Sooo…why is there such a push to print things in other languages, especially Spanish?
Having an official language is not an “artificial barrier” of any kind. It makes perfectly good sense - puts everyone on the same playing field, so to speak. Not to mention reducing government expense by not have to print street signs in Chinese, or ballots in English/Spanish/Vietnamese/Chinese like we see here in Houston.
Why disenfranchise the 29%? Which is against the law on ballot issue anyway. Why ignore serving a significant portion of your population and decrease the functionality of your government?
Give me an example of how the law would read and what it would mean and we can discuss whether it has any validity.
It does not put everyone on the same playing field because it permits people to be “officially” ignored for not (yet) speaking the language. It is exclusionary.
We already have the historical evidence that providing services in foreign languages actually invites immigrant communities to integrate. Where is the counter evidence that it would be a good idea to deliberately exclude them? How would it work?
The only thing that I see an “official language” doing is handing nativists one more weapon to use in harrassing newer immigrants.
You mentioned or alluded to this more than once, so I have to ask: what the fuck are you talking about?!!! What harrassment? What are you so afraid of happening? Are all countries that have an official language “harrassing” immigrants? Please be specific. And current. Your trips down memory lane to 100 years ago have no bearing on today.
I think your mind-reading skills aren’t up to snuff. He answered a specific question seeking clarification: (bolding mine)
Now if you think he didn’t say what he meant, you may want to correct him on that. I’m sure he’d be grateful to you for clueing him in on his own thoughts :rolleyes:
No problem. And we finally find ourselves in agreement on an issue. Albeit, no doubt, for different reasons.
So your idea for putting everyone in the same playing field is that all games will be played in your home stadium?
I realize that it is uncomfortable to read history, (those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it), but there is nothing new in American culture from 1850s riots against Irish Catholics in Baltimore to the 1920s Palmer Raids to the current Alabama Militia. It is a constant theme in our history. These are pretty current:
Attacks on Immigrants Kill 5
Immigrant center victim of arson
Feds Accuse Alabama Militia of Planning Machine-Gun Attack on Mexicans
Armed man harrasses immigration rally
Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
Even the Feds get in on it
We have made it this far with no such silly unnecessary law as an “official” language and with a populace that includes too many people who are willing to harrass those who are different, making some law (either meaningless or punitive) about how one language is “official” will do nothing except provide rationalizations and support for those who are inclined to discrimination.
(It is similar, in many ways, to the stupid claims that this is a “Christian” country that are used to rationalize attacks on people who do not follow the local beliefs. It will probably happen, to some extent, anyway, but it is foolish to hand such people ammunition in the form of silly laws.)
tom~'s pretty much got it, actually. You asked if there should be any sort of limit on the number of languages, and I said no. But you missed the part of my post about lobbyists. If one member from a tribe living in the Amazon rainforest shows up in the US, and he’s the only person who speakes his language in North America, we’re not going to start publishing government documents in his language, for the simple reason that nobody else on the continent speaks it, and we can’t get a translator. But if enough other members of his tribe move to the same area that they represent a significant voting block, then they’ll be able to leverage some consideration for their language group, and be able to convince their local representatives to push through some translated documents as needed. Which, as I understand it, is how things work now. There’s nothing wrong with the current system. You’ve been unable to come up with any examples where multilinguilism in government has been harmful or impeded the normal functioning of government. I’ll concede that it is possible that your idea would idea would result in increased national unity and social cohesion, which I think we all agree would be a good thing. But you can at least concede the converse, that might prove to be an alienating and exclusionary policy, as well. Lacking any clear evidence of immediate harm, should we take the risk that your policy could backfire and lead to precisely the opposite results we all desire? I don’t think so.
What some people in the thread seem to be missing is that in other countries official languages (note the plural) were so designated to guarantee that the significant linguistic communities would be served by the government. In the US, the prevailing idea of designating one and only one official language is to place a particular language–English–on a pedestal and prohibit the government from operating (publishing information pamphlets, for example) in any other language.
The differenc is that in other countries official languages = inclusionary but in the US official language = exclusionary.
This is ridiculous. I gave you too much credit. You just pointed out that there a few nuts out there who hate immigrants. Should all policy be based on a few nuts? And your last cite is simply a lawsuit filed by the SPLC. I think you missed the part about the ALLEGED violations and crimes. Heaven forbid you give those who are on the front lines fighting the illegal immigration crime wave the benefit of any doubt. A low move. Even for an illegal immigration handwaver like you.
Now, pray tell, just how would declaring English the official language make things worse? Your cites make a better case that the opposite would result, that people angry about rampant illegal immigration would feel that their government is finally doing something to keep America from from becoming part of Latin America. People would feel that their governement finally realized that the idea of America is worth being protected. Immigrants would be more inclined to learn and adopt the language (logic lesson:that does not mean I’m stating they are not learning the language, so no need to go on with your “recent immigrants are just as likely blah blah blah…”). And the more they do so—even more important, the more they are perceived as doing so—the better it will be for all. As you so often point out, the problem is one of perception. There is no downside to making English the offial language. It won’t change much quickly, or in the short term, except as a symbolic gesture. But symbolism can be very powerful.
Miller, Miller, Miller, you’re kiling me here. I expect this weaseling and retroactive obfuscation by our Mighty Mind-Reading Mod, but you? 
Anything is possible, but I seriously don’t see it. If I moved to another country and all the government documents were in a particular langauge, I wouldn’t be surprised or hurt in the least. I woul seek help out as needed and would probably feel a greaster need to more fully adopt the language of my new home.
Do you believe in preventive medicine. The U.S. is becoming more and more diverse by the day. The more we can put common denominators in place that will continue to unite us as the diversity continues the more we will be united in the future. Also considering that of all the immigrants, legal and illegal, one language strongly dominates, we should take this opportunity to preserve what the idea of the country is. By allowing one language, Spanish in this instance, to earn such dominance, we make it less inviting for people from Africa or Asia or Eastern Europe. That seems exclusionary to me. We should preserve the American culture—keep it culture neutral for all immigrant groups. This, I think would also bind immigrant groups together, seeing that one does not get what is easily perceived as special treatment. And encourage all of them to more fully adopt their new country and its language.
And you had to make tomndebb’s cite of John Tanton’s groups valid after you protested it had nothing to do in this discussion…
Many [taxpayer] members of my family will notice the downside, so stop thinking that they are not human.
The symbol I still see from you is just of credulity accepting the say so of crackpots. Like the ones claiming there is a reasonable discussion and laws are coming forbidding citizenship by birth, (the crackpots lie when they say they are close) same crackpots are coming with the claim that this will be only symbolic. Well, I think it will be, but only after the lawsuits finish with the crazy limitations I expect to see coming with any proposed law by those crackpots. I expect that the cost to figure out that useless symbolism will swallow any savings you want to see by not printing documents in other languages.
Just for the heck of it, here is a list of countries with one official language. So this is far from some drastic, draconian notion.
Countries with English as the sole official language
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Botswana
Dominica
Fiji
Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
Kiribati
Lesotho
Liberia
Marshall Islands
Mauritius
Fed. States of Micronesia
Namibia
New Zealand
Nigeria
Papua New Guinea
Sts. Kitts and Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Sierra Leone
Solomon Islands
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Countries with one official language that is not English
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Benin
Bhutan
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Cape Verde Islands
Central African Rep.
China
Congo, Dem. Rep. of the
Congo, Republic of
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire
Ecuador
Egypt
Estonia
France
Gabon
Georgia
Greece Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Honduras
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kuwait
Laos
Latvia
Libya
Lebanon
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macedonia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nauru
Nicaragua Oman
Panama
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Republic of Moldava
Russia
Saudi Arabia
São Tomé and Príncipe
Senegal
Serbia & Montenegro
Slovakia
Somalia
Spain
Sudan
Suriname
Syria
Taiwan
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Vatican State
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Note: Palau, Swaziland, and the United Kingdom recognize English as the offficial language of their nations as a whole, but recognize regional official language. For instance, Manx is an official language of the Island of Man, within the United Kingdom.
Note: According to India’s Constitution, the official language is Hindi. However, according to statory law, the official language is English. In practice, English is the language used by the national government, and for any communication between two or more Indian states when Hindi is not the official language of every state involved. Only a minority of states have made Hindi their official language.
Not human? Please. Put down the vilolin and pick up the reading glasses.
Gigo, I’m having a hard time following you here. Please rephrase.
Also from Magellan01’s cut and paste from http://www.proenglish.org/issues/offeng/worldlanguages.htm:
"Countries with one official language that is not English
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Benin
Bhutan
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Cape Verde Islands
Central African Rep.
China
Congo, Dem. Rep. of the
Congo, Republic of
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire
Ecuador
Egypt
Estonia
France
Gabon
Georgia
Greece Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Honduras
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Italy
Japan
Jordan
Kuwait
Laos
Latvia
Libya
Lebanon
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macedonia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nauru
Nicaragua
Oman
Panama
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Republic of Moldava
Russia
Saudi Arabia
São Tomé and Príncipe
Senegal
Serbia & Montenegro
Slovakia
Somalia
Spain
Sudan
Suriname
Syria
Taiwan
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Vatican State
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Countries with multiple official languages
Bolivia
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Burundi
Chad
Comoros
Croatia
Cyprus
Djibouti
East Timor
Finland
Haiti
Kazakh
Kyrgyzstan
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malaysia
Netherlands
Niger Norway
Paraguay
Peru
San Marino
Switzerland
Sweden
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Countries with no known official languages
Definitions for what constitute an official language vary from source to source and nation to nation; Many citizens of some of the nations below regard a particular language as their national language, but ProEnglish found no explicit statutory of constitutional establishment of an official language. ProEnglish does not mean to demean the status of any national language of any nation on this list.
Afghanistan*
Australia
Belarus
Belgium
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Cuba
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Ethiopia
Germany
Guatemala
Hungary
Iceland
Korea, North
Korea, South
Mexico
Myanmar
Nepal
Samoa
Slovenia
South Africa
Thailand
Tuvalu
U.S. of America
Uruguay
We got plenty of company either way.
Uh, I posted the ones with one official language that was not English. They make my point as well as the ones that have english as the sole official language. There is nothing magical about English in the broad contest, the question is whether a country should have a single official language.
Actually we don’t. Now I don’t think this is a pure numbers game. I just wanted to show that there were a LOT of coutries that had one official language, which I did. But if you think the actual numbers matter, it may pain you to note that the number of countries that have multiple or no official language is 54. The number that have one official language is 116. So by your own criteria you’ve built an argument for having the U.S. join with the 116. Thanks for your help.
When few are involved, yes. However you are once again ignoring the history of many; the Spain of Franco, for example, repressed other languages that had as much history of being in Spain other than Castellano, it was a factor that lead to the separatist movements today.
Some yahoos in Europe fall to the same idea that those groups trying to keep their language is divisive, when in reality it was the other way around, the repression of the language and their culture was not a cure.
I see only an effort to stop the ongoing flow of ideas.
Funny counterpoint here: in Phoenix there is a Ranch Market that is Mexican. Next to it there is a Chinese restaurant, the Chinese owner gets lots of Mexican clients. He would lose customers if he drops the Spanish signs and menu items and changing one of the big TV from from Spanish to English, I would have to assume he would tell you to take a hike, he came to America to do business, not to impose one culture to others, but I think he offers a more simple lesson: how to make money and prosper in such “horrid” “exclusionary” settings, He is following the American dream regardless. It is part of the American culture alright, too bad it is not good enough for people like you.
In simple terms: When you follow crackpots, it leads you to speak like one.
You left a couple of other options out like no language or multiple languages. Our position isn’t that strange. We share our current position with our good neighbor to the South apparently. Funny that Canada, our good neighbor to the North, isn’t listed.
If you want to play smart ass math games, you add up population numbers, look at the G-8 nation’s positions, etc. Sheer numbers weren’t my point, just that we had some good company outside of your sole language list.