CMV: Immigrants should have 1 year to learn their country's language, or be deported back.
[removed]
Posted Apr 30, 2017, 1:20 PM UTC
522
Couple of things here. First, one year is a hell of a short time to learn a language. Especially if it's completely different than your own. I'm took a few years of Spanish and was nowhere close to fluent. I imagine doing this while trying to set up a life for you and your family and adapt to a new country might be a smidge difficult to accomplish in a year. Second not all countries have an official language. In the US English is the de facto language, but we (I'm an American) don't have an official language. I'm not sure from your post but I'm guessing you'd think someone moving to the US should learn English within a year. While I think most everybody in the US should speak English I think it'd be wrong to mandate immigrants learn it for a couple reasons.
Not everyone in the US speaks English. If I were to move to Puerto Rico I could get by pretty fine with Spanish. That goes for a lot of countries. There are places in a lot of the world where the official language of the country is not the dominant language in the area someone might immigrate to. Say I married someone who was from a region of a country where their family and everyone they saw on a daily bases spoke language A, but the official language was language B. Say I planned to move to my wife's hometown, I had housing and employment set up and most everyone I interact with spoke language A. But language B is official language. In Canada, your example both English and French are recognized official languages and there was a choice for both. I'm unclear what your position is in countries where there isn't an official language or immigrating to places where there is a widely spoken regional language that isn't an official language of the country.
Furthermore, why make someone immigrating somewhere do something that the citizens of the country didn't have to do. In the US, my home and frame of reference for most everything, as far as I know there is nothing stopping me from raising my kid to only speak German. Probably unwise but I can do it. If I'm immigrating somewhere I'd like to have the rights of the people that live there. I met a family of Hasidic Jews once that were raised primarily in Yiddish and we're raising their kids to speak Yiddish. Whole family were born American citizens. Whether or not you think the family should or have the right to do that is one thing. But enforcing a standard on immigrants that isn't enforced on anyone else in the country is another. If everyone in a country had to learn language A, then it'd be one thing to make immigrants learn it. But if no one in a country actually has to learn language A, then I think it's unfair if you make immigrants.
I had an aunt that taught at the Florida school for the deaf and the blind. I don't know everything about the program so if I'm wrong please correct me. I do know a lot of here deaf students communicated in sign language. I imagine a lot of them could read written English just fine. But spoken English? I highly doubt all of them could read lips. Does only being able to read a language fit in your idea of learning the countries language? I don't think sign language has legal protections in every country. Where does that fit into your system?
Indonesia, fourth highest population, has over 700 spoken languages with one official. Not everyone speaks the official language. Some people in neighboring countries may already know a language spoken in the part of Indonesia they immigrate to. Why make them learn "their counties language"?
What I'm trying to get across is it's more nuanced than it's often made out to be. You hear Americans say things like immigrants should learn English, it's the official language. Which isn't even true, isn't necessarily useful and isn't fair.
8
Not doing so is selfish and not becoming a productive member of society,
There are many situations in which I can not learn the language and still be a productive member of society within a country. Let's say I speak Spanish and legally immigrate to the US. I get a job working at a US company that does all of its business with Mexico. So I continue to speak spanish all day, pay my taxes, do my grocery shopping, etc.
By any measure, I am a productive member of society.
Or let's say I don't get a job at all, but I have children and am a stay-at-home mom. I raise my children well. They are good in school and speak fluent English and Spanish. Here I am also a productive member of society because I am raising the next generation of workers.
7
I find your first argument to be lacking in two ways. First off, just a quick note: the US does not have an official language, only its states do. If your company was situated in a state not listing Spanish as an official language then you will probably not be able to do your taxes or other paperwork because the required forms will not be provided in Spanish. For the paperwork, which is your duty as a citizen, you would need English skills that would probably be sufficient to pass the English exam OP wants.
Second, I think the Spanish example itself is flawed because in the US there are a lot of both native Spanish speakers and people who learned Spanish in school, that you could communicate with (for going about your daily life). I think OP is talking about speakers of a completely unrelated language, like a Chinese speaker in Norway.
As for your second argument: not being able to speak your resident countrys main language will inevitably force you into a parallel community that does not interact with the main part of society. I don't think that is beneficial to the successful and complete assimilation of your kids (and neither for your integration, for that matter)
Language and communication are essential tools in a modern society and creating parallel societies because you are not willing to learn the language is not accetable.
1
For the paperwork, which is your duty as a citizen, you would need English skills that would probably be sufficient to pass the English exam OP wants.
I lived in Japan for a year. Anytime I had paperwork to fill out, I'd photograph it with Google Translate and it would translate the instructions. It was never a problem. I also used Google Translate's audio capabilities to translate my speech into Japanese whenever that was required. Sometimes there were translation errors, but for the most part I was able to get done anything I needed to.
Technology also made it entirely possible to interact with and integrate with Japanese friends while living there. I was able to integrate into culture just fine (as much as any white person is able to).
Technology has essentially wiped out the excuse of "Oh they can't fill out a form in another language!" It's minimized the language barrier. In another five years, we'll all have instant translation devices that we can wear around our necks. It won't matter at all what language we speak.
1
Save that you cannot interact with your company or file any paperwork.
1
Google Translate allows me to instantaneously translate what I or others say into the language of my choosing now.
I can also take a picture of a form and get an instant-translation.
Technology has eliminated the burden of ESL speakers.
1
[deleted]
6
It seems quite costly to process these applications, provide lessons, then deport those who didn't do well. Why not just make knowing the language a requirement to immigrate in the first place? That would reduce the cost for the government(as it would not have to provide lessons) and would reduce the stress placed on the immigration system by individuals who can barely string together a sentence or two.
5
I think 1 year is a sufficient time to be able to have a conversation with other people in their country native tongue.
When you say conversationally fluent, can you put a level on it? B1? C1? C2? How you define it is important, because everyone has a different idea of what it means. It typically means "I can say anything I want to this person and even be sarcastic and they'll understand me; I don't have to put any energy into parsing my words."
That's not conversationally fluent, that's fluent. And it takes way longer than 1 year to learn a language on that level even if it's similar to English. I've studied Russian and Norwegian and the former is harder to learn than the latter, but even then, it depends on the culture. Russians don't speak English very well usually, though some are great. But they will want to speak Russian. Norwegians speak English fantastically and if they find out you're from the US or UK or wherever, they'll be hard-pressed to speak Norwegian even if you can. They're like that for some reason. Learning Swedish in Sweden will be difficult because the native speakers will switch to English immediately, meaning they're actually fighting you on learning their own language. A far cry from a country with a de facto language of English.
3
What about countries that don't have a language, USA has no language for example and many states also don't have a language?
3
At what point have these immigrants actually learned the language well enough? You have to determine some arbitrary test that says if someone has mastered the language enough to be allowed to stay. What do you do with immigrants that only barely fail this test? You've invested a lot of effort and money into them, and they might very well be or become productive members of the country.
Does the degree to which they master the language spoken in their new country matter? There are lots of roles in society that require little to no communication skills. Maybe they could be more productive in some way if communication in the new language was easier, but that can be learned over a longer period of time.
Also, it might not be safe for these immigrants to return to their country of origin. Would you still say that them not mastering a new language is reason to send them back and possibly leave them in a dangerous situation?
2
Is it possible that the person wouldn't be able to learn the language in a year? There's a significant adjustment period when a person comes into the country. Is a year enough?
Does the language dictate when a person loves their new country?
I propose that language isn't required to have a person a productive member of that society.
2
There's a few side questions I think are worth firming up first. Would this apply to only one member of a family? Children? What if there's a fairly traditional immigrant family where the father works and speaks English but the mother stays home and does not? The kids speak mom's language at home but are learning English/French in school. Is this okay under your view?
not becoming a productive member of society
I actually don't think this view is such a bad idea but I think it's a shorthand for what you really want--for immigrants to become productive members of society. Why not just set the bar there rather than at language? Toronto in particular has many pockets where people don't speak English or French but get along just fine and are productive members of society. I don't think language is necessarily a test for productivity.
Canada is an interesting example in that for non-refugee immigrants you often have to prove that you will be productive anyways through the points system--it's actually pretty hard to immigrate to Canada without skills and some language proficiency so this requirement may be mostly met before arrival. The exception might be refugees but they can't really be deported anyways--they're refugees.
2
What about places like Laredo, Texas? 90% of people speak Spanish compared to 9% English speakers.
2
[deleted]
1
Do you have any evidence that language acquisition in immigrants has such a large negative impact that the cost of creating, maintaining, enforcing, and defending your proposal would be worthwhile?
My understanding is that it is largely a self correcting problem. That second generation immigrants become fluent in the dominant language automtically.
1
Fuck dude I've got 4 years of spanish class and I still struggle with basic shit. And spanish is way easier to learn than english.
1
Sorry IsUpNorth, your submission has been removed:
Submission Rule E. "Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to do so within 3 hours after posting. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed." See the wiki for more information..
If you would like to appeal, please respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, and then [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule+E+Appeal+IsUpNorth&message=IsUpNorth+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/68ff16/cmv_immigrants_should_have_1_year_to_learn_their/\))
1
Firstly, I think it's important to remember that it is possible to contribute to society without necessarily speaking the language, although it is more difficult. Migrants can contribute economically without be able to 'speak' the language particularly well, especially if they spend the majority of their time working with their compatriots.
It may also be difficult for some migrants with poor academic skills to reach a standard that would be commonly classified as 'conversationally fluent'. It would be difficult anyway to decide upon a level of fluency that is adequate.
This scheme would also likely be extremely expensive for a government to operate. The language lessons themselves would come with significant costs, but these costs would be dwarfed by the costs of having to deport people and the potential legal battles that would undoubtedly ensue. In addition, if people are living in fear of being deported they may go into hiding meaning law enforcement will have to spend time attempting to find them.
Overall, the benefits of this initiative would be outweighed by the expensive and time-consuming disadvantages.
Wouldn't it make more sense to only allow people to immigrate if they are already able to speak the local language?
Speaking the local language is not only a matter of being a productive member of society as some of the other comments have mentioned, but it is also a sign that the immigrant is willing and will be able to adapt and assimilate, to truely embrace their new national identity.
Only allowing people that already speak the language into the country and testing them to ensure they can speak the language is not, in my opinion, particularly necessary.
The vast majority of immigrants that travel to a country alone will make sure they have a basic grasp of the language anyway, the ones that don't will either be; living with people that already speak their language, meaning they won't be a burden on society, or will simply be forced to learn.
I also don't think it's entirely necessary for immigrants to assimilate completely, as long as they abide by the laws of a country and respect the core principles of their new nation. Assimilation will inevitably come with time anyway.
Only allowing people over that already speak the language may also be damaging for businesses attempting to recruit workers as restrictions are imposed on them.
I'm not doubting that it is possible for an immigrant to survive without being competent in the local language. My point is what gives an immigrant the right adopt a new national identity without assimilating to the local culture?
A tourist must also follow the laws of their destination but the action of a tourist should be distinguished from an immigrant. If being economically productive alone entitles a man to a nationality, what's stopping Putin from buying up mansions in Vancouver and call himself Canadian?
I think that while a person is applying for citizenship the government should be able to decide whether or not they will be beneficial to the country or not.
However, as soon as they are a citizen of a country, they should have freedom to act however they like, as long as they act within the laws of that country. They should not be forced to assimilate if they don't wish to, as long as they're acting legally.
Only if there was evidence that doing so resulted in fewer costs and greater benefits than not doing so.