English as the "official" language of the US

[tomndebb]

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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]

@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]

@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.

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

@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:

@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]

@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 ]