DBD, you do bring up some good points, most of which I agree with. Economic empowerment
does come from the ability to interact with more people in the community, and a lot of times it's possible to learn basic English if you're living in this country, even if you have very little time to do so.
The problem I see comes from another direction, though. There's definitely a lack of understanding and patience coming from a lot of folks who expect immigrants to come directly "off-the-boat" and speak fluent local-dialect English,
and a lot of the same people don't understand that there are differing levels of fluency. Someone might be able to order food in a restaurant or ask for help, but they won't be able to understand a tax form or the list of documents you need to bring to the DMV.
And that's where the stupidity of language regulation comes from. We already know we speak English, and any official documents (which is all that these laws apply to) in this country are already going to be in English, so all this legislation isn't going to help 'preserve' English usage. On the other hand, it's not going to encourage immigrants to learn English because it misses the point of the previous paragraph: there's a learning curve for the language (especially if you're working most of the time), and there are differing levels of fluency (and official documents are often on the upper end of that fluency level).
So as far as the benefits of knowing the local language, and being able to interact with more people, that much is indisputable; and, might I add, saying that such a thing is necessary for economic advancement is accurate, even if folks like to call it xenophobic. But, 'English-only' legislation completely misses the mark and ends up as just some feel-good measure that encourages nothing, except for maybe a little arrogance.
DBD wrote:Giving language these ludicrous titles like "Cultural Heritage" makes them something they were never meant to be. If you want cultural heritage learn the history of the country you love, learn its literature, its art, its music, its architecture. If the only heritage you can hold onto is some innate vocabulary that was given to you from birth then you have no authority to say you care about your country.
And as for the parents that don't try and speak English in front of their children, well, they are selling their childrens futures short because they would rather not take an hour, or a half-hour or fifteen minutes out of a day to learn some English and help them in any way possible. They just assume the government will step in a make them learn it when even native English speakers are mediocre at best because of the poorly managed public school systems. All things that affect and mold children start with the parents.
This is the part of what you said which I think is the most inaccurate.
First, language
is tied to culture. Very strongly. And it's
much more than just vocabulary and a means of communication. When you're fluent in a language it represents another mode of thinking, some of which can be quite similar to your native language, but not necessarily, and not all the time. I'm generally more polite if I speak Japanese, and generally more casual if I speak Spanish. When I speak to my sister in English, even, I have a slight southern accent that I usually don't use when I'm talking to people here, and I'll say different things on account of that.
Language and how you use it is tied to how you are, the circumstances in which you learned that language, and the culture of the origin of that language as well. I still regret that I didn't sit down and learn Bengali when I was little (more on that later), and I know that if I did, then I would've been able to communicate a lot better with my parents,
and there would've been fewer misunderstandings between both of us--misunderstandings that relate to culture and not only communication. This is despite the fact that both of my parents were fluent in English years before they moved to the US.
As for the latter paragraph, sure, it's important for parents to encourage their children to speak English. But if they're in an environment when they're using English regularly (e.g., going to public school), then there's not a strong need to teach English in the home. Hell I wish my parents spoke to me in Bangla when I was little; I would've learned English regardless, and if they spoke to me in Bangla all the time while at home then I could've just as easily picked up both. It's not sealing your kids' fate when you don't speak with them in English; it is, however, if you never encourage them to interact with other people.
DBD wrote:Just as I'm sure knowing English in China may have it's perks, it is far more important to learn Mandarin, the majority spoken language of China.
Most places outside the US are poor examples because of the prevalence of English as an international language. Most Chinese don't expect foreigners to know Chinese, even if they've been living in China for a while (that probably goes double for places like Shanghai or Hong Kong that don't speak Mandarin, or Tianjin on account of a stronger accent). In that sense, knowing English can get you by.
But along those lines, if you want to do official business in India or Bangladesh then you'll need to know English. If you want to do official business, or any legal/governmental work in Morocco or Algeria, then you need to know French.
My only point here is that what people hold true about the US isn't transferable to other countries. So the analogy doesn't quite stick. If anything, it offers a good reason why Americans really need to be more willing to learn other languages besides English. KF