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.

Why should america have a single official language?? I think one of the good things about america is its eclectic mix of races, cultures and languages. Why ruin your unique and risk excluding minoroties...

If a majority of the population wants to have Bush impeached would that happen?

Ashley

Which country do you live in ? Here our diversity has historically worked because through the assimilation process English was the presumed language and I believe the glue that bonded us together.

Needkarma

Impeachment resolutions have been introduced by that flake Congressman Denis Kucinich (against Vice President Cheney) . They will go no where because there is not that growing ground swell ,and certainly not a majority of Americans who think it necessary or proper to do so .

So there you have it, it does matter what the majority of the population wants, the politicians will do what they wish to do.

What's the benefit of having english as the official language?

I don't know the answer but if I went to Germany, France, England, Poland, Mexico, Columbia, or Russia, and I went into their government offices, Can I demand that all the paper work I have to fill out to get permits be in English? Will their governments pay to provide language tutors for me. If I go into their county with no proper ID will I be allowed to live and work?

Capuchin

I answered that question to Ashley :

Here our diversity has historically worked because through the assimilation process English was the presumed language and I believe the glue that bonded us together.
Official English would reinforce America's historic message to new immigrants - that we expect them to learn English in their assimilation.

Official English doesn't mean "English only." None of the 30 states with official English laws prohibit government agencies from using another languages when there is a compelling public interest for doing so. All this would stipulate is that English as our official language means that for the government to act officially, it must communicate in English;the language of record is the English language.

If I moved to another country I would have to learn that language. Should the US expect less from those who would live here ?

Hmm, in that case I would probably agree.

Here in England it is the case that immigrants must be seen to be learning the language.

Chuck, Yes, you should be always able to get documents in the language of your choice. I know this is the case in England. But the English document is the only one provided as standard.

Information about Switzerland (http://www.about.ch/)

Switzerland has four official languages and they don't seem to be falling apart too soon. In the U.S. English seems to be the defacto language already with the government supporting the teaching of spanish. Pockets of immigrants exist in every country. It's their problem if they can't speak the defacto language.

Needkarma

Fair point . However ,this has been historically true with them ,and I do not think the comparison fits because their languages are not from a rapid influx of a new population. The only historical comparison I can come up with from US experience is the large infusion of Irish immigrants into the U.S. at the end of the 19th century (part of my ancestry ).

As I mentioned above ;they did not expect that they would be able to function in their new country without learning English . This has been true of any wave of immigration in the past .

But , today with the large influx of Hispanics ,and the PC emphasis going from "melting pot" to diverse mosaic there seems to be less of an impetus .

To be honest I am quite surprised that the U.S. does not have an official language stipulation. Here in Canada we have two official languages but we don't have the influx of mexicans and others like you guys do.

Yes and that leads me to another related topic . Is the Quebec separatist movement serious ?

It has lost steam (I'm originally from Montreal). Mostly because a lot of English residents and businesses have moved out and what remains functions as they kind of want i.e.. French first, English second.

Barack Obama said that the question "is designed precisely to divide us"

From rule no. 38 in the Official Democratic Guide to Campaigning, following no. 37; "Disenfranchised - say it early, say it often."


Evita Clinton responded that she supported English as the "national" language but not the "official" language

From rule no. 7, "Ambiguity is my friend," preceding no. 8; "Anything but answer the question."

You'd think with all the bluster about their "mandate from the American people" they could see 85% as a mandate.

Ok, Let Me See Now, English Has The Official Language.

Now Will That Be Northern Eastern English, Or Southern English, Midwestern English, Southwestern English, West Coast English, Northern Western English, Midwest English.

We Have Many Various English Dialects In This Country, Which One Would Be The Official Lanaguage??

We Have Many Various English Dialects In This Country, Which One Would Be The Official Lanaguage??

That's a no-brainer, we should be talkin' Texan.

Great, a whole nation saying nuclear and misunderestimated.

I've been around the world, doing business of varying types, and something has stood out to me from the beginning. English is THE language of aviation (which is worldwide) and of business (at least of large international transactions). We didn't force this--it just happened on the part of those nations that wanted to do business with the U.S. which apparently is most or all of them.

Now, I'm not claiming some national superiority thing or anything ridiculous like that. However, I keep hearing two different things concerning America:

1. America, being an incredibly strong nation, should be "leading" the world. This includes mopping up any messes made by others, and getting involved in affairs that have nothing to do with us.

2. America should stay out of the affairs of other nations when they don't have a direct bearing on us or our interests.

Funny, I've actually heard both of these viewpoints come out of the same mouth on more than one occasion. Personally, I lean more toward #2, but that's an altogether different discussion.

But if we are to fall in line with #1, then shouldn't our language be the standard? If we're going to be in charge of every d$!* thing to come down the pipe, then in the interest of effective problem solving, English should be the language. How can that ever happen if we can't even agree on what to speak on our own soil?

If we fall in line with #2, then we should do things the way we darn well want to, and if we want English spoken on our soil, then so be it.

Here's an example that I think is more relevant to this discussion:
A few days ago, I had to have some minor surgery (minor to the doc, major to me) done, which necessitated the use of some fairly tightly controlled painkillers. I go to the drugstore to get my prescription filled (anybody know the Stones song? :) ), and I'm in line behind a group of people who are obviously of Hispanic origin. Which is no big deal to me. Those of you who don't know me don't know that my wife is Native American (Comanche to be exact), and my stepson is Hispanic. But I digress. These folks were absolutely infuriated that there was no one available that spoke Spanish. It struck me funny that they were angry at the clerk who is Pakistani, and has only been here for three years and has learned EXCELLENT English. I know, because I helped put him through college, and remember him when he first arrived. In any event, once they got done using every Spanish swear word they knew, they switched to pretty darn good English. SO THEY KNEW IT, AND JUST Didn't"T WANT TO USE IT!!! Maybe it was the pain, or maybe it was my own personal proclivity to stir up an already boiling pot, but I interjected, and gave them a few sentences about what I thought----in French. They became angry, and said they "didn't speak whatever babble I was using." I pretended to become offended that they didn't speak French. The point started sinking in a little bit. Then, in perfect Texas English, I said, "As I was driving here, I passed two banks and a post office. Over all of them, the American flag was still flying. You know what that means? It means WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK A DAMN THING BUT ENGLISH HERE."

My wife's family, in order to be able to thrive in America, at some point had to put aside their native tongue and learn English. For generations, immigrants from every point on the globe have been making the effort to learn English to better assimilate and thrive in their new home. They wanted to be AMERICANS, not Poles/Germans/Japanese/Vietnamese/Mexicans/etc. who happened to live in America. There's a difference, you know. And it's the fact that people can't or won't grasp that difference that is the problem.

No one is making anyone give up their culture or their language. However, for the sake of efficiency and yes, national unity (we ARE a nation, you know), it is in everyone's best interest to settle on ONE official language to be used in all official national (and state, and local) transactions.

I figure if nothing else, the tree huggers should be voting for it. How many government/school papers do you get that are twice as long as they need to be, because they're printed in at least two languages? What a colossal waste of resources that is.

The bottom line is this: The very fact that this has become an issue suggests an unravelling of what makes us Americans is quickly occurring. The language thing is just one of the more visible indicators of that.

DK

Good post DK. I agree with your points.

Great, a whole nation saying nucular and misunderestimated.

I can pronounce nōō-klē-әr just fine thank you, but if worries you that folks that say "y'all" and "fixin' to" build and maintain (http://www.pantex.com/) those nōō-klē-әr weapons I can't be of much help. :D

I hope I'm far enough away!

Switzerland is a tiny country with no where near the social issues that the U.S. has. That this country is a Melting Polt. Meaning we get together and celebrate and share our differences, but to do that we have to speak the same language. Otherwise language will keep us separated. I get po's every time I have to press one for english. I don't have any problem with "legal immigration" but I think a requirement to have any kind of citizenship in this country you had better speak english. Can you imagine if we tried to accommodate everyone in this country, multiple asian languages, spanish, german, french , farsi, etc... We can be differerent but we have to be able to communicate.

I don't think that commonality of language is what motivates one American be decent to another American. I think that there are other far more significant criteria involved in the American mind of which language is just one very small factor. Remove the language issue and the remainder and far-more significant obstacles to acceptance would remain virtually intact.

Furthermore the idea that language is the unbreakable ultimate cement keeping the country from flying apart is hogwash. Why? Simple. Because the country flew apart during the Civil War which was fought between English speakers and which the North won with the help of foreign language speaking immigrants. How's that for cement?
In my opinion






In any case, here is a website I found interesting:


Do You Speak American . Sea to Shining Sea . American Varieties | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/)

The Civil War was fought to correct an unresolved issue that was compromised to a deadlock since the beginning of the nation. But I'm glad you brought it up . It reinforces my position . Prior to the Civil War the nation was referred to as these United States .After the war it has been more commonly referred to as the United States . That may be a subtle distinction but it's implications are enormous. Before the war one would call themselves Virginian if they lived in the States . Today someone from the State would call themselves an American first .

The Civil War was fought to correct an unresolved issue that was compromised to a deadlock since the beginning of the nation. But I'm glad you brought it up . It reinforces my position . Prior to the Civil War the nation was referred to as these United States .After the war it has been more commonly referred to as the United States . That may be a subtle distinction but it's implications are enormous. Before the war one would call themselves Virginian if they lived in the States . Today someone from the State would call themselves an American first .


I am familiar with the issues leading up to the Civil War. Why the nation was torn apart is irrelevant to the fact that most Americans spoke English and this supposedly strong unifying force didn't make any difference in keeping the country from a bloody four year Civil War. Actually, neither did the speaking of English prevent the establishment of Jim Crow against other English speakers, which finally led to the Civil Rights Movement and riots by black English speakers when other white English speakers didn't pay attention to their plight. So in light of such blatant disregard for the rights of English speaking Americans by other English speaking Americans, I find it difficult to consider the speaking of a same language as being the strong unifier that its being touted to be.

I have to agree that One official language is the way to go.
In Canada we have two English and French.
The problem comes when you try to accommodate the other. One is always the first language and it causes resentment with the other.
The cost to business having to provide service and product labelling is onerus.
Its not really the "official" status that is the problem however. The real issue is government trying to provide services in many languages. If services are available in someone's language of origin the NEED to speak English is diminished.
I can't discriminate in hiring because the person doesn't speak English even though the vast majority of my customers speak only English. I am amazed when I meet people that have been in the country for thirty years and still don't speak the language.
Anyone ever hear of the Tower of Babel? What better way to destroy a project or a country that have everyone speaking a different language.

Hello tom:

I just find it interesting that right wingers think they can change ingrained behavior with the stroke of a pen, and then they're surprised when people don't tow the line.

Making English our official language isn't going to make more people speak English. It's just going to make it more difficult for those who don't. My Grandma was one of them. What?? Your grandma wasn't?? Oh yes she was...

The idea is mean spirited, and in my view, anti-American.

excon

Hummm... wonder how a bratwurst taco would taste?

Hello tom:

I just find it interesting that right wingers think they can change ingrained behavior with the stroke of a pen, and then they're surprised when people don't tow the line.

Making English our official language isn't going to make more people speak English. It's just going to make it more difficult for those who don't. My Grandma was one of them. What??? Your grandma wasn't???? Oh yes she was.....

The idea is mean spirited, and in my view, anti-American.

excon

That's exactly what the article on the following site says:
Official English/English Only (http://www.elladvocates.org/englishonly.html)

I have to agree that One official language is the way to go.
In Canada we have two English and French.
The problem comes when you try to accommodate the other. One is always the first language and it causes resentment with the other.
The cost to business having to provide service and product labeling is onerous.
Its not really the "official" status that is the problem, however. The real issue is government trying to provide services in many languages. If services are available in someone's language of origin the NEED to speak English is diminished.
I can't discriminate in hiring because the person doesn't speak English even though the vast majority of my customers speak only English. I am amazed when I meet people that have been in the country for thirty years and still don't speak the language.
Anyone ever hear of the Tower of Babel? What better way to destroy a project or a country that have everyone speaking a different language.



Black slaves, who spoke their native African languages when they arrived here were literally forced via threats of death and torture to speak only English and after they learned English, they were then flogged if they attempted to read English. Is that the unity that speaking the same language brings? Or was the insistence that they speak English really motivated by some other less noble factor? The Irish spoke English upon arrival and were considered subhuman and discriminated against. One reason was that even though they spoke English they were Catholics which from the English-speaking American's viewpoint was far more significant in terms of acceptance than their speaking English.

Language Policy - Official English (http://www.elladvocates.org/media/Engonly/MH22may06.html)


BTW
Your Tower Of Babel idea doesn't have statistical support.
Is that why you fail to provide any?


Excerpt
Proportionally speaking, non-English speakers were nearly three times as numerous in 1890 census (3.6%) than in 2000 census (1.3%). State-level comparisons show an even greater contrast. New Mexico was 65.1% non-English-speaking in 1890 vs. 1.6% in 2000; Wisconsin, 11.4% vs. 0.3%; Minnesota, 10.3% vs. 0.4%; Louisiana, 8.4% vs. 0.1%; and New Hampshire, 5.7% vs. 0.1%.

English as the nation's dominant language is no more threatened at the turn of the 21st century than it was at the turn of the 20th. To the contrary, it is all the other languages that are endangered – and would soon die out, if not for the replenishing effects of immigration. (Sadly, the process of extinction is already in advanced stages for most Native American tongues.) There are certainly no indications that Anglicization is slowing down. If anything, it is speeding up


Official English/English Only (http://www.elladvocates.org/englishonly.html)

Wow. How did you twist the discussion about about english as the official language to a diatribe about slaves two hundred years ago.
Nobody is talking about private citizens using whatever language they want.
Put up a sign in your store window in any language you want.Operate you business in any language you want.
If you want government service deal in one language. The costs to the taxpayers go down, efficiency goes up. I don't really see the confusion or problem with a simple solution to a problem.


And what did you not understand about the Tower of Babel. It is a clear example of what happens if people can't communicate. Statistical support?? What are you talking about.

Did you know that 87.3% of people that quote statistics just make up the numbers.


The story of Babel in case you haven't heard it.

The Tower of Babel

Many generations after Noah, when the whole earth still spoke the same language, people traveled to a plain in the Middle East and settled there.

Then they said to one another, "Let's build a city and a tower, and let's make a name for ourselves, so we won't be scattered around the whole earth."
Building Tower of Babel. Copyrighted.
The people made a tower designed for worshiping the sun, moon and stars. Mankind had chosen to worship God's creations instead of the Lord Himself.

This decision was a direct refusal to obey God's command to go out and fill the earth. Also, the tower was designed for worshiping the sun, moon and stars. Mankind had chosen to worship God's creations instead of the Lord Himself. The Lord looked upon the city and tower which these people were building.

And He said, "Behold, the people are organizing as one group and since they all speak the same language, nothing they imagine to do will be held back from them. Let us go down and confuse their language, so that they cannot understand each other's speech." And the Lord mixed up their language, causing them to stop building the city.
Leaving the Tower of Babel. Copyrighted.

Therefore the name of that city became "Babel", which means confusion; because there the Lord multiplied language on the earth, causing people to scatter abroad.

A fictional story (Babel) doesn't add anything to a discussion that involves running a country.

I saw a comment somewhere before let me see.

"So that's it then; any article that you don't like you will simply discredit the source. Figures."

Recognize that?

The Babel story couldn't be more suited to this topic. Just because you don't like the source doesn't make it wrong.

Excon ; my grandparents managed fine without the nation accommodating their native language in official documents. They came here with the expectation that they would become Americans and that meant learning the language .

Starman

The truth is that the nation had a sectional problem that pre-dated nationhood. I would have to say that an honest assessment of US history shows that in the short time between the adoption of the Federal govt. and the civil war (1791 - 1860 , a short 70 years) there was never a time when one could truly say the country was united . Including the Southern secession there were at least 3 serious movements attempting disunion.
The Northern win in the Civil War sort of forced the issue.

Ken,
In a way you're right. In the thread where you pulled the quote the sources were newspapers and they were reporting facts. A simili to this situation would be if I used a quote from a Stephen King novel as backup to my argument.

It seems to me that there are two issues here. One is who should be "required" to learn English. All present citizens? All new applicants for citizenship? All legal residents? All visitors? All persons making a phone call to a U.S. telephone? And wherever you draw that line, how will it be enforced, and at what cost?

A second issue is which (if any) government services and publications must be, may be, or shall not be (?) provided in languages other than English. Visa applications in foreign embassies and consulates? International trade and commerce regulations and requirements? And what about private businesses that provide services to the public? Should they be prevented from providing non-english speakers services in their own language?

These are fairly complex questions that depend on a lot of details about particular circumstances to know what is really in the best interests of the nation in each case. In the face of this complexity, what exactly does it mean to declare English to be the "official" language? Not much, it seems to me. Mostly, it looks to me like another form of anti-immigrant prejudice. Making life as inconvenient as possible for non-english speakers is a not-very-subtle way of saying "Go home, foreigner, we don't want your kind here". Never mind that for most of us who are here, you wouldn't have to go back more than a generation or two to find "their kind".

Wow. How did you twist the discussion about about english as the official language to a diatribe about slaves two hundred years ago.
Nobody is talking about private citizens using whatever language they want.
Put up a sign in your store window in any language you want.Operate you business in any language you want.
If you want government service deal in one language. the costs to the taxpayers go down, efficiency goes up. I don't really see the confusion or problem with a simple solution to a problem.


And what did you not understand about the Tower of Babel. It is a clear example of what happens if people can't communicate. Statistical support??? What are you talking about.

Did you know that 87.3% of people that quote statistics just make up the numbers.


The story of Babel in case you haven't heard it.

The Tower of Babel

Many generations after Noah, when the whole earth still spoke the same language, people traveled to a plain in the Middle East and settled there.

Then they said to one another, "Let's build a city and a tower, and let's make a name for ourselves, so we won't be scattered around the whole earth."
Building Tower of Babel. Copyrighted.
The people made a tower designed for worshiping the sun, moon and stars. Mankind had chosen to worship God's creations instead of the Lord Himself.

This decision was a direct refusal to obey God's command to go out and fill the earth. Also, the tower was designed for worshiping the sun, moon and stars. Mankind had chosen to worship God's creations instead of the Lord Himself. The Lord looked upon the city and tower which these people were building.

And He said, "Behold, the people are organizing as one group and since they all speak the same language, nothing they imagine to do will be held back from them. Let us go down and confuse their language, so that they cannot understand each other's speech." And the Lord mixed up their language, causing them to stop building the city.
Leaving the Tower of Babel. Copyrighted.

Therefore the name of that city became "Babel", which means confusion; because there the Lord multiplied language on the earth, causing people to scatter abroad.



It encourages discriminatory persecution of an already persecuted minority via condemnation of their language as a threat to national unity. It can also be easily perceived as encouragement to persecute. No, you and other reasonable persons might not see it that way. But there are enough misguided fanatically inclined ignorants who will see it as a license to either commence discriminating, continue to discriminate, or intensify their discrimination with the perceived OFFICIAL APPROVAL of their government.


No twisting is being attempted. Only a provision of examples in which a common language fails to produce unity in response to the claims that language is the primary cement holding cultures together. It would be nice if having a common language worked in that way. Unfortunately history provides ample evidence to the contrary. The English and the English colonists of the original thirteen colonies which eventually became the USA, all spoke the same language but went at each others' throats due to political differences. The Spanish-speaking colonial settlers did the same against Spanish-speaking Spain. Today it's the controversial national foreign policies which are being divisive and not the supposed or bogus threat to the English language.


Yes, I am familiar with the Babel incident and agree that it led to the dispersal of mankind based on inability to communicate. What I don't agree with is using it as being a situation toward which we are headed. Present circumstances don't justify that kind of hypothetical chaotic eventuality and neither do the present statistics prove that we are heading in that direction. In fact that kind of linguistic pandemonium you describe would require an act of God and could never be reached via cultural dynamics. In fact, that's the reason why we have never seen this happen without the divine intervention.

BTW
Assuming that statistics are bogus simply because you disagree with them is not good scholarship. The information provided was acquired from Language Policy Research Unit » Blog Archive » Demographic Data (http://www.language-policy.org/blog/?p=19) If indeed the source of the statistics is questionable or the information itself has been provided in a biased way then it is your responsibility as the accuser to prove it.

Ordinaryguy.

No one who is a proponent is anti-immigration. That to me is a cheap shot. In fact I'd say the opposite is the case . By promoting "diversity " and other such PC. Nonsense what we are creating is in essence a growing underclass in the nation. As long as you pander you are diminishing people's ability to advance.

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. What are you saying?. that 85 % of Americans are xenophobic ? ;that the immigrants themselves are wrong ?

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.

The legislation in question is the S.I. Hayakawa National Language Amendment Act of 2007, offered by Sen. James Inhofe as a rider to the recent comprehensive immigration bill . WEBCommentary(tm) - Far left opposes English as official language in U.S. (http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=phyrillast&date=070607)


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."

The measure does not prohibit information and documents in languages other than English, it clarifies that while a government agency can opt to provide services in English, citizens do not have an affirmative right to ask for such services. An exception is made for existing federal law, such as in health care and judicial matters where bi-lingual documents are and should be published.

Excon

Ron Paul indicated in the last debate that he favors English as the official language . So does Lew Rockwell .

Again Switzerland in barely bigger than our smallest state. You can compare grapes to watersmelons, as it were. To answer ashley 19 , italians and other ethnic groups speak english when they get here yet they seem to keep there ethnic uniqueness. It's fine to speak the language in your home but have you ever been somewhere and heard people speaking another language in front of you. It's rude and usually done so they can talk about you. Sharing a language doesn't diminish the ethnic group from keeping their cultural heritage.

If you want to be a citizen you must speak the language, that is where the line should be drawn.

So a compulsory language test before citizenship is granted? That actually makes good sense. I can see a new business sector cropping up from this: "Pass Citizenship Language Test With Only 4 Days of Classes."

My immigrant ancesters from germany and russia had to assimilate to the language, why shouldn't others.

Hello again, tom:

Why does it bother you so much that other people speak a language different than yours? Is it really the cost of printing?? Somehow, I don't think so. Is it because you think you should be able to speak English when you shop at your local bodega? Where in the bill of rights does it say that you have the right to be spoken to in Engligh??

I'm sorry. The only reason that I can possibly think you want to do this is racisim.

excon

To all ;

This never was about which language someone chooses to speak . That is a 1st Amendment right.

Below is what I said of the bill rider that was passed in debate last week . It is about how far the Federal Government is required to go to accommodate multiple languages spoken by new immigrants .


The measure does not prohibit information and documents in languages other than English, it clarifies that while a government agency can opt to provide services in English, citizens do not have an affirmative right to ask for such services. An exception is made for existing federal law, such as in health care and judicial matters where bi-lingual documents are and should be published.

my immigrant ancesters from germany and russia had to assimilate to the language, why shouldn't others.Hello again, levy:

And, so did mine. However, citizenship wasn't denied them because they didn't speak English, and that's what you're now promoting.

Assimilation and citizenship AREN'T the same thing.

excon

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.
Why isn't already automatically "Official?" Isn't the dollar the official currency? Did we have to vote on that? Isn't DC the official Capitol? I don't rember a vote.

Just curious : When something like this comes up, and say goes before congress, isn't it presented in English? Discussed in English? The findings printed in English? Any rulings that become, get "handed into law" in English?

What other sovereign nation, with the intestinal fortitude to try correcting the wrongs of this planet, has had to endure such an assault on its very own sovereignty?

Do you remember "the spoke story?"... This "wheel" has been turning for hundreds of years. Every so often a new spoke gets added. All the old spokes shift a little while the new spoke works hard to fit into something that's already working. A little wobbly at first then as the new spoke adjust, the wheel straightens out and continues.

If it was easy...

Hello again:

Here we are all caught up in semantics. But, we ARE talking about English... So, let's see if we can actually use the language to communicate.

I have no problem with English being proclaimed the "official" language. I DO think it's rather stupid because, as Captain Rich pointed out, English IS our official language. It IS our official language, just because. Nobody had to declare it so, and I don't understand the need to do it now?

So, tell me, in our official language, specifically what you want to happen when English is declared to be "official"?? Does it mean that you will no longer print any "official" document in any language other than English?? If so, are you for this to save on printing costs?? Do you believe that crap yourself??

excon

I agree with excon, english is already the official language. How could we answers the posts and questions if it were not.

Oui, je crois que c'est l'intention de la personne qui a posé la question originalement.

Oui, je crois que c'est l'intention de la personne qui a posé la question originalement.


Ok, I got he message.:)

Thanks Captain

It would seem self evident.

And again I have to say again because this thread has morphed into some positions I cannot support. This is no a restriction on someone's right to speak any language they choose ;nor do I think that English spoken should be a pre-requisite.

This is a question of the obligation of the various governments to accommodate . excon who claims libertarianism would evidently compel the people no matter their feelings and in spite of the expense to foot the bill to create a dejure biligual nation . I say where we have already created bilingual systems we have gone far and beyond what is reasonably mandate.

If every document released by government, at any level, was "required" to publish, either in print or online, in all the lanuages 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 bi-lingual. Nothing wrong with that, but the burden shouldn't be foisted upon government to try keeping up.

Excon who claims libertarianism would evidently compel the people no matter their feelings and in spite of the expense to foot the bill to create a dejure biligual nation .Hello again, tom:

Bilingual?? How about multilingual??

As a good libertarian, I do feel a government hands OFF this situation would be best. That's what we have now - no official language. I'm fine with that.

But, you bring up the costs of printing again as a reason to do this. I think it's an excuse for the real reason, which is racist.

Indeed, I can probably print out any document that my computer can find, in any language I want. The government computers can do that too. If they can't, it shouldn't cost too much to make them. As a libertarian, AND A GOOD NEIGHBOR, I think it's the least we should do to welcome our newcomers.

So, I'm not buying this "cost of printing" crap. There's another reason that you're not saying. As long as you don't say it, I'm left to think it's racism.

excon

Ex


So how many languages would you mandate the gvt. To print.


You can throw the charge of racism all you want. But early on in this discussion I revealed my motives

Capuchin asked : What's the benefit of having english as the official language?

To which I replied :

Capuchin



Here our diversity has historically worked because through the assimilation process English was the presumed language and I believe the glue that bonded us together.

Official English would reinforce America's historic message to new immigrants - that we expect them to learn English in their assimilation.

Official English doesn't mean "English only." None of the 30 states with official English laws prohibit government agencies from using another languages when there is a compelling public interest for doing so. All this would stipulate is that English as our official language means that for the government to act officially, it must communicate in English;the language of record is the English language.



Read any other motive you wish into it . What I do not want is Balkanization of the US.

So how many languages would you mandate the gvt. to print.Hello again, tom:

I'm glad you asked.

I think the stuff that needs printed ahead of time should be done in English. If anybody wants to read it in some other language, they can go to a website where they can read it or download it and print it. Or if they don't have access to a computer, they can call a toll free number and have it mailed.

I'll bet it can be completely automated, and I think it'll be really cheap to run.

What government document couldn't be handled that way? Ballots? We count mail in ballots, don't we? They're received in the mail by the voter. They could be printed in the language of the voter simply and cheaply.

I don't know. What am I missing here?

excon

PS> (edited) Please again tom, I don't think YOU are a racist. I know you better than that. I do, however, think the policy you support is.

Fact- You can't deal with the public or anyone else in anything but English.
Fact-Unless you want to do yards or pick tomato's, all your life, you will learn English
Fact-Mandating an official language is a racist and separatist policy in a diverse culture, and what good would it do?? This is a non issue to my way of thinking, as its very low on the totem pole as far as things that need to be done, that goes to the greater good. It only says I speak English and so should you, 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 English must be official if not to denigrate a whole class of people as being inferior?

A nation of immigrants needs an official language . It cannot work any other way.

Excon ;I'm glad you have so much faith in gvt's ability to reproduce accurate translations . I don't and I believe I have history on my side.

What you may not realize is that the cost of multilingual government goes well beyond the price of extra printing or even the salaries for multilingual staff members. (the city of L.A. spends in excess of $1,000,000 annually printing multi-lingual ballots)

The question of translation accuracy seldom arises. It should. If a government agency's "official" translation turns out to be wrong, what does that mean legally?

This question of errors is not theoretical. In 1994, during the New York City election , the city erroneously printed the Chinese character for 'no' as a translation for 'yes'.

There was a big flap when HUD spokeswoman Ginny Terzano issued a Haitian Creole translation pamphlet with words that appeared to mock the accent " (signed by "Sekretary Andrew M. Cuomo fella")

"Yuh as a rezedent, ave di rights ahn di rispansibilities to elp mek yuh
HUD-asisted owzing ah behta owme fi yuh ahn yuh fambily. Dis is a brochure
distributed to yuh cawze Hud ah provide some fawm ahf asistance aur
subsidy fi di whole apawtment buildin. As ah pawt ahfits dedication fi
maintain di bes pawsible living enviornment fi all rezedents, yuh HUD
field affice encourage ahn suppowts . . ."We ave a pawtnaship wid everi rezedent of
HUD-assisted owzing developments: HUD prowtekss di rights ahf di tenants,
ahn tenants gauwd dem own right tru rispansible be'aviah. Owah goal is fi
guh beyan dat pawtnaship ahn create a sense ahf community . . .""

In fact this was an honest attempt to comply with mandates .This was a HUD document ;Resident Rights and Responsibilities , that was also published in Spanish,
French, Ethiopian, Korean, Portuguese, Russian,and God knows which other language.

And by the way ;why didn't the founders add it to the Constitution ? Because they did not think about it. Even though there was a very large German population in the new Republic they rejected outright the notion of printing copies of federal law in any language but English .

With the Louisiana purchase the gvt. Did not start publishing in French . Instead ;in 1811, President James Madison signed the Louisiana Enabling Act, establishing the conditions under which Louisiana could become a state. It required the laws, records, and written proceedings of the new state to be in English.

Hello again, tom:

No, I have no faith in the governments' ability to do anything. But, if your only objection to my plan now is how it should be managed, then we're on the same page.

Right now, in the absence of an official language, states print or don't print because those people in that state decided to do it or not. There's no federal law mandating that they must. That's as it should be. No state should be forced by federal law to print or not print in any language they choose in that state.

I'm not advocating for translators or salaries. What I advocated above, is all I advocate for - a web site, good software, and a toll free number.

IF, however, there ARE paid translators, it must be because there's a NEED for them. The policy you advocate for would make them illegal.

What do you have against those who would need such a service? In court, don't you think a non English speaker should be told of the charges against him in a language he understands? I guess not. You should pardon me if I think that's kind of racist.

excon

Ex speak with forked tongue:
You DO believe your govt can help. We both know better than that, Bro.

There is no federal mandate for inter-state cross-checking of drivers license info, but after living in Fl for over a decade, a ticket I got ( and obviously forgot about ) while I lived in NH but while driving in NY... in 1995... all came back to haunt me when I misplaced my current valid Fl license and had requested a duplicate. That NY ticket had to be cleared, then NH wanted their share for suspending me there as well, then I got to pay Fl their due... I could go on...

You are also taking for granted everyone has a comp or internet access.

Translators wouldn't be illegal, just someone else's responsibility.

As far as court? Did you hear about the gays who want to sue a couples website because the site doesn't provide what they request. You cannot require someone or some venue to sell what they don't offer. If we didn't offer translation in court, is it the courts fault you don't speak the language of the country who's laws you just broke?

" 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 "

So far.

History tells us that immigrants will assimilate, without legislation as to an official languange

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 (http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article11331.html)

There's another reason that you're not saying. As long as you don't say it, I'm left to think it's racism.

excon

I already gave you my reasoning .Accept them or not . The cost of printing was not my motive ;you brought it up .See post #4and # 8 .

If I'm a racist then the 85 % of Americans who agree with the position I take and the majority of the immigrants cited in 2 polls are also racists .

Where did you get the "85%" figure anyway?

NeedKarma

Refer to post # 39


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.

The legislation in question is the The S.I. Hayakawa National Language Amendment Act of 2007, offered by Sen. James Inhofe as a rider to the recent comprehensive immigration bill . WEBCommentary(tm) - Far left opposes English as official language in U.S. (http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=phyrillast&date=070607)


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

World Hunger Notes -- 2004 United States Foreign Aid Appropriations (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/04/global/2004_foreign_aid.htm)


Facts About the Military Budget (http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/budget/fy03facts.html)

It's their problem if they can't speak the defacto language.
That's all I've been saying. Thank you, Dear Neighbor!

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.

Here's my take on this topic.

I am the son and grandson of immigrants, the first member of my family born in this country. My grandparents were born in Poland before the Holocaust, and my parents were born in German DP camps afterward. All of my grandparents were Holocaust survivors, and all had tattooed numbers on their wrists.

My grandparents came through Poland, Russia and Germany before coming to the United States. In passing through those countries, they became fluent in Polish, Russian and German. Additionally, since Yiddish was the language they spoke at home, that too is a language that they were fluent in. Then they came to the USA and made lives for themselves here... and they learned English in order to get by in this country.

Learning English didn't stop them from exhibiting their cultural background... they were all Orthodox Jews and were proud of that fact, as were my parents and I. Learning Polish, Russian and German didn't eliminate their cultural identity either. As a matter of fact, Hitler kind of made sure that even those Jews who learned German and became good German citizens went to the gas chambers, so language most certainly was not an eliminator of cultural or national identity. So the idea that learning English will somehow eliminate a particular group's ability to maintain a cultural identity is a straw argument. People who come to this country and refuse to learn English aren't doing so to maintain their cultural identity. They are doing it because they are lazy.

My grandparents ran a candy store on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. They could have done business exclusively in Yiddish if they had wanted to. Of course, that would have meant that they would have been excluding English speakers from doing business with them. Being smart business people, they conducted business in English because everyone spoke that language. And in addition to that, they accommodated Yiddish, Polish, Russian and German speaking customers. But they didn't demand that people speak Yiddish to accommodate them. That would have just been bad business. And in the few cases where my grandparents had business with the government (since they refused to take welfare), they did so in English, because that was the de-facto language of government. They certainly didn't demand that the government accommodate them.

It seems to me that a private business should be able to conduct business in any language they wish to conduct business. However, if their customers can't understand that language, chances are they won't be customers for very long. Just as business owners can speak whatever language they wish, so too customers can refuse to speak any language they don't wish to speak. And chances are that if a business refuses to conduct business in English it won't last very long due to a lack of customers. We don't need to make English the official language of business in the USA. The market forces will do that for us. If a business can't survive if it doesn't speak English, it will cease to operate or else it will start doing business in English.

But no such market forces are in effect in government. The government cannot be forced to do business a specific way because (barring a coup) there is no way to force a government out of business through lack of clientele. So the questions becomes does the government have a requirement to accommodate people who refuse to speak English? In my opinion it does not have such a requirement, and I believe that this should be codified by making English the official language of government. This would do several things: 1) It would force people who are otherwise too lazy to learn English to learn it in order to conduct government business here, 2) It would eliminate one of the barriers to integration (I hate the term assimilation) of foreigners into the national community, 3) It would lower government expenses associated with translating forms into multiple languages and printing them in multiple forms... potentially saving millions and even billions of tax dollars.

Excon made the libertarian argument that the government should be hands-off on issues of language. I agree to this extent: the government should NOT be producing its forms in multiple languages. The government advocating multiple languages is as "hands-on" as government advocating a single language. Both constitute 'government interference... and in fact, advocating multiple languages is actually more "hands-on" than advocating a single language since the government pro-actively must provide translators and multiple-language forms. If you are arguing that the government should be hands-off, then it should be COMPLETELY hands-off and conduct business in a single language... English.

To those who have argued that "English only" would be an unnecessary hardship to immigrants, I have this question: Where in the Constitution (or anywhere else that is legally binding) does it say that immigration is supposed to be easy? When did the idea that immigration is supposed to be easy become the most important factor? Immigration was HARD for my grandparents. They were granted refugee status and STILL had to wait years before being able to come here. Then they worked like dogs to earn enough to survive without taking welfare. They learned the language, became successful enough to put their kids through college, with two of them becoming attorneys, one a social worker and two more going into the Real Estate business... and all of them becoming financially successful while still maintaining their Jewish identities. None of it was easy. Who said citizenship and immigration are supposed to be easy?

I support an English as a national language law.

Elliot

I disagree that an official pronouncement will force a "lazy" person into being unlazy.
Especially in places like Miami, Tampa, and Orlando Florida where the "lazy person" can spend his whole life comfortably speaking Spanish and do just fine. So if it's "lazy person" motivation you are after, you are going to have to do better than that. In my opinion

BTW

I don't see anyone here claiming that immigration should be easy. Although if they did, I see no reason for me to vehemently object based on the fact that it hasn't been easy for others. That's like saying that all immigrants should suffer all the indignities suffered by previous immigrants simply because previous immigrants suffered them. Or similar to the argument of "Since I was savagely whipped in order to be permitted in the club then the savage whippings should continue and membership should never be made any easier." Weird logic! Maybe it's your premise that's off.

Also, our government spends lavishly on foreign aid to countries which publicly state that they hate the United States and have thermo-nuclear missles aimed in our
Direction. Yet strangely, it doesn't ruffle any feathers. However, the idea of spending far less to help immigrants who admire the United States sends these same people into a frenzy. Care to explain?


Official Language a tongue-tied idea (http://www.seventy.org/transparency/HB2089/oped.html)

I disagree that an official pronouncement will force a "lazy" person into being unlazy.
Especially in places like Miami, Tampa, and Orlando Florida where the "lazy person" can spend his whole life comfortably speaking Spanish and do just fine. So if it's "lazy person" motivation you are after, you are going to have to do better than that. In my opinion

Perhaps that is true... but if they want to continue to get welfare or other government aid, they will be forced to do so in English. If they refuse to do so, G-d belss 'em... but our government doesn't have to accommodate them. They don't have to learn English, but our government doesn't have to learn Spanish either. And if they want government assistance, they will have to do so in English.

Don't you think that free government money will be enough to get people who are lazy to English to learn at least enough to ask for food stamps? I certainly think it will. And if it doesn't, then the government spends less on welfare. A win/win situation either way.


BTW

I don't see anyone here claiming that immigration should be easy. Although if they did, I see no reason for me to vehemently object based on the fact that it hasn't been easy for others. That's like saying that all immigrants should suffer all the indignities suffered by previous immigrants simply because previous immigrants suffered them. Or similar to the argument of "Since I was savagely whipped in order to be permitted in the club then the savage whippings should continue and membership should never be made any easier." Weird logic! Maybe it's your premise that's off.

I don't think so. Back in the old days, American citizenship was VALUED and it was protected. But as it became easier to become a naturalized citizen, legal alien or an illegal immigrant, the value of American citizenship dropped and people stopped trying to protect citizenship as an institution. Anyone could get the rights of citizenship... free education, healthcare, welfare, etc... just by walking into this country, whether leageally or illegally. And because of that, an entire segment of our population doesn't see why illegal aliens are such a terrible thing. You seem to be one of them. And now we are lowering the last standard, language. I find it to be a travesty... not because I don't like immigrants, but because I hate ILLEGAL immigration and law breaking in general. Making immigrants learn the language will return some semblence of VALUE, of having to WORK for citizenship, to the institution. And that would be a good thing.


Also, our government spends lavishly on foreign aid to countries which publicly state that they hate the United States and have thermo-nuclear missles aimed in our
direction. Yet strangely, it doesn't ruffle any feathers.

Who says it doesn't ruffle any feathers? I am of the opinion that we should not be spending money to support regimes that actively are aggressive against us. I feel that support for other countries should be at least in part based on thei support for us. So do many others here in the USA. So yes, it is a sore point. But it was not the topic of this thread. I'll be happy to discuss this point with you in another thread.


However, the idea of spending far less to help immigrants who admire the United States sends these same people into a frenzy. Care to explain?

I don't have a problem helping immigrants. What I have a problem with is helping people who have more attachment to their own 'culture' than they do to the country that accepted them as immigrants... so much so that they refuse to even learn the language of their host country and demand that the country conform to THEM and THEIR CULTURE. I am in favor of aid to new immigrants until they can get their feet under them. I am not in favor of aid to people who reject the very society that offers them that aid.

Put another way, just as I believe that aid to foreign governments should be based on their support for our policies and their lack of aggression toward us, so too aid to immigrants should be based on their support for our culture and their willingness to become a part of that culture by learning the language. The argument is actually quite consistent with my other beliefs.

Elliot

Making immigrants learn the language will return some semblence of VALUE, of having to WORK for citizenship, to the institution. And that would be a good thingHello again, El:

I don't disagree with your goals - only your methods. The above is your method. Write a law in Washington, DC, and rip zap, you MADE immigrants learn the language.

No you didn't. The only thing you did was make yourself feel better. The ONE thing your law WON'T do, is MAKE immigrants learn English. All it does is make it harder for them to get by.

Right wingers don't seem to understand that writing some words down in a book and declaring them to be "law", doesn't solve complex societal problems. I can cite dozens of examples - the drug war being one. You think that because you wrote a law making pot illegal, that you MADE people stop smoking pot. But you didn't. Indeed, when you do that stuff, the only people whose behavior changes is the cops and the people who build prisons.

These problems can't be solved so simply.

Let me give you an example. Let's say right wingers think safety pins are bad and should be made illegal. Therefore, you write a law making possession of a safety pin punishable by 10 years in the slam.

But, in the real world, you didn't stop safety pin use. Because the only people who stopped using safety pins are YOU. Then you demonize safety pin use. You cluck your tongues and look down upon those who continue to use safety pins.

And, you'll argue with me right here, like you do about pot, telling me how safety pins SHOULD be legal (like you think pot should be legal), but as long as they're not, you have no sympathy for those who spend years in jail for safety pin abuse.

Huh? Why would you do that?? It makes absolutely no sense to me. I believe, that in your zeal to MAKE a better world, you MAKE laws that suit YOU, but have nothing to do with the real world. You actually forget that SMOKING POT, HAVING SAFETY PINS, AND SPEAKING SPANISH, are fine activities to engage in, BUT for the laws you made.

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't disagree with your goals - only your methods. The above is your method. Write a law in Washington, DC, and rip zap, you MADE immigrants learn the language.

No you didn’t. The only thing you did was make yourself feel better. The ONE thing your law WON'T do, is MAKE immigrants learn English. All it does is make it harder for them to get by.

And if they want it to be easier, they will learn English. If they don't they won't. But at that point it becomes THEIR problem to learn to get by, not MY problem to accommodate them. YOU want to go on accommodating bad behavior. I don't. And that is the difference between us.


Let me give you an example. Let's say right wingers think safety pins are bad and should be made illegal. Therefore, you write a law making possession of a safety pin punishable by 10 years in the slam.

But, in the real world, you didn't stop safety pin use. Because the only people who stopped using safety pins are YOU. Then you demonize safety pin use. You cluck your tongues and look down upon those who continue to use safety pins.

And, you'll argue with me right here, like you do about pot, telling me how safety pins SHOULD be legal (like you think pot should be legal), but as long as they're not, you have no sympathy for those who spend years in jail for safety pin abuse.

And by your own admission, if the courts sentence someone to jail for safety pin abuse for 10 years, they have done the RIGHT THING. You said so yourself in the string about defense lawyers. If you want the law changed, then change the law, don't break it.


Huh? Why would you do that?? It makes absolutely no sense to me. I believe, that in your zeal to MAKE a better world, you MAKE laws that suit YOU, but have nothing to do with the real world. You actually forget that SMOKING POT, HAVING SAFETY PINS, AND SPEAKING SPANISH, are fine activities to engage in, BUT for the laws you made.

Ah... now there is where we are miscommunicating. I'm not trying to make speaking Spanish illegal. I'm not trying to criminalize foreign languages. I happen to speak two foreign languages myself. What I am trying to do is take the burden of communicating in this country off of the government (which you agree has no business being involved in most aspects of a person's life) and put it back where it belongs, on the individuals. What part of that do you, as a libertarian, disagree with? Since when did it become the government's responsibility to be the translators for every individual who comes here, legally and illegally? That's a bit different than making pot, trans-fats and safety pins illegal. I'm not making Spanish illegal, I'm just making it no longer the responsibility of government to speak Spanish to accommodate Spanish speakers.

Elliot

He's taking the liberal position . We should help them at your expense because it makes me feel good.

they refuse to even learn the language of their host country and demand that the country conform to THEM and THEIR CULTURE. I am in favor of aid to new immigrants until they can get their feet under them. I am not in favor of aid to people who reject the very society that offers them that aid.


They actions of a few do not reflect the mind of the many. Just because you see immigrants on TV marching for their so-called rights doesn't mean they all feel "oppressed" Any immigrant no matter where they come from has the burden to learn the language, or be doomed to the most menial of jobs, and in our society if there happy cutting grass or picking fruit, so be it. My argument is not in those who make no effort to assimilate, its those illegals who speak english that work for wages that cost hard working americans their jobs, so why then make a feel good law, like english an official language.It is a divisive smoke screen that doesn't address any issue whatsoever. It will change nothing at all. The issue is the money spent on heath care and services for people who are illegal, which the government has encouraged for 20 years, and the cheap labor it provides. I don't care if 85% of the people are emotional about what they perceive to be a slap in the face, the issue of language is irrelevant to the real issues your politicians should be addressing. That's what angers me.

In Response to Wolverine:

Cuban Americans cherish their Spanish language heritage and are doing far better than other Hispanic groups here. If many of them don't speak English very well, it certainly hasn't hindered their progress. Weird isn't it?


excerpt:

Economics
The median household income for Cuban Americans is $36,671, a figure higher than other Hispanic groups, but lower than for non-Hispanic whites.
In contrast, native-born Cuban Americans have a higher median income than even non-Hispanic whites, $50,000 as compared to $48,000 for non-Hispanic whites.

Education
25% of Cuban Americans have a college education, about twice the average of all other Hispanic groups, and lower than that of non-Hispanic whites, of which 30% are college graduates.
However, 39% of native-born Cuban Americans have a college degree or higher, as compared to only 30% of non-Hispanic whites, and 12% for all other Hispanic groups.

Cuban American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Americans)

Speaking English is a very insignificant criterion on which to gauge loyalty. We have our prisons full of English speakers who would cut your throat and couldn't care less about the laws of the land. Others cheat on their income tax while speaking English fluently. Still others refused to fight when told to by their government. Others living here who speak English perfectly are self-proclaimed communists and fascist. The list is interminable. I guess your premise is a bit off again.

Actually, and evidently, Hispanic Americans don't need to speak English to prove that they are loyal Americans.
They have proven that over and over again to no avail in the eyes of people like you who obviously don't consider Hispanic blood spilled on your behalf as proving anything at all. Which leads of course to accusations of bigotry and racism and then such individuals wonder why they are coming across in that negative way.


Hispanic Americans in the United States Army (http://www.army.mil/hispanicamericans/english/timeline/wwii.html)

65th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/65th_Infantry)

Since the European Enlightenment whence many of our Constitution' ideas were derived, governments are held morally responsible the way they treat human beings within their borders. Some here seem to suggest we go back to pre Enlightenment despotism. This is neither Christian nor American since the USA adheres to the United Nation's human rights statement and negatively sanctions any country that doesn't. In short, those taking the anti-American government-responsibility stance are not representing the American ethical position but merely their own.

BTW
When the expression "our tax dollars" is used it doesn't seem to take into account that those "our tax dollars" include Hispanic American tax dollars and even Illegal immigrant tax dollars for that matter. Weird! Or is narrow-minded a better word?

Excerpt
Growth of Hispanic-Owned Businesses
Triples the National Average
Washington, D.C. — The number of Hispanic-owned businesses grew 31 percent between 1997 and 2002 — three times the national average for all businesses — according to a new report, Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 [PDF], released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The nearly 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generated nearly $222 billion in revenue, up 19 percent from 1997.
“The Economic Census gives an accurate picture of America's 23 million businesses. The growth we see in Hispanic-owned businesses illustrates the changing fabric of American's business and industry. With Hispanic businesses among the fastest growing segments of our economy, this is a good indicator of how competitiveness is driving the American economy,” said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon.

US Census Press Releases (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/business_ownership/006577.html)
BIDC -- Hispanic-Owned Businesses (http://bidc.state.tx.us/Hispanic-OwnedBusinesses.htm)

tomder55 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/tomder55.html) agrees: fair point. What is your take on the so called comprehensive package (shamnesty ?) that like Dracula keeps rising from the dead ?
No different than the 1986 bill on immigration which did nothing but compound the problem, and gave incentives for more people to come here illegally. It was about money for the fat cats then, as it is now. Hope it goes down in flames again.
ETWolverine (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/etwolverine.html) agrees: Do you believe that the government needs to spend millions and billions of our tax dollars to accommodate Spanish speakers by printing government forms in Spanish, providing translation services, etc? And if not, what method would you use to stop it?
As far as translators go, they are nessecary in all the languages that immigrants speak, it is racism that leads one to believe that its a service only for hispanic as, police and emergency services tend to have translators for all they serve, not just hispanics. As far as I know merchants and businesses have a choice, as how they print there signs and advertisements and it usually to cater to the people they want to attract, now voting is another story as I believe that the government wants the hispanic vote so they make it easy to get them by printing the ballots in spanish. English only ballots are what I do favor, but this has more to do with pandering for public office, than life in America. We can do something about that, get rid of those politicians that would use anything to get elected rather than what is fair and just.

Talaniman:


As far as translators go, they are necessary in all the languages that immigrants speak, it is racism that leads one to believe that it's a service only for hispanic

Not when 3/4 or more of the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country of Hispanic origin. Not when they are the only block of immigrants DEMANDING that we accommodate them. The Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Israeli, and the European immigrants do not make such demands. ONLY the Mexicans have made such demands. Therefore, my comment is not racism. It is simply answering the issue towards those who rose it in the first place.

Don't worry, though, I am against government business being performed in any language other than English. That includes Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese Hindi, Afrikaans, and Urdu as well.


police and emergency services tend to have translators for all they serve, not just hispanics.

Why? Why are my tax dollars being spent on translators when that money SHOULD be spent on fighting cime. If someone wants to communicate with the police, they can either do so in English or else they can do so by paying for the translator themselves. I shouldn't have to foot that bill, and neither should you.


As far as I know merchants and businesses have a choice, as how they print there signs and advertisements and it usually to cater to the people they want to attract,

And that's fine. If the public is against it, they will stop buying that merchant's products. If they like it, they will keep buying those products. That is the market at work, and I'm all for it. (Though I am fairly sure that if the merchant in question refused to allow English to be spoken in his store and demanded that ALL of his customers speak... say... Swahilli... there's a good chance that this merchant won't survive for very long. And those who refuse to learn English are essentially making that demand.)

My issue is with government, where market forces are NOT at work. Please note that I was careful about making that disticntion in my original post above.


now voting is another story as I believe that the government wants the hispanic vote so they make it easy to get them by printing the ballots in spanish. English only ballots are what I do favor, but this has more to do with pandering for public office, than life in America.

I don't understand why you make a distinction between voting and other government business. Government business is government business, regardless of type. And if you believe that voting should be English-only, then so should the rest of government business. Or are you arguing that you want immigrants to be able to pay taxes, collect welfare, etc. but not to vote if there are eligible? This seems to be a contradiction. Can you explain it?

-----------------------------

Starman,


Economics
The median household income for Cuban Americans is $36,671, a figure higher than other Hispanic groups, but lower than for non-Hispanic whites.
In contrast, native-born Cuban Americans have a higher median income than even non-Hispanic whites, $50,000 as compared to $48,000 for non-Hispanic whites.

Education
25% of Cuban Americans have a college education, about twice the average of all other Hispanic groups, and lower than that of non-Hispanic whites, of which 30% are college graduates.
However, 39% of native-born Cuban Americans have a college degree or higher, as compared to only 30% of non-Hispanic whites, and 12% for all other Hispanic groups.

Leaving aside the question of the source (Wikipedia isn't exactly a terrific source for statistical data), I'll accept those numbers at face value. But look at what they say: Cuban-Americans who are immigrants to the USA have lower average salaries than English-speaking white males. However, those Cuban-Americans born in this country (who ostensibly speak English) have higher salaries than English-peaking white males. This just proves my point that the best way for people to really get ahead in this country is by learning to speak English. The very people you point to prove my point. The very study you point to proves my point.


Actually, and evidently, Hispanic Americans don't need to speak English to prove that they are loyal Americans.
They have proven that over and over again to no avail in the eyes of people like you who obviously don't consider Hispanic blood spilled on your behalf as proving anything at all. Which leads of course to accusations of bigotry and racism and then such individuals wonder why they are coming across in that negative way.

Again, an unfounded charge of racism. I have not questioned the loyalty of any Hispanic male in the armed forces of the USA. But I can guarantee you that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corp do NOT conduct basic training in any language other than English. Military business is conducted completely in English, as it should be. If troopers are unable to speak English to the level necessary to communicate in the military, they are forced to take classes to learn it. They are NOT accommodated in any other language. Nor do they demand that they should be. Again, the very people you are pointing to as proof that I am wrong about English-only for government business are the very ones that prove my point for me.


Since the European Enlightenment whence many of our Constitution' ideas were derived, governments are held morally responsible the way they treat human beings within their borders. Some here seem to suggest we go back to pre Enlightenment despotism.

And now we get to the hyperbola part of your post: sorry to disagree with you, but a requirement that government business be conducted in English only does not constitute going back to pre-Enlightenment despotism.

And since we are talking about the nature of governments, I assume you are aware of the fact that since BEFORE the Age of Enlightenment it has been an accepted point of order that a main purpose of any government is to protect its national soveriegnty. This is one of the very foundations of the entire concept of government and is the basis of the concept of the Social Contract between government and the governed (an Enlightenment concept of government). Should we not, therefore, enforce our soveriegnty in part through a national language as practically evey other country on the planet does? Not to mention strict border control to stop the flow of illegal immigration. Just wondering.


When the expression "our tax dollars" is used it doesn't seem to take into account that those "our tax dollars" include Hispanic American tax dollars and even Illegal immigrant tax dollars for that matter. Weird! Or is narrow-minded a better word?

Actually, no, it doesn't. You see, according to the Heritage Foundation, the NET cost of a low-wage illegal immigrant family to the United States is roughly $22,000. The study showed that the average low-wage family pays roughly $10,000 in taxes (assuming they pay any taxes at all) but receive roughly $32,000 in government assistance, welfare, foodstamps, free education, free health care in hospital emergency rooms, etc. So a non-English-speaking family (which according to the study you posted falls into the low-income category) is costing us $22,000 per year. So when I say MY tax dollars, I can safely exclude non-Enlish-speaking Hispanic families from that category, since they are a net tax loss for the government, not a source of income.


The number of Hispanic-owned businesses grew 31 percent between 1997 and 2002 — three times the national average for all businesses — according to a new report, Survey of Business Owners: Hispanic-Owned Firms: 2002 [PDF], released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The nearly 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses generated nearly $222 billion in revenue, up 19 percent from 1997.
“The Economic Census gives an accurate picture of America’s 23 million businesses. The growth we see in Hispanic-owned businesses illustrates the changing fabric of American’s business and industry. With Hispanic businesses among the fastest growing segments of our economy, this is a good indicator of how competitiveness is driving the American economy,” said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon.

But how many of those businesses are owned by Hispanics that do not speak any English? I would argue that the number of successful non-English-speaking business owners in the United States is very low... so low a to be statistically insignificant.

You are still under the impression that I'm against Hispanic immigrants. I'm not and never have been. What I have issues with are 1) ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and 2) immigrants who make demands on the government to accommodate them so that they can 'have an easier time" in the USA and not bother to integrate into the country by learning the language.

Your charges of racism are unfounded. My stance isn't based on racism. I feel the same way for ANY person who emigrates to the USA, regardless of national origin or racial background. I think EVERY IMMIGRANT should be forced to conduct GOVERNMENT business in English.

Elliot

I think EVERY IMMIGRANT should be forced to conduct GOVERNMENT business in English.

No matter how good your arguments, when you say people should be forced to your way of thinking, then you better back it up, with a bigger gun than mine. Forcing people to do your will is what dictatorships are all about and goes against my concept of an America worth dying for.

Nobody is forcing anyone to learn any language they don't want to learn.
I don't agree with the government forcing anybody to do anything.
BUT.. if you want to do business with the government and they only do business in English it certainly would be in your best interest.
In Canada which has two official languages we have more than our fair share of governments forcing the politically correct view of the government at the time.
Did you know it is against the law to sell or buy a pound of hamburger meat?
If you sell gasoline by the gallon your business will be shut down.
In parts of Canada if your sign in the window has lettering in English bigger than the lettering in French you will be shut down.
Not really a business friendly environment.
With more than one official language how long before the US government starts mandating that business MUST accommodate whoever happens to be shopping in their store?
It can be easily argued that the Canadian government is Racist towards the english population, if they want a job with the Federal government they must learn French.
The vast majority of French Canandians speak English which gives tham a tremendous advantage in getting government jobs.
I very much enjoy my visits to Quebec and have never had any problems with the people in Quebec.
The political climate of having the French provincial government however is a different story. Inciting hatred at every possible opportunity with the sole intention of breaking up the country, I can't see any reason for the US government not taking the opportunity to prevent this happening somewhere down the road in the US.

My husband is in the military and says that there are some people that he works with speak to each other in a different language. I don't personally have a problem with other languages being spoken here, but I think in the military in ANY country one language should be spoken. You can't be too careful and I think everyone in that kind of a circumstance should be able to understand each other.

Wolverine

1. The information about Hispanic businesses was provided in response to your tax- burden comment and in response to your depiction of Spanish speakers as wanting to live on the dole.

2.Wikipedia is not the only source I provide.
BIDC -- Hispanic-Owned Businesses (http://bidc.state.tx.us/Hispanic-OwnedBusinesses.htm)

3. The military info I provided was in response to your casting doubt on Hispanic loyalty due to their refusal to unlearn Spanish and stick solely to English as other immigrants have done.

4. Your insistence that Hispanics are demanding that everything be printed in Spanish is, simply stated, a lie. In fact, it's not even an issue in the Hispanic community and isn't even mentioned on Univision. So your argument is strawman.

5. The Puerto Rican 65th Infantry was militarily trained using Spanish because that's the language which they speak on the island. It did not interfere with their fighting ability.

6. Present-day American born Cubans are doing better than those who arrived in terms of salary. That is true. But English proficiency isn't the only factor. Those who first arrived here faced a discriminatory hostile environment despite their being very highly educated. American employers, for example, were unwilling to pay them the same salaries which their American born professional counterparts were earning. Also, those Cuban Americans born here enter a society where the Hispanic social infrastructure is there to give them a hand. So in addition to knowing English, they are also not under the discriminatory pressure of those who first arrived.


Excerpt

The new Miamians formed a very close and cohesive community, and they quickly began founding businesses, banks, and Cuban American institutions, as well as finding jobs for later arrivals. By 1970, 50% of Miami hotel staff members were Cuban American, and in 1980 half of all Miami-area construction companies were Cuban-owned. Cuban immigrants soon gained a reputation for success, in part because of the relative affluence of the first, “golden,” generation. However, most Cuban immigrants faced the same struggles as all other immigrant groups... Even the most successful Cubans had to overcome language discrimination and religious intolerance in their time in the U.S.

Immigration... Puerto Rican / Cuban: Transforming a City (http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/cuban6.html)

BTW
The Catholic Irish Immigrants spoke English and were still discriminated against.
The Black Americans knew English and suffered horrendously anyway.
Discrimination against African Americans (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect11.htm)

Care to explain?

Nobody is forcing anyone to learn any language they don't want to learn.
I don't agree with the government forcing anybody to do anything.
BUT.. if you want to do business with the government and they only do business in English it certainly would be in your best interest.
In Canada which has two official languages we have more than our fair share of governments forcing the politically correct view of the government at the time.
Did you know it is against the law to sell or buy a pound of hamburger meat?
If you sell gasoline by the gallon your business will be shut down.
In parts of Canada if your sign in the window has lettering in English bigger than the lettering in French you will be shut down.
Not really a business friendly environment.
With more than one official language how long before the US government starts mandating that business MUST accomadate whoever happens to be shopping in their store?
It can be easily argued that the Canadian government is Racist towards the english population, if they want a job with the Federal goverment they must learn French.
The vast majority of French Canandians speak English which gives tham a tremendous advantage in getting government jobs.
I very much enjoy my visits to Quebec and have never had any problems with the people in Quebec.
The political climate of having the French provincial government however is a different story. Inciting hatred at every possible opportunity with the sole intention of breaking up the country, I can't see any reason for the US government not taking the opportunity to prevent this happening somewhere down the road in the US.

The slippery-slope scenario you imagine might be true if assimilation were not taking place in the USA in reference to Hispanics. However, it is taking place. Children of immigrants quickly learn English and it eventually becomes their primary language. In fact, many have difficulty speaking Spanish fluently and if they do speak it they do so hesitantly and often make basic, serious, grammatical mistakes. The late Mexican American singer, Selena, is a case in point. When faced with Spanish speaking interviewers she had great difficulty. She is not the exception, she is the rule.

The only way to get impeached is have sexual relations with another woman in the white house. I guess misleading Americans isn't harsh enough for impeachment

Lying to a Grand Jury, obstruction of Justice had nothing to do with it.
I am starting to understand the left even better now.Talk about misleading!!
I don't suppose you listened to AlGores ten minute tirade condeming President Bush for ignoring Saddam Hussein's terrorist activities, his use of weapons of mass destruction, ignoring intelligence from around the world by trying to carry out diplomatic relations with Saddam. Chastising President Bush for allowing him to continue on his quest for Nucular(Is that spelled the way it sounds) weapons.

Back to the original question of this string. I guess it doesn't matter what language you use the left will never listen to reason in ANY language. Keep throwing out the perpetual lie and the race card until they get their way.

An old saying You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time has been changed by the left.
You just have to fool enough of the people enough of the time.

No matter how good your arguements, when you say people should be forced to your way of thinking, then you better back it up, with a bigger gun than mine. Forcing people to do your will is what dictatorships are all about and goes against my concept of an America worth dying for.

Would you feel more comfortable with me saying that the government should not conduct business in any language except English? It amounts to the same thing.

And democracies FORCE peope to go along with rules that are against their wishes all the time... not by force of arms, but by force of law. Excon and I have had discussions about making marajuana legal. Despite the fact that many Americans feel that at least medical marajuana should be legalized, it is not. That's because the majority of Americans have voted for legislators who do not wish to legalize marajuana. So those who are in favor of legalization are being FORCED to live without legalized marajuana.

I don't like 55mph speed limits. But I'm FORCED to go along with them because they are the law. If I want the law changed, I can lobby for change and try to convince the majority of Americans toward my way of thinking and vote for representatives who are of a like mind. And if I can, then those who are in favor of a 55mph speed limit will be FORCED to go along with what I want.

The majority in a democracy FORCES the minority to do what they wish by voting. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the way the system works. It may be FORCE, but it doesn't constitute a dictatorship.

Right now, roughly 85% of Americans want to see English as the official language according to some polls. With the power of our vote, we SHOULD be forcing this issue. We should be FORCING the government to conduct business only in English, and if people refuse to learn that language, they can either obtain a translator at their own expense, or they can live their lives without dealing with the government.

Elliot

Starman



4. Your insistence that Hispanics are demanding that everything be printed in Spanish is, simply stated, a lie. In fact, it's not even an issue in the Hispanic community and isn't even mentioned on Univision. So your argument is strawman.

Let's start here, shall we?

First of all, it apparently IS a huge issue with the entire "immigrants' rights" community. And the La Razza community. And the Aztalan community. I saw the huge protests before the 2004 and 2006 elections where protestors (many of them illegal aliens by the way) were DEMANDING their rights, including Spanish language translation in government. So please don't tell me its not an issue within the Hispanic community. It's certainly a big enough issue to get national news coverage and effect election results.

And if it isn't an issue, then what's the problem with English as a national language? Let's do it and be done with it if it isn't such a huge issue. Why are you against it if the Hispanic community isn't against it?


5. The Puerto Rican 65th Infantry was militarily trained using Spanish because that's the language which they speak on the island. It did not interfere with their fighting ability.

Very nice. Perhaps they did train in Spanish, though nothing I have read actually confirms that. But when they fought or worked with other units, they did so in ENGLISH. Furthermore, when they had non Spanish commanders and noncoms (ei: Col. William Harris in 1950, and various non-Hispanic replacements for Korean War casualties in 1951) they trained and operated in ENGLISH only. And speaking Spanish in comat when evey other unit is speaking English is the way to lose a battle due to miscommunication. In the military, they consider that a Very Bad Result. I think that US military commanders were quite capable of avoiding that particular mistake.


6. Present-day American born Cubans are doing better than those who arrived in terms of salary. That is true. But English proficiency isn't the only factor.

It certainly is a major one.


Those who first arrived here faced a discriminatory hostile environment despite their being very highly educated.

How much of that discrimination was because Americans expect "highly educated people" to speak English? How muh of that discrimination could have been avoided if they had learned English? (And how much of that discrimination was due to the crime wave caused by the number of criminals who came here as part of the Mariel Boatlift? The fact that the criminals were demonstrably a very small minority of the Cuban immigrants didn't really help matters. But that is a sepparate issue.)


American employers, for example, were unwilling to pay them the same salaries which their American born professional counterparts were earning.

And how much of the payscale issues were due to language barriers and lack of language skills? That was certainly true in my grandparents case. Their lack of language skill made it hard for them to be paid a decent salary until they attained those skills. I won't get into the religious discrimination my grandfather faced as a tailor in New York in the Post WWII era. They wanted to make him work Saturdays, and since he was a Sabbath observant Jew he lost his job every week. Every Sunday he'd get a new job, and every Saturday he'd lose it because he wouldn't work on Saturday. Today we call that religious discrimination. Back then, it was just the facts of life. And yet they still managed to survive and thrive... and learning the language certainly made that easier.


Also, those Cuban Americans born here enter a society where the Hispanic social infrastructure is there to give them a hand. So in addition to knowing English, they are also not under the discriminatory pressure of those who first arrived.

Certainly true. But would that infrastructure exist without members of that community who have good jobs and are productive members of the community? Probably not. And would that be true if they didn't speak English? It would certainly be less likely.


However, most Cuban immigrants faced the same struggles as all other immigrant groups... Even the most successful Cubans had to overcome language discrimination and religious intolerance in their time in the U.S.

EXACTLY!! They had to learn English in order to become part of the American community in any meaningful way.


BTW
The Catholic Irish Immigrants spoke English and were still discriminated against.
The Black Americans knew English and suffered horrendously anyway.
Care to explain?

Sure. Discrimination takes place all the time. It takes place regardless of language barriers. I speak English quite fluently, but I have experienced racism and racialy motivated violence. It happens. But how much worse would it have been if the Irish Catholic community had refused to speak English and demanded that the government and businesses deal with them only in Galic or Celtic? How much worse would the discimination have been? If Martin Luther King Junior had demanded that the government deal with the Black community in Afrikaans or Swahili only, do you think that the civil rights movement of the 1960s would have been as successful as it was?

I don't see why you are so willing to defend the idea that immigrants don't need to learn the local language in order to make their lives better? What is your issue with English as a National Language for government business. Do you truthfully feel that people are not better off for learning English when they come here? What part of not becoming part of the national community in the USA are you trying to defend?

Now for some statistics to ponder:

According to 2005 Census Bureau information, the Hispanic population is 14.5% of the total population of the USA. However, they make up 58.2% of the non-citizen population. 57.7% of Hispanics in America entered the USA in 1990 or later.

78.2% of Hispanics state that they speak a language other than English at home, compared to 19.4% for the rest of the population, and 39.4% of the Hispanic population in America state that they speak English less than "very well", compared to 8.6% for the rest of the population.

They have an unemployment rate that is 150 basis points higher than the general population, and the median family incomes are $36,278 compared to $46,242 for the general population. Per capita income $14,461 compared to 25,035 for the general population. Hispanic families have a poverty rate of 20.5% compared to 10.2% for the general population, and on an individual basis they have a poverty rate of 22.4% compared to 13.3% for the general population.

Given the information above, can you truly state that there is no connection between language, poverty rates and income levels? Clearly there is SOME connection between the two.

Elliot

Wolverine

First, I never said that there was aboslutely no connection between language and a person's economic potential here in the USA.


Second, averages can be used to mislead and can even become meaningless when used in a certain way. For example. Two employees earning $50,000 while the other three earn 10,000 a year. The average would make them all appear to earn $26,000 each. The same holds true for the statistics you give. Take the prosperous Hispanic community in Florida and other parts of the country, merge them with undocumenteds and recently arrived apply the averages and voilà! Instananeous misinformation and misrepresentation. My opinion? Not at all:

Excerpt:

Mexican-Americans make up about two-thirds of the overall Hispanic population and have, for the most part, achieved solid lower-middle to middle class status.

When the government reports that 23 percent of Hispanics live in poverty compared with only 7.7 percent of non-Hispanic whites, the figures are somewhat misleading, since they understate the poverty of foreign-born Hispanics and overstate it for native born.

NCPA - Immigration Issues - Hispanic Minority Shows Diversity, Assimilation (http://www.ncpa.org/pd/immigrat/pd031401d.html)


In short, Your statistics in no way negate the progress which Hispanics are Generally making in the nation as a whole and in Florida in particular. The difference is that you choose to focus on only the negatives and I choose to focus on the positives. Also, if indeed poverty is only caused by language then Afro Americans should be on equal par with Anglos but are not since poverty also plagues their communities. So there are nonlinguistic factors at work here which you prefer to ignore.


Speaking Spanish at Home

It takes time to learn a language and English doesn't lend itself to quick learning due to its illogical spelling/pronunciation inconsistencies.

Consider the double "oo" pronunciation inconsistencies in the following words: "food", "blood", "look", the puzzling identical pronunciations but different spellings of the "ph", and the "f " "Full", "Phil" and the silent letters such as "d" in "could," "should"-- letters which are included but are doing nothing but being there. No, it isn't easy and takes time. Is that believable? Could that be one reason why some say they can't speak it well yet and choose to speak Spanish at home?

Furthermore, that choice doesn't mean that those speaking Spanish at home can't effectively communicate with their employers as you seem to assume. In some cases yes. But not all and not in the majority of cases since as I brought to your attention before the jobs they do don't require them to be communicating in English all day.


Additionally, regardless of your annoyance, these people are breaking no law by speaking Spanish at home. In fact, it's a human right defended by the Constitution. Or are you privy to some Constitutional info the rest of us are not aware of. If so--pray tell.

Non Citizens

About the non-citizen info, it's a matter which our government helped to create by winking at immigrant exploitation for decades and which it is at present trying to resolve. In short, it is no secret. That you treat it as if it were some type of incriminating evidence really is of no account and is actually irrelevant to the subject.


Here are some statistics for you to ponder:
English Dominant

4 % =1st generation


46% =2nd generation


78%=3rd generation

Bilingual


24% = 1st generation


47% = 2nd generation


22% = 3rd generation

Spanish Dominant

72% = 1st generation

7% = 2nd generation

0% = 3rd generation

http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/11.pdf

As you can see the process is going along just fine. If you wish to accelerate it, why not make an effort to have English written more logically? I assure you--that would help.


BTW

Mariel Boat Lift

You are comparing apples to oranges.
The Marielitas arrived much later and coming from the lower classes in Cuba, were far less-educated. Any hardened criminals placed among them by Castro were promptly deported by USA authorities.

Mariel boatlift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_Boat_Lift)

They were initially welcomed by the American Cuban community. But soon the educational and class social class and racial differences resulted in the first group to turn against the second. There remains a large rift between these two groups and it is unfair to lump them together that way.

Cause of Discrimination

How much of it was caused by language barriers is anybody's guess.
But certainly, not speaking English is a disadvantage in an English speaking country. I never said it isn't or wasn't. Neither have I said that immigrants shouldn't learn English, that is a strawman argument and is really a waste of time since I can't defend something I didn't say.

Perhaps I'm a bit leery in attributing all discrimination to language as you do because discrimination continues against minorities even after they learn the language. Then suddenly other things are latched on to and the discriminators continue along the same line without even breaking stride.

The 65th Infantry

You are missing the point.
I use the 65th Infantry as an example of people who speak Spanish and it doesn't interfere with their loyalkty to the USA. I did so as a response to your statement concerning language learning = loyalty. Hope that clears it up.

Big Issue?


Yes, in certain areas of the Hispanic community it is a big issue. To the illegal immigranmts themselves and their families-for example. However, the Hispanic community is not one homogenous group sharing the same political concerns and agendas to the same degreess. Puerto Ricans, for example, are born USA Citizens and come and leave the mainland USA as they please. The Cuban American community at present has no immigration issue which affects it DIRECTLY.

As for the agencies which might be making it a big issue, have you considered that it is their job? All agencies, after all, have a purpose. Correct? So showing surprise at an agency which does what it's supposed to do is rather illogical--don't you think?

ETWolverine, Would you feel more comfortable with me saying that the government should not conduct business in any language except English? It amounts to the same thing.
Show me an example of the government doing business in any other language.
And democracies FORCE peope to go along with rules that are against their wishes all the time... not by force of arms, but by force of law. Excon and I have had discussions about making marajuana legal. Despite the fact that many Americans feel that at least medical marajuana should be legalized, it is not. That's because the majority of Americans have voted for legislators who do not wish to legalize marajuana. So those who are in favor of legalization are being FORCED to live without legalized marajuana.
Illegal or not marijuana is a bigger cash crop than corn. Even with enforcement, it is used widely, by a variety of tax paying citizens.
I don't like 55mph speed limits. But I'm FORCED to go along with them because they are the law. If I want the law changed, I can lobby for change and try to convince the majority of Americans toward my way of thinking and vote for representatives who are of a like mind. And if I can, then those who are in favor of a 55mph speed limit will be FORCED to go along with what I want.
I live in Dallas and nobody goes 55.
The majority in a democracy FORCES the minority to do what they wish by voting. There's nothing wrong with that. That's the way the system works. It may be FORCE, but it doesn't constitute a dictatorship.
You mean as in voting. The majority doesn't vote so who forces who.
Right now, roughly 85% of Americans want to see English as the official language according to some polls. With the power of our vote, we SHOULD be forcing this issue. We should be FORCING the government to conduct business only in English, and if people refuse to learn that language, they can either obtain a translator at their own expense, or they can live their lives without dealing with the government.
Police , fire and hospitals, all for emergencies. who else needs a translator. Not a huge industry.

When the government reports that 23 percent of Hispanics live in poverty compared with only 7.7 percent of non-Hispanic whites, the figures are somewhat misleading, since they understate the poverty of foreign-born Hispanics and overstate it for native born.

This paragraph makes no sense. If the poverty statistics for the poverty of foreign born hispanics are understated and for the native born are overstated, it would mean that the REAL poverty level among Hispanics is actually higher... which bolsters my point. If the reality is lower poverty for native-born Americans and higher poverty for immigrants, that would seem to indicate MORE poverty, not less. Which just bolsters my point.


Consider the double "oo" pronunciation inconsistencies in the following words: "food", "blood", "look", the puzzling identical pronunciations but different spellings of the "ph", and the "f " "Full", "Phil" and the silent letters such as "d" in "could," "should"-- letters which are included but are doing nothing but being there. No, it isn't easy and takes time. Is that believable? Could that be one reason why some say they can't speak it well yet and choose to speak Spanish at home?

Yep, it takes time. It ain't easy to learn English. It isn't easy to learn French either, ("Parlez vous Francaise" is pronounced "Parlay voo fronsay") but Canada and France both have it as an official language. Apparently, ease of learning the language doesn't keep France and Canada from making it the official language, and the French government ONLY operates in French. BTW, literacy is 99% in France, because the schools teach in a single language rather than accommodating multiple languages. Our literacy rate is lower, despite accommodating multiple languages. Sorry, but "it's not easy to learn" is not a reason to make English a national language.

How about Arabic? Is Arabic easy to learn? You need to learn a whole new alphabet, new grammar and vocabulary, etc. Yet most Middle Eastern countries have Arabic as the national language. Is Japanese easy to learn? How many different word-characters are there in that language's written form? Chinese? Ditto. Russian? Got to learn Cyrillic letters. German? Ever try to deal with the gutterals of German? Yet all these countries have national languages. Why not us?

And even if the language isn't easy to for Hispanics to learn, why is that MY problem? Mexico has Spanish as the official language, despite the fact that over 50 languages are actually spoken in Mexico.


Additionally, regardless of your annoyance, these people are breaking no law by speaking Spanish at home.

I have been VERY CLEAR on this point from the beginning. I have no problem with what people speak in private. I speak two foreign languages myself and occasionally use them with my wife and my parents or when I want to hide things from my kids. Foreign languages are a useful tool. My issue is with how the GOVERNMENT conducts business. I brought in the statistics of those who speak Spanish in the home as proof that Hispanics aren't bothering to even try to learn English. They are free to do that if they wish. Perfectly legal. But the GOVERNMENT doesn't have to accommodate it. And I believe that they shouldn't. The vast majority of other countries do not, why should we be different?


As you can see the process is going along just fine.

If that is true, then what is your issue with making English the official language? If English fluency isn't an issue, then there should be no problem and no reason to protest the issue.


If you wish to accelerate it, why not make an effort to have English written more logically? I assure you--that would help.

Yes, that is a pet peeve of mine... I want to take a sword to the guy who decided to spell knife with a "k" and a knife to the guy who decided to spell sword with a "w". But again, confusion with regard to the language is not a reason to prevent English from becoming tha national language. It doesn't stop any other country from doing the same thing. Why should it stop us?


The Marielitas arrived much later and coming from the lower classes in Cuba, were far less-educated. Any hardened criminals placed among them by Castro were promptly deported by USA authorities.

No they weren't deported. They became the new organized crime syndicate in Miami, and were responsible for the vast majority of drug trafficking in the 70s and 80s. They were brutal and unstoppable as a source of crime... right up until the Columbians, who were even more brutal and savage and better trained and armed (they were mostly former Colombian soldiers) came along and fragged the Cuban's butts and took over the drug trade in the USA.


There remains a large rift between these two groups and it is unfair to lump them together that way.

And where are the Marialetas and their offspring now? Are they part of the statistics you mention regarding Cubans? Or do those statistics not lump them together that way? Are the Marialetas improving in their quality of life, level of income etc. in the same way that the first wave of Cuban Americans have? Seems to me that the statistics don't make a distinction between the two groups.


As for the agencies which might be making it a big issue, have you considered that it is their job? All agencies, after all, have a purpose. Correct? So showing surprise at an agency which does what it's supposed to do is rather illogical--don't you think?

So if it an organizations job to do something that means that I have to agree with it? Planned Parenthood is supposed to support abortion rights. Does that mean I have to agree with them? The ACLU is supposed to support the rights of criminals. Does that mean that I have to agree with them? The fact that an organization is doing what it is supposed to do does not mean that I have to agree with it.

And by the way, La Raza and Azatlan aren't just "some organizations" that are "doing their jobs". They are organizations that are specifically advocating armed takeover of US territories and overthrowing US authority in those terrotories. So they are no longer just organizations "doing their jobs". They qualify as terrorist organizations under the law.

But the point that I was making was that English as a national language IS a big issue within the Hispanic community. It was in response to your statement that "In fact, it's not even an issue in the Hispanic community and isn't even mentioned on Univision. So your argument is strawman." It clearly is a big issue. My question is WHY.

And again, you have not explained what your issue is with English as a National Language for government business. You have told me about the hardships of learning English, but that doesn't stop any other country from having national languages. Why are you against it?

Elliot

[QUOTE=talaniman]
Show me an example of the government doing business in any other language.

El IRS en Español (http://www.irs.gov/espanol/index.html)

Conexiones en Español (http://www.whitehouse.gov/espanol/index.es.html)

https://ui.labor.state.ny.us/UBC/home.do?FF_LOCALE=2

Office of the Governor :: Home Page (http://gov.ca.gov/espanol)

Página principal en GobiernoUSA.gov, el portal oficial del Gobierno de los EE. UU. (http://www.usa.gov/gobiernousa/index.shtml)

Social Security en línea - Publicaciones electrónicas (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/espanol/publist2.html)

Have I made my point? If not, I can keep going and show you hundreds of other government websites and links to government forms in Spanish.

Ain't technology grand?

Elliot

[quote=talaniman]
Show me an example of the government doing business in any other language.

The sites you cited are public service/ information sites, not even close to the business done by government. They are aimed at spanish speaking people.


Ain't technology grand?


Yes it is, for putting out information.

This post is about to reach a milestone . 1000 views and 100 responses . Is that a record here ? Does it merit some kind of gold star ?

this post is about to reach a milestone . 1000 views and 100 responses . Is that a record here ? Does it merit some kinda gold star ?

Maybe a record in the politics forum :rolleyes:

[quote]
The sites you cited are public service/ information sites, not even close to the business done by government. They are aimed at spanish speaking people.

What?!

These are websites by the IRS, the White House, the Social Security Department, the New York State Unemployment Insurance office and the Department of State of California. They are US GOVERNMENT WEBSITES in Spanish. Several of them link to pages with government forms in Spanish. How are these NOT business being done by government in Spanish? In particular, the NYS DUI site allows you to enter information and receive information in Spanish. Here is an actual IRS form W-7 in Spanish (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw7sp.pdf) taken from the IRS Spanish website. How can you possibly argue that these are "not even close to the business done by government."

Please, Tal, don't try to take me for a fool.

Elliot

Not at all and all due respect, How will having English as the official language change anything, and with the sites you have put forth, do you really think these sites will go away. Government put these sites up, not out of demand but as a public service. Your government wants non-english speakers to participate, as a way to assimilate which may take generations to do, and this is a way to help. Are you saying we should not help assimilation, or we should let them do the best they can?
Its only a debate and nothing personal, so relax.

Wolverine

Statistics

It all depends on the amount of or degree of understatement and overstatements.
Overstatement of Hispanic-American citizen poverty is more significant than understatement hispanic illegal poverty for the simple reason that there are more Hispanic-American citizens than there are illegals. Furthermore, understating and overstating makes the statistics cited worthless. But since you give so much credence to statistics then I will assume you will continue along that line in reference to the statistics below which show the English Speaking African-Americans faring worse than the supposedly severely handicapped Spanish-speaking Hispanics.

People Living Below Poverty Line Percentages

BLACK 2005... 24.9 %
HISPANIC (of any race) 2005... 21.8%
ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER 2001... 10.2 %
ASIAN ALONE 2005... 11.1 %
WHITE, NOT HISPANIC 2005... 8.3%

Families with female householder no husband present below poverty level

BLACK ALONE 2005 39.3%
HISPANIC (of any race) 2005 39.0 %
Asians 2005... 17.8 %
WHITE ALONE, NOT HISPANIC 2005... 22.6 %


BTW

Notice that the Immigrant Asians are doing better than the non-Hispanic whites.
I guess their English advantage wasn't so significant after all. Hispanics are doing better than African Americans according to this census. Again the English advantage seems irrelevant. Any explanation other than tagging any statistic that doesn't harmonize with your preconceptions bogus?

Historical Poverty Tables (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html)

Agencies

I believe I was responding to your reference to legitimate agencies and not to extremists organizations which in no way manner or form represent the Hispanic community's views concerning the present immigration issues. Does the KKK represent the view of the American community concerning immigration? Should I say it does you would probably object vehemently. So please don't misrepresent.

My Views On English?"

As I previously stated, anyone who comes here to live should learn English. Should the government print everything it issues in English even though there is a significant number of citizens who might have some difficulty understanding? Well, I go with Aristotle on this and suggest seeking the golden mean for the sake of sanity and in order to keep the wheels of society reasonably well-lubricated. However, I don't see ALL Hispanics demanding what you feel that ALL Hispanics are demanding. Why? Because as I explained before, the Hispanic community isn't a homogenous entity as you and the majority of people seem think. Actually, one would expect this to be common knowledge since it is part of elementary school history and social studies.

In any case, Puerto Ricans who can have breakfast in NY, Lunch in San Juan, and Dinner in Chicago in one day if they so choose aren't particularly ruffled by all this turmoil for what should be obvious reasons. Neither is the Cuban American community as riled up as you probably imagine it to be since there are practically no Cuban illegals here. Hispanics from Santo Domingo are probably more concerned about dressing up to go dancing Merengue during the weekend.

Even among the Mexican-American community the concern varies because some families are affected more than others. For example, there are Mexican American families in California and other states which were formerly Mexico who have roots going back hundreds of years and who have no connection with Mexico in the same manner that those who have recently arrived do. To these the immigration issue isn't as significant and are even as annoyed as the Anglos by it. So for a better more realistic view of what is really going on, I suggest that you view the Hispanic community as it is and not as you imagine it to be.

Caribbean Hispanics=Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans-North American Hispanics=Mexicans-Central American Hispanics-South American Hispanics--Hispanic Americans. All these groups don't speak Spanish identically, don't have identical customs, don't have identical political agendas, and often don't even like one another in terms of interpersonal relationships.

Cubans for example are more concerned about Cuba becoming a Democracy so that their families there can stop suffering economic deprivations.

Puerto Ricans don't worry about that since it doesn't impact them one way or the other except for the slight concern about the influx of Cubans that have taken refuge on the island.

Please keep such differences in mind when thinking of the Hispanic community here in the USA and how they might be viewing the present situation.

Statistics proved what? That Hispanics loath to learn English? All third generation Hispanics already know English and many speak it much better than many undereducated Anglos and African-Americans I have met--Walt Disney, Geraldo Rivera for example, and the Puerto Rican actor Jose Ferrer weho played the emperor in the film Dune. Second-Generation Hispanics have the advantage of being bilingual and equalkly skilled in both. First generation Hispanics speak English far less skillfully but they still speak it. So what you must be referring to are the recently arrived whom to you seem as if they are unwilling. No immigrant group has ever been unwilling and the economics statistics you provide are open to interepretation, your being of course unwillingness to learn English a conclusion which the statistics themseles don't justify.


BTW here is a parial list of Hispanics whom you say refuse to learn English:
Film and TV
Notable Hispanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_Hispanic_Americans)

And I suppose you believe NASA is in trouble with all those Puerto Ricans blabbering Spanish ? Maybe we should lobby for legistation to
make the moon made of cheese concept official before the NASA PRS try to change it to say it's made of rice and beans. Or maybe one of those space probes is in danger of being named after "El Corderito" the little lamb that appears on the Puerto Rican Coat of Arms. The possibilities are endless once the imagination is given free range.

Puerto Ricans in NASA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ricans_in_NASA)

Not Your Problem

That's what Cain said to God about Abel after he'd murdered him. "Am I my brother's keeper?" Jesus answered that for us in his parable about the man found beaten on the road who was ignored until one who felt compassion came along, felt that it was his moral responsibility before God to offer a helping hand, and at cost to himself did so. Of course, I understand that not everyone subscribes to the Christian faith or that not everyone even believes in God. But in order to be decent to another human being, such beliefs aren't' required as is constantly being pointed out in elementary 101 classes in Ethics. Actually, our government recognizes that we have a moral responsibility toward one another by virtue of our humanity when it allocates a certain portion of its annual budget to help people who are having difficulties throughout the world. So does the United Nations and so does every other civilized nation which is able to do so.

To say, That isn't my problem!" actually would make a nation that can offer assistance to the less fortunate a pariah among the others. So your sentiments are definitely and fortunately not the internationally prevalent ones. In fact, such sentiments are considered anti social and disruptive to human society where survival is contingent on mutual support in times of need.

In any case, I didn't say it was your problem in my original post.

"Against a National Language?"

I grew up in the United States and have always considered English its national language. During all that time I never have encountered any ethnic group who thought that it wasn't or that it shouldn't be the national language. The Hispanic press and Univision are always encouraging its readers and viewers to learn English and emphasizing the advantages that such a skill brings and the disadvantages of not knowing it. Hispanics which don't speak English for whatever reason never suggest that English not be the national language. What they do is constantly lament the fact that they can't speak any better. In view of this, I find it weird that suddenly there is this seemingly hysterical demand that English be made the national language in response to the Hispanic presence. Additionally, the statistics show that linguistic assimilation and acculturation is definitely taking place among the third generations just as it has with all other immigrant groups. So I find it totally unnecessary that Hispanics be made to feel that they are a threat to our country's language integrity.

That is my response to your question.

Marielitos

As for Marielitos, resistance was futile--they were assimilated.

Excerpt
The Marielitos were different, but mainly because they had endured two full decades under a communist regime. Like the earlier group of Cuban exiles, they eventually assimilated and became another in a long line of successful immigrants in the United States.


26th Parallel: Gracias Marielitos (http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKZnSXlG9SgASDFrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=12ng2eiti/EXP=1182440167/**http%3a//the26thparallel.blogspot.com/2005/04/gracias-marielitos.html)


BTW
It's their problem much more than it is either yours or mine. The point is why try to make it worse by tagging their being here as a national cultural threat via your sudden demand for a national language based on their being here?

I will assume you will continue along that line in reference to the statistics below which show the English Speaking African-Americans faring worse than the supposedly severely handicapped Spanish-speaking Hispanics.

I don't deny the poverty levels of Blacks are higher than those Hispanics. All that these statistics are telling me is that Blacks have been successful at segregating themselves from the rest of society DESPITE the fact that they speak the same language. It certainly doesn't prove that those Hispanics who learn English aren't better off than those who don't.

And what point are you trying to make here? That because Blacks suffer a greater degree of poverty than Hispanics, the government shouldn't make English the national language? Exactly how does that work, logically speaking?


Any explanation other than tagging any statistic that doesn't harmonize with your preconceptions bogus?

I haven't stated that any of the statistics aren't true. In fact, the only person in this conversation who has done that is you. You are the one who has claimed that the statistics of native born Hispanics and foreign born Hispanics over- and under-state the true numbers. I take the numbers at face value.

What I have argued in every case is that your conclusions are in error, not the statistics themselves.

In this particular case, if Asian immigrants are doing better than White immigrants, it is because Asian immigrants have worked harder at integration and success within society than White immigrants. They have done better at learning English, obtaining an advanced education and becoming successful in the workplace. They have integrated into society better.


Does the KKK represent the view of the American community concerning immigration? Should I say it does you would probably object vehemently. So please don't misrepresent.

I'm not. La Razza and Aztalan are LEADERS of the immigration-rights movement in America. They were the organizers of last year's protests for immigrant rights. They aren't "extremists", they are the mainstream of the immigrant-rights movement. That's the problem. By contrast the KKK doesn't lead the anti-immigration movement.


However, I don't see ALL Hispanics demanding what you feel that ALL Hispanics are demanding. Why? Because as I explained before, the Hispanic community isn't a homogenous entity as you and the majority of people seem think. Actually, one would expect this to be common knowledge since it is part of elementary school history and social studies.

Sure. And not all Jews support the State of Israel. The Neturei Karta movement in particular is very anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. But that doesn't mean that support of Israel isn't the mainstream view of the Jewish community. So you may be right that not every Hispanic is demanding Spanish-language in the USA, it is something that a large (and very loud) segment of the Hispanic community wants and advocates for. It isn't an "extreme" viewpoint within the Hispanic community.

And if you are correct that it is a minority view of the Hispanic community, then why not make English the national language? What's the problem?


So for a better more realistic view of what is really going on, I suggest that you view the Hispanic community as it is and not as you imagine it to be.

I can only go by what I observe. I haven't seen anyone in the Hispanic community get up and say "We don't want Spanish language in government business." I only see the ones who agitate for it.

I have argued in the past that if the Muslim community doesn't stand up and denounce the Islamofascist terrorists, then they are guilty of tacit support of terrorism. I believe that the same argument applies here. If the view that demands Spanish language in government is the only one we hear, the question we have to ask is "WHY?" Where are the voices of moderation and the voices of those who disagree with that stance.

And if there is so much disagreement with the demand for Spanish language in government, then why are there so many government websites that offer their services in Spanish? Clearly SOMEONE is agitating for it, and the government feels that pressure enough to act on it. Who is behind it?


That's what Cain said to God about Abel after he'd murdered him. "Am I my brother's keeper?" Jesus answered that for us in his parable about the man found beaten on the road who was ignored until one who felt compassion came along, felt that it was his moral responsibility before God to offer a helping hand, and at cost to himself did so.

First of all, I'm an Orthodox Jew, so I take anything that appears in the New Testament or other Christian writings with a grain of salt. I know, you took that into consideration in your post, but I had to make it part of the record.

Cain wasn't guilty of not supporting his brother, he was guilty of murdering him. Big difference. The fact is that Cain WASN'T Abel's keeper. Nor should he have been. If Abel had gotten lost in the woods, and G-d asked Cain where his brother was, Cain would have been within his rights to say "I don't know, am I my brother's keeper." That would be a more comparable example.


To say, That isn't my problem!" actually would make a nation that can offer assistance to the less fortunate a pariah among the others.

I disagree. There are different ways of solving a problem or helping others. Is it my problem to help every poor man that I see on the street by giving him money? If so, how long will it be before I have to join him with his tin cup? But I can do the civicly responsible thing, which is to support charities that help poor people. Giving the poor guy my money isn't my problem. Giving to chaities that help poor people is my problem.

Similarly, is it my problem to accommodate every immigrant who comes into this country with Spanish language documentation? I don't think so. I think my civic responsibility lies with helping them learn English and allowing them to integrate into society so that they can learn to help themselves.

You can give a poor man a fish or you can teach him to fish. That I choose the latter doesn't make me a bad person or civicly iresponsible.


In any case, I didn't say it was your problem in my original post.

But it has become my problem because my tax dollars are supporting it. I feel that my tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere. That makes it my problem. And I want to change it.


I grew up in the United States and have always considered English its national language. During all that time I never have encountered any ethnic group who thought that it wasn't or that it shouldn't be the national language. The Hispanic press and Univision are always encouraging its readers and viewers to learn English and emphasizing the advantages that such a skill brings and the disadvantages of not knowing it. Hispanics which don't speak English for whatever reason never suggest that English not be the national language. What they do is constantly lament the fact that they can't speak any better. In view of this, I find it weird that suddenly there is this seemingly hysterical demand that English be made the national language in response to the Hispanic presence. Additionally, the statistics show that linguistic assimilation and acculturation is definitely taking place among the third generations just as it has with all other immigrant groups. So I find it totally unnecessary that Hispanics be made to feel that they are a threat to our country's language integrity.

If, as you say, most Hispanics see English as the national language, and if you agree with that point of view, then why not codify it in law?

And by the way, I am not agitating for English as the national language in response to Hispanics being here. I am doing it in response to the fact that the government is currently NOT operating in English only. I have a problem with the government operating in Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Swahili, Hebrew, Yiddish, Urdu, Swedish and Italian as well. This isn't an issue of me vs. Hispanics. It's an issue of me against the government operating in ANY language other than English. It's just that Hispanics are the largest group of immigrants and the loudest agitators for multiple-languages in government (and education too, but that is another discussion). So my response is directed at them. If it was a Chinese person or the Chinese community making the same demands, I would have the same response.

And you have quite skillfully avoided the question I asked before. What is your issue with making English the national language as a matter of law? You avoided it by stating that you are against my blaming the issue on Hispanics. You said that most Hispanics wouldn't have a problem with English as the national language. You have said that you see English as the de-facto national language. All good and wonderful. It still doesn't answer the question: what is your issue against codifying a law that makes English the national language?

Blacks have been successful at segregating themselves from the rest of society DESPITE the fact that they speak the same language.
Too bad they are the wrong color, and spoken like a true racist. Now that makes your whole argument one of a superior trying to control those you say are inferior because they can't do as you say so you want a feel good law that does nothing that feeds your own superiority. Its statements like these that take from the debate and gets down to trying your best to convince everyone of your superiority over others.



La Razza and Aztalan are LEADERS of the immigration-rights movement in America.

The fact is they are a minority among their own people, but get a lot of TV time. The average working Hispanic stiff, doesn't have time for this protest stuff, because they are working trying to have the American dream, as an american.
what is your issue against codifying a law that makes English the national language?
I don't know about Starman, but my opinion is that if we enforce the laws we already have this and other related problems would be a non issue. Wasting time on a feel good law does nothing to change things for the better, and obviously takes the attention off the real problem that your government wants as much cheap labor as possible so they can make more money. And if you want things to change VOTE.

Too bad they are the wrong color, and spoken like a true racist. Now that makes your whole argument one of a superior trying to control those you say are inferior because they can't do as you say so you want a feel good law that does nothing that feeds your own superiority. Its statements like these that take from the debate and gets down to trying your best to convince everyone of your superiority over others.

Huh? Why is it racist to say that Blacks have created their own segregation? Any social scientist worth their salt says the same thing. There are even a few Black leaders who are starting to recognize it about their own community. Bill Cosby has been speaking in venues across the country saying exactly that. What, exactly, is racist about recognizing the fact that Blacks have segregated themselves from the rest of society to a large degree?

It seems to me that unsubstantiated claims of racism are what detract from the debate.


The fact is they are a minority among their own people, but get a lot of TV time. The average working Hispanic stiff, doesn't have time for this protest stuff, because they are working trying to have the American dream, as an american.

That may be true. Or maybe not. But the fact is that they are STILL the leaders of the immigrants rights movement and are in the lead in pushing for multiple languages. The fact that these leaders may be the minority opinion doesn't matter much if there is nobody fom within the community to counter them. They have been able to take over the issue and claim to be the mainstream, and that's all that matters. They are the de-facto mainstream by force of the fact that nobody is countering them with another, more moderate "mainstream" opinion.


I don't know about Starman, but my opinion is that if we enforce the laws we already have this and other related problems would be a non issue. Wasting time on a feel good law does nothing to change things for the better, and obviously takes the attention off the real problem that your government wants as much cheap labor as possible so they can make more money. And if you want things to change VOTE.

I disagree with it being a useless feel good law. I believe that making English the national language will go a long way towards promoting integration of immigrants... like it was back in the post-WWII era and earlier. Back then, there were fewer immigrants on welfare, the ones who were got off it is quickly as possible, and all immigrants learned to get by in English, which allowed them to integrate more quickly and become financially and socially independent.

We have historical information to back up my position... nearly 200 years of it. 200 years of immigrants from all countries coming to this country and learning the language, and becoming better off during their time here for it. What makes you think that English as the national language is either useless or just a feel good law? Without trying it, how do you know it's a waste of time.

The only part of your post that I agree with is this sentence:
my opinion is that if we enforce the laws we already have this and other related problems would be a non issue.

I agree wholeheartedly. In your opinion, does that include enforcing the immigration laws and border security? Or am I being a racist for asking that question? You see, if we enforced the borders and started deporting illegal immigrants as the law requires, we wouldn't be dealing with the issue of immigrants DEMANDING their "rights" to deal with the government in foreign languages. But you probably see such enforcement as racist... despite calling for us to enforce the laws already on the books.

I commend you, Talaniman. You quite skillfully tried to get around the fact that I presented you with some pretty strong evidence that the government is complying with the demands of Spanish speakers by providing services in Spanish. Instead of admitting that the government is indeed operating in multiple languages, which you openly question as a point of fact, you instead tried to change the subject by calling me a racist. It was quite skillfully done. But I recognized it for what it was, and now I'm pointing out to everyone else on the board.

I've been called much worse things than "racist" in my time without getting flustered. It will take a bit more than that to get me off topic or distract me or put me on the defensive.

Next time, instead of hurling unfounded cies of racism at me, you could simply say "I disagree with your point," and leave it at that. Or else give me the reasons you disagree so that we can discuss them. Or try to prove me wrong based on facts. But calling me a racist isn't going to win you the argument.

Elliot

That may be true. Or maybe not. But the fact is that they are STILL the leaders of the immigrants rights movement and are in the lead in pushing for multiple languages. The fact that these leaders may be the minority opinion doesn't matter much if there is nobody fom within the community to counter them. They have been able to take over the issue and claim to be the mainstream, and that's all that matters. They are the de-facto mainstream by force of the fact that nobody is countering them with another, more moderate "mainstream" opinion.

So your actions and opinions are guided by the few, because the many are silently going about their business. Living and raising their family. Even though the press has elevated the few to prominence through TV, so your complaint is not about the few but your TV industry making it seem as the few speak for the many. That's like saying the few terrorist, speak for Islam. Maybe you should do more research beyond what appears on mainstream TV.


I agree wholeheartedly. In your opinion, does that include enforcing the immigration laws and border security?

Yes it does and that includes the law that makes it an offense punishable by fines and, or imprisonment, for anyone to employ workers without the proper documentation. Enforcement of this law alone would stop the incentive to come here for work.

I commend you, Talaniman. You quite skillfully tried to get around the fact that I presented you with some pretty strong evidence that the government is complying with the demands of Spanish speakers by providing services in Spanish. Instead of admitting that the government is indeed operating in multiple languages, which you openly question as a point of fact, you instead tried to change the subject by calling me a racist. It was quite skillfully done. But I recognized it for what it was, and now I'm pointing out to everyone else on the board.

Your idea of the government meeting demands, is unfounded and untrue, and I respectfully submit to you sir the government is doing all you say because it is in their interest to do so. Because you cannot see that is your own shortcoming and should endeavor to find out. I just wonder if you are as against the millions of overseas refugees who don't speak english, that the government allows into the country and subsidises them for years, until they can assimilate.

Huh? Why is it racist to say that Blacks have created their own segregation? Any social scientist worth their salt says the same thing. There are even a few Black leaders who are starting to recognize it about their own community. Bill Cosby has been speaking in venues across the country saying exactly that. What, exactly, is racist about recognizing the fact that Blacks have segregated themselves from the rest of society to a large degree?

It seems to me that unsubstantiated claims of racism are what detract from the debate.

Again you have chosen to believe what the TV tells you, and not done your home work, or else you would know that there are NO black leaders for the many, who go about their lives, but you fall victim to believe what the few are saying, simply because it fits your idea of the truth. The truth is this debate is about economics and not race, and I'm sure those that know the whole picture will agree at the risk of being against those mysterious social scientist you regard so highly. Your own words and attitude is what makes you a racist in my opinion, and I call it as I see it. And your right the poison of hatred will stifle any meaningful debate if you can manage to keep yours out of it and stick to facts and opinions.

Our main point of disagreement is the fact that making a law that changes nothing, is a waste of time and effort, that should be directed at the real problems. Now I'm still waiting for what would making English the official language of the USA, change or make better? My answer is NOTHING AT ALL.

So your actions and opinions are guided by the few, because the many are silently going about their business. Living and raising their family. Even though the press has elevated the few to prominence through TV, so your complaint is not about the few but your TV industry making it seem as the few speak for the many. That's like saying the few terrorist, speak for Islam. Maybe you should do more research beyond what appears on mainstream TV.

Assuming that "the many" are against the La Razza and Aztalan crowd, and are not in favor of multiple languages being used within the government, why should I be against them? I would agree with them. I only have a reason to take action against those I disagree with. Which means, in this case, the "immigrants rights movement" led by La Razza and Aztalan.

Do you make it a habbit of arguing with people with whom you agree? It would seem to be a fruitless endeavour. But if that's how you like spending your time, go right ahead. I'll stick to opposing those I actually disagree with.


Yes it does and that includes the law that makes it an offense punishable by fines and, or imprisonment, for anyone to employ workers without the proper documentation. Enforcement of this law alone would stop the incentive to come here for work.

Well we agree on that point, at least. It would certainly stop MOST of the incentive for coming here. As would increased border security and deportation. We seem to be in agreement on this point.



Your idea of the government meeting demands, is unfounded and untrue, and I respectfully submit to you sir the government is doing all you say because it is in their interest to do so.

Of course it's in their interests to do so. For two reasons... for the conservatives in government it is just easier to bow to pressure than stand up against it. And for liberals in government, Spanish speakers are a large voting bloc that they believe they can obtain in future elections by cowtowing to their demands. So yes, it is most certainly in their best interests to do so. That doesn't make it right.

But it is true that the government is definitely operating in multiple languages. The proof of that is inescapable.


Because you cannot see that is your own shortcoming and should endeavor to find out. I just wonder if you are as against the millions of overseas refugees who don't speak english, that the government allows into the country and subsidises them for years, until they can assimilate.

As I mentioned in my original post, I place political refugees in a completely different category from immigrants. Refugees should be pushed to the head of the line, and should be given reasonable support until they can get back on their feet. (Emphasis on REASONABLE.) But that does not mean accommodating their LANGUAGE. In fact, political refugees should be the first ones to want to learn English and become a part of American society. And having known a few political refugees in my time (Anatoly (Natan) Sharansky for one, and many other former Soviet political refugees as well--- I used to do charity and outreach work with political refugees from the former Soviet countries), that has generally been the case. They learn the language faster than any other group, despite have to learn a whole new alphabet and grammar. And NONE of them ever demanded Russian language government forms. So in response to your question, I would have issues with the government acomodating even political refugees in a foreign language. But I consider documented political refugees to be in a different category from all other forms of immigration.

As for what English as the National language would help, the answer is it would help with integration into society. Period. Do you deny that it would have that effect? Do you deny that those who learn English have an easier time integrating and becoming productive members of society? THAT is what it would help.

Elliot

ETWolverine, Assuming that "the many" are against the La Razza and Aztalan crowd, and are not in favor of multiple languages being used within the government, why should I be against them? I would agree with them. I only have a reason to take action against those I disagree with. Which means, in this case, the "immigrants rights movement" led by La Razza and Aztalan.
What actions can you take?
Do you make it a habbit of arguing with people with whom you agree? It would seem to be a fruitless endeavour. But if that's how you like spending your time, go right ahead. I'll stick to opposing those I actually disagree with.
Its a debate, an exchange of ideas, and opinions. And since we are both here in this "fruitless endeavor" we must both like spending our time this way.
Well we agree on that point, at least. It would certainly stop MOST of the incentive for coming here. As would increased border security and deportation. We seem to be in agreement on this point.
See, anything is possible:)
Of course it's in their interests to do so. For two reasons... for the conservatives in government it is just easier to bow to pressure than stand up against it. And for liberals in government, Spanish speakers are a large voting bloc that they believe they can obtain in future elections by cowtowing to their demands. So yes, it is most certainly in their best interests to do so. That doesn't make it right.
Political gobbledygook aside the government does recognise that non-english speakers must be helped, as far as being because of demands, sorry, I don't agree that is the case. As you say they have an interest in doing what they are doing.
But it is true that the government is definitely operating in multiple languages. The proof of that is inescapable.
This is where we drift apart, the business of government is done in english, and if you had c-spann you would know that, and what you keep referring to is the government doing its public services thing, which is entirely different, and has nothing to do with the governments business, but an attempt to facilitate inclusion. If you persist in being against this facilitation what am I supposed to conclude?
As I mentioned in my original post, I place political refugees in a completely different category from immigrants. Refugees should be pushed to the head of the line, and should be given reasonable support until they can get back on their feet. (Emphasis on REASONABLE.) But that does not mean accommodating their LANGUAGE. In fact, political refugees should be the first ones to want to learn English and become a part of American society. And having known a few political refugees in my time (Anatoly (Natan) Sharansky for one, and many other former Soviet political refugees as well--- I used to do charity and outreach work with political refugees from the former Soviet countries), that has generally been the case. They learn the language faster than any other group, despite have to learn a whole new alphabet and grammar. And NONE of them ever demanded Russian language government forms. So in response to your question, I would have issues with the government acomodating even political refugees in a foreign language. But I consider documented political refugees to be in a different category from all other forms of immigration.
We disagree. Its the same thing to me.
As for what English as the National language would help, the answer is it would help with integration into society. Period. Do you deny that it would have that effect?
Yes I think its a smoke screen for racism. It gives the government the right to deny needed services and care, to anyone who cannot be proficient with English, who happen at this time be Hispanic, coincidentally the fastest growing segment of our society.
Do you deny that those who learn English have an easier time integrating and becoming productive members of society?
YES!!!
THAT is what it would help.
NO!!!!!
Talaniman

What actions can you take?

Exactly the ones I'm taking now... agitating for a law to make English the national language.


Its a debate, an exchange of ideas, and opinions. And since we are both here in this "fruitless endeavor" we must both like spending our time this way.

Let's review: you had asked me why I wasn't disagreeing with what you say is the majoity of Hispanics in this country. I responded by answering that I wasn't arguing against people who's opinions I am in agreement with, so there is no reason for me to disagree with them. Doing so would be a fruitless endeavour. However, I disagree with you, so arguing with you isn't the same sort of fruitless endeavour.


Political gobbledygook aside the government does recognise that non-english speakers must be helped, as far as being because of demands, sorry, I don't agree that is the case. As you say they have an interest in doing what they are doing.

You can disagree all you want. Do you have anything to back it up?


This is where we drift apart, the business of government is done in english, and if you had c-spann you would know that, and what you keep referring to is the government doing its public services thing, which is entirely different, and has nothing to do with the governments business, but an attempt to facilitate inclusion. If you persist in being against this facilitation what am I supposed to conclude?

Which part of a "pulic service thing" is the IRS putting its forms in Spanish, the Unemployment Insurance allowing people to file for benefits online in Spanish, etc. This is government business. It is taking place in Spanish. The fact that C-Span shows Congress operating in English is meaningless. Congress is probably the smallest part of government. The government is made up of thousands of different agencies, with tens of thousands of employees. Most of those agencies (especially the ones with public contact) operate in multiple languages. Congress has only 535 members and constitutes a very small percentage of total government operations. I can continue to list government agencies operating in multiple languages, if you would like.l


We disagree. Its the same thing to me.

Feel free to disagree. But the law actually says otherwise. Political refugees are actually outside the regular rules of immigration by law. So you can disagree all you want, but from a legal interpretation there is nothing to back up your position.


Yes I think its a smoke screen for racism. It gives the government the right to deny needed services and care, to anyone who cannot be proficient with English, who happen at this time be Hispanic, coincidentally the fastest growing segment of our society.

Why is this a racial issue? What race are "Spanish speakers"? For that matter, since I feel the same way about the government operating in ANY language other than English, how can it be racism? I feel the same way about Hebrew and Yiddish, both of which I speak with varying degrees of fluency.



Do you deny that those who learn English have an easier time integrating and becoming productive members of society?
YES!!!
THAT is what it would help.
NO!!!!!
Talaniman

Then you are just denying the obvious. People who cannot speak English cannot do as well in the USA as those who can. This is simple logic. If you can't speak the predominant language, it limits the number and types of jobs you can attain, and thus the economic prosperity you can achieve. To deny this basic fact of logic and history is to hide your head in the sand.

Put quite simply, among successful Hispanic businessmen in the USA, the millionaires among the Hispanic community, how many of them cannot speak English and conduct business only in Spanish? And how many non-English speaking millionaires are there in the USA? I would argue that the statistical answer to both these questions is so close to zero as to be insignificant.

If you cannot see the connection between language and financial success, then you just aren't looking. And in that case, there's really nothing to talk about.

Elliot

ETWolverine]

Segregation is irrelevant to the subject. What is relevant is that though they supposedly are linguistically superior that linguistic superiority, which you continue to put forth as essential to success in the USA doesn't seem to mean squat! Also, if indeed they have wound up segregated, that supports my argument about English proficiency not being the main force of assimilation.



And what point are you trying to make here? That because Blacks suffer a greater degree of poverty than Hispanics, the government shouldn't make English the national language? Exactly how does that work, logically speaking?


English is, and has been the recognized national language for the entire history of this country. Or are you unaware of that?



... I take the numbers at face value

I take nothing at face value since taking things at face value within a society predisposed to misrepresent minorities would be poor scholarship and might even come across as bias camouflaged with a thin veneer of supposed trust.


What I have argued in every case is that your conclusions are in error, not the statistics themselves.

Simply ignoring the obvious conclusions which the statistics clearly justify is tantamount to an argument against them.



... They have done better at learning English, obtaining an advanced education and becoming successful in the workplace. They have integrated into society better.

Better at learning English than the native English speakers?
All of the successful foreigners I see in my neighborhood barely speak English at all. These include Koreans, Chinese and Asiatic Indians. They own all the businesses in African American community in which they operate. Gasoline station, Restaurant, Magazine Store and three well-stocked grocery stores.




La Razza and Aztalan are LEADERS of the immigration-rights movement in America. They were the organizers of last year's protests for immigrant rights. They aren't "extremists," they are the mainstream of the immigrant-rights movement. That's the problem. By contrast the KKK doesn't lead the anti-immigration movement.


BTW

The KKK is against Jewish presence and Jewish immigration into the USA. So they definitely aren't immigration neutral.

In any case, if indeed these extremist separatist groups are the leaders of the immigrant rights they sure aren't getting any airtime on Univision. In fact, they aren't even mentioned on Univision for that matter. Which arouses the suspicion that this is info you probably garnered from the Lou Dobbs anti-immigration crusade in which he distorts, mangles, twists, and disfigures 95% of the info that comes his way in order to get his way.




Sure. And not all Jews support the State of Israel. The Neturei Karta movement in particular is very anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. But that doesn't mean that support of Israel isn't the mainstream view of the Jewish community. So you may be right that not every Hispanic is demanding Spanish-language in the USA, it is something that a large (and very loud) segment of the Hispanic community wants and advocates for. It isn't an "extreme" viewpoint within the Hispanic community.


The Spanish language has been present in what you call the USA even before the English-speaking pilgrims landed here and before the Jamestown colony was founded. Why? Because the parts of the USA you are protesting that Spanish is being spoken in were formerly a Spanish colony and later became Mexico proper. So it comes across as rather weird that you find it strange that Spanish is spoken in those areas.



if you are correct that it is a minority view of the Hispanic community, then why not make English the national language? What's the problem?

The timing and the effects it will have on those accused of or perceived as provoking this self-defensive legislation--that's the problem.




I can only go by what I observe. I haven't seen anyone in the Hispanic community get up and say "We don't want Spanish language in government business." I only see the ones who agitate for it.


Where are the voices of moderation and the voices of those who disagree with that stance.

There ca be no voices for moderation when there are no voices sufficiently significant to be opposed.--sorry. Perhaps the whole agitation and demand scenario is simply a figment of your imagination. At least its intensity since I am totally unaware of it as are all other Hispanics that I mention it to.




First of all, I'm an Orthodox Jew, so I take anything that appears in the New Testament or other Christian writings with a grain of salt. I know, you took that into consideration in your post, but I had to make it part of the record...

Thanks for mentioning your religious background although I don't see it's relevance.
The quotation is made in support of an ethical principle taught in Ethics 101, and is an essential part of the training for lawyers, philosophers, psychiatrists, etcetera who deal in the field of the behavioral sciences. In any case Cain knew what God was referring to. So his answer is not irrelevant God' s question at all. It is simply an evasion, one that shows deficient sense of concern for others, but not one intended to negate what he knew that God knew he had done. Neither was God asking because he didn't know what God Cain had done. The question was a rhetorical one. In short, the example fits very well with your present attitude which seems to convey the same lack of concern that Cain's statement about his brother and about all other humans by extension.





I disagree. There are different ways of solving a problem or helping others. Is it my problem to help every poor man that I see on the street by giving him money? If so, how long will it be before I have to join him with his tin cup? But I can do the civicly responsible thing, which is to support charities that help poor people. Giving the poor guy my money isn't my problem. Giving to charities that help poor people is my problem.


That's a strawman argument since I am not suggesting that you help every person on Earth since obviously your meager resources won't allow it. Neither am I suggesting that you bypass charities. What a waste of time! Please stay on subject.

BTW

Regardless of your denial of any moral responsibility toward others, your being a human being automatically places such responsibility squarely on your shoulders. That you fidget and chafe under what you consider a burden is unfortunately irrelevant.



similarly, is it my problem to accommodate every immigrant who comes into this country with Spanish language documentation? I don't think so. I think my civic responsibility lies with helping them learn English and allowing them to integrate into society so that they can learn to help themselves.

Why not leave that up to people who are far better qualified than yourself to determine?
People such as social scientists, for example, who are employed by the administration Americans chose to represent them? As for you claim that these people aren't helping themselves or are unwilling to--that comes across as bigotry. It might not be--mind you--but it comes across as extremely narrow minded nevertheless.




You can give a poor man a fish or you can teach him to fish. That I choose the latter doesn't make me a bad person or civicly iresponsible.

NO, what might make you a bad person is your constant misrepresentations your lack of compassion for those less fortunate than yourself and your vehement dedication to making their life more difficult via totally unnecessary legislation. Now that might make you a bad person in the eyes of those more aware of their moral duties than you seem to be.




But it has become my problem because my tax dollars are supporting it. I feel that my tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere. That makes it my problem. And I want to change it.

That's because your tax dollars are in the possession of those who you voted to decide what to do with your tax dollars. Actually, there are so many, many, other ways in which your tax dollars are being misused too much greater degree that you actually have a bewildering array of choices to complain about. Yet, among all these misuses of your precious tax dollars you have chosen to focus specifically on this. Why?



If, as you say, most Hispanics see English as the national language, and if you agree with that point of view, then why not codify it in law?

If codification would make life more difficult for immigrants why would you insist on codification?




And by the way, I am not agitating for English as the national language in response to Hispanics being here. I am doing it in response to the fact that the government is currently NOT operating in English only...

Could have fooled me! Calling it agitation won't change it one iota into agitation just as your reference to collateral damage when innocent people are killed by wayward bombs or you waxing melodic about friendly fire when a soldier is killed by his own troops make it anything other than what it is. Immigrants are requesting, asking, petitioning, lobbying, for government not to pass a law which will make their assimilation into American society more difficult. That is all. Anything else is your addition, interpretation, based perhaps on your watching too much Lou Dobbs.


And you have quite skillfully avoided the question I asked before...


I have been very clear concerning this issue.

Starman,

When did I defend the KKK? I stated that they are not a goup in any leadership position in the USA. How is that defending them?

I'll get to the rest of your post later, as time permits.

Elliot

Then you are just denying the obvious. People who cannot speak English cannot do as well in the USA as those who can....Elliot


I see people arriving here all the time from Asiatic countries. They have poor or almost non-existent English skills. Yet they set up businesses, and do far better than those in the neighborhood who speak English fluently. So I think that you need to qualify that statement to bering it more in line with reality.

Starman,

When did I defend the KKK? I stated that they are not a goup in any leadership position in the USA. How is that defending them?

I'll get to the rest of your post later, as time permits.

Elliot

I apologize. The word "defend" isn't the proper word to use in that context. I'll go back and modify the statement.

Starman,

When did I defend the KKK? I stated that they are not a goup in any leadership position in the USA. How is that defending them?

I'll get to the rest of your post later, as time permits.

Elliot



My objection to your comparison is that you make it seem as if the whole Hispanic community is behind these extremist groups. That isn't so. In contrast, the KKK anti immigration stance against those groups it considers non-American is in my opinion supported much more by the American public than the Hispanic community supports these separatist extremist views you mention. That's what I really meant to say. My apologies for have previously gone off subject.

The only way to keep English as our only accepted language in the U.S. is we have to get rid :mad: of the Congressmen and Senators who oppose this idea. Our nation was founded by English speaking citizens and it needs to stay that way. :D

We need to vote out :) politicians who oppose English as the only accepted language for the U.S. We can make our voices heard at the voting polls, next election. :)

Too many of our officials are hung up on the PC idea of "diversity" even to the point of celebrating it. The most certain way to break up a country from within is for there to be many different languages in common use, with each community retaining its ethnic culture. Right now, if you only speak English, there are many jobs you cannot get, and areas where you can't read the street signs. Politicians love to talk about unity, but allow a situation to continue that only leads to fragmentation.

Theodore Roosevelt articulated the unspoken American linguistic-melting-pot theory when he boomed, "We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

There is a lot of expense involved in having more than one national language. Schools will need special teachers and textbooks. All hospitals and corporations will need to have printed material in each language.

Not to mention DMV and Elections. It could become a real mess.

Should English Be the Law? - 97.04 (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97apr/english.htm)

Belgium and Canada have never managed to forge a stable national identity; Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia never did either. Unique otherness immunizes countries against linguistic destabilization. Even Switzerland and especially India have problems; in any country with as many different languages as India has, language will never not be a problem.

Russians living in Estonia for generations have been told it is now a condition of citizenship to be able to speak Estonian.

The twentieth century is ending as it began -- with trouble in the Balkans and with nationalist tensions flaring up in other parts of the globe. (Toward the end of his life Bismarck predicted that "some damn fool thing in the Balkans" would ignite the next war.) Language isn't always part of the problem. But it usually is.

Our officials don't want to take a chance on losing votes by taking a firm stand for one language even knowing the problems of these other countries with several languages.

I guess we'll cross that street when we come to it. It's now the American way to operate.

Belgium and Canada have never managed to forge a stable national identityNot sure where you get that idea. As a Canadian I am proud of such. I love being perfectly bilingual and I truly enjoy the respect I get when travelling once they find out I'm Canadian.

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.

She is RIGHT! Any other way would smack of racism and would affect countless groups of people who were either born here or became legal immigrants of different nationalities. One has to remember, America is made up of ALL colors, races, ethnicities, etc. And Since the American Indian was the first one in this country, and obviously did not speak English as their first language, it would seem most apropos to adopt "American Indian" as the official language of the U.S. if you don't want to end up being seen as a WASP-promoting racist. In this regard, and get a load of this, I Do Agree with what Barack is saying in the quote just above.

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.

But I also believe that this effort is being made to counter the progressive gains of Hispanics in this country. After all, they are now called the most important minority and growing by leaps and bounds. It's strange that when reports came out about Hispanics being the fastest growing minority in this country, suddenly there was this insane push to build border fences and keep them out. Why? Afraid they'll multiply and produce more children in this country that will, in effect, be legal American citizens but of Mexican ancestry?! And now this push to make English the "official" language, if it doesn't beat all. So, I do agree with both Barack's stance and Hillary's. They are right on target on this one. And let's not forget that when we talk RACE, the Mexican or Hispanic person's RACE is actually WHITE, unless they are of another race! How many of you knew this? How many didn't? It is, and you can check any Hispanic person's birth certificate under "race" for the PROOF. They do not belong to any other racial category but White. I don't know how this "ethnicity" thing got started but it's the RACE that people take pride in, including Hispanics as well they should. But now, let's go and see what Hispanics think and say about this matter that primarily targets and would affect them.

http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/issues/language/plusonly.html

________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!

Just Say No Deal (http://justsaynodeal.com/)

Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention (http://powerofpuma.blogspot.com/2008/06/howard-dean-schemes-to-shut-down.html)

And for ALL Obamanots:

Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008 (http://www.nobamanetwork.com/)

Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com (http://www.writehillaryin.com/)

But I also believe that this effort is being made to counter the progressive gains of Hispanics in this country. After all, they are now called the most important minority and growing by leaps and bounds. It's strange that when reports came out about Hispanics being the fastest growing minority in this country, suddenly there was this insane push to build border fences and keep them out. Why? Afraid they'll multiply and produce more children in this country that will, in effect, be legal American citizens but of Mexican ancestry?! And now this push to make English the "official" language, if it doesn't beat all. So, I do agree with both Barack's stance and Hillary's. They are right on target on this one. And let's not forget that when we talk RACE, the Mexican or Hispanic person's RACE is actually WHITE, unless they are of another race! How many of you knew this? How many didn't? It is, and you can check any Hispanic person's birth certificate under "race" for the PROOF. They do not belong to any other racial category but White. I don't know how this "ethnicity" thing got started but it's the RACE that people take pride in, including Hispanics as well they should. But now, let's go and see what Hispanics think and say about this matter that primarily targets and would affect them.

http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/issues/language/plusonly.html

________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!

Just Say No Deal (http://justsaynodeal.com/)

Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention (http://powerofpuma.blogspot.com/2008/06/howard-dean-schemes-to-shut-down.html)

And for ALL Obamanots:

Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008 (http://www.nobamanetwork.com/)

Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com (http://www.writehillaryin.com/)


That's interesting for you to even question. Of course it's about the illegals push to amnesty. When someone chooses to come here to live, why would it be up to our society, our taxpayers to acclimate to their language and culture instead of them doing the acclimating?

The expense of our becoming multilingual is huge and at a time when our economy is the worst I've ever seen it. Why do the taxpayers once again have to pick up the cost of changing all of our public institutions, forms, road signs, hospitals, and every conceivable public event, etc. to please people who have come here uninvited?

America opens it's doors to people who come here legally after waiting their turn - and they acclimate themselves to our society since it's where they chose to come. It has been that way since the beginning and has allowed newcomer immigrants to take pride in this country. In my opinion, it is not anti-American to expect others to learn our language or for us to want to keep the language this country began under. The last poll I saw showed 80% of the citizens feel this way. (not that it matters to our government once the election has ended)

That's interesting for you to even question. Of course it's about the illegals push to amnesty. When someone chooses to come here to live, why would it be up to our society, our taxpayers to acclimate to their language and culture instead of them doing the acclimating?

Perhaps because America is known as a humanitarian country that is sensitive (or once was) to all of the different colors of the rainbow that comprise people who come here as well as their culture, and if it wants English to be the "official language" then we should add ENGLAND behind U.S.A. because it's really their language to begin with, or can't we develop one for our own? The reason for that could be that there are so many people from different countries that to single one country out and grab just that language for our official language would be tantamount to being most insensitive and the epitome of favoritism and unfairness plus. Instead, let's make "American Indian" the official language which would then solve the problem, not be seen as being racist, and honor the First Americans!

The expense of our becoming multilingual is huge and at a time when our economy is the worst I've ever seen it. Why do the taxpayers once again have to pick up the cost of changing all of our public institutions, forms, road signs, hospitals, and every conceivable public event, etc. to please people who have come here uninvited?

Simply because to do otherwise would alienate our visitors and they would perceive the richest country in the world, America, to be the "Stuck-Up Country", very control-oriented, that wants to adopt the British language as their own just to snub them rather than welcome multi-languages to reflect all of the peoples who have settled here. It's not the "money thing" at all, it's the nose-in-the-air attitude many have against others in this country, let's just call a spade a spade and admit it. Besides, Barack Obama, the presumptive democratic presidential nominee does not have a problem with it, so why should anyone else?! It has been said that what he says goes and just wait if he gets in the White House! That should put an end to all of this crud nonsense of English Only. Again, I say he is right in this regard.

America opens it's doors to people who come here legally after waiting their turn - and they acclimate themselves to our society since it's where they chose to come. It has been that way since the beginning and has allowed newcomer immigrants to take pride in this country. IMHO, it is not anti-American to expect others to learn our language or for us to want to keep the language this country began under. The last poll I saw showed 80% of the citizens feel this way. (not that it matters to our government once the election has ended)

To begin with, there are many who do not believe in such polls (as if they were truly accurate to begin with), and Congress would be paying much closer attention to their constituents who responded to those polls and what they were saying if there was any merit in that that would not be perceived as being racist. But, let's start by not making it so hard for people who are already here to gain a decent path to full citizenship! Let's not take 30 years to consider whether we will legally accept them or not. That's patently ridiculous and pathetic. Also, why is it that we always have to alienate only our neighbors to the South? In my opinion and that of many others, we should erect large fences on the CANADIAN border instead of the Mexican as that is where many more terrorists enter the U.S. and it also has its good share of illegals! Why aren't we doing that? Why are we always picking on Mexico? I don't see that as right or fair. Even in the country of Canada, there are provinces and states that speak French exclusively as well as other languages. There is no "Only English" or "Only Canadian" language. Why? Because they truly value the background of the different people who live there, their French speakers, for one group, as well as those of many other countries. It is shameful that some people living in the U.S. would want to be different in that respect and hide their racism under the umbrella of "English Only" so we don't have to "pay" for translators, instruction books, etc. I'm sure such "dire" expense would make this rich country go broke the next moment, at the batting of an eye. I find it extremely difficult to understand how on the one hand, Americans are tearing down fences and barriers by supporting a Black man for the nation's highest office, while on the other hand, they are erecting fences intended to reject and divide our neighbors to the South in Mexico with the English Only proposal. It just doesn't make any sense. But I'll tell you something, that's exactly what gives this country a snub-nose character when Europe and other countries read about what we are proposing to do. English Only is totally unnecessary and divisive. We all have to live with one another and learn to get along. Let's try to IMPROVE our relations with the world instead of erecting fences and reasons to be perceived as shutting others out who may be different, in some ways, than we.

________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!

Just Say No Deal (http://justsaynodeal.com/)

Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention (http://powerofpuma.blogspot.com/2008/06/howard-dean-schemes-to-shut-down.html)

And for ALL Obamanots:

Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008 (http://www.nobamanetwork.com/)

Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com (http://www.writehillaryin.com/)

The reason we don't build a fence on the border of Canada is because 12 million of then aren't trespassing into our country.

It's like if you have two neighbors one has 2 kids that run into your yard. The other neighbor has 60 kids that run into your yard stay there and export your cash back to their house. If you could only build one fence at a time which neighbor would you fence out first? Even if you like kids there comes to be a point when you have to say keep your kids off my freakin lawn.

First of all we came to this country speaking the English language, which later became our own American dialect, which is not quite the same as British.

Speaking different or same language is not racist in any form - if you see it as that, it is because you have a racist mind - not me. All colors and ethnicities already speak our language and have every since they arrived in America. No problem from language barriers. The real problem comes when people speak different languages. That is a major barrier to friendship or community participation.

I don't know your nationality but you obviously have no love for America. I do. It wouldn't be the country it is with different languages being used in public places... I don't care what language anyone speaks in their home or neighborhood.

And when a poll disagrees with your stance is it your way to decry all polls instead of paying attention to the results?

I don't want to support the illegals, and don't worry about alienating our 'visitors' who are actually trespassers. No one is picking on the Mexicans... they need to wait and come here legally like people from every other country - and then follow the same guidelines as all immigrants have done so we can keep the country we have formed.

I guess Michealb already answered your Canada vs Mexico dilemma.

I don't know your nationality but you obviously have no love for America. I do. Ah yes, when all else fails use the false-patriotic "I love america more than you" routine. Always good for a giggle.

The reason we don't build a fence on the border of Canada is because 12 million of then aren't trespassing into our country.

I don't know where you get your information but would you prefer the TERRORISTS who DO come from Canada (because it's easier to get through there), as has been reported, to trespass into our country instead of those who may be illegal but not terrorists, because that's just what you would get if they left you in charge to hold the gates wide open to terrorists AND illegals of other nationalities who come in from Canada. So, let's not just target Mexico. Let's be fair about this matter. Illegals can come from literally ANY place, Canada, Mexico, England, etc. not just one country.

It's like if you have two neighbors one has 2 kids that run into your yard. The other neighbor has 60 kids that run into your yard stay there and export your cash back to their house. If you could only build one fence at a time which neighbor would you fence out first? Even if you like kids there comes to be a point when you have to say keep your kids off my freakin lawn.

That is the most uninformed, racist analogy I have ever heard of. I don't see how it could come any closer. And if by your analogy you're saying that all Mexicans are thieves (as it appears most assuredly that you are), you have hereby indicted all the Mexican people who cross the border including those who are legal or visitors. By not qualifying your statement by saying that only those Mexicans who may have broken the law who were CAUGHT, Tried, and Prosecuted, IF found guilty, should be administered justice, you and purplewings are in the same racist boat. With mentality such as yours, it is no wonder Mexico hasn't erupted into a country of violence against "free-thinkers" like you. By the way, I do not defend illegal acts, I am AGAINST the "English Only" proposal because quite literally it is racist and that proposal is the main topic of this thread. Illegals can and will be prosecuted according to the law and brought to justice. But we don't need to erect fences around the U.S. - Mexico border to keep people out while trying to foster diplomatic relations with that Country. We need to tear down the fences of divisiveness with our neighbors to the South because if all people thought like you about Mexican people, we would be looking at another U.S. - Mexico war, with the U.S. being seen as the racist country who indeed likes to get their money by selling our exports to Mexico but hates to deal with its people many who come to BUY Our Products and help our own economy. Yes, fyi, there are many rich Mexicans who come here to BUY, believe it or not and many have been known to Save American Lives even to the point of putting their own safety in jeopardy by risking mean-spirited Minutemen in order to do kind deeds. So, it's not just one-sided any more than to say that U.S. citizens would go and exploit Mexicans and cause harm to them by being an illegal in their country. There will be some but many who would not. But we have both digressed and again, this thread is about "English Only" as the official language, something I much oppose.

________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!

Just Say No Deal (http://justsaynodeal.com/)

Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention (http://powerofpuma.blogspot.com/2008/06/howard-dean-schemes-to-shut-down.html)

And for ALL Obamanots:

Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008 (http://www.nobamanetwork.com/)

Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com (http://www.writehillaryin.com/)

First of all we came to this country speaking the English language, which later became our own American dialect, which is not quite the same as British.

Who did? All Americans of mixed nationalities or you, with your superiority complex, or was it the ones who were first in this country, the American Indians, who were non-English speakers?

Speaking different or same language is not racist in any form - if you see it as that, it is because you have a racist mind - not me. All colors and ethnicities already speak our language and have every since they arrived in America. No problem from language barriers. The real problem comes when people speak different languages. That is a major barrier to friendship or community participation.

Now let me understand this. You said "Speaking different or same language is not racist in any form - if you see it as that, it is because you have a racist mind - not me." And in the same paragraph you have the hormones to say "The real problem comes when people speak different languages. That is a major barrier to friendship or community participation." Lady, have you lost it or what, or are you just nuts??! You are saying that speaking a different or same language is not racist in any form and that I'm racist. Then you go on to say that the problem comes when people speak different languages and that it is a " .... major barrier to friendship or community participation." A major barrier? To friendship or community participation? So, you don't want them anywhere near you, I see. So, YOU are indeed the racist as all can clearly see now! Thanks for elucidating that fact.

And your comment that all colors and ethnicities already speak "our" language? Are you sure about that? And it is not I who have a racist mind, but the more you write, we can clearly see that it is actually You! Again, let's revisit this statement of yours. You say "The real problem comes when people speak different languages." Why is that a "problem" for you, oh yes, I forget, it's your racist mind that controls you, therefore you could not accept it as the norm. But try to explain that to our Canadian friends who have areas that speak French exclusively instead of English. Tell them you have a problem with that and see where they'll plant a foot into! Tell the people who live and speak their own native languages in these U.S. such as Spanish in Florida, Los Angeles, San Antonio and many other places and see where you would find yourself.

I don't know your nationality but you obviously have no love for America. I do. It wouldn't be the country it is with different languages being used in public places.....I don't care what language anyone speaks in their home or neighborhood.

Oh, so you don't care what they speak at home or in the neighborhood but just so they don't do it in public places because that would be so despicable and un-American to you. And you do want to push this country into accepting ENGLISH ONLY as you are doing, huh. Now, I get it. Sorry but you are the racist in disguise. By the way, I Love America enough to care that it remains diversified not divisive as you do since you don't want different languages spoken in public places because to you it wouldn't be the country it is. You want all people speaking what you think they should be speaking. But better yet, try to explain that "logic" to the people of many different nationalities who keep a very special place in their heart for their native languages and speak it all they want. Explain that one to the Polish, Italians, Swedish, Germans, French, Spanish, Czechs, etc. who are Americans living in this country but who speak their native tongue and see how they would reward you for your "wisdom".

And when a poll disagrees with your stance is it your way to decry all polls instead of paying attention to the results?

Oh, give me a break, Ms. poll-believer! If you think polls aren't rigged to some extent to influence particular results, I will sell you the Atlantic Ocean (only you'd probably buy it with your mentality).

I don't want to support the illegals, and don't worry about alienating our 'visitors' who are actually trespassers. No one is picking on the Mexicans...they need to wait and come here legally like people from every other country - and then follow the same guidelines as all immigrants have done so we can keep the country we have formed.

Keep the country?! And you think they would just pick up this country and take it back with them or push you out of it, according to your way of thinking! Have you even heard of those who come to work hard doing the jobs no native-born American wants to do, those who actually help to put food on our table? What about you going out to the very hot fields on the back of a truck to pick fruits and vegetables for twelve to sixteen hours a day for a few bucks and little to no rights? Five minutes in the field and you'd be crying for mercy, kicking, screaming and begging for a fine Mexican illegal to quickly take your place! I've heard enough to know where you're actually coming from sister!

I guess Michealb already answered your Canada vs Mexico dilemma.
Actually, I had to enlighten him to some things he conveniently did not acknowledge. By the way, You too need to read my reply to him.

________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!

Just Say No Deal (http://justsaynodeal.com/)

Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention (http://powerofpuma.blogspot.com/2008/06/howard-dean-schemes-to-shut-down.html)

And for ALL Obamanots:

Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008 (http://www.nobamanetwork.com/)

Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com (http://www.writehillaryin.com/)

OMG. What language do you speak? Or understand? Not one thing that you've said in your response is accurate in my thinking. Please don't use the old 'racist' number for anyone who doesn't agree with what you think is correct. Mexicans are white - I am white. Where is the 'racist'?

Why you quoted me is a mystery since your response and my words are from two completely different places. Thank heavens I don't think like you do!

I knew long ago when someone screeches racist because they object to something someone else says - no matter how clearly defined the explanations - that person is answering only to the voices they hear inside themselves.

Mexicans are white - I am white. Where is the 'racist'?

Not true, Mexicans are Hispanic. And diverse in their ancestry, per se. There must be something inherently wrong south of us, for them to be running here is the numbers they have, and the risks they take. That's another topic, but having English as a national language officially, is redundant to me, because that's a given, so I can't see wasting time and energy on a feel good piece of legislation, that basically changes nothing. So please enlighten me on what are the real impacts this will have in the real world?

OMG. What language do you speak? Or understand? Not one thing that you've said in your response is accurate in my thinking. Please don't use the old 'racist' number for anyone who doesn't agree with what you think is correct. Mexicans are white - I am white. Where is the 'racist'?

Why you quoted me is a mystery since your response and my words are from two completely different places. Thank heavens I don't think like you do!

I knew long ago when someone screeches racist because they object to something someone else says - no matter how clearly defined the explanations - that person is answering only to the voices they hear inside themselves.

Then by your own explanation, you are in complete denial of your racist attitude.

________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!

Just Say No Deal (http://justsaynodeal.com/)

Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention (http://powerofpuma.blogspot.com/2008/06/howard-dean-schemes-to-shut-down.html)

And for ALL Obamanots:

Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008 (http://www.nobamanetwork.com/)

Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com (http://www.writehillaryin.com/)

Not true, Mexicans are Hispanic. And diverse in their ancestry, per se. There must be something inherently wrong south of us, for them to be running here is the numbers they have, and the risks they take. Thats another topic, but having English as a national language officially, is redundant to me, because thats a given, so I can't see wasting time and energy on a feel good piece of legislation, that basically changes nothing. So please enlighten me on what are the real impacts this will have in the real world??

Clare Sheridan | "Another White Race:" Mexican Americans and the Paradox of Whiteness in Jury Selection | Law and History Review, 21.1 | The History Cooperative (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/21.1/forum_sheridan.html)
In Sanchez v. State, 243 S.W. 2d 700, that 'Mexican people.. . Are not a separate race but are white people of Spanish descent.' In contemplation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mexicans are therefore members of and within the classification of the white race...

Economic costs of mass immigration (legal and illegal immigration) - CAIR - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (http://www.cairco.org/econ/econ.html)

Currently there are an estimated 9 to 11 million illegals in the U.S. double the 1994 level. A quarter-million illegal aliens from the Middle-east currently live in the U.S, and a growing number are entering by crossing the Mexican border.

FAIR research suggests that "between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration; the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year." The National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1997 that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000.8

80% of cocaine and 50% of heroin in the U.S. is smuggled across the border by Mexican nationals. Drug cartels spend a half-billion dollars per year bribing Mexico's corrupt generals and police officials, and armed confrontations between the Mexican army and U.S. Border Patrol agents are a real threat. There have been 118 documented incursions by the Mexican military over the last five years.

Illegal aliens have cost billions of taxpayer-funded dollars for medical services. Dozens of hospitals in Texas, New Mexico Arizona, and California, have been forced to close or face bankruptcy because of federally-mandated programs requiring free emergency room services to illegal aliens. Taxpayers pay half-a-billion dollars per year incarcerating illegal alien criminals.

***You might also want to read some of the former postings right here that further detail the repercussions of mass immigration.

Not true, Mexicans are Hispanic.

You are quite incorrect about that. The RACE of a Mexican is WHITE. The ethnicity of such a person would be classified as "Hispanic". That is the way it is and has always been. Perhaps because there are some who do not want to admit that Mexicans are White, they have concopted and stress more this category of "ethnicity" to classify Mexicans. But logically speaking there is no such thing as a "Hispanic race" since their race is White. You will find some mixtures in some Mexican people of course just as with any other nationality. But when you go into many places in Mexico you will find many Mexicans who are blond, blue-eyed and very fair skinned who do not speak any English only Spanish. With the Indian influence their appearance can of course change. And to digress a bit, of course, many Spaniards of European descent, although different from Mexican because they are not one and the same, are likewise blond and blue-eyed with fair skin as with other variations in between. Why should that matter? That's the way it is.

________________________________________
Interested in the November presidential election? Just Say No Deal!

Just Say No Deal (http://justsaynodeal.com/)

Power of Puma: Howard Dean Schemes To Shut Down Democratic Convention (http://powerofpuma.blogspot.com/2008/06/howard-dean-schemes-to-shut-down.html)

And for ALL Obamanots:

Nobama Network - Dedicated to Unity Democrats, Republicans, Independents Election 2008 (http://www.nobamanetwork.com/)

Welcome to WriteHillaryIn.com (http://www.writehillaryin.com/)

All this argument started about language. I greatly appreciated a man I worked with some yeas ago. He was from Mexico legally, worked as a machinist and was good at it. He told me that when he got here, the first thing he did was to go to school and learn ENGLISH. His children spoke english, he paid taxes and bought a house. He understood the importance of learning the language of the country he chose to live in. Why is it so unreasonable for us to expect all immigrants to do as much? As to the native Americans, which one of their languages would you prefer that we learned. There were several, I think, and maybe that was one of the reasons they could never get together to defend their country against illegal immigrants. Maybe??

¿Qué dijo usted? No habla inglés

I don't really see the harm in designating a languge, as the official language of America.

With that said, I think we, as Americans need to do a much much much better job, in getting our young ones learning a second language.

Schools should start right from the first grade, when it's easier to learn when you are younger, a second even third languge.

Most of the international community can speak English, yet a good portion of us, myself included, can not speak theirs.

I worked supporting the International commuinty, with people from all over the world that were here in the States and everyone of them could speak English, some better then others, but all put forth their best effort to learn English.

Their was a French Officer, who bought software to better his ability to learn English, yet I could only converse with all of the Internationals in my native tongue and felt quite foolish.

I think it would help all of us to learn at least one second language so that we can communicate and understand all that surrounds us today.

I see people arriving here all the time from Asiatic countries. They have poor or almost non-existent English skills. Yet they set up businesses, and do far better than those in the neighborhood who speak English fluently. So I think that you need to qualify that statement to bering it more in line with reality.


My former mother-in-law was an immigrant from the middle east who never learned to speak enough English to handle her own affairs. She didn't drive of course, not being able to get a license without understanding the road signs or rules. That meant she had to be driven everywhere.

She had money to invest and her English speaking children found her income property to purchase. Although it made a nice living for her, she wasn't successful in my eyes. She had no interest in any social or political organization or event, or even a personal contact with her neighbors. She lived within her family members as they handled all her personal business, even taking care of her building maintenance and rental problems. She became a horrendous burden at a young age.

After working 6 days a week with four children to care for - and then to take care of her personal needs and business demands was nothing short of a nightmare.

Looking at her home and furnishings one would likely conclude she was a woman of wealth - a successful woman who didn't speak English... at who's expense?

Hi everyone,

American is english but with variety of different accents, just as in England depending from what part you originate from you also speak with a variety of differing lilts, not to mention all the different nationalities, as we are now a multicultural society.

In England,yes you can request that any efficial papers be printed in your native tongue.If circulars come through your door they are printed in a number of different languages to satisfy the many different cultures here automatically.

Many would say that they always take priority over the English people!!

If I were American I think I would object to the suggestion of making my inherited by birth language English... how dare they, you are Americans and proud of it.

I am not up on American politics so am not qualified to answer other parts of your question... my apologies

This post has been a very interesting reading and by far the longest one I have seen so far.

What I have mainly read about is about reading materials to accommodate those that do not speak English. My main concern is, and I'm not sure how it is in other states but here in Nebraska, it is coming down to where businesses are starting to make it a job requirement to speak Spanish as well as English. Once the Spanish language becomes the requirement, what language comes next? I bet money that it will not end with the Spanish language otherwise that would be considered discrimination, wouldn't it?

It also reminded me of an incident that took place a few years ago here. An illegal immigrant from Mexico was killed while fighting 3 police officers when being apprehended. The communication was lost between them because the suspect did not speak English and the police did not speak Spanish. What was upsetting the most was that the illegal immigrant had lived in Chicago for 8 years prior to moving to Nebraska and still did not know English to communicate. And yet, certain group of people rioted about how the police were in the wrong because they did not understand what the suspect was saying.

I fail to see how it justifies that the American Citizens (especially those born in U.S.) will be forced to spend the time and money to accommodate every immigrants' languages when it would be far more simpler if that person who chose to live here in the United States learned the English language instead.

And to put another spin on this, what about those who do NOT have a choice on being able to speak English - the people who are deaf. They are far more limited then the immigrants.

Thank you for letting me put my 2 cents in!

Sure, we don't need an official language in the U.S. Just don't make me pay for your subsidized housing, and all of the special education for your kids to learn english, thanks. Immigrants from Bosnia and certain Arab countries get better benefits and a free ride in some cases then America's poor. I should have my U.S. citizenship revoked and come back in as an illegal or Bosnian immigrant to make a point.

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.

What possible VALUE would making English the official language actually bring?

Sounds like a total waste of time to me.

A partial value would be so immigrants learn it and we wouldn't need to have DMV signs, school assignments, teachers, or corporate leaders in various languages. That would save money. Another very important thing is that we would understand each other. If someone yells 'Help' in a different language, shall I just go on my way because I don't understand them? And if I yell 'FIRE' should they be burned because they don't understand me?

At home anyone can speak whatever they choose. In public we need to establish a common language.

I don't know where you get your 85% figure or how accurate it is. Why should English be the official language? Why not Navajo or some other language my ancestors refused to learn when they were the illegal immigrants from England, Scotland and the Netherlands back in the 1600s and 1700s refusing to assimilate to the native languages/cultures?

Have you had a governmental service denied to you in English? Is there any legitimate reason why we should make English an official language? Why should we force Mexicans to speak English when we, the US, stole half of Mexico in what we call the Mexican-American War?

Anyone wanting to do well in America needs English proficiency and they know that. Though I'd argue that only about 15-20% of Americans are proficient in English.

A partial value would be so immigrants learn it and we wouldn't need to have DMV signs, school assignments, teachers, or corporate leaders in various languages. That would save money. Another very important thing is that we would understand each other. If someone yells 'Help' in a different language, shall I just go on my way because I don't understand them? And if I yell 'FIRE' should they be burned because they don't understand me?

At home anyone can speak whatever they choose. In public we need to establish a common language.


Save money?? Those who don't speak English don't pay taxes or buy goods too? If someone yells help in a different language and one can't figure out that they need help, maybe one has no help to offer anyhow.

Queen victory ruled most of the world in her day and her name as well as other english place names are all over the world,If we had one language with teachers all over the world teaching english in all schools and colleges, If aliens ever came to earth they would only need to learn the one language and we would all understand when they tell "we have come to blow your planet up" Then we can all be afraid together lol. Chris.

I just don't get why the americans only want to know one language when in other countries you see little kids that can speak 3 or 4 languages.

I just dont get why the americans only want to know one language when in other countries you see little kids that can speak 3 or 4 languages.

Laziness, mostly.

I've heard it said that if someone speaks three languages, they're tri-lingual.
If they speak two languages, they're bi-lingual.
If they only speak one, they're American.

Ha
Sadly accurate. But it is rumoured to have originated in central Europe.

Unfortunately, I've learned and then subsequently lost two foreign languages that I once spoke fluently: Russian and Japanese.
Both learned by being in close contact with those speaking the language.
First was native Russians, still living in Alaska, where I grew up.
Secondly, when visiting Japan for an extended period.
Both lost after less contact no longer required remembering.

Bear in mind, this is America. We don't border the multiple countries like many other's do.
The less contact with the spoken language doesn't require learning it. Or remembering it, obviously.

Simple. In my humble opinion, it's not that American's don't want to learn another language. We just don't need to.

Why do some think that's wrong?

Simple. In my humble opinion, it's not that American's don't want to learn another language. We just don't need to.

Why do some think that's wrong?
Its only wrong when you tell me what I need to do.

Otherwise, carry on.