallas, and I tend to avoid the homeboys. Dallas, by
>the way, in the past five years, has been absolutely inundated by
>Mexicans. Whole sections of the city and some suburbs have gone
>Mexican.
There's the "Mexican" word again. If you only know how narrow and
with total lack of understanding use of that word in such a context
demonstrates, I would bet you would drop using it in a minute. Lets look at
you county population stastics in 1973 compared to 1997 and see what the
trend is. In 1973 Hispanics were 15.6% of the Dallas County populaton, and
in 1997...17.0% so yes, there has been a slight increase. Let's see if we
can figure out where it came from. In 1973 Blacks were 14.1% and Anglos
were 70.1%. Today Blacks are....(whoa, jumped up) 19.9%, Asians (not even
mentioned in 1973)...2.8%, and Anglos are 59.1%
I wonder if white flight to suburbia might have something to do with
this? At any rate, the idea of a massive explosion of Hispanics seems
unsubstantiated sine both Black and Asian populations are growing faster
than the Hispanic population in Dallas County is. White flight could also
explain why Dallas is now Texas 3rd largest city behind San Antonio.
Curious how the populations have changed in Bexar County I am....1973 52.8%
Hispanic...1997 (hey, I just found where all the Dallas Anglos went!) 49.7%
Hispanic.
>
> If you believe that the ethnic demogogues who lead the
>Mexicans in this state are interested in equality, then you ought to
>think again. For example, Jose Angel Guttierrez, a professor at UT
>Arlington, has spoken before audiences and said: "The white population
>is dying off. I love it." We in this state and elsewhere in this
>country are in a culture war, and people such as you, who want
>everything to be okay, either don't realize it or refuse to
>acknowledge it. And get aquainted with the idea of *group* identity
>and how it differs from individual identity. You might like an
>individual, but he is also a member of a group, and when push comes to
>shove, he'll side with his group.
Culture wars are not fought by non-combatants, they are created, and
fought by, those whose personal fears will not allow them to see the
richness of cultural diversity.
There are always those, in any society, who seek to create violence
where peace exists, who seek to turn harmony into disharmony, and who seek
to divide where real divisions do not exist. Fortuantely, their roots have
not taken place in Texas as they have in California and Florida. Nor,
hopefully, will we ever allow them to. Our tradition of bi-culturalism here
in Texas, I desperately hope, will be far too strong for people such as this
to overcome.
Together we wresteled this land from the Commanches. Together we
fought to throw off the yoke of Imperial Spain. Together we fought to
defeat a ruthless Mexican dictator. Together we forged a proud and
independent Republic, and together, we have endured the burden of runaway
federalism. Hopefully, together, we can turn back the river of hatred that
has always flowed into Texas from the north.
You see, true Texans are not color coded. We don't care about
colors, or cultures, or languages. All we care about is Texas and in the
sacred soil of Texas our blood has flowed together to sanctify the soil.
Texas is not yours, or mine, or even theirs, whoever they may be. Texas is
ours. WE cleared the land. WE bled into it's soil to secure OUR liberty.
Now WE reap the fruits. Texas is OURS, all of US.
>
> I'm with you on getting rid of the programs. They've become a
>kind of chow line for Mexicans.
Facts dispute your claims. If you are going to effectively oppose
something I would suggest you at least attempt to understand what you are
opposed to. If you keep going out ant trying to fix the wrong peoplems
you'll put Texas in the shape California is, whci is a basket case. Picking
imaginary scapegoats doesn't solve problems. It only creates new ones.
> I'll have to give you that one. I've been reading *Means of
>Ascent*, the book by Robt. Caro about LBJ, and I confused some numbers
>and dates. On the other hand, the population of the Rio Grande Valley
>has grown tremendously since 1960, and while the percentages have
>remained roughly similiar, the real numbers of Mexicans has grown
>considerably. And if you've been down there much, you know that south
>Texas looks, sounds, and smells amazingly like Mexico, and more so
>than it ever has. Exactly how are Texans benefitting from this
>Mexican presence?
There are several misconceptions here. First of all south Texas has
always looked a lot like Mexico to the untrained eye because it's on the
frontier with Mexico. That frontier was effectively wide open until the
1980s when the feds came in with a vengeance. In 1986, for instance, I was
in El Paso and you could still pay a guy $1 to carry you across the river on
his shoulders so you wouldn't get your shoes and pants legs wet if you
didn't want to walk the several blocks down to the border checkpoint. The
lower Rio Grande was, and in many ways, still is just as open. Residents
across the border can get ID cards that let them come and go at will, they
just can't go beyond the feds checkpoints which are well north of the
Valley.
Tejanos in south Texas are American citizens, but have always
maintained their linguistic, cultural, family, and economic ties with their
counterparts on the other side of the river. I've spent time in the Valley
and I speak fluent Spanish as well. I have a fair grasp of what is going on
and what is going on is not a massive influx of "Mexicans" as you seem to
believe to be the case. The population statistics I presented in the
previous post contradict any claims the "Mexican" population has increased
dramatically in south Texas. During my visits there I have encountered a
few Mexican nationals, but they were rare, about as rare as my encountering
Anglos in my visits to Mexico. Problem is, in Mexico, I had a harder time
picking out Tejanos in Mexico than I had picking out Mexicans in south
Texas.
The point of all of this is while the overall population of
Hispanics in Texas is increasing moderately, most of the increase comes from
internal, not external population growth. Immigration to Texas by
Hispanics, both legal and illegal, also appears to remain fairly consistent
with the immigration to Texas by American Anglos. Oddly enough, the flow of
Hispanics and Anglos into Texas seems to be determined more by the economy
of Texas than any other factor. Immigration restrictions, despite the
expenditure of billions of tax dollars, really have has little or no effect
on immigration. There is no reason to believe mere governments even have
the ability to affect such matters no matter how much is spent by taxpayers
nor how many liberties we sacrifice chasing shadows.
/\/\ike
"In Texas, the shadow of Spain is a long one." - Mary Lasswell
Chris S.
>>harmonious about the hit-and-run accidents, the graffitti, the trashed
>>neighborhoods, the Spanish language everywhere in public?
>
>
> Grafiti is an American invention, not a Hispanic one.
Hardly. Go to egypt some time, and you can see graffiti carved into
some old buildings. With dates in the 1500s.
>Gangs, BTW, are an
>American invention, not a Hispanic one.
Gangs, like greaffiti, have existed longer than America. The various
robber barons are all examples of pre-American gangs.
You are right that they are not Hispanic inventions, however.
Chris S.
chriss at cloud9 dot net
D. Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
> Several things need to be considered here and a couple others need
>outright correction. At the time of the Texas Revolution very few people
>lived in the Nueces Strip, Hispanic or Anglo, but of those who did live
>there, they were almost exclusively Hispanic. A few towns, such as Laredo
>and Presido were on the north bank of the Rio Grande and Corpis Christi was
>south of the Nueces, however these were all three virtually exclusively
>Hispanic as were the cross river settlements near Matamoras. Meir, and San
>Patricio.
> While there are, not doubt, many in the Valley who can probably trace
>their ancestry to someone who entered the country illegally, it must be
>remembered thre were no immigration restrictions enforced in the Valley
>until the 1960s and it was only in the 1980s that such restrictions were
>even taken seriously. However, I would be quite reluctant to say even a
>majority of Hispanics now living in the Valley are not desecendents of those
>who were there before Anglos marched in a declared themselves in charge.
That doesn't quite add up. If, as you admit, very few lived
in the Nueces Strip - and the number is probably a couple of hundred -
and immigration to the valley has increased the population of the
valley tremendously since the 1950s, the likelihood that a majority
can trace their ancestry to the 1830s is less than slim.
> The Rio Grande Valley was NOT dominated by an Anglo majority until
>the late 1960s.
Actually, you're right. It was dominated by the Anglo
minority - read the history of the Raza Unida Party, if you haven't
already.
> I have no idea where such an idea comes from. Hispanic
>populations in the valley counties has always rested in the 80-90% ranges.
>There has never been a signifigant Anglo population in the region.
> Also we need to be clear about one thing. Despite waves of
>immigrants from the north and from the south, the vast, vast, majority of
>those living in the Valley are America citizens. There are some Mexicans in
>the area, or course, the Valley is right on the frontier with Mexico, but
>the vast majority of Hispanics in the area are United States citizens, not
>Mexicans. They can be called Americans, or Hispanics, or Texans, or even
>Tejanos, but to call them Mexicans is not only inaccurate but disrespectful.
>Just as we can be called Americans or Texans or Anglos, but to call us
>Yankees, in our own land, is a sign of disrespect.
They might be American citizens, but if they speak only
Spanish and fly the Mexican flag over city hall, then as far as I'm
concerned, they're Mexicans.
D. Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>>> No, Mexico is the lamentable place it is because it has
>tradtitions
>>>of highly centralized government and division based upon social class.
>> And the traditions of government and division based on social
>>class are expressions of culture.
> In some ways yes. Hispanic immigrants tend to be respectful of
>government and respectful of others,
Wait a minute. If you're referring to Mexicans, you ought to
know that, according to a study done - if I remember correctly - by
the Urban Institute, 80% of them either arrived here illegally or are
the children of illegals. Where's the respect for government in that?
And as to respect for others, the graffitti, gangs, petty theft,
hit-and-run accidents, etc ... seem something less than respectful.
>especially those in authority, traits
>which do not conflict with our culture. Once these immigrants are here for
>a generation or two, their descendents adapt, like those of all immigrants,
>to one of the native cultures of Texas.
Unfortunately, they've arrived in the past couple of decades
in such numbers that they seem not to be adapting. They're behaving
like colonists rather than assimilating immigrants.
>> First of all, the Mexican culture doesn't work. If it did,
>>Mexicans by the hundreds of thousands per year wouldn't be voting with
>>their feet and arriving here.
> It is Mexico's centralized form of government, not it's culture
>which doesn't work. Latin culture is rich and beautiful
Mexican culture is dominated by the macho mentality, by a lack
of common civic values ... in short, it's Spanish colonialism mixed
with Indian. It's rich in corruption, superstitition, and
backwardness.
>nd has many, many
>attributes in it's favor. In the early part of this century Mexico had a
>popular revolution freeong it from the grip of a series of petty dictators
>who had been proped up in power by the United Staes and other western
>natons, who were bleeding Mexico of its resources. These corrupt
>governments were sustained in power by a ruthless upper class that
>controlled all of Mexico's land, all of her resources, and all of her
>industries.
And not much has changed, except now the Mexicans are draining
us by the tens of billions per year.
> Well into this century Mexico fought a bloody and drawn out
>revolution. During this revolution Mexico as laid to ruin, her upper class
>was wiped out, and she was left in a state of total ruin. Though the
>Mexican people won the revolution, they were infected with a false belief in
>social liberalism and the PRI set about to create a socialist state. For a
>while the promises of socialism seemed to work wonders in Mexico and the
>standard of living rose dramatically, but by the 1960s socialism had run
>it's course and Mexico again plunged into the depths of economic depression
>from which it has not yet escaped.
> Social liberalism and the leaders of a powerful centralized
>government have replaced the Dons of the old fascist state as the absolute
>rulers of Mexico and the Mexican people, again, find themselves trapped in
>poverty and hopelessness. It is not their culture, their work ethic, or
>their character that has created the conditions in which they live, but
>rather some very poor choices in forms of government.
Such choices are also expressions of culture.
> To give equal standing or even respect
>>to Mexican culture in a contest with American culture would be unwise,
>>given the yearly evidence, don't you think?
> Not at all. The two cultures are different in many ways, but they are
>also complimentary in many ways. In recent years the American culture has
>become one of wild violence, broken families, rampant drug use, extreme
>selfishness, and poor character. There is much in American culture that
>could be learned from Latin culture which still places strong values on the
>family, helping others, and the church.
Big city gangs are responsible for the "wild violence", much
of the drug use, and plenty of selfishness and poor character, and the
greatest number of gang members are Mexican and Central American.
Again, Mexicans by voting with their feet are indicating which culture
works and which doesn't.
> Also, as English is the
>>language of this country, it isn't too much to expect those who arrive
>>here voluntarily to learn our language.
> This is a quite mistaken belief. English may be the language of the
>American heartland, or of the east and west coasts, but it has never been
>the exclusive language of Texas nor, of New Mexico. Hispanics have always
>played a signifigant role in Texas
That's funny. *Hispanics* are always claiming how they've
been oppressed and kept from doing anything. That's why they whine
about keeping Affirmative Action and benefitting from it. Frankly,
*Hispanics* have done nothing in this state. In fact, much has been
accomplished despite the efforts of *Hispanics*, who from 1836 unward
have either sent armies into Texas or made a living by rustling cattle
and stealing anything else they could get their hands on.
>and a dominant role in New Mexico. While
>Americans may choose to ingore these facts, it does not alter them.
>Americans, as a part of the process of naturalization, require immigrants to
>learn and speak English with some modicum of proficiency, but no such demand
>applies to the millions of Spanish speaking native born American citizens.
>Today 20 million American citizens speak Spanish as their first language.
>In Texas they are close to 30% of the population and in New Mexico more than
>half.
They might be American citizens, but if they don't speak
English, they aren't Americans. Are you aware that in this century,
until the 1960s, the population of *hispanics* in this country was
slightly more than one percent? Today the percentage is considerably
higher. Most are immigrants or the children of immigrants. If they
retain their language and culture, then they're colonists, not
Americans.
> If they want to retain their
>>old ways, and thereby their old failures, they might as well have
>>stayed home.
> There are many places in the United States, outside Texas and New
>Mexico, that Americans can make such claims, but not here. What is here has
>always been here and they have stayed at home.
Hilarious. You mean all those Mexicans who've arrived in
Dallas in the past ten years and are overrunning the city and
demanding a *hispanic* police chief and a *hispanic* superintendent of
pulbic schools and Spanish-speaking police officersand anything else
they can think of have always been here? My memory, and my eyes and
ears, must be deceiving me. I promise you that nine out of ten are
still dripping wet.
>>> First of all, not even the majority of Hispanic immigrants coming
>to
>>>Texas are Mexican, they are Central American,
>> The vast majority of *hispanics* here are Mexican.
> Actually "Mexicans" are third on the list of Texas Hispanics. The
>majority are native born Texans, Tejanos who were born in Texas.
Most of the Tejanos born here in Texas are the children of
Mexicans who arrived in the past couple of decades.
>These
>individuals and their culture are as native, and in many cases, more native
>to this land than the majority of Anglos,
Hardly. They're the children of immigrants.
>many of who only recently came to
>Texas across one of our other rivers.
> The second largest group of Hispanics in Texas, by far, are Central
>American immigrants who flooded into Texas in the 1970s and 1980s during the
>conflicts in Cenral America. Mexican nationals actually are now the third
>largest identifiable group of Hispanics in Texas and nowhere near the
>largest, much less a "vast majority".
They and the first generation of *Tejanos* are Mexican and are
the vast majority.
>> Really? You mean I should get all harmonious when the schools
>>are bursting with Mexicans, which not only drags down the level of
>>performance and the level of academic rigor in the schools, but also
>>raises my taxes to build new schools to handle the Mexican overflow.
> First of all the number of "Mexicans" you see is an illusion of
>your own mind created by your own inability to distinguish one Hispanic from
>another. You them make the gross mistake of believing every Hispanic you
>see is a "Mexican". This only reflects your own lack of understanding about
>what you are talking about.
Again, hilarious. I speak Spanish - though I refuse to speak
it in Texas - because I spent a considerable amount of my adult life
living and traveling in Mexico and Central and South America.
> Second, Texas is a rather unique place. Out educational system
>is funded, almost exclusively, by two sources. The first is the permenanr
>school trust fund and the second is property taxes. While our property
>taxes are high, which I suggest is a product of our reliance on socialized
>education, they also allow every member of our society to pay those taxes.
>The average apartment dweller, where lower income Texans now tend to live,
>pays local school districts an average of just over $1,000 a year in
>property taxes through his or her rent. I own a reasonably nice home here
>in Houston and my school property taxes are arounf $900 a year. I would
>suggest your claim that the tax burden is not being fairly distributed is as
>falsely based as the assumption that every Hispanic you see is a "Mexican".
>Perceptions can create emotional responses, but they can also lead to so
>very false and inaccurate conclusions.
And what conclusions are you led to when a couple of families
with five or six children occupy one of those apartments. You think
they're carrying their share of the tax burden?
> If you really wish to work for a less expensive, more
>productive educational system in Texas, I would encourage you to fight for
>an end to socialized education and encourage others to support a voucher
>system in Texas. By doing so we could cut the cost of education in half and
>double the performance of our schools.
I've given considerable thought to vouchers, and have decided
against them, primarily because filling up private schools with the
class of students in public schools will ruin the private schools, and
also because it puts a government presence in the private schools.
Vouchers *seems* like a good idea, but I suspect it will lead to
disaster.
>>And I should feel throughly harmonious that the county hospital
>>district is raising its taxes because of the thousands of Mexicans
>>giving birth and not paying a bill?
> There are three points to this I would like to make. First,
>again, your perceptions of "Mexicans" heavily shade your judgement.
>Hispanics are the largest minority group in Texas and where ever you go that
>our poorer citizens are concentrated, you will most certianly find large
>number of them. However, be careful not to let your emotions overstrip your
>reason.
I'm paying their way. I should like doing so?
> The Harris County Hospital District in Houston just went trough
>a major financial crisis after runaway cost over runs, as is always the case
>with government projects, during the construction of new facilities. During
>the controversy the issue of people not paying their bills, and bill
>collection by the hospital district, created a huge debate. As with all
>such debates race was drawn into the mix. As a sidebar it was discovered
>that Hispanics were by far, the most likely of the two most likely groups to
>pay bills sent by the hospital. Even more likely than Asians which were a
>close second. It was also noted that Hispanics were the least likely of the
>three largest ethnic groups to use public hospitals and public services in
>general.
You mean that the 15 people who did pay the bill, nine of them
were *hispanic*. What about the 10,000 who didn't?
> These facts underscore something about Hispanic culture that
>those not familiar with Hispanic culture probably don't understand. In
>Hispanic culture a debt is a debt and though repayment may be slow and
>painful, debts must be paid. In the HCHD article it was noted that former
>Hispanic patients here in Houston were payiong their bills, even without
>notices being sent them, from as far away as Chile.
That's why I hate the term *hispanic*. Chileans are
enormously different from Mexicans.
I read the rest of your post. It's way too long. It
misrepresents history and promotes your attitude that Mexicans - or
*hispanics* practically invented not only Texas, but just about
anything worth anything anywhere. Here's the truth: I walk into
Parkland Hospital and I see Mexicans everywhere and hear them speaking
Spanish. I go to the maternity floor and look through the windows at
a sea of Mexican babies. I drive my car in almost any direction and
Mexicans are thick on the ground. They seem to be colonizing. I'm
against that. Also, I'm against lending to history elements of
*hispanic* involvement that didn't exist. Your claims about the
length, width, and depth of *hispanic* involvement in the building of
Texas are absurd. Again, Texas was built by English-speaking
Americans. Have you read any books by W.P. Webb or other historians?
Dobie? Anyhow, you've built a minor *hispanic* presence into
something it never was. Why?
D. Long
wrote:
>Gangs, like greaffiti, have existed longer than America. The various
>robber barons are all examples of pre-American gangs.
>You are right that they are not Hispanic inventions, however.
*Hispanics*, however, seem to have made a specialty of gang
activity in the past 20 years. Ask any policeman almost anywhere.
D. Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
An interesting response, but Americans won the war. Americans
had the spirit to rebel. Americans led the revolution. And Americans
built Texas. Of the figures that actually exist - from the Alamo and
Goliad - we know that the Mexican participation on the American side
was miniscule. Your figure of 500 is an estimate. The huge majority
of men under Houston at San Jacinto were Americans, not Mexicans.
Again, Texas was fought for, founded by, and built by English-speaking
Americans. In fact, German-speakers have done more for Texas than
Spanish speakers. Why do you promote the myth of some glorious
Mexican past in Texas?
D. Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>> The paragraph that you're agreeing with was so senseless that
>>when I read it in the original I ignored it. I'm not trying to create
>>anything. I'm acknowledging the reality of conflicting cultures.
>
> By asserting cultures are in conflict when they are not, you are
>creating something. Our cultures have shared this land for two centuries in
>relative harmony.
What ar you talking about? Our cultures have shared nothing.
They've fought each other at every opportunity.
> Yes, there have been good times and bad times, but on the
>whole neither has attempted to drive the other into the sea or conduct some
>process of ethnic purification. Both cultures ghave endured and we are
>enrichened from the experience.
Enriched? The Mexicans who are provided with health,
education, and welfare benefits they could only dream of in their
beloved homeland might be enriched, but at the expense of Americans.
Are you trying to tell me that Texas belongs to Mexicans? Are you
claiming that Mexicans arrived in the past 25 years have some
legitimate claim, some right of inheritance to Texas?
> The assertion of conflict creates, in the
>minds of those ignorant of fact, conditions which do not exist and
>therefore, create in their minds a false image which can only lead to
>mistaken judgements.
The facts speak eloquently enough for themselves. The facts
are war, raids, rustling, looting, rioting, draft dodging in such
great numbers that during WW I the US Army was sent to the valley to
kept the draft dodgers who'd moved back to Mexico from coming back
into Texas to steal and loot, gangs, graffitti, document fraud, masses
of illegal aliens, the near destruction of health, education, and
welfare systems, and social and cultural animosity toward Americans.
Read a history book. Read the newspaper. Read Webb's "The Texas
Rangers" about the glorious Mexican presence.
> A
>>hundred places around the world are experiencing that kind of conflict
>>today, and yet you claim there's nothing to it, that by my
>>acknowledging it, I'm trying to create it.
> The hundred places you point to are examples of the reasoning you
>exercise being allowed to run amok. If we all thought as you we would be
>just like those places, entangled in endless conflicts, hatreds, and
>violences, but we are not like those places and when someone appears whose
>reasoning seems dedicated to the proposition of dragging Texas down the same
>senseless path, I find it a necessity to point out the error of such
>resoning.
I see. Your idea of getting along amounts to capitulation.
You're committing suicide.
> My claim is that by
>>allowing massive legal and illegal immigration, especially from
>>Mexico, we're planting the seeds of a civic disaster.
> First, there is no established fact that such a thing exists or
>ever has existed. There is a steady flow of immigration, regulated by
>ecconomic conditions, that remains relatively consistant, across all our
>rivers, but in a century and a half the relative ratio of Anglos to
>Hispanics has remained pretty constant.
Until the past 20 years, when Mexicans began overrunning the
place. By the year 2020, demographers estimate that Dallas County
will be 72% Mexican.
> As for allowing immigration, I
>suggest, despite the taxes we waste in such an effort, despite the liberties
>that we would be called upon to sacrifice in such an effort, mere
>governments do not have the power to signifigantly alter immigration.
>Social isolationism is not an achievalbe propostion...nor by the way, do I
>consider it even a desirable one.
Protecting our borders is in no way *social isolationism*.
It's self-defense against masses of foreign invaders.
> Already we're
>>experiencing an educational and healthcare disaster in this state,
>>owing to immigration. Welcome to the "richness of diversity."
>
> You are missing the target entirely as I demonstrated to you,
>factually, in an earlier post. Scapegoats do not solve problems, they only
>create more problems. The solution to the flawed theories of social
>liberalism is to reject them, not spend billions and billions of more tax
>dollars in and attempt to shore up these programs by attempting yet another
>massive government project doomed to failure which is increasing immigration
>controls.
> Big government, more government, more government spending, and
>asking government to provide expensive solutions to imaginary problems is
>silly. You federalists who love to look to Washington for more and more
>government truly amaze me. How much will you have to pay before you realize
>government doesn't offer solutions, it only offers more problems.
I'm not a federalist at all. I'm not a social liberal at all.
I jsust believe in defending our borders against foreign invasion by
parasites on our economy and society.
Geckodude
Texas is not like Dallas Houston and san Antonio I live in Houston But I
Joto al over Texas it is true! (I go to san marocs about 1 time a month!)
--
Check out My site geckoweb @
Http:\\geckoweb.8m.com
Douglas Long <DKL...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:37cf909b...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 00:31:22 -0500, "Mike Angwin"
> <man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>
> >> What is the Spanish word for *corruption*?
>
> > Corupcion. In fact, once your ear is attuned to Spanish, you'd be
> >surprised how much you understand and can probably read even more. Our
> >languages have far more in common than divide them. Still, even if a
> >signifigant segment of the American population one day spoke Spanish,
that
> >doesn't mean English would simply disappear. I think you give too little
> >credit to English to think it would just be discovered to be too erractic
in
> >it's spelling, pronunciation, and verb congegation to hold up to
competiting
> >with a language which has a far more consistant structure. I think I
have
> >mroe faith in English than others appear to.
>
> You miss the point. Here's a hint: Mexico is the lamentable
> place it is because it's filled with Mexicans who have certain
> attitudes, values, and behaviors; that is, *culture*. To retain a
> language is to retain a culture. If you want Texas to become more and
> more an approximation of Mexico, then fill it with Mexicans.
>
> >Eglish and Spanish have existed side by side here in Texas
> >for a long, long, time and English hasn't disappeared or been
"corrupted".
>
> Rubbish. English and Spanish have never existed
> *side-by-side* here in Texas. The small group of Mexicans who've
> lived in Texas - before the onslaught in the past 20 or so years -
> spoke Spanish in their own homes, but business and government have
> always been conducted in English.
>
> >True, we have rodeos, and patios, and may even get caught saying frejoles
> >once in a while. We may eat the occasional taco or go to San Antonio to
> >visit the Alamo, but I would call any of this influx of Spanish into our
> >vocabulary or our experience "corruption". What it is, is an increased
> >richness earned by tolerance of diversity.
>
> You've got the senseless lingo down, don't you -
> "richness...diversity." Look at Kosovo and East Timor and the former
> Soviet Union and a hundred other places in the headlines everyday and
> then tell me about "richness" and "diversity."
>
> >> First of all, as language *is* culture, people who speak
> >>different languages have different attitudes, values, and behaviors.
>
> > Awe come on now. I eat blackeyed peas and buttermilk with
> >cornbread. I wear boots and still listen to Hank Willians Sr.. I also
> >speak fluent Spanish and like to dance the merenge.
> > The Hispanics I know are conservative, religious, family oriented
> >people with a work ethic that would put most Americans to shame. Now
> >exactly which of these attitudes, values, and behaviors do you find fault
> >with?
>
> The ones that have allowed Mexico to be an over-populated,
> thoroughly corrupted ditch ruled by a greedy oligarchy. The ones that
> make bribery the occupation common to everyone in the country. The
> ones that take advantage of our health, education, and welfare systems
> - the Dallas County hospital tax is going up, by the way, and if you
> walk the corridors in the middle of any day, you'll understand who is
> in our pockets.
>
> >>And second, both cultures have *not* shared this land for two
> >>centuries. Americans have dominated this land.
>
> > Actually it's been about fifty/fifty with Angols having control
of
> >the second haf of that period. Still there is much of Texas where
Hispanic
> >control has never been fully relinquished from San Antonio to Laredo and
all
> >along the lower Rio Grande Valley. Yet despite who has had the reins of
> >power, we have always shared this land because both cultures and both
> >languages have always been here. Neither has dominated the other to the
> >point of extinction and, for the most part, we have lived in relative
> >harmony with one another, each gaining from the other.
>
> What a complete load. Read some Texas history, will you. The
> Mexican population, including in the lower Rio Grande Valley, was
Geckodude
rrcrumb
> > The paragraph that you're agreeing with was so senseless that
> >when I read it in the original I ignored it. I'm not trying to create
> >anything. I'm acknowledging the reality of conflicting cultures.
>
> By asserting cultures are in conflict
***** They are when they illegally invade then depend on
amnesties, dropping babies in the USA, and immigration
lawyers to *normalize* their status.
when they are not, you are
> creating something. Our cultures have shared this land for two centuries
in
> relative harmony.
***** SHARED? What was the percentage of Mexicans
(of Mexican origin) in Texas in 1960?
.. .....10% Maximum? Just because you like tacos and
some mariachi music doesn't make for shared values.
>Yes, there have been good times and bad times, but on the
> whole neither has attempted to drive the other into the sea or conduct
some
> process of ethnic purification.
**** Bullshit. Mexico is conducting demographic warfare.
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States by lobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
++++++++++++++++++++++
>Both cultures ghave endured and we are
> enrichened
**** Be sure to include the brain dead mantra of
*richness and diversity*
from the experience. The assertion of conflict creates, in the
> minds of those ignorant of fact, conditions which do not exist and
> therefore, create in their minds a false image which can only lead to
> mistaken judgements.
**** Right !!!! It's all an illusion. The invasion by Mexicans
and Central Americans is a mirage....WHAT horseshit.
> A
> >hundred places around the world are experiencing that kind of conflict
> >today, and yet you claim there's nothing to it, that by my
> >acknowledging it, I'm trying to create it.
>
> The hundred places you point to are examples of the reasoning you
> exercise being allowed to run amok. If we all thought as you we would be
> just like those places, entangled in endless conflicts, hatreds, and
> violences, but we are not like those places and when someone appears whose
> reasoning seems dedicated to the proposition of dragging Texas down the
same
> senseless path, I find it a necessity to point out the error of such
> resoning.
>
> My claim is that by
> >allowing massive legal and illegal immigration, especially from
> >Mexico, we're planting the seeds of a civic disaster.
>
> First, there is no established fact that such a thing exists or
> ever has existed. There is a steady flow of immigration, regulated by
> ecconomic conditions, that remains relatively consistant, across all our
> rivers, but in a century and a half the relative ratio of Anglos to
> Hispanics has remained pretty constant.
***** Bullshit. Anyone with half a brain can see that the Mexican
proportion is overwhelming the Anglo population in Texas due to
legal/illegal immigration, higher birthrates and due to amnesties.
>As for allowing immigration, I
> suggest, despite the taxes we waste in such an effort, despite the
liberties
> that we would be called upon to sacrifice in such an effort, mere
> governments do not have the power to signifigantly alter immigration.
***** Is not interesting that in the end, when the surface is
scratched you find an lazy ass, defeatist, open borders type of
libertarian?
(Mike can now insert all the BS reasons why HE is not libertarian,
why HE is not for open borders but has some kind of unique
perspective......Bwahahahhahahhahahha)
> Social isolationism is not an achievalbe propostion...
**** More typical libertarian hyperbole. Ya know Mike, you
are a parrot. How about at least using different words to
express your shop worn ideas. Are you married to a Mexican
or do you live in a Mexican neighborhood?
nor by the way, do I
> consider it even a desirable one.
**** Every nation controls it's borders including ****holes like
Mexico.
> Already we're
> >experiencing an educational and healthcare disaster in this state,
> >owing to immigration. Welcome to the "richness of diversity."
>
>
> You are missing the target entirely as I demonstrated to you,
> factually, in an earlier post. Scapegoats
**** INVADERS are invaders. Let's call a spade a spade.
Illegals should not just be scapegoated but booted out of
here ASAP.
do not solve problems, they only
> create more problems. The solution to the flawed theories of social
> liberalism is to reject them, not spend billions and billions of more tax
> dollars in and attempt to shore up these programs by attempting yet
another
> massive government project doomed to failure which is increasing
immigration
> controls.
**** More cheapskate libertarianism. Put the military
on the southern border and you would get instant results.
Our military should be defending OUR borders and not
the borders of Kosovo.
> Big government, more government, more government spending,
and
> asking government to provide expensive solutions to imaginary problems
**** The problems are imaginary only to you. Move to Mexico
and live with that failed culture up close and personal.
.>is
> silly. You federalists who love to look to Washington for more and more
> government truly amaze me. How much will you have to pay before you
realize
> government doesn't offer solutions, it only offers more problems.
>
>
>
> /\/\ike
>
>
Wm James
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>>It's also the beginning of the end.
>>
> Of what? I have no fear of Spanish. I speak Spanish as fluently as
>I speak English and have even been told I speak better Spanish that English
>because I speak English with a very deep Texas drawl.
>
> So what is to be frightened of, that two or three generations from
>now words may be used that as not being used today?
>
> It makes no difference at all and people are really the same, who
>ever they are. I live in and out of the Hispanic community with total
>fluidity, both cultures have shared this land for two centuries.
>
> It's the end of nothing, but it may very well be the beginning of
>allowing what has always occurred to be realized and understood by all. We
>should all be free to be who we are.
>
>
>/\/\ike
>
You are free do do exactly that. If you are not american yyou are
free to travel to another country where you can happily communicate in
their language. This is the USA. We speak english here. City council
meeting shouldn't be conducted in foreigh languages. If the people
there want to understand what is said they should learn the language
of the nation in which they want ti live. If that's not important to
them then they should go home.
William R. James
David Gleason
> > The vast majority of *hispanics* here are Mexican.
>
> Actually "Mexicans" are third on the list of Texas Hispanics. The
> majority are native born Texans, Tejanos who were born in Texas. These
> individuals and their culture are as native, and in many cases, more
native
> to this land than the majority of Anglos, many of who only recently came
to
> Texas across one of our other rivers.
> The second largest group of Hispanics in Texas, by far, are Central
> American immigrants who flooded into Texas in the 1970s and 1980s during
the
> conflicts in Cenral America. Mexican nationals actually are now the third
> largest identifiable group of Hispanics in Texas and nowhere near the
> largest, much less a "vast majority".
Unfortunately, the rest of your arguments pale when supported by absolutely,
totally wrong facts.
First, about half of the Hispanics in Texas are born-in-Mexico immigrants or
their children. In other words, until the kids go toschool and do a degree
of assimilating, they are about 100% Mexican culture based.
About 35% are second generation and beyond Mexican Americans or Tejanos.
About 3% are Central American, and most of these are grouped in the Houston
area. For example, there are so few Central Americans in San Antonio and
Dallas as to be statistically insignificant. I've even had the experience of
eliminating the "Mexican/Central American question form research as the
incidence of Central Americans found outside Houston on random probability
samples is also insignificant.
The CA's that arrived mostly went to LA, San Francisco or Washington DC,
where the large Salvadoreño communities are located. A large Hispanic
research company says the Hispanic group in Houston is 95% Mexican or
Mexican heritage.
protocol13
Puerto Rican gangs. Throughout history of the cities like Chicago and
New York (specially during the 1900's and on), these cities have been
infected with violent gangs most of which were non-Hispanic.
The gangs in California is almost all Vietnamese, Mexican and
Salvadorans. These groups are a small percentage of the total
Vietnamese, Mexican and Salvadoran immigrants. The home invasion
robbery is conducted by Asian gangs. You are wrong to make a
generalize statement that "Hispanics" have a specialty of gang
activity". It is just as wrong of me to say that non Hispanic Whites
make a specialty of mass shooting, child porn, adult porn, druggies and
serial killers.
Mike Angwin
>in the Nueces Strip - and the number is probably a couple of hundred -
>and immigration to the valley has increased the population of the
>valley tremendously since the 1950s, the likelihood that a majority
>can trace their ancestry to the 1830s is less than slim.
A couple of thousand people over seven or either generations,
marrying a good many people migrating to the area, and with traditionally
large families as Hispanics have, can produce very large numbers. In a mere
five generations you could account for a number larger that the present
population of Texas if you begin with as few as 1,000 people. Since many,
if not virtually all immigrants to Texas over the past century and a half
have themselves married into the origonal Tejano familes and had their own
offspring with ancestors being the first Tejanos, the numbers go quite
radical. I think it not only possible to support my position, but
mathematically improbable to attempt to refute it given the relatively small
numbers, overall, of the Texas Tejano population today.
> Actually, you're right. It was dominated by the Anglo
>minority - read the history of the Raza Unida Party, if you haven't
>already.
Correct. However political domination is not the same thing as
social or numeric domination. While we generally associate the effects of
the civil rights movement of the 1960s with Black Americans, Hispanics also
were allowed to enter into the American political process as a result of the
Civil Rights Act. The result is a much higher level of visibility and
political participation of a population that has been present all along but
not fully enfranchised.
>
> They might be American citizens, but if they speak only
>Spanish and fly the Mexican flag over city hall, then as far as I'm
>concerned, they're Mexicans.
Fortunately, I suppose, other of us makes such decisions. That is
a constitutional decision and the Constitution neither prohibits the use of
any language nor the flying of any flag. However, in the news clips I saw,
there was no evidence of a Mexican flag flying over the city hall. I did
see both a large Census 2000 banner that was white with red letters and an
American flag. Noticeably missing, to my own dismay, was the Texas flag.
/\/\ike
protocol13
and what is the address of the group?
"D. Long" wrote:
> On 06 Sep 1999 17:14:21 PDT, protocol13 <pr...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >In Chicago where I grew up, there were Italian gangs, Black gangs and
> >Puerto Rican gangs. Throughout history of the cities like Chicago and
> >New York (specially during the 1900's and on), these cities have been
> >infected with violent gangs most of which were non-Hispanic.
> >
> >The gangs in California is almost all Vietnamese, Mexican and
> >Salvadorans. These groups are a small percentage of the total
> >Vietnamese, Mexican and Salvadoran immigrants. The home invasion
> >robbery is conducted by Asian gangs. You are wrong to make a
> >generalize statement that "Hispanics" have a specialty of gang
> >activity". It is just as wrong of me to say that non Hispanic Whites
> >make a specialty of mass shooting, child porn, adult porn, druggies and
> >serial killers.
>
> You might take your complaint to those who do the studies.
> The largest percentage of gang member - about 57% according to a study
> I read last month - are *hispanic*.
Mike Angwin
>activity in the past 20 years. Ask any policeman almost anywhere.
I would suggest that depends a great deal upon where you are.
However, there are certain characteristics of Latin culture that would
incline young Latinos towards gangs. Certainly machismo would be a factor
as would the strong cultural bonds between friends. Yet gang violence like
many other negative aspects of our society is itself promoted by many
factors such as the War on Drugs, failure of the educational system, and
breakdowns of the family unit, which are all produced by runaway government.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
> An interesting response, but Americans won the war. Americans
>had the spirit to rebel. Americans led the revolution. And Americans
>built Texas. Of the figures that actually exist - from the Alamo and
>Goliad - we know that the Mexican participation on the American side
>was miniscule. Your figure of 500 is an estimate. The huge majority
>of men under Houston at San Jacinto were Americans, not Mexicans.
>Again, Texas was fought for, founded by, and built by English-speaking
>Americans. In fact, German-speakers have done more for Texas than
>Spanish speakers. Why do you promote the myth of some glorious
>Mexican past in Texas?
I do not promote a myth of a glorious Mexican past in Texas. What I
do seek to do is to provide you with factual information, commonly
overlooked, about the Tejano contribution to Texas throughout our history.
Tejanos are not "Mexicans". Tejanos are native Texan Hispanics who are just
as much, and in many cases more, a part of Texas history than Anglo Texans.
As far as the "spirit to rebel" goes, De Zavala and Seguin, along
with many other notable Tejanos, were early leaders of the War party in
Texas, even while Austin still pursued reconciliation with the central
government. One notable and influencial Tejano, Jose Antonio Navarro, at
the first consultation, pleaded with Austin and the dominant Peace Party to
"abandon all hope of reconciliation" and "drive the Mexican army from
Texas".
Despite your claims to the contrary, might I suggest a reference
for you to find out more about the Tejano contribution to the Revolution?
There is a book entitled "The Texas Revolutionary Experience: A political
and social history 1835-1836", by Paul D. Lack. It's printed by the Texas
A&M University Press and sells at Borders Bookstores for $19.95. There is
a chapter entitled "Los Tejanos" and I honestly believe, after reading it,
you will have an entirely new perspective the Tejano contribution to the
Texas Revolution.
I am not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes here, nor am
I promoting a specific agenda. I am merely attempting to give credit where
credit is due. The facts I have presented you are not opinons, but
documented factual evidence of what actually took place by a prize winning
historian who provides footnoted sources of each historical fact presented
as well as tables of actual stastical data from the archives of the Republic
of Texas, the Texas Army, and from private and public collections from all
over Texas.
/\/\ike
D. Long
D. Long
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>> That doesn't quite add up. If, as you admit, very few lived
>>in the Nueces Strip - and the number is probably a couple of hundred -
>>and immigration to the valley has increased the population of the
>>valley tremendously since the 1950s, the likelihood that a majority
>>can trace their ancestry to the 1830s is less than slim.
> A couple of thousand people over seven or either generations,
>marrying a good many people migrating to the area, and with traditionally
>large families as Hispanics have, can produce very large numbers. In a mere
>five generations you could account for a number larger that the present
>population of Texas if you begin with as few as 1,000 people. Since many,
>if not virtually all immigrants to Texas over the past century and a half
>have themselves married into the origonal Tejano familes and had their own
>offspring with ancestors being the first Tejanos, the numbers go quite
>radical. I think it not only possible to support my position, but
>mathematically improbable to attempt to refute it given the relatively small
>numbers, overall, of the Texas Tejano population today.
I have one ancestor who was Swiss, about five generations
back. That doesn't make me Swiss. Also, so many mexicans have
arrived in Texas in the past 25 years that the majority of Mexicans
here today could in no way be related to the couple of hundred
Mexicans living in the Strip in 1835.
>> Actually, you're right. It was dominated by the Anglo
>>minority - read the history of the Raza Unida Party, if you haven't
>>already.
> Correct. However political domination is not the same thing as
>social or numeric domination. While we generally associate the effects of
>the civil rights movement of the 1960s with Black Americans, Hispanics also
>were allowed to enter into the American political process as a result of the
>Civil Rights Act. The result is a much higher level of visibility and
>political participation of a population that has been present all along but
>not fully enfranchised.
Present all along, but in tiny numbers compared with today's
numbers. This morning in the Dallas Morning News was an article about
the school district. In it was a chart of school population in
Dallas. In 1970, 8.3% of students were *hispanic*. In 1985, about
28% were *hispanic*. Today, 49.3% are *hispanic*. These aren't
Tejanos or the descendents of Tejanos. These are Mexicans, and you
and I are paying their way.
>> They might be American citizens, but if they speak only
>>Spanish and fly the Mexican flag over city hall, then as far as I'm
>>concerned, they're Mexicans.
> Fortunately, I suppose, other of us makes such decisions. That is
>a constitutional decision
Actually, the matter of nationality isn't a Constitutional
decision. If the people are from Mexico, if they speak only Spanish,
then I suspect they're Mexicans. Why wouldn't you suspect that too?
In what way are they American?
>and the Constitution neither prohibits the use of
>any language nor the flying of any flag. However, in the news clips I saw,
>there was no evidence of a Mexican flag flying over the city hall. I did
>see both a large Census 2000 banner that was white with red letters and an
>American flag. Noticeably missing, to my own dismay, was the Texas flag.
Maybe they pulled down the Mexican flag after the bad
publicity. But to omit the Texas flag is almost as bad as flying the
Mexican flag.
d...@cheetah.net
>
> You might take your complaint to those who do the studies.
>The largest percentage of gang member - about 57% according to a study
>I read last month - are *hispanic*.
Mr. Long,
57% of what? The population of
all gang membership? A 57% of
Hispanic population?
What is the percentage of Asians
within the overall population?
How does that percentage compare
with the Hispanic in relations to
the overall population?
Are you a statistician/researcher?
DCI
dot...@dot.com
The purpose of city council meetings is to run the business of that city. If,
in doing so, they find that running the meetings in the language of the
predominant population of the city, then why would they not do so? It's not an
American city just because they speak english, it's an American city because its
in America. If you were a citizen of that city, and could not understand the
council as they were deliberating and discussing issues of concern, then you
would have a right, as a tax payer, voter, and citizen to request that they find
a way to be sure that you too are included in their deliberating process. Why
would that not be true of spanish speaking citizens?
dot...@dot.com
It would seem perfectly reasonable that, over 30 years, the eight out of one
hundred hispanic students could marry and, having four or five children per
family, reach a population of 28 out of 100 by 1985, and further grow to 50 out
of 100 in another fifteen years. I would suggest also, that unless you make far
more income than I suspect you do, your contribution to the education of the
children in Dallas borders on pennies, if it can be given a denomination at all.
The schools, like the police, fire, public streets, sewers, etc., are services
provided by the community as a whole for the benefit of the whole community. If
you chose not to participate in that community, I would suggest you petition for
the return of you few cents, or just move.
c...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 15:12:09 GMT, spam.h...@bellsouth.net (Wm
>James) wrote:
>
>Although I haven't been following this thread, I have the below
>concerns:
>
>>On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 00:20:47 -0500, "Mike Angwin" <man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>
> *** COMMENTARY DELETED ***
>
>Mike wrote:
>>> It makes no difference at all and people are really the same, who
>>>ever they are. I live in and out of the Hispanic community with total
>>>fluidity, both cultures have shared this land for two centuries.
>
> *** Snip ***
>
>William R. James wrote:
>>You are free do do exactly that. If you are not american yyou are
>>free to travel to another country where you can happily communicate in
>>their language. This is the USA. We speak english here. City council
>>meeting shouldn't be conducted in foreigh languages. If the people
>>there want to understand what is said they should learn the language
>>of the nation in which they want ti live....
>
>James makes a valid point. What about the citizens who speak English
>and want to participate in the affairs of their local government. Do
>you think this would pass constitutional muster?
But as Mike has noted, Texax is officially bi-lingual and has been
since the days of the old Republic and that bi-lingualism was
enshrined in the contracted Texas signed with the Union as a condition
of joining the Union. Therefore both English and Spanish are the
languages of the land and use of either in civil, political or social
arenas is legal and the law of the land. It is up to the majority of
each councile to decide which best suits its population.
cms
Jafo
dot...@dot.com wrote:
>Wm James wrote:
>> City council meeting shouldn't be conducted in foreigh languages.
>> If the people there want to understand what is said they should
>> learn the language of the nation in which they want ti live. If
>> that's not important to them then they should go home.
>The purpose of city council meetings is to run the business of that
>city. If, in doing so, they find that running the meetings in the
>language of the predominant population of the city, then why would
>they not do so? It's not an American city just because they speak
>english, it's an American city because its in America. If you were
>a citizen of that city, and could not understand the council as they
>were deliberating and discussing issues of concern, then you would
>have a right, as a tax payer, voter, and citizen to request that
>they find a way to be sure that you too are included in their
>deliberating process. Why would that not be true of spanish
>speaking citizens?
No. "They" have no responsibility to translate into any language
that may be desired. It's hardly reasonable to expect a society
to modify itself for the benefit of the newcomer. When taking up
residence in a new country, it's the responsibility of the new
resident to educate himself in the language of that country. If
he/she is unwilling to do that, then why leave home in the first
place? If an American were to choose to move to Russia, for example,
it would damned well behoove him to learn at least some basic
Russian. It's a matter of both politeness and practicality.
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
Jafo
Mike Angwin wrote:
>It is Mexico's centralized form of government, not it's culture
>which doesn't work. Latin culture is rich and beautiful and has
>many, many attributes in it's favor. In the early part of this
>century Mexico had a popular revolution freeong it from the grip
>of a series of petty dictators who had been proped up in power by
>the United Staes and other western natons, who were bleeding Mexico
>of its resources. These corrupt governments were sustained in power
>by a ruthless upper class that controlled all of Mexico's land, all
>of her resources, and all of her industries.
I've given a good deal of thought to something that D. Long wrote many
months ago, and I have to agree with it:
"As social, economic, and political systems emerge from and are
perpetuated by culture, a change in culture - in values - is
necessary for Mexico. Until the values, attitudes and behavior
of the Mexican people change, nothing will change in Mexico except
maybe the names of the players."
hc23hc
>
> It's hardly reasonable to expect a society
> to modify itself for the benefit of the newcomer. When taking up
> residence in a new country, it's the responsibility of the new
> resident to educate himself in the language of that country. If
> he/she is unwilling to do that, then why leave home in the first
> place? If an American were to choose to move to Russia, for example,
> it would damned well behoove him to learn at least some basic
> Russian. It's a matter of both politeness and practicality.
You'd think Americans who feel so strongly about sanctity and supremacy
of the English language being besieged by the wiles of some provincial
council would be absolutely sure to avoid desecration of other cultures
at the official language level.
But such is not the case.
Does the phrase "storm in a teacup" mean anything to you, Jafo?
.
.
.
Mike Angwin
> What ar you talking about? Our cultures have shared nothing.
>They've fought each other at every opportunity.
Why do you insist on suggesting such a thing. Did Anglo Texans
rename the rivers and cities,and even the sacred shrines of our Republic,
giving them English names, even though the power to do so has certianly
existed? Do we scorn tacos and tamales as exotic foods? Do we refuse to
call our bricked back yards patios or one of our unique sporting events a
rodeo? All of these things are a part of the shared culture we have. All
of them are taken from Tejano culture.
Other believe we speak and move slowly in Texas, a trait
sociologists claim was adopted from Spanish influence upon our local
culture. Women have shared property rights in Texas a half century before
any other American state did so, something passed down to us directly from
Spain.
There are thousands of somethings subtle, sometimes stark examples
of the blending of our cultures, from the badges of Texas Rangers, hand made
exclusively from Mexican pesos, to reorganized tri-color form of the Lone
Star that can be traced to Hispanic influence upon Texas and upon Texans.
If you choose to ignore them, even if you are unable to see them
because you simply accept them as a matter of fact without knowing what they
are, every Texans life is filled with them. More of what we are we owe to
the blending of our cultures than most of us will ever realize.
> Enriched? The Mexicans who are provided with health,
>education, and welfare benefits they could only dream of in their
>beloved homeland might be enriched, but at the expense of Americans.
Mexicans, by definition of the word itself, are foreign nationals
and foreign nationals neither qualify for health or welfare benifits. As
for education, anyone living and working in Texas, whether they own property
or rent, pay rent. pay property taxes which support the educational system.
However, I will agree all three of these system represent a problem, by the
very nature of how they are operated. Health, for the needy, should be
operated by charitable institutions, as should help for the needy, not by
the state. These are examples of federal mandates imposed upon Texans
against their will and what should be opposed is federalism, not
bi-culturalism. Education to can be operated in a far more efficient, more
effective, and less costly way by removing government control from
education. Again, this is not an ethnic issue, but rather an issue of what
is the appropiate role of government.
>Are you trying to tell me that Texas belongs to Mexicans?
No, not at all, but I am telling to Texans belongs to all Texans,
regardless of ethnic background. I am also telling you a Texan understands
the difference between a Tejano and a Mexican as well. Few non-Texans know
the difference, and even few Texans who arrived in the waves of American
immigrants to Texas over the past two or three decades know the difference,
but anyone who really understands Texas, Texas history, and what Texas is
really all about, clearly knows the difference.
Are you
>claiming that Mexicans arrived in the past 25 years have some
>legitimate claim, some right of inheritance to Texas?
There are, without doubt, immigrants who have arrived to Texas
from across all our rivers in the past 25 years who have earned the right to
call themselves Texans or Tejanos, and there are others who have not. I
would say that is more a matter of the heart and of the mind than of anthing
else. Whether a man was once from Mexico, or Albania, or Nigeria, or
France, or Ohio, or Viet-Nam, really doesn't matter to me. What matters to
me is whether or not he loves Texas. If man loves Texas and the things
which Texas stands for, liberty, a work ethic, integrity, individualism, and
family, then little else really matters.
> The facts speak eloquently enough for themselves. The facts
>are war, raids, rustling, looting, rioting, draft dodging in such
>great numbers that during WW I the US Army was sent to the valley to
>kept the draft dodgers who'd moved back to Mexico from coming back
>into Texas to steal and loot, gangs, graffitti, document fraud, masses
>of illegal aliens, the near destruction of health, education, and
>welfare systems, and social and cultural animosity toward Americans.
>Read a history book. Read the newspaper. Read Webb's "The Texas
>Rangers" about the glorious Mexican presence.
Again, you are unable to mentally separate Mexicans from Tejanos.
From the way you speak I have the impression you are one of those people who
lable anyone who is Hispanic as being "Mexican". If so the problems that
separate our views are far deeper than facts will correct.
World War I, in the Valley, was a controversial war from many
reasons. The Valley had not yet healed from the injuries inflicted on
Tejanos in the previous years when hundreds of Hispanics were killed by
roaming bands of individuals looking for conspirators in an all but
imaginary plot to return the southwestern United States to Mexico. Mexico
was at the end of a bloody civil war in which the United States had
supported the ruthless dictator Diaz and Germans had aided the popular
revolutionary forces. Many in the Valley had family and relatives who had
suffered because of American polices and now were being asked to fight a
nation that had actually aided their relatives. There were also, in the
Valley, a good number of refugees from the cvil war. Both refugees who had
just fought a war and were tired of war, as well as refugees who were
pacifists, as many devout Catholics are, who would fight in no war. To
understand what took place, you must understand all of what took place, not
just pick and choose certian parts.
It might also be noted that in another American war, a half
century later, Tejanos such as Medal Honor winner Marcio Garcia stepped
forward and participated valiently in the conflict while many Anglo
Americans resisted the draft and protested the war. There are always
reasons why things happen.
> I see. Your idea of getting along amounts to capitulation.
>You're committing suicide.
No, what I am saying is the belief that such a thing as
"capitualation" even exists, is the type of beliefs that produce the
conflicts which you use as examples. Your views are sort of a
self-fulfilling prophecy. You believe you are theatened, even though you
are not, and based upon that belief that in a manner that creates hostility,
which, in turn, converts your previously imaginary threats into real ones.
If you refuse to get along with others because you are convinced,
ahead of time, you cannot get along, guess what? You won't get along. Not
because you couldn't, but because you wouldn't. To then turn around and say
see I told you so is the height of absurdity.
>
> Until the past 20 years, when Mexicans began overrunning the
>place. By the year 2020, demographers estimate that Dallas County
>will be 72% Mexican.
Stastically, as I have already demonstrated to you, these imaginary
numbers and baseless assumptions are wholely inaccurate. The Hispanic
population in Dallas County has only risen by .6%, as a percentage of total
county population, between 1973 and 1997. It's gone from 16.4% in 1973 to
17.0% in 1997. Both Black and Asian populations have increased at a faster
rate than the Hispanic population according to the Texas Almanac. You
projections are apparently a reflection of your unfounded paranoia rather
than reality.
Out of the 17% of Dallasites who are Hispanic, as well, I would be
astonished if more than 10% were Mexicans. This is yet another example of
where your mind is coming from.
> Protecting our borders is in no way *social isolationism*.
>It's self-defense against masses of foreign invaders.
I've yet to see a foreign invasion of American soil, at least not
since the Japaneese took two of the Alutien Islands in 1942. However, I
dount seriously this is what your are referring to.
If we close our borders to legal immigration based on unfounded and
unsupportable fears such as those that have been clearly demonstrated above,
and act contrary to reason and good judgement, it can only be called social
isolationism which is the exact agenda which you seem to support. There is
an enormous differnce between dealing with illegal immigration and dealing
with imaginary "masses of foreign invaders". One is a reasoned response and
the other is an irrational one.
>
> I'm not a federalist at all. I'm not a social liberal at all.
If you are not a federalist, then why are you proposing we spend
billions and billions of tax dollars expanding ferderal progams and granting
more and more power to Washington? Isn't that what federalists do?
If you are not a social liberal, then why are you suggesting that
the utopian social progams of the left will work so much better if we will
spend just a few more billions of dollars of another big government progam
to deal with the problems these social progams are having? Isn't that the
resoning that social liberals have used for decades?
All you have done is advocate more and bigger government while
complaining about how other big government programs are not working as well
as they should because we won't spend more money to fix them.
>I jsust believe in defending our borders against foreign invasion by
>parasites on our economy and society.
Ah ha, I see. Well, first of all, I have demonstarted the
"foreign invasion" theory exists only in your mind but, like most people who
support big government, don't let the facts get in your way. Federalists
are always willing to spend other peoples money on their pet projects
regardless of whether such spending can be justified or not, and second, the
only way a person can be a "parasite" is to delve into your sacred social
programs which you seem so eager to defend the integrity of. I understand
you concern for their functionality, but I assure you, these wealth
redistribution schemes cannot be corrected by spending even more money on
the new progam you propose. These social liberal theories are can't be
salvaged nomatter how much money you advocate spending to protect them.
You know, you seem to be a very confused young man.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>James makes a valid point. What about the citizens who speak English
>and want to participate in the affairs of their local government. Do
>you think this would pass constitutional muster?
>
Cezino according to news reports and none have voiced an objection to the
change. However, since 99% of the population speaks Spanish, so long as
translation was provided to these English only speaking residents, just as
translation had once been provided to the Spanish only speaking majority,
what question of constitutionality could possibly be raised. Translation
preserves the right of participation both ways.
As I see it, and I will be the first to admit I am neither a lawyer
nor legal scholar, there are three levels of protection enjoyed by Texans
cities which would make such a choice. First, of course, is Texas state law
which grants parity to English and Spanish in all public matters. The
second level of protection would be the United States constitution which
guarantees freedom of speech. If, as has been demonstrated to be a
constitutionally protected expression, burning of the American flag is
protected by the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment, is there
any question that verbal speech would not be? And finally, the third level
of protection is the most secure of all. The United States is bound, by
treaty with Texas, to recognize both English and Spanish as the languages of
Texas. A treaty, constitutionally, carries more force than the constitution
itself since no restraint is placed upon the power to make treaties.
Therefore, while an attempt to intervene and prohibit these Texas
citizens from conducting their council meetings in Spanish would be open
violations of state law, constitutional rights, and American treaty
obligations, I see no lawful grounds to prohibit them from doing so.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>free to travel to another country where you can happily communicate in
>meeting shouldn't be conducted in foreigh languages. If the people
>there want to understand what is said they should learn the language
>of the nation in which they want ti live. If that's not important to
>them then they should go home.
>
a foreign language. Both are native to this sacred soil. Legally,
constitutionally, and by a treaty between the United States and Texas,
Texans have a right to interchange English and Spanish as they choose. We
have many native born Texans who speak Spanish as their first language and a
goodly number who speak Spanish as their only language. In the entire city
of El Cezino only three citizens do not speak Spanish. A good portion of
the local residents do not speak English. If the citizens of El Cezino
choose to exercise their right to conduct city business in Spanish, that is
their right.
Whether they speak English or Spanish, is entirely irrelevant.
This is Texas and they are home.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>The CA's that arrived mostly went to LA, San Francisco or Washington DC,
>where the large Salvadoreño communities are located. A large Hispanic
>research company says the Hispanic group in Houston is 95% Mexican or
>Mexican heritage.
>
anyone with any knowledge of Hispanics in the Houston area will be able to
state clearly that a number far in excess of 5% are Central American alone,
much less having a mere 5% of local Hispanics represent all Latin American
nations except Mexico. I could, possibly, accept, though with extreme
difficulty, such a figure for the statewide Hispanic population, but most
certainly not for Houston.
Still, the total number 90% or even 95%, it remains irrelevant. Of
course the vast, vast majority of Texas Hispanics are of Mexican heritage,
so BTW, are a goodly number of Texas Anglos. Texas was once a part of
Mexico so even those that were already living here when the first Anglo
tripped and fell into the water attempting to land on Plymouth's Rock. Must
less when we wandered into Texas and with a befuddled look on our faces,
emerged from the woods to see a city with a cathedral rising five stories
into the air and a central plaza with a flowing fountain; scratched
ourselves under our animal hides and declared "Ga..ah...leee!".
/\/\ike
/\/\ike
dot...@dot.com
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 07:19:52 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
>
> >
> *** COMMENTARY DELETED ***
>
> dot.dot wrote:
> >The purpose of city council meetings is to run the business of that city.
>
> Yes, in the language of the country it is situated. Have you
> overlooked at a condition concurrent to becoming a U.S. citizen
> is that the requirement to speak English? Therefore, there is no
> valid purpose to conduct the affairs of the council in a foreign
> language.
Where in the world did you get the idea that you must be able to speak English in
order to become a citizen?
>
>
> >If, in doing so, they find that running the meetings in the language of the
> >predominant population of the city, then why would they not do so?
>
> Why should non-speaking people be rewarded for not learning the
> language? It may be accommodating, but would it pass constitutional
> muster? I don't think so. Do you think this would happen in a town
> situated in Mexico where bunches of U.S. retirees have relocated?
Where in the world did you get the idea that speaking a foreign language at a city
council meeting would be unconstitutional?
>
>
> >It's not an
> >American city just because they speak english, it's an American city because its
> >in America. If you were a citizen of that city, and could not understand the
> >council as they were deliberating and discussing issues of concern, then you
> >would have a right, as a tax payer, voter, and citizen to request that they find
> >a way to be sure that you too are included in their deliberating process. Why
> >would that not be true of spanish speaking citizens?
>
> Municipal governments don't function in a vacuum. They are part of a
> much larger configuration.
So what?
>
>
> See further discussion on this in a post this day to CMS, same thread,
> same time, to CMS.
>
> Wild Rice
dot...@dot.com
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 07:19:52 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
>
> >The purpose of city council meetings is to run the business of that city. If,
> >in doing so, they find that running the meetings in the language of the
> >predominant population of the city, then why would they not do so? It's not an
> >American city just because they speak english, it's an American city because its
> >in America. If you were a citizen of that city, and could not understand the
> >council as they were deliberating and discussing issues of concern, then you
> >would have a right, as a tax payer, voter, and citizen to request that they find
> >a way to be sure that you too are included in their deliberating process. Why
> >would that not be true of spanish speaking citizens?
>
> The attainment of citizenship requires proficiency in English.
> As about 100% of the residents of El Cezino are immigrants from Mexico
> - and most of them *illegal aliens*, Their setting up a town ought in
> itself be viewed as a foreign occupation, and the army ought to go
> down there and do its Constitutional duty.
Thank you. For a moment, I was thinking you were going to defend your position.
dot...@dot.com
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 07:33:01 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
>
> >> Present all along, but in tiny numbers compared with today's
> >> numbers. This morning in the Dallas Morning News was an article about
> >> the school district. In it was a chart of school population in
> >> Dallas. In 1970, 8.3% of students were *hispanic*. In 1985, about
> >> 28% were *hispanic*. Today, 49.3% are *hispanic*. These aren't
> >> Tejanos or the descendents of Tejanos. These are Mexicans, and you
> >> and I are paying their way.
>
> >It would seem perfectly reasonable that, over 30 years, the eight out of one
> >hundred hispanic students could marry and, having four or five children per
> >family, reach a population of 28 out of 100 by 1985, and further grow to 50 out
> >of 100 in another fifteen years.
>
> That might follow logically if nobody else in the district had
> any children, though it is certainly possible if not likely that a
> Mexican generation can be measured at about 15 years, given the rate
> of Mexican 15 year-olds walking around with babies.
Your original numbers spoke only to the percentage of hispanic students in the
school population. No where did you say anything about "generation". If you follow
the numbers closely, you must agree that the conclusion I have posited is correct.
>
>
> > I would suggest also, that unless you make far
> >more income than I suspect you do, your contribution to the education of the
> >children in Dallas borders on pennies,
>
> Your suspicions are unfounded and erroneous.
Would you care to share with us just exactly how much you do contribute to the school
budget of Dallas then? If it is more than pennies as I suspect, then you must be
Bill Gates.
>
>
> >if it can be given a denomination at all.
> >The schools, like the police, fire, public streets, sewers, etc., are services
> >provided by the community as a whole for the benefit of the whole community. If
> >you chose not to participate in that community, I would suggest you petition for
> >the return of you few cents, or just move.
>
> On the contrary, if you mean by "participate" in the community
> my paying of taxes, I "particpate" substantially. The tens of
> thousands of Mexicans who have seemingly throngs of offspring and live
> in one or two bedroom apartments while sending five kids to the public
> school aren't "participating" in the community. In fact, by violating
> zoning laws, by housing more than four people in a two bedroom
> apartment, they undermine "participation" by failing to provide their
> share of tax payments. They ought to move on, not I and other
> American citizens who are carrying the burden of the Mexican invasion.
So you do, in fact, agree with my numbers as they relate to the possible growth of
the hispanic school population. Why didn't you just say so.I believe that the
portion of rent that accrues to property taxes is unaffected by the number of
residents of a unit, unless of course, the rent is based on the number of residents.
In that case, the numbers would still be valid. Each renter pays their share of the
property taxes as their part of their rent. So your argument is foundation less.
To my knowledge, few if any of those "tens of thousands of Mexicans" have Swiss bank
accounts where they stash their money. They spend it locally, on food, clothing,
entertainment, rent, whatever. A portion of what they spend accounts for sales taxes
for the local, county and state coffers, which in turn is used for the common good -
streets, fire and police protection, etc. As individuals they may not pay as much as
you do (and I am sure many pay more), but they pay their share as legislated by the
taxing agencies. Would you argument about that?
DKL
>> You might take your complaint to those who do the studies.
>>The largest percentage of gang member - about 57% according to a study
>>I read last month - are *hispanic*.
> Mr. Long,
> 57% of what? The population of
> all gang membership? A 57% of
> Hispanic population?
Fifty-seven percent of all gang membership is
*hispanic*.
> What is the percentage of Asians
> within the overall population?
I have no idea.
> How does that percentage compare
> with the Hispanic in relations to
> the overall population?
I wouldn't know. Do you have a point?
> Are you a statistician/researcher?
No to statistician; yes to researcher.
DKL
>> Present all along, but in tiny numbers compared with today's
>> numbers. This morning in the Dallas Morning News was an article about
>> the school district. In it was a chart of school population in
>> Dallas. In 1970, 8.3% of students were *hispanic*. In 1985, about
>> 28% were *hispanic*. Today, 49.3% are *hispanic*. These aren't
>> Tejanos or the descendents of Tejanos. These are Mexicans, and you
>> and I are paying their way.
>It would seem perfectly reasonable that, over 30 years, the eight out of one
>hundred hispanic students could marry and, having four or five children per
>family, reach a population of 28 out of 100 by 1985, and further grow to 50 out
>of 100 in another fifteen years.
That might follow logically if nobody else in the district had
any children, though it is certainly possible if not likely that a
Mexican generation can be measured at about 15 years, given the rate
of Mexican 15 year-olds walking around with babies.
> I would suggest also, that unless you make far
>more income than I suspect you do, your contribution to the education of the
>children in Dallas borders on pennies,
Your suspicions are unfounded and erroneous.
>if it can be given a denomination at all.
>The schools, like the police, fire, public streets, sewers, etc., are services
>provided by the community as a whole for the benefit of the whole community. If
>you chose not to participate in that community, I would suggest you petition for
>the return of you few cents, or just move.
On the contrary, if you mean by "participate" in the community
my paying of taxes, I "particpate" substantially. The tens of
thousands of Mexicans who have seemingly throngs of offspring and live
in one or two bedroom apartments while sending five kids to the public
school aren't "participating" in the community. In fact, by violating
zoning laws, by housing more than four people in a two bedroom
apartment, they undermine "participation" by failing to provide their
share of tax payments. They ought to move on, not I and other
American citizens who are carrying the burden of the Mexican invasion.
>>
>>
DKL
DKL
>But as Mike has noted, Texax is officially bi-lingual and has been
>since the days of the old Republic and that bi-lingualism was
>enshrined in the contracted Texas signed with the Union as a condition
>of joining the Union. Therefore both English and Spanish are the
>languages of the land and use of either in civil, political or social
>arenas is legal and the law of the land. It is up to the majority of
>each councile to decide which best suits its population.
Texas isn't "officially" bilingual. Nowhere in the Texas
Constitution is the Spanish language given equality with English. The
Constitution itself is written in English. Legislation is debated in
English. Laws are written in English. English is the language of
Texas.
d...@cheetah.net
>On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 04:45:50 GMT, d...@cheetah.net wrote:
>
>> Mr. Long,
>
>> 57% of what? The population of
>> all gang membership? A 57% of
>> Hispanic population?
>
>
> Fifty-seven percent of all gang membership is
> *hispanic*.
>
>> What is the percentage of Asians
>> within the overall population?
> I have no idea.
>
>> How does that percentage compare
>> with the Hispanic in relations to
>> the overall population?
>
> I wouldn't know. Do you have a point?
>
>> Are you a statistician/researcher?
>
> No to statistician; yes to researcher.
Mr. Long,
Thank you for your response. There
is still much more to clarify and much
need of interpretation of the numbers.
DCI
rrcrumb
Mike Angwin <man...@brokersys.com> wrote in message
news:7r4ct6$1vr2$7...@news.hal-pc.org...
> >You are free do do exactly that. If you are not american yyou are
> >free to travel to another country where you can happily communicate in
> >their language. This is the USA. We speak english here. City council
> >meeting shouldn't be conducted in foreigh languages. If the people
> >there want to understand what is said they should learn the language
> >of the nation in which they want ti live. If that's not important to
> >them then they should go home.
> >
> Where I am at is Texas, and I Texas neither English nor Spanish
is
> a foreign language. Both are native to this sacred soil. Legally,
> constitutionally, and by a treaty between the United States and Texas,
> Texans have a right to interchange English and Spanish as they choose.
***** Your juvenile blather about Texas being a unique
semi sovereign entity that is in some way different than the other
49 states is getting tiresome. References to prove your
Texan-ness such as eating black eyed peas with buttermilk
are fake and stupid.
You must be brain dead not to notice the Mexican invasion
of your <bullshit alert > *sacred soil*
http://www.dallasnews.com/editorial/columnists/0827edit1estrad.htm
By Richard Estrada
08/27/99
"The argument that a colonia is a colony has its limits, to be sure.
But consider this: One of the most important elements of Mexican
foreign policy is to maximize the emigration of Mexican citizens
to the United States bylobbying on U.S. soil for high levels of
legal immigration and fighting or attenuating U.S. laws and strategies
designed to challenge illegal immigration. Mexican officials concerned
about a labor surplus in their country even have spoken openly about
creating an Israeli-type lobby for Mexico among people of Mexican
origin in the United States.
The liberal penchant for ignoring such infringements on national
sovereignty is well known. But even libertarian conservatives
in the business community are indifferent to the matter. They tend
to be fearful of any rhetoric or action that might impede the mass
influx of inexpensive foreign labor."
Illegal immigration exposed at:
http://americanpatrol.com
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thomas Mohr
> As about 100% of the residents of El Cezino are immigrants from Mexico
> - and most of them *illegal aliens*, Their setting up a town ought in
> itself be viewed as a foreign occupation, and the army ought to go
> down there and do its Constitutional duty.
Long, shall I explain to you the difference between the English words "soldier" and
"civilian", resp. "army" and "police" and the resulting implications for internatinal
law ?
dot...@dot.com
> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:52:27 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
>
> >Wild Rice wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 07:19:52 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
>
> *** COMMENTARY DELETED ***
> >
> >Where in the world did you get the idea that you must be able to speak English in
> >order to become a citizen?
>
> In theory (although the government doesn't strictly enforce the
> requirement), how the hell is a citizen wanna be going to read
> and articulate required answers to pass the citizenship examinations?
American history is printed only in English?
> >>
> >> >If, in doing so, they find that running the meetings in the language of the
> >> >predominant population of the city, then why would they not do so?
> >>
> >> Why should non-speaking people be rewarded for not learning the
> >> language? It may be accommodating, but would it pass constitutional
> >> muster? I don't think so. Do you think this would happen in a town
> >> situated in Mexico where bunches of U.S. retirees have relocated?
> >
> >Where in the world did you get the idea that speaking a foreign language at a city
> >council meeting would be unconstitutional?
>
> See my other post in this thread; my theories can be found there. If
> you are truly you will address those legal points. If you are not
> truly interested, which is in question, you will be silent of the
> issue. You'll fine it in Message-ID:
> <JDfVNxlpvESMYE...@4ax.com>
I cannot find that message. All I get is a message expired note, and none of your
other posts postulate any theories other than the unconstitutional one, which is
rubbish.
>
>
> asd>> Municipal governments don't function in a vacuum. They are part
> of a
> >> much larger configuration.
> >
> >So what?
>
> Is that all? That's your (non sequitur) answer? "So what." <chuckle>
dot...@dot.com
> On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 06:59:36 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
>
> >Wild Rice wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:52:27 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wild Rice wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 07:19:52 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
> >>
> >> *** COMMENTARY DELETED ***
>
> <Reformatted as a courtesy>
> >> >Where in the world did you get the idea that you must be able to speak
> >> >English in order to become a citizen?
> >>
> >> In theory (although the government doesn't strictly enforce the
> >> requirement), how the hell is a citizen wanna be going to read
> >> and articulate required answers to pass the citizenship examinations?
>
> Dotty wrote:
> >American history is printed only in English?
>
> That answers part of the question....
>
> <snip>
> <Reformatted as a courtesy>
> >> >Where in the world did you get the idea that speaking a foreign language
> >> >at a city council meeting would be unconstitutional?
>
> >> See my other post in this thread; my theories can be found there. If
> >> you are truly you will address those legal points. If you are not
> >> truly interested, which is in question, you will be silent of the
> >> issue. You'll fine it in Message-ID:
> >> <JDfVNxlpvESMYE...@4ax.com>
> >
> >....and none of your other posts postulate any theories other than the unconstitutional one, which is
> >rubbish.
>
> <<Rubbish?>> That's an obviously copout. Show some brass (or
> ovaries) -- why is it rubbish?
>
> Wild Rice
You certainly can be tiresome. Ok, show how speaking a foreign language at a city council meeting is
unconstitutional. That's the challenge. Are you up to it?
hc23hc
>
> I've given a good deal of thought to something that D. Long wrote many
> months ago, and I have to agree with it:
>
After all those months of profound contemplation, Jafo ...
Could this be it?
< "As social, economic, and political systems emerge from and are
< perpetuated by culture, a change in culture - in values - is
< necessary for America. Until the values, attitudes and behavior
< of the American people change, nothing will change in America except
< maybe the names of the players."
It could indeed. But before you spend another many months figuring it
out, sure, go ahead and tell Mexico how to fix its problems. You're
practically oozing qualifications, Jafo. First, take a good look at
Mexico today, with a small handful of corporations running the whole
shooting match and a bureaucracy-ridden social infrastructure for the
common citizenry. It isn't 'their culture', Jafo: it's money talking
the global language of fools like you.
You're looking at America's future.
.
.
.
dot...@dot.com
> On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 18:17:21 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
>
> >Wild Rice wrote:
> >
> >>On You certainly can be tiresome. Ok, show how speaking a foreign language at a city council meeting is
> >>unconstitutional. That's the challenge. Are you up to it?
> >
> Learn how to frame the issue first.
>
> Wild Rice
"Learn (no, I am not up to it) how to frame the issue first", huh!
DARNELL HOWARD
> >
> > >Wild Rice wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:52:27 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Wild Rice wrote:
> unconstitutional. That's the challenge. Are you up to it?
took facilty in English for granted and believed their progeny would do
the same, as would new citizens. Citizenship as bestowed on immigrants
today is merely a rubber stamp, with no knowledge of English or American
culture required. Even the suggestion for doing so is repellent to the
PC claque and would be be fought most vigorously by them. Indeed the
very concept of citizenship is held in disrepute by them. Giving aliens
the right to vote or otherwise share in the advantages of citizenship
appear to them to be a self-evident rights, and also empower their
agenda.
Fraser Orr
DARNELL HOWARD wrote in message <37D7CF...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Citizenship as bestowed on immigrants
>today is merely a rubber stamp, with no knowledge of English or American
>culture required.
Not true. According to
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/general.htm
which is the Immigration And Naturalization Service's
pamphlet on "General Naturalization Requirements",
two of the requirements for naturalization (i.e., becoming
a US citizen by a means other than birth) are:
* "Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write,
speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English
language."
* "An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge
and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of
the principles and form of government of the United States."
(Although some exceptions to these conditions apply in some
grandfather or extreme medical cases).
Jafo
Wild Rice wrote:
>Spanish only as the official language in city council meetings ought
>to be challenged.
No problem. Hereafter, everybody in town must be paid in pesos.
Mike Angwin
>back. That doesn't make me Swiss. Also, so many mexicans have
>arrived in Texas in the past 25 years that the majority of Mexicans
>here today could in no way be related to the couple of hundred
>Mexicans living in the Strip in 1835.
According to who? Hispanic immigration to Texas from Mexico
since 1990 has ranged between 80-87,000 persons a year, according to the
Department of Rural Sociology web site at Texas A&M. http://txsdc.tamu.edu
Even assuming none are immigrants from the Mexican states
bordering the Valley, and therefore removing the high potential of
relationship, and assuming none have died, returned to Mexico, or moved on
to other states, threby granting you the highest probability possible, as
unreasonable as it may be, you would have 960,000 Mexican immigrants to
Texas over the past quarter century out of a total Hispanic population of
about 6,000,000. Because of marriage into native Tejano blood lines, I
don't thing that it would be at all unresonable to speculate that 80% of
Texas Hispanics may have some direct relationship to the pre-American era of
Texas.
I also believe your estimates of the population of the Nueces Strip
at that time is a bit underestimated to support your argument. Corpus
Christi was already a large port and is located south of the Nueces as are
the cities of Presidio, Laredo, San Patricio, and Delores all of which were,
by 1835, populated communities.
>
> Present all along, but in tiny numbers compared with today's
>numbers. This morning in the Dallas Morning News was an article about
>the school district. In it was a chart of school population in
>Dallas. In 1970, 8.3% of students were *hispanic*. In 1985, about
>28% were *hispanic*. Today, 49.3% are *hispanic*. These aren't
>Tejanos or the descendents of Tejanos. These are Mexicans, and you
>and I are paying their way.
No, these are Texas Hispanics. In fact, I would suggest that among
these children you would find some, but not a large number of Mexican
nationals. The vast, vast, majority, I would wager you, are native born
Texans with just as much a right to be here as you or I.
I would also like, very much, to know where the Dallas Morning News
numbers are coming from. Since only 17% of Dallas County is Hispanic, I
find it a little amazing that Hispanics represent half the students. I
suppose it's possible, but the same Dallas Morning News prints the Texas
Almanacthat seems to defy it's own report.
Odd thing though. I was in Cameron County yesterday, down in
Brownsville, and it was one of the cleanest, most friendly, nicest cities
I've had the pleasure to visit in Texas. Cameron County is over 90%
Hispanic and certianly, for sure, more subject to immigration by Mexican
nationals than a city over 500 miles away like Dallas. Brownsville puts
Houston and Dallas to shame, just as San Antonio does which is another
Hispanic majority city.
Before I got all my feathers in a ruffle, I would suggest you visit
Brownsville personally and see for yourself what effect even a 90% Hispanic
population might have of a city like Dallas. You might even want to start
actively encouraging people to immigrate.
>
>> Fortunately, I suppose, other of us makes such decisions. That
is
>>a constitutional decision
>
> Actually, the matter of nationality isn't a Constitutional
>decision. If the people are from Mexico, if they speak only Spanish,
>then I suspect they're Mexicans. Why wouldn't you suspect that too?
>In what way are they American?
If they were from Mexico and they hadn't become citizens they would
be Mexicans, but unless I actually asked someone, or saw someone who was
hardcore Mexican with the little diddy bobs hanging off their hats, I really
would suspect them of being Mexican. If they speak only Spanish I wouldn't
either, though I can usually spot folks from Mexico City by their accents
and those from northern Mexico by their rather descriptive vocabulary. In
fact, unless I asked, I wouldn't know for sure if they spoke only Spanish.
It seems to me your suspecions are based on a lot of speculation
about things that even someone like myself who has spent a great deal of
time in the Hispanic community an speaks fluent Spanish can't make certian
decisions about.
I guess it's easier on you, not knowing much about the Hispanic
community, to jsut believe everyone who looks Hispanic and speaks Spanish is
Mexican. Still, that doesn't make that sort of reasoning accurate.
> Maybe they pulled down the Mexican flag after the bad
>publicity. But to omit the Texas flag is almost as bad as flying the
>Mexican flag.
I'll buy the latter part. :) I paid close attention to those
reports because I was very interested in them and honestly, I never saw a
Mexican flag displayed in El Cenizo. Actually, I wanted to go there
yesterday and check it out for myself while I was down in the Valley, but
the town is so new it wasn't on any maps yet and no one I asked knew where
it was. I may have to go back this weekend and if I do I'll try and find it
again.
Maybe after going there and talking to a few people I can give
a more accurate picture for you about what is really taking place.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>No. "They" have no responsibility to translate into any language
>that may be desired.
Actually both English and Spanish speaking Texans have a right to
translations of any government documents or procedures in Texas. It's the
law.
It's hardly reasonable to expect a society
>to modify itself for the benefit of the newcomer.
In Texas we don't have to. We are, and have been. a bi-lingual
society. Anyway, we aren't talking about "newcomers". We are talking about
native Texans and languages which have been in common use here for two
centuries.
When taking up
>residence in a new country, it's the responsibility of the new
>resident to educate himself in the language of that country.
Who is not speaking one of he languages of Texas? The languages
of Texas are both English and Spanish. While the vast majority of Hispanic
immigrants to Texas do attempt to learn English, very few of the Anglo
immigrants ever attempt to learn Spanish. Still, since no one complains
about the linguistic short comings of Anglo immigrants, I see no reason for
anyone to complain about the linguistic short comings of Hispanic
immigrants. We also have both native born Tejanos who speak only Spanish
and native born Texans who speak only English. Why would we seek to set a
different standard for immigrants?
If
>he/she is unwilling to do that, then why leave home in the first
>place?
Well, for one reason we usually welcome immigrants to Texas,
regardless of what language they speak, so long as they are hard working,
honest, and want to build a better life.
If an American were to choose to move to Russia, for example,
>it would damned well behoove him to learn at least some basic
>Russian. It's a matter of both politeness and practicality.
Odd, Americans don't do that we them come to Texas. Americans
come down here and make all sorts of demands on Texas. We don't pay a lot
of attention to them since we realize they come from a different world, but
it is an interesting contrast to what you suggest.
>
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>
No, in the language mutually agreed upon by the citizens of the
community. It's something called democratic government. Still, however,
these claims of this language of the country or that language of the
country, has no merit, nor any legal foundation in the United States.
However, in Texas, it is the right of each citizen to use English or Spanish
freely.
Have you
>overlooked at a condition concurrent to becoming a U.S. citizen
>is that the requirement to speak English?
Have you overlooked that that only applies to naturalized
citizenship, not native born Americans? There are large numbers of native
born Texans in the Rio Grande Valley that speak only Spanish. You might
also note that whille immigrants seeking citizenship are required to
demonstrate a proficiency in English, there is no requirement they forget
their previous language.
Can you even imagine how silly a bureaucrat would appear going to
the Valley, which is well over 90% Hispanic, going to Hidalgo County,
walking into a room in a court house in San Benito, and demanding everyone
in the room start speaking English? Not only would any such demand be a
violation of Texas law, it would be a breech of the treaty between Texas and
the United States, as well as a violation of the American Consitution.
That, of course, is leaving the sheer absurdity of it aside.
Therefore, there is no
>valid purpose to conduct the affairs of the council in a foreign
>language.
Spanish, in Texas, is NOT a foreign language.
>Why should non-speaking people be rewarded for not learning the
>language? It may be accommodating, but would it pass constitutional
>muster? I don't think so. Do you think this would happen in a town
>situated in Mexico where bunches of U.S. retirees have relocated?
I really don't care what happens in Mexico. First of all it's none
of my business and second I certianly would not hold it up as a model of
what we should do in Texas. No one is being rewarded for speaking Spanish
no more than anyone is being rewarded for speaking English. However, here
in Texas, those who choose to remain monolingual, be they either English
speaking or Spanish speaking, are placing their ownselves at a disadvantage,
but then that is their choice isn't it?
As for passing constitutional muster, do you have any idea what you
are talking about? The only constitutional provision that could remotely
apply to this issue would be freedom of speech protections of the first
amendment, and those protections would preserve the right of a community to
do as it chooses. There is absolutely no constitutional conflict with what
they are doing and, if you believe their is one, I would be delighted tosee
where you think that conflict exists in the constitution.
>Municipal governments don't function in a vacuum. They are part of a
>much larger configuration.
Sure they do, and El Cezino, though I know of no requirement for
them to do so in Texas, has not altered it's communications with county,
state, or federal officials in English. It has only decided, to better
seerve the citizens of El Cenizo, to conduct local meeting in Spanish and
handle day to day local affairs in Spanish, the language, incidently, spoken
by all but three El Cenizo residents.
>
>See further discussion on this in a post this day to CMS, same thread,
>same time, to CMS.
>
No thank you.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
> The attainment of citizenship requires proficiency in English.
>As about 100% of the residents of El Cezino are immigrants from Mexico
>- and most of them *illegal aliens*, Their setting up a town ought in
>itself be viewed as a foreign occupation, and the army ought to go
>down there and do its Constitutional duty.
I would like to know what you base this assumption on. There are
huge numbers of native born Texans in the valley who do not speak English.
You can't just assume someone is an immigrant because they only speak, or
even prefer to speak Spanish.
Another point you fail to recognize is that it is the citizens of
El Cenizo, not all residents, who are involved in the city government. You
must be a citizen of the United States to vote. Your presumptions,
assumptions, and creative statements, the same presumptions, assumptions,
and creative reasoning that permeates your statements, are clearly flawed.
Why do you persist in demanding American citizens, in their own
community, act in discord with their own wishes so long as those wishes are
in full compliance with the law and the constitution? Just because YOU
don't like it? Sorry, that's not good enough.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
> Texas isn't "officially" bilingual. Nowhere in the Texas
>Constitution is the Spanish language given equality with English. The
>Constitution itself is written in English. Legislation is debated in
>English. Laws are written in English. English is the language of
>Texas.
Copies of the Texas Constitution are written in English and Spanish.
State law preserves the equality of English and Spanish in Texas. All
government actions, bills, and legislative reports, in accordance with state
law, are also available in both English and Spanish. The state government,
county governments, and most local governments do operate in English, albeit
some county and local governments operate in varying degrees of both English
and Spanish. Local, county, and even state courts operate in both,
depending upon the judge and the preferences of the prosecution and defense.
I have even acted as a translator for an English speaking defense attorney
in a state court proceeding conducted entirely in Spanish.
English is not the language of Texas, nor is Spanish. They both are
and Texas is "officially" bi-lingual, both as a result of state laws which
have existed since annexation and as a condition of annexation itself.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>contract. (or treaties?). Now I'm more skeptical than before. Last
>time I read, treaties, were the supreme law of the land. Do you know
>if this is a treaties per se? If you have the name of the document,
>can you give it to me?
Treaty of Annexation, concluded between the United States of America
and the Republic of Texas, at Washington April 12, 1844. Take special note
of Article VII.
>
>OTOH, Interstate commerce is exclusively regulated by the
>Constitution, not by the states. Say, for example, if county, state
>or municipal officials decides to use Spanish in legal and commercial
>documents, would that be up the "majority" to decide? The federal
>government also has supreme power over any all laws of the states in
>conflict with federal laws; power to make laws which shall be
>necessary and proper; federal Judicial law extends to all cases in law
>and equity; and under the Supremacy Clause, Federal Codes and
>Constitutional law and judicial decisions supersedes all state laws in
>which they would be in conflict.
>
>Very interesting area. Although I'm not a constitutional expert,
>theoretically I think the way in which to get around this is a law
>suit brought by citizens, or one on behalf if the federal government.
>Spanish only as the official language in city council meetings ought
>to be challenged.
>
Based upon what? It violates no law, violates no constitutional
provision, and is supported by Texas law, the United States Constitution,
and the Treaty between the United States and Texas. There is no grounds for
any such lawsuit. What wrong could you possibly demonstrate? "Well I just
don't like it" ain't good enough.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>semi sovereign entity that is in some way different than the other
>49 states is getting tiresome. References to prove your
>Texan-ness such as eating black eyed peas with buttermilk
>are fake and stupid.
I happen to like buttermilk and cornbread, and I also like blackeyed
peas with little green onions. Heck, I can even give you my reciepe for
cornbread if you want it. You might even find out you like it too.
As for Texas being different from the other 49 states, it just
happens to be true. That ain't my fault. I was just lucky enough to tbe
born here. I do understand how y'all can get all frustrated, not living in
Texas.
>You must be brain dead not to notice the Mexican invasion
>of your <bullshit alert > *sacred soil*
>
I do consider Texas soil sacred. It's just how my father and
grandfather taught me to feel about Texas, and how I've taught my sons to
feel. It's not a bad feeling. To take real pride in something, especially
something so worthy of one's pride, feels quite good. In fact, I wouldn't
want to live without such a feeling.
As for a "Mexican" invasion, heck, we've had folks immigrating here
for over two centuries, flooding in across all our borders, and you know
something, we do our best to meet every one of y'all with a handshake and a
warm smile. We know Texas is special and we don't blame folks for wanting
to come. Truth be known, we're right proud they decided to come.
Now maybe some folks do pick about what river a man crosses to get
here, but most of us don't. Y'all all are welcome. It's just the
neighborly way to be.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>
>You certainly can be tiresome. Ok, show how speaking a foreign language at
a city council meeting is
>unconstitutional. That's the challenge. Are you up to it?
>
it unconstitutional.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>>took facilty in English
>
Untrue, because an intense debate was conducted at the convening of
the Continetal Congress over whether to conduct business in English or
German.
>>for granted and believed their progeny would do the same, as would new
citizens.
>
>True. Although they apparently couldn't conceive of a foreign
>invasion from Mexico, Central America, and beyond by way of illegal
>immigration -- the framers did incorporate Constitutional provisions
>to deal with foreign invasions. But this is another (related) issue
>altogether.
Untrue, at the time most of upper New York state spoke Dutch, most
of Pennsylvania spoke German, and French was commonly spoken in the northern
parts of most New England states. When the framers assured freedom of
speech they appear to have stated their position quite clearly. People are
free to speak as they choose.
However, they probably did not envision the policy of naked
expasionism the United States would pursure for the next half century. Yet
their wisdom of preserving the right of free speech seems to have worked
very well even in the lands the United States invaded as it crossed the
continent.
>
>It's similar to the regulations against illegal immigration, the laws
>are there but not being enforced.
You believe not. When was the last time you visited the Mexican
border? I was there last Wednesday and I beg to differ with you. You are
mistaken.
>Very interesting area. Although I'm not a constitutional expert,
>theoretically I think the way in which to get around this is a law
>suit brought by citizens, or one on behalf if the federal government.
>Spanish only as the official language in city council meetings ought
>to be challenged.
>
Again, upon what possible grounds. You can't just walk up to a
court and sue someone, you must have grounds for such a suit. Since none
exist such an idea is silly.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>The Constitution says nothing about language because the framers of it
>the same, as would new citizens.
Now that's an interesting assumption since the first Continental
Congress only accepted English over German by one vote as the language to do
it's business in.
Citizenship as bestowed on immigrants
>today is merely a rubber stamp, with no knowledge of English or American
>culture required.
Actually you do have to answer some questions about the American
political system in English to pass the test. The test, to me, seemed
fairly simple, from a study guide I read, but just out of curiosity I asked
some people the questions at random and I was really surprised how few could
answer them. Since most of us here are political activists in some form, we
tend to have a better understanding of history and the political system than
most people. The test given prospective citizens is one few Americans could
pass in any language.
Even the suggestion for doing so is repellent to the
>PC claque and would be be fought most vigorously by them. Indeed the
>very concept of citizenship is held in disrepute by them. Giving aliens
>the right to vote or otherwise share in the advantages of citizenship
>appear to them to be a self-evident rights, and also empower their
>agenda.
And..uh...exactly what agenda is that? I didn't realize one had been
formalized.
BTW...aliens aren't given the right to vote. When the right to vote
is granted they are American citizens, just as much as you or I.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>>at a city council meeting is unconstitutional. That's the challenge.
>>Are you up to it?
>
Well...we are all waiting for you to answer the question.
( And it's "sě" not "see".)
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>* "Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write,
> speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English
> language."
This part is not quite this rigorously enforced. I have been at
several of the the tests and they have all been verbal without any test of
reading or writing skills, and proficiency in speech has been limited almost
entirely to verbal questions about history and the political process. I
realize this seems counter my pro-immigration position, but it is the truth
and that is what is important. However, these provisions were only placed
in citizenship requirements a little over one half century ago and I don't
think they even need to be a part of the law to begin with.
>* "An applicant for naturalization must demonstrate a knowledge
> and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of
> the principles and form of government of the United States."
Yep, this part is true, and the questions, though made verbally, and
answered verbally, werecomparatively tough. I thought they were easy being
a history buff and a political activist, but the average guy in the street,
even the average guy in the voting line, wouldn't be able to pass this part
of the test without doing some studying.
>
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
language at a city council meeting is
>>>unconstitutional. That's the challenge. Are you up to it?
>>
>
by the city council in El Cezino to conduct it's council meetings in Spanish
was unconstitutional. Each time I have demonstrated to you how what was
done was actually a constitutionally protected right of the citizens of El
Cezino. You have yet to provide even one slither of evidence to support
such a claim much less even made an attempt as explaining what part of the
Constitution leads you to such a conclusion. Your response, above, only
demonstrates your complete lack of even any incredible reason for making
such a statement, much less a credible one.
Here in Texas we another expression.. "put up or shut up."
/\/\ike
c...@yahoo.com
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
> Yep, this part is true, and the questions, though made verbally, and
>answered verbally, werecomparatively tough. I thought they were easy being
>a history buff and a political activist, but the average guy in the street,
>even the average guy in the voting line, wouldn't be able to pass this part
>of the test without doing some studying.
>>
> /\/\ike
>
>
Actually I would not be surprised if that held true in most countries.
Even here in Canada, the average Canadian born or educated has less
knowledge of our history then new immigrants. While attending BCIT I
watched an amusing incident where a recent immigrant from Korea got
into a historical debate with "native" (not first nations, but one who
was born here.) Canadian. The native born swore and curse that as a
Canadian he was correct.
Then the Korean immigrant produced a history text that proved him
correct. Immigrants coming to a new land tend to want to know all
about their soon to be adopted land, its history, culture and social
structure, basically it makes it easier for them to adapt and blend
in. Whereas most native bornes have little incentive to learn about
their history and soon forget what little they learned in high school.
cms
Mike Angwin
>>Spanish only as the official language in city council meetings ought
>>to be challenged.
>
>
redbacks are.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>Even here in Canada, the average Canadian born or educated has less
>knowledge of our history then new immigrants. While attending BCIT I
>watched an amusing incident where a recent immigrant from Korea got
>into a historical debate with "native" (not first nations, but one who
>was born here.) Canadian. The native born swore and curse that as a
>Canadian he was correct.
>
>Then the Korean immigrant produced a history text that proved him
>correct. Immigrants coming to a new land tend to want to know all
>about their soon to be adopted land, its history, culture and social
>structure, basically it makes it easier for them to adapt and blend
>in. Whereas most native bornes have little incentive to learn about
>their history and soon forget what little they learned in high school.
>
weren't so tragic. When ones ancestors die for principles their descendents
don't even take the time to try and understand, it should surprise no one
that their liberties are being slowly eroded away. Even if they were
sufficiently aware enough to see the erosion.
/\/\ike
dot...@dot.com
Why, it's a left leaning fatback. No?
dot...@dot.com
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:56:26 -0500, "Mike Angwin"
> <man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>
> >>>You certainly can be tiresome. Ok, show how speaking a foreign language
> >>>at a city council meeting is unconstitutional. That's the challenge.
> >>>Are you up to it?
> >>
> >>See
>
> > Well...we are all waiting for you to answer the question.
> > ( And it's "sì" not "see".)
> >
> Mike your first error was in assuming that dot.dot know what the fuck
> he was talking about. FYI, I have NEVER said that it was
> unconstitutional. Your second mistake, was to delete the last part of
> my post, in which I said I already put that information out there.
> Here is again for the third time:
>
> Re: El Cezino, Texas... official language, Spanish!
> On 09/07/99 at 10:52 <wild_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Message-ID: <GUPXN=DcMmMLf=y70=8wqVF...@4ax.com>
> <wild_...@hotmail.com wrote:
Oh yes you did! Right here:
>Why should non-speaking people be rewarded for not learning the
> language? It may be accommodating, but would it pass constitutional
> muster? I don't think so.
"...would it pass constitutional muster? I don't think so. = it's
unconstitutional.
Mike Angwin
>literal reading of the Constitution. On its fact, there is no mention
>of English.... The poster's statement is probably correct, depending
>on his meaning of the term "facility."
The above paragraph has no decipherable meaning. In a literal
reading, or otherwise, there is no sanction of English as an official
language, to trhe exclusion of any other, in the Consitution.
>
>The term "foreign invasion" was written in the context of today's
>illegal invasion from Mexico & Central America.
I would suggest invasion, in this context, is as inaccurately used as
it is used with the intent of projecting an inaccurate image.
>
>>You believe not. When was the last time you visited the Mexican
>>border? I was there last Wednesday and I beg to iffer with you. You are
mistaken.
>
>Why don't you share your experiences, in this way you can explain what
>you mean, and why.
I will be happy to. The lower Rio Grande Valley is flooded with
federal officials. The Border Patrol, Customs agents, the DEA, and even the
military. Along the border itself Border Patrol agents form a line, in sight
of one another, for as far as the eye can see. At night huge mobile flood
lights, 12 to a bank with polished alimunium reflectors, flood the river and
the river banks with light turning night into daylight. Behind each row of
lights sits a Border Partol agent in a dark blue cab like affair on a
sissored tower with a nightvision telescope scanning the banks for illegals.
The cost of these operations alone must be phenominal.
Yet, the absurdity of all of this is only understood when it
is realized virtually any resident of northern Mexico can easily obtain a
day pass and simply walk across the border bypassing the entire electronic
hurdle. Trains roll across the border and receive only cursory checks,
vehicles and trucks flood across the border and while the occasional
stowaway is found, coming across on one, unless every single truck was
actullay unloaded while someone watched, would not be at all difficult.
In short, all of the technologies and money being spent, in
an attempt to halt the 80-87,000 illegals a year that arrive in Texas, is a
total waste. Of these, the bulk arrive on legal visas and simply do not
return when they expire. Yet, this isn't all.
The entirity of south Texas itself is cordoned off by yet
another border, the border between south Texas and the free world that is
120 miles north of the the border. Here, federal agents, backed by the
military, have set up yet another line of defense. This one, across open
country, is made up of military and civilian helicopters, motion sensors,
military patrols, and road blocks that subject Texas citizens to searches
within their own state. Again, despite the massive and costly effort, the
barriers are pourous and releatively easily circumvented.
Throughout the militarized zone of south Texas, Border
Patrol agents and other elements of the federal occupation forces are
constantly harassing citizens, asking questions, demanding proof of
residency, and conducting searches. "La migra", as the Border Patrol is
commonly referred to, is not warmly accepted among local residents and the
constant harassment, accusations, and problems they create for residents is
becoming increasinlgly intolerable.
Being under what amounts to state of martial law,
fostered upon south Texans by political leaders unaware of what they are
doing brought about be demands of American citizens in distant states who
arte reacting emotionally as opposed to rationally, pouring unbelievable
amounts of money and manpower into the area in search of a quick fix to an
imaginary problem that isn't even centered in the area, all while attempting
a task of such gigantic proportions that it is virtually impossible to
accomplish, would be humorous if the rights of local citizens were not being
so commonly ignored and if so many tax dollars wer not being literally
thrown away.
>Thanks for sharing, but I really did know that. Suing someone is not
>the same as making Constitutional challenges. For that reason I
>raised numerous Constitutional provision which I though could possible
>be valid as constitutional challenge to explore in Federal court. And
>gave a scenario, or two. Mike I already posted this several times in a
>thread of this title. If you are at all interested see this post:
I have followed you posts from the beginning, and I have not found
one legal or constitutional issue, expressed by you, to support such a
challange, valid or not. I have seen numerous generalizations made
suggesting that a constitutional violation has occured, but you have yet to
state whatpart of the Constituion you believe is being violated. If you
have even one, simply state it.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
No, I am not. I, and eveyone else following this thread, continue to
eagerly awaiting your answer. What constitutional provision has been
violated by the decision of the El Cenizo city council to conduct it's
public meeting in Spanish?
Mike you deleted the reference in
>which I've already provided information.
I have made no such deletion because you have yet to answer the
question. I,and others, have asked you over and over again the same
question and you have yet to answer it.
I don't reposts information
>already given, already hashed, and already have provided reference to
>where that can be found.
I have followed your posts from the beginning of this thread. You
have suggested that the decision of the city council be challanged on
constitutional grounds. You have yet to say upon what constitutional
grounds.
Take a look at it or stop whinnying. I gave
>you and dot.dot what you requested.
You have not.
But you sniveling nonetheless.
>Enough sniveling. Also, if you look at that post you will understand
>that _I DID NOT_ say it was unconstitutional. I raised some
>Constitution concepts, with a scenario or two in which I thought may
>be relevant to explore in this ...Texas Official language discussion.
You have not. All you have done, to this point, is make broad
generalizations suggesting that you believe, in there somewhere, is
something that might support your position. I would like to know where.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>Mike your first error was in assuming that dot.dot know what the fuck
>he was talking about. FYI, I have NEVER said that it was
>unconstitutional. Your second mistake, was to delete the last part of
>my post, in which I said I already put that information out there.
>Here is again for the third time:
>
>Re: El Cezino, Texas... official language, Spanish!
>On 09/07/99 at 10:52 <wild_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Message-ID: <GUPXN=DcMmMLf=y70=8wqVF...@4ax.com>
><wild_...@hotmail.com wrote:
In the message you cite you stated that you felt the decision of the
El Cenizo city council could be challenged on the provisions of the
constitution dealing with interstate commerce assuming, I suppose, that you
believe the El Cenizo city council is attempting to communicate with other
governmental agencies and jurisdictions in Spanish. This is not the case.
The adoption of Spanish by the city council only applies to council meetings
and the day to day business of the city of El Cenizo itself. It does not
apply to forms or communications with other local, state, or federal
governmental bodies or agencies. Thus the interstate commerce provision
would have no foundation for application.
Your response is a reach, but I will give you credit for at least
making one.
/\/\ike
Mike Angwin
>Why, it's a left leaning fatback. No?
>
money had a red tint to the back and was called "redbacks".
/\/\ike
dot...@dot.com
> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:55:10 -0700, dot...@dot.com wrote:
>
> *** DELETED TEXT ***
>
> >> Mike your first error was in assuming that dot.dot know what the fuck
> >> he was talking about. FYI, I have NEVER said that it was
> >> unconstitutional. Your second mistake, was to delete the last part of
> >> my post, in which I said I already put that information out there.
> >> Here is again for the third time:
> >>
> >> Re: El Cezino, Texas... official language, Spanish!
> >> On 09/07/99 at 10:52 <wild_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Message-ID: <GUPXN=DcMmMLf=y70=8wqVF...@4ax.com>
> >> <wild_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Oh yes you did! Right here:
>
> >>Why should non-speaking people be rewarded for not learning the
> >> language? It may be accommodating, but would it pass constitutional
> >> muster? I don't think so.
>
> I was wrong. The correct message-ID is: )
> Message-ID: <JDfVNxlpvESMYE...@4ax.com> )
> Subject: Re: El Cezino, Texas... official language, Spanish! )
> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:52:01 -0700 )
> Organization: Proxima Centauri Foundation )
> Lines: 37 )
>
> I apologize for giving the incorrect Message-ID. If you want to check
> it out, you are free to take a look at it (Constitutional concerns).
>
> >"...would it pass constitutional muster? I don't think so. = it's
> >unconstitutional.
>
> Take a look at that Message-ID, so you'll know WHAT you disagree with,
> so you can establish WHY you disagree with it, so you can formulate
> articulable reasons to express how you disagreeing it. If you don't
> want to familiarize yourself with that Message-ID, then stop
> flagellate yourself with it the issue.
>
> Btw, my post was directed to c...@yahoo.com, who on Tue, 07 Sep 1999
> 15:27:07 GMT, gave rise to the Constitutional issue. And who, unlike
> you've demonstrated, is able to discuss the issue with a certain
> amount of dignity and sincerity. Friendly suggestion, put away your
> flashing knife, put your ear to the track.
>
> Wild Rice
You make everything so difficult. This is what you said:
(here is my statement...)
>If, in doing so, they find that running the meetings in the language of the
>predominant population of the city, then why would they not do so?
(and here is your reply...)
Why should non-speaking people be rewarded for not learning the
language? It may be accommodating, but would it pass constitutional
muster? I don't think so. Do you think this would happen in a town
situated in Mexico where bunches of U.S. retirees have relocated?
You said that in (Message-ID: <pE=VN1NIOHP1BmP...@4ax.com>)
So what is there to look up? I offered an observation and asked a simple
question, and you did what? What you usually do. You choked on your
twisted tongue and continued to thrash at the bounds of reasonableness. And,
of course, you failed to answer my question. Which is not unexpected.
DKL
<man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>> I have one ancestor who was Swiss, about five generations
>>back. That doesn't make me Swiss. Also, so many mexicans have
>>arrived in Texas in the past 25 years that the majority of Mexicans
>>here today could in no way be related to the couple of hundred
>>Mexicans living in the Strip in 1835.
> According to who? Hispanic immigration to Texas from Mexico
>since 1990 has ranged between 80-87,000 persons a year, according to the
>Department of Rural Sociology web site at Texas A&M. http://txsdc.tamu.edu
The study must be referring to *legal* entries. Illegals are
swarming all over the place have been for years.
> Even assuming none are immigrants from the Mexican states
>bordering the Valley, and therefore removing the high potential of
>relationship, and assuming none have died, returned to Mexico, or moved on
>to other states, threby granting you the highest probability possible, as
>unreasonable as it may be, you would have 960,000 Mexican immigrants to
>Texas over the past quarter century out of a total Hispanic population of
>about 6,000,000. Because of marriage into native Tejano blood lines,
That's certainly speculative.
>don't thing that it would be at all unresonable to speculate that 80% of
>Texas Hispanics may have some direct relationship to the pre-American era of
>Texas.
Ridiculous.
> I also believe your estimates of the population of the Nueces Strip
>at that time is a bit underestimated to support your argument. Corpus
>Christi was already a large port and is located south of the Nueces as are
>the cities of Presidio, Laredo, San Patricio, and Delores all of which were,
>by 1835, populated communities.
Corpus wasn't "large," and the dusty little backwaters you
mention weren't "cities."
>> Present all along, but in tiny numbers compared with today's
>>numbers. This morning in the Dallas Morning News was an article about
>>the school district. In it was a chart of school population in
>>Dallas. In 1970, 8.3% of students were *hispanic*. In 1985, about
>>28% were *hispanic*. Today, 49.3% are *hispanic*. These aren't
>>Tejanos or the descendents of Tejanos. These are Mexicans, and you
>>and I are paying their way.
> No, these are Texas Hispanics.
I see them every day. I hear them speak. They're Mexicans,
period.
> In fact, I would suggest that among
>these children you would find some, but not a large number of Mexican
>nationals. The vast, vast, majority, I would wager you, are native born
>Texans with just as much a right to be here as you or I.
Most of the *Hispanics* in Dallas are either illegals or are
the children of illegals. I've watched Dallas fill up with them for
the past 10 years.
> I would also like, very much, to know where the Dallas Morning News
>numbers are coming from. Since only 17% of Dallas County is Hispanic, I
>find it a little amazing that Hispanics represent half the students. I
>suppose it's possible, but the same Dallas Morning News prints the Texas
>Almanacthat seems to defy it's own report.
The scholo district provides the numbers. Dallas county is
expected to be 72% *hispanic* by the year 2030.
> Odd thing though. I was in Cameron County yesterday, down in
>Brownsville, and it was one of the cleanest, most friendly, nicest cities
>I've had the pleasure to visit in Texas. Cameron County is over 90%
>Hispanic and certianly, for sure, more subject to immigration by Mexican
>nationals than a city over 500 miles away like Dallas. Brownsville puts
>Houston and Dallas to shame, just as San Antonio does which is another
>Hispanic majority city.
> Before I got all my feathers in a ruffle, I would suggest you visit
>Brownsville personally and see for yourself what effect even a 90% Hispanic
>population might have of a city like Dallas. You might even want to start
>actively encouraging people to immigrate.
Thanks, but I'm not fond of gangs, graffitti, trashed
neighborhoods, uninsured drivers, hit-and-run drivers, ethnic
demagoguery, and the other *joys* of massive Mexican immigration.
>>> Fortunately, I suppose, other of us makes such decisions. That
>is
>>>a constitutional decision
>> Actually, the matter of nationality isn't a Constitutional
>>decision. If the people are from Mexico, if they speak only Spanish,
>>then I suspect they're Mexicans. Why wouldn't you suspect that too?
>>In what way are they American?
> If they were from Mexico and they hadn't become citizens they would
>be Mexicans, but unless I actually asked someone, or saw someone who was
>hardcore Mexican with the little diddy bobs hanging off their hats, I really
>would suspect them of being Mexican. If they speak only Spanish I wouldn't
>either, though I can usually spot folks from Mexico City by their accents
>and those from northern Mexico by their rather descriptive vocabulary. In
>fact, unless I asked, I wouldn't know for sure if they spoke only Spanish.
> It seems to me your suspecions are based on a lot of speculation
>about things that even someone like myself who has spent a great deal of
>time in the Hispanic community an speaks fluent Spanish can't make certian
>decisions about.
> I guess it's easier on you, not knowing much about the Hispanic
>community, to jsut believe everyone who looks Hispanic and speaks Spanish is
>Mexican. Still, that doesn't make that sort of reasoning accurate.
Look, if it walks, talks, and looks like a duck ...
Wm James
>Wm James wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 00:20:47 -0500, "Mike Angwin"
>> <man...@brokersys.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>It's also the beginning of the end.
>> >>
>> > Of what? I have no fear of Spanish. I speak Spanish as fluently as
>> >I speak English and have even been told I speak better Spanish that English
>> >because I speak English with a very deep Texas drawl.
>> >
>> > So what is to be frightened of, that two or three generations from
>> >now words may be used that as not being used today?
>> >
>> > It makes no difference at all and people are really the same, who
>> >ever they are. I live in and out of the Hispanic community with total
>> >fluidity, both cultures have shared this land for two centuries.
>> >
>> > It's the end of nothing, but it may very well be the beginning of
>> >allowing what has always occurred to be realized and understood by all. We
>> >should all be free to be who we are.
>> >
>> >
>> >/\/\ike
>> >
>>
>> You are free do do exactly that. If you are not american yyou are
>> free to travel to another country where you can happily communicate in
>> their language. This is the USA. We speak english here. City council
>> meeting shouldn't be conducted in foreigh languages. If the people
>> there want to understand what is said they should learn the language
>> of the nation in which they want ti live. If that's not important to
>> them then they should go home.
>>
>> William R. James
>
>The purpose of city council meetings is to run the business of that city. If,
>in doing so, they find that running the meetings in the language of the
>predominant population of the city, then why would they not do so? It's not an
>American city just because they speak english, it's an American city because its
>in America. If you were a citizen of that city, and could not understand the
>council as they were deliberating and discussing issues of concern, then you
>would have a right, as a tax payer, voter, and citizen to request that they find
>a way to be sure that you too are included in their deliberating process. Why
>would that not be true of spanish speaking citizens?
>
>
If I can understand my country's language it isn't up to the local
taxpayers to shell out their hard earned to work around my ignorance!
It's up to me to get off my lazy butt and learn my country's language
or go home.
William R. James