Here I outlined the current version of how I think US immigration law should be written.
What I notice, over and over, is US natives (not Indians, native whites) saying, “If they want to come here, they should follow the law & learn English.”
OK, let’s write the law so they can do that. No more quotas. No more years of waiting periods. No more *17 different ways you can come in, but really we don’t want you.
*
Simple requirements, so one can get a visa. On one’s own merit. No more thousands of dollars to organized crime to smuggle poor people across the desert. Instead they can enroll in an ESL course & get some inoculations. The coyotes can find honest work.
I’m surprised that nobody had much to say about this issue.
While simple requiring English skills might satisfy some US citizens, I think a lot of people would still be angry about the issue of immigrants taking jobs from Americans (some of the biggest anti-immigrant people I know are those who are working low level jobs that immigrants are frequently hired for). It also wouldn’t do anything to resolve the complaints people have about illegal immigrants straining the healthcare system by using the emergency room and other such resources without having paid taxes into our social services first.
And, of course, that’s assuming that everyone who wanted to immigrate was willing to go through that hoop. Who really knows if some people might still decide they’d rather take their chances using illegal means to get into the country rather than go through the cumbersome process of trying to learn a new language?
Do we currently require immigrants to demonstrate English proficiency? I’m all for having a quickpass English-speaking, disease-free, noncriminal lane for immigration, but I would not want to shut out access to non-English-speakers altogether.
I’m not at all sanguine about the prospect of school districts, local law enforcement, hospitals, fire departments, highway planning commissions and so on being able to keep up with immigration in the sort of numbers we’re talking about here.
I’d oppose any “shall-issue” policy that didn’t require a big upfront payment that would become an impact payment to state and local governments.
Applicants for citizenship have to demonstrate proficiency in English unless they’re over 50 and have resided in the US for 20 years, or are over 50 and have been here for 15. I don’t think applicants for permanent residency do unless they’re here on work visas, in which case they have already demonstrated it.
Why is language even an issue? What onerous consequences is everyone afraid of? Bilingual instruction manuals? You think life isn’t hard enough for someone in the US who doesn’t speak English?
Canada, Europe, and most other developed portions of the world seem to do fine with subsets of their populations speaking different languages. What makes it such a travesty in the US?
I can see plenty of downsides to being a non-English speaker trying to get justice from an English speaking court. But I don’t see any down sides to the rest of us; just more incentive for people to learn English.
And if enough people in a single location speak Spanish, including the judge, jury, prosecution and defense, what exactly are the negative consequences of allowing the trial to proceed in Spanish, as long as the results are published in English?
I’ve received a temporary employment visa, then changed to a green card, and I don’t remember actually having to prove my proficiency in English. (Not that I’d have much of a problem doing so, having earned an honours degree in English at a university in an English-speaking country). I did go for an interview for my green card, among other things, and I’m not sure what would have happened if I’d not been fluent in English for that, so arguably I have demonstrated to an agent (or several agents) of the US government that I can speak English. However, it wasn’t on the list of things I needed to prove.
If I wanted to become a citizen, I would face a test in English, however.
It’s certainly an incentive for people to learn English. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bother with any other incentives.
The costs of doing things in two languages are trivial taken alone, but when you stack them all up they add up.
Re your second question, the negative consequences are fairly simple. One, the laws are written in English, so applying them in a different language is quite problematic for obvious reasons. Two, how on earth do you publish a transcript of the proceedings in English if the proceedings were in Spanish? It’s hard enough to read the law in its original language; translating it is a nightmare.
How do we currently handle non-English-speakers involved in a trial? Refuse justice?
Furthermore, if enough people come to the US who speak another language, wouldn’t cost eventually stop being a barrier? I mean, it obviously makes no sense for a city of 100,000 to make concessions to the one family in town who doesn’t speak English. But if 90% of your municipality speaks Spanish, the cost of a few translators is puny versus a complete failure of the justice system otherwise.
You’re missing the point; it’s not the cost of the translators; even illegal immigrants get translators. It’s the principle of translating the law in the first place. Single words can make a world of difference, and a translator necessarily imbues his or her own spin on whatever he or she is translating. A translation can never be 100% accurate.
Sure, but for that matter, neither is the original English 100% accurate. Every last bit of the law is a matter of someone’s interpretation. That’s why we have attorneys and judges to interpret the law.
Besides, if the law is in English, the law is in English; I don’t intent to deny or change that fact. But attorneys can still argue over those laws in Spanish, can’t they? Just as academics the world over can argue over the meaning of texts written in ancient or foreign languages, referring to “the original Hebrew” or whatever when necessary.
Finally, the difficulty in translating the law has only tangential relevance unless you can connect the dots. How does that point towards the necessity of excluding non-English speakers from becoming US citizens? If they are willing to put up with that burden for the privilege of living here, why not let them?
Because it’s in everyone else’s interest to have them speak English, too. It’s not as though it’s an onerous requirement; English may be among the hardest languages to master, but it’s not that difficult to become proficient in.
