Well, again, I have to ask, is there any evidence that government affairs are being carried out in such a way as to not be available in English? Are non-English bills being passed, are non-English court opinions being written? If not, then it hardly seems like there’s any need for us to make a push to prevent such a thing; we already have all the linguistic smoothness we could hope to gain.
And, in terms of interactions between the government and the public, is there is any government service anywhere in the country which is not available in English? And, if not, if every service is available in the common language of English, then what is the harm in also providing some services in other languages, as an additional convenience?
I agree with this, what is worse is that **magellan01 ** is not taking into account that it is also the convenience of the government (us too). Think about it.
I think Hilarity is basically just feeling that it’s her neighborhood, in her country where the standard language is her native tongue, she was here first, why should she be the one who has to change so that she can communicate with her neighbors in her local grocery store again?
I sympathize with this feeling to some extent, but I don’t see any useful way to implement it in public policy. When a neighborhood’s population changes in favor of speakers of a different language, speakers of the former majority language in that neighborhood are going to feel left out and unwelcome.
It’s a shame, but what are you going to do about it? Tell Hispanophones that they can’t speak Spanish in their own communities? Nope. Tell private businesses with large Hispanic customer bases that they can’t serve their customers in Spanish? Nope. Tell them that they have to offer service in English even if their English-only-speaking customers are a very small minority of their customer base? Why? It’s not worth it to them in terms of the extra business they get out of it, and it’s inefficient. You wouldn’t demand that businesses with a very small minority of Spanish-only-speaking customers offer service in Spanish.
The only remotely possible way to avoid this that I can see is to have some kind of municipal cultural commission tasked with making sure that the “cultural character” of a neighborhood is maintained in a state that the existing residents are comfortable with. The commission gets to decide who can move into a neighborhood, who can open what kind of new business there, etc.
And that sounds like the worst kind of bureaucratic nightmare. In the long run, we’re probably all better off accepting that in a free housing and commercial market, the character of some neighborhoods is going to change over time as their population changes, and some long-term residents may be unhappy with the changes. The only practically feasible response is to invoke large amounts of suckitupitude.
Oh, I agree that we could have more cohesion and more unity. I think that it should start with the elimination of the virus of nativism that has plagued this country, if not from its beginnings, then certainly from the first visible wave of immigrants.
Let’s see, we have had two attempts at national dissolution, one aborted in 1813 and one defeated from 1861 through 1865. On both of those occasions, this country was effectively monolingual. Since that time, we have no efforts to break apart the country. There have been efforts to harrass and intimidate immigrants–often with nativists pointing to language as their shibboleth–but the immigranrts, regardless of language, have always attempted to become citizens and learn English without any laws requiring that they bow down to monoligualism.
If you would wish to see more cohesion, I would think that you would want to stop supporting actions that are, indeed, promoted by people who express hatred for immigrants and recognize that immigrants have always chosen to learn English without compulsion. Without an “official” language, the French, Germans, Poles, Italians, Serbs, Croatians, Slovenians, Greeks, Portuguese, Russians, Yiddish-speaking Jews, (their Ladino speaking predecessors), Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and other (including Spanish) have all become speakers of English. All the current evidence is that the current crop od speakers odf Spanish, Thai, Vietnamese, Korean, and others are following in their example. By making an issue of something that they arte already doing on their own, you are creating a hostiole environment against which they will most likely rebel. That is just logical, as most people will resist doing things that they are told they must do, even when they might have chosen to do so, themselves.
Euphemisms? Perhaps we would have a more “cohesive” board if we limited our participation to those who actually understood English and the meanings of words in English. Nativism is not racism. If the well is filled with your poison, just recall that you are the one who put it there. I have not made any claims regarding racsim in this thread. (And the very first nativists were opposed to white folks, so there is no historical claim to racism as a general trait of nativism (although there have been later nativists who were also racist).)
Then stop putting artificial barriers such as imaginary rules of language in the way of people becoming united.
I await the news that you have petitioned your city council to outlaw unleashed alligators on the streets of your city.
A law requiring congresscritters to only speak English in Congress and committee is pointless. Making pointless rules that need to be published is wasteful. Pointless rules do not prevent idiocy, they encourage it.
And part of the reason they did so was because they needed to in order to interact with American institutions. By offering them the ability to act civilly in other languages (and because the free market will offer them the ability to act commercially in other languages), I’m worried we are effectively removing the need to assimilate.
Actually, without the impetus of televison and radio and truly national (and international) distribution, a lot of language enclaves survived for nearly a hundred years through the early settling of the country.
I do not oppose efforts to encourage people to speak English. I do not oppose efforts to ensure that students in public schools graduate with a competency in English (although there will be some wrangling over the best method to make that happen). I have sympathy for folks like Hilarity N. Suze who are inundated with changing demographics.
If you want to pass a law saying that all pharmacies must have at least one pharmacist or pharmacist’s assistant on hand who speaks English, I have no problem with that. We do not need an “official language” to pass such a law. A simple declaration that pharmacies need to be able to serve the de facto population language is sufficient.
However, we have a historical record of providing legal and political (and, in some instances, educational) services in languages other than English, we have the statistical information that provides evidence that immigrants are, in aggregate, voluntarily learning English, and there is ample evidence that (beyond a very restricted local setting), English is and will continue to be a sine qua non to achieve success in business. Having already successfully survived a period where immigrants were a much higher percentage of the population with no destruction to the fabric of the nation, I see no reason to impose silly and counterproductive rules on the nation, as a whole.
You might be right, I might be right; neither of us know. (But I don’t think government documents, court proceedings, and elementary school education were available - and indeed mandated to be - in other languages a hundred years ago.)
In general, I don’t think our approach to social problems should be: “no worries.”
Of course, this is an imaginary argument about some future European Space Agency or Chinese settlement on Mars or Titan. The actual language of the U.S. government has never been a serious question, (odd Urban Legends notwithstanding). It is English. All the congresscritters speak it. All bills are proposed in it. Committee hearings are conducted in it. All laws passed use it–and it alone.
I’m really interested about your entire conception of what the phrase, “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech,” even means, as you seem to be willing to allow so many exceptions to it as to make it essentially meaningless. I mean, yes, we do allow some restrictions on the right to free speech, but only when said speech causes immediate physical danger to other people (Shouting “fire” in a theater), or measurable financial damage (libel and slander laws). There’s absolutely no precedent for passing laws against using a particular language, not even in a narrowly defined context like the one you suggest.
Elected representatives do not surrender any of their constitutional rights or protections when they assume office. You cannot make a law that says, “Senators are not allowed to speak foreign languages in official capacity,” without opening a door on a law that says, “People can’t speak foreign languages.” There is no legal reasoning that squares the first law with the first ammendment, that does not also square the second law with the first ammendment.
Just enforcing such a law would be a nightmare. You say the law wouldn’t be absolute. A politician could greet a crowd with, “Hola, amigos!” and not be arrested. Well, where’s the cut-off point between “Allowable foreign language,” and “Illegal foreign language?” How do you define and enforce that? What percentage of a speech must be in English to be legal speech? How do you determine if a speech has surpassed that percentage? If a Senator is meeting with a foreign dignitary, and the Senator happens to be fluent in that dignitaries native language, are they allowed to converse in that language? If they’re gladhanding a crowd of people, and pause for a short conversation with one potential voter in a non-English language, is that against the law? What about appearances overseas, in front of foreign crowds on non-English speakers?
The idea that you can outlaw a language, and get around the first ammendment because you can still express the same idea in a different language, is ridiculous. The first ammendment protects both the expression of ideas, and the right to choose your own method of expression. This is why flag burning laws don’t work: if I can legally express the idea, “I hate America,” then I can express that idea however I want, so long as it doesn’t damage or endanger other people or their property, including through burning an American flag. Additionally, outside of the most simplistic types of speech, it is impossible to translate anything from one language into another without altering the meaning in some manner. Even when the basic meaning is the same, you’re going to lose a lot of shading and subtext when you move from one tongue to another. I suspect you’re going to argue that this shading and context is too minor to deserve constitutional protection, but good luck finding a precedent that allows the banning of harmless speech on the grounds that the idea it promotes isn’t very important.
On top of all of this, you’re trying to specifically apply this restriction to political speech, which is historically the most carefully protected type of speech, and is largely exactly the sort of speech the founders had in mind when they created that protection in the first place. As much as you may think that this law is a good idea in the abstract, even you must recognize that there is no way in hell any such law could possibly pass constitutional review.
We want to encourage people to learn English as quickly as possible.
We don’t want to so frustrate people who are still in the process of learning English that we alienate them and/or cause injustices.
Add to that the complication that everyone learns at a different rate, and you can’t just have a one size fits all. We should expect that young children can become fluent in a few years. But that’s pretty unrealistic for someone who is 40. So, it makes sense to have courtroom interpreters in the major languages one finds in the area, and to print some government documents in multiple languages, but it doesn’t make sense to ensure that C-Span carries Congressional debate simultaneously translated into 50 languages.
It makes sense to have some sort of bilingual education, but it doesn’t make sense to build Spanish only schools that, while they might make Spanish speaking children feel comfortable, would impede the learning of English. It makes sense, where communities want this, to offer immersion curricula in schools where Spanish speaking kids learn English along with English speaking kinds learn Spanish (for those who desire to do so). It doesn’t make sense to turn our whole school system upside and force everyone into such a situation.
It makes sense not to require businesses to post multi-lingual signs for shoppers, but it doesn’t make sense to forbid them from doing so.
We’re obviously going to debate back and forth exactly what is the best balance to strike, but pretending that we can wish away the language problem in the US by just passing a law and forcing those damn lazy foreigners to learn English is ridiculous. Almost everyone who comes here recognizes the need to learn English. The young people will do so fairly quickly, and the older folks will need a bit more time and help. But we, as a society, shouldn’t punish the people we welcome to come here and join our society.
We can certainly dispute the possible solutions, but there should be no disputing the existence of problems. Just because the country survived similar problems a hundred years ago does not mean we should ignore them today.
Actually, a lot of that was provided in the immigrant languages. Court documents and proceeding were carried out in English, but there were numerus efforts to report upcoming laws in immigrant languages and most large cities taught classes in the languages of the immigrants between 1880 and 1910. (I am not necessarily in favor of returning to that particular practice; I would prefer to see that kids learned English.) However, the idea that people are informed in their own language of government actions (which was a practice of the last immigrant wave) means that there will be fewer people who see the government as the enemy.
The “invented problem” GIGOBuster referred to was the idea that immigrants aren’t learning English at all, and that we need to legislate a solution. As tomndebb has cited mutilple times, that problem does not exist. There is a problem with immigrants who have not (and, sometimes, can not: it’s not easy to learn a new language, particularly for older people) yet learned enough English to get by, but you haven’t shown how an “official language” would solve the problem you’ve cited above.
That is what is frustrating with people like Key Lime Guy, they are not getting that an official language law would make that problem worse. And yes, as you point out, older people would be the most affected.
