Posted on 11/30/2020 4:37:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Testifying in 1996 before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on bilingual ballot requirements, Boston University's president John Silber opened with an anecdote about his father, who had immigrated to the United States from Germany in 1903 to work as a sculptor at the St. Louis World's Fair. Looking for a job after the fair ended, Silber's father spotted a sign that said "Undertaker," which he assumed meant the same thing as Unternehmer, the German word for "contractor." So he walked in to apply for work," Silber told the committee, "and was surprised to find himself in a room full of coffins. Embarrassed, he concluded that it was time to learn English."
The elder Silber would later say that America was "the land of a thousand possibilities," but that "without English these would have been reduced to a very few." So he learned English, his son recounted, and "in doing so, he embraced a new country and a new culture."
John Silber's father was one of tens of millions of immigrants over the years who made an effort to master English and thereby dramatically improve their odds of succeeding in America. My own father, an immigrant from Czechoslovakia, was another. When he arrived in 1948, learning English was one of his first priorities. Three nights a week he attended English classes for adults, and on Sundays he and a group of fellow immigrants organized social outings during which they could practice their new language. My father got off the boat already knowing Slovak, Hungarian, Yiddish, and some German. But for the past 70 years, English has been his primary tongue — the language in which he raised a family, made a living, and participated in civic life.
What brings all this to mind is a story in Tuesday's Boston Globe about the impact of learning English on the income of immigrants.
"Learning English is arguably the most valuable skill immigrants can acquire after they arrive in the United States," my colleague Katie Johnston reported. "[A] first-of-its-kind study in Massachusetts reveals just how valuable that skill can be." Conducted by the Economic Mobility Corporation, the study covered 800 immigrants, a randomly chosen half of whom were offered government-subsidized English classes in 2016 and 2017. The findings were unambiguous: The annual income of immigrants who studied English was thousands of dollars higher than that of those who didn't, and their earnings grew at a faster rate. One of the study's co-authors pronounced the results "absolutely stunning." But really, what could be less stunning than data confirming that English language proficiency is critical to the success of immigrants to America?
That success is measured not just by dollars and cents, but by inclusion in the rich panoply of American life — in its culture and entertainment, its sports and music, its enduring traditions and latest fads, its politics and activism. There is no disputing that English is America's common tongue. Campaigns to formalize that status flare up from time to time, and about 30 states have declared English their official language. But in Congress, bills to make English the legal language of the United States have never succeeded.
They've never needed to. Though hundreds of languages are spoken in this country, English stands alone. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 90 percent of US residents "voice the view that to be truly American it is very or somewhat important that a person speak English." That is far higher than the share of Americans who believe that being born in the United States or being a Christian is essential to Americanness. What's more, the Pew survey found, on this subject there is no racial or ethnic cleavage. Black, white, and Hispanic Americans all agree by lopsided majorities that proficiency in English is "very important" to being fully American.
Perhaps it is this innate sense that speaking English is a prerequisite for American identity that explains the perpetual fear that the United States is in danger of being overtaken by non-English speakers.
As long ago as 1753, Benjamin Franklin worried that German immigrants were flocking to his colony of Pennsylvania in such numbers that "they will soon so outnumber us, that all the advantages we have will not in my opinion be able to preserve our language." Early in the 20th century, Theodore Roosevelt insisted that "we have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality." During Donald Trump's 2016 run for president, he blasted Jeb Bush for speaking Spanish on the campaign trail: "While we're in this nation," he ranted, "we should be speaking English." Americans 50 or 75 years from now will probably still be fretting that the only way to safeguard American culture is to demand that English and only English be used in the public square.
While some "English only" chauvinism is rooted in bigotry, much of it reflects a sincere concern that American society, already so fractured, not lose one of its most unifying features: a common language. But by now it should be clear that the position of English in the United States is rock-solid. Franklin and Roosevelt can be excused for not realizing that a commitment to English was so entrenched and dominant in American life that even massive waves of immigration would be unable to wash it away. But we should certainly realize it.
Immigrants today acquire proficiency in English faster than they did a century ago, and their children and grandchildren typically lose the ability to speak any other language. Immigrants know better than anyone how integral English is to becoming American, and their eagerness to learn it only grows stronger with each generation. We have never needed a law to make English our official language. To all intents and purposes, it always has been. It seems safe to assume it always will be.
We had been married for almost 4 years when he brought me over to immigrate. By that time I was already able to read, speak and write in English.
"While we're in this nation," he [Trump] ranted
It's too bad Jacoby--who was once a great and important columnist--can't get over his Never-Trump resentment that Trump, from the escalator in 2015, has been right about virtually everything.
Jacoby is like Ben Shapiro. Mostly on point with their view of the world. But they have some innate obligation to slam President Trump all the time. Makes me lose respect for them.
I should add--and we're very glad you're here!
My friend met a gal in Germany and she eventually married him. She learned English by watching, of all things, ‘Coal Miners Daughter’ over and over. She is now a most patriotic and conservative American.
I we don’t overturn this fraudulent election, we will all be learning Mandarin.
My Italian college professor said watching movies over and over is a good way to learn a language. A German girl that sounds like Loretta Lynn sounds nice.
Guy Benson is the Never Trumper but not Ben Shapiro
'You Can't Do That:' Trump's Terrible Interview Underscores Why He's Losing
First, it is admittedly a bit bizarre that Trump continues to double down on his message that he wishes Jeffrey Epstein's alleged accomplice well. Ghislaine Maxwell is accused of repeated sexual assault and serial trafficking of underage girls. Trump and Maxwell knew each other in a previous life, but it's mystifying that the president can't just repeat some boilerplate about being disturbed by the allegations and hoping that justice is served. Instead, he seems more defensive of Maxwell than he is of any number of people he's personally hired into his own administration. He's offered a harsher recent assessment of Dr. Deborah Birx than he has of a woman charged with sex crimes against children. People are overreaching on this point with various conspiracy theories, but it's certainly an odd tic.
Second, Trump deflected questions about the historical legacy of civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, who died last month of pancreatic cancer. The president said he doesn't know how Lewis will be judged by history, repeatedly noting that Lewis boycotted his inauguration and State of the Union Addresses. Trump did not participate in any of the formal memorials for Lewis, and his recurring focus on various snubs pretty obviously reveals the reason why. Lewis also pettily refused to attend President George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration, and expressed adamant disagreements with Bush over the course of his two terms in office. Nevertheless, the 43rd president rose above political disagreements and slights, delivering a lovely eulogy for Lewis in Atlanta last week. Trump could and should have been more gracious; some contributions to progress and the greater national good must transcend the politics of the day. The president's inability to overcome his blinkered, myopic and transactional approach to life may be appealing to some supporters, but it's not serving him well with the broader electorate.
Finally, we arrive at the Q&A on coronavirus. I believe that many in the media and the opposition (there is significant overlap, of course) have weaponized the virus against Trump from day one, reflexively criticizing virtually everything he's done and said -- up to and including the point of regurgitating Chinese Communist propaganda. The pandemic is being used as an opportunity to deify progressive politicians and demonize conservative ones, with little regard for actual data or facts. Trump is at the center of this target, and he's consequently watched his standing fall from a slight electoral favorite to a clear underdog. The White House and his campaign can talk all they want about "resets" and "new tones," but the fundamental problem is exhibited in this exchange:
.@jonathanvswan: “Oh, you’re doing death as a proportion of cases. I’m talking about death as a proportion of population. That’s where the U.S. is really bad. Much worse than South Korea, Germany, etc.”@realdonaldtrump: “You can’t do that.”
Swan: “Why can’t I do that?” pic.twitter.com/MStySfkV39— Axios (@axios) August 4, 2020
Trump was simply not equipped to mount a convincing defense on any of this, even as a number of decent-to-strong arguments were available to him. He wanted to focus on the US death rate among those who contract the disease, and understandably so. America's case fatality rate is far better than much of the world, outperforming dozens of other countries, including the UK, Italy, France, Mexico, Spain, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Brazil and Portugal. This is a testament to our high quality, innovative healthcare system and dedicated healthcare workers. Trump could have pressed this point home, and even pivoted to noting how many nations with single-payer, government-run systems have glaringly under-performed the frequently reviled US system on this important metric. Adrift and frazzled, he didn't even try.
Swan preferred to discuss COVID mortality as a percentage of the population, generally measured by the number of deaths per 100,000 people living in any given country. Somehow, the president was totally unprepared to address this issue, shuffling papers, trying to shut the line of argument down by saying, "you can't do that," and baselessly hinting that South Korea's data may be questionable. What he could have accurately said is that despite the US experiencing a very difficult time early on, our population-based mortality rate still remains better than a number of other hard-hit nations, from the UK to Spain, Italy, and Sweden. We are roughly equivalent to France. Politically-motivated critics want voters to believe that America's standing is uniquely terrible on the world stage, but that's not true. Trump could also have steered the back-and-forth in other advantageous directions, such as highlighting how the "official" global statistics take Beijing's bogus numbers at face value, which would have turned the discussion back to the entirely legitimate and important issue of the Chinese Communist Party's culpability in this disaster.
He also could have noted that the abject failure of Democratic governors in New York, New Jersey, Michigan and elsewhere to protect vulnerable populations in nursing homes has disproportionately contributed to America's relatively high death rate. If those governors hadn't forced many thousands of infected people into facilities filled with elderly residents within the first few months of the pandemic, our national numbers would look a lot better. That's basically indisputable, especially in light of comparatively low death rates across the rest of the country. One might guess whether he'd have been ready with a rebuttal to Gov. Cuomo's go-to blame shift tactic on this criticism. Perhaps he could have pushed back more effectively against Swan's technically-correct point about deaths increasing in sunbelt states. Leading indicators like infection rates, hospitalizations, and ICU bed availability are all headed downward in places like Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas. Deaths are up (though still far, far, far below levels seen in the Northeast), but that's a lagging indicator. If the declining trajectories on the other measures continue to point in the right direction, deaths will follow suit. Those states would have flattened the curve. Trump touched on this briefly at the end of the clip above, but provided little clarity for viewers who may be confused about who was telling the truth.
TRUMP: Right now, I think it’s under control. I’ll tell you what—
SWAN: How? 1,000 Americans are dying a day.
TRUMP: They are dying. That’s true, and you—it is what it is. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t doing everything we can. It’s under control as much as you can control it. pic.twitter.com/AViWOt2COJ— JM Rieger (@RiegerReport) August 4, 2020
People who cut off the "that doesn't mean we aren't doing everything we can" bit aren't giving a full picture of that answer, but even a sub-average politician should have the awareness to realize, "it is what it is" isn't the sort of tautological cliche that fits the moment. Those who want to see President Trump re-elected for a second term shouldn't be angry with Swan for asking tough questions with aggressive follow-ups (Joe Biden needs to undergo rigorous cross-examinations, too). They shouldn't be frustrated with those who offer negative analyses of Trump's performance. He is the president and the candidate. He's trailing. The moment looms large and the stakes are high. He needs to do better. Can he?
He also had me answer a letter from his Mother. I did that by having a English-German dictionary next to me and looking the words up. Within time I got better
When I brought my Vietnamese wife to America 50 years ago, I spoke Vietnamese and she did not speak English. It was on her insistence that we only speak English, because she said she would not be able to work, shop, drive, learn or properly experience America without English.
And I am glad he did!
You post so many good threads that I respond to.
I suspect that as the illegal immigrant population resumes its explosive growth under Biden and Harris, it will become possible to live one’s entire life in Hispanic-populated areas without having to learn English, if it isn’t already.
I learned English at a VERY early age; but I still haven’t got it mastered completely.
Folks in Houston say I speak it with a Hoosier accent.
The democrats want immigrants to keep their native language and not learn English. That will keep them down and dependent on government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.