It most certainly does. If it affects society, then it affects me.
It affects society in a positive manner. It provides an underbelly of society which can be exploited by the rich. Without that underbelly, capitalism fails.
Pretending that something affects you in a meaningful way doesn't mean it actually affects you. Teh first step to understanding the difference between reality and fantasy is rejecting the pleasent fantasies we create for ourselves.
No, it is not always their choice.
True in rare instances, and in cases where someone has some sort of disability which prevents them from learning English, I certainly support assisting them. In fact, I've helped people who were having difficulties learning English before.
There are certain occupations where not being able to communicate effectively can be dangerous and lead to death and/or injury.
Which is why a lot jobs have a "must be bilingual" requirement, since the people doing the dangerous, dirty work tend to speak a language
other than English. They can communicate effectively with each other great. It'd be the incompetent boss who failed to communicate effectively if they don't know Spanish (or whatever language his crew primarily spoke).
And you admit that it would only HELP immigrants, and it would also HELP us, so therefore it only makes sense to require that immigrants learn at least a limited amount of English, if only for a head start.
Learning English = beneficial to immigrants.
A stupid ineffective
requirement to learn English = detrimental to society.
The first step to understanding here is to realize the fairly obvious fact that there are two different things present in those statements. You seem to be ignoring the fact that those are different statements.
Starting a sentence with "it only makes sense" is a pointless exercise in mental masturbation if you are not acknowledging that there are two very very different things being discussed here.
Poverty affects everyone.
What a phenomenal example of the fallacious use of a thought-terminating cliche! It is called such because, in order to utter it, you must first terminate all thought.
Poverty is a requirement of the capitalist system, and
that's a fact. Without it, or the threat of it, we have no garbage men. The working poor are what we build our empire upon. It affects everyone, sure, but it only affects the impoverished in a uniformly detrimental fashion. Everyone else benefits from poverty. The degree to which we benefit is directly proportional to our overall net worth, too. The richer people are, the more they benefit from poverty.
This is not a moral argument against capitalism, either. I pass no judgements in any direction. It simply a statement of reality. It's why communism fails.
Immigrants who cannot speak English are usually impoverished. That is a fact.
So? most of the immigrants who cannot speak English are choosing not to speak English. :shrug:
Thank God for that. :lol:
Pity you didn't realize it
before you created the strawman.
And it does, so yay!
Perhaps these things are stupid to you
No, they are stupid objectively. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Fact: if you do something that can't possibly achieve the desired goal, and actually increases the thing you wish to decrease, you are doing something stupid.
For example, if I want to decrease the amount of fecal material that ends up on the floor in my living room and my method of prevention is to place a guard dog that is not house-broken in my living room to prevent random strangers from taking a **** in it, I have engaged in a very stupid approach to decreasing said fecal material, and indeed, there will probably be a significant increase in fecal material present in my living room from that point forward.
This is essentially what the proposed requirement does. It will only have the effect of preventing people from coming here
legally. It will NOT prevent people who do not speak English from coming here, it will only make sure that the one's who do come here do so
illegally. In other words, the total number of non-English speaking immigrants remains constant, but the total number of illegal immigrants increases.
It's kind of like how banning assault weapons is a stupid way to prevent people from going on killing sprees. It's the exact same principles at play.
but in reality things like this cost Americans MORE money.
False. Simply stating a false thing doesn't make it true. It does not cost us more money when someone doesn't know English than it would cost to make sure that every Immigrant knows English at a level that you and your compatriots find acceptable. NOr does it cost more than having a significant increase in illegal immigration due to even more utterly counter-productive choices to make legal immigration more difficult
Slippery slope fallacy. Excellent way to avoid making a real argument.
How many languages should WE have to learn so that we can make our immigrant friends comfortable?
You have to learn
nothing. Stop pretending to be victimized here. Nobody forces you to do anything. You can adapt, or you can not adapt. It's your choice.
Whether you want to admit it or not, it is a problem.
Only to those who wish to pretend to be victimized by reality and like to defecate on the concept of personal responsibility .
Maybe not a HUGE problem, but a problem nevertheless, not only for immigrants but for American citizens as we have to pay to support those who live in poverty.
The people who really pay for those in poverty are corporations and wealthy people, and these people rely the most heavily upon those in poverty in order to maintain their lifestyles.
So in essence, it's really a case of the poor paying it forward without ever really having all that much of the money involved in their own possession along the way. Think about it in a complete, systemic way and you'll see how it all works. The labors of the poor, especially the working poor, create greater profits and benefits for the non-poor than they do for the poor.
...making English a requirement for immigrants would only HELP the situation.
Why do you make that unfounded, illogical assumption? Are you operating under the totally unsupportable premise that such a pointless program has any chance of being effective?!?!?! If so, where on Earth did you get that silly notion from?
It would NOT hurt the situation
False. It would increases costs, doesn't have an effect, and
so other than saying you want to make things easier for immigrants to become a legal citizen at their own detriment and ours
I was very clear I support an English requirement for Naturalization. Please,
please, tell me you are not so abysmally ignorant of this topic that you think residency and Citizenship are even remotely close to being the same thing.
I don't know what your argument is.
Let's start by determining your knowledge of the word Citizenship vs. Residency. You cleary seem to be confusing the two things, which is truly pathetic and indicates you are not competent in understanding my argument, since this rudimentary understanding is necessary to approach this subject intelligently.
