andyb wrote:...take a nightclub, posh bar/restaurant, or even some bouncer guarded pubs as a perfect example. If you dont turn up wearing the things that they expect you dont get in.
But you ARE allowed into a country to stay when you barely know 10 words, if you were that badly dressed you would be wearing a bow-tie. The police would pick you up for indecent exposure...
Well, I realize that you're only using an analogy, but I think that the analogy doesn't quite match up to the topic.
Clubs, bars, and classy restaurants have dress codes because they want to promote a certain ambiance and a certain experience, and they don't permit a person entry if they feel that the said patron is going to disrupt that atmosphere.
I think it would be really, really difficult to define the "living ambiance" that the citizens of a nation would like from their government. I would be very uncomfortable to live under a government that denied human beings entry across its borders because that government perceived the appearance and linguistic mannerisms of certain people as a nuisance to the "living ambiance" of its citizens.
At the least, it's petulant social snobbery. At the worst, it encourages lack of interest in those different from oneself and one's own culture, which can lead to all manner of misinformation, which can lead to fear-mongering, which can lead to poor decision-making, etc etc.
I understand the sentiment behind what you're saying, but I absolutely disagree that language and linguistics can somehow be a good determiner of one's national group or social group or race group. There are plenty of foreign people that I know who speak, read, and write better (American) English than most of the people who live on my street. They are also better-informed of American current events. Based on your guidelines, should the American government deport my neighbors?
Grouping people by language can be as arbitrary and senseless as grouping people by "race" or skin-color or bloodline. It seems that the best we as human beings can do is just to be aware of such a tendency within us, not to argue about which tendency is the correct one.
xan_user wrote:... Under the premise, "Do they speak English with a native accent and as their first language." what country does a deaf/mute come from if he/she only knows international sign?
Ah, a very good point. Based on the "English with a native accent" premise, one might be forced to conclude that a deaf/mute's "first" language would be whatever language his parents speak. Bit silly, really.
Edit for clarity.