[QUOTE=Miller]
It would send a clear and unequivocal message to non-English speakers that they are not welcome.
[/QUOTE]
It would do nothing of the sort. It would say “Come here, become one of us.”
[QUOTE=Miller]
How does multilinguilism threaten “the idea of America?” The idea of America is that it’s a place open to people from anywhere in the world, who want to come here and make a better life for themselves in whatever way they see fit. Once again, you are proposing to protect the greatness of America by destroying one of the very things that make us great.
[/QUOTE]
I think you would agree that the more we can understand one another the better, right? And one extreme we have everyone sopeaking the same language. On the other we have peolpe speaking hundreds of different languages. I posit that the shooting for the former extreme (not that it will ever be reached) is better for unity, cohesion, and just understanding each other.
[QUOTE=Miller]
The point of the argument you’ve just elided to “blah blah blah” is that it shows that immigrants are already learning English as fast as they can, so refusing to meet them halfway by provided important services in a language they’re more familiar with will not make them any more inclined to learn and adopt the language. If anything, it will make them less so inclined, because you’ve told them emphatically that the government in not interested in helping them to assimilate by making it easier to interface with it.
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding mine) The part I bolded looks brand spanking new to me, If I recall correctly tom’s repeated claim is that they are learning English as quickly as previous immigrant groups. If you know differetnly, please provide a cite. If you don’t, please see that by adding that phrase you altered the argument. My point along those lines is that they would be encouraged to adopt the language MORE quickly.
[QUOTE=Miller]
And the symbol you are putting forward is, “America: Non-English speakers need not apply.” No, that’s not the message you want to put forward, but that will be the message you send.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think so. Do all countries that have a sole official language have the same sign hanging around their necks? That’s not the way I take it.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Incidentally, comparing me to tomndebb is only going to be received as a compliment. I wish I could deliver the sort of rhetorical smackdown he regularly serves you. I’ve not yet seen the two of you tangle where tom~ hasn’t utterly demolished you on every point you’ve raised. This thread included.
[/QUOTE]
I seemed to have hit a nerve here. Good. There is still hope for you. And I see now that maybe your “joking” before wasn’t so much “joking” after all. Hmmm.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Well, not everyone is as willing to roll over and be kicked as you are. A lot of people, particularly the sort who are willing to leave everything behind and move to another country to start over, have a sense of pride, and aren’t too keen on being the punching bag for a bunch of nativists trying to score cheap political points.
[/QUOTE]
GUFFAW!!! Going to another country and instead of whining I accept things for what they are, take no personal insult in it, and do what will benefit me, and that’s being willing to roll over and be kicked? Heavens—I might need to write Safire and have him explain to me this strange idiom “willing to be rolled over and kicked”, because it must not mean what I think it means.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Which is why, once again, everything you believe in must be fought at every turn, with every weapon available. Because we need to preserve the idea of what this country is, and that idea runs entirely counter to your vision of it.
[/QUOTE]
Right back at ya.
[QUOTE=Miller]
And now you’ve gone and torpedoed your entire argument. How on Earth does having a country that recognizes two different languages make the nation less inviting to other language groups, than having a nation that recognizes only one language group? Seriously, think about this for a second: what you’ve just said makes no sense at all. Imagine a potential immigrant from China, looking at the US. Currently, with the widespread translation of important documents into other languages, he can see that, although his English isn’t so good yet, he can still come here and get by, because the government will meet him halfway while he brings his language skills up to snuff.
[/QUOTE]
Right now, the U.S. has no official language, although most everyone around the world would probably agree that we are an English-speaking nation. If we enshrined English, no problem, no surprise (as to the language). If we enshrined English and X (Spanish), that changes the face of the U.S. to the rest of the world. In a positive way to Latin America, and a negative way to the rest of the world. More inclusionary to Latin America, more exclusionary to the rest of the world.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Miller]
Now imagine that same immigrant, looking at a US with your laws in place. His English still isn’t so good, and now that means he might not be able to get a driver’s license. He won’t be able to understand tax forms (which are already inscrutable enough to native English speakers) and if he screws those up, he could wind up in serious trouble. And he sees that the sizable contingent on your side of the argument who, unlike yourself, are out-and-out racists have started gaining ground in our political system. You really think he’s more likely to move to the US? Or do you think he’s going to look for some place that’s more open to helping immigrants assimilate into the political system, like New Zealand?
[/QUOTE]
I’d say he is still more likely to move to the U.S. Especially since, as I understand, it’s so difficult to emigrate to New Zealand. But even New Zealand aside, he will move to where he thinks he has the best opportunity to succeed. The U/S/ will still be rich in opportunity, even if it requires a little more work on the immigrants part. PLUS, I fully expect there to be help for him from private organizations. It’s not as if as soon as english is declared the official language ogf governement that there will be NO WAY to access information like tax forms and drivers license booklets/exams in just as many languages they’re available in now.
[QUOTE=Miller]
It amazes me that you can make the argument that “English only = inclusionary,” but “English + other languages = exclusionary” without rupturing a blood vessel in your brain. A five year old could look at that argument and spot the glaring logical flaw in it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I just explained it in a way that a four year old should be able to understand it. So there!!!
[QUOTE=Miller]
It will encourage them to band together, alright. Against the government, which has just bent over backwards to make things as difficult as possible for them to use its services.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, come on. Simpy declaring a single language for the government = making things as difficult as possible for them to avail themselves of its services? I think you miss the mark by a lightyear. You may want to recalibrate you hyperbole catapult.
[QUOTE=Miller]
By the way, in reference to that list you posted: what exactly do you think that proves?
[/QUOTE]
Well, as I explained, it went to show that declaring a single official langauge shold not be viewed as extreme or draconian. It is actually the norm. That was the only reason. Nothing more, nothing less.
