Is this what we have become?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please explain…
Definition of bigot
:a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
 
Last edited:
You seem to hold other countries in very low regard, that you insist it’s unreasonable for children to be raised by their family in the country they legally reside.
 
I do not agree with what Trump is doing…However I do no not understand if one has been in this country as long as Ms. Hernandez why not apply for citizenship…I would, especially to protect myself, from what’s going on now. more importantly because she loves this country…God Bless:🦋🦋🦋
 
anna said:
I do not agree with what Trump is doing…However I do no not understand if one has been in this country as long as Ms. Hernandez why not apply for citizenship…I would, especially to protect myself, from what’s going on now. more importantly because she loves this country…God Bless
Click to expand...
Yes, the program she was under was never a pathway to citizenship. There are many other programs she could pursue that are a pathway to citizenship.
 
Ok you need to explain this more. And which country am I bigoted against? She has a life here. A Job to support her family. And pay taxes as well. And she is here legally. Her choice is to stay here. But it seems we are going to add a whole new level of stress to her and her family. If that makes me a bigot to want her and folk like her not to be deported (by your definition) then so be it.
 
So are you expressing disbelief that with all you’ve said, she’s made no effort to apply for legal citizenship? The program was always about temporary residency here.

She was never on a path to become a resident, stop blaming us because you woke up and saw the facts.

She also spent most of her life in her country of origin, it’s not the end of the world if she returns to her country, where she has her family and cultural heritage.
 
Last edited:
So you are looking at it from a macro view. But I am looking at from a micro view. I will just leave it at that.
 
😦 I thought it was supposed to be about all the bad hombres, the drug dealers and the rapists.

This woman has been employed, and here legally.

Haitians here are also affected by this because of the earthquake.
 
Her member of Congress can submit a bill to allow her to be granted U.S. citizenship.

Members of Congress do that sort of thing to benefit individuals all the time.
 
F_Marturana said:
I thought it was supposed to be about all the bad hombres, the drug dealers and the rapists.

This woman has been employed, and here legally.

Haitians here are also affected by this because of the earthquake.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should bone up on the facts before jumping to conclusions.
She wasn’t deported
Her temporary visa program is ending
If she wants to stay permanently, she can make an effort and apply

This ‘earthquake’ stopped quaking some time ago.
 
Last edited:
Having refugees on visas which are temporary until things improve in their nation is going to lead to this type of problem.

At first, there will be hope for improvement in one’s own nation and a subsequent disinclination to really “settle” into life here. As time goes on and there is no improvement in the home country, the refugee will become more and more engaged in life here.

Now this woman has been here for close to 20 years and is being informed she will or may need to return to Nicaragua and comepletely restart her life all over again. This is different from simply returning to one’s home after a much shorter time, when one can more easily fit into the fabric of society.
OTOH, she’s been here almost 20 years and still needs an interpreter?
I am not sure what the solution is for people who are uprooted from their homes by war or natural disaster. I doubt we were able to bring all those from Nicaragua who wanted to come, which means that we “abandoned” many people, probably people who were too poor to travel to the US to see brothers who were already here.

Any way you look at it, there are many refugees; should we care for some really well, leaving many behind? Or should we care for all of them in the nations where they are? We are hearing this woman’s story, but we are not hearing stories of those who stuck it out in Nicargua for the past 19 years.

It’s a very tough situation all around.
 
Do you see the word deport in my post?

I repeat I thought that the bad hombres were the ones targeted to go.

The situation in Haiti is still terrible. We had a priest who runs a mission there visit our parish recently.
 
Annie said:
OTOH, she’s been here almost 20 years and still needs an interpreter?
Click to expand...
I know many people who can speak and understand English pretty well but would need an interpreter for something more complicated. I can speak enough Spanish to be understood, but would need an interpreter if I needed to understand something more complicated.
 
Theo520 said:
You seem to hold other countries in very low regard, that you insist it’s unreasonable for children to be raised by their family in the country they legally reside.
Click to expand...
While I think the U.S. is the best place to live, I do think there is a mild form of jingoism in the assumption by open borders people that somehow life outside the U.S. is intolerable. Yes, the U.S. enjoys a very favorable exchange rate with many countries, and has a more lush welfare system. But it isn’t as if everybody in, e.g., Latin America is crashing through their border gates to escape. It’s only a few of them, relatively speaking. Yes, they want to do better than their neighbors in their home countries. Can’t blame them for that. But neither does it mean deportees are being consigned to hell.
 
Ridgerunner said:
While I think the U.S. is the best place to live, I do think there is a mild form of jingoism in the assumption by open borders people that somehow life outside the U.S. is intolerable.
Click to expand...
I think that your remarks are very mistaken. There may be some jingoists who might believe that. But open borders people believe that open borders are feasible only to the extent that there is a dynamic equilibrium of immigration and emigration among the cooperating countries.
 
Last edited:
F_Marturana said:
know many people who can speak and understand English pretty well but would need an interpreter for something more complicated. I can speak enough Spanish to be understood, but would need an interpreter if I needed to understand something more complicated.
Click to expand...
Departing from the subject a bit, I once asked a very good English-Spanish translator about that. She was a frequent participant in various corporate meetings where translation was needed.

Her analysis was that while it was not difficult for her to translate in a business meeting, she had a lot of difficulty understanding English-speaker participants in the discussions during “breaks” or meals. Why?

Well, her first language is Spanish. Later on, she took intensive courses in English and did very well at it. However, such courses tend to be limited to certain things.

English is odd in that it’s really three languages, sort of mixed together. A good part of it is Latin-based. Most scientific “talk” is largely in that “mode”. About 1/3 is French-based, and business talk is full of that. An English speaker can nearly understand a French business article. Ordinary talk about family, football, and joking is largely Anglo-Saxon based with a touch of Scandinavian. In the first two, English speakers tend to speak in full sentences. In the third, we don’t. There are regional differences in that as well. Southerners truncate words and sentences in the Anglo-Saxon mode considerably more than northerners do.

So, unless you have been intensively instructed or immersed in all three, you will not “get” all of it, depending on the context. To make it even worse, at informal periods during business meetings, we switch back and forth from a more “FRenchified” mode to a more Anglo-Saxon mode, depending on what we’re talking about in bits and pieces. That, the translator said, was the most difficult to follow.

One thing of possible interest to some. Much of the French contained in English is somewhat archaic, from the Norman period in England. I well remember being on a French island some years ago. The locals had been there about 300 years and were almost entirely from Normandy. There were also a lot of French tourists on the island, Parisians mostly. I took French in college and wasn’t too bad at it. I could understand the locals very well, but the tourists were very difficult for me to understand.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top