JinJer 27?: Wearing Black Pants in the Heat of Laredo

[VBOY9977]

Noo, those weddings (bontrager) are in September

 

honestly, the duggars have a hole lot of friends and those people get married all the time, so it could be anyone's wedding really. i doubt it's Joe and Kendra's since the people exclusive would've been out by now

[feministxtian]

My mother was an illegal immigrant from Cuba. It's a very long story, but the gist of it is that she HAD to get the hell outta Cuba when Castro took over...she was working at the Canadian embassy...she was arrested and interrogated a few times before she got the hell out. Unlike these ignorant Americans, my mother spoke Spanish (of course), English and French fluently, including reading/writing. Truth is, my mother was probably MUCH better educated than these idiots here who are going on and on about "English only". So, fuck them and the horses they rode in on. Between my parents, they spoke 4-5 languages fluently. Ignorant fuckers make me sick!

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

10 hours ago, DinglyDoll said:

Except when it's not. I don't love the term, but I am a member of two huge Facebook groups of formerly religious Christian moms of LGBTQ kids, and someone started using the term to describe how we feel about our gay and transgender kids--fiercely concerned for their lives and taking action for their health, safety, happiness, and rightful place in our world. 

I hadn't heard of your Mama Bear's group, but I had heard of Mama Dragons. 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2438383-155/mama-dragons-lead-the-fight-for

I'm glad that both groups exist. I wish you didn't have to; that LGBTQ people could just be allowed their rightful place in the world. (Good phrase!)

[calimojo]

Jeremy was preaching against Catholics again, apparently.  I am wondering how JB feels about this?  They were tight with Santorum a few years back.  And I have never really heard JB outright be anti-catholic. 

I think this is sort of risky for their brand.  Surely there must be some Catholics among their fan base, and there are many families who have interdenominational marriages.  When I was kid in the 1970's, interdenominational marriages were controversial in my area.  My Aunt married a Catholic and that was nearly scandalous.  But I don't know too many people who pay attention to that kind of thing anymore.  When I married my husband who was raised Catholic, no one batted an eye on my side of the family.  On his side, I think he had one aunt who was mildly put out about me coming from a protestant background, but it was never an issue.

[DinglyDoll]

2 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

I hadn't heard of your Mama Bear's group, but I had heard of Mama Dragons. 

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2438383-155/mama-dragons-lead-the-fight-for

I'm glad that both groups exist. I wish you didn't have to; that LGBTQ people could just be allowed their rightful place in the world. (Good phrase!)

Thank you for the nice comments. It is quite a journey to come out of a fundamentalist or conservative religion into the reality of having one or more gay or transgender children, and the FB groups offer so much support from people walking the same path. Mama Dragons originated with a group of Mormon Moms. Our groups originated from conservative Christian moms and are named "Freedhearts" and "SerendipityDoDah." The second group is progressive and activist oriented.  Both groups evolved from the tragic story of the Robertson family who handled their son's coming out as most conservative Christians would have https://justbecausehebreathes.com/

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

@DinglyDoll--I learned about Mama Dragons from my transgender sibling. I feel like reading stories like the Robertson family's help me on my journey to being a better sister to my sibling and being a little bit more Christian. Thank you for posting that link.

[adidas]

12 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

 I think you missed the point that this is a supermarket bouquet that was sitting out on a display or in the reach in fridge.  No "florist" was involved in the transaction.  It's pick it up and take it to the register yourself.  The card holders are placed in at the time of assembly.  There may or may not have been a card depending on whether Jeremy even noticed there was a cardholder provided.

Ah. Well that's why I thought it was weird that it was empty. You have to ask for one here, they don't just put them in there for the sake of it. 

[jerkit]

9 hours ago, Glasgowghirl said:

Crazymammabear is probably to dumb to realise that their is a good chance she is decended from illegal immigrants or settlers. America wasn't the white man's to begin with. Spanish is widely spoken in Texas and not just by illegal immigrants, people need to learn basic History and Geography before they spout racist crap. 

I looked at her profile and it appears she's a 12yo girl

[singsingsing]

6 hours ago, calimojo said:

Jeremy was preaching against Catholics again, apparently.  I am wondering how JB feels about this?  They were tight with Santorum a few years back.  And I have never really heard JB outright be anti-catholic. 

I think JB's probably very proud of his son-in-law. They supported Santorum despite his Catholicism. Remember Josh's tweet about Santorum - "Catholics in general = wrong beliefs!" ?

I'm kind of surprised they rant more against Catholics than Muslims, but maybe there are a lot more Catholics around where they live and they figure they have a better shot at converting them.

[louisa05]

2 hours ago, singsingsing said:

I'm kind of surprised they rant more against Catholics than Muslims, but maybe there are a lot more Catholics around where they live and they figure they have a better shot at converting them.

At Christian school, the general explanation for that was that non-Christians are open to Jesus because they have never heard about him and also since they have never heard the gospel, God may have mercy on their souls. But Catholics are in a quasi-Christian cult and some might think they are Christians "because they are doing good works to be saved" so they are definitely hell bound and are harder to "save". 

I was preached at and reprimanded constantly for being "too sympathetic to Catholics" because having attended Catholic school, I would sometimes correct their misconceptions about the Church. I also refused to give a "testimonial" at the annual school fundraising banquet about how I had to go to Catholic school and be corrupted because Christian school was too expensive (they had made the assumption that was the reason since my family was Protestant) thus, if the people gathered donated, they could save innocent children from the same horrible fate. Except, my parents rejected the local Christian school because they found it too legalistic and narrow-minded and had concerns about the curriculum. And I would not trade my Catholic school education for anything. 

Plus, of course, after I left that slice of hell on earth, I converted. Oops. 

[PainfullyAware]

Can someone explain basically to me why the fundies are anti-Catholic? Is it this good works vs faith alone idea? (I'm aware fundies seem to believe that only faith is the way to get to heaven, not doing good works. But I always took that to mean just being a good person won't get you into heaven; you have to believe in Jesus also). No one could seriously claim Catholics who do good work don't believe in Jesus? These are some of the passages that matter to this debate according to some online research that I did but to me they don't seem irreconcilable, as long as you add faith in Jesus to both scenarios:

Ephesians 2:8-9New International Version 8 For it is by grace you have been saved,through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast

Mathew: Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

How do the fundies explain this anyway  (Mathew verse) where it seems pretty clear the saved are disciples doing good works in Jesus' name? Also isn't what Jesus says a little bit more important than Ephesians?

(I'm not Christian so I'm not trying to suggest one interpretation is better than another, just trying to understand the rational on both sides for the difference of opinion on this, and asking based on what reading the text suggests to me)

[Four is Enough]

14 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

Every time I hear white people complaining about the eebil immigrants, all I can think/bite my tongue so I don't say it out loud is, "ya know, a couple generations ago, someone else said the same shit about your Irish/Italian/Polish ancestors".

This cracked me up, because Mr. Four's grandmother was Polish off the boat. Her children grew up speaking Polish, but to keep conversations private, never taught the grandchildren Polish. To this day, Mr. Four can only swear and say some prayers in Polish. But it does beg the question: when did it become less attractive for immigrants to assimilate? Many immigrants did strive to fit in, changing their names and learning English, or making their children learn English. I'm not saying that was completely right or completely wrong, it just happened.  Now, it does seem that more immigrants expect to be treated as if they are still in the home country. For instance, Mr. Four works in a medical office, and providing translators is the law.. as just one example.

8 minutes ago, PainfullyAware said:

Can someone explain basically to me why the fundies are anti-Catholic?

How do the fundies explain this anyway  (Mathew verse) where it seems pretty clear the saved are disciples doing good works in Jesus' name? Also isn't what Jesus says a little bit more important than Ephesians?

(I'm not Christian so I'm not trying to suggest one interpretation is better than another, just trying to understand the rational on both sides for the difference of opinion on this, and asking based on what reading the text suggests to me)

Fundies seem to have a much larger dependence on the Old Testament than most Christian sects, especially Catholics, who use the New Testament as their guide to life.

The one message from Ephesians is their hand picked thing. All they have to do is believe in God and they are "saved".

As a Catholic, I don't believe I'm automatically "saved". I believe in God, I believe in the Word, but it will take me a lifetime of obeying the commandments, over and over, of good works, of being sorry for sins, and trying not to sin again, before I reach the Pearly Gates. I believe this is a fundamental difference between fundies and Catholics, although they will dredge up all sorts of other reasons why Catholics are the anti-Christ... "they worship Mary" (we don't) being one...

As far as the word of Jesus, versus St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians, well, old Paul has a lot to answer for, what with the misogny and so on.. and many people do attach a lot of importance to him, especially men who want to dominate women.

[ThunderRolls]

@PainfullyAware I have a few friends and in-laws who are Conservative Christians, and they often point out that good works and "worshipping Mary and saints" is what they find sinful and akin to paganism. They believe that is a slap in the face to God - John 3:16 is often cited - for one only needs to believe in Jesus in order to go to Heaven. Anything else is disrespecting what God Himself has said/commanded in the Bible and is therefore sinful. A lot of this comes from a misunderstanding of Catholicism as well as being generally distrustful of Catholics due to historical misdeeds (such as the selling of indulgences). They consider Catholics to be a completely different religion. These are just the arguments I've personally heard the most. 

 

[louisa05]

2 minutes ago, PainfullyAware said:

Can someone explain basically to me why the fundies are anti-Catholic?

In my experience with them at the Christian school, a lot of their objections are based on serious misconceptions about Catholic theology and practice. 

But, that said, it comes down to sola scriptura and "salvation by faith alone". The Catholic Church bases doctrine and practice on not just the Bible but also on tradition. That is a huge problem for the fundies/evangelicals that I have been around (and for some of my mainline Protestant friends as well, to be quite frank). And that is rife with misinterpretation as well: "Catholics don't read the Bible" is one I've heard a million times--and the perception is that it is not read personally and not read in church. Never mind that in my time in evangelicalism, an entire sermon could be based on half of one verse of the Bible and no other scripture was read, while at a Catholic mass, entire portions of the Old Testament, Acts or Epistles, a Psalm and a Gospel are read aloud. I think fewer Catholics read the Bible daily or read it in the sometimes obsessive way that the people I knew in Christian school did. Catholics would never open a Bible to a random page and randomly point at a passage then interpret that verse or part of a verse as a direct, immediate message from God--a practice that was very common among the charismatics I worked with there. But many parishes have Bible studies, provide "devotional" type books with daily scripture readings, and give Bibles to students at some point during religious education. 

Salvation by faith alone is even stickier. The evangelicals I know (who preach endlessly about the necessity of church experiences both on Sunday and throughout the week) interpret the Catholic "requirement" of attending Sunday mass (or Saturday night) as a legalistic requirement to do the "work" of attending mass to be saved (but somehow their insisting on being in church "whenever the doors are open" is not at all the same). They interpret all of the sacraments as "doing good works to be saved"--even though the sacraments are freely given and do not (in theory) require "works" of the recipient. Some sacraments require preparation (marriage, ordination and confirmation, generally), but equating "preparation" with "doing good works" is a stretch. But when you contrast the requirement of preparing for a sacrament by understanding the commitment that comes with it and its importance to the common evangelical teaching (particularly among the "once saved always saved" crowd) that salvation is a simple matter of saying a certain prayer and you are done, then that makes sense. Additionally, as @Four is Enough just said above, Catholics do not believe that salvation is or can be a one time event; it is rather a life journey. I find, though, that in practice, most evangelicals don't believe in a one time event as they tend to think it might not stick. So if someone says the prayer and is involved in the church for a time then moves away from it all (whether moving to mainline faith, converting to a liturgical faith, or leaving Christianity altogether), they will say that the person "was never really saved"--so staying in church and doing all the "work" of church does actually matter to them. Someone who comes back from a separation from evangelicalism will have to "rededicate" themselves. And "re-dedicating" is like a cottage evangelical industry. We had students at Christian school who had epiphanies and "rededicated themselves to the Lord" practically on a weekly basis in chapel services. 

Plus as others have said, they misinterpret the practices of the Church--statues and saints are idol worship, baptism of babies is invalid, sacraments are "works", priests are not able to forgive sins because we are all priests (confession to a person is horrible--but then they have "accountability" groups or partners that you are supposed to confess your sins to...because a random person or group in the congregation is way more trustworthy than someone who vowed to protect the seal of confession and never reveal what is said there), our parishes help the community to earn our way to heaven while their churches help the community because they are so selfless...

[Four is Enough]

As @ThunderRolls has said, the Catholic Church is not without its own sins. Selling indulgences. Married priests/popes/bishops.  The complete misunderstanding of "praying to statues/stained glass windows."

The Church has a long history of interpreting God to the illiterate. The elaborate altarpieces, the statues, the bloody crucifixes, the stained glass...  all of that is a representation of the Jesus story or of other stories from the Bible. Certain things developed as "code" as in, the Holy Spirit appears most often in the form of a flame, or a dove. 

The greater the detail of the piece, the more a person could remember of the story, So while people may stare at a statue while praying, they are not praying TO the statue, rather praying to the God or saint it represents. 

I'm not going to go into the praying to saints thing. Either people get it, or they don't, and I can't explain it except to say that is takes nothing from God and adds much to the richness of a catholic life, at least fo rme.

[Carm_88]

Fundies seem to be obsessed with the worship of Mary in the Catholic church and there's a part of me that wonders if certain people *cough Bill Gothard cough* have an issue with it because she is a woman. Also, the Catholic in me hates the process of one time salvation, you shouldn't just get something that easily, it should be a process.  

[nst]

10 hours ago, calimojo said:

Jeremy was preaching against Catholics again, apparently.  I am wondering how JB feels about this?  They were tight with Santorum a few years back.  And I have never really heard JB outright be anti-catholic. 

I think this is sort of risky for their brand.  Surely there must be some Catholics among their fan base, and there are many families who have interdenominational marriages.  When I was kid in the 1970's, interdenominational marriages were controversial in my area.  My Aunt married a Catholic and that was nearly scandalous.  But I don't know too many people who pay attention to that kind of thing anymore.  When I married my husband who was raised Catholic, no one batted an eye on my side of the family.  On his side, I think he had one aunt who was mildly put out about me coming from a protestant background, but it was never an issue.

I think Jeremy is being himself the douche and just doesn't care about JB or Michelle 

I think Jeremy has issues that I can't explain. I never will like him.  He is an opportunistic like his father in law. 

[ThunderRolls]

8 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

 I'm not going to go into the praying to saints thing. Either people get it, or they don't, and I can't explain it except to say that is takes nothing from God and adds much to the richness of a catholic life, at least fo rme.

The conservatives I know seem to tie a lot fear into "praying to saints" and "Mary worship." It's presented as this slippery slope where if these crazy Catholics "pray to" Mary or a saint, they're "thisclose" to being devil worshippers. I'm Catholic (mostly, it's a long story that's not worth getting into), and my mom and I were able to visit the relics of St. Maria Goretti as there was a nationwide tour which fortunately came to my city. We waited in line for 2 hours, and it was a really positive and spiritual experience for both my mother and me. I mentioned that we attended this to some of my conservative friends and in-laws, and was asked more than once, "Why?" My brother-in-law, who is the most conservative of my in-laws, was totally weirded out by the whole thing. He just doesn't get it, and thinks it's very strange and pointless and "gross." 

One other difference in what Catholics believe and what the conservatives I know believe is I was taught that Jesus was 100% divine AND 100% human (Hypostatic Union). In my theology classes at my conservative Christian college, it was taught that Jesus was divine only. I asked about the 100% human part, and the pastor looked at me like I had two heads. I always thought this odd since this particular brand of conservative Christians also believes in the Trinity which in somewhat similar in the sense that it's three in one and not really meant to be fully understood by man.  

[SapphireSlytherin]

15 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

Every time I hear white people complaining about the eebil immigrants, all I can think/bite my tongue so I don't say it out loud is, "ya know, a couple generations ago, someone else said the same shit about your Irish/Italian/Polish ancestors".

Except in my case, all my immigrant ancestors (yes, ALL of them) have been here since 1712, at the very latest. They also hooked up with the Native Americans. So that argument is lost on me.

Also, even a "couple generations ago," immigration rules were different, and they were enforced. I toured Ellis Island just as a curiosity because my family had arrived long before Ellis Island was even a thing. The immigration rules, there, were intriguing.

As for illegals, I believe every.single.one of them should be sent back to wherever it is they came from. That is not a racist statement. That is a statement of "follow the law or pay the consequences." Illegals represent every country in the world. The argument that "we need a path to legal immigration and/or citizenship" is hollow - there already is a path to legal immigration and citizenship.

Because I've walked this journey, my perspective is quite different. While we were waiting for DH's green card, Clinton gave amnesty to all the illegals already in the country, so my LEGAL immigrant husband got shunted to the back of the line, costing us more $$$ and another year of waiting. That's infuriating - doing everything the right way, and being penalized for it because the illegals get preference. That's just wrong.

My husband is a LEGAL immigrant to the USA. We went through every proper channel and followed every applicable law. It took years. Years. It's easier to immigrate into the USA than it is for me to emigrate to the UK (hubby's home). If I overstay my 90-day visa in the UK (that's what that passport stamp is, by the way - it's a UK 90-day visitor visa), I will be deported from the UK and banned from returning for ten years. That doesn't happen here, and it should.

 

 

 

 

[singsingsing]

8 minutes ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Except in my case, all my immigrant ancestors (yes, ALL of them) have been here since 1712, at the very latest. They also hooked up with the Native Americans. So that argument is lost on me.

Nah. It was more than a couple generations ago, sure, but I guarantee you that the Native Americans had something to say about your (and my) immigrant ancestors, and I'm guessing it wasn't particularly nice.

You're an amazingly rare specimen if literally ALL of your ancestors have been in North America since at least 1712, by the way. That's extremely unusual, bordering on impossible!

[SapphireSlytherin]

11 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

Nah. It was more than a couple generations ago, sure, but I guarantee you that the Native Americans had something to say about your (and my) immigrant ancestors, and I'm guessing it wasn't particularly nice.

You're an amazingly rare specimen if literally ALL of your ancestors have been in North America since at least 1712, by the way. That's extremely unusual, bordering on impossible!

It's documented. If I were comfortable sharing my real name/location, I'd happily link you out to my family tree.

[seraaa]

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

For instance, Mr. Four works in a medical office, and providing translators is the law

Could it be that policy just decided to be more accommodating? I imagine that there will always have been people with various levels of English proficiency, but now corporations/the law aim to be more inclusive (not least because it benefits them, also). It doesn't mean people aren't learning English, necessarily, but there will also always be people in need those services. Otherwise, language becomes a barrier for access. Accessing said services may even be part of the process of integration! I'd rather live in a place which does help people in this way.

[apandaaries]

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

This cracked me up, because Mr. Four's grandmother was Polish off the boat. Her children grew up speaking Polish, but to keep conversations private, never taught the grandchildren Polish. To this day, Mr. Four can only swear and say some prayers in Polish. But it does beg the question: when did it become less attractive for immigrants to assimilate? Many immigrants did strive to fit in, changing their names and learning English, or making their children learn English. I'm not saying that was completely right or completely wrong, it just happened.  Now, it does seem that more immigrants expect to be treated as if they are still in the home country. For instance, Mr. Four works in a medical office, and providing translators is the law.. as just one example.

I honestly don't think immigrants want to stand out, and I certainly don't know of any immigrants who try to keep their children from learning English.  There is still a HUGE prejudice against immigrants, legal and otherwise, and they feel the effects of the pervasive anti-immigrant sentiment...even though all of us, Native Americans excluded, came from elsewhere originally.

It's interesting that we just had a thread drift about second language acquisition and maintenance elsewhere, then run into this kind of very pro-English-only stance elsewhere.  It's the kind of attitude that keeps Americans so monolingual (as a whole).  We still have laws (not based in research, but in politics) that heavily favor English-only in schools, which means that most children of immigrants lose a lot of their native language (which isn't beneficial to them, nor to our globe). There's a new-ish category for student learners now, Generation 1.5, the children in between cultures, who speak English fluently but might struggle a bit more with the written word.  They also tend to be able to communicate, to some degree, in their home language, but can again struggle with literacy in that language: https://www.deanza.edu/english/resources/generation.html This new category is borne of our strange policies favoring one language over any other, and it leads to families losing languages and the ability to connect with their family elsewhere.

The name issue is complicated.  Many people and cultures favor family names. Should that change as the family relocates?  I still definitely see a lot of immigrants and their children with nicknames, but I'm not entirely sure why they should have to change.  I mean, we all learned the name "Hermione," and it wasn't that hard. Is it really too much to ask us to keep learning as we age? Are we Americans THAT unable to attempt to understand others?  (I also recommend reading Munoz's "Leave Your Name at the Border": http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/opinion/01iht-edmunoz.1.6936607.html )

Or what happened to an attorney friend of mine, who had a client come in with his six-year-old son, trying to use his son as a translator? But when she mentioned that, a slew of other people (now college-educated, gainfully employed folks) chimed in about how they had had to do the same growing up for their parents.  And I know many high school teachers who have had a LOT of parents interested in their kid's work, but who required their kid to translate for the sake of their discussions (which also leads to both parent and teacher wondering about the quality of the translation).  Many immigrants do try to learn, but they're also often balancing work (usually more than 40 hours/week), childcare, poverty, etc. ESL classes can be expensive or at the very least, time-consuming. Many try really hard anyway, but it's challenging to become fluent  under the best of circumstances.

Regarding translators as law, I think we can all agree that we have generally tried to move forward as a society and do better when we know better. How can you tell a doctor about your pain or problems if you can't talk? Do we want people suffering medically due to a lack of communication? 

On another related note, I was talking with some nurses the other day.  They had a Spanish-speaking coworker who was always called in to translate.  One day, the hospital tried to get him to translate for an Ethiopian man who spoke a little Italian.  The rest of the staff was so limited linguistically they thought they'd found a way to help.  I don't know if they were able to find someone to help, nor how long it took, but that was in California. That man had a human right to speak with a doctor, but I don't know if he was able to utilize that right.

I also know a woman born in Mexico, but now married to a Mexican-American. They have three children; Spanish and English are spoken in the home.  Their garage had a Mexican flag, and their youngest son, a kindergartner, asked why.  He angrily told his mother that they were NOT Mexican; the flag was unnecessary. They were AMERICAN. She laughed as she told the story, but it broke my heart to realize this little boy had already internalized so much hatred and racism about Mexicans (this is in a heavily agricultural area where a lot of really hard workers come over to help harvest the food for so many Americans, and there is a lot of prejudice to go around). 

There's a lovely PBS video called American Tongues.  It's a bit dated, but it provides a lovely linguistic tour of the USA, mainly in English, to show just how different our English can be in various regions. It's interesting to see just how one language in one country can show such variety:  http://www.pbs.org/pov/americantongues/

TL;DR: Immigrants are still striving to assimilate, and translators are a sign of positive change in our always-evolving society.

ETA: Do you feel your husband benefited at all by losing Polish? The same thing happened in my family, where the Swedish-speaking immigrants were told by the teachers of the first few kids that they HAD to speak English at home, or the kids would never learn. As a result, of 7 living children, only 2 had a grasp of Swedish in adulthood, and the rest were as your husband, able to swear and pray. And their kids? Forget it -- just a few words here and there.  But does that benefit anyone in the long term? It limits us in languages, in business, in cultural fluency, and in relationship-building. How does that help?

Also, can we please STOP calling humans "illegals"? That is the most dehumanizing, abusive language. They are human beings, many of whom have fled wars or economic turmoil (which can often be traced right back to the USA fucking around with other countries, covertly or overtly).  As Warsan Shire wrote, "No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark." Some wanted to be here, but certainly not all wanted to leave home. They left under duress. Most work incredibly hard in an unfamiliar country and culture to provide for their families, and they do so with incredible prejudice here in the States.  Even this fairly liberal board shows some despicable bias against undocumented workers.  It's true that they're a large group of diverse people; as with other large groups of people, the majority are quality humans and a few suck beyond all comprehension. But to dismiss them all, as a homogenous group of  "illegals," is foul.

[Jana814]

I'm a 3rd generation American on both sides of my family. I'm proud of that. As a Jewish person some people assume that I had family in Europe who died in the holocaust which is not true at all.  

[Rachel333]

Even if immigrants don't learn English, that's a "problem" that resolves itself within a generation anyway. I have known many immigrants and have never met a single child of immigrants who grew up in the US and didn't speak English perfectly.

Also, I notice it's pretty much only the non-white people that people complain about. People don't often complain about the Amish continuing to speak German, for example.