Once again, you’re overlooking that little thing called “The first ammendment.”
Man, I hope I never run across you in a GD thread complaining about activist judges. The way you think things should be run in this country would require twisting the Bill of Rights around like a Chinese gymnast.
You left out, “illegal,” “stupid,” and “meaningless.”
As I posted to tomndebb one speech on the senate floor was given in Spanish. How about if you’re a Senator who doesn’t speak Spanish?
The governement incurs extra, unnecessary expense. How many documents in how many different languages would you support? Is there any limit? Who decides? Much easier to simply make English the official language and have the be the language of government. For the record, I would have no problem with any of these documents being supplied in as many languages as desired if it was not the government doing it. Let the Italian-American, Mexican-American, Chinese-American organizations step up and provide the service as a benefit to their community.
I see my ploy worked perfectly. You now see the danger of allowing people to communicate in any language they choose. I knew you’d come a 
round.
In other words, the law has no effect.
Look, you really don’t understand what this debate is about. In a lot of other countries, like New Zealand, or Canada, or India, they have multiple official languages so that speakers of one language do not get disenfranchised from the political process. This is precisely the opposite of what magellan01 and others here are arguing for. magellan01 specifically wants English to be the official language of the US so that government documents cannot be printed in any language other than English. Your experiences with your own government are not applicable to the current debate in US politics. Despite having some of the same terminology, the matter being discussed is entirely different in purpose.
This is the worst kind of crap to spout. How about your (US) government supplies the translations as a service to your (new) immigrants? If there is a reasonable level of demand for help / need for documents in any other language than English, they should be provided. Until such time as the new migrant becomes profficient in English.
The adoption of an official language provides the framework for this sort of help, rather than just leaving it to discretion.
If an official language is to be adopted, in the same act comes a framework for handling exactly these sorts of issues. It comes with a framework for translating speeches in congress or requiring said speeches to be in English. It comes with remedies and solutions. None of which have to be static in nature, but can also evolve with society.
:rolleyes:
You really expect us to forget that quick, huh? The speech was also in english.
I would think that the guys in government, like the senator that gave that speech also in English, would say that you are way out of bounds.
There are communities that decided to do that already, it just so happens that some communities choose to get the government involved. IMHO I do see that in the future Latin America will become a bigger trading block doing business with America, And if government is not ready for the challenge in the future, I do think America will lose more by putting restrictions where none are needed.
I agree in general, not in your specifics. If there is information that goes to the health and safety of the society, it is wise for the government to make sure the information in a way that ensures that it gets to the most people in the quickest manner. On the other hand, if, for instance, someone wants to get a driver’s license or apply for a business license, let them learn the language. That or get the help they need from privaste organizations.
Yes I know what magellan and his ilk are argueing for. And it is because of people like him that I think an official language is important. IF the law is correctly framed to be inclusionary rather than exclusionary it would give legal weight to beating people like him down.
Any law should be framed such that the default is English, **but at the same time ** provide remedies for those that are not comfortable in English. But I don’t think the “remedies” part can be framed until the “official language” part is framed.
The remedies part of the law may well be what is currently happening in general practise (and maybe even already enshrined in law in some cases). What happens when you put the weight of law behind it is you give yourself a club to whack people like **magellan ** with when he says that English is the lingua de franca and everyone else be damned. You give yourself a tool to measure whether or not a particular request is reasonable.
Well, I’m not going to be persuaded by whatever it was that Senator was trying to advocate. That’s why he repeated the same speech in English at the same session.
Your position here is completly absurd. You don’t need to make a law requiring English be spoken on the floor of the Senate, because if a Senator can’t make himself understood, he’s not going to be able to convince anyone to vote for his bills. And if he can’t get anyone to vote on his bills, he’s going to get voted out of office in the next election for not doing his job. Which is why no one is ever going to make a speech in front of the Senate in any language other than English, unless they’re just doing it to make some sort of symbolic or rhetorical point, like the Senator in your link was doing. And what purpose is served by outlawing what this Senator did? He wasn’t arguing a piece of legislation, or speaking in a comittee. The speech did not come in the context of the process of lawmaking, he was introducing the new AG. It was a bit of political showmanship, not an act of government. What was the harm of this particular speech that makes your proposed law necessary?
As many as are necessary to ensure that every citizen is able to interface with their government, there’s no need for a limit, and whatever lobbies there are working on behalf of the specific immigrant groups in the US.
Wow, that’s mighty magnanimous of you! :rolleyes: How many government functions do you think you can shift to independent groups, before those groups no longer see the value in supporting and participating in government? How does that help unify the country? Isn’t it more unifying to show that the government is open to the concerns of all of its citizens? How do you enhance unity by embracing exclusivity?
And, just because I can’t resist a set up like this:
Moron is not a language, dammit!
(I’m kidding, I’m kidding! I don’t think you’re a moron! You’re cool. Just terribly, tragically, and totally wrong.)
It was an example. Sheesh. Would you have a problem if he didn’t give the speech in English as well? That door is now open. And even assuming that all speeches given in a foreign tongue are also given in English, do you really think it is to our benefit that—theoretically—every speech in the Senate be given twice?
How so? Not following you here.
So we know that the governemnt needn’t be the one to do it. If that’s the case, I think they have no business doing it.
Are you of the mind that if English becomes the official language that Latin America won’t trade with us? You can’t be serious.
Okay, you’ve officially confused the fuck out of me, because no part of what you’ve just posted makes any sense to me at all. All our government documents are already in English. Why do we need a law mandating we do something that is already routinely done in all circumstances? Why do we need an official language before we can pass laws mandating multiple languages in government documents? Why can’t we just say, “You have to makes these documents available in Spanish?”
Oh, wait, we already do that. So, what’s the purpose of an official language?
What Miller said.
They already did publish or filed or printed that in Spanish and English, I don’t think they need your permission.
:rolleyes:
We will still get business, however I do think many more will be lost unnecessarily, are you forgetting that many cities and governments have connections and help with business deals with other cities outside the USA?
Because until its law it relies on “goodwill” or “standard practise”. Once it becomes law it can be enforced.
Take it to a more personal level. When you are negotiating a contract do you insist on all terms being written, or do you take it on faith that verbal terms will be honoured. What you are doing now is like the “verbal terms”
I say that by making an inclusionary official language law, you enshrine what you are already doing. The provision on translations etc gets taken out of the realm of “ooo look how generous we are” to “this is a reasonable requirement placed on us as part of a heterogenus (sp?) population”
But why do we need to have an “official” language to have laws requiring documents in other languages? Why can’t we just have the laws requiring other languages? How is having English as the official language even a part of that?
At the very least he was wasting time. Fuck him and his showmanship. Where do you draw the line? Can any congressman start giving speeches in a way to ingratiate his home district or state? Do we then have to have each of those speeches translated, with as someone earlier posted, losing some of the meaning in the translation?
I’ll just say that this shows how far apart we are on this. If I come from so obscure tribe in Africa or China the governement is then required to go to the expense of providing all governemetn information it supplies to othjers in my native tongue. Talk about absurd.
Not following you here.
Just because the government might not supply translations in myriad languages doesn’t mean they are not interested in their concerns. They should, of course, be concerned. I don’t see how they can’t be both concerned and do their business in English. Seems like you’ve drawn a false choice. Also, by supplying translation to no group, you never risk another group being whining that their offended because not everyhting was translated for them.
Oh, Miller…level and insult and then let it hang there while you profess it a joke. Tsk, tsk. I do appreciate the skiil with which you crafted it so that it might not get you slapped by the mods. Well done, grasshopper. Rookie insulters take note! But I must say that I thought you were a more forthright individual. ::shrug:: Still, I appreciate the art, so as a reward I will hold my tongue.
Good point, strictly speaking you don’t. You can have a law requiring that govt communications are made available in A, B, C and D (or however many) languages.
I do think it is important though to have a default setting, or settings.
This may well be English, or English and Spanish. If a good proportion (but less than 50%) of the population speaks Spanish better than English then I see nothing at all wrong with having TWO official languages. Or even three if you want to recognise Native American cultural heritage (and yes, I know there is no one Native American language)
I think that designating an official langauge gives you the bedrock to make other laws concerning translations and accomodations. I have no horse at all in the race as to what language should be the official one.
An official language can of course be used as an exclusionary tool if the law is not properly framed.
Without the official language I think it is arrogant to just use English as the default. What if one day the balance tips, and the majority of the population is better in a language other than English. What happens then - do you spontaneoulsy change your default to that other language - and if not, why not. An official language reflects, but is independent of population.
If at some point in the future the general population feels that the official language is no longer representative of the population, then it is changed (as other laws are changed) and the language of instruction in schools etc is changed to reflect the update.
Not at all. On the other hand, nativism has a long and inglorious tradition in this country and the “Official Language” nonsense is simply the most recent manifestation of it. Tanton is not merely some wacko who happens to share that view: he founded the movement. He is not equivalent to Charles Manson happening to champion eating regular meals, he is equivalent to Vladimir Lenin championing Marxism.
So what? Immigrants are learning English already. By making an issue of “offficial” languages, you are creating an artifical claim that there is a need for such a law that would necessarily exclude anyone who has not yet mastered the language. That is hostility.
This country has a history that includes giving lip service to welcoming immigration while making all sorts of unnecessary rules to impose burdens upon immigrants with a subtext of claiming that they should not be here. That is the reality of our history. Noting that hostility is far more logical than your artificial “cohesion” argument that is grounded in nothing more than your personal and unsupported beliefs that are clearly contradicted by the fact that we have achieved cohesion for two hundred years in spite of the barriers we have erected to immigration and the calumny we have uttered against immigrants.
Because new posters might come to this board and disrupt ongoing discussion with posts that the majority of other posters could not understand.
One congresscritter making one speech on one occasion (a speech that was also presented in English) hardly qualifies as disruptive to Congress. It was a publicity stunt, nothing more. One more Republican shilling for the administration by delivering a speech for Buncombe. There is no indication that Martinez has ever tried to conduct business in committee or on the floor in Spanish. Unlike a post on this board which one supposes is an effort to make a point to other posters, Martinez was simply trying to drum up votes at home.
Don’t be silly by trying to drag my staff position into this discussion. After I noted that a law prohibiting the use of languages other than English in Congress was pointless, you proved my point by citing the sole speech ever delivered in Congress in another language–a speech that had absolutely nothing to do with conducting Congressional business or making laws, but was nothing more than an attempt at partisan propaganda.
As anyone with the slightest grap of U.S. history already knows, congresscritters have been doing exactly that from the earliest days of the Republic. (Note my link to buncome in my earlier post.) If you want to outlaw speeches pandering to the home crowd, go ahead and try it. I’ll even support you (albeit tepidly since I know you will not be successful).
The translation was undertaken by Martinez’s staff, so no actual civil servants wasted their day playing with it.
So, basically, you want a law that prohibits congresscritters from speaking a language other than English to their constituents, even though it has only happened one time, it is in an ancient (if less than honorable) tradition of the Congress, it has no bearing on the activities of Congress, and it did not cost you any more money than the typical speech in which every one of the 538 bodies up on the Hill engage on a daily basis.
Talk about pointless.
Honestly, I didn’t mean any offence by that, I was just goofing around. Sorry if I stepped over a line.
Tell you what, as an olive branch, I’ll agree that we should pass a law making it illegal for politicians to speak in a language other than English, if you’ll agree to make it retroactive, so we can finally throw the entire Bush family into prison.
Of course, your point is not successfully made with excessive hyperbole, either, even if you are treating Miller’s casual comment in the most literal fashion.
We already have a definition of what situations require accommodation. They were pointed out earlier in the thread. In order to receive support with one’s native language, a group must already include people who are not proficient in English to the number of more than 5% of the voting age population or must already have 10,000 such people in one political district. (I’m sure we will soon hear about some village in North Dakota being penalized because they have 8 Somali immigrants in a hamlet of 97 voters. :rolleyes: )
The notion that a single Hadza-speaking immigrant can waltz into some city of 20,000 and force that town to run out and hire translators and publish all notices in Hadza is nothing but alarmist mendacity. THAT is absurd.