Treatise on diversity, common sense can unite us.

Treatise on diversity, common sense can unite us.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Warning! Do not attempt to read this now! Save this page and print it! It is worth it! I promise! Grin...... and for god's sake email to a friend.
Instructions:
Feel free to Click File/Save As on the top toolbar and save this as an html file under My Documents or a place of your choosing. Then simply print it out and read at your leisure away from the computer.

First thougt:

It is paramount that we drop the ideologies that have driven this debate and decide whether we want to retain our sovereignty as an American culture.

First Question:

What does the current emphasis on diversity, bilingual education, and business's bilingual marketing bring?

An answer might be:

Many are beginning to say diversity brings,incoherency, confusion and non-assimilation.

At first this seems like a rather dry subject, but read on dear reader, we have just scratched the surface.

Give this some thought.

When the rest of the world clamors to learn the language of technology, business, and education through English, we here in America are saying it is mean spirited to immerse immigrants as quickly as possible in English. History consistently demonstrates that immersion is the fastest way to assimilate into a culture.

We are told we are in a global economy and Spanish is the language to learn. Our bilingual second language should be Spanish because of our neighbors to the south. This is seen as an advantage if we are to join in partnership. We can't be so presumptuous as to demand English only. This would be bigoted.

What these arguments ignore is the historical economic weaknesses associated with multi-lingual cultures that nurture non-assimilation.

France is suffering now from the non-assimilation of Muslims.

It also ignores that even in a global economy, it benefits Latinos more to learn English than it does us to learn Spanish. We are denying them their ultimate future by encouraging non-assimilation through our public schools, public libraries, ballots in Spanish, Spanish radio and television stations. This is all seen as forwarding diversity.

Diversity should be allowed to happen naturally as it mixes with the dominant culture. Diversity should never be the mandate taking precedent over unity. What unites us the most is a common language. It's a natural, pristine landscape to have unity under one language. A common language is the natural order of unity.

Now we, like Europe are voluntarilly fostering the non-assimilation of Latinos in our culture.

Do we want to continue to feel guilty about our success as the new Hollywood wants us to be?

Can we admit to living in a rich, educated, dynamic, free environment without guilt?We have our blemishes, but we are not bad, and we have the right and the ability to require that everyone who wishes to work and live here, honors our culture by assimilating quickly. This does not mean abandoning their own heritage; it does mean embracing a new culture by diversifying themselves and rapdily learn a new language, a new life. That should be part of their decision to come here.

Dear reader, here is another thougt to bring us to our 3rd Party point of view.

The middle class is getting smaller. The middle class has been America's strength. This is what makes us American. We aren't homesteaders anymore. We are beyond that.

Can anyone deny that we have created an environment that is the envy of most. If it weren't, we would be having millions leaving, not coming to us. But at the same time, our resources are being strained because of our success.

This desire to come here is not wrong, but I would hasten to add it is also not mean spirited, or racist to actually expect conditions to be met from those that are here enjoying the success of our labor. Instead of being racist, it can be a genuine and well-founded concern that our finite resources are being drained at a greater rate than they are being replenished. Calling someone names does not aid in finding a solution.

It seems that this issue of non-assimilation has become a divide among us, robbing us of our ability to deal with this issue effectively.

I think a realistic approach would be to take historical evidence of success and failures and learn from that historical evidence what we must do. We are not dealing with anything totally new, although most of our leaders and pundits would like us to believe that.


I asked some questions to myself to help resolve the conflict of being well off while other country's weren't. I had to do a little growing up.

Are we so embarrassed and ashamed of our current lifestyle, our current wealth that we wish to give it away to the 'masses' and watch our nation die for the good of the world? And would that really be good for the world?

These are the basic questions that I asked myself. As for me, I don't think it is good for the world to open our borders and lose our culture. I see too many good things that America does, and it does these things because of our common language, not in spite of it.

As you might be able to discern, I am not writing this from a political ideology point of view. If you are one of those that vote the party line, regardless of the arguments presented, this blog will undoubtedly be lost on you.

What follows would be an utter waste of time.

But if you can drop those arguments for about 10 minutes, then, Dear Reader, please read on.

A question must be asked of those that come here illegally. Do they believe the United States has unlimited resources? A question must be asked of our political leaders, if we don't give freely of those resources to anyone and everyone, we are being mean and selfish?

Is this what they wish to convey to those who trespass our borders illegally? Are we mean and selfish if we want to secure those borders and begin implementing the strict enforcement of our laws before we consider what to do with those already left here after implementation?

Sometimes dear reader, one can tell more by what is not being said:

No one in the current leadership wants to talk about the lack of assimilation that our current social engineering policies have brought. You won't see it on Fox, on the moderate conservative side; nor will you see it from the left-leaning big three or PBS.

I don't hear our Senators saying, "Successful assimilation has been the anchor of America's success, but assimilation is what is being discouraged. During times of combat it has been indispensable. During the course of working in a dangerous job, it is imperative for the safety of all. It is the safest way for our law enforcement to deal with the situations they face in the streets. It is even the safest and most efficient way to run a business."

Are we are somehow not supposed to expect assimilation by our immigrants anymore?

Or must we increase the timeline of assimilation so that they may do so at their own convenience?

What's has the outcome been of these policies.

I apologize but:

We did not build this country on bilingual education in schools. We did not build this country with multiple languages used by businesses. If we abandon assimilation, we abandon our history, we abandon our strength, and we abandon any hope of unity. We would do well to remember that America's one language is the only true guarantee of equal opportunity for all.

When you invite another language into a culture, you have split the culture into two segments. Where is the EQUAL part of equal opportunity for all when this occurs?

Take the time to ask the man and woman who couldn't get a job because they couldn't speak Spanish as a second language, or that they weren't native Latino. Would this requirement of our citizen workers be necessary if there were a common language? This nurturing of non-assimilation is a dangerous threat to the cohesiveness of America.

Other signs of the disincentives to assimilate can be seen. Look towards businesses that pander to two languages. This pandering is not a result of necessity; it's not as if they would go out of business if they didn't. These marketing decisions are optional. Marketing options are not the same as cheap labor where your competitor will drive you out of business if you don't 'wink' an eye at an illegal immigrant labor pool.

Look towards states that spend hundreds of millions of dollars on Spanish-language text books or bilingual text books instead of spending those tax dollars on total immersion classes. Look where the emphasis has been, and you will find the reasons for our schools graduating less educated students.

Furthermore, it's not just personal tax dollars that supports these decisions to make assimilation so convenient and optional. Look at the extra expense to businesses. Don't think for a moment that extra price isn't included in the price we pay. We support these decisions every time we purchase goods or services that are produced via illegal immigrants. These marketing ploys are for MORE money, nothing else.

Ethics, honor and integrity towards one's family, fellow citizens:

Is something else required of an American business? Shouldn't they help the assimilation process? Or isn't what we've built over the past 200 years worth it?

Our country will soon reach a point where it will be incumbent upon American business owners and CEOs to be American citizens first and foremost. Every time businesses increase market share and sell out the language that holds us together, they weaken our nation, our prosperity, and our middle class.

Every failed policy, from mandatory bilingual class rooms and Spanish-language text books paid for by our tax dollars to well-care in our hospitals for illegal immigrants demanding translators by mandate; from telephone menus to "press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish" have weakened, discouraged, and virtually made unnecessary the assimilation process.

Put another way, our American business owners could protect America first, then decide how they market. They could look at the economic weakness within a European Union whose weak assimilation policies have failed them. They could look at the stagnation of Canada's economy.

What is the unemployment rate of those nations? What are their growth numbers? Why else do they even join together in a Union? Might it be the proof of their inability to compete on the world market as individual players? We have been led to believe that these countries are older and more sophisticated in dealing with immigrants. Their culture is touted to be more mature than ours by their acceptance of everyone's language. Yet when economic performance is measured they lag miserably. When economic performance lags people suffer more than when there is good economic performance. Does that make sense?

Our leaders are running scared and predicting our demise if we don't do the same with the United States. They have evidently bought into the 'sophistication' of a multi-lingual culture.

Through the prism of this reality, we have the long timelines drawn out for our border security (five years); we have a National Guard that cannot detain or even stop illegal aliens; we have the president of Mexico accusing the US of being mean spirited for attempting to enforce our own immigration laws, laws that he, ironically, regulates forcefully within his own nation. It seems, through their actions, that our Senate and president do not want enforcement. Look at the timelines and the promises of citizenship. Look no further.

At what point did we begin having to negotiate with Mexico about our border 'walls'? Are our borders are no longer truly ours?

We have a litany of 'issues and obstacles' listed for us. Anything beyond these motions of action, we are told, is too expensive, unrealistic, or mean spirited.

Dangers exist to a culture that are real and that have been consistently born out in history. Remember, if you will:

Diversity of languages sets up barriers to basic understanding of intent.

Our Federal Government has set up laws that literally force Americans to accommodate non-assimilation. There is a movement within the Democratic Party to eventually allow all residences of the United States -- not citizens; residences -- to vote in Federal and local elections. It is already allowed at the municipal level in Maryland.

The Democrats are partners with the Bush Republicans on this issue of a 'comprehensive immigration policy' which is just another 'bait and switch' sales pitch.

Democrats get a lot of votes with poverty-level immigrants by endorsing amnesty-type means of attaining citizenship. Meanwhile, they instill envy within the poor and whip them into a frenzy of Democratic voting. On the other side of the aisle, the Bush Republicans get the cheap labor. The final result is that the American middle class shrinks further, possibly into extinction.

The Senate bill is about ideology; it is not about American security or our immigration laws.

A third party is needed now more than ever. We've limped along with a two party system that all too often places the choice before the American people which one is less dangerous to our country not which is better.

What would this third party have to look like?

What platform could it run on to overturn over 50 years of gross mismanagement?
his government was designed to reflect the will of the American people through representation. It does not.

Both parties in their own way have thrown themselves on the sword of ideology; preferring their ideology over their country's health.

What would a third party look like?
For our examples let's call it "The Common Sense" Party.

This is a party that follows the lesson of history as our founders did. There will be no more nurturing non-assimilation. This party will have the common sense to ignore the false debates and implement an understanding policy that encourages assimilation not discourages it.

They do this not to be 'mean', they do this for the basic health of our country. Yes our country is worth saving. It is not all evil and bad for the world. That mentality just makes us fight and bicker as we indulge our freedoms without doing those things that better guarantee our freedom and our unity. If American businesses need regulating to get this done, then so be it; we regulate in every other punitive way that hurts our economy. This party will regulate corporate income non-punitively, but will instead regulate punitively marketing practices, just as we did with the tobacco companies.

Remember, no more cigarette advertising targeting children or on television. We can apply this type of regulation to those businesses that pander to non-English speaking people. These businesses will not be allowed to advertise in anything but English. If their practices weaken our country into a multi-lingual country, it places America in danger.

We don't care about their Corporate profits. Keep it all! Just honor your country and not weaken it. Remember again, multiplying languages introduces misunderstandings of intent that a common language avoids. Translating from any language to another does this. Assimilation overcomes this by celebrating our unity more than our diversity.

This Common Sense Party can be one that allows society enough freedom to receive their entire earnings. This party will stop punishing success and penalizing savings and investments with taxes. Taxes will be based on spending, not income. *1

This party will have the common sense to erect tent cities along the border where illegal aliens who are caught will languish until deported. Why tent cities? Under the current system it will take about $350,000,000 for beds to be supplied for illegal aliens who are detained. Congress tells us this amount of funding is only good for 6300 "beds." Let's do the math: $350 million divided by 6300 beds comes out to roughly $55,555.00 per bed. (That's one thousand times what could reasonably be expected for such an expenditure. It is akin to spending $3,500 dollars for a single bottle of Windex.) (hee hee)

We can erect a tent city with cots and portable toilets, run water from a truck, provide plenty of trash bins, and supply food in mess tents, just like the military, for a lot cheaper than $55,000 per head. This is another example of how government and business conspire to make enforcement of our laws too expensive and take too long to accomplish. The result is to discourage the enforcement of those laws. Every remedy that is offered is said to be too simplistic and too 'impractical'.

The Common Sense Party will pay for the illegal immigrants' food and emergency medical needs at the tent processing centers, but they will be responsible for their own cleanliness. They will be given the tools and the know-how to do this by our military. If our men and women can spend multiple tours in a place, sleeping in tents without heat or air conditioning, living without running water, it can't be cruel to require that of those that cross our threshold uninvited.


This party will place assimilation as the highest priority, not just for future citizens but for guest workers. This party will immediately require of all guest workers verification of having registered with our government in some form. This will be done either by a Social Security number or by a federal taxing authority. All guest workers will embark on a period of immersion to learn the language.

All children entering our public schools will know English before sharing the classes with fluent children; not at the same time, but before they can enter a normal American school class.

Since there will be no Spanish-speaking advertising, there will be no telephone menus in Spanish. By learning the language more quickly, immigrants will assimilate faster and will find better work. It's called "tough love." It is a challenge; some may even call it unfair. But it needs to be done if we are to mitigate the cultural non-military invasion that is occurring now.

Let's look at the practice of American business in hiring illegal immigrants. The Common Sense Party will pass legislation where the punishment for an employer's first infraction of hiring illegal aliens will be a hefty fine, based on the amount of illegal aliens hired. On the second offense the fine is multiplied to a sufficient size that the company will 'feel' it. The third offense is time under the control of the National Guard on the border helping in the tent cities of illegal aliens.

This party recognizes that history and nature show that if the environment is known to be better somewhere else, migration will occur, or, in our case, emigration, or self-deportation.

This is a common-sense way of dealing with the influx of poverty and despair so that it doesn't place such a drain on our resources.

Those that want America to be just a tool of the world, where everyone has a right to our benefits, will not vote for this party. This party will repeal the Income Tax with the blessing of most Americans.

This party will repeal all taxes on exported goods with the blessings of most American multi-national companies. This party will levy a 23% import tax on all imported goods, across the board, with the blessings of most domestic product businesses.


This party will not tax the poor. Citizens who earn below a certain income will get their entire paycheck, as will everyone else throughout the year, with no payroll withholding. They will not pay the 'spend' tax at the counter from this paycheck either. (Not sure what this means.) They will be given a "pre-bate" at the beginning of each month that will pay that tax at the counter, up to and including the poverty level. We already have the mechanism in place to carry this out. They will have an equivalent of zero percent tax.

Gradually, as you spend more -- because you earn more than the poverty level -- you will receive less of a check each month. This is a true progressive tax on the rich, without loopholes and deductions.

There can be one party to represent all Americans, not one for the "working man" (as if business owners don't work) and one for business. We can have a party that treats all equally under our tax structure. Gone will be the millions of dollars spent on lobbyists for tax code niches.

Currently, one party gains its power from the 1040EZ crowd, the other party from the itemizers. We can have a party that sees the benefits of both, and not pit one against the other, as the current two parties do.

We can have a party that celebrates our unity over our diversities.

Our different strata of incomes do not have to be adversarial. The good of the country can be common to all strata. This is illustrated by the outpouring of teamwork in every natural or man-made disaster we experience We do not need a catastrophe to take advantage of a common goal, to keep America strong and just. With a touch of Common Sense it can be done.


From one American to another, I encourage you to begin thinking of this as a plausible solution. It's up to you. We can take care of the issues as they come up. If we keep our eyes on the ball of a strong America, a unified America, an honest America, then we can see our way clear of the pitfalls of the failed ideologies of our two political parties.

Look around and see if there is anyone in the private or government sector that you would trust to carry out this mandate. Get their agreement, and let's find ways to do it. We need a political reformation much like the religious reformation of the 1500s. We can have a new renaissance. Freedom needs new leaders that are wise enough to look at the failings of history. We need a population that does the same. Spread the word. Tell a friend about this 'crazy' idea.

Tillerman….

*1 Taxing on Income. Our own economic history shows that the benefits of taxing on spending and not income are many. One is that taxing spending historically has proven to be a more stable model to draw revenue from. People who just lost their jobs are still spending. They have to eat. They have to pay the rent or mortgage. Everything doesn't happen instantaneously when one becomes unemployed. There are credit cards and possible help from family for a time until a new job is in hand. I've been laid off; I've got the "tee" shirt.