Let's start you off with some easy questions, which you can answer either 'Yes', or 'No'. Shouldn't be too tricky for someone with two degrees...

Would you move to a country where you had no knowledge of the language? Yes or No.

if you would, would you take steps to learn the language once you were there? Yes or No.

Is there no longer a requirement in US immigration procedure for applicants to have a reasonable grasp of English? Yes or No.

Is it proper that those hardworking people are in the country illegally, when millions (dare I say billions?) of legal migrants went through the immigration process and did so in the legal manner? Yes or No.

Here are a few points to consider:

The majority of people are not closed-minded bigots who dislike immigrants speaking in their own languages in public. They do, however, take issue with an immigrant's inability to speak English, when it hampers them transacting business, or getting a job.
This time last month, I was on vacation in Spain, in an area with quite a large and diverse migrant population. There were large numbers of Chinese and Muslims of Arabic descent, as well as numerous other 'white' immigrants. However, in places of business, all those people were using the country's primary language (Spanish) as the 'default' language. That's the situation which the US and UK statutes on immigrants having a reasonable use of English are in place to ensure/encourage.

I have stated several facts in these posts, and, just becuse you choose to ignore or disagree with them, that does not invaildate them.

I did not say that I personally objected to bilingual street-signs. I said, that they can create the impression that immigrant communities are unwilling to learn English and assimilate into the mainstream. I did not say that that was my personal feeling on the issue, I just said that that was the impression that such things can create, and that is why some people can find 'non-English signage' an affront (as an insult to the hospitality of their country)

Either you're very succinct, or else your degrees are simply interfering with your reading comprehension. It must be one or the other - but which?

Why aren't you answering my question?

Your questions are, each of them, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And I have no interest in playing your game. But by all means continue playing with yourself if you must. But my answers to any of those "questions" make no difference whatsoever.

And wishing will make it so. How precious.

Oh, sorry, you're right. That totally proves that the illegal immigration debate in the United States has nothing to do with prejudice. I can't believe how blind I was before.

That one's really funny, because I didn't say you did. I said you used it to attempt to make a point that as long as there were bilingual street signs, immigrants had "no incentive" to learn English (the language you specifically referenced). And that you failed.

Wait, why am I even talking to you? You're still not making sense.

Uhh, yeah. I was going to post but. . . *backs away slowly*

'Reductionist bullshit'. That's a new phrase for trying to avoid answering questions. Does absolutely nothing to alter the validity of them. Two is a multiple, is it not?

Why aren't you answering his question?!

Are you suggesting that the majority of people are closed-minded bigots? Sorry, but your comment makes no sense.

In what way are they incompetent, irrelevent or immaterial? You seem to be taking exception to me pointing out the fact that immigrants to both our coutries are required by government legislation to have a reasonable grasp of English. That is not an opinion, that is an undeniable fact. Your refusal to accept this is going beyond stubbornness, and into outright irrationality.

Your answers would be incredibly relevant to the issue. It's a shame you are too scared to answer them.

Oh the wit. The point about immigrants to Spain was nothing to do with the issue of prejudice, but giving an illustration of where immigrants had taken the time and effort to learn their adoptive country's primary language, and used it primarily in business transactions. I am not saying that there is no prejudice whatsoever in illegal immigration debates, what I was saying, was that racial or ethnic prejudices are minority opinions, compared to people's concerns about economic impacts.

No, that was not what I said. I said, thatpeople taking exception to signage in other languages was not necessarily down to bigotry against the immigrants (although taking exception to private conversations in another language certainly would be bigotry) but because they create the impression that the immigrants do not want to truly integrate into the society which is allowing them to be there.

Probably because you're attempting to deflect the issue rather than addressing the points raised.

If you think that people's issues with immigrants is solely down to racial prejudice, then go right ahead and think that, but that still does not make it so, and ignores legislation and other economic situations which are factors people have issues with which have nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

Uncognitive did not ask a question.
If you would care to re-state your question, I will answer it.

Oh, snap. You sure got me. I'm quaking in my slippers.

Sorry, I don't know where I got that impression.

Oh. Maybe that was it.

No, man, you've got it all wrong. I was taking your side! You asked him whether "two" was a multiple - and he was too scared to answer!

You're really on a roll, now.

It's a new phrase for avoiding your apparent lust for the Socratic Method.

I'm sorry that you think complex cultural, economic and political issues can be boiled down into "yes or no" questions, and even sorrier that you ascribe any kind of moral courage or certainty to doing so.

But hey, since you want to play Perry Mason, why not?

Yes.

Rebuttal question: Do you think economic hardship can drive people to immigrate to countries where they do not speak the native language, or only have a rudimentary grasp of that language? Yes or No.

Yes.

Rebuttal questions: Do you think that, historically and currently, most first-generation immigrants do not make any effort to learn the native language of the county they immigrate to? Yes or No.

Do you think that, historically and currently, second-generation immigrants do not make any effort to learn the native language of the country they live in? Yes or No.

Do you think that the historical and current habit of first-generation immigrants of moving into ethnic and/or cultural "enclaves" due to either external political and/or cultural pressure or personal preference prevents them from learning the native language of the country they immigrate to? Yes or No.

Unable to answer without further clarification of what you mean by "U.S. immigration procedure". Citzenship? Green Card? Work Visa?

Unable to answer due to vague nature of "proper"? Is it legal? Is it ethical? Is it well-mannered and following the rules of etiquette? Please be more specific.

Yet more evasion...

If you're going to quote me, at least quote the entire relevent text. Omitting text to attempt to twist my meaning is rather juvenile and transparant. Here's the full quote for you:

My bad, I don't have two degrees...

Oh, right. That second part totally negates the first part, which was the part I actually took issue with, anyway, and hence was the only part that was actually relevant to our dispute.

Nice try, though. "Juvenile and transparant" [sic] - I loved it!

My bad, I don't have two degrees...
Don't give up hope. Maybe a Pole or Latvian will take your dishwashing job away and force you get an education.

Just for any non-Britons who may not be aware: The Mail may be national, but it's not reputable. It survives on a conspiracy of outrage; usually against anyone not English, and the Labour Party. Its agenda is anti-immigrant, anti-Europe, anti-gay, pro-Tory, anti-feminist, anti-NHS, pro-discrimination. It is a classic example of the provision of external enemies.

Fair enough. To answer your question:

Yes.
Further clarification.
People immigrating to countries for such reasons would reasonably intend to remain in that host country for the forseable future, and, it would therefore make sense to either have a reasonable grasp of the language, or improve their grasp of the language once in the country.

And this is how it should be.

Trick question. 'Historical' and 'current' standards of immigration are radically different and current standards can specify relevent language skills.

No.

No. Interaction with the rest of the community would allow them to learn the primary language through assimilation, either comprehensively, or via simple mimicry of set responses.

Sorry. Citizenship (and I believe Green Card) requires the applicant to have a reasonable grasp of English. While I do not believe (I actually do not know) a Work Visa makes that insistance, it would be common sense to have at the very least, a basic knowledge of the language which would be used in the field of employment. For example, when I was at school, a language option offered, was 'Business French'. It was not designed to be as broad-ranging as normal language classes, but would be more specific to conversation and vocabulary which would be required or relevent to standard business interactions. (I did not actually take this option, but feel it is worth mentioning as there are no doubt similar courses which would be available to someone on a temporary Work Visa)

Sorry, I was using the word in reply to Zarth's use of the word, and intended in the same manner as what appeared to be his contextual use of it.

Not really. The first part is a simple statement of fact: Such signage does not give people an incentive to learn the primary language of the country. The second part, was an explanation as to why people are affronted by such signage, ie it creates an impression that the immigrants do not want to assimilate, so can lead to feelings of 'abused/rejected hospitality', which have nothing to do with the ethnicity or race of the immigrants, but one of social politeness. You asked why people would be affronted by such signage, and that was the answer.

Oh, right. That second part totally negates the first part, which was the part I actually took issue with, anyway, and hence was the only part that was actually relevant to our dispute.

Nice try, though. "Juvenile and transparant" [sic] - I loved it!

Oh dear, reduced to making assumptions. Hate to break it to you, but I don't wash dishes for a living...