A little advice when coming to America...

[Sircnay]

Of course there's a exception to every rule. But you tell me that they would've had an easier time learning when they were teenagers than if they were children. I guess linguists don't know ****.

Nope they don't. Because This also applies to all 3 million Hmong immigrants who came here when they were 13+ years old.

[MaineExport]

I think you're not catching the point. Age and ability to effectively learn a new language have a direct positive correlation.

As one gets OLDER it gets HARDER to learn. There is no argument that your parents didn't learn the language well, nor is there an argument that millions of immigrants din't learn the language well. The point is... that it's EASIER to learn when one is YOUNGER.

[skydragoness]

Nope they don't. Because This also applies to all 3 million Hmong immigrants who came here when they were 13+ years old.

PLEASE take a linguistics 101 class. You'll see what i mean. I hated every single minute of it, but that was the one thing that i remembered near the end of the semester--the only time anything got interesting that is.

There was a case study involving a girl (Genie) that was never exposed to language as a child (child abuse case in the 70's) and when she was relinquished at the age of 13 linguists attempted to teach her to speak english. She ended up absorbing a large vocabulary , but her syntax and morphology never fully developed. This is where the whole 'Critical Age Period' is based on. But the point I was trying to make is that language acquisition is more fluid and faster in childhood than in puberty and beyond. Not everyone is left-brained, there are so many factors that could contribute to that guy on the phone being so incoherent, maybe he never took english classes (for shame) and he was just wingin' it.

[Sircnay]

I think you're not catching the point. Age and ability to effectively learn a new language have a direct positive correlation.

As one gets OLDER it gets HARDER to learn. There is no argument that your parents didn't learn the language well, nor is there an argument that millions of immigrants din't learn the language well. The point is... that it's EASIER to learn when one is YOUNGER.

That's perfectly fine and I agree wholeheartedly. But about 45% of the immigrants are around the age of 25-30 years old.

[Nismo_Freak]

I got no problem with immigrants... at one point we all were immigrants to this country so it's sorta elitist of us to tell someone they can't come in.

However, I AM for 100% control over who comes in. If this requires locking down the borders and making people go through a beauratic paper nightmare then thats just the way it's going to be done. Some simple rules should apply to all...

1. Proof of ability to become a PRODUCTIVE member of society. 2. Must learn English (ties into number 1) 3. Must pay Taxes (federal, state, etc.)4. 6 month Check Ups (screw up and your out)

Plain and simple, you come over here... you get a job that you've earned, you pay taxes, you learn the language. Just the same as every immigrant that came before. No free rides for anyone, this isn't the 1920's.

The way I see it is most immigrants work harder, and have better morals than 50% of the Americans we got here. I say we start kicking out governmental handout leeches and overall unnecessary baggage (homeless people, repeat felons, etc.) and create our own productive super society.

My views are extreme but I think they are fair. There is no reason for me or you for that matter to work our asses off to pay the government to support indigents.

[s13sr20chris]

dude, i am with you. i also further believe every american must earn his/her citizenship. we take it for granted. i dont think anyone should be guaranteed citizenship unless they pass a written test/swear alliegiance/etc. i love my country and i hate that we abuse it so.

[MaineExport]

Plain and simple, you come over here... you get a job that you've earned, you pay taxes, you learn the language. Just the same as every immigrant that came before. No free rides for anyone, this isn't the 1920's.

Haha... back then we didn't have welfare and social programs to milk off of. Immigrants either "made it" or they DIED. There was no "safety net" to fall back on when people decided to get lazy. I'm all for the kind of reform you speak of... and make it apply to people who are already here as well!

[AZhitman]

Haha... back then we didn't have welfare and social programs to milk off of. Immigrants either "made it" or they DIED. There was no "safety net" to fall back on when people decided to get lazy. I'm all for the kind of reform you speak of... and make it apply to people who are already here as well!

I agree wholeheartedly with Nismo_Freak, Chris and Maine - great points.

However, there WAS a safety net. It's called the church (and various other social assistance groups).

My mom's dad died when ALL of his four kids were less than 6 years of age (in the 1940's). His wife had severe rheumatoid arthritis and was essentially bedridden. The church and the community (rural North Carolina) basically raised the kids. No welfare, no food stamps, no retirement. The goodness of the community was sufficient to raise four smart, healthy, well-adjusted and contributing members of society.

We in this country have forgotten how to look out for one another, but are damn good at looking out for ourselves.

[amolao]

This is a very interesting thread, but I think that the initial post is not reflecting the facts straight. Is the complain about people with lack of English speech skills and bad manners or just PEOPLE with bad manners??? Because those I know a lot...... Another point I would like to address is that nobody is taking american jobs, those low income jobs (chicken farms, agriculture, landscaping,etc) nobody wants but the inmigrants....legal and sometimes illegal.

[MaineExport]

However, there WAS a safety net. It's called the church (and various other social assistance groups).

My mom's dad died when ALL of his four kids were less than 6 years of age (in the 1940's). His wife had severe rheumatoid arthritis and was essentially bedridden. The church and the community (rural North Carolina) basically raised the kids. No welfare, no food stamps, no retirement. The goodness of the community was sufficient to raise four smart, healthy, well-adjusted and contributing members of society.

We in this country have forgotten how to look out for one another, but are damn good at looking out for ourselves.

Absolutely. But the church safety net was not state supported and mandated. If we all had the extra money in our pockets that the government horribly wastes with red-tape and administration costs individuals would have MUCH more money to contribute to the church and secular charities.

If the government was a business it would have filed chapter 11 decades ago. It is the most inefficient consumer of resources on the planet. Heck, I would imagine that welfare and other social programs might even work (and I wouldn't mind contributing so much to them) if they were run like the private sector.

It is also truly sad, as you pointed out, in many regions of this country we have lost that sense of community. I truly believe, however, that if left with their own hard earned money, people would not only be more willing to contribute to charity, but the process would be infinitely more efficient with more of the money/food/clothing/education reaching the end consumer.

[s13sr20chris]

I agree wholeheartedly with Nismo_Freak, Chris and Maine - great points.

However, there WAS a safety net. It's called the church (and various other social assistance groups).

My mom's dad died when ALL of his four kids were less than 6 years of age (in the 1940's). His wife had severe rheumatoid arthritis and was essentially bedridden. The church and the community (rural North Carolina) basically raised the kids. No welfare, no food stamps, no retirement. The goodness of the community was sufficient to raise four smart, healthy, well-adjusted and contributing members of society.

We in this country have forgotten how to look out for one another, but are damn good at looking out for ourselves.

bingo! the bible points out clearly that the church was supposed to look after the poor, elderly, etc. the Lord loves a cheeful giver. however, the bible says nothing about those who contribute at the threat of inprisonment(taxation). its all about whats in your heart. the prime example would be the book of ruth where the poor would come into a field after the harvest and "glean"(sp?) the crops that had fallen on the ground.that crop was just good enough to survive and bad enough that they would try to do better when they could.

[Jesda]

Excellent points. People often seem to forget that "self-sufficiency" doesnt mean selfishness.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Back on topic, English is an incredibly difficult language to learn.

Linguists (and non-English speakers) will tell you that what we use everyday is a messed-up language.

YES! Exactly! Go study ANY other language. Look at its structure, its basic mechanics, it's grammatics. English is one of the only ones (the other is German, English's parent language) that allows these rules to be flipped and flopped for any number of specific instances. So you never know which set of rules to ues when, unless you've spent your entire life learning through experience. English is a twisted abomination of Germanic and Latin, and none of it makes any sort of linguistic sense. All through junior high, high school, college, you learn the same bloody grammar rules over and over again. NO other language on the planet has to be reinforced so much. Japanese and Mexican students don't take year after year of Japanese and Spanish grammar. Because their languages make sense. So they learn it once, the remember it, and they keep it for life.

While I agree that learning English is a must for immigrants (learning the major language of ANY nation you live in is a must), you have to realize that most of us GREW UP learning english. There is a HUGE difference between learning a language as a very small child and learning a language as a teen or adult in school. As a young child, the brain is attuned to learning things of this nature, and is better able to store knowledge from ambiance and surroundings. So all you have to do to learn a language as a baby or small child is HEAR it used. A child can pick up the workable basics of a language in less than a year, while learning a language through a school course or other educaional media takes years to become fluent in the use of the language. Go learn Spanish. It'll take you two to three years minimum to pick everything up. Spanish is about the most simplistic, straightforward, and undefiled languages left on the planet, and it'll take you that long. English is only easier to learn than other languages if you learn english first, otherwise, it's going to be much much harder.

[s13sr20chris]

im not complaining about the wierdness of english because look at the opposite extreme. esperante is the most dull and soulless language on earth.