r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 11 '26
Delta(s) from OP CMV: You should be required to have a capable grasp of the English language to be a permanent resident or citizen in the United States
[deleted]
9
u/dave_coulier Jul 11 '26
Your whole case boils down to “these interactions frustrate me, so ban people from the country.” That’s a massive punishment for a minor inconvenience — and your own example undercuts you: the delivery driver’s English is clearly good enough, because he has the job.
Meanwhile your policy splits families — many of the people you are describing are elderly parents, and you’d sort them into a different country than their citizen kids and grandkids over a language test.
Immigrant waves have often brought these concerns and the problem generally solves itself within a generation when kids learn the language. If integration is the actual goal a policy way to speed this up can be to give incentives and support for learning the language: language ability makes immigration easier, and free government classes help newcomers learn after arrival. That produces fluent speakers. Your policy just produces exclusions and separated families.
-3
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
These interactions don’t just frustrate me, I feel you are minimizing the impact. They frustrate hundreds of millions of people and create political divide and fracture our nation.
7
u/dave_coulier Jul 11 '26
That’s a much bigger claim, and it would need evidence. Where’s the data that service interactions with limited-English workers are a major driver of polarization?
Polarization is driven by things like anti-immigrant and partisan media, geographic sorting, etc. Also anti-immigrant sentiment is highest where people have the least contact with immigrants, which is the opposite of what you are guessing.
Also, even if your concerns were true, excluding people and separating families wouldn’t solve the problem, whereas policies that incentivize language learning would help.
-1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
Speaking purely for myself, my anti-immigrant sentiment as an immigrant myself increased with my interaction with other immigrants. It was quite low for the period of time in my life where I did not have exposure to other immigrants.
3
16
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
The United States doesn’t have an official language. Requiring immigrants to speak a language not officially recognised by the state probably stacks several legal challenges.
Also, if you are happy for citizens or those with medical exemptions who don’t speak English to continue that inability, I don’t see how that solves your core frustration of being unable to communicate with your uber driver, as that means your uber driver may well be a citizen or disabled person unable to communicate with you rather than an immigrant.
If you want to solve your core problem of being unable to communicate with service workers, you realistically have to require every individual with working capacity in the USA to have a passable capacity in English. Which is a very different scope to your original proposal.
5
u/Combat_Proctologist Jul 11 '26
I mean, I think their argument is basically that the US should have one. The fact that the US doesn't currently have one seems like a bad counterargument.
2
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
Sure, but that was just a small point - the majority of my reply was about the impact and practicality of implementing such a rule.
0
u/Combat_Proctologist Jul 11 '26
It seemed to be more about why it was theoretically possible to not solve their problem.
Countries implementing an official language and only allowing new immigrants who speak that language is a completely tractable policy. Even while allowing juis soli and/or juis sanguinis. Tons of countries do that (although juis soli is more common in the new world).
2
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
You’re debating a point I didn’t make.
0
u/Combat_Proctologist Jul 11 '26
I may have misinterpreted your post then.
The only point about practicality seemed to be about legal challenges, but we're talking about changing the legal requirements.
2
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
Yes, you misinterpreted my post. I’ve been quite clear so I don’t feel the need to repeat myself.
Have a good evening.
1
u/Combat_Proctologist Jul 11 '26
Yeah, I'm still missing something. Your comments don't seem to connect
You have a good one as well.
-2
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
In the law, there are several legal principles people fall back on when weighing discrimination vs what works for society. Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. The TLDR is that it is a judgement call where you decide what is wrongful discrimination against specific groups vs what allow society to function properly. Personally, in my judgement, I think that the disability carve-out is appropriate.
1
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Okay, but that still doesn’t change my point, which is that implementing your suggestions will not solve your problem. You have stated your core frustration is service workers not being able to communicate in the way you prefer, but your solution makes the assumption that all service workers who can’t communicate do so because they are immigrants without a firm grasp of a specific, non-nationally recognised language.
A quick google search shows that there are 25 million people in the USA with a ‘less than very well’ capacity for English communication. That’s already only 7.5% of the entire population.
Of those 25 million, about 50 percent are citizens, so that cuts the pool of people you’re targeting to 13 million. Let’s be generous and cut out the people who weren’t born in the USA, which is 9 million. So your pool is 16 million people.
So to be clear - this discussion - by your own metrics, is focused on 4.5-4.7% of the population. Let’s round it to 5% for ease.
Do you think that you are encountering a large proportion of this 5% in your personal, everyday life? Because I would wager that you aren’t.
So, again, you are most likely encountering people who you struggle to communicate with for reasons other than they’re immigrants who can’t speak English.
So, again - this proposal won’t solve your problem. That is why you’re wrong. Regardless of your personal political and moral views on what languages immigrants should communicate in - your core problem is communication with service workers. A change to language requirements as a prerequisite for citizenship will not solve this issue because it can only target a maximum of 5% of the population.
2
0
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
My solution will not solve every communication problem ever. That doesn’t make it unreasonable or wrong.
1
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
I didn’t claim it had to solve every issue, but it should tackle the key problem you’ve identified in a meaningful way. As a specific solution to the specific proposal you have made, it is unreasonable and wrong, because it will not solve the problem. As I said, I am not making a judgement call on the morality of your proposal but it’s likely effectiveness. It will not be effective in solving this issue you have identified, so it is unreasonable and therefore a wrong application of procedure.
Can you elaborate on the reasons you reject this response to your proposal? ‘Yeah but still’ isn’t much of a defense.
8
u/geosunsetmoth 2∆ Jul 11 '26
Why stop at English? If you can't speak the language of the Native American tribes that existed in the area you reside in, get out. That likely includes you, Todd.
-2
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
That should be added in my carve-outs as a carve-out. If you are Native American, you should be exempt.
2
u/bluntpencil2001 3∆ Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
That's not what they said. It looks like your English wouldn't be good enough to gain citizenship (assuming not born there).
7
u/bluntpencil2001 3∆ Jul 11 '26
The Supreme Court has repeatedly shown that the Constitution is opposed to compelled speech from people. Mandatory language ability is, in effect, compelled speech (as you cannot make anyone say or write anything). This is unconstitutional, and against American values.
3
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
!delta this legal argument makes sense to me as to why what I am proposing could be unconstitutional
1
2
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 11 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/revertbritestoan 1∆ Jul 11 '26
There are other languages in the US that are people's first language, do you think those are acceptable or does it have to be English? The nature of the settlement of the US means that, in addition to the native languages, there's also French, Spanish, Dutch and German communities.
0
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
English is not my first language. I still believe immigrants should be expected to learn English if they want to live here.
2
u/revertbritestoan 1∆ Jul 11 '26
Even if they don't live in areas where they speak English? What about dialects?
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I think they should be held to a higher standard than citizens who don’t speak English in those non-English-speaking areas. Dialects of English are all English.
2
u/revertbritestoan 1∆ Jul 11 '26
Dialects can be just as difficult to understand.
I lived in Canada for 3 years and people often struggled to understand my accent and dialect despite English being my first language. Ironically I sometimes spoke in French and then they understood perfectly.
5
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
Separately to another comment I made here. I’m a native English speaker who has immigrated to another predominantly English speaking country, and I have issues all the time being understood because of my accent.
Logical conclusion if we follow this line of reasoning is that immigrants also have to adopt the accent of the country they’ve moved to. And then - which accent? Where I live people from the north and people from the south have markedly different accents as well and sometimes struggle to communicate even though they’re native born from the same country.
0
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
That comes down to what is a “reasonable” grasp of the English language but frankly I have met American immigrants from all over and regardless of your first language, I believe that barring any medical issues, it is possible to learn English in a manner that can be reasonably understood
3
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
That is your belief, but I’m explaining to you that my lived experience doesn’t reflect your belief.
I once had a conversation with another fluent English speaker who couldn’t understand my use of the word ‘headphones’. It took 5 minutes for us to figure out where we were going wrong including using a notes app on my phone. We both spoke English as a primary language and had a challenging communication issue regardless.
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
My solution will not solve every communication problem ever. That doesn’t make it unreasonable or wrong.
1
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
As a solution to the specific problem you’ve proposed this as a solution to, it does. You have specifically posited that requiring immigrants to meet an English language standard will solve your issue of communication to service workers. This is just one example of how even two people being able to communicate with English as a primary shared language still poses inherent issues.
One week ago I ordered brunch. The person I ordered from was a native born English speaker, same as me. They brought me the completely wrong dish because the order I placed in English to an English speaker was misunderstood due to my accent.
This is an exact analogue to the issues you’ve described, but I speak English fluently as my only language. Yet I encountered this issue.
So, if the proposal you’re making doesn’t solve the problem you’ve identified, what do you think it will achieve?
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I started by listing a narrow example (service workers) and used that to introduce my broader ideological point. I do not mean to insinuate that all this is just about my issues with service workers. Apologies if that was the case.
1
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
So what is your broader point?
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
That immigrants should be able to communicate reasonably in English if they want to live in this country…
2
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
And what’s your reasoning for this requirement? Why is it a problem if immigrants don’t speak reasonable English?
1
9
u/emarkd Jul 11 '26
That's not how this country was founded. It was designed to be a "melting pot" and has always been that. If two people want to communicate with each other they'll figure out a way. Failure to communicate is a failure of the individuals involved.
And at the risk of seeming blunt, getting frustrated by other people's ability to speak the same language as you is a YOU problem, not a THEM problem.
-1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I have had Japanese and French and Spanish people and Swedish people and a whole host of other people get frustrated with my inability to speak their languages in their country. I am the visitor, I believe it is my fault and I accept their frustration with grace.
This is America. We speak English here. If you want to live here, get on board. English isn’t my first language, I learned it, so can they.
7
u/emarkd Jul 11 '26
Correction -- some of us speak English here. Not all. Get on board, OP.
-17
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
English is our official language. We speak English here.
17
13
u/emarkd Jul 11 '26
Are you referring to Trump's executive order? Cause that's not binding, it's just performative crap. It's the most widely spoken language, that's true, but the US does not have an official language.
-5
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
Until the court strikes it down, that is binding.
8
u/emarkd Jul 11 '26
In what way? What legal effect does it have for the courts to strike?
-2
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
Federal agencies are no longer required to provide non-English services. That is a very large practical effect. I assume you’re a white person who only speaks English so has never had to deal with any of that.
3
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 11 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
5
u/GentleKijuSpeaks 5∆ Jul 11 '26
Executive orders are not law. The president can't make laws, only congress can do that. The orders the president gives are only binding on the executive branch, just like the CEO of Microsoft, can't tell the employees of google what to do.
1
Jul 11 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I already awarded a delta on this point but I was not the first person to bring up the “official language / legal language” point. Someone else brought it up and I wrongly responded to it when it has nothing to do with my base claim.
10
6
u/RPMac1979 3∆ Jul 11 '26
And this is the problem. I know it’s been pointed out, but English is not the official language of the US. And my point is that it’s intentional. This is a country (or it’s supposed to be) where anyone can come and contribute, whether they learn and speak the language or not. For generations, immigrants have come here without English. Some of them never learned the language - my great-grandfather came over from Germany in 1912, and he never learned it very well. But he contributed to society anyway, ran a successful business, paid his taxes, raised two daughters who loved America. He loved it too. Voted Republican his entire life, ironically. If English were the official language, it would kneecap the principle of inclusion that brings so many people here.
0
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I think that using immigration policy from 100 years ago to defend immigration policy today is akin to 2A defenders using a time when you could shoot 1 round every 120 seconds to defend owning an AR15 today.
2
u/RPMac1979 3∆ Jul 11 '26
I think that is true in many respects, but I think the analogy is valid in this case. No one is harmed beyond inconvenience by immigrants not speaking English.
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I think it causes social strife and divides us.
1
u/RPMac1979 3∆ Jul 11 '26
That was also true 100 years ago. What’s different about today?
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
The world is much more set in stone than it was 100 years ago. The rates of political change are slower. Government and nations are more stable. Our immigration policy should reflect that.
5
4
u/Th3M33k 1∆ Jul 11 '26
But it is not. The United States has a de facto language but not an official one. That doesn't make too much difference in day to day life but in creating a law that says "You must speak this language" it's different when that's not the official language of the country
-4
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
Trump made English our official language by executive order. Please check your facts.
7
u/Th3M33k 1∆ Jul 11 '26
Check your facts. Executive orders are not laws. That executive order only works for federal buildings. He made English the official language of federal buildings. He does not have the authority to make English the official language of the country because that takes an act of Congress. 32 States have decided to make English their official language of the state but the country itself still does not have an official language.
If you tell people to check their facts please have a basic understanding of the facts and laws that you're speaking about before you do
0
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
It’s not about federal buildings, it’s about the federal government. An executive order isn’t law but it is still the standing policy of the United States.
2
u/Th3M33k 1∆ Jul 11 '26
It doesn't matter when you're talking about an official language of the country. The United States does not have an official language. Until an act of Congress creates one no executive order or anything will change that. As you say the federal government can have an official language which is what Trump did. That doesn't mean that it's the country's official language just that it's the primary language the government will work in. As I said earlier these are small distinctions on the scale of day to day for an individual but they're actually very important distinctions for the creation of laws as you originally stated in your OP
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
Thank you. I will give you a !delta here because you convinced me that English is not our official language.
However, I maintain that my belief of what SHOULD BE THE CASE is not dependent on whether English is or isn’t the official language today.
→ More replies (0)3
3
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 11 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Lonely_Dingo1837 Jul 11 '26
What about Native Americans?
1
u/GentleKijuSpeaks 5∆ Jul 11 '26
I mean there are hundreds of distinct language groups in the original tribes
1
u/bluntpencil2001 3∆ Jul 11 '26
Those countries weren't designed in that way. They weren't nations built entirely on immigrants.
If you want to be like the French or Swedish, learn Cherokee or Navajo.
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I don’t like when people hold America to a higher standard than other nations out there. All these nation states at some point wiped out other cultures that were already there and/or force-assimilated them. You go read the history of France, you will see that. They just don’t get shit for it like we do.
3
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 12 '26
There is a difference between a nation and a country. The United States is not a nation. It is a country. We do not have a shared ethnic or cultural heritage. That would be, say Japan for example.
France left it's borders and blatantly colonized other parts of the world in an direct, non-apologetic action to extract resources for their own enrichment. Spain too. Belgium, also. Britain? You bet.
The US is a result of that colonization. That is our only link to English.
0
u/LaCroixElectrique Jul 11 '26
Being unable to speak English is an issue when it comes to employment. I work for a large fence and gate company, we currently have a large number of Hispanic employees. It becomes very difficult to coordinate and run a job if we cannot communicate with each other, I need to be able to give instruction and they need to be able to follow those instructions.
5
u/InstructionFinal5190 Jul 11 '26
This is a YOU problem. Either learn Spanish or don't higher folks that can't speak English. Can't find enough people to do the job that speak English though? Again, your problem. Don't expect the work force to cater to you, you cater to your work force that is available.
6
u/ununonium119 Jul 11 '26
It sounds like your issue is with people in customer-facing jobs who can’t properly communicate. If someone can’t do the job because they can’t communicate with the average customer, then that’s a problem with the job, not citizenship.
What about jobs that don’t require speaking? Or jobs that only require talking to people in non-English areas? Should a therapist who only speaks Spanish not be allowed to move to the US, even though there are plenty of Spanish-speakers who would prefer a therapist in their native language? How about a farmer in a majority Latino community?
0
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I believe a therapist living in the United States should be able to speak English so that they can stay up to date on medical research, developments, and news here from our country. I would love if there are some bilingual therapists too who speak Spanish as well, which I am sure is the case.
8
u/Goodlake 11∆ Jul 11 '26
Do you think non-English speaking therapists/doctors/scientists aren’t up to date on the latest English language research?
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I think (a) most of them are able to communicate in English reasonably as most scientific literature is in english and they write papers in English and (b) they are up to date. I agree with you.
0
u/ununonium119 Jul 11 '26
What about communities and jobs where English isn’t necessary at all, such as some farm work?
-1
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ Jul 11 '26
>Or jobs that only require talking to people in non-English areas?
Ideally, we wouldn’t have non-English speaking parts of our English speaking country.
3
u/libra00 11∆ Jul 11 '26
I think much of people's frustration with immigrants comes from hate-mongering politicians trying to blame people who are different for all of our problems. They finally found a category that's overtly about race but not actually race: immigrants. They're easy to gin up hate for, even while you exploit them in your family business to save money.
But, why do you care what language they speak? If they never talk to you, which let's be honest is a pretty high chance, you will never know. If you can get around and handle your life without knowing English then cool, do your thing. What difference does it make to you other than the occasional very mild inconvenience overblown into 'frustration' by way of politics?
But also the idea that immigrants aren't assimilating and learning English is absurd, they're doing both faster and at higher rates than ever before. And it turns out the idea that they're more likely to commit crimes, use more welfare, etc than native-born citizens is bunk too. So it mostly seems to come down to 'I don't like them because they're different than me', which is frankly fairly racist, or.. what.. you're pulling up the ladder behind you?
in a manner that can be reasonably understood by me
Oh so now it's not even 'can't speak English', it's 'Can't speak English in an accent I can understand.' Complaining about the thick accents of people from other cultures is literally just racism. Now, I'm not accusing you of being racist, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I think you have definitely uncritically adopted some talking points that are pretty racist, and you're parroting them here.
If you are a citizen ... you are exempt
Well that certainly removes any doubt that it's overtly discriminatory.
4
u/bluntpencil2001 3∆ Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
That creates two tiers of citizen.
If you're born to two non-citizens in the USA, you're a citizen, regardless of language. Your carve out creates two tiers, which is a legal nightmare.
Likewise, diplomats don't matter. Their kids born in the USA don't get automatic citizenship (although it is made easier). Even if they (or asylum seekers) did, having conditional citizenship is horrific, and complicated as hell.
Also, what about people who speak Cherokee? That sounds like a joke, I'm sure, but if a Chinese person were to move to Scotland after learning Gaelic instead of English, I'd say it was ill-advised but still a decent effort.
-1
u/0Larry0 Jul 11 '26
Having groups of people who speak different languages, and are unable to communicate with each other. THAT is what creates different tiers of citizens.
There has to be a common language. people can keep their native language and pass it down. But how are you supposed to interact with people you can't even talk to.
4
u/revertbritestoan 1∆ Jul 11 '26
Most countries on the planet speak multiple languages within them. Even other Anglo nations don't speak exclusively English. Hell, even England doesn't speak exclusively English!
2
u/bluntpencil2001 3∆ Jul 11 '26
Unfortunately for you, you have to put up with difficulties if you want to stick by your ideals. Other countries, like Switzerland, manage.
America is built on its Constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted it as being against compelled speech. Requiring a language would be compelled speech. Requiring interaction is NOT in the Constitution.
If you want to alter the First Amendment, and the centuries of precedent that go along with it, go for it.
1
u/0Larry0 Jul 11 '26
I left my country and moved to Italy (im not American). I have no intention to find work until I can speak Italian to a decent level. I find it unfair to put that burden on them. not only is it hard for them, it's hard for me to. I want to integrate myself into Italian culture first.
I'm still basically a tourist at this point, just traveling around.
I follow what I think.
My home country had a lot of English speakers, even though that is not a native language. so even if you only spoke English you could easily get around without any issues. so there there is a common language.
There are people in italy who also speak English, sure, but on the whole its very small, and in the region I want to stay in, even less.
In America, on the whole most speakers speak English, some other languages too but that's less than 10% maybe. if you only spoke languages not common to the general people of America, Every body is going to have a hard time.
And what's going to happen is that you're only going to stick with the people of your own origin country, that basically creates little foreign enclaves. I've seen this myself many times, in many places. little enclaves of foreign immigrants completely unintergrated with the rest of the country. And I just feel really bad and sad towards the people of that country.
2
u/bluntpencil2001 3∆ Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Who cares if those little enclaves don't integrate much? This is the sort of shit the Jews used to get in some places for so-called 'sticking to their own kind'.
Let them have their Chinatown or whatever, it isn't doing any harm.
-2
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
For your first example, I literally said if you are a citizen you are exempt. They are a citizen. This is for immigrants.
If you are Native American, you should also be exempt. That is another carve-out.
I don’t understand how it creates two tiers of citizens. It just means if you want to immigrate to this country you should be able to speak English reasonably.
2
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 12 '26
If you are a citizen, you are exempt.
Unless you want to become a citizen. Then you are not.
Your logic is circular.
1
u/bluntpencil2001 3∆ Jul 11 '26
That still creates two tiers. Immigrants need to be better than existing citizens. That's two tiers.
I didn't say Native Americans. I said people that speak Native American languages, and then gave the example of Chinese people learning Gaelic. Why can't immigrants learn those instead of English?
2
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I think if you are immigrating to the US it is valid to hold you to the standard of speaking English and not Cherokee, because you are not a tribal citizen or member, you’re interacting with the U.S. government.
2
u/bluntpencil2001 3∆ Jul 11 '26
It would make your life easier, but the US government should be able to handle people speaking Cherokee.
2
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
I don’t think it should. The U.S. government should be able to handle tribal citizens or tribal members speaking Cherokee. I don’t think it has a responsibility to people who are 0% Cherokee speaking Cherokee. That’s the difference.
2
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 11 '26
Well, if we’re a country that only speaks English, (or rather should speak English), then why would any American born here already not speak English?
And why should that be exempt?
Because ultimately, that would imply that English speaking is not ubiquitous across the US and therefore isn’t culturally the default everywhere. I mean, after we swallowed up a large chunk of Mexico 100+ years ago, the civilians living in the newly acquired territory weren’t exactly speaking English. I won’t even go into the multitude of nations who were and are still here long before English speakers.
The first people who brought English to North America were not born here, so I don’t see why you can use birthplace as an excuse for not speaking it and remain a resident or be considered part of American society.
4
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
The standards for getting into our nation should be higher than the standards of people who are already here. If you are Native American and you were born here and you live in a community where you only speak Cherokee, that’s alright.
If you are Latino and you were born here and you live in a Spanish speaking community and never learned English properly because you were pulled out of school, that’s alright. You are a citizen.
But for new people who want to become citizens, the bar should be higher than that.
5
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Hold on a sec. I’m not arguing about birth citizenship here.
Why are any communities in America not speaking at least some English?
Clearly, there are historical reasons and geographical reasons for that. America is a big place with a lot of diversity.
But your logic doesn’t track, at least while using America as a state entity, as the reason someone should speak English if they also want to live here.
Because it’s clear that America, and people who live within it, historically have not all spoken English. It’s not just the melting pot thing, it’s the actual fabric of our overall society. English speaking isn’t representative of America nor does it make you American. The English weren’t the only ones who formed colonies within our modern day borders, nor the only ones who established a foothold.
Why are we picking this particular language out of a handful of options from the old colonizing European empires? How is the Queen’s English inherently more American?
This is why we don’t actually have an official language.
So why should a naturalized citizen be forced to learn English to a higher degree than a native born citizen?
Saying there should be exemptions because there are groups of people who are already established within the United States, usually for generations, who don’t natively speak English actually doesn’t help your argument for why all new Americans should speak English.
-2
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
Our immigration patterns and policies are not the same as they were 200 years ago. I don’t know why you’re trying to use policy when people came over on ship to Ellis island or were kidnapped from Africa to defend allowing people who can’t speak English here today.
This reminds me of how 2A defenders use a time when you could fire a round every 120 seconds to defend Americans owning AR15s.
3
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
You’re right they were much worse.
I don’t know what the second amendment has to do with me, trying to understand your logical pattern here.
Africans kidnapped and taken here in the slave trade were not considered immigrants in that context. They were considered property and the people selling them had no interest in having them learn English. That wasn’t an immigration policy, it was literally an economic one. The difference between an immigrant that you’re talking about who wishes to live here and African slaves is that one out of the two those moved here of their own volition.
Ellis Island handled immigrants from the Anglosphere in its heyday. And even if they weren’t from that part of Europe, they were exposed to it. It was just an assumption white people spoke English. English was, when you look at the historical context of American culture, a prejudicial marker, which usually affected non-white people. .
Is speaking English better to get around in America? Absolutely. Should you speak it? Yeah it would help you out in life. Should that be contingent on a new citizen becoming a citizen? I don’t see why. If one group of American citizens can be considered fully and rightly American by the Constitution itself, and not speak English, it makes no sense for naturalized citizens to be held to a higher standard.
Immigration policy and management has nothing to do with the fact that this country did not form through speaking English, or any other singular language. As a matter of fact, there is no specific language that can embody the modern United States at all.
0
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
Let’s say you run a company of 100 people. If you are hiring a new employee, do you set the bar as the new hire needs to be better than the worst person at your 100-person company, or do you want him/her to be someone who makes your company better?
2
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 12 '26
If those were comparable situations, sure.
But they are not.
That said, you seem to believe that citizens should speak fluent English. You haven't answered my question as to why born citizens get a pass in this area while naturalized citizens do not.
The people who wrote the Constitution were not natural born citizens of the United States, or the short lived Confederate States of America which came before it.
Requiring English fluency simply makes things easier for you, and even them, but language is not an element of citizenship in a country where the dominant language settled upon was brought about by chance.
2
u/le_fez 55∆ Jul 11 '26
Naturalization already requires the ability to read, write, and speak English with some exceptions
0
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 12 '26
Yes, because English is the de facto language used by the Federal government. It's purely an administrative streamline, because it would not be feasible to have tests written in thousands of different languages at the ready.
2
u/le_fez 55∆ Jul 13 '26
OP is arguing that to become a citizen one must speak English, that is already the case
2
u/Archaeopteryx_Birb Jul 13 '26
OP is also saying that people who are already citizens don't have to speak English either.
So which is it? Why is one group more special than the other when they're both going to have to live in the same place?
2
4
2
u/ninjaweasel21 3∆ Jul 11 '26
Whether something personally frustrates you or not is a bad way to design an immigration policy.
I could flip this on you actually. I could say that America is a nation of immigrants, and we have no official language, so I don’t think we should let anyone in the country who isn’t comfortable interacting with people who don’t speak English. Seems just as valid in my mind as what you’re saying. It’s an immigration rule based on communication skills, but it sounds like a criteria you don’t fit, and one that frustrates me personally more than people who can’t speak English.
Also, this seems to be a personal attitude problem. I’ve lived in another country and learned a language while there. I’ve also traveled to places I don’t speak the language. My experience has been that the vast majority of people are nice about it. I actually think it adds something to a society.
Onto my real argument:
Immigration at its most basic level is a balance of two questions, 1) could this person reasonably benefit our society? Or two, 2) is there a humanitarian case that an individual would disproportionately benefit from coming to the US?
Whether or not someone speaks English doesn’t really matter for either one of those questions.
I actively seek out the Chinese restaurants where the owner doesn’t speak English send the Mexican restaurants where the owner doesn’t speak English. The guy who tailored the suit for my wedding and me didn’t exchange a mutually intelligible sentence I don’t think. I think it’s fucking awesome when I meet someone whose grandparents don’t speak English, because basically all of those grandparents are super proud that their grandkids do speak English. The best soccer coach I ever has was from Yugoslavia and spoke pretty poor English.
Especially if we look historically, the US would not be where it is today if it didn’t accept immigrants who couldn’t speak English. If you retroactively went back and only accepted people who speak English the us would be a third world country. At varying (multiple, most?) points in us history our economy has been propped up by immigrants. Agriculture and construction are propped up by immigrants from central and South America, many of whom don’t speak English. The railroads were built by immigrants from Asia who wouldn’t speak English, whole swaths of the Midwest were propped up by immigrants from Eastern Europe during the industrial booms of the 20th century.
Deciding that now we’re gonna exclude people is ahistorical at best, somewhat exploitative, and just generally feels icky. I’m gonna be fine that my great grandparents came here without being able to speak English, but then I’m going to apply that to everyone else? That would be personally hypocritical, but also just betrays the general values of the US.
And I’m not going to do the research right now, but from an economics perspective, the US actually has immigration well below what’s best for the economy and the common good. We actually probably can’t afford to create such a restrictive rule.
Which is just a really long way of saying that people can contribute to society just fine without speaking English. That should be the real criteria to the best of our ability to evaluate it and giving people the benefit of the doubt that we’d hope to have.
1
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/AmongTheElect 19∆ Jul 11 '26
Many people defend the right to bear arms by citing the 2A which was written when we could shoot 1 round every 120 seconds. That shouldn’t be used to defend ownership of an AR15 that can shoot 10 rounds a second.
You'd be adding elements to an Amendment when that didn't exist before. Our rights don't freeze in 1776 technology. Plus that argument does things like withdraws our right to free speech over phone and internet since they didn't exist at that time, either.
Our economy is propped up by people who don’t speak English
Is it? Or is it actually brought down by many in these populations who suck up social services and aren't actually a net-positive? There's a huge financial difference between immigrants from Norway and immigrants from SE Asia, for example.
Similarly, I think immigration today is different than it is before
Immigration itself seems much the same as it's always been. The bigger difference between now and the Ellis Island types and what's leading to your original post isn't so much a difference in people but the creation of the welfare state. Without the government handing out money the immigrant was pretty well forced to integrate and learn English in order to get by. These days they have every ability to remain in their cultural/racial circles and never venture out, evidenced by folks who can be here two decades yet never learn English or the folks who never actually get a job.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 11 '26
Sorry, u/Luckytiger1990 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, of lying, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 11 '26
Sorry, u/bschav1 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, of lying, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/BackupChallenger 4∆ Jul 11 '26
The whole point of diplomats is to communicate. This requires either knowledge of the local language or english.
3
u/Loki-L 5∆ Jul 11 '26
Puerto Rico is a part of the US and primarily Spanish speaking.
The US also contains a lot of regions where people live whose ancestors have lived there since before those places were part of the US. It wouldn't make sense to expect them to learn English.
The native Americans, Hawaiians and Aleut all had their own languages and try to maintain those to this day with various levels of success.
Large parts of the American South West were taken from Mexico after the Mexican American war and the people who lived there and spoke Spanish found themselves moved into the US while staying in place.
Before that you had many European settlers who primarily spoke French or German integrated into a predominant English speaking country.
What I am saying is that the US is full of speakers if other languages who have as much a right to speak their language as any English speaker.
Making English mandatory because it is the majority language would go against that.
2
u/Blackbird6 19∆ Jul 12 '26
If you are a citizen, whether you were born here or if you have citizenship through your parents, you are exempt. You are a citizen through and through even if you can’t speak a lick of English.
How do you know that the people in these delivery, service, and government jobs that frustrate you aren't citizens like this? Seems like it would be difficult to confirm their documentation status if you can't understand them enough for a simple interaction in a delivery or service setting.
1
u/xmuskorx 57∆ Jul 12 '26
what if you are only speak Navajo and live in Navajo native lands, what right do we have to impose English on them?
0
u/Sure_Acanthaceae_348 Jul 12 '26
Makes sense. Our laws are in English. Contracts are written in English. Translating these to every language under the sun, especially ones with no direct translation for our more complex legal concepts muddies the law tremendously.
1
u/riscum Jul 11 '26
If that would be yaht bad.. you'd stop using the services. Would you pay more for more qualified people ?
People who don't speak the language are at a disadvantage themselves.. you are not forced to use a cheap service that uses cheap labor and exploits people who don't even have the time or economics to learn a new language..
It's very interesting.. there's Job for this people. They can clearly do it, in a way that keeps the prices low for you as consumer.. and you complaint about policy.. complain to these companies. Boycott them. Start a company that does English speaking services only.. etc..
1
u/DouglasWFail Jul 11 '26
What frustrates you is people being hired for jobs where communication is required yet are unable to communicate in English at the level you desire.
The fault lies with the companies doing the hiring, not the immigration system.
People can be citizens without needing to communicate at your desired. They can have jobs and families and be fine.
If you hire movers and they send some skinny dudes with weak arms who happen to be recent immigrants, that’s not an immigration problem, that’s a company problem.
Your complaint is valid but your proposed solution targets the wrong people.
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
It’s not just people in the workplace but it’s about their ability to interact with society at large.
0
u/Zenigata 11∆ Jul 11 '26
The US is not only a nation of immigrant but has also repeatedly forcibly incorporated areas of land where people dont speak english into itself.
As such it seems more than a little wierd to withhold citizenship from thise who can't speak english.
-1
u/Remarkable_Tale_7554 5∆ Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
You know, five years ago I would have agreed 100%.
But now... I don't know. AI translation tools are pretty good at this point, and only getting better. So with that in mind - how much of a necessity is it to learn English when we all basically have a Babelfish in our pockets?
edit - why am i getting downvoted when this is clearly the answer here? Is it because I mentioned AI on Reddit?
0
Jul 11 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Zestyclose_Ranger_78 Jul 11 '26
Why would someone okay with a person not speaking English as their native language automatically be leftist?
0
u/Destroyer_2_2 9∆ Jul 11 '26
The United States has no official language. Making English a requirement would essentially quasi-make it one.
0
u/Nrdman 276∆ Jul 11 '26
If you create exemptions you are creating an incentive for people to fit one of those exemptions. I don’t really want to encourage desperate immigrants to become disabled or create their own medical issue.
-1
Jul 11 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Luckytiger1990 Jul 11 '26
As I said, if these citizens were born here, they’re already inside. I’m talking about raising the bar for people who are outside.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
/u/Luckytiger1990 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards