No. How would you enforce that requirement? You have to take a citizenship test in English already, isn't that enough?
Yes, and that's why most immigrants do learn English, or their children do so. It's been the same for generations, and latino immigrants are actually faster to learn English than previous generations' immigrants.
lain:
| English – 230 million Spanish – 37.58 million Chinese – 2.88 million (mainly Yue dialects such as Cantonese and Taishanese, Standard Mandarin Chinese, also Hokkien, Hakka) French – 1.30 million + 750,000 French Creole Tagalog – 1.59 million + (Most Filipinos also know other Philippine languages, e.g. Ilokano, Pangasinan, Bikol languages, and Visayan languages.) Vietnamese – 1.41 million Korean – 1.14 million German – 1.08 million (High/Standard German) + (May include German dialects like Pennsylvania German, Hutterite German, Plautdietsch, Texas German) Arabic – 951,700 Russian – 905,800 Other Indic languages – 815,345 (Includes Punjabi, Marathi) Bengali- 800,000[14][15][16] Italian – 723,600 Portuguese – 673,500 Hindi – 648,900 Polish – 607,500 Japanese – 436,100 Persian – 407,600 Urdu – 373,800 Gujarati – 358,400 Greek – 304,900 Serbo-Croatian – 269,600 Telugu – 247,760 Armenian – 246,900 Hebrew – 216,300 Khmer – 212,500 Hmong - 211,200 Tamil - 190,000[17] Nepali language - 185,145 Navajo – 169,300 Thai - 163,200 Yiddish - 160,900 Laotian - 140,900 Cherokee - 100,000 American Sign Language – ~100,000 |
No problem, but what I said was that there was a racist subtext in play. I'll go back and link this to the post where I speak to that, but the short version is that, historically, racists have used rhetoric that reduces minorities to the animalistic, especially blacks, both in the particular (monkey and ape) and in general (beastial). The narrative here uses one character and a group of animals to represent two different groups. The human is a giver, an altruist who finds himself plagued by animals who clutter and crap and peck. Comparing those on assistance to animals is historically in line with that racist rhetoric I noted. It's sold more softly, and the human is framed as someone desiring to improve the welfare of the animals he later regrets helping. The author then ties that into immigrants, though the initial net covers a wider grouping. The author sums his point by suggesting the solution here might be to "take down the bird feeder".
You invented motives and ascribed them to the main character. You want him to be racist, so you made up a back story.
Wow. Gee. :shocked:
Nope.
Only of we read the things you invented. If we just read the story, nope.
We know why you break up quotes now.
Nope.
Sure, you did. It came complete with a made-up set of motivations for the main character.
Which is exactly my point.
I've done everything from pick apples to walk a police beat. :idunno:
:AMR:
No, but you did. The point being missed by color of law.
One wishes the liberals could be this color blind consistently.