Should English be the official language?

[Sampiro]

I'm sure this debate has come up before, but a search for English and "official language" didn't find it.

I live in a small college town with about 15,000 year round residents. Our education budget is already stretched (like those of most counties), yet there is currently talk of appropriating funds from other sources to provide more bilingual (English & Spanish) instruction in the classroom. (The Spanish speaking population here is about 6%, relatively small compared to some areas of the state where during picking season it reaches 25%.)

I like to think that I'm not a xenophobe (which is not to say I'm not, but I like to think I'm not) and I understand why people come to the US to better their lives for themselves and their children. I also am cognizant that children born to aliens, legal or otherwise, are citizens of this country.

However, I resent having to pay for more teachers in order to teach their children in another language. English is here as in the vast majority of the nation the language of government, most news media, popular culture, commerce, banking, etc., and not to know it is more of a handicap than blindness. While I support government spending on ESL courses, I believe that it is time to make English the official language (at least of government) in the United States and to require fluency in it for status as a citizen or permanent alien.

If a state or a city wishes to add another language (e.g. if Miami wants to make Spanish and Creole co-regnant with English) that's fine and they should have the right, but for areas in which English speakers are the majority and non-English speakers are not a significant minority, I believe that responsiblity for learning teh language should be up to the individual or their parents. I certainly would not migrate to France, Switzerland, or Italy without learning the language or if for some reason I had to I certainly wouldn't expect their governments to supply teachers for my children.

So am I being unreasonable or do you agree?

[John Mace]

There are a couple things going on here.

1. IIRC there is an English proficiency req't for citizenship. As well as history, and gov't, and possibly other areas as well.

2. Making English the official language would not change the need for some children to have bilingual education for some period of time in order to function in school. People will debate how long the bilingual ed should last (1 yr, 3 yrs, 5 yrs...), but the need will still be there. The days of our grandparents when kids were thrown into school not speaking English and had to sink or swim are over. That's not coming back.

3. Many states already have an English official language status. I believe CA is one of them, but when I get my ballot in the mail, it's still in English and Spanish, so it's unclear to me what the offical language deal does. And there will also be the need for interpretors in courts, etc.

Bottom line, this seems to be pretty complicated although on the surface it seems like in needn't be. Personally, I would not like the feds telling the states what to do on this, but would rather see the states have the authority to do what makes sense.

[Sampiro]

Another question I have is "where does it end?" In the southern part of Georgia there are a significant number of Haitians during part of the year. Creole is a very difficult language to find qualified interpreters in, let alone qualified bilingual teachers. Should we nevertheless try to find them?

In Atlanta the area called Chamblee is nicknamed Chambodia because of the high number of immigrants from Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and numerous other Asian nations. Should we accomodate them?

Suppose a single Hungarian family comes here- should we appropriate funds to teach the teacher Hungarian?

[John Mace]

I'm a strong believer in letting common sense tell us how to handle these situations.

[tomndebb]

The following fairly recent thread began with the Constitutional issues, but picked up some perspectives on the most appropriate manner of teaching English to immigrants as well as some history on how we handled this during the last major immigrant wave, a hundred years ago:
English-only in the US: Unconstitutional?

[RickJay]

I would have to say that this doesn't strike me as having anything to do with "official language" recognition. It's a matter of prioritizing education dollars, not designating an "official language."

[december]

Originally posted by Sampiro
there is currently talk of appropriating funds from other sources to provide more bilingual (English & Spanish) instruction in the classroom. (The Spanish speaking population here is about 6%, relatively small compared to some areas of the state where during picking season it reaches 25%.)

Bilingual education is a discredited concept. It has been tried in a number of places, with disastrous results for the Latinos who particpated. Many of the Latino students who were placed in bilingual education classes never learned English properly. Their results in other subjects were worse as well.

Things got so bad that the voters of California recently passed a ballot proposition ending the practice. Ending bilingual education produced substantial educational gains for Latino students.

I urge you to fight tooth and nail against bilingual education. It's bad for everyone.

[Kalt]

i don't think we need an "official" language, but english should be the default. If you cannot speak/read english, do not come to this country and complain that the signs are not written in sanskrit.

Learning the default language should be a prerequisite for immigrating to a new country.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by december
Bilingual education is a discredited concept. It has been tried in a number of places, with disastrous results for the Latinos who particpated. Many of the Latino students who were placed in bilingual education classes never learned English properly. Their results in other subjects were worse as well.

Things got so bad that the voters of California recently passed a ballot proposition ending the practice. Ending bilingual education produced substantial educational gains for Latino students.

I urge you to fight tooth and nail against bilingual education. It's bad for everyone.

Not true. Many educators think that extended bilingual education is damaging to the students ability to learn English and that it sould be limited to one or two years, with "mainstreaming" done quickly. Prop 227 in CA went along those lines. It did not end bilingual education, but reduced it signifcantly. This initiative was backed by the majority of Latinos, or at least recent immigrants (IIRC).

[Gozu]

The official language is whatever language the head of the nation uses for his/her speeches. I don't think you should start complaining until the day Bush learns spanish (and we all know that will never happen. He hardly knows english as it is)

[december]

Originally posted by Gozu
I don't think you should start complaining until the day Bush learns spanish (and we all know that will never happen. He hardly knows english as it is)

Uh, Bush does know Spanish. He gave an interview to a Spanish language radio station during the campaign.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by Gozu
I don't think you should start complaining until the day Bush learns spanish (and we all know that will never happen. He hardly knows english as it is)

Bush speaks pretty passable Spanish. Mine is a bit rusty, but I've heard him speak Spanish and while he definitely has a Gringo accent, his vocabulary is pretty darned good.

We're waiting for your retraction. Repeat after me: "I was wrong about Bush."

[sailor]

Um, sorry, but President Bush does not speak Spanish fluently at all. He speaks barely enough to fumble a bit in prepared speeches. At least that is the impression I get from the very little I have heard him speak. Like when his "friend" - "Ansar" came to Washington. The name is "Aznar" and he mangled it.

In any case I do not think this makes any difference in the OP and is just a sidenote.

As I have said in other threads I do not think there is such thing as a "national" language. For the vast majority the language is English but there are large parts of the country where Spanish was spoken before they even became part of the USA. I can't see why there should be only one language. People speak what they speak. I do not think the majority should have the right to impose their language on the minority.

[Monty]

Gozu: You are incorrect. The official language is that language designate in law as such. The United States of America, as a nation, does not have one so designated. There are, on the other hand, a few states which have one or more official languages designated as such by their legislatures.

[tomndebb]

Bilingual education is a discredited concept. It has been tried in a number of places, with disastrous results for the Latinos who particpated.

piffle

The specific program that had been implemented in California had a number of problems and was failing in several (not all) areas.

Claims that "bilingual education is a discredited concept" are simply political rhetoric that ignore the success that it has had in numerous situations when applied differently than the discontinued Californai model. In fact, as the historical record shows, (see the linked thread, above) it was successfully used in many cities throughout the period 1890 - 1920.

[december]

Originally posted by John Mace
Not true. Many educators think that extended bilingual education is damaging to the students ability to learn English and that it sould be limited to one or two years, with "mainstreaming" done quickly. Prop 227 in CA went along those lines. It did not end bilingual education, but reduced it signifcantly. This initiative was backed by the majority of Latinos, or at least recent immigrants (IIRC).

Here's the wording of Prop 227. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...RD/unztext.htm

ARTICLE 2. English Language Education

305. Subject to the exceptions provided in Article 3 (commencing with Section 310), all children in California public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English. In particular, this shall require that all children be placed in English language classrooms. Children who are English learners shall be educated through sheltered English immersion during a temporary transition period not normally intended to exceed one year. Local schools shall be permitted to place in the same classroom English learners of different ages but whose degree of English proficiency is similar. Local schools shall be encouraged to mix together in the same classroom English learners from different native-language groups but with the same degree of English fluency. Once English learners have acquired a good working knowledge of English, they shall be transferred to English language mainstream classrooms

It doesn't appear to provide for limited bilingual education, but rather for limited "sheltered English immersion."

[december]

P.S.

"Sheltered English immersion" or "structured English immersion" means an English language acquisition process for young children in which nearly all classroom instruction is in English but with the curriculum and presentation designed for children who are learning the language

[Monty]

Good grief, december! You just said that the wording you cited doesn't say what it says!

[John Mace]

"It doesn't appear to provide for limited bilingual education, but rather for limited "sheltered English immersion.""

Dec:

I think that's called a distinction w/o a difference.

The former system, IIRC, had the major subjects (eg math) taught in the student's native language (usually Spanish) with special instruction for English as a seperate subject. The idea was not to slow down the learning of those major subjects. But many parents were complaining that their kids were not learning English well enough or fast enough.

[j_kat_251]

What the hell was I taking Latin in high school for? I'm never going to Lata.

[Zoe]

No offense intended, but some of you might want to know that the word English should always be capitalized. I don't usually pick at people's grammar, but in this case there was just too much irony.

The best way to learn a language is to live in a country where it is the most common language spoken. Usually it is much harder for an adult to learn than a child.

[december]

Originally posted by John Mace
"It doesn't appear to provide for limited bilingual education, but rather for limited "sheltered English immersion.""

Dec:

I think that's called a distinction w/o a difference.

As I understand it, there's a fundamental difference. Sheltered English Immersion is a way of teaching in English. Bilingual Education is a way of teaching in Spanish (or other non-English language).

Prop. 227 defined bilingual education as

(e) "Bilingual education/native language instruction" means a language acquisition process for students in which much or all instruction, textbooks, and teaching materials are in the child's native language.

These opponents of Prop 227 said there was a difference.

Sheltered English immersion" – not bilingual education – is the unproven,experimental program....Nor is there any indication that immersion teaches English faster than bilingual program models.

[John Mace]

Dec:

This is politics. Akin to the pro-choice/pro-abortion; pro-life/anti-abortion dicotomy. "Bilingual education" is a new bugaboo in certain political circles, and the holy grail in other circles.

You can call it "Sheltered English Immersion", but as long two different languages are used (however infrequently one might come into play), I think the term bilingual is valid.

At any rate, if we drop the politcal labels, prop 227 allows for some limited instruction in a language other than English.

[chappachula]

Lets get personal, not theoretical : look at the issue from your own family history

How would we Dopers enjoy this site, if we posted here in 15 different languages?

My grandfather arrived in this great country along with millions of other tired, poor, huddled masses, about 1903.He spoke 2 languages, but not English.He lived in poverty all his life, but he made sure his children learned English. My parents became a solid middle class American success story. Where would I be if they had grown up speaking Russian and Polish but not English?

A country needs a common language,and a common sense of heritage. And private individuals need to face the fact that if you want to share in society's benefits, you should do it in the language of your country.

[tomndebb]

A country needs a common language,and a common sense of heritage. And private individuals need to face the fact that if you want to share in society's benefits, you should do it in the language of your country.

So what?

As you noted in your own family, immigrants do a pretty good job of learning English. If you go to the actual census statistics for immigrants and language, it is clear that they make a concerted effort to learn English when they arrive. There is no need to declare an official language for the simple reason that the immigrants already want to join the mainstream.

There can be questions of how to best accomplish this, but such questions are not helped by pretending that one form of bi-lingual education is not bi-lingual education and they are certainly not helped by efforts to nationalize the language.

For a look at the reality of getting immigrants to speak English, please look at the information presented in
this post

[Monty]

Well, there are countries--viable & vibrant countries--with long histories and are full of culture, said countries having more than one official language.

[Another Clone]

There are problems on various levels here. Some of you appear to think that spending money on helping immigrants to function efficiently is a waste of money, others that nobody has a right to claim any language as official.

However you look on it, there's one main language in the US and UK (English). What about countries which have two or more official languages - for starters, Canada and South Africa? There's no argument there about either of these problems - they live with language difficulties and so they have a better understanding of the issues. Both official languages are taught from an early age, and while fluency is not guaranteed, the opportunity for fluency in both languages is there.

What's the problem with providing free classes for immigrants to learn the main language of communication of their new home? Money? Scared you won't get a return on your investment? You will - in the time you won't have to waste trying to decipher what that moron at the check-out is saying, in the money you won't need to waste on phone calls to that idiot who can't make him/herself understood.

You have the gift of English. Don't keep it all to yourselves. Be brave enough to let others in on the secret.

[Largo62]

English already is the "default" language in the US, but making it official would be a step toward the inclusion that most immigrants seem to want. There's nothing wrong with having a different language in the home, but having no requirement for a single language causes immigrants to settle in enclaves where communication with others whose language they share makes them more comfortable, but unemployment and lack of educational opportunities are made worse by the inability to communicate with the larger society.

If, as someone suggested (and I always thought was the case) one has to read and write fluently in English to be a naturalized citizen of the US, and if you have to be a citizen to vote, then why are ballots printed in other languages? In California millions are spent in each election cycle printing ballots not only in Spanish, but in several other languages including Vietnamese. I think we should make English official, and spend that ballot money on teaching the immigrants to speak it.

There should be a difference between "second" language and "foreign" language. If there is no official language, then truly there can be no foreign language. We should respect all languages and cultures, but insist that we have one language for us all. Unless we want to return to Babel.


My zwei pfennig.

[JRDelirious]

As earlier mentioned, the officiality or unofficiality of the English language is a separate thing from the adoption of good or bad educational policy for the purpose of having us all on the same page when it comes to communicating w. each other and seeking job opportunities. Or from adopting economically-sensible policy as to when it's more efficient to have multilingual forms than to have thousands of people taking us to court because they could not understand something important. You can have good transition programs with or without "Official English".

The USA has no real need for an "Official National Language" statute. We already work quite well as it is. The Congress and the Federal Courts, and the Executive Branch, all make English the language of record for official affairs, and any accommodation is made as-needed (e.g. interpreters in courts -- worth it to keep from frying an innocent man).

Many of the more hardline "language-policy" proponents, however, don't seem to really be interested so much in making government more efficient or more accessible or or more tolerant of diversity or speeding up the integration of immigrant groups, but rather in using language policy as a tool for making America loook/sound like their idea of how it should be: (a) on the English-only side, as a first step to just flat-out forbidding ANY kind of linguistic accommodation whatsoever, so they never have to see or hear another language in an official context, in the extreme case up to mandating English in private conversation if on school/workplace grounds; or (b) on the multilingualist side, as a way to making any and ALL accommodation whatsoever mandatory even for the private sector, and in the extreme case up to enabling people to go through their whole lives without EVER needing to learn ANY of the common language of the greater society.

Fortunately, the children of the immigrants take care of all of this rather effectively, by usually mastering English quite adequately, thank you very much, by the 2nd generation after immigration.

[tomndebb]

English already is the "default" language in the US, but making it official would be a step toward the inclusion that most immigrants seem to want. There's nothing wrong with having a different language in the home, but having no requirement for a single language causes immigrants to settle in enclaves where communication with others whose language they share makes them more comfortable, but unemployment and lack of educational opportunities are made worse by the inability to communicate with the larger society.

And yet, the enclaves in New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, and California (that I know of--I am sure there were others) have all provided good citizens to the U.S., even when they maintained their German, Italian, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, and other languages for up to fifty years--in a few cases longer.

And, as has been noted repeatedly in this thread and the one that preceded it, the number of non-English enclaves is actually shrinking without resorting to any xenophobic laws.

Making English "official" would do nothing but create one more excuse for xenophobes and haters to use such a law as a basis for more persecution of those who are different.

[doctordoowop]

language is the"glue" of society. If you want to see a laboratory example-look at all the problems Canada has w/ Quebec province. People who speak the same stick together, get isolated, then demand "freedom."

[tomndebb]

If you want to see a laboratory example-look at all the problems Canada has w/ Quebec province. People who speak the same stick together, get isolated, then demand "freedom."

Actually, if you actually look at Canada, you will see that this oversimplistic rationale is false. The issues regarding Quebec are rooted in separate cultures that were enshrined in law in the Quebec Act of 1774. The separate cultures that developed had far more to do with power and who wielded it than it did the language spoken on the street. Paying a bit more attention to the reality of Canada, one will note that language is only occasionally an issue in New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick or in the other Maritime provinces.

It is not language but separate law and tradition that provided the issues that divide Canadians, today.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by doctordoowop
language is the"glue" of society. If you want to see a laboratory example-look at all the problems Canada has w/ Quebec province. People who speak the same stick together, get isolated, then demand "freedom."

Indeed, the shared language of the Yugoslaves glued them together right good, it did. Lord knows the Serbo-Croatian language was a fabulous glue. As was the Czechoslovak language (_{nota bene: am well aware of the history of the Czech and Slovak folks, the point being lang. & identity are fluid} ) and I believe we can expect the dissolution of the Swiss state any day now.

I frankly do not understand the urge to legislate language. The pointless nattering on about assimilation and immigrants is bloody ahistorical, and frankly the concept of legislating langauge use in a free country and telling free citizens what langauge they must use with officials strikes me as fundamentally wrong headed.

[Largo62]

Originally posted by tomndebb
Making English "official" would do nothing but create one more excuse for xenophobes and haters to use such a law as a basis for more persecution of those who are different.

I don't enjoy being lumped with xenophobes, or worse, haters and persecutors, just because I think that the language of America is English. Probably that is not what you intended, but it reads that way.

I know that others were here before English colonists arrived in the 1600s. I know that other colonists from Spain and France (and from Russia in the Alaskan territory) also inhabited large areas of what is now the United States before English speakers took those lands by conquest, purchase or treaty. But the Constitution of the United States is a document in English. The founders of our country spoke English, and I think people who wish to be Americans should at least know English. Of course they should preserve their own languages and cultures. Ideally all Americans would have at least two languages. But please don't call me a xenophobe because I want people who vote in this country to do so in the language of this country.

The resources spent on producing ballots in foreign languages could be better spent in helping immigrants to learn the language of their adopted country.

My dictionary says a xenophobe is one who fears foreigners. I welcome foreigners, both as guests and as potential citizens. I just think that citizens should have one language in common regardless of others they possess, and in the United States that common language should be English.

[Another Clone]

I'm not American, but I fail to see what objections anyone has to calling English the official language of the USA when your constitution is written in English and your parliamentarians debate in English.

Have vociferous national groups made you all feel guilty about discrimination, as happened with the N-word? (I believe you don't dare say the word at all for fear of recrimination now).

[Monty]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
I frankly do not understand the urge to legislate language.

Good for votes.

[bdgr]

English? The official Language? How silly.
heeah Ameliga, Tsalagi hinegv

[tomndebb]

I don't enjoy being lumped with xenophobes, or worse, haters and persecutors, just because I think that the language of America is English. Probably that is not what you intended, but it reads that way.

It was not an attack on you or your position and I made no claim to what your response to such a law would be. It is a statement of the law of unintended consequences.

We already have xenophobes running around bashing immigrants. Handing those people a law that says they can now consider people who do not speak English to be law-breakers will do nothing but ratchet up the hate and violence.

We have already had a similar situation. We have already handled that situation (without resorting to unnecessary laws). I am not sure why the "official language" backers refuse to look at the historical record (or even the reality that most immigrants are already doing their darndest to learn English, today).

I favor efforts to increase the speed with which immigrants can acquire skills in English. Making English "official" will do nothing to promote that. When we dealt with large numbers of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we instituted programs (some private, some funded by the government) to teach people English. We also made accommodation for the people who had not yet mastered English. The requirement that a person speak English to become a citizen was only instituted at the beginning of the last surge of anti-immigration sentiment. We survived for many years with no such requirement. When the "official language" people came to Congress around eight years ago with a claim that they were going to reduce government expenditures by forbidding the translation of documents to other languages, the Bureau of Printing reported that they had printed 265 such documents in five years--out of more than 400,000 documents. (And it is unknown how many of those documents would have had to have been exempted from the law because they were diplomatic documents or how many such documents were aids to tourists, which I would hope we would wish to continue printing.)

Congress, the President, and the Courts all perform all their work in English. Wall Street and Wal-Mart already operate in English. English is already the de facto language of the U.S. I have seen no good explanation for placing some sort of "official" stamp on that reality.
(I have seen no good explanation of how such a law would be worded or what it would entail.)

[flonks]

Originally posted by sailor
Like when his "friend" - "Ansar" came to Washington. The name is "Aznar" and he mangled it.

Bush also called Chirac Prime Minister although he is President

[sailor]

Originally posted by flonks
Bush also called Chirac Prime Minister although he is President

The funny part is that "ansar" means "duck" in Spanish. You cannot imagine the mileage comedians in Spin have gotten out of this.

Also, Jeb Bush was recently in Spain and met with "Ansar" and said he was pleased to meet with the "President of the Spanish Republic" ignoring Spain is a kingdom. It did not do much to improve Spanish opinions about American culture. It's not only that the guy is so blatantly ignorant but, on top of that, he did not even bother to read up a bit on the country he was visiting.

[regnad kcin]

Everyone on this country should speak at least two languages at a fairly high level. English should be one of them.

If you cant, you are not in a position to whine about others.

Almost every European can speak at least two languages (and many can speak more). A large majority of Africans can speak three or more languages (and many can speak 5 or 6). Are Americans simply dumber than these people? Is the American brain capacity lower?

Get up off of your lazy ass and learn another languge. When you do I can promise you several things:

1) You will lower your risk of Alzheimers
2) You will have an enriching experience like none you have ever had
3) You will stop whining about making English the official language

[Largo62]

Originally posted by tomndebb
It was not an attack on you or your position and I made no claim to what your response to such a law would be. It is a statement of the law of unintended consequences.

Thanks, Tom. As I said, I didn't suppose you meant it that way. You have been one of the most balanced and restrained posters I am aware of. I've never known you to attack. I wish I had your restraint. I've had to apologize a few times because I have too active hackles.

We already have xenophobes running around bashing immigrants. Handing those people a law that says they can now consider people who do not speak English to be law-breakers will do nothing but ratchet up the hate and violence.

I've always tended to see the "official" language argument and immigrant bashing as separate issues. But you may be right. Since I don't think that way, it didn't occur to me that others might relate the two, or use the language issue as a flail. You make a good point.

[ronbo]

It is very short-sighted to adopt English as the official language of the United States.

English should be adopted as the official language of the World!

[Kimstu]

AC: I'm not American, but I fail to see what objections anyone has to calling English the official language of the USA when your constitution is written in English and your parliamentarians debate in English.

The objections mentioned in this thread so far seem to fall into the following categories:

i) It's pointless. Calling English "the official language" will not make any practical difference to people's existing language capacities. There are already lots of good practical reasons for encouraging all residents of America to learn English, and also for providing some education and services in other languages to non-English speakers. Formally identifying English as "official" won't change any of them.

ii) It's bureaucratic and inefficient. As has been noted already, language-support decisions for a particular region and population are best made by the people on the ground. Federal laws restricting official documents to English-only will be nothing but a royal pain in the neck to all the people who have to deal with all the people who don't know English.

iii) It's a stick for xenophobes to beat immigrants with, as DG and tnd have eloquently discussed.

To which I'd add another, minor objection:

iv) It could become obsolete. Up until at least 1700, the majority of people of European descent in what's now the USA were Spanish speakers. English speakers are now the majority in this country, but Spanish speakers make up at least one-eighth of our population, and the majority of people in this hemisphere speak Spanish. Official language use should change naturally with the natural patterns of language use in a population; if the US population at some point becomes majority Spanish-speaking again, a law mandating English as the official language will be silly and out of date.

[MoronosaurusRex]

Hey, maybe Jeb does know Spanish history and just made a Freudian slip expressing his deep, sincere, Hemingway-driven, underlying wish that Franco lost the civil war!

[Annie-Xmas]

Originally posted by j_kat_251
What the hell was I taking Latin in high school for? I'm never going to Lata.

In case you ever go to Latin America? (Insert obligatory Al Gore joke here).

It seems to me that most peoples who say Americans should learn a second language want them to learn their native language, and don't feel that they themselves should learn English as a second language.

Palisades Park, New Jersey has recently had a influx of Koreans. There was a big argument between the Korean shop owners and the borough's Police and Fire Departments whether the names of the Korean stores and businesses should also be printed in the ENGLISH alphabet. It seems the P&F Depts. were having a hard time finding the places, particularly at night. The shop keepers didn't feel they should have to put the names in Engish, apparently because they did not want to encourage English-speaking customers! ?

[december]

Originally posted by ronbo
English should be adopted as the official language of the World!

In fact, English is the language of the world, in business and the sciences.

MoronosaurusRex, according to the Puerto Rico Herald, Jeb Bush is fluent in Spanish. His wife Columba Bush is Hispanic.

Kimstu, calling English the official language may or may not be a good idea, but it's not pointless. It would discourage steps toward a bilingual society, such as bilingual eduation or making ballots available in other languages.

[Gadarene]

Annie-Xmas:

In case you ever go to Latin America? (Insert obligatory Al Gore joke here).

Funny, I heard that same joke about Dan Quayle. It's apocryphal either way.

december, what's your stance on ESL instruction for kids who grow up in Spanish (or other)-language homes?

[december]

Originally posted by Gadarene
december, what's your stance on ESL instruction for kids who grow up in Spanish (or other)-language homes?

I'm not sure how ESL works. If it means teaching adults and older students the basics of English, then I'm totally in favor.

[Gadarene]

Not older students. Kindergarteners. First-graders. Third-graders.

Do you think that coming from a Spanish-language home and speaking Spanish 95 percent of her day should have any bearing on how an eight-year-old Puerto Rican girl from the South Bronx is taught in school? Or should it just be, "Damn the torpedoes...full steam ahead with English"?