Story here.


Should speaking English or demonstrating a degree of English proficiency be a requirement for U.S. citizenship?

Do citizens who don’t speak English have the right for a voting ballot to be printed in their native language?

And to paraphrase the author of the article, and what I consider the most important question:

Can you be a fully functioning citizen of the United States if you can’t read a voting ballot that’s printed in English?

Is this cause enough to make English the official language?

It is a stupid to question whether or not it should be a requirement, or whether or not english should be the main language on a ballot. We live in America. We speak english. If you come to America, LEARN OUR LANGUAGE. If we go to yours, we have to learn yours, so do the same here. It's as easy that. I saw a shirt this weekend I almost bought. It said "Welcome to America! NOW SPEAK ENGLISH!"

Should speaking English or demonstrating a degree of English proficiency be a requirement for U.S. citizenship?

Obviously this cannot be done for native-born American citizens, some of whom will never understand English. The Constitution makes it clear that such persons are American citizens. I have to assume that we are talking about legal immigrants. It would be legal to require some degree of understanding of English for such people, but I have mixed feelings about whether it would be a good idea. If we do such a thing, I would make the requirement minimal. There are some people who follow all the rules about becoming an American citizen, but who will never be fluent in a new language. Many of these people would make fine citizens. I would not exclude them.

Do citizens who don't speak English have the right for a voting ballot to be printed in their native language?

The operative word here is "citizen." Citizens should be able to vote. I think that the Voting Rights Act made it clear why some accomodation to languages other than English is an important part of this process.

Link



I think that the requirements for ballots in languages other than English are very reasonable.



Can you be a fully functioning citizen of the United States if you can't read a voting ballot that's printed in English?

That depends on what you mean by a "fully functioning citizen." There is no doubt at all that American citizens who do not understand English are at a disadvantage in many ways, and that all Americans should be strongly encouraged to learn English. The plain fact is that there will always be many Americans who do not understand English. I would not want to make them second class citizens.

Is this cause enough to make English the official language?

No.

Should speaking English or demonstrating a degree of English proficiency be a requirement for U.S. citizenship?

Do citizens who don’t speak English have the right for a voting ballot to be printed in their native language?

Can you be a fully functioning citizen of the United States if you can’t read a voting ballot that’s printed in English?

Is this cause enough to make English the official language?

I'm back to translation software. It takes little effort to translate one language to another these days, so what's the big deal? The browser I'm now using does translations of Web pages, which is cool. We have electronic voting machines. We have desktop printing. We have it all, except the real-time translator in the iPod, which will probably be out on the market sometime soon. Something to that effect.

So there you are in the ethnic part of town and everyone's speaking Italian. Plug in your translator and hear what they actually are saying about things. Talk into it and they hear Italian. Scan a document and get it spoken back to you in your tongue.

The US is too technically advanced to worry about an official language. Those who do are stuck in the 20th century.

Should speaking English or demonstrating a degree of English proficiency be a requirement for U.S. citizenship?

Yes. English is the de facto, in not official, language in this country. It should be the only official language for two reasons:

1. It's widely used in international communications, particularly in technological areas (and it behooves us to be able to communicate with the rest of the world)

2. Unlike countries such as Mexico, France, Japan, etc., who primarily have one or two native languages, the U.S. supports ethnicities spanning a wide range of langiuages. Are we now gonig to be ok with 'Hey in my neck of the woods, we speak Swiss German. Ebnglish? We don't need no English.'

So, yes, learning English to some useful degree should be a requirement for citizenship.



Do citizens who don’t speak English have the right for a voting ballot to be printed in their native language?

No. If you want to participate in the country's election process, learn English. I can certainly print ballots in another language for you, but if you can't understand English, how do I know you're even aware of what you're voting about?

Can you be a fully functioning citizen of the United States if you can’t read a voting ballot that’s printed in English?

Is this cause enough to make English the official language?
[/quote]


No, you can't be, and English should be the official language. It behooves citizens to learn English, and it behhoves the govt to not provide avenues to avoid having a working handle on English.

Their own inability to speak English effectively makes them second-class citizens, regardless of what "we" do. If they want to join the rest of us, they have to be able to communicate along with the rest of us. How can they cast an informed vote if they can't keep up with the political debates that go on in our society?

While I recognize the advantages of speaking, reading and writing English to being able to compete in this country, I balk at the notion of "second-class" citizenship. What other elements, in your opinion, condemn people to being second-class citizens? This is good nativistic, right of center rhetoric, nothing more.

Does being able to speak multiple languages place someone in a "super" citizenship category?

Anything that prevents them from being able to participate in the public debate will effectively (that is, have the same effect as) make them second-class citizens. Like I made clear, this isn't a condition that anyone would be imposing on them, or that would justify treating them differently. It's just the reality that their condition itself imposes.


Just so you're aware, that statement is not an argument of any kind. It's just something to cover for a lack of argument.

BoF, if i hadn't already nominated a best quote, this would get my nom.

Should speaking English or demonstrating a degree of English proficiency be a requirement for U.S. citizenship?

I am conflicted on this. Firstly, I believe that learning English is absolutely necessary for the well-being and prosperity of anyone who wishes to live in this country. But i think that it is a personal choice that should be made, not government enforced in the strictest sense. People can choose to learn English and choose not to. Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to be sorted out for every option, so i think the realization that English is necessary will be made apparent.

In terms of being a requirement for US citizenship... good question. I believe that whatever tests are administered for US citizenship should be in English because having every language would be impractical but I don't feel it should be a requirement to be proficient in it. But of course if the tests are in English, proficiency is kind of necessary. It might be easier just to stay vague on this.

Do citizens who don’t speak English have the right for a voting ballot to be printed in their native language?

No i don't think that they do. The United States is comprised of dozens of languages and printing ballots in various languages is a waste of resources. I think that if a person who is an immigrant or a non-native citizen is willing to go to the voting area with the intention of voting that there is a strong likelihood that they know the names of the people whom they want to vote for. I don't think they would go there not knowing something about the election because it would kind of defeat the purpose of it all.

Can you be a fully functioning citizen of the United States if you can’t read a voting ballot that’s printed in English?

50% of Americans who CAN read a voting ballot don't. They are fully functioning.

Is this cause enough to make English the official language?

No. This is an issue that society is fully able to sort out in a Rules of the Road type of way.

Blackstone,

When more of your "arguments" are based on something you can corroborate with more than just your opinion, then I'll take your words seriously.

It'll probably be a cold day in hell before you hear someone even close to the American mainstream using phrases like "second-hand citizens." I guess for some, it fulfills a need to feel superior to someone else.

BTW: Ability to learn a second language varies from person to person. I think it would be rather hard for older non-English speaking citizens (even if they were born here) to learn English at an advanced stage of life--not impossible, but difficult.

If necessary, ballots should be printed in whatever language is needed.

What other countries in the world will accomodate you always? I mean when we go to a foreign country that speaks a different language, don't you think we have to learn their language to communicate with them? You better believe we do. We have mexicans coming into this country by the day that can't speak english, but they can buy property and get drivers licenses. Americans (who can speak spanish, i mind you) can't go down to mexico and buy property or get a drivers license. It is a waste of time and money for America to accomodate all of these immigrants all the time. If you move to another country, any country, be prepared to learn their language. It is that simple. If you are at home with your family, talk anyway you want. When you are in the public eye, speak english. Not too hard...

Just so you know, Holland for example translates important forms and documents in different languages for people who do not master the Dutch language. Tax papers, social security papers, ballots etc a printed in Arabic, English, French or whatever language people are speaking. It enables these people to find their way in our society and it makes sure they can exercise their rights like everybody else with a Dutch passport has. I fully agree with Bof on this one.

To echo renger, British official forms have for some time been available either with multiple languages printed on them, or as complete translations (depending on the size & complexity of the form). For example, forms to claim Jobseekers' Allowance (the main unemployment benefit, which is payable only on condition of seeking work) are available in English, Welsh, Gaelic, and most of the main immigrant languages.

Welsh and Gaelic, while they have a greater claim to be native British languages than English does, are more there for courtesy and equality reasons; there can't be more than a handful, if that, of people who speak Welsh or Gaelic but NOT English.

So we're mostly talking about immigrant languages which, because of our history, are most likely to be Hindi, Urdu, Gujarati, Punjabi, and (more recently) might include Somali or a Zimbabwean language.

It isn't routine for other EU languages to be catered for; while EU citizens have the right to live and work here, and can even vote here if they're around during an election (just as Britons have the right to do in other EU countries), most of them who don't speak English already are here to learn or improve it.

For the record, Britain doesn't have, or need, and official language - it doesn't matter to the state whether a job seeking claimant speaks English or not, as it isn't the state's responsibility to find them a job. If they refuse to improve their chances of finding one, their benefit window is more likely to run out, but that's their look-out, isn't it?

In light of this, I fail to see how making official forms, including voting forms, available in both English and Spanish (for starters) in any way undermines the idea of America. Not least because there have been settled Spanish speakers in North America for rather longer than there have been English speakers. So I'm with BoF too.

Translating a few documents is a fine thing. But translating EVERYTHING which is beginning to happen is not. I don't like buying a product from the store and then pull out the manual and it seems to be very big, but in all actuality its not, because it is printed in so many languages. That is stupid.

I don't like going to an ATM Machine and having to select "English" before I proceed. I don't like it when people go to a restaurant and can't speak english to order food. People don't have to master our language, but if you are going to move here, expect that you are going to have to use it. LEARN IT. It is not an abnormal request.

Making english the official language is a great idea.

I didn't initiate that term here. As you can see from following the discussion back, I was responding to someone else's use of it. And I notice you haven't denied the substance of what I was saying, but just latched on to the use of a "second-hand" phrase as an excuse to avoid debate.


And I'm sure the irony of that statement is completely lost on you.


It's necessary that they be printed in the language in which the political debates take place, the language of our society. If you can't follow the political debates (without having someone else reguritate it for you, with all of his or her political biases), then you can't cast an informed vote.

You are correct. Victoria brought this phrase up first, but I will submit that she used it in an entirely different context than you did.







An “informed vote” is a moving target, with bullets other than English, Spanish, etc. flying past it. Let’s see, there’s the voter who votes from an emotional response. Seems there might have been quite a few of those in recent years. If we boil this down to just language, what do we do with people, like severe dyslexics, who have much difficulty just reading in their native language?



“Stupid.” Why, because you say so? Won't there be more potential customers if the manuals are printed in different languages?



Pushing a button is such an expenditure in energy, I’m sure this exhausts you.



Is it any of your business how other people order their food when they go to a restaurant?

ATM machines, ordering in a restaurant, owner’s manuals? The issue is much more important than your personal preferences.



Were 230 years past the Declaration of Independence and 219 years pst the Constitution of the United States. Why is this such an issue now? Political considerations?

Since, as far as I know, there isn't a provision in the Voting Rights Act or other areas of federal law requiring ballots to accomodate dyslexics (to say nothing of people who vote on pure emotion), then I'd say the question is largely beside the point. I think I made it clear that I wasn't advocating discriminating against people who can't speak English. If they're adult citizens in good standing, they're entitled to vote, with or without the VRA. But they don't have the right to have election agencies make special accomodations for them.

But if by any chance there is a provision in law for dyslexic voters, it still isn't analogous, because Anglophone dyslexics can at least speak and listen in English.

Blackstone,

The dyslexic statement was meant as a parallel. Ballots, after all are written, not spoken. So, here’s how the parallel works. I entered first grade in 1948. From that time until the end of my public school years, particularly through jr. high - middle school - I attended classes with a number of Mexican Americans. It sort of goes with the territory here in Texas. I can’t remember any Mexican American student who couldn’t speak English well enough to communicate. Yet I remember several being retained in grade, because of problems reading and writing English. So, the Mexican American people I grew up with might be able to follow an oral debate on pertinent issues and still not be able to read a ballot.

It’s commendable that you are not advocating disenfranchising citizens who can’t read a ballot. I’m glad you made that clear.

BTW: The last time I checked, dyslexics were also citizens.

Note: Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you, but this board isn't my entire life.

I have a hard time believing that anyone who's proficient in English enough to understand the issues presented in public debate wouldn't be able to follow basic instructions on a ballot. Most of it is rather self-explanatory anyway.


It's too bad that I even needed to make it clear, since there was nothing to suggest otherwise. Except your reaction.

Yes they do. We make accomodations for those who are physically handicapped or blind. I fail to see why this would be any different. Other than outlining what constitutes a naturalized or native-born citizen, the founders didn't mention language at all.



Yes, older people have younger relatives who help them out in public or who buy the groceries. In the late 19th century, various ethnic enclaves sprung up and had their own newspapers in the native language. They were just as much as citizens as the next people. I know of people who are the third or fourth generation of their respective ethnicity and who can't speak their "native" tongue. Generational and age differences relating to language ability should not be a reason why disenfranchisement should occur.



I don't believe so, nor should that be the case. Citizenship is a concrete thing in the constitution, language isn't. These kinds of efforts might even impede the melting pot process that is generational as it might lead to widespread resentment among the children of immigrants.