At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
The opposition in Congress to making English the official language of the United States is a near perfect example of the failure of the current leadership in Washington to adopt a deeply held value of the American people. Eighty-five percent of Americans want the federal government to join with 30 states in making English the official language of the United States, and yet our elites consider the adoption of this value as a distraction or worse.
Consider the Democrat presidential debate Sunday . When asked for a show of hands, Mike Gravel was the only candidate to express support for English. Barack Obama said that the question "is designed precisely to divide us" and that "when we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people." If 85% of Americans support English as the official language of government, the only division is between Senator Obama and the American people.
Evita Clinton responded that she supported English as the "national" language but not the "official" language of the United States, since making English the official language would prevent the printing of foreign language ballots for U.S. elections.
It seems that only the elites can possibly see 85% support for a deeply held American value as divisive and think it is acceptable to express support for English as long as it does not actually have any meaning.
" There are no important jobs or positions that accommodates any language but English, no schools of higher learning, no govt jobs, so what good would it do to say "
1.) Make up a language
2.) Sue government for not providing the voting ballot in your new language
3.) profit
I found step 2!!!
Why the government needs to only be required to provide things in one language.
It's stupid and you can say that won't happen all you want but it's not any worse than half of the lawsuits that people file and sometimes win now a days. Top Ten Frivolous Lawsuits - LegalZoom.com
The immigrants themselves when polled agree . 3,000 Hispanic adults were polled by the Pew Hispanic Center in December, 2002. 91% of foreign-born Latino immigrants agree that learning English is essential to succeed in the U.S. The Carnegie Corporation poll showed by a 2-1 that immigrants say the U.S. should expect new immigrants to learn English. And I already cited a Rasmussen and a Zogby poll that showed 85 % of Americans favor English as the official language........
And it makes perfect sense . I would not move to Spain or Mexico without learning Spanish nor would I expect any accommodation by their govt to publish bilingual information on my behalf.
By a bi-partisan vote of 64-33, the U.S. Senate passed the amendment .
Under the amendment, English would be declared the national language of the United States government, calling upon federal agencies to "preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America."
I just can't see what significant changes having English as the official language of the USA, could bring at this time, other than to be a wedge of division, and distract us from the real issues of border security, and immigration reforms.
If every document released by government, at any level, was "required" to publish, either in print or online, in all the languages spoken in the United States today, it would be boggling to begin to attempt and financially a disaster. If English was the "Official" language, by law, the burden would be on the non-English speakers. Someone pointed out earlier that some things are already bilingual. Nothing wrong with that, but the burden shouldn't be foisted upon government to try keeping up.
The non-English speakers are the ones who are burdened and harmed socially by not knowing English. Also, which immigrant group is demanding that all English government documents be printed and published in all immigrant languages as you seem to be indicating? Additionally, I really don't see why an effort should be made to make things more difficult for these people than they already are. If you really want to economize on tax dollars, as you seem, to say you do, then it would be more relevant to focus on foreign policy wherein countries like Communist Korea and Islamic countries such as Jordan receive a generous portion of your cherished tax dollars while you complain about government pamphlet printing. Such an attitude might lead some to conclude that you adhere to a biased double standard.
United States 2004 Foreign Aid
Lane Vanderslice
ECONOMIC AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO ALLIES AND STRATEGIC AREAS
Economic Support Fund $2,132 million (The largest recipients by country are: Egypt $575 million; Israel $480 million; Jordan $250 million; West Bank/Gaza $75 million)
International Military Education and Training (IMET) $92 million
Foreign Military Financing Program $4,394 million. (The largest recipients are Israel, $2,160 million, Egypt $1,300 million and Jordan, $206 million.)
ASSISTANCE TO EASTERN EUROPE AND THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States $445 million
Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union $587 million
Contribution to the (World Bank) International Development Association $913 million
Contribution to the Asian Development Fund $144 million
Contributions to the Africa Development Fund and Bank $150 million
Perhaps someone should require Telemundo to broadcast in English, or El Nuevo Herald be in English as well. tomder55 was right to say if we traveled to another country, we would attempt to learn their language.
Just keeping it fair.
Linear Mode
