English as the "official" language of the US

[What_the]

I know, at least I don’t think, that it ever was. I’m wondering about requirements that other languages be used.

What landmark legislation or court cases started the ball rolling? Federal or state.

Initially and even now, are there distinctions between the need for other languages in order to assist citizens vs other residents?

How about efforts to restrict the official use of other languages that have been successful or were struck down by the courts?

[Johnny_L.A]

In 1849 the California Constitution established English and Spanish as the official languages of California. It was rewritten in 1879 to be English-only.

[FeAudrey]

You have to “Be able to read, write, and speak English …” to take out U.S. citizenship:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=86bd6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=86bd6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

[Donnerwetter]

There is an interesting article about this topic on Wikipedia:

Languages of the United States

[Trinopus]

Well, serious question: if (big if!) the legislature in California, for whatever reason, wrote and passed a bill that was written en espanol, and the Governor signed it, would there be any real constitutional reason for it to be overruled by the courts solely because of its language? (Maybe just a pointless proclamation, say, declaring Cinco de Mayo an honorary holiday?) Sure, some people would object, but is it constitutionally dubious?

[Little_Nemo]

@Trinopus

Well, serious question: if (big if!) the legislature in California, for whatever reason, wrote and passed a bill that was written en espanol, and the Governor signed it, would there be any real constitutional reason for it to be overruled by the courts solely because of its language? (Maybe just a pointless proclamation, say, declaring Cinco de Mayo an honorary holiday?) Sure, some people would object, but is it constitutionally dubious?

In California, I’d say there’d be a strong case that the law was unconstitutional. The California constitution says “English is the official language of the State of California.” and “The Legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the State of California.” I’d say there’s a reasonable argument that the Legislature enacting a law in Spanish is diminishing and ignoring English and such a law would therefore be unconstitutional.

[gatorslap]

@Trinopus

Well, serious question: if (big if!) the legislature in California, for whatever reason, wrote and passed a bill that was written en espanol, and the Governor signed it, would there be any real constitutional reason for it to be overruled by the courts solely because of its language? (Maybe just a pointless proclamation, say, declaring Cinco de Mayo an honorary holiday?) Sure, some people would object, but is it constitutionally dubious?

The California Constitution specifies that all legislation must be in English (and plain English at that). So yes, it would be overruled. Although, if it was a pointless proclamation, there’d be nothing to overrule.

About 100 years ago, a state law banning fellatio and cunnilingus was struck down by the CA Supreme Court on the grounds that “fellatio” and “cunnilingus” were not words of ordinary use in the English language.

[Trinopus]

@gatorslap

. . . About 100 years ago, a state law banning fellatio and cunnilingus was struck down by the CA Supreme Court on the grounds that “fellatio” and “cunnilingus” were not words of ordinary use in the English language.

Holy merde! I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, vomit, or find someone friendly and engage in the appropriate act! Any chance of a cite?

(Not at all because I doubt you; just that I want to bookmark that one to my favorites list forever!)

[Kimstu]

@Trinopus

Holy merde! I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, vomit, or find someone friendly and engage in the appropriate act! Any chance of a cite?

Described at length in People v. Catelli (1991):

The initial California statute passed in 1915, Penal Code section 288a, criminalized “[t]he acts technically known as fellatio and cunnilingus.” (Stats. 1915, ch. 586, § 1, p. 1022.) This statute was found to be unconstitutional not because the word fellatio failed to describe the prohibited conduct but because it was not in the English language as required by former article IV, section 24 of the California Constitution, its usage was not in the common parlance and it was therefore uncertain in meaning to a person of common understanding, presumably those persons who might be expected to violate the section. (In re Lockett (1919) 179 Cal. 581 [178 P. 134].) The Lockett court recognized that when foreign words had by usage become anglicized and were readily understood by reference to “lexicons,” “in the interests of decency, courts should sanction such words, euphemistically employed to describe offenses against morality, thus avoiding the bald nastiness involved in the use of the vernacular, …” (Id. at p. 583.) The word fellatio, while sufficiently euphemistic, had not become sufficiently anglicized that it was a part of the English language with a meaning acquired by such use. The Lockett court observed the word “does not occur in any of the English dictionaries in common use” (at pp. 584-585), but was used and defined only in works such as Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, Dorland’s American Illustrated Dictionary, Havelock Ellis’s “Studies in the Psychology of Sex,” and Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis.” The common man, not being exposed to such literature could not be expected to know what conduct was proscribed.

While modesty of the times doubtless prevented the Legislature from defining the crime more clinically, presumably such members of the Legislature in 1915 had access to the medical texts and literature available to the courts if not the man of common understanding. It is reasonable to assume that to avoid the “bald nastiness involved in the use of the vernacular” (In re Lockett, supra, 179 Cal. at p. 583), the Legislature “euphemistically employed” fellatio to describe this offense against morality. In such texts and dictionaries of that era, the term itself had a definitive meaning and that was oral stimulation, euphemistically speaking, of the penis.

Since its original enactment in 1915, section 288a has been amended or reenacted 15 times.

In 1921 the statute was rewritten to prohibit sex perversion, defined as “the act of copulating the mouth of one person with the sexual organ of another…” (Stats. 1921, ch. 848, § 2, p. 1633.) In People v. Parsons (1927) 82 Cal.App. 17, 19 [255 P. 212], the court rejected a contention that the new statute was vague, uncertain or indefinite. Any person who participated in the proscribed conduct was guilty of the offense, whether as an active or passive participant, thereby putting to rest the active passive concern of the Lockett court.

[What_the]

@Donnerwetter

There is an interesting article about this topic on Wikipedia:

Languages of the United States - Wikipedia

Thanks! I was surprised to see that 27 states are shown with English as the “official” language… including California! I’m sure that the specifics vary from state to state.

There is also a link to an English-only Movement page where I found this..

“On August 11, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.”

That’s the closest thing I could find to any Federal involvement. I would think that some of the states have applied English-only as regards voting and that the Feds would not approve and have done something about it. Anybody?

[Donnerwetter]

There is an interesting case in Arizona:

Judge Orders Arizona Candidate Struck From Ballot
By MARC LACEY
Published: January 26, 2012

Lawyers for Alejandrina Cabrera, a candidate for the City Council in the border community of San Luis, Ariz., said Thursday that they might appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court a lower-court ruling that Ms. Cabrera be removed from the ballot because she did not speak English proficiently.

[…]

Judge Orders Arizona Candidate Struck From Ballot (Published 2012)

[Clothahump]

It makes sense for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that English is the common language of business in the USA. Another is that it reduces cost to government to print laws, ballots, etc. in only one language.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Donnerwetter

There is an interesting case in Arizona:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/us/judge-orders-arizona-candidate-struck-from-ballot-over-english-skills.html

The ruling was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/alejandrina-cabrera-san-luis-arizona-city-council_n_1277402.html

Of course, from a General Semantics point of view, that all democracies should be monolingual. GS holds there is no such thing as an exact translation from one language to another. This poses obvious problems where laws are supposed to apply to everyone and statements by government officials should be understood by all citizens.

Of course, if you don’t want democratic government, then there isn’t a problem.

[Sheriru]

An interesting topic here…
As described in earlier posts, you must speak English to become a U.S. resident.

[Polycarp]

@Clothahump

It makes sense for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that English is the common language of business in the USA. Another is that it reduces cost to government to print laws, ballots, etc. in only one language.

The thing s, justify why Congress could designate an official national language, as opposed to a language standard for given purposes (e.g., naturalization, publication of statutes, conduct of Federal court sessions, etc.). I’m not being a smart-alec here – if a given business or community desires to use a minority language, whose ox is gored? I suppose you could justify it under Interstate Commerce – that stretches so far, anything will fit within it. The Tenth Amendment does still have some meaning.

On the other hand, a given state is free to adopt an official language, so long as they do not use it to deny civil rights to a minority.

[Little_Nemo]

@JoelUpchurch

Of course, from a General Semantics point of view, that all democracies should be monolingual. GS holds there is no such thing as an exact translation from one language to another. This poses obvious problems where laws are supposed to apply to everyone and statements by government officials should be understood by all citizens.

Of course, if you don’t want democratic government, then there isn’t a problem.

So in a democratic government where some Americans speak English and some Americans speak Spanish, the government should use English and Spanish in order to be understood by all citizens.

That’s the problem I have with these English only arguments. All of them beg the question. Why do you have to speak English to be an American? Spanish speaking people are just as able to be American as English speaking people. So are French speaking people or Latvian speaking people or Urdu speaking people. Democracy has nothing to do with the English language.

The government shouldn’t set a language and then tell the American people they have to speak that language. The government should look at what languages the American people are speaking and then the government should use those languages whatever they may be. Americans should be as free to choose their own language as they are to choose their own religion.

[Little_Nemo]

@Polycarp

On the other hand, a given state is free to adopt an official language, so long as they do not use it to deny civil rights to a minority.

I think you can make the argument that having an official language is the equivalent of having separate but equal schools. No matter what you say in theory, the practice in the real world is going to put some people at a disadvantage. Establishing one language as the official language will inevitably deny civil rights to the people who use a different language.

Would anyone dispute that if California adopted Spanish as its official language and enacted all laws in Spanish that this would put English speakers at a disadvantage and restrict their civil rights? So why should California do the same thing to Spanish speakers by adopted English as its official language? If people in California use English and Spanish then the government in California should use English and Spanish.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Little_Nemo

So in a democratic government where some Americans speak English and some Americans speak Spanish, the government should use English and Spanish in order to be understood by all citizens.

That’s the problem I have with these English only arguments. All of them beg the question. Why do you have to speak English to be an American? Spanish speaking people are just as able to be American as English speaking people. So are French speaking people or Latvian speaking people or Urdu speaking people. Democracy has nothing to do with the English language.

The government shouldn’t set a language and then tell the American people they have to speak that language. The government should look at what languages the American people are speaking and then the government should use those languages whatever they may be. Americans should be as free to choose their own language as they are to choose their own religion.

What Is so difficult for you to understand? If you want to be an American Citizen then you need to understand English. You have to understand Spanish to become a Mexican citizen. You can have legal residents, but not a citizens who don’t understand the lanuage. Language isn’t the same as religion. Language is the medium by which government is conducted. If you don’t understand the medium then you can’t participate in government.

You seem to think that government should be conducted in English is a recent invention. If you want a Spanish speaking government, then you have a whole continent to choose from.

[Acsenray]

@JoelUpchurch

What Is so difficult for you to understand? If you want to be an American Citizen then you need to understand English. You have to understand Spanish to become a Mexican citizen. You can have legal residents, but not a citizens who don’t understand the lanuage. Language isn’t the same as religion. Language is the medium by which government is conducted. If you don’t understand the medium then you can’t participate in government.

You seem to think that government should be conducted in English is a recent invention. If you want a Spanish speaking government, then you have a whole continent to choose from.

You forgot to make an argument just jumped to the conclusions.

[gatorslap]

@JoelUpchurch

What Is so difficult for you to understand? If you want to be an American Citizen then you need to understand English.

To become a naturalized citizen, yes. Natural-born citizens can speak any language.

I do not understand why some people are against the use of Hawaiian in Hawaii, French in Louisiana and northern Maine, Inuit in Alaska, German in North Dakota, or Spanish in New Mexico.

You have to understand Spanish to become a Mexican citizen.

Cite? That’s not my understanding. Mexico does not have a de jure official language. In terms of communications, documents, etc. the Mexican government recognizes several indigenous languages in addition to Spanish. As far as I can tell, there is no language proficiency requirement to become a Mexican citizen. They’re not going to give you those documents in English, but you don’t have to prove language ability. Correct me if I’m wrong.

You can have legal residents, but not a citizens who don’t understand the lanuage. Language isn’t the same as religion. Language is the medium by which government is conducted. If you don’t understand the medium then you can’t participate in government.

There are plenty of countries with more than one language. Canada seems to do fine with both English and French. Even the UK recognizes Welsh and Scottish Gaelic.