Asymmetrical Information

If you move here from France or Latvia you have to learn English to become a citizen and vote. But if you are Mexican our ballots here in Arizona are printed in Mexican just for you by the order of the Feds. And half the radio and TV stations are Mexican as well. Some immigrants have to learn English faster than others.

Here, in Texas, we have Spainish ballots, but not Italian or German, and certainly not French.

Of course, all our court documents and court proceedings are required to be in English. I think that means our "official" lanuage is English.

So why have the disconnect by allowing ballots in Spainish?

Europe has had some very unsettling problems with assimilating immigrant populations, something which I've written about before. While France has had the lion's share of problems with this, the German government and people have become increasingly uneasy with the idea that they might suffer similar unrest if they don't do something about it right now. One of the attempts to defuse the situation is to require immigrants to learn the language of their new home.

If you will forgive me the bad pun, there are many ways that Europe's situation doesn't translate very well. The bulk of their immigrants are Muslim, ours are Christian, assimilating into European society is much more difficult than here in the US, and we tend to have more economic oppurtunities than in Europe.

(For example, Gillespie mentions that his immigrant grandfather found work in America as a builder. Unemployemnt amongst France's immigrant class is running at 50%, which was a major cause of the riots in 2005. Such high unemployment certainly isn't a problem over here.)

Still, the vast illegal immigrant population in the United States does pose a security risk, something with which I have a small amount of experience. One of the things that gives me pause is the way that a significant fraction of illegals don't come here with any intention of becoming part of American culture, but are instead simply looking for a job while remaining loyal to their home country. Some of these people are openly hostile to the United States, as can be seen through the Reconquista movement.

So far there has been little more than some attacks on university campuses and a great deal of rhetoric, but the potential for future problems certainly exists. I don't see any reason why attempts to deal with the situation before we have a crisis should be condemned or ridiculed.

I personally think that an English proficiency law is a waste of time, however. The best course, in my opinion, is to harden the border, eject the illegals already here, and streamline the process by which someone legally immigrates. There is no way to enforce an English language requirement if we can't even control who gets in to the country.

James

Maybe Mr. Gillespie hasn't considered that he doesn't speak Italian because a: he was too damn lazy to learn it on his own and b: his grandparents were among those who took pains to learn English, having come to America, and did so to become Americans.

And I guess we should be happy to print voting ballots in multiple languages and give driving tests in multiple languages for those who don't want to be bothered to learn English. And those who insist that large parts of this country actually belong to Mexico. And so forth.

Generally, tourists are given a break on not knowing the local language in different countries; people who move to another country to live are expected to learn the language, not expected to speak another and insist everyone- including the new country's government- accomodate them.

"They would not, I fancy, be flattered if the Mexicans reacted by smiling brightly and saying [something Spanish(?) loudly and slowly]"

I have actually had that happen. Here in the US. I'm a half-caste, White-Asian, and look a bit Hispanic. And people who I imagine to be Mexicans come up to me not-infrequently and address me in Spanish (or something sounding rather like Spanish). And I have had them do the slowing-down thing to me, evidently on the assumption that I will understand if they speak more slowly. They are wrong of course, but they try anyway.

It is not particularly insulting, though.

I know an Australian woman who travels all around the world, and when she gets into trouble just speaks English louder and louder until someone who can speak English hears the commotion and comes to investigate, and therefore can be enlisted to do all the translating work.

It appears to have worked quite well for her, but then she is one of those Australians who manages to give you the impression that she'd have no trouble shouting loud enough to cross several mountain ranges.

So, if you're a tourist in a foreign place and can't speak the local language, just speak louder and louder until someone who speaks English hears.

The notion that learning a second language is even vaguely as hard as "growing taller" is complete horseshit. I know more people than I can count who came here as adults and learned to speak English well enough to get by.

And the parallel to mandating a state religion is, like pretty much everything Reason has published since Postrel left, moronic. Virtually every man, woman, and child in America speaks English. There is, in contrast, no majority religion here. There is also no Constitutional right to have state documents printed in the language most convenient for you, for state employees to speak in the language you feel like speaking, or for ballots to be printed in a language needed primarily by foreigners voting American elections illegally.

Jane, there are differences between being a tourist and being an immigrant. One important one is that most tourists don't stay in a country for very long. Learning a language is a high price; expecting it of tourists is likely to be too high a price for them to pay; and it would thus cut tourism considerably. Whereas, expecting it of immigrants is much less of a relative burden, because they expect to get much more out of their presence in a society.

Furthermore, immigrants are expected to be able to function in a society at a higher level than tourists, at least if they naturalize.

Also, as a point of politics, demanding immigrants speak the local lingo makes perfect sense for any nativist party. It preserves their power.

We have to require that legal immigrants speak English. We must require it. To not require it of people trying to immigrate to this country, means that we wish to marginalize certain immigrants. It really is that simple.

If we allow people to immigrate here (who can not readand write English), we are basically saying that as an immigrant who is not English Fluent, you are only entitled to jobs (and the earning power they provide) where you are not required to communicate. One need look no further than the jobs being done by illegal aliens to see what those jobs are. We would essencially be importing a substandard-class of citizens not fit to live among us (as equals) in our melting pot society, substandard-citizens who are only fit to serve us. That goes against almost everything related to the US Constitution and who we are as Americans, that it amazes me that we are even having this discussion.

I think we fought a war about 150 years ago so that there would be no more substandard persons working legally in this country.

Again, another tch, tch at tourists who speak louder and slower in an effort to communicate with non-English speaking foreigners. I've had
Europeans (Dutch, Italians) ask me to repeat my attempts to communicate in English or German slower, louder and enunciate more clearly. The words don't run together and you'd be surprised at what you can puzzle out when it is spoken slower and louder and clearer. Hey, they do know some English when you slow down. Hey, you do know some Italian when they slow down.

Although it is certainly harder to learn a second language when you are older, it is not impossible--just more difficult. And for immigrants, the goal is not for the immigrant to speak fluent English, but (1) to speak and understand enough to get by, and more importantly(2)to raise their kids to speak English fluently.

In other words, we don't expect first generation immigrants to speak English fluently without an accent, but we do (and should) expect second generation immigrants to do so. The well-intentioned but misguided "bilingual education" programs have caused second and third generation immigrants to speak with an accent. That's a shame.

The only place I know of with fourth and fifth generation immigrants not speaking English in this country is in the Acadia region of Louisiana. Very interesting place.

I came here at 15 and could not speak a single word of English. My first day at school, I did not know how to ask for the location of the bathroom and had to wait until the end of the school day. As soon as the bus dropped me off, I ran straigh to the bathroom in excruicating pain. I learned the value of speaking English.

On a more serious note, Singapore official language is English. But Singaporean are Malays, Chineses, and Indians - certaintly not Anglo-Saxons. Language is like measurement, it should be uniform. Trading is impossible of without uniform measurement. Meaningful discussion of impotant issues in a country would be impossible without a common language.

Of course, we can choose a language other than English. But it would be extremely silly to make the majority learn another language.

It is entirely possible that Mr. Gillespie's grandfather actually *did* learn to speak English. My grandmother came to America from Italy at age 20 and, according to what I heard from older relatives, learned English reasonably well - not perfectly, but enough to get by okay. She was in her 70's when I was a child, and by that point had reverted to Italian after decades of using English. Indeed, she barely knew English at all. I understood her with great difficulty in person and not at all on the telephone. She died at age 80 when I was in my early teens and by then had lost almost all the English she ever knew.

The thing is, from what I understand my grandmother's case was not at all unusual - people who learn English as adults will often forget it, reverting to their native languages, in old age. Much the same may have happened to Mr. Gillespie's grandfather.

Louder and slower does help non-native speakers understand. Speaking fast (and slangy) is a good way to make sure you're not being listened to, or at least not understood (but watch that body language). Chinese co-workers often commented on how quickly native speakers spoke when we got together.

It's not that difficult to pick up another language after puberty. I started German and French in high school, and do fairly well with those; I'm learning Chinese in my late thirties. It's challenging, but in the proper environment (living where the language is spoken), not that tough.

And you can count me as part of the "learn English, dammit" crowd. If you're living somewhere, you should learn the language.

The thing that bugs me about the libertarian open borders argument is the incredibly weird way it reduces people to nothing more than economic production devices. Immigrants are not simply going to come here, do our work like so many imported machine tools, and then die when their parts wear out. Frankly, I wouldn't want them to.

Culture matters a great deal. If you want a successful, free (libertarian even!) democratic society, it's awfully helpful if people aren't divided into tribes that compete for political favor.

Dividing a country by language is worse than dividing it by skin color or religion. At least the white folks who hear MLK Jr. speak were able to understand him and think, "gee, he has a point there." Ditto for Protestants listening to JFK. I doubt either would have gotten very far speaking in Spanish.

Now in some sense I don't care if the first generation integrates so long as their kids do. But open-borders folks don't seem to care about assimilation at all, which is an excellent recepie for destroying the country. Pardon my French in this English-speaking blog, but why the @*#^* won't Reason, or AI, or the WSJ PLEASE address this argument and tell me why I'm wrong?

Rob Lyman: "Dividing a country by language is worse than dividing it by skin color or religion."

Mr. Lyman, over 300,000 U.S. citizens of Louisiana spoke fluent French but little English for decades. They were able to function well in the economy, to serve and die in our armies, and to enjoy the freedoms they earned. I agree that French of Louisiana are more "assimilated" into the English language culture now that they can speak the dominant language. But I disagree that they were ever as isolated and repressed as African Americans have been in our nation.

Dan: "There is also no Constitutional right to have state documents printed in the language most convenient for you"

But there is also no constitutional ban on such printing. Just as there is no constitutional ban on documents being printed in braille. Or on government-provided videos that are close-captioned for hearing-impaired citizens such as me.

Spanish has been spoken and written in Texas for nearly five hundred years. French has been spoken and written in Louisiana for three hundred years. Why is it now so damned important that the English conquest of North American culture be completed?

The purpose of making English the official language is not so much to punish those who are already here, but to put up a great big warning sign to those thinking of coming.

The very first thing we have to do - before even border security - is to quit making it so hospitable for illegals.

John,

Why is it that people insist on such bad analogies? First English only = establishing religion, now Spanish = braille. I get the sense that if this is the best you can do, then you must not have much in the way of actual argument.

First off, I never said that French-speaking Louisiana residents were oppressed. I said that dividing a society by languge was destructive--more so than dividing it by race or religion, because it becomes impossible for the two sides to bridge the gap if they can't speak to each other. (And I doubt very much your claim that French speakers who spoke no English were terribly successful as soldiers. Probably they were bilingual. I also suspect that the bilingual ones did better economically than the French-only crowd).

Second, a blind person cannot, through any conceivable effort, read printed words. Nor can a deaf person learn to hear by attending classes and buying course materials. There is some debate here about how easily a Spanish-speaker can learn to read English, but it certainly is not comparable.

I don't care if Spanish is spoken in Texas. Or Korean in California. Or German in Pennsylvania. Or Yiddish in New York. Or Esperonto in all every major city. What I care about is that immigrants (or, really, their children) be able to speak English, and that that ability be recognized as a key part of citizenship.

I suppose I'd feel the same about a sighted person deliberately closing his eyes and demanding braille.

What anyone speaks at home, on the other hand, interests me as much as whom they have sex with.

"And I doubt very much your claim that French speakers who spoke no English were terribly successful as soldiers."

I didn't make that claim. I said that they spoke fluent French and little English.

French speaking soldiers from Louisiana fought bravely during the Revolutionary War (under Spanish General Galvez), at the Battle of New Orleans, and in numerous Civil War battles. Cajun soldiers whose primary language was French were invaluable as translators in both World Wars. It was not necessary that these soldiers all spoke English, only that some did.

The point I wished to make is that a bilingual or trilingual nation should be no threat to us at all. Providing government services in a language best understood by the recipient is also no threat but rather common sense. We cannot accomodate every language spoken on earth. But I see no reason why Spanish should not be the second "official" language for the U.S., just as French is such in Canada.

FYI, almost all second and third generation immigrants from Mexico do learn English. Many first-generation immigrants do also. One recent study by Jeremy Sandford (Illinois Wesleyan Univ) revealed that half of first generation male Mexican immigrants spoke English well or very well.

Dewey--

Expensively turning the functioning of government and commerce upside down doesn't strike me as common sense. Much progressive foolishness is characterized as such by its promoters. They've convinced themselves with the assertion, anyway.

But I see no reason why Spanish should not be the second "official" language for the U.S., just as French is such in Canada.

Yes, just what we want is an ethnic separtist movement that repeatedly threatens to break away in order to extort more goverment funding and PC idiocy from the rest of the country. Let's see if we can't rack up the EU's translation and interpretation bill.

half of first generation male Mexican immigrants spoke English well or very well.

So...the problem with requiring the other half to learn enough English to get by (not write poetry, mind you, just function without Spanish ballots) is what, exactly?

Finally, the fact that a truly tiny minority of Cajuns spoke only a little English does not prove that things will go well when 25% of the country speaks none at all.

Really, I'm all in favor of bilingual citizens, just not bilingual government.

I'm not arguing that we should establish a second, parallel spanish speaking government for people . . . or Urdu or Hindi or Haitian creole or any other language. I think that the studies cited by the good professor argue as much against bilingual primary education as they do for cutting the adults some slack.

But I know lots, and lots, and lots of American ex-pats who barely speak enough of the local language to order a meal. Maybe it's rudeness . . . or maybe it's just that there's a large enough expat community, and enough English-speaking locals, that they don't have to learn Chinese or German or Spanish--and so they don't. And learning another language for *most* people at the age of thirty or older is very hard, particularly if you're working at manual labour 12 hours a day and raising kids.

The studies show that the kids of immigrants learn English better than the native language of their parents . . . and most of their grandchildren don't speak the old language well enough to travel or get along in an immigrant community. That holds true for latinos, as well as it did the for Italians and Poles and Czechs and Germans and so forth who sired the commenters on this board (and Germanic immigrants, in particular, should be conscious of the fact that in most places their grandparents lived, they took over and built German or Swedish ghettos just like the ones that they are now complaining about in LA and New York . . . except without television to entice the kids away from the mother tongue. And yet Minnesota and Lancaster County and Cincinnatti have some how managed to integrate themselves into America just fine. I'm just sayin'.)

Brett: "Expensively turning the functioning of government and commerce upside down doesn't strike me as common sense."

What is so expensive? How is the functioning of government and commerce being "turned upside down"? Is it all that expensive to hire bilingual employees in government service offices? or in banks and at electric companies? I think we've been doing that for more than a century in Texas and Louisiana.

JohnDewey,

We cannot accomodate every language spoken on earth. But I see no reason why Spanish should not be the second "official" language for the U.S., just as French is such in Canada.

What on earth for? My understanding is that command of (at least some) written and spoken English is officially a requirement for adult immigrants seeking American citizenship. If that's so, there is no need for any but one official language.

In practice, obviously, the rule above doesn't seem to have been enforced at all well, and of course there are many non-citizens here legally (to say nothing of most of the 12 million or so illegals) who likely have little English. The various levels of government obviously have to use other languages to communicate with such people all the time; so, for that matter, do businesses. (Up here in Marin County, important gov't signs — warnings to pedestrians not to walk along the highway, not to drink non-potable irrigation water, &c., are trilingual, in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. So is language on the sides of local gov't vehicles.)

All that's just common sense. Bilingual ballots are another matter. An immigrant citizen has supposedly already demonstrated competency in English. Such a person just shouldn't need a ballot in any other language, and if s/he does, something's very wrong. Especially as sample ballots give you about a month's time to try translating for yourself. I know English is a fearsomely difficult language, but if you gave me a month with a Finnish or Hungarian or Japanese ballot and a decent dictionary, I bet I could figure out enough to know whom I wanted to vote for and fill it in. And if I'd become a Finnish or Hungarian or Japanese citizen, I'd be damn well ashamed of myself if I couldn't.

But back to JohnDewey. Why Spanish as a "second official language"? Because most of the new immigrants (not necessarily most of the new citizens), right at the moment, are Spanish-speakers? Honestly, why should people "unofficially" here have bugger all to do with which language(s) ought to be "official"? I doubt that Spanish-speaking countries provide the majority of new American citizens, or even of legal permanent residents, though I don't have the stats. And who knows what immigration pattern we might have in half a century?

I can't imagine going to any non-Anglophone country and assuming that I could just speak English and be understood, though it's a lot (a lot) likelier than the reverse.

rob lyman: "...the problem with requiring the other half to learn enough English to get by (not write poetry, mind you, just function without Spanish ballots) is what, exactly?"

How are they not getting by? Here in Texas they certainly don't need to speak English in order to earn a living and buy groceries and pay taxes.

What's the problem with Spanish ballots? How much does that cost vs the social cost for a segment of the population to not be represented? Honestly, Mr. Lyman, I just don't understand what you are objecting to.

Jane,

Can you find a single shred of evidence that German and Swedish immigration to Minnesota, Lancaster County or Cincinnatti caused the crime rates to rise, or the education rates to plummet? For that matter, can anyone find a single place where Swedes aren't by and large model, law abiding citizens?
Culture matters, and I can't believe you continually ignore that fact.

"Such a person just shouldn't need a ballot in any other language, and if s/he does, something's very wrong."

What is very wrong? What?

I remember seeing French language sample ballots in the 50's in Louisiana. These were not provided by the government, but by the politicians. There was no guarantee the sample ballots said what was on the actual ballots. Government disseminated ballot information seems less likely to be corrupted.

"Why Spanish as a "second official language"?"

Simply because so many U.S. residents speak and read that language. I just believe that the cost of not providing Spanish versions of important documents and Spanish-speaking service people will exceed the cost to do so. Miscommunication will just result in work having to be redone.

The current generation of non-english speakers isn't that important, in the long-term scheme of things. What's important is that their descendents speak english and make english their primary language. If they don't, you get enclaves that aren't connected to the rest of the country. Canada has Quebec, and can vouch that they are a pain because of it (distinct society and all that).
Now imagine this with southern California, large parts of Arizona, New Mexico, etc, with latinos (particularly of Mexican descent) aguing that their rights as a distinct society, including language), be granted government support. Throw in the historical basis of Mexican claim over these territories (I don't think that this will ever be more than a fring movement, but it could give birth to a seperatist movement), and it's a potential nightmare.

So make English the official language. If people want influence in the states, they need to learn it.

Jane, I have to join the pile-on of folks who are pointing out the absurdity of comparing American tourists in a foreign country with permanent immigrants to the US.

As for your expat argument, two points. One, it is still absurd to compare temporary expats (who usually are on a ~2 year assignment) with permanent immigrants. Sure, it sucks not to be able to speak the same language as the natives for two years. But in most places there is a large expat community and English is the language of business anyway, so what the hell. It's not like the expats are going to be voting, or putting their kids into local schools for the entirety of their formative years, or trying to land a good job with some local company. They're expats. They already have a good job, they can't vote, and they'll stick their kids into a private "American school" for two years until it's time to go back home.

Second, I work for a giant international oil company and I can safely say that there aren't "lots and lots and lots" of expats who can't speak the local language. I don't know what kind of brain donors you have over at the Economist, but most oil company expats pick up a functional use of the local language. Those who fail are disdained by their colleagues -- kind of like the disdain we should feel for permanent immigrants to the US who don't bother to learn English.

Why the US should coddle the failures of permanent immigrants is absolutely beyond me. And pointing at American tourists who don't learn Italian for that three day vacation to Rome isn't helping me bridge the gap.

John,

Without getting bogged down in details like the cost of ballots (ballots in Spanish: pretty cheap. Complete sets of, say, driver's education manuals in 14 different languages: getting pretty pricy), my main point is simply that it is dangerous to have a balkanized culture. It is dangerous to a democracy to have some significant group who cannot understand what the majority is saying. It makes them both ripe for manipulation by demagogues (as in your possibly-fake sample ballot example) and also prevents them from pleading their legitimate grievances to the larger society. It tends to isolate them promote the idea that they are not a part of society, and therefore owe it nothing in terms of loyalty or civic responsibility.

Given that we have significant numbers of politicians and activists pushing that last point as hard as they can, even in Anglophone minoritiy communities, I think it's fair to be concerned about the effects of linguistic separation.

All of this is on display in Canada already, with obnoxious ethnic politics and separatism. But here in the US we have the added factors of poverty and race (since Mexican immingrants tend to be both poorer and darker than white Americans). The possiblity for truly destructive tribal politics and even political violence to flow out of this combination is very real. (On that point, see also Europe and its "guest workers.") Both white supremicists and the Aztlan moonbats will make great hay from it, which will be very bad news.

On the flip side, I think that real integration and assimilation--even of large numbers of poor workers--would make for a great boon to this country both economically and culturally (I much prefer the Mexican immigrant's hard working values to the native born welfare queen's). But I think that a common language is essential to that sort of integration. My worry about ballots isn't so much about monetary cost as it is about making more Americans rather than foreigners with voting rights and a chip on their shoulder.

Building on Rob Lyman's and Half Canadian's posts, a big effect of providing government services 'where required' in a second language, is that over time the definition of 'where required' gets stretched to mean 'everywhere'.

The first result of this is a never-ending series of programmes to teach existing anglo employees to speak Spanish.

The second result is that, since there are going to be more Spanish speakers learning English than vice versa in the general population, government jobs designated as 'bilingual' will tend to be overrepresented by those of Spanish background. Whether that is a problem remains to be seen.

Rob, I agree completely on the work ethic comment.

DRB, we must travel in different circles. I know a largish number of people who have lived in China, Europe, Japan, and South America for years without being able to do all that much more than order beer and find the bathroom in the native language . . . something that most of the Spanish-speaking immigrants I run into in New York can do. What they can't do, like many of the Spanish speaking immigrants I run into in New York, is speak the language well enough to do a high-function job in a foreign language environment, deal with a printed sheet of medical instructions, follow complex directions, or argue with the government bureaucracy in the native language . . . which is why they're very lucky that they work for American multinationals that pay good money to help them finesse those problems.

Obviously, The Economist does not have a lot of overseas reporters who remain unable to speak the local language, since that would make it very hard to do their job.

Moreover, a large number of Spanish-speaking immigrants to this country have no intention of settling here permanently; like American ex-pats, they're here to make money for a few years, and then spend it back at home. Being a busboy is less glamorous, than, say, designing Goldman Sachs' intranet architecture, but often not that much more permanent. My impression is that many other immigrants, particularly the Chinese, think the same way . . . though of course, like many earlier generations of immigrants, more of them think they will go home than actually will.

I agree that creating a whole separate infrastructure that allowed the growth of a separate lingual ghetto would be bad . . . but the evidence is that that isn't actually happening. Today's immigrants seem to be behaving much the way their forefathers did: clustering together and learning little to no English in teh first generation, relying on English-speakers in the second generation as translators, and then being unable to speak to their monolingual English-speaking grandchildren. I see no reason that we should have to provide Spanish-only ballots, but I also see no reason for a constitutional amendment to prevent localities from printing them, either.

Whether or not culture matters, or the Swedes are in fact as different from today's crop of immigrants as you allege (and even if they were, I guarantee that the Italians, Irish, Poles, and others weren't) is a separate question from having an official language. I'm not a libertarian "open the borders and let everyone in" type; I value a uniquely American culture, and I think that immigration needs to be kept to a pace that permits assimilation. But it seems to me that assimilation is currently chugging along much as it always did, and that the halcyon view many opposed to immigration have of the past stems more from rah-rah World War II movies than any realistic perception of what the 19th & 20th century's ethnic enclaves were actually like. All these arguments about culture, language, assimilation, and so forth, were had over and over again as new waves of immigration hit America--the Irish and the Germans drink beer, publicly! The Italians don't speak English! The Poles are backwards and violent! Yet somehow no one worries when mobs of drunken Irishmen wander down Fifth Avenue every March 17th. And before arguing that Spanish immigration is somehow unique in its scope--the Irish wave of immigration in the mid-19th century, relative to population, simply dwarfed anything we now see. And the local protestants weren't very comforted that a majority of them spoke English.

Let me emphasize again that I am in favour of assimilation, and against any government support for anti-assimilation measures, like bilingual ed. But I just don't see even a large group of immigrants who never learn much English as a huge threat to our society, as long as we don't give power to the ideological Aztlan types (who have little ideological sway any more, though you wouldn't know it from reading right-wing op-eds).

Incidentally, I'm not trying to belittle anyone's realistic concerns about assimilation--but I think that that's MUCH better handled by looking for a more effective model of education immigrants' children, than trying to browbeat the immigrants into mastering a very difficult language. If you look at one detail that I think is very telling, Univision is looking to diversify out of Spanish-language programming, because the second generation just doesn't watch it that much. That very much belies the typical image of generations of immigrants stuck in lingual ghettos. The benefits of English are too great . . . and the much wider entertainment available in English too seductive . . . for the children of immigrants to want to speak only Spanish or any other language.

Moreover, as the anti-bilingual activists often point out, contrary to popular beliefs, most immigrants are very eager for their children to learn English, not just so that they can have translators, but because immigrants, like other Americans, want their children to succeed, and immigrants recognize that English is necessary to success in America.

Several people have mentioned the residents of South Louisiana as people who did not learn the language and eventually assimilated. While I freely admit I do not know the entire history of the region, I have been there countless times on business and have a number of good friends and business partners there. The general manager over one of our largest businesses there, went to school in the fifties and told me that they were not permitted to speak French in school, at all. They were punished for any infraction. So, apparently, they were encouraged pretty strenously to learn the native language.

I see no reason that we should have to provide Spanish-only ballots, but I also see no reason for a constitutional amendment to prevent localities from printing them, either.

Do you see a need for a statute that forbids localities to choose NOT to print them?

I give you:42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a

"Before August 6, 2007, no covered State or political subdivision shall provide voting materials only in the English language. "

Because why should CITIZENS (not temporary residents or expats, not green card holders, not tourists, etc) be required to actually speak the language they were required to learn to take the citizenship test?

JohnDewey,

[me:]"Such a person [an adult immigrant citizen] just shouldn't need a ballot in any other language, and if s/he does, something's very wrong."

[you:]What is very wrong? What?

What's "very wrong" is that adult immigrants are supposed to demonstrate competency in written and spoken English before they are awarded citizenship. If they have insufficient competency to fill out a ballot, the bar must be set awfully low. Either bilingual ballots are superfluous, or we should just stop pretending that this particular citizenship requirement exists. (There are cases that seem to call for exceptions, like very elderly immigrants with no English — whom I seem to recall are exempt.)

I assume (though I don't know) that immigrant children born elsewhere have to go through the same deal before they're citizens. Children of immigrants born here, of course, are citizens already, but if you can't learn enough English in 18 years in America to fill out a ballot, why would you want to anyway?

I remember seeing French language sample ballots in the 50's in Louisiana. These were not provided by the government, but by the politicians. There was no guarantee the sample ballots said what was on the actual ballots. Government disseminated ballot information seems less likely to be corrupted.

So what else is new? Here in the Bay Area we have a quite lively tradition of forged/misleading/outright lying slate cards and the like. Oddly enough, the fake ones don't disappear just because there are not-fake ones. And I don't see quite how you expect would-be voters who can't decipher the English on a sample ballot to decide, between two bilingual sample ballots, which is a Government document and which is not.

I say that if any "English learner" should be accommodated in voting, all should, and to the same degree. No assistance should go to anyone whose first language is Spanish that shouldn't also go to someone whose first language is Urdu. Or Tagalog. Or Vietnamese. Or Czech. The default assumption ought to be that if you are an American citizen, you can understand spoken and written English; if you can't, explain that you need assistance in voting.

Assimilation is the key word in this discussion. When a culture doesn't want to be assimilated, then that culture shouldn't complain when the members of that culture don't enjoy the same successes as the "majority" culture. This is just as true for the "black" culture as for any other culture.

Someone mentioned Canada as an example of two separate cultures tearing a country apart. What I find interesting is they almost everywhere you travel in Canada, the road signs are in both English and French. I understand they have to be that way by law. The only exception is the province of Quebec, where the signs only have to be in French. I find that truly bizarre.

Jane,

I think it's safe to say we do run in different circles, so we'll both just have to claim that the plural of anecdote is "data" when it comes to expats. It may be that oil company types tend to have more direct contact with monolingual field workers than the I-bankers and consultants you run/ran with. Picking up the native language is probably more necessary if you're doing drilling & completions in Western Siberia than if you're doing IT for the bilingual I-bankers of Morgan Stanley's Frankfurt office.

I agree that creating a separate "language ghetto" is bad, and I also agree that it's not happening right now in a significant way. I want to make sure that it doesn't happen. No one worries about those darn unassimilated Irish these days -- but that's in part because few in the 19th century demanded that public schools broadly implement bilingual education in Gaelic. On the other hand, as another commenter noted upstream, Quebec is a fine demonstration of what happens when the government agrees to coddle the linguistic preferences of a minority population. Better to force them to adapt -- not through proactive, punitive legislation, but merely by refusing to be accommodating.

Now as for Swedes, etc. being different from the current generation of immigrants, I didn't make that comment so I can't really address it. I tend to agree with you that today's immigrants aren't really all that "different" than those of the past. However, in the past there was intense pressure from the natives to assimilate (which there still is today). What's new about the present is that a substantial segment of the native population doesn't think immigrants should try all that hard to assimilate and instead think that the native population should be more accommodating. I'm not a big fan of that approach, precisely because it's a change from what has worked well in the past.

Well, Mr. Dewey, any unnecessary expenditure of government revenue is in my vuew expensive. Translators aren't cheap, especially in the numbers that will be necessary as more and more people take your view that they have a right to communicate with their government in the language of their convenience.

When spending others people's money, which is what all promoters of new government policies seek to do, nothing is ever overpriced.

English was the official language and it is pretty sad that we are now having to fight to keep it that way. Its very frustrating to go into banks and other offices and see more signs in Spanish than in English. Its pretty sad that we have to choose to hear things in English or use the ATM in English. The Society of Americans for National Existence, www.saneworks.us, is dedicated to fighting for our rights, for our national existence. Check out their web site!

Immigrants who can't read street signs, safety instructions, give testimony in court without frequent and confusing re-examination, fill out forms, call 911 or do the myriad other tasks that are necessary if not essential to an orderly, modern society are only a small problem when there is only a small number of them, but we are talking about twenty or more million people with 6th grade or less educations and and a cultural bias toward insularity.

It is one thing to allow a non-English speaker to enter as a guest worker for a finite period of time. It is quite another to let that person enter permanently and with his/her family in tow. Requiring that English be learned will not only raise the ante for new immigrants, it will compel them to assimilate and become socially functional more quickly.

And, by the way, thousands of students come here every year, learn our language, and go on to college. I married one thirty years ago. It took my wife 6 months to learn English well enough to get a degree in microbiology.

Michelle: "I say that if any "English learner" should be accommodated in voting, all should, and to the same degree."

I agree that all voters should be accomodated. But we can be a little smart about how we accomodate them. If printing ballots in Spanish accomodates 80% of the non-English speaking citizens, that's probably the cheapest method. So why not provide such ballots at every voting location? On the other hand, if a precinct has three Urdu voters, does it make sense to create an Urdu ballot for that precinct?

Cathy: "Several people have mentioned the residents of South Louisiana as people who did not learn the language and eventually assimilated. While I freely admit I do not know the entire history of the region, ... Apparently, they were encouraged pretty strenously to learn the native language.
"

I appreciate the admission that you do not know the history of my region.

For 230 years French was the "native" language of South Louisiana. As I pointed out earlier, Louisiana citizens with limited English skills fought in all our nation's wars from 1776 through 1918. Such citizens were gainfully employed, paid taxes, and voted.

About 1930, the predominately Scotch-Irish voters of northern Louisiana finally persuaded legislators to ban the French language from south Louisiana schools. This action was bitterly resented by many Cajuns, but accepted.

Eventually south Louisiana residents gained control of the state government, probably as a result of higher Catholic birth rates in the 40's and 50's. Starting in 1975, the state began to promote the French language and the Cajun culture. Once again, French was spoken in south Louisiana schools.

Many scholars credit television - not government bans - with the conversion of south Louisiana to the English language. That's probably easier for everyone. However, the Louisiana experience prior to 1930 clearly shows that adopting English as a primary language - or even speaking English at all - is not a requirement for participating as a U.S. citizen and worker.

Tell me this Nick Gillespie was joking when he talked about Australians speaking 'Australian' : he knows we speak English, right?

Jane,

The National Language of Australia is "Strine." I'm surprised that you don't know that. Of couse they all speak good (American) English because they all watch American movies and television shows.

She'll be apples.

"But I can't say that I discern any remarkable generosity of spirit in allowing Mexicans to live twelve in a house while they mow our lawns and wash our cars."

How about when we allow 12 million people to do so, at tremendous social cost? Have we evinced any generosity by that point?

As to their conditions here, perhaps they don't seem very grand to you. However, if millions feel compelled to flee their native land, how much worse are things there, to make living twelve in a house while mowing our lawns and washing our cars so attractive that they often risk their lives for the chance?

However, the Louisiana experience prior to 1930 clearly shows that adopting English as a primary language - or even speaking English at all - is not a requirement for participating as a U.S. citizen and worker.

You made a mistake in tense -- that should be "WAS not a requirement", not "IS not a requirement". Your story tells us nothing about what is needed today. After all, a US citizen from the period you describe -- from the founding through the early 20th century -- could also earn a decent living without being able to read or write. Does that prove that modern-day Americans have no need for education?

It is also worth noting that the federal government was a much less significant force for the period you describe. Voters really only needed knowledge of local issues, because national-level politics didn't matter for much. These days the federal government controls more of the economy than any other entity in America. Being a good citizen means being aware of more than just your insular little community.

Jane and Ken Begg,

Where does this "living twelve in a house" idea come from?

In a 2002 paper, Peter Browning (UC-Berkeley) showed these statistics about Mexican immigrant household sizes:

settled immigrants - 4.7 persons per household
temporary migrants - 5.5 persons per household

http://tinyurl.com/rnlzg

A 2005 study by Sarah Edgington (UCLA)notes that:

"Immigrant mothers are less likely than native-born mothers, particularly native-born blacks, to receive private support in the form of coresidence with kin who pay the cost of housing."

http://tinyurl.com/zumv4

I just discussed household size with a friend in my building. B. is a former illegal immigrant who remains well-connected to the illegal immigrant community in Texas. She says the idea that immigrants lived in shared and crowded households is simply not true. B. said that many immigrants must share housing with a friend or relative when they first arrive. But she believes that few continue such an arrangement for more than a few months.

Of course, Texas housing, and housing throughout the heartland, is much cheaper than west coast or northeast housing. So it's possible that shared housing is more common in high cost regions. But I'd prefer to see some evidence that such living arrangements exist in any large numbers. Can either of you provide links to such evidence?

"Your story tells us nothing about what is needed today."

"Being a good citizen means being aware of more than just your insular little community."

Dan, are you the authority on what is needed today to function in our nation or to be a good citizen?

In my lifetime of 55 years I have known closely a dozen or more people who could not read or write English. All of them functioned very well in our economy, and two would now be considered wealthy. I know that several of these illiterates voted regularly and intelligently.

In today's world, Spanish language television stations, newspapers, and magazines keep Mexican and other Latino immigrants aware of much more than you may realize. If anything, recent developments in communication have reduced the need for all citizens to speak the same language.

JohnDewey: I was merely quoting Jane, and assume that most of her readers understand that her claim was hyperbolic. Even so, I obviously disagree with the thrust of her statement.

Ken Begg,

I doubted either of you believed Mexican immigrants lived 12 to a house. I just wanted to take a swing at the stereotype of Mexican immigrants as unassimilated, impoverished workers, abused by our national greed.

What I've observed is just the opposite: hard workers pursuing and in many cases achieving the American dream. I've noticed how most immigrants intelligently stretch their meager wages, how they acquire new skills, how they gradually grow their living standards.

FYI, Mr. Begg, illegal immigrants are doing much more than just "mowing our lawns and washing our cars". They're also building our homes and roads, processing our food, and even starting new businesses. Some of those jobs may seem harsh to you, but the environment and real wages of our nation's Mexican immigrants would be welcomed by most workers throughout the world.

JohnDewey,

Sorry not to respond earlier.

I agree that all voters should be accomodated. But we can be a little smart about how we accomodate them. If printing ballots in Spanish accomodates 80% of the non-English speaking citizens, that's probably the cheapest method. So why not provide such ballots at every voting location? On the other hand, if a precinct has three Urdu voters, does it make sense to create an Urdu ballot for that precinct?

Well, in the first place, I didn't say that all should be accommodated; I said that if any should, all should, and not in an easier manner simply because some native languages are over-represented in the pool of "citizens who don't have enough English to mark a ballot." I find it difficult to imagine a case in which a new citizen who has had a sample ballot for a month can't decipher it sufficiently to vote, after having supposedly passed examinations in written and spoken English on the way to citizenship; but if there are such people, they ought to be given equal help, not one kind for those whose languages happen to be rare and another for those whose language happens to be common.

I do not know what solution you'd propose for Urdu monolinguals, but obviously, whatever it is, it's going to be less convenient, less private, or (probably) both than just getting a nifty ballot in your own language. Considering, again, that citizenship for those not born here is legally predicated on knowing at least a little English, I think thus granting a favor to those who belong to a populous immigrant community as against those who are sparser and more scattered is unjust. We're talking about the franchise here.

Not that I buy the numbers anyway. I would be very surprised if 80% of American citizens who speak only a language other than English speak Spanish. American residents (legal and otherwise), different story. But then, we're not talking about supplying ballots to them, are we? At least, I hope we aren't.

Michelle,

I'm talking about supplying ballots to citizens at the county or precinct level. My guess is that, in some counties, at least 80% of non-English speaking citizens do speak Spanish.

I think that decisions about ballots should be left up to the counties or precincts. But perhaps our courts see it differently.

If 5% of the citizens Webb County, TX, read and write only Spanish, what is wrong with Webb County supplying them ballots in Spanish? If Webb County officials determine that is the most cost-effective means to assist them in voting, why should that method be prohibited? Are you saying that making it easy for those 4,000 voters is unfair to the 2 voters who read and write only Urdu? So what? Life is not fair.

It's not fair that my disability prevents me from hearing oral instructions provided at the polls by election officials. Does that mean election officials should not provide oral instructions to all the other voters?

JohnDewey,

What I'm saying is that a ballot policy that makes it easier to vote if you belong to a large ethnic minority than if you belong to a smaller one at minimum bears looking at closely. Any differential in the ease of voting among groups bears looking at closely, and minimizing to the extent possible. One that potentially involves a bloc of voters big enough to swing local elections, IMO, deserves even more attention.

It seems obvious, by the way, that the case of a large bloc needing accommodation is precisely the one in which the marginal (per-voter) cost of doing it the same way for voters of all languages is least. If Webb Co.'s population includes 5% Spanish-only speakers, it's safe to assume that another substantial chunk of the populace is reasonably bilingual in Spanish and English. I wouldn't care to make the same assumption for rare languages. Whatever accommodation you come up with presumably requires interpreters, and it's with the languages common in the county that they're going to be thick on the ground, yes?

I don't think your disability is comparable, honestly. (For one thing, if the "oral instructions" are anything like what I receive voting here, they're not worth squat. All I want to know is which booth is free and which way the document goes into the box, and frankly I can figure both out for myself.) The point I've made until I'm frankly tired of it myself is that there should not be many people in this position at all — certainly nothing like 5% of any county. If you are a US citizen, you were either born here, or supposedly demonstrated at least minimal competency in reading English. Therefore, you should not need a ballot in any other language; and ought to take the very idea as an insult. The only exception I know is that of very elderly people — refugees, mostly — for whom the language requirement is relaxed. There might conceivably be a county or two in Minnesota in which people in that situation might constitute 5% of the population. But, as you know, the language in question there isn't Spanish.

For every other naturalized citizen, rudiments of English were a condition of citizenship. Please explain why people who have claimed (and have been certified as having) at least rudimentary English should be treated as though they don't.

Michelle,

I don't think we'll reach agreement on this. My goals would be to increase voter participation and reduce administrative costs. Your goal seems to be ensuring that the tiniest ethnic group receives exactly equal treatment. Or perhaps restricting that large voter bloc that you fear will swing elections.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

JohnDewey,

My goals would be to increase voter participation and reduce administrative costs.

Both good things, at least if the increased "voter participation" doesn't extend to illicit voters.

Your goal seems to be ensuring that the tiniest ethnic group receives exactly equal treatment. Or perhaps restricting that large voter bloc that you fear will swing elections.

My goal has nothing to do with the "tiniest ethnic group" as such, only a wish that accommodations for voters in the situations we've been talking about not be wholly dependent on who speaks what language in their precinct, and how many there are.

I said nothing about my fearing any ethnic group "swinging elections"; I said that blocs as large as 5% (your number) might swing elections. For what it's worth, I'm a registered Democrat, and have been since I was old enough to vote, twenty years ago.

But before we "agree to disagree," can you please answer the question I did put half a dozen times or so? Or rather the congeries of questions, as the argument went on. Why are there US citizens who don't have enough English to fill out a ballot in that language? Why should they be accommodated (apart from those who explicitly were), but not rather held to what their citizenship documents say about their English competency?

If an American citizen needs a Spanish-language ballot, why? Please, at least provide a suggestion or two.

Here in South Florida I occasionally see the bumper stickers that say "Welcome to my country - now speak English".
Rednecks such people may be, and undoubtedly they don't themselves speak a second language. However, it is not hard to see us reaching the day when the majority Spanish-speaking population down here gets tired of this, and starts agitating for Spanish to be the principal language, much like in Quebec.

The sheer size and rapid growth of the Spanish-speaking population is what makes this different to previous eras of Italians, etc.

Given that most Spanish-speaking immigrants are trying to learn English and want it for their children, perhaps we should satisfy ourselves with assisting them in this. Bilingual signs and pamphlets are already everywhere (check out Home Depot).
However, we should not spend any more tax dollars on translation of government materials.

Gee, if it's so "damn hard" to learn a new language after you hit puberty, why do the Japanese start their English classes in High School?

I can think of at least three guys-- two of them "mechs," a useful but not highly intellectual rating in the Navy-- who are married to Japanese ladies, who they met after they were 25. All three speak Japanese. None of them took more than two years to learn it.

I know of several folks who learned Tagalog because a large number of the cooks on board are from the PI and like to gossip in their home language. (Yeah, it's against regs, but who is going to stop the departmental LCPO?) They learned enough to be a pest in less than three months. I *dated* a guy who had the brains of a rock who was learning Tagalog. This is not an easy language. (Speaking of which, a lot of those cooks only learned English in boot camp—they’re from the PI—and the guy who was teaching my ex didn’t speak English until he was 17, despite growing up in Cali.)

It's not *easy* by any means, but it's not impossible. I learned survival Spanish when I was 15. We have a guy who speaks about six languages, and he only picked up his second (Japanese) after he graduated, because he got tired of being spoken to in Japanese and not knowing what was said. (He's now 20.) (It's about six because I don't know how he's doing in Italian, but he was at the half way point last I knew.)

Then there's the 30 year old guy from Poland that I was in A school with, and the guy from Argentina, both of who are now qualified as Aviation Electronics Technicians (cal tech).

This is all just story, rather than study, but I must say the strain is over-stated.

why do the Japanese start their English classes in High School?

They don't, or at least not all of them do. If you're a white guy like me, you can hang out at any major tourist attraction in Japan and get mobs of elementary and middle school children coming up to you to try to speak English to you (all in their goofy identical baseball caps). They actually get that as an assignment from their schools: find a white guy and give him a lecture about the monument in English. Some of them had me sign my name in a little book to prove they talked to someone.

I had one enterprising kid ask me (in English) if I spoke Japanese (which I do). He got to give his little lecture in his native tounge.

The government schools do, unless the Japanese lady that does the cultural indoc is off her rocker. (Along with the ladies at Navy Fed, the bag packing ladies that I talk to at the NEX, the more chatty folks at the internet place....) She says that the schools start teaching at about age 15, although the kids that are interested will learn a bit before then.
The exam schools might have them study earlier, so that they'll do better on the exams and get a better school. (One of the reasons I love Japan: I can go walking around at ten at night because the streets are safe enough for gaggles of school girls to do so.)

I'm not at a tourist attraction, but I am home ported in Sasebo, Japan. A "small town" for Japan, but there are plenty of folks by my view, and lots of English speakers for them to practice on. (Louder and slower usually does work, too. Mostly because you enunciate more precisely.)

"Gee, if it's so "damn hard" to learn a new language after you hit puberty, why do the Japanese start their English classes in High School?" Maybe because most Japanese are content with speaking English badly, as long as they speak it at all?

"I can think of at least three guys-- two of them "mechs," a useful but not highly intellectual rating in the Navy-- who are married to Japanese ladies, who they met after they were 25. All three speak Japanese. None of them took more than two years to learn it." They probably sound as bad to the Japanese as the average "English-speaking" Japanese does to me.

Speaking louder and slower certainly does help others understand a thick accent, and it helps those who speak your native language badly understand you.

There is a huge gap between basic communications and fluency. Fluency requires re-wiring the brain both to properly interpret different phonemes and to handle a foreign grammar naturally. Not too many people can do this after age 12. Everyone can learn basic communication in a foreign language, with speakers of it who are patient enough. If you are literate in your own language, learning to read another language is much easier than learning to speak it; strange phonemes are not an issue, you get more time to puzzle things out, and all the borrowing between American English and other languages means that nearly everyone sees some words that look familiar, even though the pronunciation may have changed immensely.

Basic communications is all you need for voting. Candidates names do not need translated. No one who needs "The President of the United States" translated to "El Presidente" should be voting in an American election.

markm: "Basic communications is all you need for voting. Candidates names do not need translated. No one who needs "The President of the United States" translated to "El Presidente" should be voting in an American election."

In the first place, I do not believe your opinion is the law of the land. Everyone who is a citizen has a right to vote. But that citizen is not always required to read or write English. Language skills are not a requirement for citizens who were born in the United States. Most such citizens are educated in the U.S. and do learn English. But not all.

I don't know about elsewhere, but candidate names and office titles are not the only words
that appear on ballots in Texas. We frequently vote on amendments to the state constitution and on local ordinances.

Everyone who is a citizen has a right to vote.

Well, sure. Why does that get mutated into ballots in whatever language you want?

I have a right to free speech in any language I like, but not a right to government-supplied translators to make sure that everyone understands me.

I have the right to publish a newspaper, but no right to a government-funded printing press.

I have a right to keep and bear arms, but I'm still waiting for my goverment gun voucher.

If someone absolutely insists on a Spanish ballot (which makes me suspect they aren't citizens, to tell you the truth), why can't some private party start up a little translation company and sell what amount to copies of the ballot, translated?

Why is it just too much to ask that people exercising their rights also take on a little responsibilty?

Markm- I doubt the Japanese are *able* to be content with doing *anything* badly. Bad accent, but they use the language better than most inner school grads I know.

As for how the Gaijin sound, they learned another language and can function using it in a different culture. And that's the point of the argument, is it not? Not "Any adult can learn to sound perfectly like the adult of another culture."

I think I speak for many when I say that I don't _want_ accents to be gone. I like accents. One name: Antonio Banderas.(sp)

"Why does that get mutated into ballots in whatever language you want?"

Come on, Rob. I didn't argue that. markm wrote:

"No one who needs "The President of the United States" translated to "El Presidente" should be voting in an American election."

I simply disagreed with him, pointing out that citizens are eligible to vote. They are not all required to read or write English.

To me, the ballot issue is one that local and state governments should decide. A county in south Texas may determine it can increase voter participation, increase quality of voting, and reduce admin costs by providing ballots written in Spanish. Should they be prohibited from doing so?

Your concern seems to be that non-citizens will be voting. If you are arguing for stricter controls to eliminate such voting, I'm right there with you. I will support national ID cards that cannot be forged.

To me, the ballot issue is one that local and state governments should decide.

Well, I certainly agree with that sentiment, at least for local elections, although I would oppose any such move in my locality because I think rights like voting come with responsibilities. Learning simple English just isn't the same as magically becoming able to see or hear.

But that's not the law right now, as I pointed out above. At the moment, federal law mandates foreign language ballots, although that seems likely to change soon.

Rob,

Sorry, I earlier neglected to read the reference you provided. I generally favor local control of voting procedures. I understand why federal interference was necessary 50 years ago in my region, the deep South. But not today.

"And the parallel to mandating a state religion is, like pretty much everything Reason has published since Postrel left, moronic."

Roger that, Dan. I also liked VP's predecessor, Marty Zupan. Perhaps Reason can only return to its glory days if it hires a female editor.

JohnDewey,

Everyone who is a citizen has a right to vote. But that citizen is not always required to read or write English. Language skills are not a requirement for citizens who were born in the United States. Most such citizens are educated in the U.S. and do learn English. But not all.

I'd say if your "home alphabet" is Roman, you will have no more trouble voting for offices than would anyone whose first language is English. Parsing the text of initiatives and the like is harder, but that's why they send you a sample ballot a month or so in advance.

But if we are down to accommodating people born here who don't have sufficient English to fill out a ballot (how many are you figuring?), either the whole question is silly, or we have some difficulties going way beyond foreign languages.

The people left entirely out of your case, JohnDewey, are those who just can't read, period. They have the right to vote, but not the means, yes? You wish to accommodate voters who were born here but don't have sufficient English to get through the language of a ballot initiative — provided, that is, that English isn't their primary language. If they simply aren't literate in any language at all, stuff 'em.

Seriously, I'd bet that there are more citizens incapable of dealing with the texts of initiatives and the like because they just plain can't read well than there are people hampered by the language. And of those hampered by the language, I'd also bet most do not speak Spanish. Learning new alphabets/notation systems is a lot harder than simply learning a new language written in the same characters.

"But I know lots, and lots, and lots of American ex-pats who barely speak enough of the local language to order a meal. Maybe it's rudeness"

Jane,

I was one of those rude expats, living for 6 years in Hong Kong without ever getting very good at Cantonese. I had difficulty with the tones (we use a rising tone at the end to indicate a question or uncertainty, but that turns the same sound into a whole different word in some languages; I think Cantonese has 8 tones, but I could never distinguish them all very well, which could lead to embarrassment but more often to total incomprehension).

The other barrier to learning more Cantonese just naturally were the characters - I learned more Bahasa Malay from just a few days in Kuala Lumpur than Cantonese from 6 years of looking at street signs in Chinese characters, since the character tells one nothing about how to say the word.

What surprised me most was the reaction of locals to the fact that I had these tapes and was trying to learn Cantonese. They always asked "why would you try to learn another language when you already know English?"

And I was not working for a US company - I was teaching undergraduates, masters and PhD students at a local university (and not teaching them English, but teaching a subject). All classes were in English, because that's the language of international business. We told our business students that they needed to be good in English to work in finance, and complained that they didn't fully appreciate the importance of English. And the engineering professors complained that their students didn't fully appreciate how important English was if they wanted to be engineers. And, if one wants to be a pilot in Asia, then he/she needs English.

All of those American expats that you complain about already know the international language. Many Japanese came to Hong Kong without knowing Cantonese, but they would be foolish to move there without at least knowing English.

Should expats still try to learn the local language in order to talk to locals? Yes, which is why I worked at it a fair amount. But it quickly became clear to me that it would take an enormous effort to make any practical difference, since it would be years before my Cantonese was better than the English of someone nearby, wherever I went (when ordering at restaurants, they'd see I was a gweipo and would call over the person with the best English). Nevertheless, if I had planned to stay there indefinitely, I'd have become adequate in the language eventually.

In Hong Kong, the local HK Chinese parents demanded that their children be taught in English. The government wanted to teach students in their local language, but the parents wouldn't have it, because the number one language of opportunity around the world is English. I'm surprised that Mexico doesn't work harder to teach everyone English, since it would be very good for the country economically (the Philippines has benefited from having many English speakers, as has India).

Comments are Closed.