Many states have already declared English as the official language, but today it was debated on the Senate floor to make it the Federal official language.


My question:

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

I don't think that English should be made the official language. Why not? Well, why should a government decide, which language that are being spoken in a country? Is it necessary at all to have an official language? People speak the language they wish to speak no matter if it is the official or not.

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

No

Americans come from many nations and from many cultural backgrounds. Having an official language would be a slap in the face to diversity.

Having said that, I would point out that speaking, reading and writing English gives a person an advantage in competing within the system.

Do you think we need to declare English as our official language? Why or why not?
No. There was a proposition back in the 80's or 90's to do this. Does anyone remember if it was a national amendment? I'll be darned if I can remember.

Anyway, it actually passed, but was never enforced. Basically, people are going to speak whatever language they are most comfortable with. The only thing an amendment would do is eliminate all the signage and printing in other languages. I seem to recall that was the big issue back in "the day" - save money by not printing things in other languages.

To me, it's just xenophobia run amuck. A waste of time and effort.

It would certainly be an issue in some states or territories where another language is spoken by the majority, not to mention Native Americans and their languages. Having an official federal language doesn't seem to actually do anything either, other than feed into the current wave of anti-foreigner feelings. Just like closet racists can now be openly anti-Hispanic by being for "immigration reform" instead, this would open up all kinds of "acceptable" discrimination against anyone speaking another language in public.

From Wikipedia:

Several states and territories are officially bilingual:

* Louisiana (English and French),
* New Mexico (English and Spanish),
* Hawaii (Hawaiian English and Hawaiian),
* Puerto Rico (Spanish and English),
* Guam (Chamorro and English),
* American Samoa (Samoan and English);

And one is officially trilingual:

* Northern Mariana Islands (English, Chamorro, and Carolinian).

While I would encourage English to be spoken uniformly, I have to agree that it is a waste of time and money to legislate English as the official language of the USA.

The fact is, government documents, for the most part, are printed in Spanish as well as English. The government recognizes that not everyone will understand necessary documents in one language.

I would have to relegate the idea of legislating this to the same heap as legislating the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance (under God) and the anti-flag burning amendment.

When is our Congress going to pay attention to things that involve the problems Americans face in our everyday lives, like education, health care, jobs, and the liberties that we were guaranteed by law? I'll tell you: when we care enough to make them do it. If they won't, let's vote 'em out of office.

Encouraging everyone who comes to this nation to learn English is a good thing. Declaring that the official language of the United States is English would be a bad thing.

Proponents of some kind of "English only" law have often pointed to the tension that exists between Francophones and Anglophones in Quebec. They seem to picture some kind of future in which there will be a cultural war between Spanish and English. (And let's not be coy here; the "English only" movement is clearly aimed at Spanish-speaking Americans.)

Imagine what might happen if the Canadian government decided to make English the official language of the entire nation. I suggest that there would be much more tension in Quebec.

(I claim no expertise on the linguistic situation in Canada, and I welcome the insights of our Canadian friends. Meanwhile, here is an official report from the Canadian government about the situation.)

Link



I bring this up because the rising percentage of Spanish-speaking Americans (which is likely to continue increasing for some time to come) may present us with a future in which the United States will also have "linguistic duality" as a "defining trait." If this happens, it will be neither bad nor good, but simply a fact.

I completely agree. English is an important language in this country and the world round. It is necessary for success in this country whether we agree with it or not and it should be encouraged. But making a law declaring it the official language? I don't think that it is something the government should regulate. It is better regulated by society than the government for society is the better indicator of what is and isn't necessary.

Wow, not one supporter of a law making English the official language? I'm guessing the majority of Americans differ with the people in this thread.

So let's say the floods of immigrants in California or Texas suddenly start to outnumber native citizens. Many are bilingual, but most speak Spanish. Without encouraging or even mandating that English be the common languauge, what would stop those states from becoming strictly Spanish speaking?

And yes, I agree this is targeting Spanish because no other language threatens the country like Spanish. Name another language that has the population in the US to overrun English? Of course this is targeting Spanish.

Immigrants from other nations should not be forced to learn Spanish AND English, simply because an immigration population is refusing to speak THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.

I think the law is a great idea. Many states have declared their official language as English. If nothing else, it tells people they MUST learn English and that as a country we don't encourage growing enclaves of non-English speakers.

I'm not a supporter of the government mandating a certain social function when it can be perfectly regulated by society. Furthermore, I am not a supporter of imposing one's belief of what language should be made official.

If for instance the spanish speaking immigrant population refuses to speak English, than it is in my opinion that they do that at their own folly. It has been made clear that in order to succeed in the United States and in many other countries, than learning English is a necessity. Now those immigrants are handed a choice. They can either learn the mainstream language and have a better opportunity for success or they can disregard that and hurt themselves in their attempt to better their lives. Nobody should force anyone to do anything. Anyway, do you honestly believe that by making English the official language that it will have any affect on the immigrant population's decision to learn English? I maintain that the need is already recognized and it is a waste of time to positive it.

Does this mean it is already official?

Senate Votes English as 'National Language'

I hope not. Although this is kind of a weak, watered-down version of the "English Only" movement, it looks like it could cause some problems with some existing programs. In any case, I assume that it has no effect until it makes its way through the House.

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

Yes. To cut down on the amount of paper work that needs to be translated.

This is a particular problem in the EU where every single document has to be replicated in 35 languages. We should just adopt English since its the world most widely spoken language and be done with it.

But then the French kick up a fuss and the Germans and the Greeks and so on and so forth. Thus, in the EU there is mass public confusion and the EU continues to be divided, weighed down by ecxessive beaurocracy, corruption and as a consequence, anti EU hatred by the common people who get caught in the paper work.

In the USA, with a growing hispanic population that will eventually form its own political gravity point, the same problems will eventually arise.

I don't think any one should be forced to learn a language though. Only that the officials who run everything should all speak the same language and that that language should be the same through out which ever political entity we are speaking of.

No nation, or federation of nations can ever be truly be united if language is a barrier.

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

I for one support this effort.

The whole purpose of an official language is not that everyone in the country speaks it, but that the government conducts its business in said language.

Right now, learning English is a requirement for someone pursuing citizenship. One has to ask the question: why? English is not officially tied to either the United States or the US government except by this antiquated idea I like to call "culture". If anyone doubts that the US is an English speaking country, I'd wonder about their mental faculties. Officially, however, the English language has no relationship with the United States.

One has to wonder why this is. According to a study by Educational Testing Services: A Human Capital Concern: The Literary Proficiency of U.S. Immigrants, 2004 link to report learning English is one of the most important factors in determining the success an immigrant will have in the US.



In other words, the problems with people who can't speak English are growing while the benefits of speaking English is readily apparent.

But how can the US government encourage English speaking if it does not recognize English as the official language?

The study goes on:


In other words, learning English makes immigrants feel more like Americans, feel more included and participate in the political process. They feel like they belong when they speak a common language with the rest of us.

This may seem obvious, but I don't think that many people see just how important the language barrier is in separating immigrants from the rest of us. It is the fundamental difference, greater than national origin, which keeps immigrants from feeling like Americans.

Leaving aside immigrants, English proficiency is one of the best indicators of economic success in the United States for all groups, including natural born citizens.

Here's a a factsheet on why English should be the official language of the US. It is pretty comprehensive and includes some figures that other governments spend on translation services (which is growing in the US due to the growth of the Spanish speaking population).

92% of all countries have at least one official language. Why shouldn't the US?

In a time of war, when our soldiers still lack the armored vehicles that would spare them death or injury, when millions of Americans lack insurance, while the Gulf Coast still struggles from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina, while the genocide in Darfur continues and all of the other vitally important issues demand our attention, are we really going to waste time on xenophobic GARBAGE like making English the official language of the United States.

Sigh. Apparently so. Okay then, let's get something straight from the get-go.

"The vast majority of Hispanics in the United States ALREADY speak English and the rest are learning it much faster than the German, Italians or those Norwegian bachelor farmers."

That's from a commentary by linguist Geoff Nunberg about the flap over the Spanish-language version over "The Star-Spangled Banner" that broadcast on NPR's Fresh Air program. (You can hear it here. Real Player or Windows Media Player required: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=5415046)

Where is the evidence that Hispanics are refusing to learn how to speak English? Rhetoric such as ...no other language threatens the country like Spanish is merely hysterical hyperbole. There is this irrational, pathological FEAR that if Hispanics become the majority race in America we will all be compelled to learn how to speak Spanish. Not to put to fine a point on it, but I think that's crap.

Americans seem to dislike the idea of speaking another language other than English, as if it were the universal language of the world. Not even close. According to the 2006 World Almanac the top five languages spoken in the world is as follows:

1. Chinese/Mandarin........................800 million
2. Spanish.......................................322 million
3. English........................................309 million
4. Hindi...........................................180 million
5. Portugese....................................177 million

For numerous economic reasons it behooves Hispanics to learn English if they hope to be able to assimilate into the larger, dominant culture. What seems to frighten the nativists is the idea that many will choose not to speak English exclusively.

Back in the day, my high school language choices consisted of German, French and Spanish. In 2006, which of those three languages would be more useful for a student to be bilingual in? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

English does not need to codified as the chosen language of the United States. It already is. The notion of making it a law brings to mind one question. IF English is made the official language of the United States what will be the penalty levied against those who do not speak it as their primary language?

Or will we create a Language Police to bust offenders and throw them in jail until they learn how to speak English the way Bill O' Reilly and Lou Dobbs think they should?

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

I've been messing with the free language translation sites on the Web. Along the way I found commercial translation software. It ain't cheap, but it's out there.

Translation software makes this a moot point. Any document in electronic form that's not a graphic can be translated. It might not be a perfect translation, but it sure takes the grunt work out of the task.

Next step, the Communicator function of the iPod, Bluetooth enabled. Then, integrated wordprocessing translation. Hey, everyone, settle down. We've got this nearly bagged.

Oh, but they won't. It's an election year.

I was wondering about this too. What, we're going to see the police trolling neighborhoods arresting gardeners for speaking Spanish? This whole issue is about the dumbest darned thing I've seen in a while. Maybe it's just a red herring thrown out there to distract the easily distractable from the real issues plaguing the country.

And, btw, the likelihood of a native Spanish-speaker speaking English is far higher than a native-born American speaking any language other than English. Who truly has the advantage, d'ya think?

This thread is a veritable straw man bowling league. Xenophobia? Body armor for troops? Language police 'arresting gardeners'? Yes the US Senate are a body of grandstanding, bloviating idiots, but maybe the measure makes sense anyway.

Speaking as someone who used to do a lot of business in Canada, I can tell you that there is a huge amount of inefficiency done when there are bi-lingual laws in place. Conversely, I humbly suggest that there would be big savings if we had a mono-lingual law in place. Government agencies would still meet people's basic needs, but there are lots of occasions where we would save money by having one official language.

Please take a look at the link that Amlord posted. It's pretty common-sense stuff. Having lived other places, I can vouch that things like the driving exam are typically given in the official language.

Not specifically Hispanics, but US immigrants in general are lacking in English language skills. I'd like to thank you in advance for reading the material I linked earlier: The Literacy Profi ciency of U.S. Immigrants






Do we want these people to be citizens? Do we want them to find decent jobs? Do we want them to participate in the system?

If the answer is yes, then they need to learn English. Of course, it's kind of hypocritical to say "learn English" at the same time you say "we'll provide government documents in any language you choose".

The push for this is precipitated by communities of immigrants--mainly Hispanics--that are resisting the idea of a "melting pot" where immigrants are assimilated into the culture and enrich it by bringing new viewpoints and ideas. The US is not enriched by having separate cultures who cannot even communicate with each other. We need a common ground and right now it's English.

But Amlord, do you really think that making English the official language would in any way change the mentality of immigrants and their pursuit to learn English? I think that immigrants know the importance of English and that it is unnecessary to positive it into law. Learning the mainstream language is important for success in the US and I believe that immigrants know that. The government should not been in the business of telling people how to live their life. If immigrants choose not to learn English than it is at their own folly and it will be a barrier to their success. If they choose to learn English than they will have shown their will to succeed in this country.

A storm is brewing in America. There is a clash of cultures within the United States. One side wants the America they grew up in (which is gone and unable to be returned to) and one side wants their own version of America.

In the past, this cultural clash didn't exist. It was understood that in order to be successful in the US you had to learn the language and fit in. Now however, for good or for ill, there is a perceived different path: keeping a segregated culture while reaping the benefits of the American system.

Think I'm jumping to conclusions?

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image gallery
Image Gallery 2

All I'm doing is calling it as I see it: this group of immigrants has a different mindset then those of generations past. They see the American dream as a right but they see little value in adopting the US culture, including its language.

Why should the government care? Why "waste time" on this "xenophobic garbage" as nighttimer put it?

First of all, as I cited, for the economic well-being of the immigrants themselves. Keeping their culture is fine, as long as the adopt enough of ours to fit in. Learning the English language is the very least they can do to show their desire to fit in.

Second is the economic and logistical burden of having no official language. Moif referred to what's going on in the EU, which has I believe 20 languages. According to the US Census Bureau, over 300 languages are spoken in the US. Should we really be required by law to give equal value to each when it comes to the official business of the government? Should we be required to publish laws in Cantonese or Choctaw or Welsh? Currently, if asked, the government must do so. In addition, they must provide a translator to anyone who asks for one.

2 million Californians speak Chinese (mostly Cantonese). Over a million speak either Tagalong or Vietnamese. And yes, 30 million speak Spanish.

Is it really "xenophobic" to say that the US government is only going to publish laws and documents in English? Does that mean the French are xenophobic for not publishing documents in Hindi? Are the Swedes xenophobic for not having street signs in Arabic? I think not.

I would not be opposed to a dual official language of Spanish and English. However, the logistics of how the government can be forced to do business is simply overwhelming and as we have a smaller and smaller world as time passes, it is inevitable that more and more language groups will appear and ask that they not be "discriminated" against.

Some of the arguments here are simply not rooted in reality. An official languages does not mean there is a language police forcing people to speak the language. It simply means that the government will do business in that language. It is a practical matter and a cultural matter and is something that hasn't been a problem in the past. Sadly, it is becoming more of a problem as time goes by.

It is still understood Amlord, i see nothing that would make me believe otherwise. The only difference is whether or not people choose to assimilate...and I do not believe that assimilation should be government enforced when society is perfectly able to handle it.


Why don't the individual people decide whats for their own economic well-being? I do not think the government should ever make that decision for any individual. If immigrants choose not to assimilate and not learn English, than their is a likelihood they will fail to reach high success. If they learn English, the likelihood is a lot higher. This happens without any government mandate. They should be given the choice to assimilate, not be forced to.



I don't think anyone is saying that we should publish documents in 300 languages. Do we do that right now? Not to my knowledge. I don't think you are xenophobic in any way, I am merely stating the lack of necessity in having an official language. The way things are working now is perfectly adequate and doesn't need change.

Let me reiterate that there is evidence that this generation of immigrants is not assimilating and not learning the language.



"Should the government promote English?" is a question akin to "Should the government provide education?". Neither is within the Constitutional duties but both provide obvious and measurable gains to the "common good".

Of course, this question for debate doesn't really include whether or not the government should promote English language or work to improve English literacy. It is confined to whether or not the US should have an official language, as 92% of the world's countries do. The underlying reasons (for me) are good enough to warrant proceeding with this proposed measure. It costs the government nothing and may reduce costs in the future.

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

Firstly , I agree with Amlord - an official language says precisely nothing about what the citizenry should speak among themselves, or what languages should be used for broadcasting. All it says is that the government will do it's business in said language.

Secondly, there is nothing at all to stop America having more than one official language - the Belgians have managed just fine with Flemish and French for several centuries. Most former British colonies have English and something else as their official languages.

Would it be so terrible to say that English and Spanish are the offical languages of a particular State, or even of Federally?

..

..

Actually, I feel quite smug that I managed to get through a whole post without pointing out that few, if any, Americans speak 'English' but a variant of it called 'American English'. If something called 'English' still exists - and it doesn't; what we're in fact talking about here is 'Standard English' - it would be English as spoken by the natives of England.

No patriotism here - I'm Welsh.

No question, English should be the official language. The only down side I can see is establishing how far this law should reach and the enforcement.

Immigrants come here from all over the world, diverse citizens and diverse cultures. For centuries the one bond that held the melting pot together has been our language.

Speaking English is the SINGLE common thread that takes citizens from other countries and makes us all Americans. With the proliferation of ethnic hyphenates and other carbon based divisors, we don’t need to create another silo in which we place our citizens. Our economic success can be attributed to many factors and chief among them is our language.

Besides being economically inefficient, the proliferation of a secondary language will sever one purpose: division.

Look at Quebec, a predominantly French speaking province that attempted to succeed from Canada. Could the same happen here in the Southern states where the majority of Spanish speaking citizens and illegal’s reside? It probably wouldn’t happen in our life time but after several generations who knows and frankly we shouldn’t take the chance.

What mentality would that be?


Can you provide a demarcation point for this cultural clash that didn’t exist once? You can discern the thoughts of these culture clash instigators with a few pictures? Truly an impressive talent, Amlord.

I don’t see a clash in those pictures. I see the marriage of two identities the way I view hispanos; the result of overlapping histories and cultures. Maybe that’s what bothers people like you and Red; the idea that some "usurpers" don’t experience a mental or emotional breakdown when mingling with a crowd that refuses to forget where they come from and, at the same time, want to be a part of the new culture they have chosen to live in. Why can’t conservatives stick to the issue of legality? You make it harder than necessary for people like me to support any GOP initiative.

Do you think we need to declare English as our official language? Why or why not?
Yes. It is a cost saving approach. As far as diversity goes, I think the concept is great, but the government can’t sustain cohesion without a tool (language) immigrants and natural born citizens can identify with. Picking up a second language in high school has nothing to do with this. If my country wasn’t screwed up and we had large influxes of people on a regular basis I would not want the government to dawdle on an official language for fear of offending. Hell, I don’t even think the government should grant guest worker status (e.g. serf class status serving corporate interests) to people staying here illegally. Legality being the term that matters, and I would not balk at a virtual and physical wall*. Unfortunately the government can’t stop swimming in pork long enough to be trusted with building worthwhile levees.

On the other hand I would not react to foreigners waving the flags of their native homelands like they’re ready to walk into a café with explosives strapped to their chests. Let’s just ban St. Patrick’s Day and the Confederate flag, eh?

*I don’t support sending the guard to the border. That move, along with being a politically smart one appeasing xenophobic voters, looks like a federal power play that reminds me of this thread.

I have a few observations.

1. I think most immigrants know the value of speaking, reading and writing English. In a defacto sense, English is our national language. I don't, however, think that people, especially those who are older, and out of school should be forced to learn another language.

School-age immigrants should be taught English as part of the curriculum, but not as a national language.

The sticky wicket is this. People are individuals. For some learning English would be easy, but for others extremely hard and still others would be scattered in the middle. It's not quite as simple as telling an immigrant "learn English or else."

2. Like others, I think this another "Karl Rove type" diversion, designed to get the public's mind off real issues, that several, including nighttimer, have enunciate so clearly.



3. I have long had an aversion to forced language. When I was in junior high, we had a paddle-happy vice principal who bent Hispanic kids over and beat their butts with a wooden board for using Spanish in the hall. What an overbearing brute.

Ah, now we're starting to get to the heart of the matter. This isn't a matter of undocumented immigrants not learning to speak the King's English. It's a return to Pat Buchanan's "culture war" rhetoric and Fortress America.

I don't know why you chose to be so circumspect, Amlord when it's obvious this "clash of cultures" is one between those brown-skinned individuals coming to America from Mexico, Central and South America and the dominant White American majority. Why don't you just stop tap dancing around it and make it plain?

I don't know what America you grew up in, but I doubt it's the same one I'm familiar with. I think everyone wants "their own version of America." There is no "one-size-fits-all" American Dream. I get it that some people are nostalgic for "the good ol' days" as if the Italians, Jews, Poles and others that came to America just seamlessly became part of the American fabric. Looking back its always easier to gloss over the struggle every immigrant group has had in being accepted as belonging here.

Your picture links must invoke some reaction in you than it did for me. I saw people demonstrating peacefully for what they consider their civil rights. What did you see? An invading horde of illegal immigrants using up governmental services, defiantly resisting any suggestion they learn the English language and just generally being a pain in the butt?

This is all very familiar. In the Fifties and Sixties, there were fears that sitting little Black kids next to little White kids in the same classroom would destroy both of them. Didn't happen. Now, in the year 2006, someone woke up and said, "Hey, when did all these Mexicans move here?" and once again White Americans are in full panic mode. This is typical when what is perceived as the status quo is challenged.

I don't think it makes people racist to be concerned about the unchecked flood of people trying to get into this country. A sovereign nation has to control who is coming into the country. But this "English First" rhetoric is thinly-veiled racism when its directed so overwhelmingly at ONE particular group: people who speak Spanish, not English.

As America becomes more racially diverse, the more stubbornly it hangs upon its desire to remain monolingual. There are few things more awkward than monolingual American abroad. We have limited our ability to communicate effectively in the world by being so culturally chauvinistic.

If you're having a guest in your home, it's not presumptive to expect them to follow the rules of the house and adapt to the ways of the host and not vice-versa. But that's a far cry from saying ONLY English can be spoken and if you speak any other language you're breaking the law.



That's a leap of logic. "They" claim the American Dream as their "right" but refuse to adopt the United States culture, including its language. So you quote one study Amlord and that's conclusive evidence in your eyes?

Not mine. Here's an opposing view from the Pew Hispanic Center:

The findings of this study suggest that Hispanics see race as a measure of belonging, and whiteness as a measure of inclusion, or of perceived inclusion. The report reveals that Latinos' choice to identify as white, or not, does not exclusively reflect permanent markers such as skin color or hair texture but that race is also related to characteristics that can change, such as economic status and perceptions of civic enfranchisement. Whiteness is clearly associated with distance from the immigrant experience. Thus, the U.S.-born children of immigrants are more likely to declare themselves white than their foreign-born parents, and the share of whiteness is higher still among the grandchildren of immigrants. In addition, the acquisition of U.S. citizenship is associated with whiteness.

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=35

Not one person has seriously claimed that all immigrants---documented and undocumented---should not develop a functional grasp of the English language. But I see no need for politicians up for reelection to posture and play wedge issues with such a serious matter.

An alternative to English First or Only is English Plus. Here's how the concept works:

The English Plus concept holds that the national interest can best be served when all members of our society have full access to effective opportunities to acquire strong English language proficiency plus mastery of a second or multiple languages. ... English Plus rejects the ideology and divisive character of the so-called English Only movement. English Plus holds that national unity and our constitutional values require that language assistance be made available in order to ensure equal access to essential services, education, the electoral process, and other rights and opportunities guaranteed to all members of society. ...

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/EPIC.htm

Finally, this is one of those rare issues where my views and those of George W. Bush align.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a statement today clarifying the President's opinion.

"The president has never supported making English the national language," Gonzales said after meeting with state and local officials in Texas to discuss cooperation on enforcement of immigration laws.

He said Bush has instead long supported a concept called "English-Plus," believing that it was good to be proficient in more than one language.

"English represents freedom in our country and anybody who wants to be successful in our country has a much better chance of doing so if they speak English," Gonzales said. "It is of course a common language."

But, Gonzales said, "I don't see the need to have laws or legislation that says English is the national language."

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....ON-GONZALES.xml

Me neither, 'Berto.

While I wouldn't characterize this effort as either xenophobic or garbage, I would agree that, at this point in time, there are certainly plenty of other more important things to work on. I suspect it is being brought up as part of immigration reform, which does make some sense, however I think this point still stands.



I for one have seen the evidence of it (working in Texas), but I think the latter point here is more important. While I don't think any language could threaten the country, I see an issue that already is here and will only likely worsen. That being, if English isn't the official language, what prevents various groups (not just Spanish speaking groups, but ANY group) from demanding that all US government publications be put out in their language? If English isn't the official language, wouldn't it be prejudicial to exclude ANY language? This just has too much cost and hassle associated with it. Everyone knows English is the official language...what's the issue with making it, well, official? There doesn't seem to be any harm in doing so, and there are potential problems that doing it would avoid. So, what's the problem?

A further point....can anyone bring up an example other than Canada against this? Canada is actually a good case in point for why it's beneficial, not the opposite. Canada problems with adopting an official language now are precisely because its too late...there are two large, established populations which speak different languages, and there's no good reason now to prefer one over the other. This is essentially what the situation here in the US would be if we didn't adopt an official language. Any problems with doing so there are then an argument FOR adopting English here now, rather than arguments against it.



No, but, as you state later, it is in fact the assumed universal language of the US.



No, I think the fear is that certain communities will start to speak Spanish exclusively, leaving those that only speak English unable to communicate, even to the government. If you doubt this, let me say that in places in Texas it has already happened.



Actually, it isn't. It is just assumed to be. Leaving various groups able to question that assumption. As for the penalties, there shouldn't be any. The justification, to me, is simply that English can then be the sole language spoken in government. Currently, nothing prevents Spanish, Dutch, German, etc. being adopted in any government that hasn't set an official language. Is there any reason that someone speaking English which, as you say, is the assumed official language, should be excluded from our government? If the answer to that question is no (and I think it should be), then the answer to whether or not English should be made the official language has to be yes, as that's the only way to ensure the answer to the first question will remain no. Further, should any group (literally ANY group) be able to force all government publications to be published in their language? Again, I think the answer to this question is no. But, if English isn't made the official language, what's preventing that from happening? Nothing. Again, the only way to make the answer to this question no is to codify English as the official language. So, unless there are some good arguments why the answers to these two questions shouldn't be 'no', then, by default, the answer to whether we should codify English as the official language is 'yes'.

nighttimer:

This isn't even close to segregration. I otherwise cannot help but think that many still with us wish that all it would have taken to sit up front and at the counter was their command of the Queen's English.

And re this purportedly being directed against one group. Is that the case? Or is it instead that the one group is simply so large, as compared with others, that such group serves as the "common identifier" [as it were]? And maybe the legality or not of the immigration has also had some role to play in the choosing of target? Let's put it this way, while I don't agree in every respect and in the same tone [as it were], I can see the problem that some might have with persons here illegally "demanding" their "rights?" As I heard someone say on the tele, their "right" is to go promptly to jail or be deported for violating US law.

Someone otherwise posted the list of states that have dual official languages, and I live in one, Hawaii. We have English and Hawaiian as our official languages. There was a while back a "debate" here over whether schools ought to be teaching our children via use of "pidgin" [overwhemlingly "pidgin" English but with some Hawaiian, Japanese, Chinese, etc. thrown in]. The same claim was made here as is usually made in favor of bilingual education, to wit, forcing them to use the Queen's English rather the pidgin would work to their academic performance disadvantage since the children in question are more familiar with the pidgin than the Queen's English. Those of us who said no, and did so vehemently, were accused of the same things that you report. Of course, I'm trying real hard to understand why I could be considered a racist when I moved, voluntarily, to a place wherein my race makes up only 1/3 of the population [another 1/3 is Japanese and then there's everybody else], but I suppose that those leveling the allegations didn't concern themselves with that reality. And, ironically enough, I used to view the matter in much the same way as most here. But then I had occasion to meet and speak with a Chinese businessman who was here to purchase some real estate. He was simply befuddled at the number of people here whose best English is pidgin English. He asked me how we thought that these people were not cheating themselves, their state, their country, and the world, by not learning English. And he reminded me that English is not only the language of America, it is also the language of world commerce. Then he went on to talk about our failings in math and the sciences, or should I say, our ever decreasing test scores vis-a-vis other nations when it comes to math and science. According to him, it was all part of the same problem, which in his opinion is our ever increasing forgetfulness that excellence breeds success, both individually and collectively [he further claimed that we had begun the process of settling on mediocrity, and so didn't care about math and science scores and proficiency in the use of the English langauge].

And you also said something about how there are "few things more awkward than monolingual American abroad." May I ask where you travel? I've never had a problem, as a matter of fact, more than a few persons in other lands appeared to be glad that I am truly orally conversant only in English, since that gave them the chance to demonstrate their mastery of the English language [which they wore as a mark of distinction and honor, I'll leave it to you and the rest to figure out why that might so and just what that says]. And with respect to those who didn't speak English, they didn't care about my not being able to speak some other language, since they themselves only knew one language and so did not really expect me to be any different than them. So since I don't know where you travel, I'll take a guess and report that it is probably Europe. Filipinos don't care that I don't speak Ilocano, Tagalog, Bicolano, Cebuano, etc. The Thais don't care that I don't speak Thai. The Japanese don't care that I don't speak Japanese. The Chinese don't care that I don't speak Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. And the Koreans don't care that I don't speak Korean. Which is not to say that any of those persons might not be suitably impressed were I to awe them with my command of their language, but my failure in that regard was never a "deal breaker" or otherwise an impediment to some cross-cultural/ethnic/racial understanding. My knowledge of local culture and custom was otherwise far more impressive to them than my use of their language [which, as related, was not conversant, but more along the lines of my using select words, phrases, and idiom], and my knowledge of culture and custom otherwise saved me from more grief than any command of the local langauge could ever have possibly hoped to accomplish.

Oh, that reminds me. Filipinos. They speak a number of languages [more than 100]. And so English serves as a common bond. One would think that such might serve as a lesson for us, but I suppose, going back to the purported racism, that our "little brown brothers" don't have anything to teach us in this regard. And not to irritate Vermillion, but there are two things responsible for whatever unity there is that exists in the Philippines, to wit, the English language and Roman Catholicism. You can read about that here, and this also addresses the point made by some others re the value of English to one's success in the world:

http://www.jalt.org/global/26Phil.htm

And from someone who might prefer otherwise:

"At the moment, it is very clear that English borrowing has a dominant and pervading influence in the shaping of the lingua franca which is the penultimate form of Filipino, the national language. But will this trend continue? Language is dynamic. This researcher is of the opinion that as long as English remains the official language of commerce, science,and technology the trend will continue.
***
Are we now to believe that the process of borrowing from other Philippine and foreign languages is now a linguistic reality? Judging from the data gathered and
presented here, perhaps this is only partially true. That is, borrowing is almost exclusively from the English language. And why is this so? It is difficult to give a substantive answer to this particular question, given the limited scope of this study. Perhaps one indication why there is a lot of borrowing from English compared to other Philippine languages is the facility and appropriateness or applicability of English terms to modern day-to-day living of the average urban Filipino. More so because the urbanized Filipino is constantly exposed to the trappings --high technology, media, etc.-- of modern society which adopts English as its medium of communication, commerce, and education. As for Filipinos living in rural communities, the far-reaching radio and television broadcasts bring to them the linguistic trend emanating from the urban centers."

See: http://www.seasite.niu.edu/TAGALOG/essays_...e_languages.htm

And for a hopefully brief side-note, speaking of borrowing from English, the Tagalog word for toothpaste is "colgate" [which has less to do with English and more to do with the success of those who market[ed] Colgate in the Philippines]. I found that out by accident when, for the very first time, the future wife and I went out to buy some household and personal products and she informed me that we needed to get some colgate. To which I responded, yes, we need some more toothpaste, but there's more brands than Colgate, so look at them all and pick the one that suits your fancy. To which she then responded, yes, I know that, colgate is our word for toothpaste.

Now back to speaking their language abroad, while I received kudos for knowing to thank those with the same "status" as me by use of "salamat" while I thanked the elderly man and his wife with the more reverent "salamat po," what truly earned the warmth was not anything I said in Filipino [Tagalog]. Instead, the warmth was earned the evening that I was asked to sing a song for the 400-500 people [nearly the whole town] who had gathered to celebrate a town "fiesta", and instead of singing an English [or American] song in my own language, I instead sang one of their songs in English, with the song being Bayan Ko [see: http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/tt/2072d/ ]. As the town's mayor expressed to me later that night, what impressed was that I had apparently cared enough to not merely sing their song in their language and never mind whether I even understood the words, instead I had made their song my own by "converting" the same into my own language [though I used "greedy" rather than "rapacious"].

So might I accordingly suggest that we might have less of a problem here if the perception was that those speaking other languages cared enough to make our songs their own. Or should I say that while I value familiarity with English for the doors that it can open and the success that it can help achieve, at the same time, and on a whole other level, my concern is not so much over English as it is with attitude, and maybe if the perception was that some had made ours their own, then who cares in what language the attitude is expressed. And so no one can criticize me for not ever saying a bad word about Dubya, I was disappointed with his remark re the national anthem, since I'd rather hear them sing the national anthem in Spanish than hear them sing any and all other songs in English [including the national anthem itself, I mean, they can say "rampart", but what the heck is a rampart that we should watch o'er it, but they've got to know what a rampart is to find the appropriate Spanish for the same].

Lastly, I don't suppose that some have considered the proposition that some others believe that English is and should remain a defining characteristic of American society? And the claim I heard on the tele about how language is not so important is a mistake, and this isn't about getting that fat cat Wall Street job, no, as I've said here on AD prior, we have this word "democracy" in our language. And we wonder why some others in the world apparently have no working conception of the same. That is because of their history, one devoid of "democracy", and so in Arabic there is not even a word that we can use to translate as "democracy." And as someone once said, if it ain't on their tongues you can be sure as s that it ain't on their minds either. So language is important. And, no, you don't have to be a racist to think so.

Sorry, another freebie, Howard Dean is either utak biya ["fish brained"] or maitim ang budhi ["dark souled"].

No, we do not need english as an official language, I think quite the opposite, we need to Euro-ize our outlook on this. We need to have many languages spoken and taught in our schools, goverment etc. It allows for a more free enviroment for exchange of ideas and concepts. In Hawaii, they have no word for "snow", but in Alaska, the natives have 23 (or was it 26) different words for "snow". We have a huge population of South Pacific Islanders here, and they have adopted some words from English and the different native tongues here to make up for this lack of a word. The English language is a mutt language to begin with- we need a word, that we don't have, we borrow one. Canoe. Rendevous, etc.

NT hit the nail right on the head- it is rich white guys afraid of losing power, and transfering that fear to thier culture as well.

I think America should adopt AT LEAST three languages right away, a latin language, like Spanish, an Asian language, like Japanese or Chinese, and English, teach them in schools immersion style, and make every goverment transaction compulsory in each language.

I think it would go a very long ways into transforming us from a nation of ignoramous xenophobic theocrats we are today.

Here is a freebei for you KT- "brevity"

CruisingRam:

Yes, heaven forbid that we have a discussion that concerns thought processes that go beyond what fits on the bumper of one's car. Oh, and I have no power to lose, thank you very much, since I gave mine back. And sorry to say, but Poliahu is the Hawaiian goddess of snow, believed to reside on the top of Mauna Kea. And the word[s] you are looking for is hau/hau kea. And lastly, never mix "rich" and "white" and "power." Power doesn't necessarily mean riches, and power doesn't care what color you are, but it is however, selfish and so doesn't like to share.

Funny- you kind of make my point for me- polynesians, by thier very name, has several dialects, and those that never hit the big island may not have that in thier language at all, eh? They adopted words for it later- in fact, I do think I mistyped- Last time I had it explained to me was in hawaii- by a somoan I think- but the idea is this- that we, as 'mericans, adapt as we need, and when we straight jacket oursselves into a corner like this, we take away one of our greatest strengths as a society. Once you adapt English as an "official language"- do we also decide what words are now English? Do we have a commitee of what is English and what is not, you know, similar to those pesky french ?

And, though not a one-liner (bumper sticker) rebuttal, I WAS able to keep it to a 1000 words or less....

Why stop at three? Why not, say, 10,000? Why not require the government to conduct every single transaction in every single language on earth? If this sounds outrageous, well, IT IS! But without making English the official language, nothing prevents this from happening, or even being required by law.



Or, more likely, it would go a long way towards making our already onerous cumbersome beauracracy into an even more onerous, cumbersome beauracracy. Or, to put it another way...how much money are all the people against making English the official language willing to contribute to the government to bear the costs of being multilingual?

Or is this yet another situation where it's a wonderful idea, as long as someone else bears the cost?

I ask to clarify Hobbes- has this happened in other multi-lingual countries, some of them having three or four "official" languages? Has it harmed business, or thier society? is our society so fragile that not enshrining a language not native to our shores in law will make it fall apart?

English is not Spanish. You can ramble on about how English is not English, but that's really just minutia red-herring stuff. I think most people understand what you mean when you say "ENGLISH". The way you people describe it, people are walking around speaking Spanglish and really have no idea of what language they are speaking.

And making English the official language does nothing to prohibit or dissuade people from learning other languages. Is that your point?

I've learned several languages in my life and your assertion that learning all these languages somehow enlightens a person is pure nonsense, IMHO. More than one language complicates things.

And the issue is what brings people together. Your assumption that people would all be multi-lingual is a hysterically disingenuous fantasy. In fact, "MORE LANGUAGES" actually FRACTURES society, it doesn't make people more well-rounded or more understanding....JUST ASK QUEBEC! How many Canadians hate the french?

It creates enclaves of people who are disenfranchised and have sanctuary to never assimilate into the general society. Not to mention when you have millions of people who don't speak the "native tongue" spilling into your country that they are creating division and an absence of a general society.



White guys, like Vicente Fox?

How lame can you guys be? ROll out the "you're a racist", "you're a xenophone", "you're afraid".....Really, are you just too simple-minded to argue without name calling?

Millions of illegals pouring into this nation who don't speak English. One of the requirements to be a legal immigrant is learning English.

If you want to create a Mexico Part 2, with a huge underclass that's uneducated and poor, then by all means "don't be afraid". Open the flood gates for all the millions that will flood our health care system and bring wages crashing down for native Americans. Bring our education system to a grind, trying to teach ALL THOSE LANGUAGES.

Oh sorry, I guess I'm just being a racist.

It's not that I actually care about my country becoming a 3rd world nation with hordes of non-English speaking people who want to make the USA into Mexico El Norte. It's that I'm afraid of Freddie Prince Junior and Daisy Fuentes.

Dem brown peeps gotsa to go!

Seriously, can you be a little more original than the "race card"? Are you so close-minded that you can't even see the pitfalls of massive amounts of spanish-only speaking people? Is it fair to legal immigrants to have to learn more than one language?

Hey, I'm not English. My ancestors learned English. I really can not understand the protests of expecting every American to learn and speak English. And have it as an official language to make us one nation and bring people together, not divide them.

The only response I keep hearing is "you're a xenophobe". Sorry that is weak.

First, most countries DO have an official language. That aside, what separates the US from other countries is that they are not blessed with the plethora of lawyers we have here, or frequently the the anti-prejudicial laws. As I asked in my first post:



Note: doing this wouldn't prevent any government from adding other languages..it would only prevent the government from being required to do so.

No-- it doesn't fracture anything- but it does make you smarter-


http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3653

The more you know, the smarter you are...shocking! But knowing a ton of languages doesn't make you a more tolerant person or a better citizen. It just means you know a language...


Cases in point (regarding fracture):

the Basque Country

Quebec

I'm sure I could find many more examples of where different languages actually divided countries. Here's an example of where English as a common language made the country better:

India

[quote=RedCedar,May 20 2006, 07:29 PM]
[quote=CruisingRam,May 20 2006, 11:15 PM][quote=RedCedar,May 20 2006, 06:58 PM]








India

[/quote]

India's Official language is Hindi- kinda goes against the point that making a language official, the "birth language" of that country official- kinda makes the case against your point, dont ya think?

I still have to ask- english as an official language- what about words that are borrowed and put into the English language- do we outlaw them in goverment documents- you never did answer that point- if english is the official language for official documents- what words can't be used? Rendevous for instance- clearly a french word- do we outlaw that word on goverment documents?

EVERY word in English is borrowed from somewhere, so I'm not really sure what the point here is. This is not a 'micro' issue, it is a 'macro' issue. Individual words shouldn't really even enter into the discussion. However, if we do get down to that level, the words you seem to be including ARE part of the English language, so they're still not an issue.

BUT- that is quite true with many countries that adopt an "official language"- they end up debating what is in the language, because, and you can not deny that this will happen- some non-english origin word will be in some goverment paper- and someone will sue to have it removed, and then there will be the debate about what IS English.

It is just another reason to not even go there.

Years back, when I was a child in England, I remember the older folks getting very upset about the new-wave Indian/Pakistani immigrants talking to each other in their own language. Once, I was on a bus when a couple were gabbering away to each other. People on the bus got upset. I was young and didn't understand their anger. It seemed obvious to me that a couple would converse in their native and common language. The purpose of language is to communicate information. Why would two people not use their native tongue? Must be fairly stupid to talk to your spouse in a language with which you are unfamiliar. And we all know that the children grew up speaking fluent in English.

It is laughable to legislate language. What is English anyway? I've lived in the US for 13 years now. Are you aware that the Brits think that we speak "English" very poorly over here? For example, constantly using adjectives when adverbs are required? Last year I visited England and spent a few hours at the "Tower of London". I spent some time looking around the old dungeon where prisoners awaiting death carved their last words into the walls. I couldn't understand any of the scribes. They seemed to be a combination of Latin and French, but I'm not sure. The "English" weren't speaking English back then, or maybe they were and I just didn't recognize it as the English that we speak today. We speak to communicate, and we will do that. New words will get added, some words will become redundant. Obviously, immigration of foreign language speakers, if considerable in numbers, will change the language slowly over time. But trust me, your grandchildren will be speaking English, with maybe a few new words of Spanish origin. The grandchildren of todays immigrants will be speaking it too. It will be a little different from what we speak today, but nobody will notice the change. Today, a 14 yr old uses different, and new, words than a 60 yr old. You think that it is a fad, but it is not. It is the evolution of language. Many of their adolescence and slang words will one day be in common use, and in Websters.

People need each other and need to communicate. They always have, and always will. We don't use words that we used 500 years ago, so why should people (500 years from now) be legislated to use our words of today? Read American literature from the 1930's. "Day of the Locust", for example. You will see how much the English language has changed in just 70 years. Back then they spoke and wrote as the Brits do today. Nobody is stealing our language. We will speak it until we die, and be understood clearly by all. So will our children, and theirs, and theirs, and theirs...

Well, I'm certainly not one to defend the ability of the government to avoid tripping over its own feet. However, I would think this could be circumvented by proper phrasing of the law, perhaps by including something like the Webster's dictionary comprises the English language that will be utilized. Still, arguing over words to include gets completely trumped by the argument about not having to publish everything in entirely different languages, which, to me, is the 'there' we will really want to avoid going.

You realize that countries like <gasp> France (and I think there is a German equivelent, I am not sure though) have commitees and such that determine what goes in the dictionary, and what is a "french" word, and what is allowed on signage etc?

You really want this whole next level of beauracracy there hobbester?

I have always thought that the achilles heel of the modern conservative movement is the same flaw with the old liberal movement- this move towards social engineering, instead of adapting to reality.

You know, confused put it very well, but I think it bears repeating. As a father of tri-or quad lingual kids (depends if all of them "stick" I suppose )- it is well known that it is very unlikely, that, unless my children live abroad, my possible future grandchildren will be mono-lingual , and english speaking. It is just that the children are immersed in it. If whole sections of the country is being immersed in spanish to the point that english is not being automatically picked up by the next generation- then, quite frankly, it is time for society to adapt and start using spanish- plain and simple. I just don't see why folks fear that kind of change so much.

And yes, from my POV- it seems silly and xenophobic.

This is never going to happen. First, this nation does not take the English language that seriously. And secondly, you'd have to be a moron to not understand when something is understandable to an English speaker or it is not.

This is a complete strawman argument. It would never be an issue and it is not an issue in several states that ALREADY claim English as their official language.




You are saying it is unlikely your kids will be mono-lingual? They said that when I was growing up, and if anything the world has adapted more to Americans than vice-versa.

I fear divisiveness and I think there is plenty of proof that it takes place when people are isolated by language barriers. Having half the country speak one language and another speak a different language is not very productive.

Again, look at a place like Quebec and all their problems.

I would compare it to money. When you have more than one currency it causes problems. It may be more fun and entertaining to have different forms of money, but it's not very practical and consolidating down to one currency simplifies life considerably.



Well you're entitled to your opinion. I think you're way too utopian and simply ignoring reality. Maybe we need to wear flowers and sing Kumbaya?

And if you could prove or show how it is xenophobic, I'd be interested in some discussion over name-calling. First let me define xenophobia for you:

A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

Where is anyone saying that we fear people? Please back up your ASSUMPTION.

I know there would be an IMMEDIATE lawsuit up here- because there already was on you see

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/docu...ocumentID=15965

Excerpt:

The law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1998.

The law "unduly constricts the opportunities for free expression" and violates "the rights of citizens to receive information and ideas," Judge Fred Torrisi of Dillingham said in a decision handed down March 22.

The law was never enforced because it was challenged in state court.

"I'm very happy," said Anchorage attorney Doug Pope, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of the village of Togiak, a largely Yup'ik-speaking community near Dillingham.

"It's not a surprise," said Jennifer Rudinger, director of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, which along with the Native American Rights Fund filed suit for a group of teachers, Native Americans and government tourism workers. "The law had many, many constitutional flaws."

A spokeswoman for the organization that sponsored the initiative said the ruling would be appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.

"I don't really think this has anything to do with freedom of speech," said Susan Fischetti of Alaskans for a Common Language. "This just has to do with the language of the state's business. It's just common sense."

The restriction on the use of languages other than English would have affected elected and appointed officials and staffers on all levels of state and local government. It made exceptions for emergency or safety situations, for criminal investigations and court cases, for religion, for foreign phrases used during primarily English communications about art, and for talk between an elected official and his constituents.

It did not seek to regulate language used outside of government.

You see, there were these folks that were here before us.....and, um, they didn't speak English, and, in fact, villages up here, they have never spoken English, and never will most likely. If you want to do goverment busines up there, you better speak Inupiat- otherwise, it ain't happening.

So you want to force them to learn English? Well, we kinda did that too once, it was a type of genocide practiced right here in Alaska until as late as the 1950s, an "assimilation" of those poeples into "American culture". Few tribes languages were wiped out completely, couple tribes were wiped out completely, oh yeah, and let's not forget all the molestation and good stuff that went along with that.

The history of "official language" is quite brutal and horrific- even in recent times- I am sure you remember the ethnic cleansing stories of the Balkans, they would close schools that taught the other sides language first?

So yeah, there is a slight historical connection to Xenophobia, racism and "official" language.

Maybe America could pull it off, because, you know, our goverment is so much more efficient and sensitive to the needs of the poeple....

and, the most compelling reason not to write this law- is because it is simply not needed, another diversion from really bad things that are happening- as quoted in the above article:

Torrisi noted this issue has been debated all through American history. But historical studies suggest such language laws are not necessary, he said. According to experts, about 60% of immigrants and 90% of their children speak English "well or very well" within 10 years and join the economic mainstream in 10 to 15 years.

And, as a conservative, and, really no need to be too angry with me dude- i respect you and your threads and posts, you seem consistant in most issues to me, - but, writing laws that are just wastes of time and money- isn't that kinda what you are against? well, as a libertarian, me too