First, let me state I am a strict constructionalist, much like Justice Scalia. However, I do not take language out of context, which brings me to the critisims of those who missinterpret Roosevelt's speach.
Roosevelet was concerned with Communism which threatened the freedoms and liberties afforded the American people. To wit:
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...[.]"
(Theodore Roosevelt, 1907)
The speach did not address illegal or legal immigration. It addressed unifying a nation undert the liberties and freedoms of our Constitution. His fear was the threat of a political ideology - communism, not immigrants who come to this country for a better life.
Entering the US illegally *may* be a misdemeanor the first time, but it is a felony the second, and we should hang the employers also.
+1 on hanging the employer. I actually do that for a living.
As for the felony, it assumes a first conviction. It is therefore irrelevant unless you adsress a specific person. The is also a myriad of other possibilities to legally residing in the US which do not require US citizenship and do not require English proficiency. Just because a person does not speak English
does not mean he is lillegally in the county. Any such person who does not speak English could be, for example, on legal permanent resident, fiance, asylee, under diversity citizenry, a resident before '72, a resident before '96, parental LPR status, or a spouse LPR status, just to name a few. Jumping to the conclusion that English is required to legally reside in the US merely demonstrates an individual's ignorance on the law.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is. The current administration, and all administrations back to LBJ supported a 'large portion of government funds going towards educating migrants.' The difference between Roosevelt's policy and current policy is that Roosevelt was interested in legal immigrants becoming Americans. Part of being an American is fluency in English.
Roosevelt was interested in preventing the spead of communism, not illegal v. illegal immigration.
It was not until 1921 that any limites on who could enter the US were made. The 1921 Emergency Quota Act restricted immigration by setting limits based on the number of foreign-born people already in the country in 1910. And it was not until 1920 that Congress passes a new and more restrictive immigration law with quotas are now set at only 2 percent of existing nationalities in the U.S. in 1920, and Japanese immigration is suspended. Again the threat is political ideology, not a single english speaking population. The Literacy in Elglish Act was not implimented until 1917 (and does not even apply to the "legal residency requirements"). None of these Acts were in place at the time of Roosevelt and therefore cannot be considered in connection with his statement. There simply were no legal or illegal immigrants since everyone could legally immigrate. There simply were no restictions. The government spending was recommended by Roosevelt regardless of immigration status. Roosevelt did not take into consideration illegal v. legal immigration becasue it simply did not exist.
Moreover, the only language requirements for citizenship are simple everyday language. No one is required to speak english on a day to day business, and no such requirement was ever suggested. Nor could such a suggestion withstand Constitutional scrutiny under that most rational basis argument of the 1st Amendment.
Where in the Constitution is the right to bilingual/multilingual services guaranteed?
1st and 14th to the extent any other service is "guaranteed."
You're going to have to explain how not catering to non English speaking people equates to 'religious prejudice'.
You focus on the wrong word ("religion") and miss the intended meaning of the statement and Roosevelt's speach. The quote states:
we have as little use for people who carry religious prejudices into our politics as for those who carry prejudices of caste or nationality...We demand that all citizens, Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, shall have fair treatment in every way; that all alike shall have their rights guaranteed them...
It is pretty straight forward. All persons regardless of
nationality are entitled to all rights guaranteed them. Ther ewere no roadblocks as to "citizenry" and illegal and legal immigration. Roosevelt knew the difference between English speaking citizens and other "nationalities". Obviously the other nationalities specifically included those who are not American citizens.
With all this, please someone tell me how anyone can conclusively determine who is and who is not legally entitled to be in the USA because they look a certain way or speak in a certain language.
