Opuscula POTUS’ mistake: English a barrier To immigration?

A LITTLE BACKGROUND.

This scrivener lives in south Florida where Spanish seems to be the primary language. There are merchants in Dade County (Miami) who only do business in Spanish.

In retail and in all customer-facing positions, including civil service jobs, a command of Spanish is a basic requirement, even if English Is not.

This scrivener has a second language. I went overseas to learn it, working half-a-day to pay for the half-day lessons. I later worked in the country and learned a lot more. (My adult daughter did the same thing. We both returned with spouses and children.)

This scrivener’s mother-in-law, whom I love dearly, speaks very little of the local language; she’s lived in a “language ghetto” since she arrived in country. We barely can communicate (but we manage).

Finally, a quick check of the Internet for ”Free ESL classes in south Florida” turns up dozens of FREE English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. (Substitute “south Florida” for your area.)

Bottom line: Unless a person comes to America at age 90 and has a learning disability, there is no reason a potential immigrant cannot learn basic, “survival skills” English.

But does a potential immigrant absolutely need English to immigrate?

I don’t think so.

Knowing a few words in English beyond “please,” “thank you” and “where’s the bathroom” should be enough to get started.

It takes about five years to go from immigrant to citizen in the U.S. and that certainly is sufficient time to the citizen-to-be to learn rudimentary English; survival level English, enough to shop at a supermarket, to read road signs (that are in many cases international pictographs), to ask — and comprehend — directions, be they for driving from place to place or to perform a job.

For once I agree with the liberals. I don’t think a potential immigrant should be turned away simply because he or she does not speak English. LEARNING English should be a requisite for all immigrants (with very limited exceptions).

Learning English, as thousands of immigrants learned over the years, is the key to becoming “an American.” They worked a job — usually with others who spoke their native language — and learned English when not working.

English IS a difficult language. It’s structure is “strange” when compared to other languages. Most languages I know about put the subject first and the modifiers after, e.g., House. White, Big, while English would be Big White House. Rearranging a sentence’s structure sometimes still gives me pause.

There is a trade-off of sorts. English does away with gender. “You” is neutral, as are most nouns. (I still like “hostess” and “actress”; “host” and “actor” for the distaff side seems strange. I gave up “mailman” for “letter carrier” and “policeman” for “cop” (except for the one I call “son”).

My personal bottom line is that I think POTUS made a mistake with his “immigrants must know English” requirement. From what I have seen, read, and heard from Mr. Trump, the gentleman hardly has a command of the language on a par with Hubert Horatio Humphrey Jr. or Wm. F. Buckley Jr. — providing two opposing — but civil — political points of view.

What about, I have to ask, the person who lacks any opportunity to learn any English before coming to America’s shores? There are countries that learning English can be a severe handicap — sorry, that’s not “PC,” acceptable terminology is presented by the National Disability Authority, a private organization. Seeking out an English teacher in North Korea may not be a wise thing to do. Listening to Voice of America or BBC on shortwave radio and listening to pop music — the way many people learned their first English words — may not be an option.

In my opinion, survival level English should be a requisite for citizenship and it should be a requisite for a driver’s license (despite internationalization of road signs some still require English comprehension), but the lack of English should NOT be a barrier to immigration.

Mr. President, you blew this call.

---

If the links fail to work, see http://tinyurl.com/y82lye4d to learn how to find/access them. It's a Google problem.

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Comments on Immigrants and English

Opuscula Today's media Ain't got no vocab

 

UNFORTUNATELY (FOR ME) I LISTEN TO SOME "talk" shows when the Spouse is in the house.

Otherwise I watch "classic" tv - "Just the facts, ma'm" - or read a library book.

The people allowed to express themselves on the talk shows suggest to me that either (or both)

    Schools don't teach English vocabulary

    Students don't absorb English vocabulary.

I AM watching English language stations. Or at least they are SUPPOSED to be English language stations.

Both talk shows and, to a lesser extant, "news" shows, are populated with people who

    Don't know the language & grammar

    Don't care about the language & grammar

    Read what someone else wrote for them without thinking (both the writer and the reader)

These people are, to the best of my knowledge, university graduates. If they have journalism or communications degrees, one would suspect that sometime during their (typically) 16 years of education they world have learned to communicate in Standard American English.

Instead we are treated to language I don't expect from an educated person with - to me at least - a reasonable command of the language.

The entertainment industry, especially the lyric writers and the people who vocalize those lyrics, seem to have zero concept of language.

"She's got good boobs and a great butt" I was told by one talk show regular.

That's OK for locker rooms and for guys gathered at the neighborhood bar - I suppose women make similar comments about men.

If someone was to report that "she has an ample posterior" or "her mammary glands are prodigious," unless the tv generation had been either poking around a thesaurus or Grey's Anatomy - the book, not the tv show - they would fail to understand that the person offering the opinions was both stating what was crudely said before (boobs and butts) and had a halfway decent vocabulary.

I don't expect tv personalities or the folks who write - or warble - lyrics to have a Wm. F. Buckley, Herbert H. Humphrey, or Abba Eban's command of the language, but it would be nice if they could help us broaden OUR vocabulary and, miracle of miracles, improve our grammar.

Instead, the media bible - the AP Stylebook (or Style Guide) - descends to the almost lowest denominator; suddenly, "over" means "more than" as well as "above;" "under" now means "less than" and "beneath."

Despite Winston (cigarettes) best effort, it was unable to convince Americans that "Winston tastes good AS a cigarette should." Even then grammar was losing to lazy speech.

Question: If someone sends a text message "Meet < the bridge" will the person be able to understand "<" means "underneath" the bridge? (I really don't know; my phone is voice only; I am a primitive curmudgeon.)

Yes, I will concede that English is a "living language," but I think it is being murdered by people who never learned the language and have no right to wield a weapon to destroy it.

Two of my children have degrees in English - vs. "English degrees" that, I presume, would be from school in Blighty. I am able to communicate easily with them.

My wife, who has English as her fourth language, has a better command of the language - and the grammar - than the talking heads and the purveyors of the lyrics of songs on the charts.