The procedures that are in place may be too difficult or costly to allow people to follow them, so why isn't the US Congress discussing ways to fix the current procedures?

Same reason they don't try to "fix" health care, or voting, or education- it's like washing an elephant. You have to start somewhere.

The goverment doesn't want to fix it because several industries depend on being able to pay illegals substandard wages often for working in substandard conditions.

why isn't the US Congress discussing ways to fix the current procedures?

What Mitheral said. Our low food prices and cheap service and manual labor support that keep our other prices so low absolutely depend on employers being able to hire undocumented workers. We have a 'de facto' policy on immigration that requires leaders to look the other way and allow illegals to get here, stay here, and work here.

Personally, I'm really against the so-called 'guest worker' program for this reason. To me, it's another way to exploit labor, keep wages low, and avoid providing health care and social services for our labor force.

Our complicity in tolerating illegal immigration is our biggest dirty little secret asa a nation right now.

As a slight derail, I posted this coming up on a year ago. The original article isn't available now without subscription, but was basically about people from the Far East deciding they wanted to live in the US, arriving in the US specifically with a view to finding homes and schools, and moving their family to the US. In some instances, only the mother and children would move, the fathers stayed in the Far East in their old jobs. I still can't work out how someone can just pitch up to the US and be living there, children in schools and all apparently legally, within a few months.

I don't think your reasoning is flawed, yg44, and a lot of people are thinking about stuff like this. There are a few problems: first, reasoned discourse that takes into account multiple viewpoints are rarely aired on US media. Second, it's difficult to untangle the logistical problems of immigration with the racial problems of xenophobia; a lot of the rhetoric against allowing less restricted immigration from Mexico comes off sounding very very racist. Therefor, a lot of people are forced into taking extreme stances when faced with such distasteful rhetoric.

The procedures that are in place may be too difficult or costly to allow people to follow them, so why isn't the US Congress discussing ways to fix the current procedures?

Because people disagree on what 'fix' means. Many conservatives (and some liberals) want to 'fix' immigration by making immigration in the US more difficult; lengthing the process to gain legal documents, build a 'wall' along the southern border, etc. The US already has a rather restrictive policy established and since 9/11, the process has become even more restrictive. Visas, green cards, etc are more difficult to obtain if you are coming from certain countries. And that's the hang up problem. Immigrating, or just visiting, from European nations is an easier process than coming from Latin America. The system of immigration in the US has been Western/Northern European focused since the founding of the nation and it still is even though immigrants are now arriving from Latin America, Africa, Asia.

The story of US immigration is funny. The most recent arrivals are always deemed as inferior culturally, ethnically, racially, etc. When the Irish arrived in the 1840s/1850s, the older colonists raged against them for being catholic and not-white enough. When the Italians and eastern Europeans came in the 1880s to early 1900s, the older colonists (and this now included the Irish) discriminated against them for the same reasons as the Irish 50 years before. Now, the current wave of immigrants are coming from Mexico, the Carribean and Central America. The immigrants are catholic, brown, and have a different culture. They even speak another language. The backlash that is now occurring towards the Latinos is very similar to that which was shoveled onto previous waves of immigration. The US is just following the same cycle that it always has.

But does this mean that the US should tolerate the inherent prejudice and racism in its immigration system? No.

(and yes, that is a heavily biased, but i believe accurate, statement).

I'm on the side of liberalizing and making immigration into this country easier. If you take a look at the numbers, there are roughly 12 million illegal immigrants in the US. Those illegal immigrants are working jobs for below minimum wage, living in poverty, and providing economic benefits for the American way of life. The US enconomy needs a working class to function. The current working class is populated by illegal immigrants and China. The immigrants are arriving every day, risking their lives to live in this country a family to a room and make 3 dollars an hour. They're working hard in the kitchens, the construction yards, and the fields. Most of immigrants return to their home country within 5 years and during their stay there, they send a large amount of money back to their countries of orgin. Most Latin American countries' enconomies rely on this money to stay afloat and to function. And those countries then use the money to buy american products and american goods. Illegal immigrants also cost the US government less money to support than the average citizen and they put more money into the government than any rich person. Ecnomically, illegal immigrants are a benefit and a necessary element of the US system. They work for less pay and keep prices in the service industries low. It's like how you have to tip at restaurants. If US citizens were providing the services that illegal immigrants do, the price for basic goods would increase. And considering it's costing more and more money to just maintain a standard of living in the US, the US needs illegal immigrants picking their grapes.

Besides the economic arguement against illegal immigration (the 'taking US jobs' etc etc), there's a cultural arguement against the influx of illegal immigration and this is just blantant racism to me. There are arguments that immigrants from Latin American countries (and it's only directed towards them - Mexicans in particuar - no one wants to build a fence on the canadian border, do they?) arrive in this country and don't cuturally assilimate into society. But this is utter and complete bullshit. Immigrants arrive and settle in areas where other immigrants have established a presence. A lot of immigrants don't speak english and move to areas where other people, like them, live. But most illegal immigrants who arrive in the US and stay, learn english and become bi-lingual. For evidence of this, check any major city; there are major spanish areas but any english speaker can walk through that area of town and hear english and talk to others in english. The immigrants children will then attend public schools and then learn english. By the 2nd generation (their grandchildren), english is the primary language spoken in the home and there's a good chance that the grandchildren will not know their grandparents language. And, by 3rd generation, you're a coconut - brown on the outside but white on the inside. Immigrants and their families do embrace the American culture. And considering how many immigrants and their children join the military, they are willing to fight and defend their adopted country.

There is also an argument about illegal immigrants bringing crime but that is due to poverty and that experience mimicks blacks moving to the city in the late 1800s/early 1900s when sharecropping in the South died.

Now, Congress has discussed immigration and the Republicans tried to use illegal immigrants as a scare tactic in the 2006 mid term election (like how gay marriage was used in 2004). But it didn't work. In the 1980s, Regan offered amnesty to all illegal latin immigrants in the US. Ever since that inital amnesty, there has been an explosion of illegal immigrants into the US. Around 1996, there was another look at immigration but not much was done. In fact, the system remained the same except funding for the border patrol increased. Now, in 2006/2007, there were more discussions but nothing was done except for the decision to build a fence on the Mexican border but no money was given for its construction.

Like TPS said, fixing immigration is a huge problem, a huge expense, and considering how the creation of the Department of Homeland Security went, there isn't any political will or strength to do the job correctly. Immigration won't be 'fixed' or modified in any way by the current string of politicans. But immigration will be changed within the next 20 years and for one reason: 1 out of every 2 persons added to the US population is of Latino descent - either through immigration or births. Latins breed and they're arriving in the US in large numbers. Hispanics are already the largest minority in the US and, by 2050, there will be no racial majority in the US. The look of the US is changing and will no longer be white centric (I hope). And when that happens, it'll be interesting to see how the US reacts and I'm not betting that the US will handle it gracefully or well.

(i ranted so sorry about the spelling/grammar/etc)

Well, if history (and my own experiences living in heavily Latin cities) is any indication, Latinos are being assimilated in huge numbers at the same time this backlash is occuring (maybe these trends are related). My Cuban-American co-workers in Miami were the children of exiles, dark skinned and spoke Spanish, but they were born in Florida and culturally speaking, they were as American as velveeta on Wonder bread.The same could be said of a lot of first generation Mexican-Americans in California or Puerto Ricans in New York. In a few generations, having a neighbor named Ramirez or Garcia will be no more exotic to most suburbanites than one named O'Malley, Bernstein or Falcone. Here's hoping, anyway.

Thanks guys for your comments. They're all great. I feel less crazy now.

it's like washing an elephant. You have to start somewhere

I love this, TPS

jon - I noticed this thing in Los Angeles, and even here in Austin, TX. I go to a lot of "indie" rock shows, and at some venues in both these towns, I see a lot of Hispanic kids wearing Misfits shirts, or AC/DC, or Led Zeppelin. The 50's fashion trend among that crowd really took off among the Latino guys and girls before the white kids started adopting it (this might be different in NY or Chicago, though. I know California is weird, fashion-wise).

The reason why there isn't a fence along the Canadian-American border is because Canada is a wealthy and stable country, there's no reason to leave. We hardly notice they're there.

Stynxo, I enjoyed reading you comment very much and wholeheartedly agree with your points. I haven't heard the argument that Hispanics can't assimilate easily, I am not doubting you, I live in a cave. I agree, that is an extremely weak argument.

In the 1980s, Regan offered amnesty to all illegal latin immigrants in the US. Ever since that initial amnesty, there has been an explosion of illegal immigrants into the US

.
I thought the law that Reagan signed included all immigrants. Could be wrong.

meant to say, all illegal immigrants

I see a lot of Hispanic kids wearing Misfits shirts, or AC/DC, or Led Zeppelin. The 50's fashion trend among that crowd really took off among the Latino guys and girls before the white kids started adopting it (this might be different in NY or Chicago, though. I know California is weird, fashion-wise).

Nah, at metal shows or punk shows or other young people's gathering places in NYC, a huge chunk of the audience is Hispanic these days. And Cuban and Puerto Rican food in NYC is no more exotic than a gyro or a salami.

jonmc/muddgirl: You guys see Wassup, Rockers?--the Larry Clark flick about hispanic skatepunks from south central LA? Not a masterpiece by any means, but still interesting and kinda fun.

I thought the law that Reagan signed included all immigrants. Could be wrong.

you're probably right. i just got into a "latino" bit in my writing.

i'm try to stay informed about immigration topics and i've heard a lot of arguments dealing with immigration. I've also been told to go back to my home country way too many times so I am emotionally invested in the topic.

And about the Latin music scene: it depends on the city and where the latins come from. if they come from the carribbean and live in heavily urban areas like NYC, they reggateon and other hip-hop fused carribbean beats are #1. In more car oriented and mexican filled cities, rock'n'roll/indie/alternative music is the driving force. Also, as more and more Spanish speakers live in the US, more and more entertainment advertising is being created in Spanish . And rock'n'roll is considered rebellious in Latin America. It really is like the 1950s musically in this regard. Also, punk is now exploding in Latin America with more and more bands touring Mexico and South America, etc.

And mexicans love the smiths/morrisey. In LA, 95% of the people who attend morrisey shows are latin. Also, the punk scene in LA is filled with latins since, for a long time, punk could only find venues in East LA, the mexican barrio.

i.heart.LA

Stynxo, I didn't mean to mince words. :-)

My MIL, a flaming Democrat by the way, cannot stand when people speak a language other than English in the USA. She is angered when she must speak to a "foreigner" during a service call. She even contacted our congressman. She thinks all immigrants should speak English. All I can do is laugh inside when she goes on one of her rants. I want to say, "the person in India that is taking your call is speaking English." Jeez Louise.

What I don't understand is why public schools in the United States don't have a foreign language, especially Spanish, built into their curriculum from day one of Kindergarten. I would be interested to know if other public elementary school systems in the US teach a foreign language. Our district doesn't, and I think it's a shame.

I read a really great article about Morrissey and Latino fans recently. Neither of these are it, I don't think, though.

So if you immigrate without following these laws, you're committing an illegal act and (if only by definition, not moral or ethical principals) are a criminal.

It's my understanding that the laws they are breaking are misdemeanors.

I would be interested to know if other public elementary school systems in the US teach a foreign language.

I think mine had an optional class in fourth or fifth grade, but it wasn't a core part.

LoriFLA, that annoys me a lot. I've traveled quite a bit and met citizens from a bunch of Western countries. English speaking countries have so little foreign language training compared to other European countries (I've met tons of academics who can speak in and read academic articles in German, French, Spanish and English).

This is totally anecdotal, but there are a few different major issues at play here.

Example A: I have a friend who is originally from Croatia but emigrated to Canada as a teen. She came to the US for college, then found she had no friends or connections in Canada and came back here to work shortly after graduation.

She is now 29, has a great job, and has a visa that will expire in one year. The only way she can legally stay in this country is to (a) find a job in which she is really desperately needed and a company that will pay tens of thousands of dollars to sponsor her -- immigration rules have gotten a lot stricter since 2001 -- or she can marry an American.

Otherwise, she will have to leave what has become her home. It's incredibly scary for her, and it's also frustrating. She came to the States, got her education here, and is contributing to the economy here. And in a little less than a year, she has to go "home" to a place she never really considered home.

Example B: In a small suburb of New York City, men stand on street corners every morning waiting for jobs. Many of these men were skilled laborers in their home countries -- engineers, doctors -- and are now gardeners. Others were poor and tired and looking for a way out.

They came here illegally, and they sleep eight to a room, in shifts. They get paid in cash, under the table, or they are paid through "legal" means. Either way they end up paying taxes and not reaping any benefits of those taxes, and they are always on the verge of being sent back to a place where they had no chance of success. They may not be happy here, or especially successful, but to them even sleeping on cots in shifts is better than what they left.

Worse yet, if they immigrated illegally and brought their children with them, those children have no way of getting college funding, though they may have grown up almost entirely in the United States.

I have no really good suggestions for improving the situation, and I don't much like anything I've heard. The only thing I can say is that the folks who harp about "illegal aliens" on, say, Fox News, don't seem to understand how much this debate is about people's lives and livelihood.

/End anecdotal rant

What I don't understand is why public schools in the United States don't have a foreign language, especially Spanish, built into their curriculum from day one of Kindergarten.

Lack of teachers? Money? Lack of time?

TPS, yes, I would imagine it would be difficult to hire that many teachers that are fluent in a language other than English in the United States. Although, the mainland United States recruits Puerto Rican teachers by the thousands.

My mother is from Nova Scotia and was taught French from day one, even though Nova Scotia's primary language is English. Hopefully one day foreign language will be a part of public primary education. There's really no excuse in my book, other than availability of teachers.

LoriFLA, there's been a lot on the news here recently about a Government plan to teach English to immigrants who are claiming social security or jobseekers' allowance.

Apparently it costs a huge sum of money every year employing translators in Social Security offices to assist non-English speakers in claiming state benefits. The Government wants that money channelled into teaching them English instead, which will make it easier for them to find work.

I think it's a good idea, but I also think it's doomed to failure.

I can't imagine foreign language will ever be part of public primary education. It's just too big, and I don't think enough people care enough to make it happen.

TPS, I think you're right. People don't care enough to learn a second or third language. I guess I've always been disappointed that I'm not fluent in another language.

essexjan, it does sound like a good idea. I would imagine that learning English while living in an English speaking country would lessen the learning curve. I think that is why learning and speaking another language in the US isn't popular. There's not much of an opportunity for immersion, unless you are in a metropolitan area.

I know an Israeli that learned to speak English from American television while living in the United States. :-)

I can't imagine foreign language will ever be part of public primary education.

I *really* hope that does change. Partly because our brains actually learn languages much more easily before we're in our teens -- the US schools generally start teaching foreign language just as we're neurologically losing our abilities to learn it well.

And I do think a fair amount of the resistance to changing that at this point is xenophobia. At one point you could claim pragmatism -- Americans don't encounter foreign language speakers at the same rate Europeans do, due just to geography -- but as stynxno points out, that's changing. Which means it makes more sense to increase language teaching -- just as the language it makes most sense to teach becomes the exact symbol of xenophobic outrage. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

And I do think a fair amount of the resistance to changing that at this point is xenophobia.

But is it really? I just don't think it's a useful skill to be taught in the public schools at that age. The money isn't there, the teachers aren't available- I just don't think it makes sense when foreign language is already taught in middle and high schools (in most states, I believe; which brings up another point that education is done on the state and not federal level, so this would have to be implemented 50 different ways, not just 1). I understand that the makeup of America is changing, but the foundation of the culture is still in English. And I suppose this gets into What Is The Point Of Public Education Anyway, but if public education is to provide a basic foundation so students go to on higher educatin or enter the workforce, foreign language skills really aren't required in this country.

AFAIK, the USA is unusual in that it doesn't teach other languages. :) Granted, most other countries teach their children English, but I'd think that in the US, it would be valuable if kids had the basics of the language of their huge neighbour to the south (NorthEastern USians maybe could use some French).

It's hard to prescribe a solution for someone else's country, but the US citizens I know that live here talk about this issue, too.

essexjan, it does sound like a good idea. I would imagine that learning English while living in an English speaking country would lessen the learning curve.

I think it will fail for the following reason:

*takes deep breath*

Ok, now what I am recounting is my experience.

When I was a divorce lawyer I worked in areas that had large immigrant communities - from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Albania amongst others. A high proportion of households were dependent upon state benefit. They got their rent or mortgage paid, council tax paid, money to live on, and all the 'passport' benefits that come with being on social security, such as free dental care and free prescriptions. The households were largely run on traditional lines with the men being the heads of families and the women taking care of the children and the home. Women generally didn't go out to work.

It was my general experience that probably 95% of the men I came into contact with through my job, either as clients or as husbands of clients, or brothers, or uncles, were claiming benefits. It was rare to find someone who was not on social security. None of them spoke very good English. ALL of them, in addition to claiming benefits, were working on the black market, in their own communities, being paid cash-in-hand. They could afford to work for less than the going rate because they had no bills to pay, the taxpayer was picking up the tab through social security for their housing, utilities and daily living.

As I say, the above is my experience and I make no comment on it, other than to say that I know nothing has changed in those areas, I have friends still practising law in those areas and I hear from them the gripes about the people who cannot speak English yet are driving new cars, have the latest plasma TVs, etc because they have both earnings and social security.

So, there's no incentive whatsoever for them to learn English to enable them to get a job in the real world where they'd have to pay taxes and bills.

essexjan, I catch your drift completely. We have a similar situation. If your only language is Spanish, you can have a perfectly functioning life in several areas of the United States, Texas, California, Florida, etc. There's no need to learn English thanks to the community and media. Unless you are interviewed by an English speaking television reporter. That's when you fetch your small child/translator. :)

TPS, I don't know what it's like in NY, but CA keeps trying to pass various English-only laws for its schools, to eliminate bilingual ed for Spanish-speaking students. So yes, at this point, there's a hell of a lot of racism going into these debates.

And my point is that pedagogically, it makes more sense to teach languages earlier. It's counterproductive to learning to wait until a kid is 12 or 14 to introduce them. So you end up with a country of people scared of foreign languages, because they can't speak them, which I think feeds both our racism (or at least xenophobia) and our insularity. It's not just that people don't "need" to speak other languages here; it's that for the most part, they're scared of them, and distrustful of people who do.

The best window for language acquisition is before the age of five. After that it gets more difficult.

There is some merit to the argument that since English is already the dominant world language, time and money available for education could be better spent elsewhere.

Not that I'm against foreign language teaching; I do think we should all be learning another language. French or Spanish have good utility here, because there are significant populations which speak both (many recent immigrants are Caribbean and Haitian speakers of French).

but picking on adult immigrants for not speaking English is a bit xenophobic, in my opinion. The historical record shows that people who immigrate as adults -- whether legal or illegal, it doesn't matter -- almost never transition to the language of the new country, at least not at home. Living in an ethnic neighborhood makes it easier to retain the home lanugage. This is not a new phenomenon. Where I grew up, I knew many an Italian-only or Polish-only grandparents' home. Immigrants from all over Europe, even in the nineteenth century, relied their entire lives on having their children translate. There are neighborhoods of New York where even third- and fourth- generation immigrants still customarily speak the language of the old country, because it meets most daily needs. I have absolutely no problem with any of it.

The almost universal pattern has been that kids brought up here will be fluent speakers of both languages, and by the third generation, the language will have faded and the kid will speak English. The exceptions occur in populations with low mobility.

I can't imagine foreign language will ever be part of public primary education.

It's already around, or at least used to be, in very limited contexts: the military.

Department of Defense schools overseas have "Host Nation" classes, or at least did back in the 70s. In elementary school we learned some basic pidgin German (die NASE. das KNEE. die AUGEN. Ich habe in meine Hosen gescheist.), and we did little bits about local culture. IIRC, this consisted of making Fasching lanterns and going on a Volksmarch.

Our host nation teacher at Vogelweh/Ramstein was Frau Linnebach, and she was one cast-iron bitch of a Brit. Which made learning basic pidgin German even more fun.

LoriFLA and muddgirl, we USians are kinda weird in that bi- or multilingual instruction from early education on is either for gifted kids or is a politically mandated and controversial response to the largest non-native-English-speaking bunch of students.

I know that many if not most public school systems in Europe tend to teach whatever the "official" language(s) is/are for that region/country, plus instruction in at least one other foreign language (often English plus one other), starting from the first day of school. So you might have, say, an Alsatian kid learning in Elsässisch, probably with some French, some German, and some English.

There's an important child developmental factor of which this sort of policy takes advantage: Up until roughly age eleven, kids' brains are still "wired" for learning language in general and they can readily adapt to learning multiple languages. Somewhere around that time (or maybe even as late as 14 for some kids, and for an incredibly lucky and vanishingly tiny number, *never*), almost as if a switch somewhere gets flipped, kids' brains stop readily accepting new language input and it starts being more of a struggle for them -- the sort of struggle many of us have had in high-school or college foreign-language instruction.

Ha, I completely forgot about that, ROU Xenophobe. I am a military brat, after all; and when we were based in Okinawa, we had little Japanese ladies come in twice a week and teach us some Japanese, and things about Okinawan culture. All I remember now is that they made beautiful paper cranes, and we could play this ring toss game to win them.

I also remember some efforts toward primary language instruction in Spanish when I was a kid in the '70s. The TV show Villa Allegra was a bilingual show on PBS, and I remember seeing some episodes in school; we also learned the colors and numbers in Spanish and had some basic vocabulary. Still, this was about as wholehearted an effort as was transition to metric.

When I got my education minor in the early 90s, the bilingual Spanish/English instruction available in schools with a lot of Native Spanish speakers was considered a pretty serious failure. The kids weren't learning much in either Spanish or English, IIRC. I didn't specialize in langugage issues, so I don't know much more about it than that, at that time at least, it was starting to seem as though bilingual education was inefficient and unproductive; that the time would have been better spent in full English immersion.

My second grade class was actually split into two classes, one taught primarily in English and the other bilingual Spanish/English. We'd have 1 hour a day with the other language (mostly games, colors, letters, etc), as well as a few hours together for whatever 2nd graders do. It was fun, but I don't remember much beyond "uno dos tres".

This was in San Jose in the late 80s/early 90s.

also, one thing that i forgot to mention, the recent arguments/backlash against 'the browns' has led to an increase in hate groups and their membership.

this does mimic the growth of the kkk during the 1920s (the post on metafilter reminded me of this) but it is still disturbing that the KKK is gonna keep taking my baby away even in the 21st century.

the know nothings, the kkk, ahhhh....even though everything changes, it all remains the same.

I was just reading that the US is going to allow in more Iraqi refugees, and another point about the whole "illegal" thing came to mind -- especially with regards to Mexico, the way we decided what constituted the US borders and who became "illegal" due to that decision was hardly a display of reason, compassion, or tolerance. We stole large parts of their country, now we're telling them it's illegal for them to be here. We destabilized large portions of the world (Cuba, for instance, or Vietnam; I'm assuming there are too many examples in Africa to count), and now we tell them they can't come here. So I think some of the amnesty can be seen as a way of trying to make some of those things right -- not necessarily that policymakers are seeing that as the main reason for amnesty, but something I, at least, see as the morally right thing to do in many cases.

I am happy with very high levels of immigration. I think that immigration is integral to this country's identity and that immigrants enrich our lives and culture. I live in a neighborhood in New York where immigrants and first-generation Americans are the huge majority. I enjoy having them as neighbors. Many of them appreciate America in ways that I, as a native, cannot.

That said, I am not happy with the situation at the southern border. It is completely out of control and that, I think, is a threat to our nation's security. I am not happy with bogus accusations of racism being used to attempt to shut down discussions of the topic. I am also not happy with people who, after two or three decades of living here, have not learned any English. I mean, I don't care if you have a whole shelf of books in your native language at home, speak that language exclusively among your friends and relatives, patronize native-language movie theaters, as long as you make the minimal effort to participate in a common culture, to be able to read, like, a tabloid newspaper or talk about the weather. English is not an especially difficult language to learn. It ain't Hungarian. It's not tonal. Hundreds of millions of people around the world, people in non-English speaking countries, have learned to speak it poorly. Choosing not to learn at least a little bit of English while living in this country annoys me. Maybe I should be a better person about it. Maybe I shouldn't let this bother me. But it does.

I am not comfortable with the idea of extending an amnesty to people who have pretty much jumped the line when legal immigrants who have been patient, paid by the rules, and paid lots of cash for legal help, would receive no such treatment. That's just not fair. I also have no use at all for the "guest worker" programs being proposed right now. The European experience of such programs suggests that "guest worker" is a euphemism for "second-class citizenship." European programs that admitted people as "guest workers" and kept them there for four decades as "guests" who would could never become full members of that host society created a lot of bitterness and resentment, resentment that Al-Qaeda-type groups later exploited.

What was the Clinton slogan. . . "Mend it. Don't end it."

The American system of immigration needs mending.

"So, there's no incentive whatsoever for them to learn English to enable them to get a job in the real world where they'd have to pay taxes and bills."

Hmm. Puerto Rico is a US territory. There are villages here in Northern New Mexico where people who trace their ancestry to Spain in the 1600s still don't speak English fluently.

Maybe in the UK you have to speak English to "get a job in the real world", but in parts of the US that's not the case. And should it be the case? I don't think so.

The dominant culture in the US is anglophone. But as far as I'm concerned, that's more an accident of history than it is some sort of cultural core that must be preserved at almost any cost. On the other hand, I suppose it'd be a shame if England ever quit being predominantly anglophone.

But, anyway, I figure that in fifty years the US will be bilingual and much of the southwest will be Hispanic-dominant. Frankly, being an anglo who grew up in northern New Mexico, hispanic-dominated areas are very comfortable to me and I'm hunky-dory with this being the US's future.

The only thing that new immigrants to the US must assimilate into is our national civics. They don't need to speak English to do that.

I am also not happy with people who, after two or three decades of living here, have not learned any English...Choosing not to learn at least a little bit of English while living in this country annoys me.


I agree with kmellis on this anyway, but I just wanted to ask: how many two- or three-decade resident immigrants do you know who have not learned any or at least a little bit of English? I suspect that if there are people who have learned absolutely no English in two or three decades, there aren't many of them. Without exception, most of the immigrants I know speak at least some useful English, though they might not use it often and might find it difficult.

English is actually a fairly hard language to learn as languages go - some say the hardest among languages in widespread use now. It has more synonyms than most modern languages, many arbitrary rules of construction and pronunciation, and spelling that will make your hair curl. If your native language is Spanish, a fairly direct and consistent language both in spelling and sentence construction, there's much about English that is puzzling. Learnable, yes, but not easy.

I think people learn what they need to in order to feel comfortable and get by, no matter where they live. If you are an adult, non-English-speaking immigrant to the U.S., living in a concentrated area with people of your own language background, among a large extended family or within a tightly organized community, and employed within that community, you'll hardly ever need to use any English. When you need to fill out forms or interact with official bureaucracy, you might bring someone you know who can translate - but those can be pretty rare occasions. However, if you want to be employed outside that community or get outside training or education, you'll need to learn more English.

Much of it has to do with exposure to English on a daily basis, and much to do with priorities. The Somali refugees living near here in Lewiston, Maine, were fleeing persecution in Somalia and wound their way to that town. They had nothing when they left Somalia, their resettlement deal with the U.S. didn't work out, and so they have been primarily concerned since their arrival with finding gainful employment, feeding themselves, and battling local hostility. A few members of the community do much of the speaking and interacting with the local residents on behalf of everyone else. It would be hard for me to fault folks who are working extremely hard as home health aides and housecleaners and farm workersm for not spending more time polishing their English, especially when much of the white population of the town would rather spit at them or ignore them than speak to them. They can function in their jobs, and they'll get around to more English speaking when and if they find a need to. Right now, meeting the day-to-day challenges of getting by is a more immediate need than addressing the language barrier.

Anyway, as I said above, there's nothing new under the sun. The phenomenon of adult immigrants who don't adopt English is not at all new. From the Pennsylvania Dutch in the 1700s to Norwegians on the 1880s prairies to the Eastern Europeans and Italians of the early 20th century to the South Asians and South Americans and Africans of the present day, new arrivals speak the least English and may never use it much, while their children, raised in the mixed culture and official structures found here, primarily do. Exceptions are everywhere (there are French-speaking households in the former lumbering towns of Northern New England and in South Louisiana and East Texas; they're Americans and have been for several generations. There are German-speaking households in Pennsylvania, same deal).

Anyway, we act as though the behavior of immigrants is a new phenomenon. None of it is. Recent scholarship shows that even the majority of the immigrants during the great waves of European immigration from 1850-1920 intended to work here a few years, make some money, and go back to the old country -- not to stay and make a new life on the streets of gold, but to go back home with money enough to live better. It's all still the same set of issues; only the countries of origin change.

With language, and assimilation in general, I think it would also be fascinating to look at the pressures within immigrant families/communities not to assimilate. Not in the "Oh, they're terrorists trying to undermine our society" sort of way, but just things like what the wife having to get a job and learn English for it means in terms of family dynamics, and whether she's willing to risk that. Or what a father who considers himself the voice of the entire family must face when his "voice" is restricted to a couple dozen heavily-accented words. Yes, these families "chose" to immigrate, but I think we tend to think of that as an economic choice, and many don't anticipate the social/family problems that might result from entering a brand-new system. Trying to negotiate those while being unable to express yourself fluently can be frustrating as hell.

(It pretty much did me in as an expat. I had enough Italian to conduct my daily life in it, including my social life, but after a while I just felt like I couldn't be myself, like I was always censoring or simplifying myself because I didn't have the vocab and grammar stuctures for what I was really thinking or feeling. I can't imagine carrying that frustration into a family unit. And that was after a year of intensive college-level study, supported by eight previous years of studying another romance language.)

I don't know. We're looking at a lot of issues about acculturation in my classes right now, and it's just really interesting, and it gets more complicated the more you know about it.

kmellis, I have no problem with people not learning English and living largely within their own communities.

What does get up my nose, though, is the people who are abusing the system by claiming social security (and in the UK people who claim get a LOT of benefits) whilst working for cash within their communities.

It suits the business owners, because they can pay below minimum wage to the employee, and they don't have to pay any National Insurance contribution to the Government. It suits the employees, because they're still getting a free house and all their bills paid by the taxpayer, and also earning a wage.

So even if the Government decided that everyone had to learn English to help them in the jobmarket, it wouldn't work, precisely because the (very significant) proportion of people I have come across in the various ethnic communities of east London who are both claiming social security and working illegally have no incentive whatsoever to move into the job market outside their own community.

I'd be happy for people who work in this country to speak Urdu, Punjabi, Somali or Yaruba and no English provided they're doing so in a legitimate, tax-paying job.

Essexjan, do you mean illegal immigrants? People say similar things about illegal immigrants here (though the social services are much less generous). But I really see this as a problem of government being in bed with business. I blame the system that looks the other way while employers hire folks outside our legal employment structure. It's basically labor exploitation; the cash pay is attractive, but these employers then escape any responsibility to provide benefits, pay overtime, or implement standard safety-in-the-workplace protections. Our business climate makes a show of condemning illegal immigration, but relies upon this cheap, unregulated labor provided by immigrants. Even if our illegals had access to the same social services as in England, I think I'd still see the ultimate responsibility for the problem resting with employers and government (through lack of enforcement).

No, Miko, they're completely legal immigrants, they come here because they marry British citizens.

The way it works in the Asian communities in east London (and by Asian I mean the British definition - Indian(mostly Punjabi), Pakistani, Bangladeshi) is that the daughters who are born in the UK have arranged marriages to men from their parents' home country (and they are often cousins of theirs) so the men can legally come into the UK. If they are here legally, they can claim State benefits.

Mostly the people I came into contact with were from the poorer levels of Asian society, and they lived in a very traditional way. Women and girls who sought to break away from the traditional roles often had a very hard time. There was a lot of domestic violence, and lots of pressure put on women from, often, their sisters and mothers, to return to abusive homes. But I digress ...

So in parts of east London (and, indeed, any part of the UK which has a significant Asian population) you will find a high proportion of men who speak no English and who work for businesses within their community.

As I say, I have no problem with that, the problem is that the vast majority of the men I came into contact with were claiming benefits as well.

English is actually a fairly hard language to learn as languages go - some say the hardest among languages in widespread use now. It has more synonyms than most modern languages, many arbitrary rules of construction and pronunciation, and spelling that will make your hair curl.

I wasn't framing the issue in terms of whether they could do oral examinations for a Ph.D. I was framing the issue in terms of participating in the common culture and interacting with people outside of their communities. Hundreds of millions of people around the world have figured out how to speak the rudiments of English in non-English speaking environments.

Anyway, as I said above, there's nothing new under the sun.

I agree with you 100%

The phenomenon of adult immigrants who don't adopt English is not at all new.

Oh, yeah. You're right on this point. But it was negative then and it's negative now.

It's all still the same set of issues; only the countries of origin change.

Indeed. But I still stand by what I said. I don't think there's anything awful about asking people who have lived here for a very long time to have at least a basic command of English.

With language, and assimilation in general, I think it would also be fascinating to look at the pressures within immigrant families/communities not to assimilate . . . things like what the wife having to get a job and learn English for it means in terms of family dynamics, and whether she's willing to risk that.

Point well taken. Immigrating to a new country is frequently not fun and often comes with a set of huge stresses. The parents wind up taking jobs below their educational qualifications. The kids often become more fluent in the host culture than the parents and that threatens the parents' authority. So, yeah. I understand that there are intra-community pressures militating against assimilation, pressures to save face, to preserve the dignity of people who are doing menial jobs and not getting a whole lot of respect in an alien environment.

My own perspective is that I want my country to have a common culture, something that unites people, gives them a common ground beyond the greenback. That's kind of a daunting task in a country as diverse as the USA. In my own neighborhood, I can walk past groups of people on the same block who are so culturally dissimilar, who have so little in common, that I don't think they'd be able to conjure up five minutes' worth of conversation. Given this state of affairs, I advocate the learning of basic English and loyalty to this country and its institutions as a common culture. I don't think that this is a especially radical demand.