Class is on break, so I figured I'd swing by and propose this question:

Should proficiency in English be required for naturalization?



A few notes:
- Proficiency in English is required, but it's not a strict requirement: often, applicants for naturalization are asked to write out their home address.
- Naturalization is available 5 years after you've been granted status as a lawfully permanent resident, and have resided and been physically present in the United States for at least 51% of each of those five years. The requirement is only three years if you are married.

My position:
I don't see the point. If our primary concern is that these people be able to function in society (and it appears to be so, but I'm open to arguments), wouldn't the fact that they've lived here for three to five years already (plus however long they might have lived here prior to their LPR status - on a student visa, for example) be pretty good evidence as to their ability to survive? Either they will have learned English, and the requirement isn't necessary, or they will have not learned English and managed to survive in the U.S. anyways, so the aim of the requirement is satisfied.

Your thoughts?

That's actually a topic I have mixed emotions on...

Because one of my best friend's is Chinese, him and his sister speak English very well but the rest of the family only know a hand full of words after living here for years. His family runs the business just fine but outside of that is totally different story.
I think in the long run it would be very useful for foreigners to be more proficient in English for their own sake with instances like legal issues and what not, have the ability to do this on their own and not go through someone else to communicate would save them a lot of hassle. Eh long as they can survive and are legal it's fine with me personally, before I had different emotions about it but after spending a good bit of time around Andy's family it changed my outlook on it.

+1 @cattledrftr

I think circumstance, not law, should create the incentive. As everyone's circumstances differ, everyones incentive to learn english will differ. Are we really a free nation if we force one particular language on someone?


Now as far as how our nation functions, legal documents and what not. That should all be english. I havent decided in my mind that we should go the whole "english is official language" avenue, I mean it basically already is why do we need law to say so? But we should definitely treat it as such whether the law is there or not. I dont think we should start creating multilingual legal documents.

stebo0728 wrote:Are we really a free nation if we force one particular language on someone?

But we do, effectively English is forced on anyone immigrating to this country because it is our mother tongue. It really has nothing to do with freedom, unless, these speakers are legally forced to stop speaking their mother tongue, which would be stupid. To Isaac’s question, why should we make it a strict requirement when most kids today cannot grammatically speak or write in English? I would rather stumble through a conversation with my friend’s mother who only speaks Vietnamese, than talk to some of these kids. Call me old and grumpy, that is fine.

My grievance with Spanish is simply based on pure annoyance. I get annoyed when my daughter comes home school spouting off all these Spanish words that she learned in class. Instead of complaining about it, I do something about it. She is asked/learns the German and Greek words anytime she says something off in Spanish. I figure the only saving grace is that the Spanish will help her communicate to her Second Cousin’s kids in Spain. *shrug* Also, when I am in McDonalds, do not look at me like I am crazy when I start ordering in German, because you didn’t understand me in English. I don’t understand why individuals, who oversee retail customer service, would put someone who does not understand English on the front counter.

I think that people who come to US must "assimilate" themselves to the culture of the country, not so to come and form "new small cultures or countries".

English is the spoken language of the majority, and a country in order to be successful must have a good communication between all its citizens and residents. The mistake made in our current society is demanding the US government to provide "translators" for services given, while the issue of the language barrier must be solved with new comers finding the way of learning English by themselves.

And here is another issue, when some organizations demand for the US government to provide tools for teaching English to immigrants, and such is not the government responsability either. Orgainzations might ask for such a government help, not to damand it.

There are some situations where learning a new language can't be fully accompliashed by a foreign person, that is the age of the applicant. In this case, the citizenship's questions are made in the person's mother tongue, the one he can fully understand and speak.

"Surviving" in US for years without speaking English is possible, specially in areas where people have formed their own communities aside from the main culture of this country. Still, these communities are not a sign of diversity but cases of lack of adaptation or signs of rejecting the established way of living.

To me, assimilation is not losing the inherited traditions of an individual but sharing them with others, still good communication must be the key for better results, and learning English when living in US is the better way.

Cheers

carloslebaron, we finally find something we agree on. Well-said.

Just out of curiosity, though, you yourself do not sound like a native english speaker. What is your native language and how long have you been learning english?