Ich Deutsch, nix verstehe!

I have written in the past how important I feel learning the language of one's new homeland is if one wishes to integrate and participate in the society at large.
My title today is the by-line of a joke in Germany which literally means "I'm German and I don't understand you" spoken in pidgin-German.  It's the polite version of "We speak German in Germany!".  It was from the 80's and was a response to the prevalence of Turkish heard on the high street in major cities.
Today many of those Turks are second if not third generation Germans and have become relatively well integrated into German society.
So I was mildly surprised when the British Prime Minister Mr Cameron came out with a new rule on Monday January 18th that if a woman is participating in the 5 year spousal visa program she will be expected to take an English language test after 2.5 years.  If she were to fail the exam it could have negative consequences for her visa status.
Here was a main stream politician suggesting that there is a native language in their country and that people should learn it.
Unfortunately, although I think there is a definite need to have immigrants learn English Mr Cameron shot himself in the foot by specifying Muslim woman in his speech announcing the new requirements.  This has nothing to do with religion.  It is a language question which is a door opener to integration.
Mr Cameron did try and defend his stance by saying that not only does the state have responsibilities to immigrants, but immigrants too have responsibilities vis-a-vis the state although singling out Muslims suggested that he was either stupid or bigoted, or quite possibly both.
That being said I agree with his call for responsibility, but wish to apply it to immigrants regardless of race or creed.  Indeed I wish to apply it to Citizens and visitors alike, whether they come for a day or forever.
Our society should be predicated on a Social Contract between the State and its Citizens.  Both must adhere to the tenets of that contract, and one of the most basic requirements is to speak the national language of one's country.
Now I am aware that language and culture are significant markers for self-identity and so there will be many that will interpret this requirement as an attack not only on one's language but as an assault on their independence and by extension on their sense of self.
I disagree. 
Language is like religion.
What you choose to speak in private; what religion you choose to follow, in private, is one's private business.
But just as secular states demand adherence to the rule of law as prescribed by the state's legislature firmly placing secular law above the demands of any non-secular requirements, the state is also correct in expecting, no demanding that a nation's citizens speak (read and write) the language of the country in which the live.
Not to leave the US out of the discussion I don't understand why as a native-English speaker when I call information I am always asked whether I would like to speak Spanish or English.
I will even go so far as to say that I disagree with Jeb Bush electioneering in Spanish.
It is great marketing (as is the offer to speak Spanish when I call customer support), but it avoids the fact that English is the native language of the US.
And anyone who suggests that over time it just might be that Spanish is the native language of the US- just look at the demographics- is missing the point.
I am not anti-immigrant.
But welcoming immigrants shouldn't require one to lose their national identity.
It begins with language.
And it ends being grateful every day that we are a secular nation.

America for Sale

Despite the fact that I reside in the UK I am a committed citizen of the US and as such have not only followed the campaigns this year but have donated to the candidate of my choice.


Simultaneously I am a member of a Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)which is a code word for an environmentalist group- not all of which I agree with.


By donating to the candidate of my choice and by being a paying member of the Massachusetts PIRG I invariably find myself on other groups mailing lists ranging from gun control to saving grizzly bears to grass-roots organisations angry about almost anything you could imagine in between.


But what worries me about this, above and beyond the fact that my personal data is obviously being sent/sold/purchased/stolen to/by a whole raft of groups is that they are all tied together by one overriding request- DONATE.


Granted I left the US in 1986 and the "Selling of the President" was written in 1969 and so the writing was on the wall I am still disturbed by the undertone of every request I receive.  Their overriding message is that with my money they will be able to get this law through or block that law  or elect this candidate, block that one- basically that with enough funding they can get anything done.


I think it starts with campaign finance. 


According to the New York Times there are 158 families in the US who essentially are bankrolling the primary campaigns split about  85/15 Republican/Democrat. In addition to these big spenders there are super-PACS that now have the protection of the 1st Amendment and the right to remain anonymous although why I would be willing to fund a candidate but not be willing to admit to it is somewhat bewildering. 


 But what I don't understand is that besides the occasional throwaway line about campaign finances no-one really seems to be all that riled up about this.


I have been accused occasionally about ranting on these pages.  Perhaps I have been overseas too long and what I consider to be rightous indignation is now classified as a rant.  But I am sure that if Americans were aware of similar economics in the electoral process in foreign countries they too would be indignant, if not boiling over with self-righteous indignation.