English as the official language of the USA

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Like any official notices that the government wishe to convey to the population: health notices, labor rules, emergency procedures to escape storms, floods, or nuclear accidents, requirements for filing taxes, requirements for safe housing. If you prohibit those publications in languages other than English, you cut off those people from learning about government rules.
[/QUOTE]

I can see making allowance for emergency and health notices. As far as filing taxes, the governement need only provide it in English. It should be incumbent upon the filer to make sure he understands the procedure or get help if he doesn’t. I don’t know what you mean by safe housing. Building safe housing? If so, it is the responsibility of the builder. Do this for twenty years and two things will happen. One, the private sector will see a need and fill it. Two, Everyoone will get the message and we’ll all be better off as everyone has been more eager to become fluent in English.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
No laws get passed based on the Bunkum speeches that are delivered on the floor of the House or Senate. The eventual vote gets taken there, but the real work is done in committee where a congresscritter that held up a meeting to pontificate in a language that could not be understood by the rest of the committee would soon find himself or herself with too few decent committeee assignments to get elected. You really are not displaying a very good grasp of the actual workings of Congress with this complaint. 99% of all the speeches delivered are done for Bunkum and the Republic has not yet fallen over that issue. If you wish to pass a law that everything that happens on the floors of the House and Senate are meaningful, good luck, but singling out speeches in separate languages for prohibition (when there appears to have been exactly one in the last 218 years), is a nearly classic example of a violation of the Do Not Kill Gnats With A Sledghammer rule of common sense.
[/QUOTE]

You understate the importance of debates in congress. Yes, much of the work is done in committees, but what comes out of it has to be debated on the floor. If there was little chance of the incidence of non-English grandstanding increasing, you might be right. But since the incidence is bound to rise, you ain’t. And if it is so useless, why not have it? If I’m right, the law would have been wise and well-timed. If you’re right, nothing lost.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Today is not ancient history. New Mexico is currently a bi-lingual state, (and has been for its entire 95 year history) and you are attempting to disenfranchise them for some odd notion of lock-step conformity without demonstrating that there is anything (outside your odd claims for “logic”) to support our trampling on their rights and laws.
[/QUOTE]

Complete bullshit. They would not be disenfranchised. They could still vote. And I am sure that the private sector would rtush to fill the need that would temporarily be created.

42

[QUOTE=RedFury]
So, you’ve got what? Roughly 43 years left as an English-speaking majority?

Enjoy them. I won’t be around to see it, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see “Spanglish” become a language all of its own by them. It’s already quite common in parts of Little Cuba in Miami and NY’s Spanish Harlem.

“Cierra la window, honey” :wink:
[/QUOTE]

You help make my point. So, I ask the detractors of the movement, what is wrong with wanting to establish a common denminator for our governance?

43

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Do this for twenty years and two things will happen. One, the private sector will see a need and fill it. Two, Everyoone will get the message and we’ll all be better off as everyone has been more eager to become fluent in English.
[/QUOTE]
Or fewer people learn English, and people who know English as a second language refuse to use it, because your silly law has turned not speaking English from an inconvenience into a cause.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Complete bullshit. They would not be disenfranchised. They could still vote. And I am sure that the private sector would rtush to fill the need that would temporarily be created.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, right. The private sector only “steps in” if there’s enough of a profit. The private sector is not the magic solution to all problems, and often makes them worse.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, I ask the detractors of the movement, what is wrong with wanting to establish a common denminator for our governance?
[/QUOTE]
Because it will cause problems and solve none. it’s caving in to bigotry, it promotes racial and ethnic tension, makes the government and others less capable of doing their jobs, and is in general unworkable.

If I was going to fool around with silly symbolic language laws, I’d be more inclined to pass a law making Spanish the “Official Alternate Language of America” just to slap the bigots in the face, not pass pro-English laws to suck up to them.

44

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Or fewer people learn English, and people who know English as a second language refuse to use it, because your silly law has turned not speaking English from an inconvenience into a cause.
[/QUOTE]

Simply ridiculous. People are going to intentionally make their lives more difficult every day in the hopes of hopefully making some small point down the road? Nope.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Yeah, right. The private sector only “steps in” if there’s enough of a profit. The private sector is not the magic solution to all problems, and often makes them worse.
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s not always the solution, but more often than not it is. Here’s an example that seems apt: many people do not understand the tax code sufficiently to feel comfortable enough filing there own taxes, which is there responsibility. Enter H&R Block, Quicken, TurboTax, etc. Problem solved.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because it will cause problems and solve none. it’s caving in to bigotry, it promotes racial and ethnic tension, makes the government and others less capable of doing their jobs, and is in general unworkable.

If I was going to fool around with silly symbolic language laws, I’d be more inclined to pass a law making Spanish the “Official Alternate Language of America” just to slap the bigots in the face, not pass pro-English laws to suck up to them.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, “bigots”. How about the racists? Surely there all racist, too. One thing about you DT, you don’t disappoint.

45

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Simply ridiculous. People are going to intentionally make their lives more difficult every day in the hopes of hopefully making some small point down the road? Nope.
[/quote]
Considering that is exactly what you are proposing, yep.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Ah, “bigots”. How about the racists? Surely there all racist, too. One thing about you DT, you don’t disappoint.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, in my opinion that is exactly the motivation of the English only movement; bigotry and racism.

46

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
You’re not going to make spanish illegal are you?
[/quote]

There would be some serious constitutional problems with this- the Supreme Court ruled in 1923 that a Nebraska law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages to students before eighth grade as unconstitutional. Outlawing speaking a language altogether would certainly conflict with freedom of speech and other Constitutional rights.

Exactly. Unless you make speaking other languages illegal, there are going to be people around who speak a language other than English. Businesses will notice this and offer services in Spanish (or other languages) to serve that market. English as the official language of the US might mean that you won’t be given the option to “press 1 for English” when you call a government office, but that still might happen when you call your cable company or your local grocery store. Businesses aren’t constrained by official languages- they can do business in any language they like. You probably spend more time interacting with businesses than you do with the government (unless you work for the government or something like that), so it wouldn’t make much difference in day-to-day life.

Even if every Latino in the US learned perfect English tomorrow, there are still going to be tourists from Spanish-speaking countries- more than 13 million Mexican tourists visited the US last year. That’s about 25% of the total number of foreign visitors to the US (given Mexico’s proximity to the US, that’s not surprising). A lot of those people probably want to do things like watch TV and buy things while they’re here, so there would be demand for Spanish-language TV and businesses with Spanish-speaking customer service people even if nobody who lived in the US spoke better Spanish than English. “Press 1 for English” isn’t going away, even if English does become the official language of the US.

Why? It’s very much in our interest for all Americans to understand that they must pay taxes and to know how to pay those taxes, even if they don’t speak English. You make it harder for some people to pay taxes, you’re going to end up with less tax money coming in. H&R Block and similar companies might benefit from increased demand for their services, but I can’t see what benefit there is to the rest of us.

There have been problems partly caused by a country’s trying to force a language on an unwilling part of their population in the past…

Countries that have tried to foster national unity via an official language include apartheid South Africa, the Soviet Union, Spain under Franco, and such international role models today as Burma, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Is that really the kind of country we want to be like?

People do this kind of thing all the time. The Montgomery bus boycott is a good example. Those people certainly inconvenienced themselves every day to make a point. Oh, and I wish that every person in my parents’ and grandparents’ generation who wouldn’t buy a Japanese car would send me a dollar, and that everybody who doesn’t shop at Wal-Mart because they’re not happy with how they treat their employees would send me a dollar, too.

47

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Complete bullshit. They would not be disenfranchised. They could still vote. And I am sure that the private sector would rtush to fill the need that would temporarily be created.
[/QUOTE]
Nice dodge. They have already voted to maintain a bilingual state government that has harmed no one in 95 years and you would take that away from them, nullifying their vote, thereby disenfranchising them–all in the name of mindless conformity.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You help make my point. So, I ask the detractors of the movement, what is wrong with wanting to establish a common denminator for our governance?
[/QUOTE]
We already have it. You simply want to pound it down with unnecessary laws.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
As far as filing taxes, the governement need only provide it in English. It should be incumbent upon the filer to make sure he understands the procedure or get help if he doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]
So, instead of incurring the minhor expense of printing a few extra copies of the tax rules in other languages, thus letting people who do not speak English know that we are addressing them as residents and encouraging them to participate in our society, you want to simply ignore them until such time as someone decides that they are not participating fully, then hire dozens more IRS agents to track them down and dozens more translators to take them to court–all for no better reason than that you think it is better to make their lives miserable.
Let’s see: increased aggravation, higher costs, more resentment from people we should be encourging to join society. Yep, sounds like a plan.

48

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Everyoone will get the message and we’ll all be better off as everyone has been more eager to become fluent in English.
[/QUOTE]
Since the overwhelming majority are attempting to learn English, now, it is rather more likley that you will create a backlash of people refusing to learn English.

49

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Go back to the good old days when the children of non-English speaking parents were taken from them “for their own good” ? ( IIRC Australia did something like that as well )
[/QUOTE]
We took aboriginal children from their parents, and only taught them English st school and prevented them from speaking their native tongue there, but they were not taken because they weren’t speaking English. Ones left with their parents were also only taught English at school and discouraged from speaking their native tongue there.

50

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

So, instead of incurring the minhor expense of printing a few extra copies of the tax rules in other languages, thus letting people who do not speak English know that we are addressing them as residents and encouraging them to participate in our society, you want to simply ignore them until such time as someone decides that they are not participating fully, then hire dozens more IRS agents to track them down and dozens more translators to take them to court–all for no better reason than that you think it is better to make their lives miserable.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t be silly. They won’t be given translators under our new, better society!

51

What about areas where the local language was already something other than English when they got brought into the US? Puerto Rico has two official languages, as does Hawaii.

Oh, and doesn’t Nunavut have three official languages?

52

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Nice dodge. They have already voted to maintain a bilingual state government that has harmed no one in 95 years and you would take that away from them, nullifying their vote, thereby disenfranchising them–all in the name of mindless conformity.
[/QUOTE]

No dodge at all. Just because something is in place for 95 years doesn’t mean it is the best policy. Also, even if it is the best policy for NM, it might not be the best policy for the nation. And how is this nullifying their vote or disenfranchising them. They can still vote. It will still count. And do you doubt for a second that groups representing both political parties wouldn’t scamper to provide literature in whatever languages they thought needed. Seriously, how long do you think that would take? Who, specifically, would be harmed as regards to voting, and how?

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
We already have it. You simply want to pound it down with unnecessary laws.
[/QUOTE]

Not quite. I want to enshrine it in law so real abuse and problems won’t arise down the road when the cries of racism will be even more shrill but just as foolish.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
So, instead of incurring the minhor expense of printing a few extra copies of the tax rules in other languages, thus letting people who do not speak English know that we are addressing them as residents and encouraging them to participate in our society, you want to simply ignore them until such time as someone decides that they are not participating fully, then hire dozens more IRS agents to track them down and dozens more translators to take them to court–all for no better reason than that you think it is better to make their lives miserable.
Let’s see: increased aggravation, higher costs, more resentment from people we should be encourging to join society. Yep, sounds like a plan.
[/QUOTE]

You’re overlooking another part of the solution to our country’s ills: the flat tax. And based on the concern you express here regarding people being taken to court due to not being able to understand the tax code, should I count you as a supporter of this logical, fair and efficient idea?

53

[QUOTE=Monty]
Oh, and doesn’t Nunavut have three official languages?
[/QUOTE]

Eight, actually, as set out in the Official Languages Act of Nunavut:

If you go the home page of the Nunavut Government, you have the option of four of those languages.

54

Ah, I see now, magellan01. You don’t mind naturalized immigrants voting, you just don’t want them to be informed voters.

Northern Piper, thanks.

55

[QUOTE=Monty]
Ah, I see now, magellan01. You don’t mind naturalized immigrants voting, you just don’t want them to be informed voters.
[/QUOTE]

You funny-man.

Actually I’d like everyone who would cast a vote to be highly informed. I just think the government should minimize its role, not expand it. If you (anonymous) don’t want to do what’s necessary to be informed enough to cast a vote in the way that would most benefit you, that’s your problem, not mine. Actually, if you wind up voting against your own interest, I think there’s both a little justice and a little humor in it. If you don’t know what your doing, don’t vote. And I wish everone followed that advice, whether the ignorance is due to a language hurdle or sheer 100% American, Mayflower-descendant apathy and laziness.

But, as I said, there is no danger that the voters won’t have all the information they would want. Maybe more than they do now. It just would be provided by some Hispanic-American group or Chinese-American, etc.

56

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Just because something is in place for 95 years doesn’t mean it is the best policy. Also, even if it is the best policy for NM, it might not be the best policy for the nation.
[/quote]
So I can put you down as an opponent of Federalism?

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Not quite. I want to enshrine it in law so real abuse and problems won’t arise down the road when the cries of racism will be even more shrill but just as foolish.
[/quote]
So you want to pass a law to prohibit something that you only imagine might possibly happen in some remote future even though it has not happened in the last 218 years and there is no indication that it will ever happen in the future? I think you’d be better off addressing real problems, today, rather than inventing imaginary problems to invent for the future simply to argue for making conformity a legal obligation.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You’re overlooking another part of the solution to our country’s ills: the flat tax. And based on the concern you express here regarding people being taken to court due to not being able to understand the tax code, should I count you as a supporter of this logical, fair and efficient idea?
[/QUOTE]
Even with a regressive flat tax designed to harm the poorest of the citizens of this country, there is still a need to explain what is required to people who come from more enlightened countries (or who grew up before this country would have become stupidly hateful toward the poor and middle class). Using the phantom of a flat tax for no better reason than to push an unnecessaary “English Only” law is hardly going to persuade people to join in enshrining silly and innecessary conformity in law.

57

I should mention something I saw in a museum in Annapolis on my last visit to my parents in Maryland. It was a copy of the Constitution- in German.

Of course, we know now that printing the Constitution in German created a subculture of German speakers in the US who refuse to learn English…

Oh? That didn’t happen?

Yes, American English will absorb some Spanish words. That’s what English does- it borrows words from other languages.

From everything I’ve heard, English classes for immigrants have long waiting lists to enroll in them. The problem here isn’t immigrants not wanting to learn English…

58

[QUOTE=Giles]
Yup – probably it is. It would seem that the First Nations haven’t had the political clout of the Quebecois. There would also be the problem of the multiplicity of First Nations languages: New Zealand doesn’t have that problem, since there’s only one indigenous language, but it would be a problem in Australia and in the US,
[/QUOTE]
So, Canada should give official status to the 77 First Nations languages spoken in the country? Interesting theory.

59

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
So I can put you down as an opponent of Federalism?
[/QUOTE]

I think you might have made a mistake here. What I wrote could be taken as an argument in favor of federalism, not against it.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
So you want to pass a law to prohibit something that you only imagine might possibly happen in some remote future even though it has not happened in the last 218 years and there is no indication that it will ever happen in the future? I think you’d be better off addressing real problems, today, rather than inventing imaginary problems to invent for the future simply to argue for making conformity a legal obligation.
[/QUOTE]

Well, it did happen And I think it is because we have been moving toward a society more accepting of other cultures and less protective of our own. While the first half of that I think a good thing, the second half is to our detriment—for reasons we’ve been through too many times for me to repeat again.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Even with a regressive flat tax designed to harm the poorest of the citizens of this country, there is still a need to explain what is required to people who come from more enlightened countries (or who grew up before this country would have become stupidly hateful toward the poor and middle class). Using the phantom of a flat tax for no better reason than to push an unnecessaary “English Only” law is hardly going to persuade people to join in enshrining silly and innecessary conformity in law.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure I got all of what your saying here, but the purpose of a flat tax would not be to assist an English-only language movement. The fact that one helps the other is simply a nice bonus. I think that the benefits of the resoundingly, universally fair flat tax should be left to a thread on that subject, lest we be accused of hijackiing this one.

60

[QUOTE=Cerowyn]
So, Canada should give official status to the 77 First Nations languages spoken in the country? Interesting theory.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, well I missed the edit window before I realized that of course you didn’t advocate any official language at all. Mea culpa.