Comprehensive Assimilation Reform

By: Gustavus
Published On: 5/11/2007 10:14:52 AM

Over at The Corner Mark Krikorian is all in a snit because the gavel used by the Chair of the House Small Business Committee had Spanish written on it.  Horrors!  Since, "for heaven's sake," "symbolism matters," clearly we need "comprehensive assimilation reform."  And what, you may ask, is comprehensive assimilation reform?

According to Newt Gingrich and John Fonte it is, apparently, working to assimilate all immigrants as quickly as possible, and this entails forcing them to learn English as quickly as possible.  To this end there should be no ballots in foreign languages.  As they put it, "If we all vote in English, the message is e pluribus unum: It says we are all in this together."  (The use of Latin in their call for all-English all the time doesn't seem to strike them as odd.)

The basis of their fear is that fewer immigrants are learning English.  This is simply wrong.  For example, in 1890 3.62% of the population was non-English speaking; by 1990 that percentage had dropped to 0.80%.  (For some detailed data on this trend see, e.g., James Crawford's discussion.)  The "problem" they see is not much of a problem at all, and it is getting to be less and less of a problem as years go by.  As Crawford points out, "The rate of linguistic assimilation is clearly accelerating?"

The Republicans today propose all sorts of draconian measures against immigrants, based partly on their false understanding of basic facts of American history. 


Comments



Good topic (Hugo Estrada - 5/11/2007 12:10:55 PM)
I will comment more later on, but I find it interesting that they want to legislate assimilation now.


fact check ... (loboforestal - 5/11/2007 12:22:28 PM)
Boston Globe is reporting something else ...

http://www.boston.co...

Some 47 million Americans 5 and older used a language other than English in 2000, the bureau said. That translates into the nearly one in five, compared with roughly one in seven 10 years ago.



fact check (Gustavus - 5/11/2007 1:27:19 PM)
The Boston Glob article is about people who speak  "a language other than English at home."  The Crawford article I referenced is about "non-English speaking persons."  So there is no conflict at all.  I know folks who are quite fluent in English, but speak another language at home.


More ESL, history and civics (Hugo Estrada - 5/11/2007 2:39:48 PM)
Not having ballots in other languages is just a ploy to attempt to disenfranchise American citizens who can't speak English, or who feel more comfortable reading political literature in Spanish than in English.

This is a shameful tactic. If they really wanted to help with assimilation, they could be asking to expand ESL programs. Or have outreach programs that teach American history and government to immigrants.

Most immigrants who can learn English, do so. This is an English society, and one needs the language to get anything done. Without knowing how to speak English, there are only very few jobs available to people.

The ones who don't learn in many cases can't do it. They may be barely literate in their own language. Or they have learning problems that prevent them from acquiring another language. Or they just work too many hours to be able to make it to a school and do the course work. But even if hey can't speak the language themselves, they make a point of having their children learn it.

And let me stress history and civics again. Many immigrants come from countries that lack the democratic institutions that this country has. And learning about them can be an  empowering experience.

And U.S. history may not be perfect, but one of its major themes is its move towards justice. Powerful too, once one gets it.



Bravo and well said!!! (Dianne - 5/14/2007 9:16:58 AM)
A reality check:

My husband's grandparents emigrated to the US in 1908 and neither could speak a word of English...ever.  But their children learned English yet still conversed with their parents in their native tongue at home.  Their grandson, my husband, is one of the most well-versed, well-read, intelligent persons I've ever known.  And he speaks some French and German, also!



Who's right : Hugo or Gustavus? (loboforestal - 5/11/2007 3:34:08 PM)
Gustavus says immigrants are learning English, it's not a big deal don't worry about it.  But Gustavus says we need more English training.  Who's right?


I mean Hugo says we need more English training. (loboforestal - 5/11/2007 3:34:36 PM)


I agree with Gustavus, actually (Hugo Estrada - 5/11/2007 4:02:34 PM)
What I was trying to say is that if one is concerned about assimilation, then one should fund ESL class and history/civic classes, not change the law so that there are only voting materials in English, which is what the Republican authors said that they want to do.

Most immigrants know that it is in their best advantage to learn English, and most who can do so.

I do maintain that it takes longer to get how the government works, and this is where history and government programs can help. We already have the citizenship test, which requires basic knowledge from these two areas. Most immigrants end up knowing a lot more about the government than most Americans this way. :)

But I will admit that many won't "get" the U.S. system until much later. Many don't even know that they can right to their congress people or give them a call. Or they don't know that they can participate in political activity without  fearing personal harm.

But if assimilation was an urgent worry, then best way of delivering that information to Spanish speakers will probably be through a telenovela. :) Mexico has made historic telenovelas about Mexican history, so I don't see why there can't be some made about American history too.



I checked my entry again (Hugo Estrada - 5/11/2007 4:03:28 PM)
And the title didn't reflect my opinion. I apologize for that.