Here I go... again...

Ryan, why is it so difficult for you to read and understand my posts? Are they that convoluted? Do I degress that often?

So which is it - should the focus be assimilation or integration?

I am completely in favor of the manner and means by which we now allow legal immigrants to become full-fledged citizens of these United States of America, unless an easier or more streamlined means can be found that still weeds out criminals and terrorists. I am completely against any additional legislation, requirements, addendums, caveats, hurdles or tests that aren't already part of the process that might be implemented to make the process any more difficult or weighty than it is now. Isn't that the "conservative way"? How does this make me the radical liberal you still seem to associate me with?

My problem with this is we have always put a special burden on those seeking to become a citizen.

By making them take an oath of allegiance, a written test, and enough proficiency with the written word to complete the application process, yes... you are 100% correct. MY POINT was that it continues to be a topic of debate as to whether or not we should INCREASE the requirements for citizenship to include an English (written and verbal) test. I think this is the sort of reactionary requirements that stem from unfounded and unreasonable fears about the immigrants themselves, rather than the immigrant's intentions or abilities as citizens. My further point was that we didn't need it in the past... why would we need it now?

Would we accommodate a Sudanese national to maintain his Christian slaves, or preform Biblical style stonings upon arrival in the US?

Utterly asinine. This is a non sequitur of absolutely monumental proportions! Of course these are not the "cultural norms" I am asking about, any more than yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater is protected speech or polygamy is protected religious practice under the First Amendment. My point was that requiring any level of proficiency at English outside of what is already required (which is more than at any other point in our national history) is extraneous, and thus unnecessary. Simply more government regulation clogging up the works and holding back individual freedoms.

Base requirements on assimilation are necessary. Not at the expense of ethnic cultural identity, but rather to preserve what makes us all similar, to provide a baseline of unity. That should be the focus of government, that base line assimilation.

This is the point I was waiting so long for. Now we can discuss the issue...

I don't disagree with this statement, but I think you might not understand what "assimilate" really means. Webster's New American defines assimilate as "to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like", which is a perfectly straight-forward understanding of the word. I simply don't think I want the GOVERNMENT mandating any degree of "conformity" to anyone in this nation when it comes to "customs, attitudes, etc." Safety and security, yes... criminal or reckless behavior is not something that just anyone should be allowed to participate in.

I'm a fan of "integration". Ensuring that everyone, immigrant and native alike, has the same basic freedoms and opportunities to succeed at any endeavor, in whatever manner they feel best suits their needs. Immigrants from Latin America that choose to run and circulate a Spanish-only newspaper could be in a very lucrative operation in a nation that boasts more than 25 million Spanish speakers... but where does the US get the right to say you CAN'T have a Spanish-only newspaper? Where does the US get the right to say to a phone company or a large lending institution that you can't offer over-the-phone services in Espanol just as easily as you can in English? How does that NOT constitute the Government regulating and limiting personal freedoms?

My examples above stem from yours... I'm truly trying to avoid the English-only argument here. I want establish which is the best course for the government to take... less regulation or more? You cannot mandate "assimilation" without adding more rules and regulations to the already VERY thick and ponderous law tomes, but we have (especially in the last 40 years) truly made great strides in ensuring broad and general guarantees of fair and objective "integration" into society.

Which do you support?