# For US business and government, “English only” is becoming worse than protectionism. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804 "2005-07-29T20:18:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/1 "2005-07-29T20:18:27Z")
Protectionism as in government and business protecting local industry against cheaper goods from other countries. It would be surprising to know that even though I am mostly a liberal fellow, I do agree with the evidence brought forth in previous discussions that protectionism does more harm than good (as an aside, this is why I support universal health care and free education for displaced workers everywhere) But it concerns me that the seemingly popular “English only” movement in the USA is really a nasty close relative of the protectionism movement. One element that is ignored many times by the opponents of diversity in languages is the bad effect “English only” has in business: [http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/anatomy.htm](http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/anatomy.htm) > [@](#): > > In 1980, Dade County voters passed the so-called Anti-Bilingual Ordinance, arguably the most draconian language law in U.S. history. It prohibited – without exception – any county expenditure ‘for the purpose of utilizing any language other than English, or promoting any culture other than that of the United States.’ This led, among many other restrictions, to a ban on hurricane warnings and bus schedules in Spanish, an embargo on prenatal care pamphlets in Haitian Creole, and the removal of non-English-language signs at the Dade Metrozoo, where some vigilant citizens had complained about the Latin species names posted outside animal cages. > > Ironically, Spanish continued to thrive as a language of business, turning Miami into a banking, trade, and media center for all of Latin America. Bilingualism and biculturalism were an enormous local boon, as Anglo elites (like the editorial board of the Miami Herald) quickly recognized. It was the petit-bourgeois and working-class Anglophones who felt the pinch, as Spanish skills became necessary for advancement. To get a lowly job as a cashier or gas station attendant, bilingualism was increasingly required, just as it was to prosper as a doctor, lawyer, or small business owner. For many Anglos, this kindled an ethnocentric reaction against all things Hispanic.12 Some left the area, while others learned to adjust. With relatively little public commotion (at least by Miami standards), the Anti-Bilingual Ordinance was finally repealed in 1993 But, it is in the currently ongoing globalization that an English only position reaches levels of gross negligence: [http://www.ad-mkt-review.com/public\_html/air/ai200209.html](http://www.ad-mkt-review.com/public_html/air/ai200209.html) > [@](#): > > According to a report by the International Data Corporation (IDC), 70% of American e-commerce Websites sell less than 10% outside the United States. As of March 2001, only 47.5% of people surfing the Internet spoke English as their primary language. Even more alarming, by 2003, IDC projects the following sources of online spending: U.S. – 34%, Europe and Japan – 47% Rest of World – 19%. These numbers add up to an unavoidable conclusion. American business is going to get killed in the International market if it doesn’t change its attitude about international marketing, and soon. > > … > > From the way things are going, Europe will likely dominate international marketing on the Internet. This really isn’t surprising when you consider that Europe, unlike the United States, is an international market to begin with. > > For instance, Belgium has a film industry, a unique language, but a very small population. From a marketing standpoint, Belgium’s population is so small that it simply doesn’t pay to make full-length movies in the native language, just ten-minute features like documentaries. The Belgium film industry responded to this market environment two ways. They became some of the best ten-minute documentary producers on the planet, and more importantly, they learned to dub and subtitle their movies into other languages. This opened up the world to them, and the market for Belgium films jumped from a few million to several hundred million. > > In contrast, many Websites in the United States don’t even allow Canadians to enter their postal code (their version of the ZIP code) in order forms, which eliminates any chance of orders from Canada. The reason for this is that the ZIP code field on the order form was set to only accept numbers, which is the correct format for American ZIP codes, but not for Canadian postal codes, which use letters as well as numbers. Some sites don’t even have a “country” field on the order form. > > … > > …once you know what your target markets are, translate your Website into those languages. This sounds more painful than it actually is. You may be able to get by with just three languages. The primary international languages are English, French, German, and Spanish. Add the last three of these languages to your Website and you pick up the majority of Europe, all North America, and most of South America. Translators for these languages are easy to find in most American markets. There are also translation services on the Internet that will translate Websites for a few hundred dollars per site, on up. > > … > > If the United States is to be competitive on the Internet, American business must change its basic outlook on international marketing. Until now, the default assumption has been that a product would not be marketed internationally unless there were compelling reasons that it should. The new assumption has to be that any product should be marketed internationally unless there are compelling reasons that it shouldn’t. That’s the approach they’re taking in Europe, and if we’re going to maintain a competitive economy, that’s the approach we have to take in the United States. One could made the point that government should behave differently from businesses, but it seems to me that the limitations that are apparent in business that follow “English only” rules, appear also in governments that adopt those rules. I have plenty of reasons to criticize globalization, but learning other languages will be important for the future of businesses in a global scale. It is English only business and governments that will be left behind. ¿Que piensan ustedes acerca de esto? 😉 What do you think about this? ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/2 "2005-07-29T20:24:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What do you think about this? Speaking as an arrogant American who never bothered to learn a language other then English, I think everyone else should learn English and stop complaining. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/3 "2005-07-29T20:32:14Z")
> [@](#): > > and the removal of non-English-language signs at the Dade Metrozoo, where some vigilant citizens had complained about the Latin species names posted outside animal cages :smack: The mind just boggles. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/4 "2005-07-29T20:39:23Z")
Can you clarify the debate? Are you saying that English only policies in the gov’t spill over into English only policies in business? If so, your first cite seems to imply that it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/5 "2005-07-29T21:25:40Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Can you clarify the debate? Are you saying that English only policies in the gov’t spill over into English only policies in business? If so, your first cite seems to imply that it doesn’t. Well, I recommend to read the whole cite, but the main point is that besides being silly, the attempts to impose “English only” in local governments do appear in part as a reaction for other languages appearing in businesses. In the long run, this is a waste of time and money. The sad thing is that English only movements think that government is one element in their efforts to influence businesses, on the whole they are wrong, but it is also silly to assume that an official government position will not influence business: [http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/engonly3.htm](http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/engonly3.htm) > [@](#): > > These English-Only laws may also limit the authority of courts to dispense consumer justice to language minorities. For example, South Carolina’s language statute prohibits any “order” or “decree” that “require[s]” the use of any language other than English. Consider how a South Carolina court should resolve a claim that a merchant engaged in an unfair trade practice by failing to provide a translated contract following oral negotiations in Spanish. Another interesting question is whether a court could conclude that a merchant has committed fraud by failing to translate an unfair contract term for a Spanish-Only Consumer. In either case, a decision that favors the consumer arguably “requires” the use of a language other than English, creating a result presumably contrary to the English-Only law. > > As shown, English-Only laws may impede the development of legislative, administrative, and judicial reforms to protect language minorities. Even the “symbolic” Official English laws may hinder reform. For example, one of the primary policy arguments made in favor of Official English (and English-Only) laws is that a multilingual government encourages immigrants to forego acquisition of English. When urging legislation to require translated contracts and disclosures, consumer advocates will be met with the same claim that such reform runs counter to assimilation goals. Despite compelling arguments that the accommodation of other languages does not discourage or delay the acquisition of English, the adoption of Official English laws reflects the rhetorical power and political popularity of these assimilationist claims. The Official English argument that multilingual government frustrates assimilative goals may also impede judicial activism. For example, defendants might rely on an Official English law to urge that a court should not obligate a business to translate unfair contract terms in favor of language minorities. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2005, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/6 "2005-07-29T22:53:17Z")
Eh, there’s always been a strong anti-immigrant movement in the US. They’re just not kvetching bout the Irish anymore. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/7 "2005-07-30T00:06:50Z")
I suspect that these possibiliities have occured to English-only advocates and they are not happy about them. > [@](#): > > Another interesting question is whether a court could conclude that a merchant has committed fraud by failing to translate an unfair contract term for a Spanish-Only Consumer. In either case, a decision that favors the consumer arguably “requires” the use of a language other than English, creating a result presumably contrary to the English-Only law. > [@](#): > > When urging _legislation to require translated contracts and disclosures_, consumer advocates will be met with the same claim that such reform runs counter to assimilation goals. Despite compelling arguments that the accommodation of other languages does not discourage or delay the acquisition of English, the adoption of Official English laws reflects the rhetorical power and political popularity of these assimilationist claims. The Official English argument that multilingual government frustrates assimilative goals may also impede judicial activism.\* For example, defendants might rely on an Official English law to urge that a court should not obligate a business to translate unfair contract terms in favor of language minorities\*.(emphasis added) This author appears to believe not only that government agencies should be permitted and encouraged to provide services in other languages (a view I agree with), but that courts should be able to require businesses (and presumably government agencies) to translate contracts (and I would imagine other documents) into languages other than English. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/8 "2005-07-30T16:58:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What do you think about this? What do I think about what? Aside from your implication that allowing people the liberty to do business with foreigners is somehow a non-liberal position 😕 there are three things that come out of your OP. [ol] [li]Multilingualism in government. This is a lively debate ongoing in a lot of countries. On the one hand, for non-speakers of the dominant language, lack of translation makes many essential services unavailable. If you can’t understand your doctor or the 911 dispatcher can’t understand you then it’s gong to get very messy. Inability to access the education system will cripple your ability to get a job. On the other hand, translating everything discourages the learning of the majority language and leads to ghettoisation. In the UK there are apocryphal tales of second or third-generation ‘immigrants’ who speak no English and are therefore trapped in a tiny portion of society (and the economy). Also, the cost of running everything in multiple languages is huge, and there are big benefits to everyone having a lingua franca they can use for communication.[/li]If you look at countries like Belgium and Canada, you can see how toxic the language issue can become. On the other hand I believe Finland accords equal legal status to Swedish and Finnish, most people are bilingual and it is a non-issue despite Swedish being the first language of about 5% of the population. [li]Internationalisation in trade by USA-based companies. Are you sure that all of these companies actually WANT to do business abroad? Sometimes it’s not worth the aggravation. Even in Europe many many companies only do domestic business because of the issues with language, taxes, shipping, legislation etc. when dealing with customers abroad. But I certainly agree with you about the awful setups of some sites that claim to be international but only offer shipping to CONUS. Or which want SSN# or Zip code from UK customers. Or cannot process non-US credit cards. I could go on all day. However, putting on my empathy hat I have to say I would struggle to set up a site in the UK to serve customers from the US or any other country, and the language issue isn’t as easy as you think. For a start, it’s not a one-off cost since you will then get customer emails and so fort that need translating. And given that French speakers from France, Belgium and Canada sneer at each other’s use of language, it wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of them were complaining about your particular use of language. You’d certainly get emails from some of your Spanish customers demanding Catalan, or complaining about non-Castillian usage. So I think a lot of companies are dipping their toes in the water, or just trying to pick up a handful of extra sales at low cost, while focusing their attention on the worlds largest and most homogenous market. And a lot of the rest are full of PHBs, obviously.[/li][li]The lengths to which the loonies will go if not regularly laughed at by the general population. I think there must be a law somewhere along the lines of there is nothing, no matter how sensible, which cannot be exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness by someone who takes it too seriously. Language laws are a prime example of this sort of insanity, but I think the citizens of Dade county may have reached some sort of international top 40. I’d like to say ‘Only in America’ but Europe is a factory for this kind of nonsense.[/li][/ol] And as regards Europe becoming a leader in international marketing, I am truly sceptical. In my experience it’s just another giant headache for businesses to deal with, along with all the various cultural sensitivities, government regulations and og knows what. It’s not that unusual to see European companies resorting to selling things in their own language and English, since so many people speak it as a second language. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/9 "2005-08-01T00:04:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster's Cite](#): > > As shown, English-Only laws may impede the development of legislative, administrative, and judicial reforms to protect language minorities. Of course they will; that’s the whole purpose. Why should a government spend money, or force citizens to spend money, to promote cultural fragmentation? When has that ever been in the interest of a nation? If you want to come to the U.S., great. But don’t expect _us_ to learn _your_ language. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/10 "2005-08-01T00:32:00Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > But don’t expect _us_ to learn _your_ language. Hell, don’t expect us to learn your language even when we go on vacation in your country! Oh, wait…you already don’t expect us to do that. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/11 "2005-08-01T00:44:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I do agree with the evidence brought forth in previous discussions that protectionism does more harm than good (as an aside, this is why I support universal health care and free education for displaced workers everywhere) Yeah, that’s a realistic approach alrighty. Universal health care and free education while you starve in your cardboard box. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/12 "2005-08-01T01:41:30Z")
Pressed for time, but the author of the first cite replies thus: > [@](#): > > Virtually no evidence has been produced on behalf of any of these propositions, all of which are demonstrably false. But in this strange debate, factual support has generally proved unnecessary for English-only proponents to advance their cause. The facts are that, except in isolated locales, immigrants to the United States have typically lost their native languages by the third generation. Historically they have shown an almost gravitational attraction toward English, and there are no signs that this proclivity has changed. To the contrary, recent demographic data analyzed by Veltman (1983, 1988) indicate that rates of anglicization – shift to English as the usual language – are steadily increasing. They now approach or surpass a two-generation pattern among all immigrant groups, including Spanish-speakers, who are most often stigmatized as resistant to English. But, I am trying to keep the focus of this discussion on the business side of things. > [@Hyperelastic](#): > > Of course they will; that’s the whole purpose. Why should a government spend money, or force citizens to spend money, to promote cultural fragmentation? When has that ever been in the interest of a nation? If you want to come to the U.S., great. But don’t expect _us_ to learn _your_ language. The problem is that big corporations will be the only ones getting the benefits of doing business overseas, I have to point out that getting rid of trade barriers also means that one is shooting their own foot by ignoring other languages, I see the future as many displaced in the US, losing many opportunities because of insisting of only knowing one language. Globalization is what big corporations and government have decided to do so. regardless of my opinions if that is a good idea, it is now backward to ignore the changes that are coming up. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/13 "2005-08-01T02:16:37Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Yeah, that’s a realistic approach alrighty. Universal health care and free education while you starve in your cardboard box. :dubious: Well, not quite like that, I would increase the unemployment of workers that are displaced by the international treaties, please take into account that I am talking pragmatically here, liberally speaking I still have some choice words for the powers that be. I only see what is happening as benefiting only the big corporations, if globalization is here to stay, the function of the government should be to facilitate the entrance to those international markets to small business and individuals. This will involve items like subsidies to get high speed communications to everybody, help with translations, ensuring honest trading not just for big corporations etc. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/14 "2005-08-01T16:46:02Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The problem is that big corporations will be the only ones getting the benefits of doing business overseas, I have to point out that getting rid of trade barriers also means that one is shooting their own foot by ignoring other languages, I see the future as many displaced in the US, losing many opportunities because of insisting of only knowing one language. Globalization is what big corporations and government have decided to do so. regardless of my opinions if that is a good idea, it is now backward to ignore the changes that are coming up. I think it’s great for kids to study foreign languages and cultures, and the government ought to do more to encourage this. America is probably less competitive in international markets than it could be because of monolingualism and cultural ignorance. But I don’t think the “English-Only” laws have anything to do with this. They are directed toward language use here in the U.S., in purely domestic situations, not at international affairs. It doesn’t strike me as inconsistent that the government could mandate a preference for English whenever practicable, yet encourage foreign language study in schools. Many who oppose “English-Only” laws really believe that people should be able to go on speaking their native languages as long as they want, and if this creates a hardship on the government or businesses, then taxpayers should pay for language assistance, up to and including 24-hour interpretation in any language at no cost to the foreign speaker. In other words, the government should pay to create permanent language enclaves requiring permanent subsidy. If someone is going to argue that this will help America compete in international business, it seems an awfully high price to pay both financially and culturally. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/15 "2005-08-02T05:38:32Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > On the other hand, translating everything discourages the learning of the majority language and leads to ghettoisation. In the UK there are apocryphal tales of second or third-generation ‘immigrants’ who speak no English and are therefore trapped in a tiny portion of society (and the economy). Just out of interest, do you generally base your opinions about policy decisions on “apocryphal tales”? (you do know what [apocryphal](http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=apocryphal) means, right?) ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/16 "2005-08-02T15:15:42Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Just out of interest, do you generally base your opinions about policy decisions on “apocryphal tales”? > > (you do know what [apocryphal](http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=apocryphal) means, right?) Do you disagree with the general point of language barriers leading to economic and social marginalisation, or are you pulling me up for not separating unsupported speculation from proveable facts (other than by labelling it as such?). If the latter, it’s a fair cop, I should have either left it out or expanded on it a bit further. This kind of extreme case is indeed apocryphal, but based on the degree of [segregation](http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/03/17/stories/2002031700020100.htm) which can occur occasionally, it probably has a kernel of truth. And yes, I do know what apocryphal means. Or at least I partially did, since I wasn’t aware it was also used as a synonym for ‘fictitious’. Thanks for that. Every day and in every way, etc. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/17 "2005-08-02T16:28:20Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > Of course they will; that’s the whole purpose. Why should a government spend money, or force citizens to spend money, to promote cultural fragmentation? When has that ever been in the interest of a nation? If you want to come to the U.S., great. But don’t expect _us_ to learn _your_ language. Well, uh, maybe because those taxpayers and citizens want it that way? People speak different languages, and if it will make everybody’s life better if that doesn’t block their access to the government. Who benefits if Oksana misreads something on her driver’s test, can’t get a license and has to take a job at the McDonalds she works near despite being a skilled worker? Who benefits if Jose doesn’t know his kids can get access to free lunch at school and so they go hungry when food is tight? Who benefits when Fatima can’t figure out her income tax forms and has to go to someone in the community to translates, who scolds her for working outside the home and pushes her to return to being a housewife? In short, strange as it may seem, translateing stuff often helps immigrants become more autonomous and intergrate themselves into American society. In theory the government and it’s programs are there becuase we want them to be there, and it doesn’t make any sense to put up roadblocks to them for some parts of the population. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/18 "2005-08-02T21:32:04Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > Well, uh, maybe because those taxpayers and citizens want it that way? > > People speak different languages, and if it will make everybody’s life better if that doesn’t block their access to the government. Who benefits if Oksana misreads something on her driver’s test, can’t get a license and has to take a job at the McDonalds she works near despite being a skilled worker? Who benefits if Jose doesn’t know his kids can get access to free lunch at school and so they go hungry when food is tight? Who benefits when Fatima can’t figure out her income tax forms and has to go to someone in the community to translates, who scolds her for working outside the home and pushes her to return to being a housewife? > > In short, strange as it may seem, translateing stuff often helps immigrants become more autonomous and intergrate themselves into American society. In theory the government and it’s programs are there becuase we want them to be there, and it doesn’t make any sense to put up roadblocks to them for some parts of the population. I don’t have a problem with the government providing services in Fatima, Jose or Oksana’s native language if the government _chooses_ to do so for whatever reason . I have a very big problem with the idea that they have a _right_ to services in their native language. And perhaps my problem comes specifically from living in NYC. It’s not terribly expensive to provide services in two or three languages. It’s very expensive to provide them in over 100 languages. And if Jose has a right to the information in Spanish, then the speakers of the the other languages also have that right.I also have a problem with the idea that it is a business owner’s responsibilty to provide translations into any of those languages. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-us-business-and-government-english-only-is-becoming-worse-than-protectionism/314804/19 "2005-08-03T15:53:56Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > if Jose has a right to the information in Spanish, then the speakers of the the other languages also have that right.I also have a problem with the idea that it is a business owner’s responsibilty to provide translations into any of those languages. I’m confused - the OP was in regard to a particularly deranged law that made it illegal to use any other language than english, meaning that it would be illegal to e.g write to Jose in spanish warning him that he may be carrying an infectious disease and should go to a clinic, even if he only reads spanish. Creating an obligation to use multiple languages is obviously not the same as allowing people to make the choice to use non-english languages if they feel it is appropriate. What you are talking about is more analogous to the Quebecois language issues in Canada. There are also perfectly valid reasons for countries choosing to mandate bi-lingualism. The most obvious one is to draw the sting out of the really poisonous ethnic issues that can come up if two groups are arguing about which should be the langage of a country - make them both the offical langage and you can move on. It’s expensive but cheaper than partition or civil war. The obvious problem is complexity - because no-one is willing to let their language be ‘downgraded’ the EU now has 21 official languages :eek: So a Polish-speaker can write a letter in German to a Portugese-speaking EU offical and has the right to an answer in Polish. Since this is quite likely to happen via translation through english or french, it gets ridiculously unwieldy. In a country as diverse as the US (336 langages) it would get even more unmanageable - best to stick to Americanish with a few small exceptions where expedient.