English as the official language of the USA

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=magellan01]
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]
You might want to find out what the word “federalism” means before you misuse it. It does not mean “the national government has the right and obligation to run roughshod over its constituent members.”

No. “It” did not ever happen except in your overeager imagination. One politician gave one public speech for Bunkum on one occasion in 218 years in a language other than English. No one has ever attempted to “conduct business” in Congress in any language except English.
As to “protecting” our “culture,” my ancestors were persecuted for being of the “wrong culture” using arguments that are pretty much indistinguishable from your appeals to conformity. They have provided several generations of good citizens, taxpayers, and military personnel, in spite of, not because of, the demands for conformity that you find so oddly appealing.

You are the one who threw out the red herring of a “flat tax” as some sort of panacaea that would eliminate the need to provide information regarding taxes in languages other than English. Since a flat tax might reduce the amount of text but would not reduce the need to inform people who did not speak English regarding the process, your claim is false. Since you happened to seize on an egregiously unfair method of taxation to make your claim, I responded to your words. If you do not wish to have silly ideas dismissed, do not present them.

62

[QUOTE=magellan01]
You funny-man.
[/quote]

Thanks for the a. h.

The populace of the country apparently want that also. Thus the governmental reaction to the populace’s request to have something that’s a tad more complex than conversation be provided to them in a language they can understand at the required level for that particular task.

Odd thing. I consider a government serving its people to be peforming its function.

That’s really the biggest problem there, you (as opposed to the neutral one) don’t get–and apparently won’t even try to–that an uninformed public is your problem. Learning another language to a high level of skill should not be required to be a voter.

And if that person ends up voting against your interest? After all, you and that person very well may have some shared interests.

Too bad some people don’t follow that advice for posting here.

I really don’t see why it’s such a problem for you that the government is gasp serving a significant portion of its population. Do you also expect the government to cease & desist from providing that information to those who are fluent in English? If not, then you need to come to grips with the concept of fairness.

63

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You might want to find out what the word “federalism” means before you misuse it. It does not mean “the national government has the right and obligation to run roughshod over its constituent members.”
[/QUOTE]

I know what the word means. The only sense I could get out of tyour statement was to use it in contrast to a confederation mindset, i.e., anti-federalist. Check Wiki if you’d like.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
No. “It” did not ever happen except in your overeager imagination. One politician gave one public speech for Bunkum on one occasion in 218 years in a language other than English. No one has ever attempted to “conduct business” in Congress in any language except English.
[/QUOTE]

It seems that your first sentence is contradicted by the rest. Though I’m sure you’ll weasel some parsing of “doing business” as opposed to speaking to the senate. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
As to “protecting” our “culture,” my ancestors were persecuted for being of the “wrong culture” using arguments that are pretty much indistinguishable from your appeals to conformity. They have provided several generations of good citizens, taxpayers, and military personnel, in spite of, not because of, the demands for conformity that you find so oddly appealing.
[/QUOTE]

These ancestors of yours a;so grew up in a country that had a more defined culture and no doubt benefited from that. Good for them. Too bad you seem to want that, and the contributions of their progeny, to be less.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You are the one who threw out the red herring of a “flat tax” as some sort of panacaea that would eliminate the need to provide information regarding taxes in languages other than English. Since a flat tax might reduce the amount of text but would not reduce the need to inform people who did not speak English regarding the process, your claim is false. Since you happened to seize on an egregiously unfair method of taxation to make your claim, I responded to your words. If you do not wish to have silly ideas dismissed, do not present them.
[/QUOTE]

Touchy, touchy, touchy. I was not accusing you of hikacking. I brought up the issue as a mention as it pertained to the subject of this thread. You got more into it, which was fine. I was simply saying we should leave further discussion of that wonderful and truly fair idea’s merits for another thread, lest we be guilty of hijacking. But for you to argue that it wouldn’t solve a huge problem as far as immigrants with limited English truly is silly.

64

[QUOTE=Monty]
The populace of the country apparently want that also. Thus the governmental reaction to the populace’s request to have something that’s a tad more complex than conversation be provided to them in a language they can understand at the required level for that particular task.
[/QUOTE]

Again you are assuming that if the government didn’t supply the information that it wold not be provided by others. Do you really think that? Seriously, I’d bet any money that there’d be at least as much information available without missing a beat.

[QUOTE=Monty]
Odd thing. I consider a government serving its people to be peforming its function.
[/QUOTE]

Based on that mindset, China must be very attractive to you. I’m of the mind our government shold not be doing what would be done if they didn’t do it.

[QUOTE=Monty]
That’s really the biggest problem there, you (as opposed to the neutral one) don’t get–and apparently won’t even try to–that an uninformed public is your problem. Learning another language to a high level of skill should not be required to be a voter.
[/QUOTE]

AGAIN, you assume the information won’t be available if the government doesn’t provide it. There is no reason to believe this. If the government stopped priinting voting information in Spanish tomorrow, how long do you think that La Raza or some other Hispanic organization wold pick up the ball? Also, right now there are some voters who speak languages that the government does not supply literature in. Are these people disenfranchised? If so, shouldn’t the governemnt then provide translations for every single language spoken? Why not?

[QUOTE=Monty]
And if that person ends up voting against your interest? After all, you and that person very well may have some shared interests.
[/QUOTE]

There’s a chance of them doing that either way. But if I was concerned about that I wold provide the information to them, as will interests from both parties sholud the need arise.

[QUOTE=Monty]
Too bad some people don’t follow that advice for posting here.
[/QUOTE]

Too bad some people make veiled insults instead of opening a Pit thread and speaking their mind fully.

[QUOTE=Monty]
I really don’t see why it’s such a problem for you that the government is gasp serving a significant portion of its population. Do you also expect the government to cease & desist from providing that information to those who are fluent in English? If not, then you need to come to grips with the concept of fairness.
[/QUOTE]

It’s really not that big a deal. For right now, anyway. I do think it would be great if English was the Official Language, even from a purely symbolic standpoint. But in the midst of a debate, I’m happy to parse the benefits.

If someone wold like to take advantage of the information that the government provides to its citizens in English, they can learn the language. According to some their eager to do so any way, so what’s wrong with a little extra incentive. Should speed the process up if anything.

65

The government provides supposedly neutral information on the issues in languages of groups that have reached a significant population level. At any rate, your “argument” sounds suspiciously like “Why should the government provide any charity? There are other groups that do that!”

I’ll just add this to the list of jerkish comments you’ve posted.

There’s “being done” and then there’s “being done correctly.” The government has certain strictures on it.

I assume no such thing.

Those organizations publish biased information already. Is that really what you want, a biased voting population? I mean biased in a way you don’t like.

One day, perhaps, you’ll evidence some understanding of the issue instead of posting your own version of glurge. Until that day happens, I’m happy to remind you in this post that the government provides information to linguistic groups which have reached a pre-determined significant population level. The reason for that is quite obvious: cost vs. benefit.

I, for one, would be quite happy to see each and every voting citizen get all the information they require from the government in whatever language they desire.

Would you provide unbiased information?

Have you ever heard the expression, “Toss a rock into a pack foxes and the one that yelps is the one you hit?”

I don’t see the necessity of declaring English the official language of the US. I certainly don’t see the necessity of your version of Utopia.

“And round and round we go!”

66

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I know what the word means. The only sense I could get out of tyour statement was to use it in contrast to a confederation mindset, i.e., anti-federalist. Check Wiki if you’d like.
[/quote]
Check Wikiperdia, yourself. Your understanding is wrong.

No, Your understanding of “conducting business” is wrong. No one has introduced legislation in a language other than English. No one has argued for or against any legislation in any language other than English. No one has petitioned the chair for a ruling for a point of order on any legislation in any language other than Engliah. That is conducting business. Doing a bit of political grandstanding is merely an exercise in self-promotion undertaken by nearly all legislators. To consider that “doing business” is beyond silly.

This is just blather. The culture to which my ancestors immigrated was one of hatred for Catholics, fear of the foreign, disdain for all things not created (in the belief of some inhabitants) in America, and a general delight in an ignorance of history. Aside from substituting Muslims for Catholics, those traits appear to be firmly ensconced in the American culture, today. It would be interesting to see what you actually imagine are the “more defined” aspects of culture that have not changed (for the better) since the late 1790s or 1850s. An acceptance of slavery? A belief in the “natural” separation and hierarchy of races? An acceptance that the place of women is in the home? The intrinsic superiority of wealth? Manifest Destiny? The inexhaustibilty of natural resources? The clear superiority of Protestant Christianity? The natural superiority of Northern European societies (excepting the Irish, of course)?

I did not claim you were accusing me of hijacking. I simply noted that having thrown out a red herring, that silly claim did not even support the point you pretended it did.

67

A quick note: in 43 years, we won’t be an English-speaking minority. That idea has no foundation at all. Far likelier, given our country’s history, is that in 43 years, the idea that Latinos are not white will seem as quaint and as silly as last century’s idea that Italians are not white. Just as previous waves of immigrants have integrated into mainstream culture after a generation or so, this wave of immigrants will soon be totally mainstream.

English only legislation has always been a ridiculous idea, every time it’s been proposed over our history. It’s an equally silly idea now.

Daniel

68

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
…This is just blather. The culture to which my ancestors immigrated was one of hatred for Catholics, fear of the foreign, disdain for all things not created (in the belief of some inhabitants) in America, and a general delight in an ignorance of history. Aside from substituting Muslims for Catholics, those traits appear to be firmly ensconced in the American culture, today. It would be interesting to see what you actually imagine are the “more defined” aspects of culture that have not changed (for the better) since the late 1790s or 1850s. An acceptance of slavery? A belief in the “natural” separation and hierarchy of races? An acceptance that the place of women is in the home? The intrinsic superiority of wealth? Manifest Destiny? The inexhaustibilty of natural resources? The clear superiority of Protestant Christianity? The natural superiority of Northern European societies (excepting the Irish, of course)?

I did not claim you were accusing me of hijacking. I simply noted that having thrown out a red herring, that silly claim did not even support the point you pretended it did.
[/QUOTE]

Now, now, you’ll be accused of linking “English only” with other types of prejudice.
Let’s just ignore US history!

At least most of our Irish ancestors arrived speaking English, of a sort. One of the benefits of centuries of exposure to English culture!

69

[QUOTE=Cerowyn]
Okay, well I missed the edit window before I realized that of course you didn’t advocate any official language at all. Mea culpa.
[/QUOTE]

Not a problem. In some cases (e.g. New Zealand with the Maori language) it makes sense to make an indigenous minority language an official language; and Nunavut with 8 official languages, 6 of which are indigenous, makes sense too. However, when you have a large number of indigenous languages spoken by very small minorities, as in Australia, Canada and the US, official status does not make sense. (Though the government may still need to provide services in some of those languages).

70

[QUOTE=Giles]
Not a problem. In some cases (e.g. New Zealand with the Maori language) it makes sense to make an indigenous minority language an official language; and Nunavut with 8 official languages, 6 of which are indigenous, makes sense too. However, when you have a large number of indigenous languages spoken by very small minorities, as in Australia, Canada and the US, official status does not make sense. (Though the government may still need to provide services in some of those languages).
[/QUOTE]

For example, Saskatchewan has established a Cree Court to serve the northern part of the Province. No special legislation was necessary to do so - the Court is part of the Provincial Court, with Cree-speaking judges, Crowns, defence counsel and clerks.

The goal here is exactly what Monty and others in this thread have pointed out: that the purpose of government is to serve the people. In something as important as the courts, where language comprehension is essential to a fair trial (and the community’s perception of a fair trial), using the language of the people coming before the Court is important.

71

And doing a bit more poking around, I see that the Northwest Territories have 11, count’em, 11 official languages: Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories:

For more information: Languages Commissioner of the NWT.

72

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Check Wikiperdia, yourself. Your understanding is wrong.
[/QUOTE]

I took what you wrote to have one of the two meanings of federalism. Both from here:

Based on the context of the exchange, the first interpretation seemed much more likely to me, so I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll try not to make the same error in the future.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
No, Your understanding of “conducting business” is wrong. No one has introduced legislation in a language other than English. No one has argued for or against any legislation in any language other than English. No one has petitioned the chair for a ruling for a point of order on any legislation in any language other than Engliah. That is conducting business. Doing a bit of political grandstanding is merely an exercise in self-promotion undertaken by nearly all legislators. To consider that “doing business” is beyond silly.
[/QUOTE]

Whatever you say Oh Great Definer of Words & Phrases. Perhaps you can emblazon that on you Moderator unitard under the big red M.

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This is just blather. The culture to which my ancestors immigrated was one of hatred for Catholics, fear of the foreign, disdain for all things not created (in the belief of some inhabitants) in America, and a general delight in an ignorance of history. Aside from substituting Muslims for Catholics, those traits appear to be firmly ensconced in the American culture, today.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, brother. Those that would want to enshrine English as the Official Language—or think it wise to be wary of the religion whose many adherents want to kill us—are guilty of the same ignorance-based biases of 150 years ago? I see now why you have so little respect for a view other than your own. Of course, you make a woefully unfair leap here, but why let theat spoil your fun.

73

[QUOTE=Monty]
One day, perhaps, you’ll evidence some understanding of the issue instead of posting your own version of glurge. Until that day happens, I’m happy to remind you in this post that the government provides information to linguistic groups which have reached a pre-determined significant population level. The reason for that is quite obvious: cost vs. benefit.
[/QUOTE]

Now we’re on to something. I see a greater cost in providing it than you do, namely greater splintering and a more pluralistic society. I think that makes us less of a cohesive society. I do see the benefit side of your position, but as I’ve said, I don’t think that the government not providing the information equals there be a lack of information, even balanced information. So I see the proposition as giving up virtually nothing and gaining something I view as helpful an important, a more tighly defined base culture that acts as a strong common denominator for all, especially all newcomers.

[QUOTE=Monty]
I, for one, would be quite happy to see each and every voting citizen get all the information they require from the government in whatever language they desire.
[/QUOTE]

That seems rather extreme, but it helps me better understand your position.

[QUOTE=Monty]
Would you provide unbiased information?
[/QUOTE]

I would hope there would be two types of information, one being clearly biased toward on position and the other being as balanced as possible. Since the first would readily be provided by specific interest groups as it is now, I would see the opportunity for the former. I find a guide we get here in San Francisco very helpful. It starts with a pretty balanced view of a topic, then allows advocates from each side state their take on the issue. Each side then also gets to refute the position offered by the other. The net result is fairly comprehensive and as fair as I think you can make it. I would use that as a model.

[QUOTE=Monty]
Have you ever heard the expression, “Toss a rock into a pack foxes and the one that yelps is the one you hit?”
[/QUOTE]

If you’re taking the position that that barb was not aimed at me I will just have to call you a liar. And a coward. Again, may I suggest you stay on topic or open a pit thread.

[QUOTE=Monty]
I don’t see the necessity of declaring English the official language of the US. I certainly don’t see the necessity of your version of Utopia.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see it as a necessity really. Just as a prudent step that has benefits and virtually no downside.

74

It should be mandatory to learn another language. We already get English, but we should get more at a much earlier age.

75

I hope this not a hijack…

What % of ‘second generation’ (kids of Spanish Speaker main language but live in U.S.) do not speak fluent English. More importantly, what % of Third Generation?

If the % of 3rd generation speaking fluent English is high, then there is no problem. The immigrants are learning English.

I wonder what it is?

{as a side note, I have a friend who is Latino background. She is 3rd generation. She does not speak Spanish. One night over beers she confessed to feeling extremely guilty about not learning Spanish. I replied that I was 2nd generation German and spoke little German but had no guilt. She replied…“That’s different”. ???}

76

[QUOTE=BlinkingDuck]
I hope this not a hijack…

What % of ‘second generation’ (kids of Spanish Speaker main language but live in U.S.) do not speak fluent English. More importantly, what % of Third Generation?
[/QUOTE]

Stephen Pinker addresses this in one of his books on language. I do not recall the exact percentages, but the pattern is:

-A small minority of first-generation immigrants to any new culture learn the new culture’s language with anything approaching fluency;
-Virtually all of the second-generation immigrants become fluent in the new culture’s language;
-A small minority of third-generation immigrants have anything approaching fluency in the original language.

This pattern holds true ever since you started having immigrants, and seems to be a biological feature of how humans acquire language.

Daniel

77

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I took what you wrote to have one of the two meanings of federalism. Both from here:

Based on the context of the exchange, the first interpretation seemed much more likely to me, so I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’ll try not to make the same error in the future.
[/quote]
So you chose to stop reading before you got to the part where it explicitly delineated the issue, of course.

Since the conducting of state business within a state is clearly not a matter of national defense or national taxation or the conduct of foreign or interstate commerce, or the protection of individual rights, (the post Civil War Amendments mentioned in the article), the language in which a state chooses to conduct intrastate business is a reserved power to the state. Yeesh, this has been a staple of Conservative ideology for decades and has been a talking point and low-grade campaign issue for nearly thirty years. I am really surprised you seem to have missed it.

As for “giving” me “the benefit of the doubt,” based on your current display of knowledge, I would suggest you do that genuinely rather than sarcastically much more often.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Whatever you say Oh Great Definer of Words & Phrases. Perhaps you can emblazon that on you Moderator unitard under the big red M.
[/QUOTE]
So when you cannot actually defend your position, you resort to personal insults. I strongly urge you to refrain from following that approach to this discussion.

I have noted explicit events with exact parallels that have been a rather constant theme in the history of the U.S. All you can do is wave your hands and claim “history means nothing.” You also conveniently avoided providing any examples of this “defined culture” that you appear to believe was in stasis from 1776 or 1787 until the 1990s. It would appear that your only response to any information that makes you uncomfortable is to ignore it or mock it. I have made no “woefull” leap, I have simply provided information that demonstrates that your argument was based in wishful thinking and a convenient disregard for history. The 150 years was not a leap, it was the coincidental period that you introduced by trying to make a claim about U.S. society at the time of my ancestors’ arrivals. You claimed that my ancestors were lucky enough to have entered a society with a stable culture. I pointed out significant aspects of the culture that have changed (implying that the changes were for better, not worse). It is not a single 150 year leap. It would not be at all difficult for me to also demonstrate the aspects of culture that have not changed, especially ongoing xenophobia, displayed in ways up to and including murder, throughout U.S. history. These are not events from 150 years ago, but a constant theme that reappears throughout our history. (Some of it has already been referenced in this thread.)
Instead of providing evidence of your purported defined culture, all you can do is distort the relevance of the time period and try to dodge the actual issue. What wonderful “stable” culture existed and when do you believe it changed?
I’m sorry that I have to bring facts to this discussion to ruin your claims, but that is simply the nature of the Forum.

78

[Quote=Monty]

Too bad some people don’t follow that advice for posting here.
[/quote]

[Quote=Monty]
Have you ever heard the expression, “Toss a rock into a pack foxes and the one that yelps is the one you hit?”
[/quote]
This is way too close to launching personal attacks in GD. You may directly challenge the arguments, but you are to refrain from the sort of oblique (but transparent) insults of other posters in this Forum.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
If you’re taking the position that that barb was not aimed at me I will just have to call you a liar. And a coward. Again, may I suggest you stay on topic or open a pit thread.
[/QUOTE]
Calling a poster a liar in GD is (reluctantly) permitted. Calling a poster a coward (even if placed behind the fig leaf of an “if”) is forbidden.

Do not repeat this. If you feel insulted, use the Report button.
[ /Moderating ]

79

I have no interest in anyone conforming for the sake of conforming. Conformity leads to stagnant thinking and the sort of hysterical xenophobia that mars many political discussions.

As with gay marriage conversations, I find myself more in sympathy with the people who don’t share my background than with those who do.

80

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Stephen Pinker addresses this in one of his books on language. I do not recall the exact percentages, but the pattern is:

-A small minority of first-generation immigrants to any new culture learn the new culture’s language with anything approaching fluency;
-Virtually all of the second-generation immigrants become fluent in the new culture’s language;
-A small minority of third-generation immigrants have anything approaching fluency in the original language.

This pattern holds true ever since you started having immigrants, and seems to be a biological feature of how humans acquire language.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

But some people keep insisting that these immigrants are different from the ones who’ve been coming here for centuries.

Of course, that’s what the nativists & known nothings have always believed. Once your people get established, shut the door!