So, what's the big deal about bilingualism?

Great Debates
81

Sure, language barriers create social problems. But providing services in other languages aren’t the CAUSE of those problems, they are attempts to deal with the problems. Suppose English were the official language of America. Does that mean that governments should be PROHIBITED from providing materials in languages other than english? Should it mean that health care providers should be prohibited from speaking languages other than english?

Look, “official” languages only have meaning in countries with more than one official language. What that means is that every government document MUST be translated in all official languages. It doesn’t mean that they cannot be translated into other languages as well, just that the minimum is that they be provided in the official languages. So according to Canadian law, official documents must be available in both English and French. But they can also be made available in Spanish, or Inuit, or Cantonese–if there is a perceived need. But you can’t do English-only, or French-only, you must at a minimum do both.

So, what does it mean to have one official language, English? That all government documents MUST be provided in English? Geez, is there really a problem where the congressional record isn’t being translated into English? Is that the fear, that you’ll show up at a courthouse after being arrested, and the judge will refuse to speak to you in English, and refuse to provide a translator who can translate the testimony of the Spanish-speaking cops, prosecutor, and your own public defense attorney?

Is the goal to not allow anyone into our country if they don’t speak english? Do we not allow tourists into our country? Suppose you visit China, and get arrested. Do you think it would be fair if it was against the law for you to use a translator to help you defend yourself? If a tourist from Japan is visiting LA, and gets charged with a crime, shouldn’t we, you know, provide him with a translator?

Government services are provided in languages other than english because government services are supposed to, well, serve. We don’t provide services in languages other than English because we’re trying to create a problem, we do it because we’re trying to solve a problem. What problem would be solved by refusing to provide non-english services? The spectre of a single Kazakh speaker moving to your city and now every single government document must now be provided in Kazakh as well as English is simply a fantasy. It does not exist. In some places with lots and lots of Kazakh speakers we CHOOSE to provide services in Kazakh, because it makes things easier. It doesn’t happen the other way around. Sure, you might find a few localities in the Bay Area who–in an orgy of political correctness–provide services in a ridiculous number of languages. But they don’t do that because they are REQUIRED to do so because horrifyingly English is not the official language, they do so because they think it’s a good idea and like to spend other people’s money to make themselves feel good about themselves.

Of course, making English the official language of the US isn’t going to shut down spanish radio stations, or shut down spanish markets, or make the landscapers speak english amongst themselves. The only way to do that is to round up all the people who prefer to speak spanish and expel them from our country. It’s been done before.

82

Not according to your posts over the last few years.

What would a federal law be besides a declaration?

Are you saying that you would prohibit politicians or officials from ever speaking in a foreign language?

As I have noted on multiple occasions, providing documents in the languages that large immigrant minorities speak is exactly the way that we integrated those minorities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, by letting them know how the government worked and showing what services were available and what obligations were required. By refusing to print documents in any language but English, we effectively ensure that new immigrants will be less likely to assimilate, being ignorant of their respective obligations.

No congresscritter will submit a bill in a language other than English. If s/he did, it would never be brought to a vote because it would never be reported out of committee. It would never be voted out of committee because the committee chairman would never put it on the agenda. And, of course, no committee chair would put it on the agenda because it would never be assigned to a committee, to begin with.
Worrying that we do not have a law to prohibit an action that will never occur is silly.

As to legislators delivering speeches in other languages: it is no different than any other publicity ploy and poses no threat to the Republic.

I am also aware that California is not the entire country. Based on your answer, however, (and the length of time the California law has been in effect), it is safe to consider that the law has had absolutely no effect on the state.

Barring a real law that actually prescribes or proscribes specific actions, any talk about “official languages” in the U.S. is nothiong more than feel good rhetoric by nativists. If someone wants to propose an actual law with real proposals for actual actions, I will be happy to point out where it is stupid. Until that time, I will simply point and laugh at the absurdity of the concept.

83

By this term, I assume you mean the California State Legislature which is composed of the California State Assembly and the California State Senate. We do not have a State Congress.

84

In their official capacity in a public venue, yes. Everytime it happened I wouldfine him. And I’m not talikiing about a word or phrase here or there.

How do you know that the extra incentive created by an “official” designation woldn’t make them more likely to assimilate. And quicker?

Probably. But I didn’t make that point.

Heavens, you’ve just introduced a high bar to whether this is a good idea or not. First define “threat to the Republic”. And why is that the litmus test. How about thedi ea that it would improve it by making us more cohesive? You should at least grant that as a possibility.

So? you can not equate the state with the nation in this regard. Let’s say a county did it, or a city, or a village, or a hamlet. Just because it might not have a pronounced effect on a smaller level doesn’t mean the larger entity wouldn’t benefit. Especially since we generally equate nations with languages. Kind of obvious, yeah, but evidently not obvious enough.

You misspelled “natavists”. Substitute “natav” with “rac”. Not that I wasn’t able to glean your intent.

Let’s start here, with an article directed toward congress: In order to ensure that all congressman or privy to the ideas and reasoning of every other congressman, no congressman shall address the body in any language other than English.

Why/where is it stupid?

85

Yes. I was simply differentiating it from the U.S. congress, as an example. I did/do not know if all states use the same terminology, so I tried to be descriptive.

86

I didn’t realize it was such a problem, all those congresscritters speaking in foreign tongues. You’d FINE them? Why is the spectre of such a thing so horrible that we must pass a LAW prohibiting it? Why not let the voters decide?

Funny thing, a century ago speaking multiple languages was considered a mark of an educated person. Now anyone who speaks anything other than English only should be charged with a crime?

Fact is, people are annoyed about people who don’t speak English, and want something done about it. But as Tom points out, either it’s just a meaningless gesture, akin to declaring May 17th National Rhubarb Day, or it’s a stupid gesture.

OK, Magellan01 has declared that he’d like to fine anyone speaking anything other than English during public business. What else?

87

I’m spitballing here… Suppose such a law did two things:

  1. Outlawed mandates that businesses, non-profits, and localities must provide services in languages other than English.

  2. Outlawed hiring practices which discriminate against English-only speakers.

A third consideration would be a requirement that business signage include English, but I think that’s more properly a local issue than a national one.

comments?

88

Why? I have seen no evidence that the Poles and Italians among whom I grew up were less “American” or less patriotic or less acceptable as citizens than the other people in my neighborhood or even the specifically ethnic neighborhoods of Wyandotte or Lincoln Park. To the extent that there was less “cohesion” with their neighbors, it had far more to do with the difference in odors emanating from thier kitchens than what language was spoken in their houses. We still played ball with the kids. We still went to the same churches and schools. They still volunteered to serve in the armed forces. I see no reason to grant it as a possibility without some evidence. (I have certainly seen a few examples of nativists who were willing to harrass people who were different, but I do not see why we should set the country up to favor those who are bullies. When I was picked on for being Catholic, I saw no reason why I should change religions to make some conformist down the street happy.)

If I had meant racists, I’d have used the word racists. There is a difference between racism and nativism and your attempt to falsely portray my discussion as one of racism is nothing more than an attempt to poison the well of the discussion by changing my meaning.

Because it is one more unnecessary law cluttering up the books that does nothing to make the country freer or stronger. It is the equivalent of the (probably apocryphal) laws that forbid walking one’s alligator without a leash.

A congresscritter who addressed the assembly (or its committees) in a foreign language would accomplish nothing because s/he would be ignored. Passing a law would waste the time of Congress (possibly a good thing) as well as wasting the paper to print it and the time of the printing office to transcribe it, and probably set up a silly scenario where some nutcase would try to call on the Federal Marshalls to enforce it when any congresscritter happened to quote something that the nutcase found less than comprehensible or if a congresscritter happened to be entering a quote from a foreign dignitary or scholar into the Congressional Record.

Pointless + wasteful + encouraging idiocy = stupid.

89

I am not aware of any businesses or non-profits that are required to provide services in languages other than English if they are not sub-contracting a government service.
Localities are only required to provide language services if more than 5% of their eligible voters are not proficient in English. I would oppose repeal of this law.

So we can now prevent companies that provide international services from requiring some proficiency in the languages of the countries with which they do business?
(*Joe Doakes, today, filed suit in Federal Court after he was denied a job as a translator merely because he did not happen to speak any language but English. :smiley: *)

90

How do you square that with the first ammendment?

91

I am not a bigot. In the non-Spanish neighborhoods, I have not had rocks thrown at my house or at me. The explanation is not non-racist if you look at it: I am white, the Despicable Yuppies were white, if they thought I was a DY then who was being racist? And they can speak it all they want, but I might like to ask the checker a question, sometimes–don’t I have that right? I guess not, since white people are universally reviled and considered bigots while Hispanics who refuse to learn English are trying hard.

92

Oh god. Please don’t let this turn into another Koran thread. Please. Please.

93

Well, Hilarity, what exactly do you think making English the official language of the United States would accomplish? Would it stop Mexicans from throwing rocks at your windows? What evidence do you have that the people who threw rocks at your house didn’t speak any English? And even supposing they didn’t speak any English, what exactly would you like to happen to those people? Deportation?

Is the notion simply that having grocery stores and voting guides in Spanish coddles these people so much that they don’t see any point in learning English? That if only there weren’t voting guides printed in Spanish they’d finally get off their lazy asses and learn to speak American?

Unless we want to repeal the First Amendment, you can’t prevent people from speaking Spanish (or Kazakh), printing Spanish (or Kazakh) magazines and newspapers, broadcasting in Spanish (or Kazakh), or being in America despite not being able to carry out a fluent conversation in English.

If you want to deport illegal immigrants, come out and say so. If you want to help teach immigrants English, come out and say so. But what does making English the offical language have to do with either proposal? Unless it’s a meaningless “Yay, English!” gesture.

94

This statement is either dumb or dishonest, as it has no bearing on the discussion. No one is trying to prevent anyone from speaking fifty languages, never mind two. Being polylingual, I’d say, has been, is, and will continue to be a good thing. But that is NOT the point of the discussion. Nice try, though.

95

Well, then, isn’t that something that should be encouraged? And doesn’t the very idea of a “national language” tend to discourage people from valuing languages other than the official one?

96

And that’s a wonderful little story, Tom. How nice. But in the sentence of mine that you quoted you someone read over the word “more”. Do you really think that there would be no way to improve on the cohesion and unity that existed in your world? Do you think that being a more (there’s the word again) monolingual society would not—could not—foster more unity? If you don’t have “evidence”, try using a tool you do have: logic.

Your euphemisms aside, the well is filled with what it is filled with.

I’d say, more cohesive, more united, equals stronger.

No, not at all. There are very few people with pet alligators. Conversely, there are many people who would prefer this to become a bilingual culture.

So it’s idiotic because it prevents a thing from happening that would never happen, is that right?

Wow, you’ve convinced me completely. Oh wait, its not pointless, nor wasteful, and it actually prevents idiocy. Never mind.

97

“Encouraged” Sure. In the schools, as a tool that will help one personally. But in the end, we should all be able to converse using a common language. In government, this is a necessity. If you know six languages and I know five and someone else knows seven, but they’re all different, we’re not goig to be able to get very far. If our task was governance, someone would have to say, okay, here is the language you will all use: Xish. Now what should Xish be? Probably the language that most of the people know. No?

98

First, the First Amendment is not absolute. We can and do put restraints on it. Second,it is not preventing a person from expressing anyn otion that enters his head, just the language it is relayed in. And then, only in the forum I described.

99

Of course, but forcing people to do so is still bad when options are available. To me the rule should be: “English please, but we will help you with translation when needed, we at the government need also to get the true intentions of the citizen, the government would be dumb if we denied ourselves the use of translators when needed.”

100

So in other words, First Amendment be damned, it should be a crime not to speak English.

I agree with the point that everything would be easier if everyone spoke Xish. Except, right about now, we do conduct all government business in Xish, except in special circumstances where there are lots of people who aren’t fluent in Xish, but rather in Yish. So sometimes, we decide, to make things easier for ourselves, to provide some limited services in Yish.

What exactly is wrong with that? I could see getting upset if the government stopped providing services in Xish. But they don’t. They provide full service in Xish, and limited service in Yish, and even more limited service in Zish.

What’s WRONG with that? Is your fear that if we provide any sort of services in Spanish, any sort at all, we’re just encouraging them to never learn English? Look, fact is that a lot of first generation immigrants will never be fluent in English. If you moved to Denmark you might get pretty good at Danish after a few years, but you’re always going to struggle. If while you’re in Denmark you had a friend who would explain certain important things to you in English, would that retard your integration into Danish society or help it? It would help it.

And anyway, you’re not pissed off that government services are provided in Spanish, what really annoys you is walking down the street or turning on the radio and not understanding what people are saying. They should all speak English as far as you’re concerned. So you come up with the brilliant plan of making it against the law to speak Spanish.