The only part I would disagree with is the assertion that learning a second language "isn't really different" than learning a native language. My wife, who has a masters degree in theoretical linguistics and teaches English as a foreign language, has spoken to me several times about the differences between first and second language acquisition.
(Many ESL teachers are simply English speakers living in another country, but many of them are also like my wife, doing what is essentially applied linguistics.)
Other than that, I completely agree. The notion that you are simply doomed to only have one language after the crucial period is exaggerated, and the key to learning another language is immersion.
Kids will eagerly engage in language acquisition activities that few adults are willing to do. For instance, a child will happily watch the same DVD many times, until he can repeat the dialogue word for word. Their urge to do these things seems to disappear with age, along with their aversion towards bitter flavors and playmates of the opposite sex.
So should we say that kids are more talented language learners? Or should we say that they are more enthusiastic about language acquisition?
There's much more to it than that, but that gives you a flavor of the debate.
(Many ESL teachers are simply English speakers living in another country, but many of them are also like my wife, doing what is essentially applied linguistics.)
Other than that, I completely agree. The notion that you are simply doomed to only have one language after the crucial period is exaggerated, and the key to learning another language is immersion.