Actually deaf people can, its mutes who can’t. (deaf people just have a really hard time learning)
Over forty different languages wee spoken at my high school. People who spoke different languages were here for a variety of reasons. Some were refugees. Some came because they experienced religious persecution in their home. I honestly dont care why they came, but I dont think a single one of them said “lets go to America and not speak english so that we piss people off.”
Another commonality is that all of their children will speak english. Speaking another language exclusively does not usually last more than a generation. How many US born children of immigants do you know that dont speak english? Pobably not that many. And if they do, they probably live in an isolated community, in which case whatever they speak is obviously dominant. The US has no national language. There is a language that most of us speak, but not a legal national language.
And we Californians have no right to speak. Have you ever looked at the names of Californian cities? We all live in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose. All of those names are spanish. California used to freaking BE Mexico. I think spanish was here befoe we were and the least we can do is learn to co-exist.
It aint hurting ya, unless you still imagine that everyone you here speaking in something that is not english cares about you enough to make fun of you.
From my perspective, it’s not so much whether the government should or should not,as a practical matter, print various info in other languages. The main issue I was trying to address was whether a person should have a right to have the government provide material in his language. Whether using English only, in America, constitutes discrimination against non-English speakers. It seems to me that to move to a country where English is the main language, and then demand that you have a right to be addressed in your native language is galling.
And it would seem to me that if such a policy is considered to be discriminatory, then this reasoning could logically be extended to non-governmental agencies as well.
I think the saddest thing about the acceptance of non-English speakers is that it gives people less incentive to LEARN english.
Maybe I’m wrong but if you don’t speak fluent English in the USA you run a significant disadvantage in the workaday world. How many people who don’t speak passable English work at IBM? Or Harvard? Or Congress? Only the cleaning crew I’d bet.
<paranoid rant>
Half the time the weirdo, conspiracy theory part of my brain thinks assisting non-english speakers is designed to make sure the government has an economy with a sufficient supply of low wage earners for the lawn services and seven-elevens.
</paranoid rant>
Just my paranoia coming out again…
Ruadh,
OK, perhaps discriminatory was the wrong word. I was trying to shy away from saying “unfair” and sounding like a whiner.
But I stand by my point. I don’t think it’s fair that a Sanish speaking immigrant can call INS and get service in Spanish, take their driving test in Spanish, complete transactions with the Social Security office in Spanish etc. when these same servcies are not offered to immigrants of Polish, German, Indian, Italian, Russian, Nepali and every other nationality.
I am not arguning that the government should spend tons of money to provide everything in every language. English only would be fine with me. As for the Spanish speakers, they could hire a translator at their own expense (which everyone else is currently told to do).
An example of the reason I feel this is unfair: When my husband first entered the country, he had to be interviewed by a customs agent. They would not allow me to be present at this interview. Part of the reason for the interview was to determine if he would be given a work permit. The customs official asked him what work he would do in the US. He truthfully andswered that he didn’t know. He’d never been here, he knew his language skills were poor, and he intended to take any job he could get. Well, becasue he couldn’t give a better explaination, they did not give him a work permit. Now, if he spoke Spanish, he could have had a Spanish speaking agent interview him, giving him a better chance. Or, if I would have been allowed to translate, he could have said what he wanted, which may have helped. But since none of that was possible, he is now still waiting (4 months later) for the INS to grant him a work permit.
Please understand that I’m not saying he shouldn’t have to learn English. He is studying. He’s learning. My complaint is that there are advantages for some immigrants and not for others.
[huge embarrassment]Oh, Lord—Sorry I about the typos. I forgot to proof.[/huge embarrassment]
IzzyR: *The main issue I was trying to address was whether a person should have a right to have the government provide material in his language. Whether using English only, in America, constitutes discrimination against non-English speakers. *
That is a bit tricky, Izzy (consider an extreme example such as Lucky’s where you then have to figure out whether it’s legally discriminatory not to serve a particular linguistic population of 1), but remember it was the English-only crowd that upped the ante on this one. As far as I can make out, until 1991 Alabama had a perfectly reasonable policy of providing driver’s tests in various foreign languages simply on grounds of practicality, but then they amended the state constitution to make that illegal. So now the people who want to change it back have to argue along the lines of discrimination and equal protection of the laws and similar highflown constitutionality issues. I agree that it makes far more sense to keep these questions on the common-sense pragmatic level of “what language(s) is it most sensible and effective for the government to use in which circumstances?”, but the English-only crowd decided that their “principle” was more important than common sense. As a result, we’re now stuck with discussing what ought to be a practical communications issue as a question of discrimination. (Though I agree that this pragmatism is often unfair on the individual level, as in the case of Lucky’s Nepali-speaking husband; but that’s life, the government has to weight its resources towards the needs of the larger numbers, and we happen to be much more of a Spanish-speaking country than a Nepali-speaking country. I agree it would have made more sense for the INS to let Lucky interpret for him, but I can’t agree that because he was placed at a disadvantage then it would be better for the whole population of Spanish-speaking immigrants to be treated the same way.)
Speaking of common-sense pragmatism, I have to question the assertion that providing basic government documents in non-English languages seriously reduces the incentive to learn English. Would most people really learn English that much faster just in order to fill out government forms? Language learning is a slow process, and English is not an easy language, and as has been pointed out, almost all second-generation immigrants become fluent in English, no matter what their parents’ level of competency in it. I would like to see some evidence supporting the claim that making life much more difficult and frustrating for those who don’t yet speak English by refusing to communicate with them officially except in English would really speed up their assimilation process. Personally, I doubt it; for example, I bet Lucky’s husband would be learning English even faster if he’d been given a work permit and had to master some language skills in a job.
I don’t see how who started it is relevent to the issue, which I would think should be discussed on its own merits.
I agree with you to an extent, though I do think it sends a psychological message. More important is bi-lingual education, which apparently does harm the children, who feel less pressure to learn English. I understand that many Hispanic parents are upset about this themselves.
Then there is the flip side of the coin: should students in America, who speak ENGLISH as their first language, be recquired to learn additional languages?
I think so. I have a cousin, who married a woman from Brazil, where Portuguese is spoken. They have two young daughters, an infant and a three year old. Their three year old is fluent in both English and Portuguese.
I find that very amazing and impressive!
Well, don’t be too impressed with her yet. We human beings are extremely talented at learning languages when very young, but the aptitude gradually lessens as we age, dropping precipitously after puberty. She is programmed at that age to soak up language like a little sponge, while we poor adults have to really work at it. Unfortunately, almost all secondary language education in our country occurs in high school and college, right after the natural aptitude begins to nose dive.
Lucky, Kimstu pretty much summed up my feelings on the issue, so I don’t feel the need to reiterate. I do understand that you aren’t saying your husband doesn’t want to learn English, and I also do agree that he shouldn’t have to pay for an interpreter when Spanish speakers can get one for free, so to speak. I just think you’re wrong to look at it as an issue of fairness rather than one of practicality.
IzzyR:
This is another GD in itself and I’m not nearly up enough on the subject to debate it, but I do think it should be noted that for every study claiming to prove bilingual education’s harm to students there’s another claiming to prove its beneficiality … in other words, the jury’s still out. The various Latino communities are split on the issue as well. It’s very difficult to separate this issue from the politics surrounding it, unfortunately. I don’t know if there is a definitive answer, I suspect it may be that it works for some students and not for others, but like I said I really haven’t studied it in great depth. But then neither have many of the people who campaign vigorously for or against it.
Guinastasia:
I think Spanish should be mandatory for students in the border states and Florida, at least. Having lived and worked in San Francisco for several years I know I would have benefitted enormously from a better understanding of Spanish, much more than I did from (for example) my high school’s mandatory trig and chemistry classes!
Well, I don’t know about Spanish. But, I do feel that mastery of a foreign language wouldn’t be a bad thing to require. Living in SF, the case could be made equally well for knowing Cantonese, Mandarin, Japanese, or French.
Chinese I’ll give you, but there aren’t nearly as many Japanese or French monoglots in SF. Anyway, I wouldn’t suggest that children should have to study a language just because of a large minority population in their city, or even in their metropolitan area. Spanish is different because of both the size and spread of the population that speaks it. It’s the US’s second language, whether the English-only types want to admit it or not.
I wouldn’t supporting making publications in English only, but I don’t think the government should have to cater to people who don’t understand English.
I don’t see how this is discriminatory. Immigrants know this is an English-speaking country before they move here; if you’re a vegetarian and you go to a steak house, they aren’t discriminating by leaving salad off the menu.
I have heard the argument that those who move to live in a new place should learn the language that is spoken there. I would point out that in the States that were part of Mexico (Teaxas, California, Arizona etc) The majority language was Spanish before the anglos moved in so the argument could be made that they should learn Spanish.
Those people were there speaking Spanish before the anglos arrived. I would find it hard to argue they should be forced to learn English.
sailor:
I’ll agree that any Californian who was around when California became a state in 1850 should have government forms provided to him in whatever language he wants. 
If it’s a joke I don’t get it, and if you’re serious, I don’t get it either. It seems it’s a joke with no ulterior meaning. Of course there are no people left who were alive in 1850, whether they spoke English or Spanish.
At any rate and just in case anyone misunderstood me, what I mean is that the population of those states spoke Spanish when the anglos moved in. Some of their descendants continue to speak Spanish and I would find it hard to find a reason to impose English on them. As a people they did not move in after English was the language, on the contrary, those states became part of the US with a large part, probably a great majority, of people who spoke Spanish.
I guess you could make the argument that if the rest of the US doesn’t like that, they can always return those states to Mexico.