Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think any one minds foreign accents and they generally fade in time. The important thing is the desire to learn English and be a part of this country.
One immigrant I knew said that all his life we dreamed of becoming an American. He wasn't poor, it wasn't just about money for him. He said he always felt American inside. He would watch every American television show that came on, he studied up on the history of the USA, listened to American music.
Immigration should be about getting people like that into this country -- over someone who doesn't much like Americans, doesn't wish to learn our language or ever learn anything about us or our country.
The problem is -- the USA accepts far more legal immigrants than any other country in the world. Many people want to come for any number of reasons -- but what reasons are the best reasons? Someone might come because they love our money or because they love our social safety net but otherwise they have no use for us as a people or for our country. Someone else might want to come because they truly desire to be one of us.
I would think that it shouldn't be just about someone getting money or preferring our government social programs but about getting new Americans who appreciate our country, our culture and our people.
I would say the same about any country's immigration programs. For example I know of three people who wanted to live in Spain. It wasn't for the money, they weren't just trying to get rich quick, but because they once traveled there and felt some special connection to the country and it's people. These individuals were eager to learn Spanish and of course immigrate legally -- I would think they would be better than someone who wanted to live there but never wanted to learn the language or adapt in any way to that country.
Interesting post. Something of this nature occurred to me just last week. I took my chain saw in for repair at a small shop owned by a married couple...immigrants from Korea. I've known them for several years, and both speak passable, if accented, English.....also Spanish with the "techs" and many of the customers.
Though I'd frequently chatted alone with each of them on occasion, last week (perhaps due to this forum), I noticed that they were speaking AMONG THEMSELVES...within "earshot" and sight of me, but not TO me...and both husband and wife were speaking ENGLISH. Although it was a 'foreign' language to them, and obviously Korean would be easier...and though they were speaking of a private matter BETWEEN them...they used English.
Why? I can only speculate. Perhaps out of some self-imposed standard of using English as much as possible, for "practice"? (I know their KIDS speak it flawlessly)....perhaps out of some sort of notion of "courtesy" to ME? (Yes, at one time, that was considered courteous behavior)....maybe just a subconscious effort to "fit in", at least during business hours? Again, I have no idea. Probably wouldn't even have noticed it, had I not been involved in this forum. But it DOES say something about assimilation, I think....and though these people, in their own shop, certainly didn't HAVE to speak English, for some reason they made the extra effort that that took. Could there be a lesson here for the rest of us?
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,432,243 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
Interesting post. Something of this nature occurred to me just last week. I took my chain saw in for repair at a small shop owned by a married couple...immigrants from Korea. I've known them for several years, and both speak passable, if accented, English.....also Spanish with the "techs" and many of the customers.
Though I'd frequently chatted alone with each of them on occasion, last week (perhaps due to this forum), I noticed that they were speaking AMONG THEMSELVES...within "earshot" and sight of me, but not TO me...and both husband and wife were speaking ENGLISH. Although it was a 'foreign' language to them, and obviously Korean would be easier...and though they were speaking of a private matter BETWEEN them...they used English.
Why? I can only speculate. Perhaps out of some self-imposed standard of using English as much as possible, for "practice"? (I know their KIDS speak it flawlessly)....perhaps out of some sort of notion of "courtesy" to ME? (Yes, at one time, that was considered courteous behavior)....maybe just a subconscious effort to "fit in", at least during business hours? Again, I have no idea. Probably wouldn't even have noticed it, had I not been involved in this forum. But it DOES say something about assimilation, I think....and though these people, in their own shop, certainly didn't HAVE to speak English, for some reason they made the extra effort that that took. Could there be a lesson here for the rest of us?
I also repair "chainsaws" and like I've posted before, I had a sign out on the front gate that said
Fair enough, but if you want to enact this into LAW, you have to define your terms. What makes a person American enough? What are "old-country's ways"? If someone born in Portugal picks up a guitar and signs fado on Friday nights, does that mean he is holding on to his "old-country's ways" and must be deported? Should the government regulate what people eat? Is it okay to hold on to the "old-country's ways" in private, or should the government install listening devices in people's homes to monitor what language they speak in the family? If immigrants of similar ethnic background date or marry, does this mean they've failed to assimilate? Is one allowed to have an accent, or would the accent be a ground for deportation? If English fluency is required as a prerequisite to retaining one's citizenship, how many grammatical mistakes does one have to make before deportation is triggered? Alternatively, does speaking English in ways that are too meticulously correct indicate that one is not assimilated? Would you require name changes? Is being a New Yorker "assimilated enough", or should one be required to adapt ways that are more, say, oh, Idahoan? Either way, if you had a law that states "an immigrant is required to assimilate", you have to define "assimilation".
From a legal perspective, enactment of a law would require a definition of terms. However, assimilation cannot be legislated or mandated, barring oppressive governmental dictates, such as those found in an autocratic society in which nonconforming members suffer swift and severe reprisals. I don’t believe anyone is remotely suggesting we adopt such draconian practices. Nor do I believe anyone espouses the establishment of legislative criterion for assimilation. However, contrary to popular belief, we do have a non-legislated, non-statutory American “culture.”
Within our American culture, we have ethnic subcultures. However, these subcultures should not negate the primary societal culture. They are merely a side dish, as opposed to the main course. They should enhance, rather than supplant or repudiate the primary cultural mores.
Inherent in any coexisting group of individuals is the need for established norms, and we encounter this in every aspect of our lives; from our family environment, to the workplace, and society in general. As such, non-assimilation will continue to elicit disapproval and annoyance from the compliant members of society. It’s simply a normal human response.
In my opinion, assimilation is simply conformity to the primary cultural norms, and does not entail an infringement on ones ethnic culture whatsoever. Within legal constraints, one is still free to enjoy their respective ethos and idiosyncrasies.
Individuals from foreign countries choosing to make the U.S. their permanent home have essentially sought ‘membership’ into the U.S. culture. As such, there are certain informal (understood) rules, as well as, formal (legislative) rules one must adhere to if one expects to remain a member in good standing.
I submit that assimilation can be defined and recognized. Of course we can debate the ‘true’ meaning of any concept, from culture, to life itself. Therefore, while we do not mandate assimilation, we certainly expect it from those who choose to be members of our American culture. I agree with American Express……..Membership does have its privileges.
From a legal perspective, enactment of a law would require a definition of terms. However, assimilation cannot be legislated or mandated, barring oppressive governmental dictates, such as those found in an autocratic society in which nonconforming members suffer swift and severe reprisals. I don’t believe anyone is remotely suggesting we adopt such draconian practices. Nor do I believe anyone espouses the establishment of legislative criterion for assimilation. However, contrary to popular belief, we do have a non-legislated, non-statutory American “culture.”
Within our American culture, we have ethnic subcultures. However, these subcultures should not negate the primary societal culture. They are merely a side dish, as opposed to the main course. They should enhance, rather than supplant or repudiate the primary cultural mores.
Inherent in any coexisting group of individuals is the need for established norms, and we encounter this in every aspect of our lives; from our family environment, to the workplace, and society in general. As such, non-assimilation will continue to elicit disapproval and annoyance from the compliant members of society. It’s simply a normal human response.
In my opinion, assimilation is simply conformity to the primary cultural norms, and does not entail an infringement on ones ethnic culture whatsoever. Within legal constraints, one is still free to enjoy their respective ethos and idiosyncrasies.
Individuals from foreign countries choosing to make the U.S. their permanent home have essentially sought ‘membership’ into the U.S. culture. As such, there are certain informal (understood) rules, as well as, formal (legislative) rules one must adhere to if one expects to remain a member in good standing.
I submit that assimilation can be defined and recognized. Of course we can debate the ‘true’ meaning of any concept, from culture, to life itself. Therefore, while we do not mandate assimilation, we certainly expect it from those who choose to be members of our American culture. I agree with American Express……..Membership does have its privileges.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,432,243 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
From a legal perspective, enactment of a law would require a definition of terms. However, assimilation cannot be legislated or mandated, barring oppressive governmental dictates, such as those found in an autocratic society in which nonconforming members suffer swift and severe reprisals. I don’t believe anyone is remotely suggesting we adopt such draconian practices. Nor do I believe anyone espouses the establishment of legislative criterion for assimilation. However, contrary to popular belief, we do have a non-legislated, non-statutory American “culture.”
Within our American culture, we have ethnic subcultures. However, these subcultures should not negate the primary societal culture. They are merely a side dish, as opposed to the main course. They should enhance, rather than supplant or repudiate the primary cultural mores.
Inherent in any coexisting group of individuals is the need for established norms, and we encounter this in every aspect of our lives; from our family environment, to the workplace, and society in general. As such, non-assimilation will continue to elicit disapproval and annoyance from the compliant members of society. It’s simply a normal human response.
In my opinion, assimilation is simply conformity to the primary cultural norms, and does not entail an infringement on ones ethnic culture whatsoever. Within legal constraints, one is still free to enjoy their respective ethos and idiosyncrasies.
Individuals from foreign countries choosing to make the U.S. their permanent home have essentially sought ‘membership’ into the U.S. culture. As such, there are certain informal (understood) rules, as well as, formal (legislative) rules one must adhere to if one expects to remain a member in good standing.
I submit that assimilation can be defined and recognized. Of course we can debate the ‘true’ meaning of any concept, from culture, to life itself. Therefore, while we do not mandate assimilation, we certainly expect it from those who choose to be members of our American culture. I agree with American Express……..Membership does have its privileges.
From a legal perspective, enactment of a law would require a definition of terms. However, assimilation cannot be legislated or mandated, barring oppressive governmental dictates, such as those found in an autocratic society in which nonconforming members suffer swift and severe reprisals. I don’t believe anyone is remotely suggesting we adopt such draconian practices. Nor do I believe anyone espouses the establishment of legislative criterion for assimilation. However, contrary to popular belief, we do have a non-legislated, non-statutory American “culture.”
Within our American culture, we have ethnic subcultures. However, these subcultures should not negate the primary societal culture. They are merely a side dish, as opposed to the main course. They should enhance, rather than supplant or repudiate the primary cultural mores.
Inherent in any coexisting group of individuals is the need for established norms, and we encounter this in every aspect of our lives; from our family environment, to the workplace, and society in general. As such, non-assimilation will continue to elicit disapproval and annoyance from the compliant members of society. It’s simply a normal human response.
In my opinion, assimilation is simply conformity to the primary cultural norms, and does not entail an infringement on ones ethnic culture whatsoever. Within legal constraints, one is still free to enjoy their respective ethos and idiosyncrasies.
Individuals from foreign countries choosing to make the U.S. their permanent home have essentially sought ‘membership’ into the U.S. culture. As such, there are certain informal (understood) rules, as well as, formal (legislative) rules one must adhere to if one expects to remain a member in good standing.
I submit that assimilation can be defined and recognized. Of course we can debate the ‘true’ meaning of any concept, from culture, to life itself. Therefore, while we do not mandate assimilation, we certainly expect it from those who choose to be members of our American culture. I agree with American Express……..Membership does have its privileges.
Inherent in any coexisting group of individuals is the need for established norms, and we encounter this in every aspect of our lives; from our family environment, to the workplace, and society in general. As such, non-assimilation will continue to elicit disapproval and annoyance from the compliant members of society. It’s simply a normal human response.
Individuals from foreign countries choosing to make the U.S. their permanent home have essentially sought ‘membership’ into the U.S. culture. As such, there are certain informal (understood) rules, as well as, formal (legislative) rules one must adhere to if one expects to remain a member in good standing.
. .
Your post is so BRILLIANTLY 'watertight', and so far beyond any coherent argument...(particularly the above two paragraphs) that I find it simply beyond my ability to imagine how ANYONE could argue with the simple, basic, self-evident truth of what you say. It's a "no-brainer"....you 'show up' in a society, you decide for one reason or another that you don't want to 'fit in' or 'act appropriately'.....and you then find that you're the object of annoyance and disapproval. I don't see how ANYONE couldn't "get" this....nor can I think of a SINGLE group or organization that would NOT react this way to a new, 'non-assimilating' arrival...whether it's the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Ironworkers Union, the US Navy, the Mormon Church, the Rotary Club, the Thursday Night Ladies Bowling league...or a NATION.....the basic 'rule' still applies...if you want to "be one of us", then you have to act appropriately....otherwise "we" will not be inclined to accept "you"....regardless of who 'we' or 'you' are. How anyone could fail to see this is beyond me.
Amazingly, though, such people DO exist....people who simply do not, or CAN not, "see" what you and I and most others do...and thus we'll hear arguments. I can promise you, though, that at least they won't be GOOD arguments. One is FORCED to conclude that these folks must somehow base their belief that they don't need to assimilate..or that it's not a 'big thing'...or not 'mandatory'...on some notion that the United States isn't REALLY a viable, autonomous "Nation" like all others..but, in a misunderstanding of our Bill of Rights, etc., that they see the US as simply "belonging to everybody". If this is the case, then these folks are sadly mistaken. Our 'niceness', our 'openness', and "that Statue of Liberty stuff", should not be mistaken for our having 'no rules, or culture, or norms at all'.
Excellent post, Benicar.
Last edited by macmeal; 10-24-2008 at 03:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
