caysdaddy04

What's so special about Spanish that it's the only other language on our phone systems (you know, "Para español, oprima numero dos")? It's only the fourth most widely spoken language in the world. Mandarin Chinese is the most widely spoken language on our planet (850 million native speakers). Hindi is second, English is third. Shouldn't we have Mandarin and Hindi in our systems too?

In the US, especially California, there's quite a large number of Korean, Japanese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Khmer and Armenian speakers. Where's their number?

There are well over 500 languages on our planet. Since we can't put every single one into our phone system, and since we can't discriminate against any other minority foreign languages, like Swahili or Uzbekistani, there's an easier solution... everyone learns English! No favoritism toward one language or another. We've been using English since this country began, and we should be using English today, 230 years later.

I'm sure most everyone is quite aware of Michael Richards' (Kramer from "Seinfeld") racist rant from a few weeks ago.

What bothers me almost as much as the rant itself is the realization that if his rant were aimed at any other ethnic group using any other ethnic slurs, it wouldn't even make the back page news, nevermind front page news.

So, my question about the double standard is this... why is it not ok to call a black person a n*****, but it IS ok to call a Korean "****", a Chinese "chink", or a Japanese "nip"? Why is it not ok to call a black person a n*****, but it IS ok to call a Canadian "frostback", an Irish "mick" or an Italian "wop"?

It's a pretty horrible double standard when a black person can call another person a hateful name and it goes unpunished (or even worse, unnoticed), yet when they themselves are called a hateful name, it's cause for public apologies, lawsuits and severe punishments.

Shouldn't all ethnic slurs be treated with the same severity?

I ask this of all the people here who say they are dating or married to an illegal immigrant. I had a friend back in college who was dating an illegal from El Salvador. When he was finally caught, my friend decided that she loved him enough to drop out of college and move to El Salvador with him. I lost touch with her after that, so I assume she is either still there, or they found a way to get him to the US legally.

So I ask all of you dating or married to an illegal immigrant... do you love your significant other enough to go back to their country with them if they were ever caught and deported?

It was ceded by Mexico to the US in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The US also paid Mexico $15 million for it, plus paid off $3.25 million in Mexican debts to US citizens, therefore paying a total of $18.25 million for the areas of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Utah and Colorado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_guadalupe_h...

The Gadsden Purchase (note the word PURCHASE, not STEAL) was bought for $10 million in 1853.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_Purchase

Please learn your history before accusing the US of stealing something they actually BOUGHT. And if you have an issue with the US having bought that territory, then blame the Mexican government of the 1840's and 1850's, don't blame TODAY'S Americans because we had nothing to do with it.

It's comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, our nation was founded on immigrants. They came here from many countries for many different reasons. Many of them came here for the same reasons back then that immigrants come here today.

However, many of the previous immigrants came here BEFORE there was immigration LAW. It's apparent most of the people on here don't realize that the US had OPEN IMMIGRATION until 1924, when the Immigration Act was passed by Congress. There was no such thing as ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS before then.

But NOW that we have LAWS against UNDOCUMENTED immigration, you can NOT compare it to immigrants of the past who COULD come here without documentation. And as such that it IS now law, it should be OBEYED. Those who willingly disobey such a law show that they do NOT RESPECT either the law itself or the people who made it law.

The US government extends this offer to all illegals... join the US military, serve a 4-year enlistment, and you will be granted immediate citizenship. No waiting in line. No bureaucracy. No lengthy paperwork to fill out. No BS.

If you are unable to serve in the US military, then you can join a volunteer corps sent to Central Africa, Southeast Asia, and other third world nations in order to help them with tasks like digging ditches, constructing buildings, staffing hospitals, etc. Serve a 2-year enlistment in the volunteer corps (you will not be paid, but all your necessities will be provided for) and again, immediate citizenship.

If you are the minor child of a person serving in either the military or volunteer corps, you will also be extended immediate citizenship at the same time the serving parent.

By joining the military or volunteer corps, illegals will gain valuable work skills for future use, and in turn, receive citizenship for service to the US.

The United States is NOT the only country that has to deal with illegal immigration. Almost every country has an issue with it, as there are many reasons for people to move across international borders. However, I decided to do a little searching to find out what other countries are doing.

Did you know that a good number of countries will incarcerate illegals INDEFINITELY for sneaking across their border? Or that some are eventually executed (if caught with drugs)? Did you know that a good number of countries deny ALL services to illegals, including health care (so if you're illegal and get sick, you're screwed)? Did you know that there are even a few countries that have laws declaring illegal border crossers to be considered as an "invading army"? Did you know that most of the countries with that kind of law authorize their military to shoot on sight?

Understand that what the US does to illegals they catch is far NICER than what some of these other countries do.

I disagree with it on a moral level, because it's unfair to single out any particular group of people based on the minute statistical probability that any single person in that group may, or may not, start trouble. 99% of people in most ethnic groups are good people, but it's the other 1% that cause problems for the rest (as the saying goes, "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel").

However, on a realistic level, I feel profiling is a necessary evil because the last thing we need is a radical militant, most likely Arabic and Muslim (unfortunately, this is most likely scenario), coming here to blow up any more buildings. It's unfair to the many Americans of Arab descent, as well as Muslim-Americans. But I'd rather have a greater sense of security that my 2-year old daughter will be able to grow up and live with less fear for the future, even if it means inconveniencing certain people, than to worry about whether her part of the world will be the target for the next 9/11.

i just don't see zizou reacting the way he did (headbutt to materazzi's chest) if materazzi didn't say something racist or insulting to zidane's family. materazzi denies he said anything insulting, but i don't believe him.

i currently live in a 1-bedroom apartment. my 21-month old sleeps in a toddler bed across the room. i'm moving soon, and was looking at both 1 and 2-bedroom apartments. i can save money by getting a 1-bedroom and sharing the room, as is status quo. or i can get a 2-bedroom and she can have her own space. at her mom's house, she shares a bedroom with her little sister.

my mom thinks i should get a 1-bedroom. she says i need to save the money and that she doesn't need her own bedroom till she's 3 or 4 years old.

on the other hand, my gf thinks i should get a 2-bedroom. she says that if CPS is called and i'm sharing a bedroom with my daughter, they'll take her away.

so, i just want to know which way i should go and what other people's experience in this area is. thanks!