TexasCHLforum.com

bayouhazard wrote:That goes double for immigrants from the east and west coasts.

I'll wholeheartedly agree with you about the unwelcome infiltration of Yankees and hippies into our great state who have no plan to embrace Texas and to become Texans at heart. To clarify: the naturalized Texans (the, "I wasn't born here, but I got here as fast as I could" crowd) are not included in this divisive statement.

bayouhazard wrote:If I moved to Venezuela to work for a few years, I would expect to learn Spanish, especially if I expected to get some kind of license or apply for government benefits. That goes double if I wanted the move to be permanent. If I moved to Paris, France for work, I would expect to learn French to fully enjoy the benefits of their society. I wouldn't whine like a spoiled brat that they're racist if they didn't give me the tests for a drivers license and gun license in English.

I can't agree with the tacit suggestion that a legal resident of this country has no obligation to learn English, respect local laws and customs, etc. If it was so great "back home" there's the door. That goes double for immigrants from the east and west coasts.

I never defended a sense of entitlement or demand to be catered to in your native language. Again, you seem to have confused the issue where I was making a distinction.

What I said is that free enterprise businesses are always going to go after customers where they see a profit potential. If you moved to Latin America and happened to be a part of +20% of the population that spoke only English, you might be wrong to demand the government to coddle you, but you would likely see BUSINESSES finding ways to reach out to you in English.

CHL _classes_ are taught by private individuals conducting their own business. If they see enough of a demand for a Spanish class, they have every right to offer one. Potential customers have a right to seek one out. . . if they create enough demand, I'd except an entrepreneur out there will find a way to take their money.

All four of the remaining GOP candidates for President also made this distinction in the Florida debate. There is a difference in what we expect to be provided to us from the government and the tactics businesses will use to engage customers. The framing of this debate in the political arena by informed dissenters has been in regards to the former; this thread is about the latter. They're two distinct discussions.

The political discussion around our national language is generally limited to the provisions and interactions with government. Just as the Bill of Rights protects you from the government trespassing on your freedoms but a private entity e.g. your employer can fire you for something you say, the debate over our national language and the assimilation of immigrants is typically referring to how government is required to interact with non-English speakers:
- Do we have to educate everybody in their own native language?
- Do we have to provide signage to accommodate every language?
- Do we need to send correspondence to cater to every language?
- etc.

While the administration of the CHL exam falls under this umbrella, the CHL class certainly does not. We'd always expect private enterprise to cater to customers. . . and the fact is that there are plenty of potential non-English speaking customers interested in a CHL. Even the candidates who advocate English-only education and English-only government are still running ads in Spanish. . . because they are seeking "customers". If we were to go to English as our official language of government, I predict you'll still hear "para Español marque el numero dos" when you call the bank, insurance company, or tech support.

I can't agree with the tacit suggestion that a legal resident of this country has no right to self-defense and preservation until they are fluent in the language.