What's interesting to me is the question of why English proficiency is such a flash point for people. If I've been invited to a business lunch, or invited to a backyard BBQ, then my upbringing tells me that I should make an genuine effort to be a good guest... to learn my hosts' preferences, follow their lead, to be considerate to their customs and traditions, to find ways to fit in, to bring something to the party which reflects my unique experience in life, to be grateful for the hospitality, etc. In the case of new immigrants, speaking English, or obviously trying, is an indicator to me that someone is working hard to become part of the community. And when I see people trying, I tend to try harder to help facilitate the communication. Does that make me a redneck?
But what if they are content hanging out in their own communities and more focused on having their kids integrate and live "The American Dream", as immigrants have done throughout the entire history of the US? Why is this such a big deal now, but it was fine for the last 200 years?
That's a fair challenge, and I don't know that I can defend this to your satisfaction, but I have seen what you describe. My own personal experience is that those adult immigrants I've gotten to know do want to integrate, but find the obstacles to be bigger than they may have imagined and so pour their hopes and dreams into their kids, typically expressed through academic excellence. And so I may take note of English language proficiency superficially, if given the opportunity to get acquainted I tend to get a richer more textured understanding of what each person contributes to our community. As an example, when I hired our head IT guy 5 years ago, his English language skills were extremely poor, which was a risk in our fast paced environment where much is communicated in a kind of verbal shorthand, but I saw the tremendous potential for him to make an impact in our organization. We invested time and resources to help him improve his communication skills, and everything has worked out really well for everyone. I also recognize that I could easily have made a judgement not to hire him based on the communication issue, but I'm glad I made the call that I did. And I say that selfishly because I've learned something about my own human weaknesses.
That was much easier to do even 100 years ago where communities were much smaller and a larger part of our economy was based on farming. In our current economy where information and industry are a larger part, it is much more difficult. Also, being involved in your child's education in a meaningful way is very difficult, if not impossible, when you cannot effectively communicate with the teachers.
I agree - I think the vast majority want to learn and try to do so (with varying degrees of success) - and I think we should help them where possible, as you did. I'm just considering the ones that don't feel that need - if they are able to get by and make a living, is it really a problem for our society if they don't learn English? I totally agree - but that's an issue for the immigrants themselves, and I think as a result, more people probably try to learn English today than 100 years ago. But I don't see why this is a problem for you or I. If that person can manage through life without speaking English and find a way to earn money, who am I to say they need to learn it for my benefit?
1. Due to the changes in the economy, it is going to be increasingly difficult to earn a living without speaking English. If they are unale to earn a living, that will create a strain on emergency rooms for routine care and other governmental resources. To that extent, it is a problem for everybody. 2. In this age of increasing dependence upon information, education is crucial for their kids to compete when they reach adulthood. Parents who are involved in their child's education generally end up having their child make better grades and identify and treat learning disabilities more readily. This is difficult, if not impossible, with a substantial language barrier with the teachers. This is much different from 100 years ago. My grandfather's mother spoke little English. She never left the German speaking enclave and had no need to. My grandfather quit school after the 8th grade to work the family farm. That just does not happen today where the majority of immigrants settle in urban centers.
Yeah, but in large urban centers there are large enclaves of immigrants that don't speak the language or feel the need to. It's still possible.
Tolerance, respect, and communication is a two way street, and having a common language to facilitate that is the challenge.
Wrong. My great-great grandparents were Czech, and the first thing they wanted to learn was how to speak English
Both of these may be true - but is there any evidence of it? Are non-English-speakers currently an undue burden in our society? Are kids of these people not doing well in school?
Sure it was - the fact that past immigrant groups didn't learned English did not destroy the country in any way. It didn't caused any major problems to the functioning of society or anything else that was particularly problematic. Those people managed to survive and prosper in the country and their kids and grandkids have done just fine and thrived as fully integrated members of American society.
They did "learned" (lol) English. You make up something about the past to support an argument that it is not necessary now. Guess what: It didn't because people ended up learning English. If they hadn't, it would have caused problems. Your argument is ridiculous. You make up something that is not true and then use it as the base for your current argument.
Maybe 75. Contribute, do a search, read all of them (you will be smarter after doing so) and then report back. Thanks in advance.
I'm curious as to why people care. The only thing I can think of where one may be annoyed is having to pay for public signs in Spanish or something. Or perhaps paying extra salary for biligual government employees. Otherwise, does it matter?
