3 questions

Are standard languages hegemonic forms to be opposed?

Are standard languages hegemonic forms to be acquired?

Does access to standard language give people greater social and economic mobility, or is this another myth associated with standard languages?

How would you tackle them?

A standard language (also standard dialect or standardized dialect) is a particular variety of a language that has been given either legal or quasi-legal status. As it is usually the form promoted in schools and the media, it is usually considered by speakers of the language to be more "correct" in some sense than other dialects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_language

I think the bias behind the writers' original intent is clear. (rant incoming...)

 There is a belief in many 'linguist circles' that the most common or official language of a region that is host to multiple languages (ex. English in Southern California) is somehow responsible for oppressing those who don't speak it (for whatever reson). Many postmodern sociolinguists and anthropological linguists use this argument as a "scientific" lever for acheiving political gain (Quebec's independence movement, Basque separatist movements, amnesty for illegal immigrants in the US, and many other pet issues).

 This view posits that native speakers of the common language exclude those individuals who don't speak their language from all aspects of the economy but the lowest sectors, INTENTIONALLY- BECAUSE THEY ARE EITHER RACISTS OR RADICAL NATIONALISTS.  (That's at least the underlying premise, and sometimes authors go as far as to spell it out.) 

 I'm not making arguments for or against this trend (at least not in this thread), but I thought someone should at least point out the issues these questions are dancing around.

Anonymous

What do you think happened to Basque and Catalan speakers during Franco's regime?

I know what happened to them.  Your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

The authors of those questions are refering to people who move out of the region where their language is dominant and refuse to learn or use the dominant language of their new home.  The question is about whose responsibility it is to bridge the language gap.... the immigrant or the host population? 

  I don't think there's a question at all here. But the mindset behind these questions is this: 

The fact that there is a single dominant language in any given area is not fair to those people who don't speak the language but still live in the area.

This is the syllogism: 

P1 Immigrants are forced to learn the language of the place they move to (or face poverty because they can't participate in the economy without the language).

P2 Being forced to do something in order to avoid poverty is economic coersion. 

P3 Economic coersion is basically an evil act.

Therefore, encouraging immigrants to assimilate linguistically is an evil act.

Their questions attack the premise that it behooves a person to assimilate linguistically, which is an ignorant position at best and a woefully irresponsible one at worst.