English as the "official" language of the US

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

If you want a Spanish speaking government, then you have a whole continent to choose from.

Which continent would that be? Not any one I've ever heard of.

Hint: Half of South America speaks Portuguese.

[NUFCToon]

It's a different variation of English than what say the English spoken in England is...what is the problem with it being the official language anyways?

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by NUFCToon

It's a different variation of English than what say the English spoken in England is...what is the problem with it being the official language anyways?

It's already the de facto language of law and commerce. It would be a waste of time, energy, and money to create a silly law that made it "official," leading to numerous money wasting lawsuits filed to discern just what "official" meant in the context of various situations. Why bother, just to enrich more lawyers?

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Why bother, just to enrich more lawyers?

You say that like it's a bad thing?!

[florez]

Originally Posted by colonial

(from post #134
Would that include the right to having court proceedings to which one is a party
conducted in the language of one’s ancestors?

You’re the one who’s in law school, Jack. Please don’t try to tell me that when
you get out in the real world you would really prefer to have to deal on a regular
basis with 22 languages, or something like that.

I am under the impression that federal law requires that linguistic difference does not prevent access to justice, and that the court system in the U.S. is one domain that seems to consistently recognize the importance of multilingualism, by providing interpreters as needed by defendants or the state.
For example, Nebraska has passed some very nasty anti immigrant laws recently, yet even it's state law requires interpretive service for civil as well as criminal proceedings. I hope you are not suggesting that is too much to ask for colonialist.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by colonial

However, it seems that there is only one official language for the Federal court system, and that language is— English!

Are you under the impression that when someone comes before an indian court, he or she is forced to participate in English, even if he or she doesn't understand it? There are translators, evidence is given in the preferred language of witnesses, etc.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by florez

I am under the impression that federal law requires that linguistic difference does not prevent access to justice, and that the court system in the U.S. is one domain that seems to consistently recognize the importance of multilingualism, by providing interpreters as needed by defendants or the state.
For example, Nebraska has passed some very nasty anti immigrant laws recently, yet even it's state law requires interpretive service for civil as well as criminal proceedings. I hope you are not suggesting that is too much to ask for colonialist.

Of course lingustic difference does not prevent access to justice,
and I did not think it would be necessary to refer to provision for
interpreters where interpreters are needed. That does not mean
that a right exists to conduct an entire trial in the non-English langauge
of one's choosing.

Now that you bring it up, however, I hope you would agree it would
be best to work to reduce the extra trouble and expense such measures
entail, and that means taking whatever steps most effectively promote
universal fluency in English.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Are you under the impression that when someone comes before an indian court, he or she is forced to participate in English, even if he or she doesn't understand it? There are translators, evidence is given in the preferred language of witnesses, etc.

No, I was not under that impression.

[Acsenray]

Well, that's the kind of thing that "official English" advocates in the United States are trying to do, to actually prohibit the use of other languages in official situations, such as courts, and barring accommodation for litigants or other participants who aren't comfortable with English.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Well, that's the kind of thing that "official English" advocates in the United States are trying to do, to actually prohibit the use of other languages in official situations, such as courts, and barring accommodation for litigants or other participants who aren't comfortable with English.

What do you mean by "prohibit the use of"?

Isn't English now the required language of all US courtrooms?

And I do not believe that anyone except possibly a tiny fringe
would contest the right of non-English speaking criminal defendants
to an interpreter.

As for non-English-speaking civil litigants don't they now depend
on English-speaking counsel to keep them informed?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by colonial

Isn't English now the required language of all US courtrooms?

No, it's the de facto language of American courts.

And I do not believe that anyone except possibly a tiny fringe would contest the right of non-English speaking criminal defendants to an interpreter.

That fringe would be found in the Official English movement

As for non-English-speaking civil litigants don't they now depend on English-speaking counsel to keep them informed?

They can also get translators.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by colonial

(from post #134)

Do we?

What about this page from the USGOV Naturalization Requirements:

U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services: Path to U.S. Citizenship
(from link):




(from post #134)

Would that include the right to having court proceedings to which one is a party
conducted in the language of one’s ancestors?

You’re the one who’s in law school, Jack. Please don’t try to tell me that when
you get out in the real world you would really prefer to have to deal on a regular
basis with 22 languages, or something like that.



(from post #134)

No, per Wiki India has two country-wide official languages: Hindi and English.
Although there may be 22 different languages recognized as official at the state
level, it is at the insistence of the non-Hindi speaking states that English has
been retained as an official language almost 50 years after the date (1965) when
it was to have been phased out.

However, it seems that there is only one official language for the Federal court system,
and that language is— English!

Indian Judiciary System


So, it seems there is at least one multilingual country with what I would call
a healthy appreciation for the benefits of a common administrative langauge.



(from post #141)

Nonsense. Providing the historically predominant language with official status
entails no logical obligation to provide any minority language with the same.
Of course, the American legal profession is so good at getting a hearing for all
kinds of completely ridiculous shit, maybe I’d better not go too far out on a limb here.

There are exceptions to the English requirement for naturalization, you know.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00b92ca60aRCRD

English Language Exemptions
You Are Exempt From The English Language Requirement, But Are Still Required To Take The Civics Test If You Are:

Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (green card holder) in the United States for 20 years (commonly referred to as the “50/20” exception).

OR

Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the United States for 15 years (commonly referred to as the “55/15” exception).

I know naturalized citizens in these categories. They barely speak English even today.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

No, it's the de facto language of American courts.

English is sure to have some kind of legal statutory backing
or the system would long ago have been deadlocked by
10s or even 100s of thousands of defendants and litigants
insisting that proceedings be conducted in their native language.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

That fringe would be found in the Official English movement

I am late showing up for this thread. I presume this was documented?

Originally Posted by Acsenray

They can also get translators.

I am having trouble believing OE wants to bar translators from court.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by suranyi

There are exceptions to the English requirement for naturalization, you know.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/usc...00b92ca60aRCRD

English Language Exemptions
You Are Exempt From The English Language Requirement, But Are Still Required To Take The Civics Test If You Are:

Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (green card holder) in the United States for 20 years (commonly referred to as the “50/20” exception).

OR

Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the United States for 15 years (commonly referred to as the “55/15” exception).

I know naturalized citizens in these categories. They barely speak English even today.

I saw the exceptions section but did not look at it since I assumed
that most applicants would have to fill the language requirement.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by colonial

And I do not believe that anyone except possibly a tiny fringe would contest the right of non-English speaking criminal defendants to an interpreter.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

That fringe would be found in the Official English movement.

See the OE website:

H.R.997 -- English Language Unity Act of 2011

(from link, emphasis added):

Practical Effect- This section shall apply to all laws, public proceedings, regulations, publications, orders, actions, programs, and policies, but does not apply to--

...actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes or criminal defendants

The section above appears to me to entitle parties to criminal proceedings
to interpreters.

Civil litigation is not mentioned, but anything not forbidden is presumed legal,
I think, so there should be no obstacle to use of interpreters there either.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by colonial

Isn't English now the required language of all US courtrooms?

Originally Posted by Acsenray

No, it's the de facto language of American courts.

English is the official language of 28 states:

Wiki: English-only movement

I would think such designation would make it mandatory in court.

As for the other states, and the Federal courts, I am quite suprised
de facto use of English has not been challenged. Maybe defeat of
any such challnge is considered a foregone conclusion.

[Evil Captor]

I guess no one heard me when I suggested that technology is on its way to making this debate moot in its entirety.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

I guess no one heard me when I suggested that technology is on its way to making this debate moot in its entirety.

Not until you can use something like Babelfish to translate a block of English text into another language and back again and you get the same text. I don't expect to live to see that.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by colonial

English is sure to have some kind of legal statutory backing
or the system would long ago have been deadlocked by
10s or even 100s of thousands of defendants and litigants
insisting that proceedings be conducted in their native language.

This is not merely wrong, it is bullshit.

Courts are conducted in English. This does not require any statutory backing. Everyone understands that the de facto language is English. I have never heard of anyone petitioning that a case be heard in another language, but if they did they would be laughed out of court.

Your assertion is as silly as your insistence on refusing to allow natural margins in your posts.

Originally Posted by colonial

I am having trouble believing OE wants to bar translators from court.

That is speculation, of course, but the "Official English" advocates have generally declined to spell out exactly what such a law would entail, so such speculation is as valid as any other--certainly more valid that speculation that there is already statutory backing for having only English in courtrooms.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Not until you can use something like Babelfish to translate a block of English text into another language and back again and you get the same text. I don't expect to live to see that.

Your standards are quite high. I'll admit the translations I get with my free translator often take some figuring out, but most of the time, I CAN figure out what the other person meant. And they can figure out what I meant. And that's close enough for rock n roll. Exact translations are rarely necessary for ordinary communication.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by colonial

English is the official language of 28 states:

Wiki: English-only movement

I would think such designation would make it mandatory in court.

As for the other states, and the Federal courts, I am quite suprised
de facto use of English has not been challenged. Maybe defeat of
any such challnge is considered a foregone conclusion.

Given that English is not the official language in 22 states and the District of Columbia and is not the official language of the nation, and that your odd claim that that it would certainly have been challenged if it were not "official" in those 24 venues is incorrect, it is pretty evident that the need for an official status is both lacking and claims for it overblown.

[BrainGlutton]

From Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, by Christopher Hitchens, discussing the "official English" movement of 1988:

U.S. English, it emerged, was a project of "U.S. Inc.," a tax-exempt body which underwrote a number of other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, Americans for Border Control, and Californians for Population Stabilization. There was no mistaking the timbre of this joint output, which had little to do with the teaching of "the Queen's English" except as this bore upon the connection between that English and certain inherited conceptions of race and tribal security. Dr. John Tanton, the originating author of this cluster of groups and initiatives, was himself in no doubt that "the question of bilingualism grows out of U.S. immigration policy."

So much might have seemed obvious, at least until Dr. Tanton wrote a paper which, phrased in the poor and affected English which is often found among the language's more ostentatious upholders, created a crisis for his hitherto blue-chip WASP and Jewish campaign. As he coarsely put it:

Having rather clumsily Latinized or Romanized his argument, Tanton moved to a more demotic style. He warned sternly of such alarming cultural imports as "the tradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, and Roman Catholicism with its tendency to "pitch out the separation of church and state." He continued to skirt around these aspects of the problem -- the most conspicuous opponents of church-state separation in the 1980s have been fundamentalist Protestants -- making an excursion through allegedly low "educability" before returning with relish to his main theme, which was, as ever, sex and fertility:

This piece of inadvertence -- the shift to "white" as the key word speaks volumes in the extract above, as well as showing the secondary significance of ideas like "culture" and "language" -- led to the resignation of many of the U.S. English board members, among them Walter Cronkite and the neoconservative Hispanic Linda Chavez. It also led to closer scrutiny of the network of which Dr. Tanton was the convenor. The chairman of the Florida English campaign, for example, had advocated the elimination of emergency telephone services in Spanish in order to supply what he called an "incentive" to the learning of the tongue of Shakespeare and Dickens. His Dade County equivalent had warned that "the United States is not a mongrel nation." Rusty Butler, an aide to Senator Steven Symms of Idaho, had forwarded the senator's call for an English-language amendment to the Constitution by saying that "the language issue could feed and guide terrorism in the U.S." Finally, it was discovered that among the donors to Dr. Tanton's network was the Pioneer Fund, established in the unpropitious year of 1937 to proselytize for what it then called "applied genetics in present-day Germany."

Pioneer Fund

John Tanton

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

From Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies, by Christopher Hitchens, discussing the "official English" movement of 1988:

Pioneer Fund

John Tanton

Given that no one currently participating in this discussion has relied on appeals to Tanton, attacking that particularly xenophobic racist is pretty much of a straw man. Let's leave those arguments out of this discussion until such time as a supporter raises them.

[BrainGlutton]

Race is, in fact, one of the reasons Mexico is still an independent country. There was some thought of annexing it to the U.S. at the end of the Mexican-American War.

After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of Texas which had declared independence from Mexico in 1836, but was still claimed by Mexico. This paved the way for the outbreak of the Mexican-American War on April 24, 1846. With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico," particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.[25]

This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First, idealistic advocates of Manifest Destiny like John L. O'Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of Manifest Destiny, for racial reasons. He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:

This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of Manifest Destiny: on the one hand, while racist ideas inherent in Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, were a lesser race and thus not qualified to become Americans, the "mission" component of Manifest Destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or "regenerated," as it was then described) by bringing them into American democracy. Racism was used to promote Manifest Destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the resistance to the "All Mexico" movement, racism was also used to oppose Manifest Destiny.[27] Conversely, proponents of annexation of "All Mexico" regarded it as an anti-slavery measure.[28]

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Given that no one currently participating in this discussion has relied on appeals to Tanton, attacking that particularly xenophobic racist is pretty much of a straw man. Let's leave those arguments out of this discussion until such time as a supporter raises them.

This is not irrelevant to any "official English" discussion; it illustrates how closely bound up it is with racism. Tanton and those like him are still around, and they ain't made of straw.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

This is not irrelevant to any "official English" discussion; it illustrates how closely bound up it is with racism.

Nope. Still a straw man. Clearly, there is strong racist support for any xenophobic actions, but arguing that because some group that is racist supports an action then anyone who supports the action is racist is a logical fallacy. It is the same fallacy that led some deniers of global warming to put up billboards showing that Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski, and Fidel Castro believe in Global Warming. Let's not play that game.

[Whambulance]

People are trying to make this out to be a fairness issue - or some type of lingual oppression, which it is not.

English has been the unofficial language of the States since its inception and there is no reason to change it or add to it. Not for the sake of bigotry or laziness but simply efficiency or operation.

Once you allow a second or third (or more languages) at the exception of English you've opened the door for a mandate of translators to fill all correspondence roles of government as well as a burden of regulations on private industry.

Once you say 'it's OK that you don't speak English' you become obliged to provide all necessary communication, verbal, print and other in all 'accepted secondary languages'.

In a litigious country like this I can only imagine how many different versions of 'stop' should be printed on signs .. or how many fully translated versions of school curriculum and 'alternately versed' instructors should be provided at huge cost to the rest of us.

[florez]

Originally Posted by colonial

, I hope you would agree it would
be best to work to reduce the extra trouble and expense such measures
entail,
.

No, I do not agree with your narrow and short sighted opinion. IMO, an effort that may improve relations between co-existing people of different cultures and languages, may seem like extra trouble and expense, but in the long run could prove more beneficial and enriching.
Haven't we evolved beyond keeping a hierarchy in place with monolingualism? What is wrong with working in goodwill toward cooperative exchange, reciprocity, and inclusiveness? A domination-my language / subjugation-your language conflict, with winner takes all is old hat, and what is so wrong with bilingualism?
Newt Gingrich called it "a menace to society." in his "Contract with America", and Rick Santorum blurts out that "English should be the main language" for statehood in Puerto Rico. How arrogant and ridiculous, because multiculturalism and multilingualism are assets in the global economy. Move forward, learn more languages, it's a good thing.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Nope. Still a straw man. Clearly, there is strong racist support for any xenophobic actions, but arguing that because some group that is racist supports an action then anyone who supports the action is racist is a logical fallacy. It is the same fallacy that led some deniers of global warming to put up billboards showing that Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski, and Fidel Castro believe in Global Warming. Let's not play that game.

It ain't the same. Manson, etc., don't believe in Global Warming because they're evil and crazy. But a significant number of "official English" supporters are that because they are racists, and you fucking know it. Hitler eating sugar does not discredit sugar, but Hitler's antisemitism does discredit antisemitism. Not a trivial fact, Hitler actually, historically, did discredit antisemitism, which, in the Western world, was quite incredibly widespread in his day, and faded largely because of what he did.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

It ain't the same. Manson, etc., don't believe in Global Warming because they're evil and crazy. But a significant number of "official English" supporters are that because they are racists, and you fucking know it.

You're reaching. Certainly, it is true that the "Official English" crowd includes many racists. However, implying or asserting that the entire movement is based on racism simply hijacks this thread into one more sidebar discussion of who is or is not a racist. If the proponents of "Official English" on this board or this thread want to proclaim or demonstrate that they are racist, then let them demonstrate that position rather than killing a legitimate discussion of the merits of an "official" language by simply smearing all proponents with that slur.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Whambulance

People are trying to make this out to be a fairness issue - or some type of lingual oppression, which it is not.

Actually, it is, but OK, for now.

Originally Posted by Whambulance

English has been the unofficial language of the States since its inception and there is no reason to change it or add to it. Not for the sake of bigotry or laziness but simply efficiency or operation.

Good. Then you would agree that we should not mess with the current status in which English is the de facto language of commerce and law without any changes or additions to that status.

Originally Posted by Whambulance

Once you allow a second or third (or more languages) at the exception of English you've opened the door for a mandate of translators to fill all correspondence roles of government as well as a burden of regulations on private industry.

Once you say 'it's OK that you don't speak English' you become obliged to provide all necessary communication, verbal, print and other in all 'accepted secondary languages'.

Now you are getting confusing. No one in this thread has actually proposed, (except as a counter-argument against an "official" English), that "secondary" languages be given any official status. On the other hand, we already provide information and instructions in their native languages to people who do not speak English so that tourists and recent immigrants are able to function in our society with a minimum of disruption to our society. We also grant interpreters to people who do not speak English in court situations while continuing to use English in the courts, themselves.

Originally Posted by Whambulance

In a litigious country like this I can only imagine how many different versions of 'stop' should be printed on signs .. or how many fully translated versions of school curriculum and 'alternately versed' instructors should be provided at huge cost to the rest of us.

Given that no one in this thread has proposed anything like that, I am not even sure what you are talking about.

Bilingual education is a method of teaching children in a way that would permit them to learn English. It is somewhat controversial regarding its effectiveness, but its goal is still to produce English speaking graduates and does not require that all curricula be translated to and taught in all languages.

[Evil Captor]

Most products I buy nowadays have instructions in more than one language. I am completely OK with this. I imagine it does pose a burden to the manufacturer, but they are probably accepting that burden in order to increase their market share. Maybe the invisible hand of the marketplace will guide us all to a practical bilinguilism. Though I still think tech will resolve the problem Real Soon Now.

[Whambulance]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Actually, it is, but OK, for now.

Good. Then you would agree that we should not mess with the current status in which English is the de facto language of commerce and law without any changes or additions to that status.

Now you are getting confusing. No one in this thread has actually proposed, (except as a counter-argument against an "official" English), that "secondary" languages be given any official status. On the other hand, we already provide information and instructions in their native languages to people who do not speak English so that tourists and recent immigrants are able to function in our society with a minimum of disruption to our society. We also grant interpreters to people who do not speak English in court situations while continuing to use English in the courts, themselves.

Given that no one in this thread has proposed anything like that, I am not even sure what you are talking about.

Bilingual education is a method of teaching children in a way that would permit them to learn English. It is somewhat controversial regarding its effectiveness, but its goal is still to produce English speaking graduates and does not require that all curricula be translated to and taught in all languages.

Sorry I wasn't more clear tomndebb. I wasn't addressing anyone in particular or even arguing a particular side.

I have just engaged in conversation before regarding some of the 'what ifs' of not having an official language in the States and thought I'd throw out a few points.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

This is not merely wrong, it is bullshit.

Courts are conducted in English. This does not require any statutory backing. Everyone understands that the de facto language is English. I have never heard of anyone petitioning that a case be heard in another language, but if they did they would be laughed out of court.

Your assertion is as silly as your insistence on refusing to allow natural margins in your posts.

Something wrong with your memory and/or attention span?

Three replies to this thread so far (3-10-166) have drawn attention to the fact
that English DOES have statutory backing in well over 20 states, and reply #114
quoted section of the California constitution giving English official status there.

I remain suprised per my reply #166 that troublemakers have not been all over
the our courts for their preference for English.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

That is speculation, of course, but the "Official English" advocates have generally declined to spell out exactly what such a law would entail, so such speculation is as valid as any other--certainly more valid that speculation that there is already statutory backing for having only English in courtrooms.

Something wrong with your memory and/or attention span?

Here, again, is a link I provided earler (reply #165) to the OE website:

H.R.997 -- English Language Unity Act of 2011

And here, from the link, is an example passage which seems to me
to spell out OE recommendations in commendable detail:

CHAPTER 6--OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

`Sec. 161. Official language of the United States

`The official language of the United States is English.

`Sec. 162. Preserving and enhancing the role of the official language

`Representatives of the Federal Government shall have an affirmative obligation to preserve and enhance the role of English as the official language of the Federal Government. Such obligation shall include encouraging greater opportunities for individuals to learn the English language.

`Sec. 163. Official functions of Government to be conducted in English

`(a) Official Functions- The official functions of the Government of the United States shall be conducted in English.

`(b) Scope- For the purposes of this section, the term `United States' means the several States and the District of Columbia, and the term `official' refers to any function that (i) binds the Government, (ii) is required by law, or (iii) is otherwise subject to scrutiny by either the press or the public.

`(c) Practical Effect- This section shall apply to all laws, public proceedings, regulations, publications, orders, actions, programs, and policies, but does not apply to--

`(1) teaching of languages;

`(2) requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;

`(3) actions, documents, or policies necessary for national security, international relations, trade, tourism, or commerce;

`(4) actions or documents that protect the public health and safety;

`(5) actions or documents that facilitate the activities of the Bureau of the Census in compiling any census of population;

`(6) actions that protect the rights of victims of crimes or criminal defendants; or

`(7) using terms of art or phrases from languages other than English.

`Sec. 164. Uniform English language rule for naturalization

`(a) Uniform Language Testing Standard- All citizens should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution.

`(b) Ceremonies- All naturalization ceremonies shall be conducted in English.

`Sec. 165. Rules of construction

`Nothing in this chapter shall be construed--

`(1) to prohibit a Member of Congress or any officer or agent of the Federal Government, while performing official functions, from communicating unofficially through any medium with another person in a language other than English (as long as official functions are performed in English);

`(2) to limit the preservation or use of Native Alaskan or Native American languages (as defined in the Native American Languages Act);

`(3) to disparage any language or to discourage any person from learning or using a language; or

`(4) to be inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Given that English is not the official language in 22 states and the District of Columbia and is not the official language of the nation, and that your odd claim that that it would certainly have been challenged if it were not "official" in those 24 venues is incorrect, it is pretty evident that the need for an official status is both lacking and claims for it overblown.

I missed this earlier.

My suprise has nothing to do with whether English has official or unofficial status.

In thinking about it further, I suspect challenges have been made, and enough plaintiffs
were refused a hearing for word to get around discouraging other potential toublemakers.

[colonial]

Originally Posted by florez

No, I do not agree with your narrow and short sighted opinion. IMO, an effort that may improve relations between co-existing people of different cultures and languages, may seem like extra trouble and expense, but in the long run could prove more beneficial and enriching.
Haven't we evolved beyond keeping a hierarchy in place with monolingualism? What is wrong with working in goodwill toward cooperative exchange, reciprocity, and inclusiveness? A domination-my language / subjugation-your language conflict, with winner takes all is old hat, and what is so wrong with bilingualism?
Newt Gingrich called it "a menace to society." in his "Contract with America", and Rick Santorum blurts out that "English should be the main language" for statehood in Puerto Rico. How arrogant and ridiculous, because multiculturalism and multilingualism are assets in the global economy. Move forward, learn more languages, it's a good thing.

I resent your bigorty.

I suspected but did not want to believe that you were supporting an bilingual agenda.

The gauntlet is down, not on account of the prejudice of the native Americans who
preceded you here, but on account of your own prejudice against your own host
nation, the nation which has been kind enough to provide you with what I may
reasonably assume is a better life than you could have found where you came from.

I fear for the future on account of what bigots like you may pass on to their descendants.

I voted Democrat in the last general election, and will do so again this year, but
I agree with Gingrich that bilingualism IS a menace, and I oppose PR statehood
because of the further biligualism it would interject into our society.

I will leave you with a quotation from Theodore Roosevelt from the Wiki article
on OE cited earlier;

"We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

I will never withdraw my welcome to you or anyone else who aspires to be an American,
of American nationality, but you are not now worthy of the acceptence so kindly offered.
Do not be suprised when your base ingratitude arouses anger as it has in me.

[florez]

Originally Posted by colonial

I resent your bigorty.

I suspected but did not want to believe that you were supporting an bilingual agenda.

The gauntlet is down, not on account of the prejudice of the native Americans who
preceded you here, but on account of your own prejudice against your own host
nation, the nation which has been kind enough to provide you with what I may
reasonably assume is a better life than you could have found where you came from.

I fear for the future on account of what bigots like you may pass on to their descendants.


"We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

I will never withdraw my welcome to you or anyone else who aspires to be an American,
of American nationality, but you are not now worthy of the acceptence so kindly offered.
Do not be suprised when your base ingratitude arouses anger as it has in me.

Guess what, my people are originally from New Mexico, so the border came over us, when Anglos decided to move on in. We did not come from anywhere else, and the native Americans who preceded us are part of the family. And our descendants are native American because our family married into the tribes all around us, so we are your host nation, and we are not forgetting that.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by colonial

Something wrong with your memory and/or attention span?

Three replies to this thread so far (3-10-166) have drawn attention to the fact
that English DOES have statutory backing in well over 20 states, and reply #114
quoted section of the California constitution giving English official status there.

The post to which you are replying was made in the context of U.S. law. There is no statutory requirement in that forum.

Originally Posted by colonial

I remain suprised per my reply #166 that troublemakers have not been all over
the our courts for their preference for English.

So, you are surprised because you want there to have been problems when no such problems have arisen? That must be why you then went on to make the following utterly baseless claim:

Originally Posted by colonial

In thinking about it further, I suspect challenges have been made, and enough plaintiffs
were refused a hearing for word to get around discouraging other potential toublemakers.

Since you need for there to have been such complaints, you now appear to want to invent them to support your argument.

That is not my problem. My facts are clear: court cases are routinely handled in English throughout the country, regardless whether various states have taken action to produce unnecessary laws regarding the language used (and regardless of the languages spoken by large numbers of inhabitants). If you want to imagine problems, you are free to do so, but to claim there are problems with utterly no evidence simply places you on the xenophobic side of the discussion.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by colonial

I resent your bigorty.
. . .
I fear for the future on account of what bigots like you may pass on to their descendants.
. . .
I will never withdraw my welcome to you or anyone else who aspires to be an American,
of American nationality, but you are not now worthy of the acceptence so kindly offered.
Do not be suprised when your base ingratitude arouses anger as it has in me.

Knock it off. There is no reason to resort to personal attacks in this discussion. Making personal attacks on another poster when you clearly have your facts wrong is particularly pernicious.

Stop it.

[ /Moderating ]