No offense intended, but some of you might want to know that the word English should always be capitalized. I don’t usually pick at people’s grammar, but in this case there was just too much irony.
The best way to learn a language is to live in a country where it is the most common language spoken. Usually it is much harder for an adult to learn than a child.
As I understand it, there’s a fundamental difference. Sheltered English Immersion is a way of teaching in English. Bilingual Education is a way of teaching in Spanish (or other non-English language).
Prop. 227 defined bilingual education as
Dec:
This is politics. Akin to the pro-choice/pro-abortion; pro-life/anti-abortion dicotomy. “Bilingual education” is a new bugaboo in certain political circles, and the holy grail in other circles.
You can call it “Sheltered English Immersion”, but as long two different languages are used (however infrequently one might come into play), I think the term bilingual is valid.
At any rate, if we drop the politcal labels, prop 227 allows for some limited instruction in a language other than English.
Lets get personal, not theoretical : look at the issue from your own family history
How would we Dopers enjoy this site, if we posted here in 15 different languages?
My grandfather arrived in this great country along with millions of other tired, poor, huddled masses, about 1903.He spoke 2 languages, but not English.He lived in poverty all his life, but he made sure his children learned English. My parents became a solid middle class American success story. Where would I be if they had grown up speaking Russian and Polish but not English?
A country needs a common language,and a common sense of heritage. And private individuals need to face the fact that if you want to share in society’s benefits, you should do it in the language of your country.
So what?
As you noted in your own family, immigrants do a pretty good job of learning English. If you go to the actual census statistics for immigrants and language, it is clear that they make a concerted effort to learn English when they arrive. There is no need to declare an official language for the simple reason that the immigrants already want to join the mainstream.
There can be questions of how to best accomplish this, but such questions are not helped by pretending that one form of bi-lingual education is not bi-lingual education and they are certainly not helped by efforts to nationalize the language.
For a look at the reality of getting immigrants to speak English, please look at the information presented in
this post
Well, there are countries–viable & vibrant countries–with long histories and are full of culture, said countries having more than one official language.
There are problems on various levels here. Some of you appear to think that spending money on helping immigrants to function efficiently is a waste of money, others that nobody has a right to claim any language as official.
However you look on it, there’s one main language in the US and UK (English). What about countries which have two or more official languages - for starters, Canada and South Africa? There’s no argument there about either of these problems - they live with language difficulties and so they have a better understanding of the issues. Both official languages are taught from an early age, and while fluency is not guaranteed, the opportunity for fluency in both languages is there.
What’s the problem with providing free classes for immigrants to learn the main language of communication of their new home? Money? Scared you won’t get a return on your investment? You will - in the time you won’t have to waste trying to decipher what that moron at the check-out is saying, in the money you won’t need to waste on phone calls to that idiot who can’t make him/herself understood.
You have the gift of English. Don’t keep it all to yourselves. Be brave enough to let others in on the secret.
English already is the “default” language in the US, but making it official would be a step toward the inclusion that most immigrants seem to want. There’s nothing wrong with having a different language in the home, but having no requirement for a single language causes immigrants to settle in enclaves where communication with others whose language they share makes them more comfortable, but unemployment and lack of educational opportunities are made worse by the inability to communicate with the larger society.
If, as someone suggested (and I always thought was the case) one has to read and write fluently in English to be a naturalized citizen of the US, and if you have to be a citizen to vote, then why are ballots printed in other languages? In California millions are spent in each election cycle printing ballots not only in Spanish, but in several other languages including Vietnamese. I think we should make English official, and spend that ballot money on teaching the immigrants to speak it.
There should be a difference between “second” language and “foreign” language. If there is no official language, then truly there can be no foreign language. We should respect all languages and cultures, but insist that we have one language for us all. Unless we want to return to Babel.
My zwei pfennig. 
As earlier mentioned, the officiality or unofficiality of the English language is a separate thing from the adoption of good or bad educational policy for the purpose of having us all on the same page when it comes to communicating w. each other and seeking job opportunities. Or from adopting economically-sensible policy as to when it’s more efficient to have multilingual forms than to have thousands of people taking us to court because they could not understand something important. You can have good transition programs with or without “Official English”.
The USA has no real need for an “Official National Language” statute. We already work quite well as it is. The Congress and the Federal Courts, and the Executive Branch, all make English the language of record for official affairs, and any accommodation is made as-needed (e.g. interpreters in courts – worth it to keep from frying an innocent man).
Many of the more hardline “language-policy” proponents, however, don’t seem to really be interested so much in making government more efficient or more accessible or or more tolerant of diversity or speeding up the integration of immigrant groups, but rather in using language policy as a tool for making America loook/sound like their idea of how it should be: (a) on the English-only side, as a first step to just flat-out forbidding ANY kind of linguistic accommodation whatsoever, so they never have to see or hear another language in an official context, in the extreme case up to mandating English in private conversation if on school/workplace grounds; or (b) on the multilingualist side, as a way to making any and ALL accommodation whatsoever mandatory even for the private sector, and in the extreme case up to enabling people to go through their whole lives without EVER needing to learn ANY of the common language of the greater society.
Fortunately, the children of the immigrants take care of all of this rather effectively, by usually mastering English quite adequately, thank you very much, by the 2nd generation after immigration.
And yet, the enclaves in New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, and California (that I know of–I am sure there were others) have all provided good citizens to the U.S., even when they maintained their German, Italian, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, and other languages for up to fifty years–in a few cases longer.
And, as has been noted repeatedly in this thread and the one that preceded it, the number of non-English enclaves is actually shrinking without resorting to any xenophobic laws.
Making English “official” would do nothing but create one more excuse for xenophobes and haters to use such a law as a basis for more persecution of those who are different.
language is the"glue" of society. If you want to see a laboratory example-look at all the problems Canada has w/ Quebec province. People who speak the same stick together, get isolated, then demand “freedom.”
Actually, if you actually look at Canada, you will see that this oversimplistic rationale is false. The issues regarding Quebec are rooted in separate cultures that were enshrined in law in the Quebec Act of 1774. The separate cultures that developed had far more to do with power and who wielded it than it did the language spoken on the street. Paying a bit more attention to the reality of Canada, one will note that language is only occasionally an issue in New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick or in the other Maritime provinces.
It is not language but separate law and tradition that provided the issues that divide Canadians, today.
Indeed, the shared language of the Yugoslaves glued them together right good, it did. Lord knows the Serbo-Croatian language was a fabulous glue. As was the Czechoslovak language ([sub]nota bene: am well aware of the history of the Czech and Slovak folks, the point being lang. & identity are fluid [/sub]) and I believe we can expect the dissolution of the Swiss state any day now.
I frankly do not understand the urge to legislate language. The pointless nattering on about assimilation and immigrants is bloody ahistorical, and frankly the concept of legislating langauge use in a free country and telling free citizens what langauge they must use with officials strikes me as fundamentally wrong headed.
I don’t enjoy being lumped with xenophobes, or worse, haters and persecutors, just because I think that the language of America is English. Probably that is not what you intended, but it reads that way.
I know that others were here before English colonists arrived in the 1600s. I know that other colonists from Spain and France (and from Russia in the Alaskan territory) also inhabited large areas of what is now the United States before English speakers took those lands by conquest, purchase or treaty. But the Constitution of the United States is a document in English. The founders of our country spoke English, and I think people who wish to be Americans should at least know English. Of course they should preserve their own languages and cultures. Ideally all Americans would have at least two languages. But please don’t call me a xenophobe because I want people who vote in this country to do so in the language of this country.
The resources spent on producing ballots in foreign languages could be better spent in helping immigrants to learn the language of their adopted country.
My dictionary says a xenophobe is one who fears foreigners. I welcome foreigners, both as guests and as potential citizens. I just think that citizens should have one language in common regardless of others they possess, and in the United States that common language should be English.
I’m not American, but I fail to see what objections anyone has to calling English the official language of the USA when your constitution is written in English and your parliamentarians debate in English.
Have vociferous national groups made you all feel guilty about discrimination, as happened with the N-word? (I believe you don’t dare say the word at all for fear of recrimination now).
Good for votes.
English? The official Language? How silly.
heeah Ameliga, Tsalagi hinegv
It was not an attack on you or your position and I made no claim to what your response to such a law would be. It is a statement of the law of unintended consequences.
We already have xenophobes running around bashing immigrants. Handing those people a law that says they can now consider people who do not speak English to be law-breakers will do nothing but ratchet up the hate and violence.
We have already had a similar situation. We have already handled that situation (without resorting to unnecessary laws). I am not sure why the “official language” backers refuse to look at the historical record (or even the reality that most immigrants are already doing their darndest to learn English, today).
I favor efforts to increase the speed with which immigrants can acquire skills in English. Making English “official” will do nothing to promote that. When we dealt with large numbers of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we instituted programs (some private, some funded by the government) to teach people English. We also made accommodation for the people who had not yet mastered English. The requirement that a person speak English to become a citizen was only instituted at the beginning of the last surge of anti-immigration sentiment. We survived for many years with no such requirement. When the “official language” people came to Congress around eight years ago with a claim that they were going to reduce government expenditures by forbidding the translation of documents to other languages, the Bureau of Printing reported that they had printed 265 such documents in five years–out of more than 400,000 documents. (And it is unknown how many of those documents would have had to have been exempted from the law because they were diplomatic documents or how many such documents were aids to tourists, which I would hope we would wish to continue printing.)
Congress, the President, and the Courts all perform all their work in English. Wall Street and Wal-Mart already operate in English. English is already the de facto language of the U.S. I have seen no good explanation for placing some sort of “official” stamp on that reality.
(I have seen no good explanation of how such a law would be worded or what it would entail.)
Bush also called Chirac Prime Minister although he is President 
The funny part is that “ansar” means “duck” in Spanish. You cannot imagine the mileage comedians in Spin have gotten out of this.
Also, Jeb Bush was recently in Spain and met with “Ansar” and said he was pleased to meet with the “President of the Spanish Republic” ignoring Spain is a kingdom. It did not do much to improve Spanish opinions about American culture. It’s not only that the guy is so blatantly ignorant but, on top of that, he did not even bother to read up a bit on the country he was visiting.