# Bi-lingualism - good or bad?



## maxiogee

From a speech by Newt Gingrich.....

The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," 

"Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​
A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism?
B) Is English the only language of prosperity?
C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test?

X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life?
Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English?
Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism?


----------



## aleCcowaN

I know nothing about this person Newt Gingrich, but maybe he (or she?) wasn't allowed having a dog pet as a child. Most American people think that government must have one or two official languages, the prevailing in the land. Most American people believe that every educated person should manage at least two of the main languages (Spanish, English, Portuguese, French) and know a bit -maybe just a few songs, insults and words - on a couple of the original languages of the continent.

A) As much as immersion stays immersion and not drowning, perhaps it's not.
B) Many prosper people say yes, just because English is the unique language they manage.
C) No, but Amish are often to show their certificate of birth.
X) I don't know, but without using the Italian word ghetto Mr/z Gingrich couldn't have express clearly his/her opinions.
Y) Yes, but ghettos are the rule and non-ghetto is becoming the exception.
Z) Let's hear what Monica Lengüisky has to say about this issue (in order to understand this, public should go to the emergency ghetto closest their home ... the easiest way to find it is taking the nearer bus; buses always takes you to the ghetto when you need it; when you see a pile of garbage accumulating, alight and ask the locals)


----------



## lizzeymac

maxiogee said:


> From a speech by Newt Gingrich.....The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,"
> 
> "Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​Firstly - Newt Gingrich is a hypocritical, divisive, fear-monger.  The idea of letting Newt Gingrich set policy on any aspect of immigration or education, or just about anything, is appalling.  Just my opinion.
> 
> A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism?
> Immersion _language_ teaching is thought to be very effective - no?  American laws are taught in citizenships classes & at public night school classes.  The "American culture" (whatever that may be) is not something to be taught, by immersion or any other method.
> 
> B) Is English the only language of prosperity?
> It is understandably almost impossible to get a job that offers any advancement or security unless you can speak & write English. There are a few small areas in America where is is possible for a non-English speaker to create a working class or perhaps even middle class life within a small community - Miami, the border of Texas; the several "Chinatowns" & other ethnic enclaves, for lack of a better  term. However, any immigrant with  profession training would have to re-certify to be able to practice in America & I believe the tests are in English.  There are quite a few educated immigrants who can't get jobs that they are capable of doing because of the language barrier.   If you do not speak English you & your children will be at a significant disadvantage  & that is more worrying to me than Newt's notions of national cohesion & uniformity.
> He is playing on the old fears - immigrants create slums, slums create crime & welfare queens.
> 
> C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test?
> No, though I suppose they have to take Civics class in grade school.    Note: not all citizens are born within the borders of USA.  _
> Any person_ who applies for a job anywhere in America must provide proof of citizenship to the prospective employer, no matter how Anglo you appear.  This pisses a lot of people off but it seems fair to me.
> 
> X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life?
> Of course they do, but the power structure & educational system in America speaks English.
> 
> Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English?
> No, but I don't think many new immigrant non-English speakers would move to a English only neighborhood.
> There are middle class sections in Miami, & border states, & the Amish & Mennonites are prosperous, there are Middle Eastern areas in Detroit & Brooklyn, various Spanish speaking communities everywhere, too many to list.
> Children in non-ES immigrant families learn to speak English at school & speak it with some of their friends but they may only speak their parents' language at home.  It puts a lot of pressure on these children to be the family interpreter &  stresses their relationship with the parents as it reverses the "power" & responsibility.
> Here in NYC, some 2nd & 3rd (& later) generation Americans still live in neighborhoods that have the predominant ethnic culture of their parents or grandparents - not ghettos or slums, but "neighborhoods."  Italians in Bensonhurst, Greeks in Queens, Poles in Greenpoint, etc. Newspaper stands sell papers from the "old country,"  there are traditional food shops as well as modern supermarkets. People speak English & many, to some degree, can speak their parents/grandparents language.  I can get an Irish or German or Israeli or many different Spanish language newspapers on my block though it is a primarily English-speaking neighborhood.
> This is perfectly normal here but I suppose there might be parts of America where it would be unusual.
> 
> Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism?



 Considering Newts personal life & marriages & adulterous affairs - which are relevant only because he criticizes other folks morals -  he really should keep his yap shut.  He is just hoping enough time has passed & he can sneak back into public life.
-


----------



## conquer

maxiogee said:


> From a speech by Newt Gingrich.....
> 
> The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," ​
> 
> "Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​


 
Nothing wrong if a country has an "official language". Nothing wrong with that, and I think that it is a good idea.

About learning and speaking other languages besides the "oficial language" is an adquired knowledge which must not be stop under any circumstances.

WE, as humans, are creatures who learn continually, and to adquire knowledge of other languages increases our level of intellect.

THe mistake of Gingrich is to assume that people speaking  languages other than English are people of lower social class. This must be part of a brainwashing style of education which is very common in the Central part of US, not so in the ocean borders of this country.

To learn other languages must be encouraged instead of avoided, however, a common language -as an official language- is very necessary.


----------



## lizzeymac

conquer said:


> Nothing wrong if a country has an "official language". Nothing wrong with that, and I think that it is a good idea.
> 
> About learning and speaking other languages besides the "oficial language" is an adquired knowledge which must not be stop under any circumstances.
> 
> WE, as humans, are creatures who learn continually, and to adquire knowledge of other languages increases our level of intellect.
> 
> THe mistake of Gingrich is to assume that people speaking  languages other than English are people of lower social class. This must be part of a brainwashing style of education which is very common in the Central part of US, not so in the ocean borders of this country.
> 
> To learn other languages must be encouraged instead of avoided, however, a common language -as an official language- is very necessary.



I am not sure what you mean by a "lower social class" - do you mean education or wealth?  "Social class" is of of those British phrases (sorry, but it's true) that isn't used much anymore in most of America, except by statisticians, snobs & racists.  

I think having an official national language might *seem* like a harmless & even beneficial idea but I think anti-immigrant elements in American politics would use it to prevent or at least discourage immigrants from attaining citizenship.  Are you familiar with the history of using literacy & civic knowledge tests to keep minorities & legal immigrants from being able to register to vote?  This practice continued until the late 1960s.  If there were an official national language it might be possible to create a law that required immigrants to pass a English fluency test in order to become a citizen.   We do not have many free ESL classes even here in NYC & we have a large immigrant population.  I would love for all immigrants to learn to speak English as soon as they can so they do they can take advantage of all that America has to offer and so they can contribute to this country to the fullest extent.  That being said, I still would not vote for legislation making English the official language unless there were protections against abuse & provisions for more ESL courses.
-


----------



## mirx

lizzeymac said:


> I am not sure what you mean by a "lower social class" - do you mean education or wealth? "Social class" is of of those British phrases (sorry, but it's true) that isn't used much anymore in most of America, except by statisticians, snobs & racists.
> 
> I think having an official national language might *seem* like a harmless & even beneficial idea but I think anti-immigrant elements in American politics would use it to prevent or at least discourage immigrants from attaining citizenship. Are you familiar with the history of using literacy & civic knowledge tests to keep minorities & legal immigrants from being able to register to vote? This practice continued until the late 1960s. If there were an official national language it might be possible to create a law that required immigrants to pass a English fluency test in order to become a citizen. We do not have many free ESL classes even here in NYC & we have a large immigrant population. I would love for all immigrants to learn to speak English as soon as they can so they do they can take advantage of all that America has to offer and so they can contribute to this country to the fullest extent. That being said, I still would not vote for legislation making English the official language unless there were protections against abuse & provisions for more ESL courses.
> -


 
_I do not know whether you are a man or a woman, but I already love you._

You have spoken for many immigrants, I dare say you know better what is best for them.


----------



## Nunty

lizzeymac said:


> [...]If there were an official national language it might be possible to create a law that required immigrants to pass a English fluency test in order to become a citizen.[...]


The US citizenship exam is in English, isn't it? Or has that changed since the 1970s and 80s?

Bilingualism is only enriching. It is silly to pretend otherwise. The logical fallacy that most sticks out in Newt's opinions is perhaps a linguistic one. "Bilingual education" means education in two languages, not just in one "foreign" one.


----------



## mirx

Nun-Translator said:


> The US citizenship exam is in English, isn't it? Or has that changed since the 1970s and 80s?
> 
> Bilingualism is only enriching. It is silly to pretend otherwise. The logical fallacy that most sticks out in Newt's opinions is perhaps a linguistic one. "Bilingual education" means education in two languages, not just in one "foreign" one.


 
It is still in English, followed by a "supreme nation" speech also in English.


----------



## lizzeymac

The test is written in very simple English & it is given orally. The test consists of 100 possible questions. The examiner chooses 10 questions randomly, you must answer 6 of the 10 correctly to pass. Bilingual study guides are available.

I am not sure I understand what "supreme nations" speech you might have heard - I know the officials usually give a speech after the oath of allegiance.
The government does not control what the official may say in the speeches given at the swearing in - some of the speeches are insensitive & jingoistic and some are quite nice. A bit like Americans, and perhaps like people in many other countries?
-


----------



## Alxmrphi

Ok, in Britain our national language is English and everything about the way our country is run is in English (I assume this is how Newt Gingrich wants it to be in America) but that doesn't stop foreign-language learning to be encouraged.

Unfortunately, learning languages was declining, on a broad spectrum, but many students only focused on Spanish and German here and the government spent LOADS of money to get people to want to speak more different languages.

I can already see this plan sprouting leaves since late last year, Arabic and Mandolin lessons are the main languages young kids are being encouraged to learn in after-school programs.

I think it's fantastic what our government did, and weirdly enough I would have thought America was like this too, because they have such a high population of immigrants.

I just find it a bit odd, I'd much rather be in a country that encourages the learning of new languages.

Comparing other languages to "the ghetto" I thought was a disgraceful remark, I can't stand people like that Gingrich guy.


----------



## ernest_

lizzeymac said:


> Immersion _language_ teaching is thought to be very effective - no? American laws are taught in citizenships classes & at public night school classes. The "American culture" (whatever that may be) is not something to be taught, by immersion or any other method.


Well, it _is_ actually taught by immersion. All first language and social skills are basically taught by immersion. This is also called socialisation. Language immersion can occur either within a controlled environment (e.g. school) or in an uncontrolled environment (i.e. society), but unless you live alone completely isolated deprived of human contact immersion cannot be avoided.


----------



## Arrius

I think it is a very good idea for America to have English language and American history tests for those who seek citizenship. In my own country, Britain, there are at present no such tests, though they are increasingly mooted, and the result is that thousands of residents, whether citizens or not, particularly the sequestered Moslem women, sit at home watching Urdu or Gujarati etc. on video or satellite, and shop in minimarkets run by shopkeepers of the same provenance thus avoiding the need ever to speak English. It is this self-imposed apartheid that provides the seedbed for the terrorism we have also suffered in the UK. If the main or only voice one hears is that of a rabid extremist Imam, it is little wonder that otherwise pleasant young men are spurred on to violent acts. If their whole family were better integrated, this might not happen. Let me add, however, that the vast majority of our Asian population causes no trouble whatever.
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, there were so many German immigrants passing through Ellis Island that if World War I had not put a sudden stop to it, the USA might well have had so many German speakers that it would have considered becoming officially bi-lingual like Canada or South Africa. The present flood of Hispanics into the country together with the descendants of those Spanish speakers well established there long before the "Gringos" took over, is now making it so necessary to have a knowledge of Spanish to deal with the general public, that I very much suspect the USA will become virtually if not officially bi-lingual within the next fifty years. It would interest me to know how the percentage of native Spanish speakers in the USA compares with that of French speakers in Canada - the former minority percentage may even be the greater of the two.
By the way, it is an interesting fact that the Founding Fathers originally considered eschewing English, the language of the tyrannical colonialists and using (Ancient) Greek, the language of democracy, instead. Fortunately or unfortunately, they had to abandon the plan, because only few of them had enough Greek even to order a beer in a tavern.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Arrius said:


> By the way, it is an interesting fact that the Founding Fathers originally considered eschewing English, the language of the tyrannical colonialists and using (Ancient) Greek, the language of democracy, instead. Fortunately or unfortunately, they had to abandon the plan, because only few of them had enough Greek even to order a beer in a tavern.



That it an interesting fact!


----------



## mirx

Alex_Murphy said:


> Ok, in Britain our national language is English and everything about the way our country is run is in English (I assume this is how Newt Gingrich wants it to be in America) but that doesn't stop foreign-language learning to be encouraged.
> 
> Unfortunately, learning languages was declining, on a broad spectrum, but many students only focused on Spanish and German here and the government spent LOADS of money to get people to want to speak more different languages.
> 
> I can already see this plan sprouting leaves since late last year, Arabic and Mandolin lessons are the main languages young kids are being encouraged to learn in after-school programs.
> 
> I think it's fantastic what our government did, and weirdly enough I would have thought America was like this too, because they have such a high population of immigrants.
> 
> I just find it a bit odd, I'd much rather be in a country that encourages the learning of new languages.
> 
> Comparing other languages to "the ghetto" I thought was a disgraceful remark, I can't stand people like that Gingrich guy.


 

America does want it and encourage it, (by America I mean the american government), I know that this is the case of California, and I believe in all southern states, Spanish classes are mandatory. New grinch, or what's his name, is just expressing his view point, not that of the whole country.

All the northern, white non-hispanic americans that I've met so far, know at least how to swear in Spanish. The southerners will throw a couple of sentences in Spanish, and the ones who like the language are able to carry decent conversations.


----------



## Alxmrphi

It's just the view I get as a Brit who has never been to America, there seems to be a lot of hostility towards Spanish-speakers and immigrants that cross the border, the image I get is, Spanish is an intruding force that they want to get rid of, but I really hope I am wrong about it and this isn't the case, which by your post I hope so!


----------



## lizzeymac

ernest_ said:


> Well, it _is_ actually taught by immersion. All first language and social skills are basically taught by immersion. This is also called socialisation. Language immersion can occur either within a controlled environment (e.g. school) or in an uncontrolled environment (i.e. society), but unless you live alone completely isolated deprived of human contact immersion cannot be avoided.



Thank you - that is a great explanation, maybe now I can be more clear.  My objection was not to the method but to the subject. 
I just don't want the _government _to create some narrow definition of what "American culture" is & what it is not. As an example of government thinking, my current President wants only _abstinence_ to be taught as safe sexual practices. 
Of course there are some basic concepts but I think they are covered in the Civics & History classes.  I don't trust the government to teach "culture" without being destructively proscriptive.  
Hmmmm, am I talking about at cultural imperialism?
-


----------



## mirx

Alex_Murphy said:


> It's just the view I get as a Brit who has never been to America, there seems to be a lot of hostility towards Spanish-speakers and immigrants that cross the border, the image I get is, Spanish is an intruding force that they want to get rid of, but I really hope I am wrong about it and this isn't the case, which by your post I hope so!


 

Mmm, they may want to get rid of it, but they couldn't, they can't and they won't be able. The intrudging Spanish force has been there long before the americans arrived and there it will remain. 

I really don't think there's a bad attiuted towards Spanish as there is towards the immigrants, besides many jobs such as customer service, hospital clerks, bank attendants require that both Spanish and English be spoken. Of course I am speaking about the southern states. But then again, out of the "need" of some americans to learn Spanish in order to get better jobs, I don't think they worry too much about learning a foreing language. And by "they" I mean society and not government.

Why did you not tell me that there were a few mistakes in my post?


----------



## Alxmrphi

I don't like correcting people on this forum, in the language forums, I wouldn't mind, but I think with the amount people speak here, way too many posts would just be corrections and questions about corrections, like I said, that's for the other forums, here, if a point has been put across and understood, only reply to the message of the post.


----------



## cuchuflete

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I hold Mr. Gingrich in high respect for his political skills...he was, at one time, highly efficient in promoting lots of things I don't agree with!  As a human, I hold him in low respect, or to put it bluntly, he is a hypocritical jackass.  When he speaks of 'family values', I wonder which of his many wives he refers to.  When he talks about 'decency', I remind myself that he was investigated for dozens of ethics charges, while trumpeting his moralistic messages.  His marital history is a matter of public record(s). Form your own opinion.  My opinion is that he is a fraud, who preaches ethical behavior while acting in an unethical manner.  Just so you know...

Now, on to his statement.  





> The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,"
> 
> "Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​


"The American people believe..."?  I don't think so.  I have met a few, very few, who think we should have
a legal, national language.  The huge majority of people I know see no need whatsoever for legislating that
English be declared the national language, as it obviously is the national language.  Many generations of immigrants have arrived in my country, and most have learned to get by with at least a minimum of English.
Generally speaking, the generation of their children has grown up totally fluent in English, while often being
bi-lingual with their parents' language.  This is pretty common behaviour for immigrants throughout the world.
It works reasonably well, with no government intervention.  

Whether bi-lingual education or monolingual education for immigrant children works best is another matter,
unrelated to the declaration of a national language.  I happily defer to foreros from California, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, and other destinations with concentrations of immigrants' children, such as New York City and Atlanta, to comment on how well immigrant children are educated by one or the other of these techniques.  It would be especially useful to know, by way of background, how well the local educational systems work for native English speakers.  In any event, the immigrant child, whether taught in both English and in a second language in school, will have lots of "immersion" opportunities outside of school.  

Ballots-  I see no reason to print ballots in a multitude of languages.  The candidate names and a few words
like "president", "senator", "Member of Congress", "Mayor" should be within the grasp of any voter, and people
are free to form opinions about the candidates based on what they hear or read in any language or languages.


As I have written in one of the dozens of other threads about immigration, I wonder how many native US high school graduates would pass the citizenship test.  

Guess what?  Immigrants produce native English speakers in the US at a considerable clip!
If you believe the conventional wisdom, that there are between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the US,
and that about three fourths of these people are Spanish speakers, then that suggests nine to fifteen million
Spanish speaking illegal immigrants.   These folks are reputed to have a higher fertility rate than the population in general.  So, we can assume that their children will add something between 24 and 36 million English speakers to the population of the US over a generation.


----------



## french4beth

maxiogee said:


> A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism? *Actually, foreign languages are taught to students via immersion (at least in the local districts).*
> B) Is English the only language of prosperity?
> C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test? *Ironically, no - when my ex-husband was studying for his US citizenship exam, we would quiz our friends and family on the questions from the study list; embarassingly enough, most people could only answer a few questions; so, for those who do pass the US citizenship test, I feel that they have truly earned their citizenship!*
> 
> X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life? *Surely you jest  *
> Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English? *Not exactly... *
> Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism? *Does this man have anything valid to say on any subject?!?*


My thoughts have already been expressed in the above posts. 

Also, Spanish-speaking Americans are almost a country within a country - I've heard estimates that there are currently 40 million Latinos in the US. And it's only growing!


----------



## lizzeymac

Alex_Murphy said:


> It's just the view I get as a Brit who has never been to America, there seems to be a lot of hostility towards Spanish-speakers and immigrants that cross the border, the image I get is, Spanish is an intruding force that they want to get rid of, but I really hope I am wrong about it and this isn't the case, which by your post I hope so!



Yes, there are some people, like Newt the Grinch, who are upset & hostile about the number of Spanish speaking/non-English speaking people in America.  
Their parents were upset about the Italians,
their grandparents were upset about the Eastern Europeans, 
their great-grandparents were upset about the Irish. 
This brings us back to the 1840s.  What these people seem to forget is that at some point in the past 250+ years, _they_ were the people that Americans were upset about.  We are all immigrants - except for the the Native Americans.
To be scrupulously honest, I don't like the idea of American English disappearing either.  I think the way to save Am. English is to have a better educational system to teach English to new immigrants so they can create safe & successful lives here. A person can learn English without forgetting their mother tongue or erasing their culture of origin.

What does make many Americans angry & frustrated, even fairly liberal Americans, is _illegal_ immigration, but this thread is not about illegal integration so that's that.


----------



## Alxmrphi

lizzeymac said:


> What does make many Americans angry & frustrated, even fairly liberal Americans, is _illegal_ immigration, but this thread is not about illegal integration so that's that.



Ok I'm not totally sure about this, legal immigration involves passing a test that proves ones English skills, illegal immigration doesn't involve this test, and therefore brings people into the US that don't speak any/good English, instead of the level required to take the test.


----------



## lizzeymac

Alex_Murphy said:


> Ok I'm not totally sure about this, legal immigration involves passing a test that proves ones English skills, illegal immigration doesn't involve this test, and therefore brings people into the US that don't speak any/good English, instead of the level required to take the test.



Come on - you know that is an oversimplification.  The immigration process does not consist solely of a 10 question test.


----------



## Alxmrphi

My point exactly, it consists of a detailed test which determines English skills as well as knowledge of history and the ways of American life, right?

My point was illegal immigration reflects upon many issues in this thread, mainly through Latino entrance into the country where a detailed test is taken,* isn't*, with illegal immigrants.
The point I thought I made in my previous post was that it was the opposite of a 10 question test.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Why do you assume that immigrants' children are native English speakers, cuchuflette?

I think that any country should have an official language, and everyone should be able to communicate in it, and immigrants should be expected to learn it. I really don't like an idea of ghettos or other kinds of secluded communities inside a country, being sick of it myself. In Israel you can see more than enough immigrants from the former USSR countries who don't have a slightest wish to study the local culture, let alone adopt it. How can they anyone complain about any discrimination or social if they don't know Hebrew? So okay, government publishes some sorts of papers in several languages, but one can't expect to be fed with a spoon forever. The same situation probably applies to Hispanic immigrants in the US, although I'm not keen on the case. I've heard that there are some neighborhoods speaking entirely in Spanish, and if I were the government, I wouldn't like that. If they were distributing more or less evenly all over the town, or so, and were integrating into the local culture, instead of making a secluded community, that would be nice, but it's not the reality we face. Remember the mexican strike that happened not long time ago. There's a large group of people, making up a considerable political power, that supports actions conidered illegal by current legislation. I don't say that all Hispanic immigrants are like that, but clearly a major part is...
In short, my take can be summed by one nice Russian proverb: "One doesn't bring his own rules to another monastery".


----------



## Alxmrphi

> "One doesn't bring his own rules to another monastery".



Good proverb, I think it does fit perfectly here.


----------



## Arrius

In contrast to what I said in an earlier posting today, this link seems to be quite pessimistic about the future of the Spanish language in the USA:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/Castro1.htm


----------



## ernest_

CrazyArcher said:


> Why do you assume that immigrants' children are native English speakers, cuchuflette?



It is reasonable to make this assumption, because there's plenty of evidence out there to back it up. Studies show that few third-generation emigrants retain the language of their grandparents, see for instance this paper (nice graphic on page 455). I'm not claiming that this pattern occurs everywhere because it doesn't, as you say in Israel or here in Catalonia we are in danger of losing our language and culture (being replaced with that of emigrants).


----------



## CrazyArcher

Well, in Israel you can barely speak about 3rd generation of native population, let alone immigrants... Frankly speaking, I see no [practical] reason for immigrants' kids to know the language of their parents if it's out of use... Of course it won't hurt, and maybe in the case of Hispanic Americans the situation is different. In the case of Catalan it's another story altogether...


----------



## Nunty

CrazyArcher, as an Israeli who lived for years in the US, I can tell you that the whole concept of "immigration" and the images conjured by the word "immigrant" are incredibly different in the two countries.


----------



## JamesM

Alex_Murphy said:


> It's just the view I get as a Brit who has never been to America, there seems to be a lot of hostility towards Spanish-speakers and immigrants that cross the border, the image I get is, Spanish is an intruding force that they want to get rid of, but I really hope I am wrong about it and this isn't the case, which by your post I hope so!


The issues regarding Spanish and English in the U.S. are entangled. We have illegal immigration, legal immigration, former Spanish territories that are now American territories, large communities where Spanish is the only language spoken, and pressure in some places to actually teach in Spanish for the entire education of a child. We have people from other countries waiting 25 years to come to America legally and we have Mexican citizens hopping back and forth across the southern border illegally by the hundreds of thousands. We have children of migrant workers that are never in one school district more than three or four months at a time before returning south of the border and have very little exposure to English, if any, yet are required by law to be in school and be taught. There are many inequities and challenges in the situation and it all depends on which point of view you adopt. 

It's difficult to speak of one thing without involving the others. 

Separate from all this is the fact that it's not a BI-lingual issue, at least not in California. We have dozens of languages involved, yet because of the percentage of Spanish speakers there are many accommodations for one non-English language group and not others, depending on the situation.  For example, all school announcements, notices, and paperwork sent home with my son are in English and Spanish. 

In Los Angeles County, ballot measure and election materials are available in English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. There is a significant cost in publishing materials in so many languages, and the list is most likely going to continue to grow. Yet we don't have classes taught in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog, or Vietnamese. We only have "bi-lingual" classes in Spanish. Partly because there is no official language, there is no consistency in how this multi-lingual challenge is met. 

As I said in another thread about a similar topic, the California driver's license written test is offered in the following languages: Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Cambodian, Chinese, Croatian, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Persian/Farsi, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Samoan, Spanish, Tagalog/Filipino, Thai, Tongan, Turkish, and Vietnamese.

I wonder, Maxiogee, does Ireland provide materials in so many languages to its voters and residents? Do you think it's reasonable to expect the government to provide materials in any language whose speakers reach some threshold percentage of population? I have mixed feelings about the prospect. I think it's good to involve voters, but does it make sense to take on such a burden rather than have some "official" language in which all government materials are published? How do you create a consistent, sustainable, affordable policy of supporting dozens of languages?

I'm not even touching the Newt Gingrich issue; the man is a lightning rod for many reasons; I believe he has already imploded on the public stage in the U.S. and is no longer considered a serious force in American politics.  I'm just dealing with the issue. I think that having an official language is not a bad move, but for very different reasons than those given by Newt Gingrich.


----------



## lizzeymac

Alex_Murphy said:


> My point exactly, it consists of a detailed test which determines English skills as well as knowledge of history and the ways of American life, right?
> 
> My point was illegal immigration reflects upon many issues in this thread, mainly through Latino entrance into the country where a detailed test is taken,* isn't*, with illegal immigrants.
> The point I thought I made in my previous post was that it was the opposite of a 10 question test.



I'm sorry- I just don't understand your sentence ...  Perhaps we are saying the same thing.

I wanted to make clear that the bulk of the immigration process involves issues such as proving identity, criminal history, health, the ability to support oneself or proof of a financial sponsor.  The government investigates your past actions & behavior & your ability to contribute to America.  A person's ability to pass the civics test is the last item on the list.

JamesM puts it very well.  LA is vastly larger than NYC but we have similar issues - more than 200 languages & dialects are spoken in homes here.  I think most people would agree that illegal immigration is significant economic issue no matter what their position is on the social & cultural aspects.  Ethnic neighborhoods are not the problem - "language ghettos" are.  If you can't speak English you are marginalized.  Having large numbers of non-English speakers in America is a problem for America, but the person who can't speak English is the one who suffers the most.

As to why Cuchu states that the children of Spanish speakers will speak English, my experience in NYC public schools leads me to agree with him.  Most of the children of Spanish speaking parents spoke Spanish & amazingly good English in grade school but by high school a surprisingly large percentage could not pass the 3rd year Spanish written exam. I took Spanish class with "Spanish-speaking" kids who had never learned formal register or the more complex grammar but spoke excellent informal everyday Spanish.


----------



## JamesM

I think another point here is that many of the non-English-speaking immigrant communities actively seek out English learning opportunities and resources, while we have one segment of the Spanish-speaking population that expects to be able to operate in Spanish without learning English, and expects business and government to adopt Spanish in order to facilitate a "Spanish-only" resident. Some of these people are only part-time residents; others are full-time residents and have been here for decades. This is one of the major sticking points in the debate in California.  Given the large mobile Spanish-speaking population, from a practical standpoint it makes sense in some ways, but it's an odd set-up.  We have a "community within a community" and the state is adopting an additional language in order to make things workable.  The reasons for that "community within a community" are very complicated, but the porous border does mean that we have a different situation with our neighbors to the south than with immigrants from other countries.


----------



## Outsider

There have been many discussions about this here in the forums, and I'm not sure I want to get into one again, but there's one thing which always leaves me perplexed. The United States of America have no official language. Does this fact actually mean something, or is it just blank letter? 

If it means something, then surely part of it is that Americans have no justification to think of English as "their" language. As much as English may be prevalent in the country, it is not supposed to be their one and only language, because there simply is no one-and-only language of the U.S.A. I think this is an admirable principle, and one that makes every sense in a nation of immigrants.

In any case, English is not and will not be threatened in the U.S.A. in the near future. At a time when everyone around the world, people whose native language is quite different, feels the need to learn English, it would be very odd indeed for a nation with millions of native speakers to turn away from it.


----------



## JamesM

> There have been many discussions about this here in the forums, and I'm not sure I want to get into one again, but there's one thing which always leaves me perplexed. The United States of America have no official language. Does this fact actually mean something, or is it just blank letter


 
No, it means something. The question is... what does it mean?  As a principle it's admirable; in practical terms, it's another matter entirely. 

If you think about it, where do you draw the line for publications in various languages, and how do you justify drawing the line there? Do you take the top 20 languages? Do you publish when the percentage of speakers of a particular language reach a certain threshold? Does this mean that every town, no matter what the size, must employ the services of translators in different languages in order to provide everything in every resident's native language? If not, why are you discriminating against Hindi, for example, but providing materials in Spanish, Armenian, and Chinese?

How about meetings: what language are they conducted in? Do you do as our school district does and announce at the beginning of any parent-teacher conference that the person has the right to have the meeting conducted in the language of their choosing? What do you do if the person says, "I choose Urdu" and you have no speakers of Urdu on your staff?

We are probably in a very unusual, if not unique, situation here with the mix of languages. It may be difficult for people from other countries to comprehend the magnitude of the difficulties presented as we continue down the road of "no official language." For a few centuries we had an "unofficial official" language - English. We are now exploring the ramifications of attempting to serve a multilingual population in their own languages. It is a daunting challenge, and I'm not sure it's the best approach from a practical standpoint.

I wouldn't have a problem with declaring ourselves a bi-lingual country and adopt English and Spanish as our two official languages. In many ways it would simplify the whole process, but it would raise the issue of whether instruction must be provided completely in both languages. In other words, could an American grow up speaking Spanish at home and in school and expect to enter the work force speaking only Spanish? It would be interesting to explore the ramifications of that possibility.

In the meantime, we provide instruction in English and in Spanish, with the goal (sometimes) of Spanish-speaking students being transitioned into English. We have not yet had another immigrant community demand instruction in another language, but I wonder what we will do if we face such a challenge. What if the Chinese-speaking population (1/10th the size of the Spanish-speaking population in L.A. County, but still a group with 47,000 students) decided that they should be able to have classroom instruction presented in Mandarin? What would be the justification for _not _teaching in Mandarin?


----------



## asm

Nun-Translator said:


> The US citizenship exam is in English, isn't it? Or has that changed since the 1970s and 80s?
> 
> .


It is, I took the exam 2 years ago, everything was in English. A very easy test (probably some Americans couldn't pass the test, though). I also had an English test, it was easier than the history/culture test.


----------



## asm

maxiogee said:


> From a speech by Newt Gingrich.....
> 
> The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," ​
> 
> "Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism?
> 
> No, it's a more efficient way to learn ONE language.
> 
> B) Is English the only language of prosperity?
> 
> No, I don't think so; but define prosperity first.
> 
> C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test?
> 
> No, but in doing so many people could be exposed!
> 
> 
> X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life?
> 
> ???? Pero quE te piensas?
> 
> 
> Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English?
> 
> No; besides, English is spoken in too many different ghettos.
> 
> Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism?
> 
> ??????


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> I wonder, Maxiogee, does Ireland provide materials in so many languages to its voters and residents? Do you think it's reasonable to expect the government to provide materials in any language whose speakers reach some threshold percentage of population? I have mixed feelings about the prospect. I think it's good to involve voters, but does it make sense to take on such a burden rather than have some "official" language in which all government materials are published? How do you create a consistent, sustainable, affordable policy of supporting dozens of languages?



To the best of my knowledge the only polling materials in Ireland are printed on one form - and it is jointly in Irish and English, our two official languages.

While we have a growing immigrant population from non-English-speaking countries (and they don't have any Irish  ) I don't think any of the various immigrant communities have reached any population size which would make multi-lingual polling material either a desirable or a necessary thing. But such a time might well come.

Should it be done? Probably not, in my view, in elections. The ballot papers recently have carried party symbols alongside the names (and possibly phototgraphs, I'm not sure) of the candidates, and I feel that if any candidate wants to woo the X-speaking community then they can foot the bill for campaign material to be printed in that language.
The reason I don't think it necessary is that our immigrant communities don't appear to be shunning English* - they actively seek to learn it.

Where I do think polling material should possibly be multi-lingual is in referenda - I feel that anyone with an entitlement to vote should be given a ballot paper setting the question at issue in a language they can understand.

* With the standard exceptions of the elderly and those already functionally illiterate in their own language. This is normal in immigrant communities in many countries - their children will, more than likely, have English as an almost-first language. The problem dies out (and I don't mean that in a callous way).


----------



## JamesM

maxiogee said:


> The reason I don't think it necessary is that our immigrant communities don't appear to be shunning English* - they actively seek to learn it.
> 
> * With the standard exceptions of the elderly and those already functionally illiterate in their own language. This is normal in immigrant communities in many countries - their children will, more than likely, have English as an almost-first language. The problem dies out (and I don't mean that in a callous way).


 
This, I think, is yet another of the issues involving Spanish in California.  I agree that it's normal for an immigrant community to actively seek to learn the adopted country's language.  With most of our immigrant communities this is the case here.  I think part of what drives that desire to learn is identification with the adopted country.

We have one community, or actually a community within a community, that is not really "immigrant", though; it's migrant.   The identification is still with the home country.  This group is extremely valuable to the home country and the ties to the homeland are actively encouraged by the Mexican government.  According to one article, $23 billion was sent back to Mexico last year from the U.S.   This does not sound out of line with other articles I've read. 

This is part of the complexity of the problem.  The bi-lingualism is not a result of two permanent constituencies of citizens within one country, such as in Ireland, but of one "permanent" constituency (over the most recent 150 years) and another "migrant" constituency (over the last hundred years.)  The fact that millions of this second language's constituency are here illegally makes the whole issue very muddy.

This problem may be confined primarily to the states that share a border with Mexico. I don't think New York, for example, has the same mass migration going on that California or Texas has.


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> This, I think, is yet another of the issues involving Spanish in California. I agree that it's normal for an immigrant community to actively seek to learn the adopted country's language. With most of our immigrant communities this is the case here. I think part of what drives that desire to learn is identification with the adopted country.
> 
> We have one community, or actually a community within a community, that is not really "immigrant", though; it's migrant. The identification is still with the home country. This group is extremely valuable to the home country and the ties to the homeland are actively encouraged by the Mexican government. According to one article, $23 billion was sent back to Mexico last year from the U.S. This does not sound out of line with other articles I've read.
> 
> This is part of the complexity of the problem. The bi-lingualism is not a result of two permanent constituencies of citizens within one country, such as in Ireland, but of one "permanent" constituency (over the most recent 150 years) and another "migrant" constituency (over the last hundred years.) The fact that millions of this second language's constituency are here illegally makes the whole issue very muddy.
> 
> This problem may be confined primarily to the states that share a border with Mexico. I don't think New York, for example, has the same mass migration going on that California or Texas has.


 
I don't know enough about the American migrant-worker phenomenon to comment in depth, but from what I know both the economic powers-that-be and the social powers-that-be collude in the continuing existence of this phenomenon. Socially they tend to be excluded from the 'home' population because they are largely temporary, and often seasonal, in an area. Economically they are not paid enough to afford decent housing or to pursue regional norms in terms of leisure - which, as a modern industry, is becoming an expensive pursuit.

And, on another point, in any community of immigrants there must come a tipping point in population terms when the old 'home' language lingers longer among successive generations because there are just so many people using it as an everyday language. Small populations rapidly (in relative terms) become part of the mainstream, but larger ones cohere and become more self-sufficient to the point that one doesn't need to speak the 'new' language, or eat the 'new' foods if one doesn't want to. The immigrant community is producing its own newspaper/magazine, there are 'specialist' shops, there are bi-lingual resources within it to aid one in dealings with bureaucracy, etc. etc.


----------



## Pigu

I wouldn't worry about the death of the Spanish language in the US. People are increasingly proud of their ethnic culture. The old metaphor of a "melting pot" of cultures is giving way to a "salad bowl", with relatively little mixing between the ingredients.


----------



## conquer

lizzeymac said:


> I am not sure what you mean by a "lower social class" - do you mean education or wealth? "Social class" is of of those British phrases (sorry, but it's true) that isn't used much anymore in most of America, except by statisticians, snobs & racists.
> 
> I think having an official national language might *seem* like a harmless & even beneficial idea but I think anti-immigrant elements in American politics would use it to prevent or at least discourage immigrants from attaining citizenship. Are you familiar with the history of using literacy & civic knowledge tests to keep minorities & legal immigrants from being able to register to vote? This practice continued until the late 1960s. If there were an official national language it might be possible to create a law that required immigrants to pass a English fluency test in order to become a citizen. We do not have many free ESL classes even here in NYC & we have a large immigrant population. I would love for all immigrants to learn to speak English as soon as they can so they do they can take advantage of all that America has to offer and so they can contribute to this country to the fullest extent. That being said, I still would not vote for legislation making English the official language unless there were protections against abuse & provisions for more ESL courses.
> -


 
 I guess that we are witnessing two different aspects of this matter of English as the official language.

While you'll love to see immigrants to learn fluent English, I can tell you that the from Hispanic imigrants the 20% are really interested in learning it. the rest are verey happy watching tv in Spanish, finding jiobs where the supervisors speak Spanish and teaching Spanish tio their children (This teaching I think is from very good to excellent).

You can have the best teachers in ESL, but if the immigrants are not interested in learning English the policy is void. Only the young new immigrants who come with certain education from their countries are interested in learning English. 

Lets see the other side. Entire neighborhoods in areas other than the South are now speaking Spanish more than English. You can find them in Maryland, New Jersey, New York and this is expanding to other States. From My part I don't care because it won't affect me at all, I don't know about others.

The current confusion about having English as the official language is that some people and authorities think that this will mean that no one will be able to speak other language but English. And this is not what an official language means. Having an official language means to have a common language for official affairs, this is to say, that this applies to matters in goverment only. This official language is not enforced in stores, tv shows, talking with the neighbor or a friend in the work site, school, etc.

Of course, due to misunderstandings of what an official language means, some people and authorities have commited some mistakes and have created unnecessary problems in several ocassions.

By the way, in some movies there is a phrase which is funny, the guy says (read demands) to another: Speak American!

I wonder what the hell is that?


----------



## lizzeymac

conquer said:


> I guess that we are witnessing two different aspects of this matter of English as the official language.
> 
> While you'll love to see immigrants to learn fluent English, I can tell you that the from Hispanic imigrants the 20% are really interested in learning it. the rest are verey happy watching tv in Spanish, finding jiobs where the supervisors speak Spanish and teaching Spanish tio their children (This teaching I think is from very good to excellent).
> 
> As you don't say where in America you are, I will accept this as your personal experience. My experience has been that many, if not most working class immigrants don't have the time or money for private ESL classes, & government sponsored classes are underfunded & overcrowded with long waiting lists. I do think that those immigrants, whatever percentage, that have no interest in learning English are hurting themselves more than anyone else - there are limits on the jobs you can get if you don't speak English.
> 
> You can have the best teachers in ESL, but if the immigrants are not interested in learning English the policy is void. Only the young new immigrants who come with certain education from their countries are interested in learning English.
> Ah, there is that "class" thing.
> 
> Lets see the other side. Entire neighborhoods in areas other than the South are now speaking Spanish more than English. You can find them in Maryland, New Jersey, New York and this is expanding to other States. From My part I don't care because it won't affect me at all, I don't know about others.
> 
> The current confusion about having English as the official language is that some people and authorities think that this will mean that no one will be able to speak other language but English. And this is not what an official language means. Having an official language means to have a common language for official affairs, this is to say, that this applies to matters in goverment only.
> 
> You mean "only" government matters like the entire public education system, elections, Welfare & social services, public housing, the Veterans Administration, Health & Human Services, publicly funded hospitals, public libraries, National & State Parks, the Armed Forces, Police & Fire Departments, the Post Office - only that?
> 
> This official language is not enforced in stores, tv shows, talking with the neighbor or a friend in the work site, school, etc.
> 
> This is not strictly correct. The term "official language" has no fixed legal definition in America, as we have never had one.  The term would be defined by the legislation that authorized it & in theory the government could attempt to include limitations & strictures, subject to review by the Supreme Court. Are you willing to trust the Bush Administration to do this?
> 
> Of course, due to misunderstandings of what an official language means, some people and authorities have commited some mistakes and have created unnecessary problems in several ocassions.
> 
> By the way, in some movies there is a phrase which is funny, the guy says (read demands) to another: Speak American!
> 
> I wonder what the hell is that?


----------



## JamesM

> The term would be defined by the legislation that authorized it & in theory the government could attempt to include limitations & strictures, subject to review by the Supreme Court.  Are you willing to trust the Bush Administration to do this?


 
But he's the perfect president to do it!  He's bilingual - he speaks equally poorly in English and Spanish.


----------



## lizzeymac

JamesM said:


> But he's the perfect president to do it!  He's bilingual - he speaks equally poorly in English and Spanish.


----------



## conquer

_lizzeymac said: _

_You mean "only" government matters like the entire public education system, elections, Welfare & social services, public housing, the Veterans Administration, Health & Human Services, publicly funded hospitals, public libraries, National & State Parks, the Armed Forces, Police & Fire Departments, the Post Office - only that?
_
Yes, only that, maybe the courts too, but I think that much is about...

I don't see any discrimination by enforcing the English language in goverment affairs, on the contrary, the goverment system must be as clear as possible, and having sectors in Us speaking Spanish, other towns speaking Portuguese, others maybe Chinese, you are creating a chaotic situation.

Is that what you want? I''l hope not.


----------



## lizzeymac

conquer said:


> _lizzeymac said: _
> 
> _You mean "only" government matters like the entire public education system, elections, Welfare & social services, public housing, the Veterans Administration, Health & Human Services, publicly funded hospitals, public libraries, National & State Parks, the Armed Forces, Police & Fire Departments, the Post Office - only that?
> _
> Yes, only that, maybe the courts too, but I think that much is about...
> 
> I don't see any discrimination by enforcing the English language in goverment affairs, on the contrary, the goverment system must be as clear as possible, and having sectors in Us speaking Spanish, other towns speaking Portuguese, others maybe Chinese, you are creating a chaotic situation.
> 
> Is that what you want? I''l hope not.



I don't mind if people choose to speak another language socially as long as they could speak English also. As I have said about a gazillion times, if they don't learn English they are likely to remain _at best_ a member of the "working poor" for their entire life & they will likely be a burden on the public health system, etc.  
I am a fervent believer in immigrants learning English as quickly as possible. However, I am unwilling to give the anti-immigrant faction in America any kind of assistance in disenfranchising non-English speakers - by which I mean both those who _choose not to learn_ & those who have not yet been _able to learn_.
If the official language is English, then all other languages are *not* official languages. There would exist the possibility that governmental agencies would only publish ballots, forms & guides in English, that they would not provide translators.  This would mean that  non-English speaking immigrants would have even less access to services & assistance & education.  I would  not vote for English as the official language unless there were protections against abuse built into the law.
There are no _towns or cities_ in America that speak absolutely only Spanish or Portuguese or Chinese and it's not likely anytime soon - so let's just let that alarmist image rest, OK?  By your own estimates, only 20% of immigrants "choose" not to learn English, the other 80% want to learn.   And no matter what the percentages may be, all of their children will learn English if they stay in America. 
Legislating & implementing an official language would cost plenty- how about instead we spend some money on improving ESL classes for immigrants?    How about we start with the carrot instead of the stick?

I think you have more faith in the benevolent intentions of this administration, & an under-supervised government in general, than I do.  

It's just my opinion, but I think that most of the fears about _"non-English speaking immigrants"_ are at the root, really about _illegal immigration_, mostly from Mexico, Central & South America.  You will notice that Spanish is almost always the language referred to. I have met seemingly intelligent Americans who don't think there _are_ any legal immigrants from  Mexico, Central & South America.  As a few forer@s have explained, in America the two issues are entangled to such a degree that you can hardly discuss one without the other.


----------



## JazzByChas

TonyMax said:
			
		

> A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism?
> _No...it's just a method of learning..._
> B) Is English the only language of prosperity?
> _Only in those countries where English is the official language_
> C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test?
> _Umm...no..I believe they attend the American school system._
> 
> X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life?
> _I think the English language (esp. here in the USA) is an amalgam of many other languages, and the languages and the cultures of other countries can only enrich your own._
> 
> Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English?
> _Now...this is an interesting point...in ghettos, people usually speak a "patois" ... a combination of thier native toungue...but this only occurs for about a generation...until the children have learned well the English language. These days, however, English is changing a lot from what I have come to understand as "Standard English."_
> 
> 
> _Now, there are some in "ghettos" whose inhabitants never really learn any more than a "patois"...a rule my wife and I call the "5-mile radius" rule, i.e. the inhabitants of said ghetto never really learn to speak other than the dialect spoken in said ghettos, because they never travel more than 5 miles from said ghetto on a regular basis. AAVE is one very good example. It is a form of pidgin English that is just a corruption of Standard English, and if children who learn such things are not exposed to a form of English that most educated Americans understand, they will never speak anything else, nor their children, nor thier children's children, etc._
> 
> Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism?
> 
> _I neither like Bill Clinton nor Newt Gingrich...men of low character have no credibility...'nuff said.  _
> 
> _And to answer the title question, no, bilingualism is not bad...I think it can only be a good thing...in fact, the more languages one knows the better. There should be one official language of a country...which everyone should be required to speak. Beyond that, all is gravy!_


----------



## conquer

> As I have said about a gazillion times, if they don't learn English they are likely to remain _at best_ a member of the "working poor" for their entire life & they will likely be a burden on the public health system, etc.


 
I think that you care too much about "help" from goverement than what a personal duty should be encouraged from non-speaking English immigrants.

Look, I heard that the new policies deporting illegal imigrants "is braking apart" their families, but what the news don't say is tha many of the illegal immgrants have braken their familiies apart already by coming alone to US and leaving their families in their countries. By deporting them, they are back to their family again.

Laws work in one way but the effects are usually observed as different and disparate consequences. 

Your concern is to obtain help beyond the capability of learning English. You want them to learn English so they can undrestand better the system to obtain special benefits from the goverment. In other words, you want the goverment to invest money in people who will be using more goverment funds to obtain more benefits.

You want to create another "class" of people in society, this new class won't only get assistance for food and shelter but you want them to have teachers so they can learn English for free also.

Tell me, why others have to pay taxes for such convenient proposition of yours? Why? 

You are incorrect that English is the only medium to have success in US. Look, visit Washington DC and eat in the salvadorean restaurant El Tamarindo. The owner has three restaurants with the same name in the capitiol city. He even recorded a LP a decade ago. He barely can speak English but he is a great business man, no doubt about it. English was practically not necessary for him to reach such success.

Success depends of the interest of a person to reach his goals, and giving things for free are usually never appreciated by the receivers. I can tell you this, donor a car to a friend of yours, I can tell you that he won't take care of the car as much as if he bought it and paid for it. 

Look at the Clinton administration with their policy to make people to work. I witnessed lots of families watching tv all day long and receiveing benefits from the goverment for generations. Yes, generations. The women didn't do more than have sex and children so they receive more benefits for each additional child. I saw them, I used to work for Public Housing. 

With a law making move their butts from the sofa and do at least a part time job, these women are receiving back their dignity. This is the help the illegal immigrants should receive as well, nothing for free.

My position is not prosecute illegal immigrants...but also never give them a legal status. They came illegally they should stay as such as their punishment. You brake a law, you should be punished somehow.

On the other hand, illegal immigrants also enjoy the same benefits than others who also pay taxes, you have for example lights in the streets for eveybody, police and firefighters services like eveybody, so their taxes are returning to them as services as well.

I don't support prosecution to illegal immigrants because they work, and the same than many workers in US, they must save money for medical emergencies, medicines and more. It is their responsability to manage their money to this kind of emergencies or medical check ups.

The same applies with their responsability of learning English, it is not my responsability and neither yours, it is their responsability. WE can help if we want to do it, but this is not the case that "we have to help them". To this point, I don't agree with you.


----------



## Arrius

Having two languages can be a boon and can also be a burden. 
I use to teach German in a British Army secondary school in Westphalia where there were many children of whom the father was British and the mother German. My experience was that those who were quite bright absorbed both languages and cultures quite well and greatly benefited from their their dual origin, whereas those who were much less intelligent tended to be rather confused, and more backward in their other subjects than might have been the case with only one language to cope with. Admittedly, being dragged around the world at intervals as daddy was re-posted and re-posted again, did not help much either. And the officers, with allegedly more intelligent genes, generally sent their offspring off to boarding school in England.
Unless there is some cogent reason, such as having parents of different languages or living in a country with a different language, I have over the years come to the minority view that it is a pretty futile task to try to teach a foreign language to those who do not have a good grip on their own language and culture, and usually do not wish to learn the foreign language.
I am sure there are many American teachers who have had similar experiences though it is probably politically incorrect, especially these days, to agree with my conclusions.


----------



## Hillbilly

I find it interesting that many Americans are worried about the prospect of American culture and the English language being taken over by Spanish.  This has come at a time when English is being spoken as a second language in countries all over the world.
Perhaps Arrius is right, and language instruction does not work with people who are not interested.  However, part of our problem is that so many Americans have little or no empathy toward those who are trying to learn a new language.  Immersion does not mean that one never receives any help at all.  I have heard people complain about Spanish language options at the ATM, even though it causes no real inconvenience.  These same people expect to be able to speak English when they visit Europe.
People fear change.  People complain about being required to learn Spanish in order to get a job in certain places.  That is a legitimate concern from the standpoint of the speed at which Spanish has proliferated.  But in the long run, it is just a fact of life that we all need to be adaptable to changes in our environment, especially in this cyber age.
As to the mixing of different languages and producing some kind of hybrid:  isn't that part of the process of how dialects and new languages have always been formed?  The Romance languages evolved from Latin.  English changed dramatically after the Norman invasion.  It seems to me that post modern communication retards this process in some ways, and accelerates it in other ways.  For example, we can listen to recordings of "pure" native speakers in a given language.  On the other hand, new jargon is introduced daily.


----------



## lizzeymac

conquer said:


> I think that you care too much about "help" from goverement than what a personal duty should be encouraged from non-speaking English immigrants.
> 
> Look, I heard that the new policies deporting illegal imigrants "is braking apart" their families, but what the news don't say is tha many of the illegal immgrants have braken their familiies apart already by coming alone to US and leaving their families in their countries. By deporting them, they are back to their family again.
> 
> Laws work in one way but the effects are usually observed as different and disparate consequences.
> 
> Your concern is to obtain help beyond the capability of learning English. You want them to learn English so they can undrestand better the system to obtain special benefits from the goverment. In other words, you want the goverment to invest money in people who will be using more goverment funds to obtain more benefits.
> You misunderstand - I will try again.
> I am concerned that _legal _immigrants _who pay their taxes_ but do not speak yet English or speak very little English - those who are in the process of learning - will not be able to vote, go to school, have access to the courts & police, public libraries, hospitals, social services, etc.  These are all services that every taxpaying citizen has the right to access.  I am glad your immigrant experience has been easier & that you have learned English so well but not everyone who comes here has the ability to do this without some assistance.
> 
> You want to create another "class" of people in society, this new class won't only get assistance for food and shelter but you want them to have teachers so they can learn English for free also.
> 
> We are not just talking about adults but also children.  I learned for free as a child - it's called public school, every _citizen_ has the right to a free education. There are already free ESL night courses in public schools for adults, there just aren't enough of them for the numbers of immigrants.
> 
> Tell me, why others have to pay taxes for such convenient proposition of yours? Why?
> Bluntly? Because many Americans will not or can not pick their own tomatoes, be nanny to their own children, wash their own cars, do their own gardening, work in a meat processing plant gutting chickens, so on & so forth.  If there were no jobs here for immigrants & migrant workers, they wouldn't come here.  American businesses need these workers.
> Over the course of a lifetime, a non-English speaker will pay less in taxes & consume more in services that an English-speaker.  Teaching immigrants to speak English is a preventative measure.
> 
> You are incorrect that English is the only medium to have success in US. Look, visit Washington DC and eat in the salvadorean restaurant El Tamarindo. The owner has three restaurants with the same name in the capitiol city. He even recorded a LP a decade ago. He barely can speak English but he is a great business man, no doubt about it. English was practically not necessary for him to reach such success.
> 
> I didn't say it that is was the only medium.  I imagine the gentleman you mention is one of the exceptions rather than the rule. Make up your mind - are you against spending tax money to help legal immigrants learn English or do you propose that English is not necessary?
> 
> Success depends of the interest of a person to reach his goals, and giving things for free are usually never appreciated by the receivers. I can tell you this, donor a car to a friend of yours, I can tell you that he won't take care of the car as much as if he bought it and paid for it.
> That idea that a persons commitment to his goals is an indicator of his potential success is fairly obvious.
> As far as giving goes - that is your opinion - as I work for a not-for-profit charitable foundation you will understand if my personal & professional experience leads me to disagree with you.
> 
> Look at the Clinton administration with their policy to make people to work. I witnessed lots of families watching tv all day long and receiveing benefits from the goverment for generations. Yes, generations. The women didn't do more than have sex and children so they receive more benefits for each additional child. I saw them, I used to work for Public Housing.
> 
> With a law making move their butts from the sofa and do at least a part time job, these women are receiving back their dignity. This is the help the illegal immigrants should receive as well, nothing for free.
> 
> Ummm - did they speak English?
> That is the topic - bilingualism - not the dreaded "welfare queens." Just a point, the majority of people on welfare are native born, non-minority, English speakers.
> 
> My position is not prosecute illegal immigrants...but also never give them a legal status. They came illegally they should stay as such as their punishment. You brake a law, you should be punished somehow.
> 
> So you think America should continue to have a ghetto-ized shadow society of law-breakers that contributes labor but no taxes, that consumes services but can contribute very little to the economy, taxes the public health system, and contributes to identify fraud? You & I differ on this point - I do not think all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay. I think those who wish to stay should have to pass through the immigration process & become legal & pay their taxes.
> 
> On the other hand, illegal immigrants also enjoy the same benefits than others who also pay taxes, you have for example lights in the streets for eveybody, police and firefighters services like eveybody, *so their taxes* are returning to them as services as well.
> What? Illegal immigrants _do not pay taxes but they do consume services._
> 
> I don't support prosecution to illegal immigrants because they work, and the same than many workers in US, they must save money for medical emergencies, medicines and more. It is their responsability to manage their money to this kind of emergencies or medical check ups.
> Except that unlike citizens, illegal immigrants _do not pay taxes but they do consume services._
> 
> The same applies with their responsability of learning English, it is not my responsability and neither yours, it is their responsability. WE can help if we want to do it, but this is not the case that "we have to help them". To this point, I don't agree with you.


Of course it is their responsibility to do their best to learn to speak English.  Not all immigrants need help to learn English, some are able to study on their own, some have relatives that will help them, but some do not.  The fact that an immigrant does not speak English has a negative impact on all of us. Helping someone to learn to speak English is not as expensive as having a permanent poor underclass - which we already have.

Dear Mod - I know this response is off topic- I will not reply on the topic of immigration any more. Sorry.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

lizzeymac said:


> Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes but they do consume services.



In Canada it´s often the other way around.  Illegal immigrants have their taxes deducted from their pay, but do not receive such services as health care, unemployment insurance, or language classes.


----------



## lizzeymac

Chaska Ñawi said:


> In Canada it´s often the other way around.  Illegal immigrants have their taxes deducted from their pay, but do not receive such services as health care, unemployment insurance, or language classes.



That used to be the case in America, but in the last few years it has become much harder to forge the documents necessary to get a "legal" job that issues salary checks & to open a bank account.  Many illegal immigrants now work for cash & pay no taxes & have no access to services. Neither situation is fair or beneficial.

OK- now I really will stop talking about immigration.


----------



## Mike P.

french4beth said:


> My thoughts have already been expressed in the above posts.
> 
> Also, Spanish-speaking Americans are almost a country within a country - I've heard estimates that there are currently 40 million Latinos in the US. And it's only growing!



Don't forget that Spanish speaking Europeans and European/Indian mixes were living in the US prior to the English even arriving on the continent.  And until very lately spoke a great deal of Spanish; some do still.


----------



## Mike P.

conquer said:


> _lizzeymac said: _
> 
> _You mean "only" government matters like the entire public education system, elections, Welfare & social services, public housing, the Veterans Administration, Health & Human Services, publicly funded hospitals, public libraries, National & State Parks, the Armed Forces, Police & Fire Departments, the Post Office - only that?
> _
> Yes, only that, maybe the courts too, but I think that much is about...
> 
> I don't see any discrimination by enforcing the English language in goverment affairs, on the contrary, the goverment system must be as clear as possible, and having sectors in Us speaking Spanish, other towns speaking Portuguese, others maybe Chinese, you are creating a chaotic situation.
> 
> Is that what you want? I''l hope not.



If you work for the government in those positions, you already have to speak English.  When those that you serve don't speak English or English fluently enough, then those government agencies need employees that do speak those languages.

This is a free country.  Both the Right and Left ignore that all the time.  One can speak any language that they want to in this country.


----------



## Mike P.

lizzeymac said:


> pay no taxes



They contribute to sales tax revenues.  And by being a consumer, attribute to other taxes in the same way that other consumers do.


----------



## Hillbilly

lizzeymac said:


> ...OK- now I really will stop talking about immigration.



Don’t be so hard on yourself.  It is difficult to separate these topics: bilingualism, immigration, and the economics and politics of poverty and wealth.

In this age it is easier than ever to learn a foreign language.  That is, it is easier if you have a computer, internet access, learning CDs, and time to use all these tools.

Consider the example of a hypothetical poorly educated and unskilled worker who wants to come to the States to seek work, legally or illegally.  This person will typically be doing hard manual labor that many people would not or could not do.  Possibly he will be working long hours and he will likely be sending part of his meager wages home to family members.

Having to learn English is just one more responsibility heaped onto an already burdened life.  Perhaps it is a necessary responsibility, but I use this example to make three points:

1) It is precisely this type of person who arouses so much fear, hate, and prejudice in those who bash “Mexicans.”    I did manual labor for a temp agency for a while, and I can tell you that the one thing that seemed to unite the White and Black construction workers was prejudice against the Hispanics, generically referred to as “Mexicans.”

2) It is precisely this type of person [the hypothetical worker] who embodies the American dream.

3)Trying to find ways to help this person make the transition is the right thing to do. 

All nations today face a dilemma when it comes to immigration.  There is more immigration than we can handle, and we have to place limits that are fair and just.  In one sense, America faces the greatest dilemma of all because our very self identity is tied in with the welcoming of immigrants.

America offers freedom.  Freedom does mean freedom to fail.  Some people will try and fail.  Some people need help in order to succeed. I don’t think that anyone would wish to create a culture of dependency, as Conquor seems to suggest. But we do  _*need * _to help. Government can’t do it all.  Overburdened charities can’t do it all.  But one thing is for sure:  The attitude, “I got mine; now you get yours” is simply not acceptable.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> From a speech by Newt Gingrich.....
> 
> The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," ​
> 
> "Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism?  I would have to agree with JazzbyChass...  I don't think it is.
> 
> B) Is English the only language of prosperity?  In what way do you mean?  Do you mean in the way that English is going to take over all the countries and therefore knowing any other language is useless?  Or do you mean it in the way that if you don't know English you're screwed in the future?
> 
> C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test?  No, but we should.  I don't think that being an American, if being that meant exactly what the American Dream is, should be a birth right.  There are pleanty of people here that do not appreciate what is given to them and who don't use it.  They don't know our history, and because they do not know how hard it was to fight gor the freedom they do not appreciate it.
> 
> X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life?  In high school it helps to create cultural awareness and things of that nature.  In all honesty, in the real world, I found it to be nothing but a pain, and I know enough Italian and Spanish to get by.  So, not knowing the language is not a factor there...
> 
> Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English?  GOD, NO!  Newt had no right to say that one!  He just messed himself over, there.
> 
> Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism?  LOL No comment.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

lizzeymac said:


> That used to be the case in America, but in the last few years it has become much harder to forge the documents necessary to get a "legal" job that issues salary checks & to open a bank account.  Many illegal immigrants now work for cash & pay no taxes & have no access to services. Neither situation is fair or beneficial.
> 
> OK- now I really will stop talking about immigration.



No, I'm not talking about any forged documents.  There are many ways that one can work legally in Canada without citizenship status.  There is no law that says that one must be a citizen to open a bank account or to do certain kinds of work.  Often these people are on hold until citizenship is determined.

It's hard to separate immigration from bilingualism in this discussion, isn't it?

English and French are certainly not the only languages of prosperity here; it is possible, although a little more challenging, to be monolingual and affluent if you live in the right community.


----------



## maxiogee

poetic device said:
			
		

> In what way do you mean?


I meant in the words as used by Mr Gingrich. He seemed pretty clearcut? I just asked if he was right in what he said.




			
				poetic device said:
			
		

> No, but we should. I don't think that being an American, if being that meant exactly what the American Dream is, should be a birth right. There are pleanty of people here that do not appreciate what is given to them and who don't use it. They don't know our history, and because they do not know how hard it was to fight gor the freedom they do not appreciate it.



Wow.
So not only would you have a knowledge of English be a requirement for citizenship, so too would be a knowledge of history? Whose history?


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> I meant in the words as used by Mr Gingrich. He seemed pretty clearcut? I just asked if he was right in what he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> So not only would you have a knowledge of English be a requirement for citizenship, so too would be a knowledge of history? Whose history?


 
Okay, now I understand what he was talking about.  Well, if I am right and he means America is prosperity, America was built by English speaking people, ergo English is prosperity, then yes.  Otherwise, no and he is a bloody idiot.

The history that I am refering to is American history.  I think that it should apply to any country.  Far too many times you run into a natural citizen that forgets the sweat ande blood that was originally put into the country, and maybe if you are reminded of what there is to be proud of there would not be as much hatred for said country...  IDK, I could be wrong.  Probably am...


----------



## karuna

In my recent visit to Dallas I got impression that Spanish speaking communities are very well established there and Spanish is flourishing. There were many shops with ads and price tags only in Spanish and people around me were speaking in Spanish most of the time. But at the same time I had no problem receiving service in English even in those all-Spanish shops. Basically I got an impression that most Spanish speaking people are bilingual. After all the language of instruction at schools is English, so they probably don't have a problem to make a career etc. 

Therefore I don't understand why there are so many complaints about people not being able to speak English in the USA? Of course, because to some recent first generation immigrants who are busy working and have no time to learn English, many government offices or health care places need to publish information in Spanish and employ bilingual staff. And it costs some money but apparently it is profitable to provide information in Spanish. I noticed that many businesses not only in Texas but in many other states try to provide bilingual service. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't profitable, would they?

And even more I feel that Americans have no right to complain for necessity to provide Spanish language service to illegal immigrants if they maintain the present hypocritical attitude. From one side they are needed to businesses that hire them and on the other side Americans consider them a lower class that should not be given any rights (kind of slavery?) I mean, the USA should decide if they need them and give them some kind of legal resident permit or decide that we actually don't need this cheap labor that takes jobs away from Americans and prevent them from entering the USA. 

And who says that illegal immigrants in the USA don't pay taxes? While it is true that many receive cash and don't pay taxes (I know a few American citizens who do the same) the IRS encourages these illegal immigrants to pay taxes by using ITIN (kind of substitute to SSN that allows to pay taxes but doesn't give right to work). IRS absolutely don't care about person's legal status and issue ITIN to anyone with some sort of photo ID. Businesses also often establish contractor type relationships with ITIN holders so that they are not blamed for employing people without SSN but can legally pay with checks. This policy may be beneficial for illegal immigrants but it also deepens the contradictory policy when different government departments are pulling into opposity directions. Some banks have even started to offer mortgages to ITIN holders yet these people have to live in constant fear that they can be deported at any time. This is also an important factor why they may not be very motived to learn English.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> The history that I am refering to is American history.


I knew _that_ much - what I meant was whose American history?
The history of the place as viewed by the First Nations?
The history of the place as viewed by women? Non-whites? Non-Christians?


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> I knew _that_ much - what I meant was whose American history?
> The history of the place as viewed by the First Nations?
> The history of the place as viewed by women? Non-whites? Non-Christians?


 

Oh, okay.  Sorry, the twins are sucking up all of my mentallity and Savanna all of my energy.     I would love to say untainted history, but there is no such thing.  History is written vby the victors.  Personally, I would love to hav all history written and taught by true socialists.


----------



## tvdxer

maxiogee said:


> From a speech by Newt Gingrich.....The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,"
> 
> "Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism?
> B) Is English the only language of prosperity?
> C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test?
> 
> X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life?
> Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English?
> Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism?



Newt's an interesting character.

I'm a bit ambiguous on this matter.  On one hand, I believe that if you are in the United States, and do not live in Puerto Rico or on an Indian reservation, you should learn English.  It's simply the primary language of the country, just as Italian is the language of Italy and French is the language of France.  You can speak any language you wish at home or work, but out of respect for other Americans you should at least try to improve your English while here.  If I went to live in Japan, I would learn Japanese; if I moved to Italy, I would work on my Italian.  It's really not that hard to check an English book out of the library and spend some of your spare time studying it, or attend a free English class.  Even if you're busy with work, you can take a few hours out of your weekend or 30 minutes out of your day to supplant what you learn in immersion.

On the other hand, I think bilingual education is kind of cool.  It'd be nice to be immersed in another language.  However, it must be BI-lingual - in an area dominated by newly-arrived Hispanics, preference should be placed on English, not Spanish, since the former is what must be learned.  Speaking English and Spanish, not just Spanish, will get you ahead in this world, whether in La Paz or Los Angeles.  Immigrants do not need to abandon their culture, since traditionally it took at least another generation for children to be assimilated into the American culture, but they should not separate themselves permanently from other Americans.  

I love immigrant neighborhoods, eating at their restaurants and going to their shops, etc., and I believe that's a wonderful part of living in a diverse country.  While immigrants have the full right to speak their language, practice their religion, eat their foods, etc., they do not have the right to demand that others offer services in their language, etc.  They must respect the country they emigrated to.


----------



## TRG

maxiogee said:


> From a speech by Newt Gingrich.....The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,"
> 
> "Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism?
> B) Is English the only language of prosperity?
> C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test?
> 
> X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life?
> Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English?
> Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism?



A. It depends on the motives of the ones advocating the immersion.
B. In the U.S. it is very difficult to achieve very much without speaking English, so I would say yes inside of the U.S., which I think is what the person was talking about.
C. No, and this is true regardless of what language you speak.
X.  This is a silly question, and silly to suggest that this is what he was talking about.
Y. A ghetto is a place where racial and ethnic minorities are marginalized socially, politically, and economically.  If you only speak the language spoken in the ghetto, then it is much more difficult to assimilate and take advantage of whatever the broader world has to offer.  To want people to learn the common language is to want people to escape from the ghetto.
X. The list of political figures who have engaged in lying, philandering, and hypocrisy is quite lengthy.   To assume that they have nothing of value to say or contribute because of their bad behavior is a bit shortsighted.  But I suspect you take no issue with the moral failings of politicians as long as their ideas agree with your own.


----------



## tvdxer

maxiogee said:


> From a speech by Newt Gingrich.....
> The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,"
> 
> "Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said.​A) Is 'immersion' a form of cultural imperialism?
> B) Is English the only language of prosperity?
> C) Do those born within the borders of the USA need to pass this citizenship test?
> 
> X) Do non-English languages contribute nothing valuable to American life?
> Y) Is it only in ghettos that people speak languages other than English?
> Z) Does a man who spoke with a forked-tongue in everything he said about B. Clinton's sex-life have anything valid to say on bi-lingualism?



A) "Cultural imperialism" is not a valid accusation in this case.  It's only right that newly-arrived immigrants learn the language and customs of the country.  If I were to move to India or Tanzania, I would be sure to learn how to speak the local tongue and the requisite social customs.

B) Pretty much nowadays, I think.  The global economy, the world of money, business, and production communicates in English today.

C) No.  It would be interesting to see how they would do, however.

X) I think they do, although Spanish monolinguals are probably costing the government a sizable sum to translate everything into their language.  It seems that Chinese, Russians, Indians in the U.S., etc., know at least some English, if they don't speak it fluently.  I think that Gingrich has American Hispanics, not any other ethnic group, in mind here.

Y) No.  But it's probably somewhat difficult to move into a nice neighborhood if you speak no English.

Z) Hypocrisy and politics are almost identical.


----------

