Like I said, the US is a melting pot of culture. Our identity is founded on ideology and unification itself. Not race, creed, gender, or any form of identity.
This only furthers the divide between actual English speakers, and those of us who massively support the US ideology but are not native English speakers.
Firm efficient policy comes from preventing footnotes, loopholes, and limited policy focus (single issue bills). Not cultural enforcement.
Seperate from a strong border and citizen immigration policy, which is of utmost importance.
Our nation is impervious to a successful communist revolution, due to our revolution being that much better. The ultimate form of federalization and local autonomy, combined with the ideologies of self-preservation, liberty, and happiness.
Our unity is found in our ideology. Not in our culture, of which we have not one.
George Washington said it best 'your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the
preservation of the other.â
No matter how different the States get, our Union is the prop of all liberties and freedoms bestowed upon us by our Constitution. Enforcement of culture is divisive.
This comment hits this perfectly, courts have already ruled legislation and construction of policy need to be in English. That is more than enough, let people speak what they want, focus on the actual border process and illegals.
Forcing vaccines on individuals for the âgreater good of societyâ is a fascist tyranny. Letting people exercise their right to informed consent to medical treatments and holding medical professionals accountable for manipulating patients to make uninformed decisions they would regret later is a constitutional republic.
Banning people from speaking their native language and forcing them to celebrate American national holidays is fascist tyranny. Forcing American taxpayers to pay for providing translations for people too lazy to learn English and banning Christmas parties in public schools because Christmas âoffendsâ someone is also fascist tyranny.
If you read my first comment, you should notice that I didnât propose forcing immigrants to assimilate. I proposed prohibiting tax money from being used to pay non-English speakers to learn English or to accommodate the desires of people who donât want to learn English and assimilate into American culture but believe they are entitled to the benefits provided for them by the people they donât respect.
Your reference to Europeans who occupied and conquered American territory is not relevant because it was a territorial war in which Europeans won, and Native Americans lost. It happened in times when moral standards were very different from what is considered moral and not moral now.
Unless you think that Americans now are collectively guilty of what happened more than three hundred years ago and must give up on their country because they live on the âstolen land,â you must understand that your idea of âmulti-culturismâ is why Native Americans lost their land instead of stop Europeans from coming by the means that were available to them then.
However, if you agree that Americans have the right to live on their land by the rules of the nation they created, you must understand that creating an environment that properly vets immigrants and encourages them to assimilate is needed to help immigrants become equal members of American society without sacrificing their rights to keep their native cultural traditions they like, and these traditions are not anti-American.
This is exactly what happened in the US from the 1830s to the 1930s. Not irrelevant, not the Europeans.
If youâd learn some history than youâd know in most cases, it wasnât through territorial war, it was unbridled US expansionism.
Why donât you get involved in your local school board and change their policy? If you donât like your schools, change them, donât require an English requirement federally; require an English standard for your local school. The Dept. of Education is an unnecessary federal overreach of power and centralization.
The relevance is the snowball of government power. I referenced vaccinces because as you stated:
Granting the government the ability to mandate what goes into my body is an overreach of power, as is the government ability to mandate an official language. The current system of English legislative construction and immigration requirement is quite enough.
This is pure propaganda. Natives only regained semi-sovereignty in the early 1900s. Please read some real history, none of these were Euro-territory wars, they were US westward expansion and the same bs blackflag ops that weâve always pulled to pull local support for war. Weâve only joined every war since ever because âwe were attackedâ. Itâs bs propaganda.
They are still second class citizens, living in semi-sovereignty, paying into three tax systems, living on resource-less patches of land, where the only taxable streams of revenue are tourism through deporable industries like gambling. Pure socialist dependancy post nationalist assimilation and removal; establishment of federal trust ownership of a People.
Even today US courts still deny the Cherokee Nation the integration and representation they were promised, along with the history of the dissolution of the Cherokee Nation and removal by the State of Georgia, because they did not recognize them as a foreign entity.
Integration was prohibited because of a perceived national language, religion, and race. This type of policy serves to allow history to repeat itself.
Assimilation of ideology is whatâs needed for immigrants. Culture is not required. I support a constitution and US history exam; and a basis of English requirement for citizenship-not entrance. Establishment of an official language promotes unnecessary nationalism on a potentially threatening level.
I only agree with the statement of the allocation of taxes, which if even should be done on a local level, under a sunset clause. For example, if your state felt it had an issue of an influx of non-english speakers that were causing functionality issues with services â than they could locally establish a policy or program with an intention, goal, and end/completion. Sunset clause taxation.
We narrowly averted a full communist transition, we are not impervious albeit it is more difficult because of how our nation was designed by our founders.
Since the foundation we have been an English speaking nation. We were designed to be a nation governed by the people. Over decades that design and its safe guards have been eroded, which I will elaborate on later. We elect representatives to enact laws that are determined by the consent of the people. The Supreme Court has a role of upholding laws, they do not have authority over what the will of the people is, they only enforce what has already been established.
The communist revolution has been present and actively engaged in America for decades. There are numerous sources of literature, speeches, hearings, and publications to confirm that reality. The methods and tactics are well established and are fundamentally unchanging historically.
To undermine the will of the people, the education system must produce intellectually inferior graduates. Remove logic, accelerated studies, lower the bar (no child left behind) to create a listen and repeat learning style. Conformity is key, they all listen and repeat what they are told and donât think or behave in a way that is too far outside the boundaries. This was done by centralizing power of education under the federal government and local control of schools was no longer determined by the local communities. Adherence to this model was secured by creating financial dependency, do what we (federal and state governments) want you to do or lose money and cease to function. Covid funding cemented full dependence. The dumbing down of America was also perpetuated by chemical additives in our food, water and air. And through vaccinations. The result became - we the people no longer paid attention and participated as we should to hold those representatives accountable to enact the will of the people.
Opening the border is also a tactic historically employed to usher in a communist transition. Dilute the patriotism, nationalism, culture and respect and knowledge of our history as a nation. It also serves as a means for reapportionment of wealth, from the American citizens transferred to refugees and illegals.
My position is this, if we find ourselves in a position where we have been overtaken by a foreign population, it would be that more difficult if it was firmly in place they were required to speak English fluently in order to reap the benefits of this nation. If we didnât have a change of guard this last election, there soon would be little benefit to reap. Those who come here legally should have to endure a strict vetting process to ensure they are here to respect us not overtake us. I have family who are immigrants, there is no disrespect, there is love and compassion. But this country is the greatest in the world and we the people must determine what we need to protect it. It just might turn out to be one language is required to hold us together.
No disagreements there, about commie subversions. I was mistaken with the wording impervious.
I believe the US would collapse into warfare before giving up guns and the republican government structure.
I still harshly disagree about unity under language, race, gender, or religious creed.
Our unity is in our ideology, the Unification of our states under Republican structure, with inalienable rights, protected by the Armed People, and our Constitution.
There is no lack of patriotism here, just a mass distaste for intolerable acts against the People, their market, and their cultures.
There are far too many restrictions on gums as it is, and as we saw, there is still a vested interest in removing the right. It is indeed another prong by which a communist transition must accomplish. They failed to advance their agenda, for now.
Luckily for you and for me, the will of the people is determined by a majority and sometimes a super majority. It is t up to us but as a collective. Imagine a world where we are not unified by language and must determine our future linguistically divided.
The funniest thing about your arguments is that Iâm a first-generation immigrant, and with 100% certainty, I guarantee you that I know much better than you what immigrants need to succeed in this country. The rest of your statements are common to your generationâs semi-understanding of American problems and are completely detached from real ideas for solving them.
Iâm tired of repeating that I never proposed to ban people from speaking their native language. Assimilation doesnât mean forgetting native culture; it means respecting the rules of the country, which was kind enough to let immigrants in, and following these rules in public.
My children were forced to attend ESL school because school district administrations thought they would have âdifficultiesâ communicating with Americans. The only result was that immigrant students segregated themselves by country of origin and later had difficulties finding friends.
âAssimilation of ideology is whatâs needed for immigrants.â This is true, but ideology is part of the result of the culture, so when immigrants assimilate to ideology, they inevitably assimilate into the culture.
People need to communicate with each other, and they cannot communicate without having a common language. In America, English is the common language, which means that for all Americans to communicate and understand each other, they must know English. Making English the official national language is not intolerance against people of different origins; itâs a basic condition to eliminate segregation.
Hah. The issue is not my generation or my understanding of issues, but your definition of cultural assimilation. Maybe thatâs the issue, being a 1st generation Immigrant, you havenât fully assimilated to our ideologies.
Our ideology is not a result of culture, but a result of experienced tyranny, one that many generations within the US have not fully experienced, and are seemingly accepting with open arms.
There isnât a need to insult my understanding of the issue. Just as there was no need for me to insult your knowledge of our ideology as an immigrant. Itâs that I fundamentally disagree with you on what defines our unity as a nation, and what the result of cultural assimilation policies will be/have been.
I also tire of repeating myself:
We already have requirements for Legislative construction in English via court evidence, requiring immigrants to learn some degree of English for citizenship is quite enough, without the federal enforcement of culture. Itâs a federal overreach.
You see, I am able to read that and understand it, you are also able to read and understand it precisely because itâs written in English. I would say although I respect your convictions, itâs very likely the case, if pressed for implementation by unforeseen circumstances, your position would be in the minority.
Iâm fully aware of the requirements to learn âsome degreeâ of English for citizenship. Unlike you, I know how these requirements are implemented, or better to say, disregarded as âoppressiveâ in practice, especially when it comes to non-white immigrants.
I cannot agree or disagree with you âon what defines our unity as a nation.â In my understanding, this nation is supposed to be united over collecting agreement that the USA is a constitutional republic with the US Constitution (which was written and must be read in English) as The Law of the Land and with the cultural rules that cannot co-exist with communism, radical Islam, or American-born wokeism, which is Marxism on steroids. I donât know what you think about what âdefines our unity as a nation,â because, in this very long thread, I didnât find the place where you said it.
You are right that I havenât âfully assimilatedâ into American ideologies, and you are right about plural âideologiesâ as opposite to single âideology.â One of the major problems of the USA is that our nation currently doesnât have an ideology to unite as a nation.
For instance: One part of the American population believes that forcing people to provide their labor to benefit other people is slavery and all slavery is immoral; another part of Americans insists that some people are entitled to the results of other peopleâs labor and these people can enforce their rules on the entire country.
Many other ideological incompatibilities divide this nation into âideologiesâ and make it impossible for immigrants and not only immigrants to âfully assimilateâ to all these ideologies. However, since this is not the first time this nation has been divided over the issue of slave labor, Iâm curious about how you propose to find common ground to unite.
As for âour ideology is not a result of culture, but a result of experienced tyranny,â can you name at least one modern nation that has never experienced tyranny and why so many people want to immigrate to the USA because they think the USA is the freest country in the world?
Here, read this and the topics linked to it. Get off of identity politics, they will never unify. This isnât a competition, âjust knowing betterâ cannot apply.
I clearly stated what are the correct unifying factors of a true Union. You can choose to ignore them, but i suggest we move the conversation to a new thread, like you said this one is long.
As long as you act like you know what I support, why dont you read some. Weâve agreed on most topics, except for a national language.
As for the question you asked, the entire âwestern societyâ is based in itâs republican format on the US Constitution. Every nation has most likely experienced tyranny in itâs history, but much like how our population hasnât experienced tyranny in a blatant form for generations, some nations havent for centuries. People forget as memories die. Thus why this prepetuation of agism spun by you must end. All generations are competent and capable. Our Framers ranged from 18 to 81. People come here because of the concept of opportunity, which is being killed.
Propose the new thread, and we can move there. You are right that we agree on most topics, but I think our disagreement over national language directly results from differences in life experiences. When you accuse me of âageismâ and inability to âfully assimilate,â I take it as âyou are too old and not American enough to know what is best for young immigrants.â
BTW, if you think that âour population hasnât experienced tyranny in a blatant form for generations,â how would you call Covid regulations when kindergarten kids were forced to wear masks for hours while their parents had to choose between getting vaccinated or losing jobs?
I have a different perspective in what it means to represent the will of the people and the position we are in. We were designed to be a participatory government but have allowed the decision makers full reign. By our complacency, we gave consent. We are in a new era, hopefully, what was almost sure to be a communist revolution became a counterrevolution. Because of the last four years in particular, people began to participate. We are seeing deep blue (communist) cities being confronted with the people they have abused with their power. For example, Chicago City council. They proposed a tax hike to the already over taxed people. They were bombarded with an almost unanimous public opinion, most quite angry, which resulted in the entire council voting down their own proposal.
Hereâs my point, I think we need to re-evaluate where we are and how we move forward. Removing all or most taxation may just blow up in our face, or not. Depends on the economic plan moving forward. If we want representation then we need to become involved in the decision making process. We need to be educated and there must be transparency not just feel good words in a bills title or excerpt or thrown at us by a politician.
We need local involvement and true sovereignty from state and federal powers. We have become too centralized.
The first two major make or break actions must be close the border, deport illegals, and establish election integrity with many layers of redundancy to ensure itâs one vote per legal citizen. We arenât there yet, God willing, we do get there. Then it is with our active voice and our vote that we decide who is worthy of representation. This very site is one small example of how we the people need to be more involved.
Bro you stated the âyour gen doesnât know any betterâ first.
I was making an analogy about your comment and comparing it to one I made. Obviously i donât think your background or age has anything to do with your understanding, I was taking a jab at you for thinking so.
Iâd call recent events only the beginning, and nothing compared to real tyranny.
Ive sent this link multiple times. There are several other avenues for reestablishment of citizen involvement in their government, and reestablishment of unity and production other than cultural assimilation.