Should immigrants to the U.S. be forced to learn/speak English?

Was it the "Theodore Roosevelt" quote?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/troosevelt.asp

no, something else...

He contended that by coming to the U.S. to live, by making that leap, so to speak, you're surrendering allegiance to the country you just left and thus have an obligation to learn and speak English in public - even if you're from France and are, say, eating at a restaurant with other French speakers.

an obligation to learn the language- maybe (or at least an expectation that an immigrant make an honest attempt, not an enforceable obligation). the rest? wow.

As an ESL teacher in Chicago, I can tell you that most of my students are happy to learn English, but use their L1 whenever they please, as they are free to do. There's not a lot of hand-wringing about it, for the most part. They know that in order to move forward with their lives, get better jobs, pursue higher education they need to speak English. So they learn.

These bizarro claims that English is dying, etc. are totally batshit, which is why they're fringe and most people I know -- either teachers or students -- dismiss it as fringe insanity.

It's kind of fruitless to sit here and talk about fringe weirdos.

What if you promise to learn Chinook or Iroquoi instead?

id be interested to see statistics, if there are any, on the number of immigrants who come to the US and make no attempt to learn english

Sometimes I do testing at the end of the semester (a few extra hours, here and there) and there are people who have been here for 20+ years and can't understand the question "Where do you live now?" But ultimately, even if they're in level 0 and working on basic literacy, they're there and they're learning bit by bit.

I see a LOT of these people.

yeah i don't get why someone moving there wouldn't want to learn it (xp)

Believe it or not, there are people who don't know how to hold a pen/pencil. They don't know what to do with it. A lot of local refugee agencies work with our program to get people the help they need. Sometimes you have to start with basic literacy. But the people (at this level of literacy) who make it through the cracks and don't have the help of a refugee agency? They're probably scared.

This English Only stuff was a big deal in Arizona about 20 years ago (probably still is.) The proponents wanted all government documents--ballots, ect.--printed without a Spanish translation, thus forcing people to learn some English if they wanted to do anything citizen-y, like voting or applying for aid.

people should be jailed for speaking a native non-English tongue in public

God Bless America

God Save The Queen, i think you mean.

He contended that by coming to the U.S. to live, by making that leap, so to speak, you're surrendering allegiance to the country you just left and thus have an obligation to learn and speak English in public - even if you're from France and are, say, eating at a restaurant with other French speakers.

Or living in Louisiana.

The biggest reason why people get so antsy about this dumb shit is that they really think that when two people are nearby and speaking in a foreign language, they're talking about us!

i think US citizenship should be contingent upon acquiring a slightly-better-than-basic level of fluency, though i also think it's the state's responsibility to provide the educational opportunities to learn the language -- and streamline other parts of the shitty fucking citizenship process.

i think US citizenship should be contingent upon acquiring a slightly-better-than-basic level of fluency,

You're also going to disqualify a lot of native-born Americans with that rule.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/fail-owned-white-trash.jpg

yeah pp, that's a bigger problem.

i mean, my brother-in-law is going through an arcane, arbitrary and internally-contradictory four-year citizenship process requiring that he span hella-gamuts of weird bureaucratic silliness -- all of which are far, far less important than the learning of basic english.

He's just going for the 'morans' fame.

more to the point: a mandatory class in oral english, basic written skills, and modest cultural indoctrination would be better, cheaper, faster, and more useful to immigrants than having to memorize the bill of rights, articles of confederation, and forgo working for the first six months they after they arrive in the US

more to the point: a mandatory class in oral english, basic written skills, and modest cultural indoctrination would be better, cheaper, faster, and more useful to immigrants than having to memorize the bill of rights, articles of confederation, and forgo working for the first six months they after they arrive in the US

What if they're Canadian or from a country that already speaks and writes English and has a similar culture? Are they excused? And if so, they still need to learn what their new basic rights are.

My gut feeling is that newcomers to a country shouldn't be obliged to do anything except pay their taxes and obey the law; anything else isn't any of the government's business. And like someone pointed out, I think the majority of imigrants are perfectly willing to engage with their host society.

Roosevelt's quote appears to be about political loyalties.

Even affluent white folk of that time had cultural, religious and political diversity.

In any case, it's just hypocrisy since so many of the same people complaining once had an ancestor who couldn't speak English.

On the one hand, an "unfunded mandate" that everyone should speak English would go nowhere, so we're talking about a rather large outlay of resources here for ESL classes, etc.

On the other hand,

He advocated enforcement of same, suggesting that people should be jailed for speaking a native non-English tongue in public...

pops-in-law is like the poster boy for Sartrean alienation/xenophobia.

Conclusion: The "English-only" people don't really want to educate existing US residents in English; they would far prefer them DEPORTED.

a rather large outlay of resources here for ESL classes,
not that it's actually going to happen, but BRING IT ON.

and also, while i'm making requests, please hire professional, well-trained teachers because there are a LOT of boobs out there.

I am all for educating everyone in the US to speak English, by the way.

Also, are you suggesting that ESL teachers get a lot of play from curvy columbian ladies???

I don't mean students, perv. I mean unqualified teachers who bring unparalleled boobery to the classroom.

English will never be mandatory. If it were, the government would have to pay for the training. Haha WOOPS.

What a tough room this mornin' here.

Woops I didn't see that you'd already said the same thing

People should be able to speak whatever fucking language they like, and whether they decide to learn English is their fucking business and nobody else's - certainly not the government's.

I hate these blanket statements like "immigrants should learn English." These are individuals with individual stories and circumstances. It's bigoted, ignorant bullshit.

Nevertheless, the statement "immigrants should learn English" is not a terrible, offensive statement by itself, without the added weight of a stupid, unfundable, unenforceable mandate. Learning English will inevitably give people opportunities they would not have had otherwise.

I have no problem with the statement "immigrants should be given the opportunity to learn English" but that's entirely different than "immigrants should learn English." Right?

"Rarely is the question asked, is our immigrants learning English?

I suppose, but whatever sort of language you want to use to phrase it, the sentiment "It is advisable to know -or attempt to know - the language of the country in which you reside" is not crazy or bigoted. It's a suggestion to enhance someone's possibilities of survival. If you reject the implication that the sentiment is being expressed as advice (strong advice) with the modal verb "should" I suppose I can understand that, but ultimately we're saying the same thing. Arguing over how it's said is kind of pointless.

It's a suggestion to enhance someone's possibilities of survival. ... Arguing over how it's said is kind of pointless.

Not to entirely disagree with you, but in many cases it's said not as a suggestion to enhance someone's possibilities of survival, but as a statement that natives have some inherent right to linguistic and cultural hegemony -- or more often that they're just annoyed by having to repeat themselves to people in service jobs.

I hate these blanket statements like "immigrants should learn English." These are individuals with individual stories and circumstances. It's bigoted, ignorant bullshit.

-- Super Cub, Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:08 AM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

It is neither bigoted nor ignorant. First of all, the immigrants with whom I am concerned (and, for the purpose of this argument) are those who are immigrating legally. In exchange for being allowed the rights and protections of US citizenship, and for the benefit of their own self-protection, it seems pretty obvious to ask for a common tongue. Requiring the learning of English (and providing the means for it) is in no way equivalent to forcing immigrants to give up their own language.

fuck, i erased the bulk of my argument.

N, I understand what you're saying, but that's the connotation of that phrase. I am talking about the words "should learn English" which -- by itself, without reading into it all of the things that assholes think when they say it -- is fairly innocuous, denotatively speaking.

HOWEVER I will agree that assholes say this and mean something else (possibly "deport them" or "magically make them get my order right"), which is dangerous and apparently renders the sentence unusable if you don't want to be misconstrued as...an asshole.

To answer the thread question - No, I'm busy enough as it is

Requiring the learning of English (and providing the means for it) is in no way equivalent to forcing immigrants to give up their own language.
Exactly.

Super Cub, do you think that, for instance, Americans who go and live in foreign countries have no obligation to learn the indigenous cultures and language of the country they go to? In England, for instance, English emigrees who go and live in the Costa Del Sol, refusing to change their diet and solely speaking English to fellow retirees are usually frowned upon by middle class liberals. Is a similar thing not in existence in America?

i frown on them because they wear tiny, hideously ill-fitting bathing suits that barely support fish-white beer-bellies.

I frown on them because they are old.

xpost

I mean, yes, there are legitimate concerns one can have over some worst-case scenario where a nation is so linguistically and culturally separated that it just becomes a flat-out logistical problem. And there are self-interested but legitimate concerns many people have about somehow being locked out of another language and culture, where there are suddenly things like services and jobs that they don't have access to based on language, and they're slightly in the position of immigrants -- turnabout may be fair play, but it's legitimate for people to say they're the voters here and they have a concrete interest in preventing that.

But that just ties in to a level of entitlement that's not legitimate -- there are a lot of people in this country who believe in some sort of concrete "constitutional" or "moral" right for all parts of the nation to have a white Christian majority and for that culture to be hegemonic. And they are ridiculously sensitive about this, sensitive to the idea that anyone anywhere, even in some small pocket on the other end of town, might have a "competing" language or culture, as if this is fundamentally treasonous against the "proper" condition of the U.S. And that's what you're seeing in the thread question, obviously: someone who's gone beyond any legitimate concerns about culture and is just talking out of sheer annoyance, that point where you throw away any actual consideration of anything and just want to use force (lock 'em up!) to make people do things the way you want.

I don't know that that's really a "fringe" sentiment. It may be "fringe" in some larger sense, or in terms of the visible political mainstream and acceptable public speech -- but the sentiment is, to various degrees, not really that uncommon.

Note: yes, I think immigrants should learn English and agree that the sentiment is as innocuous as "people should eat vegetables" or "people should quit smoking" -- I don't like the thought of any immigrant even being in a position to not learn much English, partly because it goes hand in hand with being isolated and economically marginalized and dependent

The whole concern is completely moot, though, until anyone can demonstrate any significant number in a following generation who are anything more than just a tiny bit deficient in English

"magically make them get my order right"

There are a couple of stoners down at the Dunkin Donuts I'd like to deport as well.

I guess I feel it's important to treat them as a fringe element. Acting like we still live in the 19th century is lame whether you're devoted to living the steampunk lifestyle or convinced that the US is not white enough.

send 'em all back

Also N has a point about the next generation. What we're talking about is adult ed, and adult ed has never been a priority in this country.

it is a good point, but i am not sure it is not too easy a dismissal. moreover, the 'tiny bit' of language deficiency in the children of immigrants can still be devastating when job-hunting or taking SATs.

i think all foreigners should be made to sing "The Immigrant Song" in order to remain in the USA

xpost

How realistic is it to expect that there *won't* be a 'tiny bit" of language deficiency in the children of immigrants, if you look at averages over that whole group. It doesn't bother me and I don't think it per se reflects some kind of sinful bias on the part of the white christian/native majority. It's just a natural consequence.

I say we can lock this thread since nabisco has, as usual, laid everything out in a completely sensible way :)

you guys must be old

Remy - I agree with you for the most part -- I teach a lot of "generation 1.5" students as well and agree that they have language issues, but I'm not sure that the disparity in skill level isn't economic as much as it is linguistic. I think it's a little of both.
Their high school educations were inadequate, to put it lightly.

Not to change the topic, but there is also a lot of pressure on employers to provide this type of language instruction (rather than leaving it up to the government.) I know that Chipotle has provided English classes for a lot of its employees (at least in Chicago) and there are hotel chains and restaurants that do the same. Sometimes they even provide Spanish classes for managers, so they know what to do in the case of emergencies.

The one time I have nearly had this knee-jerk sentiment was when a west-African McDonald's employee couldn't understand me and then said -- very snobbily and dismissively! -- "Yeah, I speak French." (Which was weird because I tried ordering in French and realized "six pièces! poulet!" was not exactly all that far off from the English version.)

mitya, yeah, that's why I said a "tiny bit," which is normal for children of immigrants who grow up in poorer immigrant communities, and probably not too different from undereducated kids from English-speaking homes

je voudrais... un big mac

its funny that that would happen in a mcdonalds where you only really need to learn about 20 words

There are more English classes being taught on any given day than any other kinds of classes about anything else COMBINED.

again, that does not jibe with my experience teaching the children of immigrants, nabisco:

more often than not the 1.5s (as La Lechera calls 'em) are hampered by at least a few of the following situs -

1) do sloppy work w/o parental attention/understanding
2) have poor access to library materials - and any books in english
3) predominantly learn colloquial 'trash' english from TV, radio
4) are occupied with household duties as chief family translators
5) inherit mistrustful / oppositional attitudes to authority figures, e.g. teachers, based on verbal misunderstandings
6) cannot convey messages to home and have difficulty accepting support services offered, because the non-english-speaking parents do not understand the logistics.

I'm not sure I'm talking about "1.5s," as I'm not sure what that refers to -- it sounds like you mean people who immigrate as children? But I would suggest that there is only one item in the list you've just given that doesn't apply equally to plenty of low-income urban children from English-speaking homes.

I.e., yes, that's problematic, but not in a way that strikes me as leading toward the paranoid fear scenario of many Americans where they're suddenly immigrants in a world of smug, contented, economically successful Latinos who have gone generations without ever seeing any point to learning English

predominantly learn colloquial 'trash' english from TV, radio
hence my student replying "aw hell naw" to my every announcement of homework

Generation 1.5 students are U.S.-educated English language learners. There is great diversity among them in terms of their prior educational experience, native and English language proficiency, language dominance, and academic literacy. Some of these students immigrated to the United States while they were in elementary school; others arrived during high school. Still others were born in this country but grew up speaking a language other than English at home. They may see themselves as bilingual, but English may be the only language in which they have academic preparation or in which they can read and write. At the same time, these students may not feel that they have a full command of English, having grown up speaking another language at home or in their community. Equipped with social skills in English, generation 1.5 students often appear in conversation to be native English speakers. However, they are usually less skilled in the academic language associated with school achievement, especially in the area of writing. Academic writing requires familiarity with complex linguistic structures and rhetorical styles that are not typically used in everyday social interactions.

One of the most common traits among generation 1.5 students is limited or no literacy in the first language. According to Thonus (2003, p.18), many of these students have lost or are in the process of losing their home languages without having learned their writing systems or academic registers. Unlike international students, generation 1.5 students lack a basis of comparison in fully developed oral, written, or both systems of a first language.

more here

As soon as I posted that list, I realized exactly how you were gonna respond. And I don't disagree that these problems are ubiquitous with low-income families. But the degree of their interference is dramatically higher when the language barrier is complete or nearly-complete than when the parents are just poor and uneducated. It is not a subtle difference, I would argue, when on average it is the difference between a solid F and a C+ on NCLB-mandated exams.

lol for the days of changeable usernames:

Remy (smug, contented, economically successful Latino)

Sure, no argument here

But when I said "next-generation" I did not mean child immigrants, I meant those raised from birth in a set of environments that's either mostly English-speaking or mostly contiguous with English-speaking

Still others were born in this country but grew up speaking a language other than English at home. They may see themselves as bilingual, but English may be the only language in which they have academic preparation or in which they can read and write. At the same time, these students may not feel that they have a full command of English, having grown up speaking another language at home or in their community. Equipped with social skills in English, generation 1.5 students often appear in conversation to be native English speakers. However, they are usually less skilled in the academic language associated with school achievement, especially in the area of writing. Academic writing requires familiarity with complex linguistic structures and rhetorical styles that are not typically used in everyday social interactions.

I don't really understand that. Because they only have academic preparation in English and use a different language in social interactions at home, they have problems with complex linguistic structures that are not used in social interactions. I mean, I can see it happening, but the description doesn't make sense.

I used to do workers' rights workshops and people were consistently surprised to learn that a worker's right to speak any language while at work is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, because it falls under the category of race. Naturally the right to speak your language of choice doesn't mean that you can do so if it impairs your ability to do your job (e.g., not being able to communicate with customers, or compromising safety by not communicating with co-workers in a language they understand).

I wish I had known this years ago when I worked at a restaurant where this asshole manager forbid his staff to speak Spanish with each other.

Sorry, not race - national origin.

^^ We are kinda just going in circles, because that's exactly what I'm saying is near-equally true of loads and loads of undereducated and low-income kids for other reasons entirely: totally conversant in social spoken English (in a "low" colloquial sense and not a middle-class or "business" manner), but not with more complicated or academic language -- i.e., the exact same position as most English-raised kids growing up in projects

hence ebonics

I love being surrounded by languages that aren't my own. WV mountain town man is dud.

^^ best argument i have ever made

Naturally the right to speak your language of choice doesn't mean that you can do so if it impairs your ability to do your job

Interestingly enough my father was turned down from a part-time job after he retired because most of the employees were Spanish-speaking immigrants and he was told that it would be difficult for him to integrate into the "team" because most of the chatter in the back wasn't in English.

nabisco, they are in /no/ way exactly the same. both sets of children may be disadvantaged by poor language skills, but the extent and genesis of the disadvantage are meaningfully separate.

And that changes my point how?

I mean, I didn't say they're "exactly the same," I said they wind up in the same position, and as such it's ludicrous for people to fantasize about the replacement of English as a common language when the worst scenario you come to is ... a couple generations of people who are totally functional/conversant in everyday English but have the same lack of high-level language skills that's already the case with lots of disadvantaged native speakers.

In other words, it quickly transfers from a pure language issue and becomes an issue about social class and education as they're marked out by language -- the same path that's true of immigrant waves throughout U.S. history, where you quickly get (for instance) the generation that speaks English instead of Yiddish but speaks it in a "rough" uneducated workman's way that's still tinged by the old language and marks out a kind of class barrier. I guess I think of this as separate from the question of "immigrants learning English" -- it becomes a question of people with a class disadvantage who need access to learn the kind of language and social and business or academic manner that allows them to have certain privileges. And I think of that as separate from "immigrants learning English" because the exact same problem exists with low-income black people in cities, with low-income white people in rural areas, with pretty much most people in the U.S. who haven't pushed up nearly into the middle class!

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/27/reading-ranting-and-arithmetic.html?GT1=43001

A new study by sociologist Tim Wadsworth of the University of Colorado at Boulder carefully evaluates the various factors behind the statistics that show a massive drop in crime during the 1990s at a time when immigration rose dramatically. In a peer-reviewed paper appearing in the June 2010 issue of Social Science Quarterly, Wadsworth argues not only that “cities with the largest increases in immigration between 1990 and 2000 experienced the largest decreases in homicide and robbery,” which we knew, but that after considering all the other explanations, rising immigration “was partially responsible.”

To deny that reality and ignore its implications is likely to make life more dangerous all over America, diverting resources away from the fight against violent crime and breaking down the hard-won trust between cops and the communities where they work. Several police chiefs tried to make exactly this point Wednesday on a visit to Washington to talk about the Arizona law, due to take effect in July, and the bad precedent it sets. “This is not a law that increases public safety. This is a bill that makes it much harder for us to do our jobs,” said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck. “Crime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or in any other state.”

yeah we're in the middle of a big crime un-wave atm