Thats the second time on this thread you have referred to 'quebec and all its problems', the previous one was asking how many Canadians hate Quebec...

Well, what problems exactly? And how many Canadians hate Quebec? In round numbers I'd say about... zero, plus or minus zero.

Now there are some Canadians that dislike the Quebec seperatist party, probably quite a few Canadians in fact. Which is odd, because if as you assert Canadians hated Quebec, they should LOVE the Quebec seperatist party...

Sorry, if you are looking for examples of how multi-lingualism 'ruins' societies or whatever your point, you will need to look further than Canada.

In fact, there are far more countries on the planet with multiple official languages than there are countries that have just one. Even those that have just one, like France for example, have regions of the country where there are multiple official languages (Basque Pyrenees). They seem to be doing just fine.


The entire principle of those who say English needs to be made the 'official' language of the US is that they presume English needs to be 'defended' against the pervasive invasion of foreign languages which threaten to take over.

Are you serious?

English is the first language for 82% of the population of the country and is spoken as a first or second language by 97% of the country. Every sign, road map and menu in the country is in English, occasionally as well as a second language in some few parts of the country. The US has always been an English speaking nation, and the language it speaks is the universal language for business and trade around the world.

And you are really thinking the status of English is under some sort of threat?

And you are advocating that we do this for every other linguistic group in the US? IF so, I'll be glad to inform my representatives to be sure to direct the costs to your checking account, as I have no desire to pay for such monumental governmental inefficiencies.

I'm curious...you argued before that we didn't want to get into arguments over language. Who decides what the correct translation is into Ypu'ik? What about any of the other thousands of languages? All this does is take your argument against, and magnify it thousands of times...hardly a convincing reason not to do something.



Cultural genocide? ???? ???????
Could you please point to anywhere I've advocated that? Or is baseless hyperbole the sum of your argument?

While you're busy with that, you might also point out where I've indicated anywhere that accomodating other languages wasn't allowed? I have no problem with accomodation. As to your Navaho argument, please cite the specific passage in the bill that you feel would lead to this sort of incident, or withdraw the argument.

Doing just fine today, but for decades, ETA terrorists used the refuge in the French Pyrenees from which to base their terror operations in Basque Spain. They killed hundreds of people, all the while France granted them asylum and didn't really enforce the border, calling ETA 'refugees' from Franco.

I'm not saying that this was caused by linguistic differences, but to say that they are 'doing just fine,' when serious violence was still happening into the late 80's, and French troops just arrested a bunch of them in 2004, is like saying that Belfast is 'doing just fine.' Most people have a different view of just fine I think.

...
In your defense, I've never heard a Canadian 'hate' Quebec either or even the bloc quebecois, just heard the occasional off color joke here and there.

And no I don't think that English is 'under threat' in the USA. As regards Canada, as I stated earlier, it is needlessly difficult to do business in France (OOPS _ CANADA!) due to the bilingual laws (well, bi-lingual in 9 provinces and "markedly predominant" French in Quebec, plus whatever they do in the territories). I'm guessing that, were the US to ever evolve to bilingual or trilingual, it would add cost due to regulations. An English-only law would prevent that. I'm not convinced that it's needed, but I can see some rational reasons for it. In other words, not all proponents of such a law should be dismissed as xenophobic genocide planners as they have been here...

edited - oops said "france" not "canada" - freud hello?

Oh I see. And you've done your own survey? I live across the border from Canada and have many friends in Canada. Ask a person from Quebec if they're Canadian, they'll say "no, I'm from Quebec".

There is plenty of tension and a lot of it is due to the language issues.

Seriously, I'd spend time digging up links for you, but maybe you should do the work and not me.

While I would agree that that is the mindset of some of those in favor of this legislation, I wanted to point out it is not my stance. You point out there are more countries with multiple official languages than there are those who have just one. (does anyone have a link to evidence for this?). That is bypassing the point--currently, we have NO official language. I suspect this puts us on a very small list, certainly among industrialized countries. My concerns center on this lack. It is that lack that could (and, I think, eventually will) be exploited by various groups...all it will take is one group to sue to be accomodated to open the flood gates. Having an official language in place prevents this, without be exclusionary, as accommodations always could be made, without making such accommodations for all languages mandatory.

Oh, you live in the US near Quebec and have a Quebec friend? I certainly bow to your overwhelming expertise then.

As for me, well, I AM Canadian, grew up and lived most of my life in Ottawa on the Ontario/Quebec border, lived almost two years IN Quebec, and speak fluent French and English, my aunt and uncle are Quebecois, and my Uncle is 'pure laine', I visit them at their home in Quebec city and their cottage in Plaisance (PQ) quite frequently. Before leaving for my Doctorate I worked in the Canadian Federal government in a bilingual directorate dealing with the universities and colleges and CEGEP's of Quebec on a daily basis, and visiting all of them quite frequently. Oh, and oddly enough, a lot of my friends are Quebecois too!



There is tension because a minority of Quebecois, a segment of the 'pure laine' wish to separate from the rest of Canada. Some of these self-identify as Quebecois before Canadian. There is no significant segment of Canada that 'hates Quebec' as you initially wildly asserted, then repeated with added unecessary sarcasm which given the recent context is really quite ironic, to say nothing of embarassing for you.

Embarassing for me? I never stated a large portion of Canada hates Quebec, but you in fact stated there was "zero, plus or minus zero" Canadians that dislike Quebec. Hmmm. But yet there are tensions? How can that be with such a low tolerance of dislike, i.e. plus or minus zero?

Let me put it this way, if you could have looked ahead and have avoided ANY tensions that exist, wouldn't that have been the smart move?

I work customer service and am constantly dealing with spanish-speaking people EXPECTING me to speak Spanish. Sometimes they are kind enough to ask "Espanol?" or "You uh speakuh Spanish?". But many address me with "Buenos Dias! Come esta?". And our company has Spanish speaking representatives.

Yes. I think it causes TENSIONS as you blantantly ADMIT. It creates DIVIDES.

I can actually speak Spanish to some degree. I don't fear Spanish and I don't fear Spanish culture, in fact I like it. I fear division. When you have Polish immigrants call me they don't ask if I speak Polish. And the Polls are a smaller group (of illegals) than Mexicans.

The more we encourage English, the better nation we will be for it. Small pockets of miscellaneous languages will not hurt us, but we have MILLIONS of Spanish-only speaking people streaming into this country. It should be a major concern.

Didn't I just explain this, twice in each of my last posts? Quite a few people do not like the Quebec seperatist movement, they dislike one of the political movements in Quebec. I assume you think everyone from New York hates Texas, because Texas is currently republican?

You stated the language issue has caused hatred and serious tension, tension which does in fact not exist, and that tension that does comes from an entirely different source and has an entirely different target.



You mean by banning political parties? Well, I somehow think that the tension solved would have been pretty paltry compared to the difficulties created. There is currently massive tension in the United States between Democrat and republican, again caused by political differences. No need to invent motivations when obviosu motives exist right in front of you.



Yes, and study after study has shown that those immigrants are learning English generally as first generation, and are ALL learning english as a second generation. English is needed to function and survive in the US, it is needed to work, and it is unavoidable. Every school in the land teaches in english, every grade school, high school, even universities the primary language is english.

So explain to me exactly how this is a major concern?

There seems to be some strong rhetoric on this topic. If I read (most) of the posters correctly, we face two horrible options: if we don't make English our official language and "protect it" we will be reduced to a set of balkanized regions with no national identity, endemic ethno-cultural conflict, and with a government that must translate the smallest communication into any language spoken by a weird loner and his dog. Goodness me!

If, on the other hand, we institute a national language, we implicitly start walking down the road of mass deportation of immigrants, institutionalise racism, declare a national policy of genocide and will have language police ensuring that only "authentically English" words are used. Quelle Horreur!

Perhaps we need to all take a step back here. To start with, I tend to agree with those who maintain that English doesn't need much protection. With astounding regularity, the children of immigrants use English well and the grandchildren of immigrants use ONLY English:

http://mumford.albany.edu/home/images/lang...milation_sm.ppt

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Featur...play.cfm?id=282

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=286

This of course is because there are huge economic and social advantages to knowing English, not just in the US but world wide. English is the international language of finance, science, business, global commodities (oil, gas, etc), youth culture, mass media, etc. English is sufficiently valuable that huge numbers of folks study it, the Chinese are pushing to develop a competency in it (so as to better compete with India) and I work in the Netherlands for a Dutch company that works only in English (to say nothing of the fact that English language classes are part of the standard Dutch curriculum). If English is under threat, either within the US or globally, I'd like to see a language that's doing well.

On the other hand, data does suggest that the grandchildren of Latin American immigrants tend to remain "more bilingual" than the grandchildren of other immigrants (although, 65 - 70% still speak only English at that stage) and that trend is worth acknowledging. Furthermore, Hobbes (as usual) brings up the fair point that there must be some way to ensure that, from purely operational and financial standpoints, there must be a way to reasonably limit how many languages the Federal Government must do business in.

In all, however, immigrant families in the US continue to assimilate linguistically. We may quibble with the speed (although, again, data suggests that the generational adoption rates are in line with European immigrants from the 19th and 20th century). It seems to me, therefore, that simply indexing the languages that government works in to census data (while codifying that it's primary language remains English) should be sufficient protection against Hobbes reasonable concerns. More protection than that seems overkill.

To those who fear genocide and racism, again, the numbers tell a different story. Immigrant families (esp. 2nd generation and beyond) sometimes maintain bilingual households and even continue to use their language socially. Clearly, they are not being asked to deny from whence they come in any organized fashion. Likewise, I could find no evidence that children and grandchildren of non-English speakers resent being primarily English speakers or feel "forced" to make this change.

To be honest, I suspect that even if a "national language" bill passed, it would make very little difference, save to make people feel better; I doubt we'd suddenly develop our own version of other languages' linguistic academies and begin insisting on "pure English". One of the strengths of the language is it's ability to soak in foreign words and phrases, create simple neologisms and evolve. People have tried to "control it" almost since modern English has become codified, they have always failed (Bryson has a nice description of these movements in "Mother Tongue").

In other words, from both sides we seem to be finding huge problems where none exist.

I've already piped up about this not being an issue, but now I see a problem.

If English becomes the one and only language of the US, we'll have to change a lot of names. Minnesota will have to be renamed Big Water, or maybe it's Many Waters, something like that. The Dakotas will need to be renamed. Colorado will have to become Red. We have a Tejon street and Cache Le Poudre. Shoot, this just expands and expands. Everyone will be lost!

So forget it. Just live with the fact that the world speaks more than one tongue, and that software does translations. The multiple tongue thing has been going on for a long time. The software translation ability is relatively new, which might be a problem with certain slowmobiles out there. Oh well, it's a changing world.

Gotta live with that, too.

They had a guest on one of the MSNBC's cable shows that was an expert on immigration. What he said was that in fact there were 2 million SECOND GENERATION Americans that spoke SPANISH ONLY.

So what's the deal with you and your absolutes? ALL learn English? Apparently NOT.

According to a study the more immigrants you have flooding the borders, the less assimilated they become. Here's a quote:



So in fact, when you have MILLIONS of new spanish-only speaking immigrants arriving every year, the tendendcy for 2nd generation Americans to NOT speak ENglish increases dramatically.

Hey, if you don't think it's an issue and you feel that every one is learning English anyway....what's your beef?

Actually, what’s YOUR beef???? You speak some Spanish, you don’t fear it or the culture, but for some reason you find it…what, distasteful, or something?


You fear division??? What the hell is that supposed to mean?? You speak the language, how is that "dividing"?

I live in California, so I hear and see Spanish A LOT. And, no, I don't speak it, but I know a lot of random Spanish words. Sure, when I’m around a group of people speaking a language I don’t understand, I feel somewhat left out, but what’s the big freaking deal? If I’m part of the group, and they’re doing it to exclude me, well, then that’s just rude, and rudeness isn’t limited to speakers of Spanish. I know the Vietnamese girls in the nail shop are probably calling me the Vietnamese equivalent of gwai lo, but so freakin’ what? Sticks and stones, and in this case, I can’t even understand the sticks and stones!

Maybe if we didn't start wars with other countries so we get the overwhelming guilts when we lose and $@!# the place up beyond repair that we take in all its refugees, or found a successful strategy to work with our southern neighbor so that all its poor citizens wouldn't want to leave the place. I guarantee you that in a few years, we will have an overwhelming Iraqi and Iranian population speaking their native tongues and righteously ticking off all the 'Muricans who were so hot to invade their home countries in the first place.

This whole issue just reinforces the Ugly American stereotype; we (the national "we") seem to think the world should revolve around us, and to a substantial degree, it does...considering we're the 800 lb gorilla of the world. But damn, are we a greedy, xenophobic, racist bunch or WHAT?? The whole thing is just EMBARRASSING.

Daffy, quick quiz: what's Mexico's official language? Bonus question: what's the official language of Vietnam?

The correct answer to both questions is : not English.

The point that you're trying to make (that the US declaring English its official language) does not compute with the fact that 92% of the world's countries have official languages. Among the major countries, only Denmark, Sweden, and the United States have no official language according to this source.

The fact that we don't have an official language is odder than having one.

Wow, Cook, what an EXCELLENT post! I encourage everyone here to go back and read through it. Very insightful summary of the thread. Let me be the first (but hopefully not the only ) person to take up his main point above, namely that we seem to be finding huge problems where none exist. I will certainly admit (because it's true ) that the problem I am concerned with has not occurred yet. Various groups have NOT yet sued the government to force publications and transactions to be conducted in their language. Perhaps there already are safeguards for this? Perhaps it just hasn't happened yet. However, as long as it doesn't, I would tend to agree with Cook, and many of those opposed to this legislation, that English itself doesn't need any protecting.

Here is a good article on the history of language codification in the US: it's fairly short, and a good read for anyone participating in this thread. FWIW, it probably lends more credence to the arguments of those opposed to this legislation.

Cool link, Hobbes!

And we've managed to survive this long - imagine that.

I still maintain this is a diversionary tactic to distract people's attention from the real issues facing our country. It is a non-issue guaranteed to raise people's ire, no matter what side of the language fence they are on.

Not to be a stickler, but who and on what show? because that contradicts the 2002 US census which states that second and third generation spanish speakers, put through the US school system which is exclusively in English first language speak english at home as a first language 65 and 85% of the time respectively.

But even if your person is accurate in his statistics, 2 million second generation Amricans? Wow thats... thats almost a full one percent of the population! (not quote, closer to 2/3 of a percent). Yes certainly the US needs to be saved from their spanish language skills.



Actually, my beef was simply you completely mischarictaristing the situation in Canada to suit your argument. Apart from that, I have none, the status quo is fine, and any thought that the US English language is so in danger it needs special additional protection under the law is utterly silly.

I wasn't really going to participate in this discussion at all - especially since we've been over it before - and over it - and over it again. But one thing has emerged since those earlier debates and another has reared its ugly head again and I thought it was worth addressing both.

First, this "everybody else is doing it (or 92% of everybody else, at any rate), so why shouldn't we?" argument is just absurd. I'm particularly amazed to see it coming from someone like Amlord. Gee, everybody else has eliminated capital punishment, so why shouldn't we? Everybody else has stringent gun control laws, so why shouldn't we? Everybody else has signed the Kyoto protocol, so why shouldn't we? Everybody else has ratified the International Criminal Court Statute, so why shouldn't we? Everybody else has an official language, so why shouldn't we? Okay, I'm convinced. Let's go with all of the above. Everybody else is doing it.

But what really dragged me back into this debate was this:


As nighttimer has already pointed out, the arrogant sense of entitlement displayed in this sort of jingo is execrable. As I stated in one of the previous threads:
The question of who RedCedar's "our" is receives a bit of attention in the James Crawford article Hobbes cited:
There have been cases where language was used as an excuse for discriminating against or repressing certain minorities - and the current hysteria regarding a "national language" is an excellent case in point. It is directly tied to what I call "this season's gay marriage": illegal immigration. It is a wedge issue being bandied about purely for political purposes and no meaningful legislation will ever arise from it. The measure passed by the Senate - to establish a "national language" rather than an "official language" - is a paradigm of action devoid of meaning. They might as well have declared a national recipe for apple pie.

But the reason that this is being debated is important. It is being done specifically to sow division - just as the gay marriage debate was used in the last election. Instead of gays being the target this time, it's Mexicans. Instead of homophobia being exploited, it's xenophobia - or, to use its proper name, racism. I am not saying all Anglos who support English as an official language are racists. As I stated above, I'm sure many of them are motivated by a genuine concern for Spanish-speaking immigrants who may not yet be fully prepared to compete against them for dwindling employment opportunities. But for others - many others - it is a question of xenophobia (with an emphasis on the "phobia"). And that is the target audience for the recent Congressional grandstanding in relation to "official English". And anyone pretending that this "national debate" is about anything else is kidding themselves.

The argument for an official language is utterly pointless. As Crawford continues,
I mentioned in that previous thread that
For anyone with a rudimentary grasp of history, it goes without saying that Spanish has been spoken on (what is now known as) US soil for far longer than English. It also goes without saying that large swathes of (what is now known as) the US were settled and inhabited for hundreds of years by Spanish-speakers - before that land was stolen from them or taken by conquest. Many of their descendants still live on those lands that we now call Texas and California and New Mexico and Florida (as well as parts of a dozen other states in the former Louisianna Territory). To deem the original language of those American citizens "unofficial" is insult added to injury. And to deny all the languages of the original settlers of North America - from Algonkian to Siouan - is adding insult to genocide.

The United States has always welcomed diversity and immigration without prerequisite. Being a polyglot society has always been part of our social fabric. It has always been part of what Amlord likes to call our "culture". Our culture - our national character and identity - is, and always has been, egalitarian. And, despite the desperate yearnings of some people, that egalitarianism can no more embrace a national language than it can a national religion or a national race.

If we must argue here on the level of bumper stickers, here's mine: "Recognize that your language should no more enshrined in our country than any other language or get the heck out." Your country can declare an official language. Your country can declare a national income bracket, a national political party, and a national minimum weight, for all I care. But your country is not the United States of America. That country - my country - does not (or should not) codify discrimination.

To answer the specific question being asked here, I have previously argued that
The official or unofficial status of English in the United States will have no impact whatsoever on whether or not non-English-speakers will learn English. Indeed, it will have no impact on anything - apart from making a few people that irrationally hate or fear Spanish-speakers feel even better about themselves. People will continue to be most proficient in their first spoken language, regardless of when they immigrated or from whence. If the government wants to collect taxes, tax forms will continue to be available in several languages. And so long as tax forms are available in several languages, other government publications will be available in several languages (as they always have been). And no amount of Congressional pandering to nascent racism will change that.

And, as has been happening for the past two or three hundred years, immigrants will continue to learn English - but not because of legislation. As Crawford put it, groups have become Anglicized in the US "through social changes due to industrialization, migration, road-building, electrification, mass media, and the passing of isolated rural life" and they will continue to do so. And no amount of Congressional pandering to "bleeding hearts" will change that.

This is one of the biggest non-issues to ever have been elevated to the national stage. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

It's nice to see you are against Kyoto, the ICC, strict gun control, and banning capital punishment. I knew I was a positive influence.

However, my argument was not that "everyone is doing it". That 92% figure was a preemptive strike on those that will call the US xenophobic and jingoistic and racist for pursuing this.

My main argument was twofold: first to stress the importance of learning English to immigrants. I cited a very broad study that says 20 million US residents don't speak English or don't speak English "very well". Note that the study says that if you don't claim to know English "very well" then the chances are great that you have quite limited communication ability in English. 11 million of those spoke English "not well" or "not at all". 11 million!

According to the 2000 Census, 1 in 25 households in the US are "linguistically isolated" meaning that no one in the household spoke English "very well". The number of people in these households jumped 54% since the 1990 census. Again, according to the 2000 Census, Mexican immigrants have a less than 50% English literacy rate.

The second rationale was purely practical. The government cannot do business in a myriad of languages. It could do business in one, two or maybe three languages, but not more than that.



And I counter that with the example of the EU which spent approximately $1 billion dollars last year translating documents. The European Commission employs about 1,800 translators. The Canadian government spends about $250 million a year to operate in two languages. The government of Los Angeles spent about $2 million in the 2004 general election on multilingual ballots and translations. Having a government without an official language could cost the US government billions of dollars.

This is not a codificiation of discrimination. It is not a mandate that everyone speak English first or English only. It is not an absurd proposal to eject words like Minnesota or Colorado from the national vocabulary. There are no fines or penalties for those that choose to speak some other language. It is a practical solution to a growing problem.

How do you square this in your mind? You tout America’s diversity but you prefer homogeneity? If that’s the case, perhaps you should look for a place to live that only has people who look like you, talk like you, and believe the things you do (I think Montana and Idaho would suit). The world shouldn’t have to stop or regress just because some people want it to.

Personally, I wish there weren’t so many illegal immigrants in California, but I also have to realize that, fercryinoutloud, we share a border with Mexico, and they’re going to come, no matter how much I wish they would stay home. My problems with illegal immigration have nothing to do with the language they speak; it could be Urdu for all I care. The burden they place on infrastructure is more concerning to me than what language comes out of their mouths.

Many people “prefer their own culture” (whatever the heck that means), but that doesn’t mean their “preference” should be legislated. Sure, I think we should encourage all immigrants to learn English, but this whole “learn English or get out” is just thuggery.

Again, this issue isn’t about the English language. It is about politicians trying to distract American voters’ attention from more important issues that are not as easily compressed into crowd-pleasing sound bites.

And it is accomplishing what they set out to do – distract everyone’s attention from the fact that the “war” in Iraq is still dragging on 3+ years later with no signs of resolution, 1/3 of the soldiers returning home from Iraq suffering from PTSD aren’t getting the treatment they need and deserve, and that our fearless leader sees fit not to support them for giving their body parts up for his war, but instead, does this:

Our government officials are so rotten with corruption it’s a wonder the stink doesn’t overwhelm us, there’s trouble brewing in Iran, and we’re worried about what freakin’ LANGUAGE people are speaking?? Man, our priorities are seriously screwed up, if that’s the case.

Do you think we need to declare English as our official language? Why or why not?

Personally I don't see any harm in this legislation; but more importantly, I don't see any good either. This is just one of those empty means-nothing laws which is not going to change a thing in people's behavior. I am a first-generation immigrant; the status of English as an official language has nothing to do with me learning it. If the language spoken around me was Spanish or French, I would learn Spanish or French. So why waste time and money on a piece of legislation which is not going to change anything at all? Do people really think that hordes of immigrants will flood ESL courses after this legislation is passed? Useless (but fairly harmless) piece of law designed for posturing and grandstanding during an election year.



My understanding is that nobody forces their culture upon you. If your culture is important to you, it's your responsibility to preserve it. And while doing that, don't deny people of other cultures to preserve what's important to them. They may PREFER their own culture, too...

Gee, I'd like to respond but this post will just get deleted. Maybe I need to become a Sponsor to avoid deletion?



I disagree. In fact, there is plenty of culture that is legislated. For instance, drugs are illegal. That was a cultural choice made by Americans. It was legislated and is now the law of the land. How many local laws legislate culture? Do you live in a neighborhood that has a say in what you do to your home?

In deed, culture is legislated often, locally and nationally.




If that's the case, they're doing a poor job. I think it's an issue that needs addressing. Coporations are the main motivators in getting illegals here. I doubt they wanted this issue to come to the forefront and we all know this administration loves corporations.

Oh, please. Just because I sent some money to , it doesn’t mean I haven’t gotten the rough side of the mods' tongues. EDITED TO REMOVE BELITTLING COMMENT

Bullhocky. The so-called “drug culture” crosses language and ethnic lines; how is that even remotely the same?

OK, let me see if I can understand what you’re saying…English-speakers prefer their own “culture”, but you haven’t really defined what that “culture” is. It covers rather a broad spectrum, if you ask me. For argument’s sake, let’s say you want to legislate a culture of blonde, blue-eyed, white men and women who speak English only, eat only American food, listen only to American country-western, buy only American-made items - (oh, wait, that would make them dirt poor and living in a shack because darned near everything is foreign-made or has foreign parts in it) – let’s compromise and say at least they drive “American” (i.e. GM, Ford, Saturn, tho they’ll have to buy foreign oil to run it, but anyway...). So now you want to make a law that will exclude everyone who doesn’t fit that “culture”?

Nice snip job. I still disagree with you. They’re doing an excellent job; when was the last time you saw anything substantive on the MSM about the Republicans’ chances in November elections with the war, corruption etc. plaguing them? It’s all been illegal this, English language that. Distraction.