Chief Delphi - Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Chit-Chat (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)

- - Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...") (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48287)

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

OK, let me step in for two seconds. No naming names.

Guys...it's 11:49 EST. Why are you awake? Go rest. You can reply to this tomorrow. Chief Delphi is probably not going anywhere.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Tal vez un dia nos daremos cuenta que nuestro lenguage expresa nuestra identidad cultural, y esto es muy importante para el individuo quien desea sentirse orgulloso de su cultura.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Yes, one's language does express individuality... but by enforcing a national language, you are not making everybody abandon their individuality.They can still talk in whatever language they want, anywhere they want. I know many Americans who are learning second and third languages, and even taking trips to their country of origin, but not one of them are going to ever speak French, German, or Spanish in their home, or anywhere in everyday life when they are in the other countries. English will stay a part of them, and they will remain individuals.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Staying on the topic of a national language, I seem to recall hearing that very soon (maybe already) white anglo saxons will be a minority in the US

maybe thats what this is really all about - certain groups feel they are losing their control over the country, and are going to do what they can while they are still in power.

Power is one of the major motives behind human actions. When you feel you are losing control some people go off the deep end.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

To go along with my curiosity and this topic: what states currently have a State language, or require English to be spoken in certain aspects of the State?

For example, I know Arizona requires classes in the education system to be taught in English, the actual proposition can be found here:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...ford/echar.htm

I'm not exactly seeing the point of a national language still. Currently not knowing English makes it difficult to succeed, and I doubt that will change anytime soon. It seems there is little need for more incentive to learn English then that.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Attallah

Here is the list of the 38 senators voted aginst making english the offical language of america.

36 Democrats, 1 independent, and 1 republican

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Kinda makes ya' think, huh? I'll chime back in a few...

::edit::

Thx for the rename

See attached picture

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The statements that have been made by "English Only" advocacy groups only serve to support this statement. Read these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProEnglish (advocacy group)

Today America's linguistic unity, which enabled the melting-pot crucible to forge one nation out of millions of immigrants from all over the world, is under attack as never before. Record numbers of non-English speaking immigrants threaten to overwhelm the assimilative process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by U.S. English (advocacy group)

Gobernar es poblar translates "to govern is to populate." In this society where the majority rules, does this hold? Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile? ... Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva [sic] if borders aren't controlled? Or is advice to limit one's family simply advice to move over and let someone else with greater reproductive powers occupy the space? ... Perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down! ...

How will we make the transition from a dominant non-Hispanic society with a Spanish influence to a dominant Spanish society with a non-Hispanic influence? ... As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? ... We're building in a deadly disunity. All great empires disintegrate, we want stability.

Draw your own conclusions.

On the other hand, read the following statements by the Linguistic Society of America:

Quote:

1. The vast majority of the world's nations are at least bilingual, and most are multilingual, even if one ignores the impact of modern migrations. Countries in which all residents natively speak the same language are a small exception, certainly not the rule. Even nations like France, Germany and the United Kingdom have important linguistic minorities within their borders. Furthermore, where diverse linguistic communities exist in one country, they have generally managed to coexist peacefully. Switzerland and Finland are only two of many examples. Where linguistic discord does arise, as in Quebec, Belgium, or Sri Lanka, it is generally the result of majority attempts to disadvantage or suppress a minority linguistic community, or it reflects underlying racial or religious conflicts. Studies have shown that multilingualism by itself is rarely an important cause of civil discord.

2. The territory that now constitutes the United States was home to hundreds of languages before the advent of European settlers. These indigenous languages belonged to several major language families. Each native language is or was a fully developed system of communication with rich structures and expressive power. Many past and present members of the Society have devoted their professional lives to documenting and analyzing the native languages of the United States.

3. Unfortunately, most of the indigenous languages of the United States have become extinct or are severely threatened. All too often their
eradication was deliberate government policy. In other cases, these languages suffered from simple neglect. The decline of America's indigenous languages has been closely linked to the loss of much of the culture of its speakers.

4. Because of this history, the Society believes that the government and people of the United States have a special obligation to enable our indigenous peoples to retain their languages and cultures. The Society strongly supports the federal recognition of this obligation, as expressed in the Native American Languages Act. The Society urges federal, state and local governments to affirmatively implement the policies of the Act by enacting legislation, appropriating sufficient funds, and monitoring the progress made under the Act.

5. The United States is also home to numerous immigrant languages other than English. The arrival of some of these languages, such as Dutch, French, German, and Spanish, predates the founding of our nation. Many others have arrived more recently. The substantial number of residents of the United States who speak languages other than English presents us with both challenges and opportunities.

6. The challenges of multilingualism are well known: incorporating linguistic minorities into our economic life, teaching them English so they can participate more fully in our society, and properly educating their children. Unfortunately, in the process of incorporating immigrants and their offspring into American life, bilingualism is often wrongly regarded as a "handicap" or "language barrier." Of course, inability to speak English often functions as a language barrier in the United States. But to be bilingual--to speak both English and another language--should be encouraged, not stigmatized. There is no convincing evidence that bilingualism by itself impedes cognitive or educational development. On the contrary, there is evidence that it may actually enhance certain types of intelligence.

7. Multilingualism also presents our nation with many benefits and opportunities. For example, bilingual individuals can use their language skills to promote our business interests abroad. Their linguistic competence strengthens our foreign diplomatic missions and national defense. And they can better teach the rest of us to speak other languages.

8. Moreover, people who speak a language in addition to English provide a role model for other Americans. Our national record on learning other languages is notoriously bad. A knowledge of foreign languages is necessary not just for immediate practical purposes, but also because it gives people the sense of international community that America requires if it is to compete successfully in a global economy.

9. To remedy our past policies towards the languages of Native Americans and to encourage acquisition or retention of languages other than English by all Americans, the Linguistic Society of America urges our nation to protect and promote the linguistic rights of its people. At a minimum, all residents of the United States should be guaranteed the
following linguistic rights:

A. To be allowed to express themselves, publicly or privately, in the
language of their choice.

B. To maintain their native language and, should they so desire, to
pass it on to their children.

C. When their facilities in English are inadequate, to be provided a
qualified interpreter in any proceeding in which the government
endeavors to deprive them of life, liberty or property. Moreover, where
there is substantial linguistic minority in a community, interpretation
ought to be provided by courts and other state agencies in any matter that
significantly affects the public.

D. To have their children educated in a manner that affirmatively
addresses their linguistic deficiencies in English. Children can only
learn when they understand their teachers. As a consequence, some use of
their native language is often desirable to educate them successfully.

E. To conduct business and to communicate with the public in the
language of their choice.

F. To use their preferred language for private conversations in the
workplace.

G. To learn to speak, read and write English, so that they can fully
participate in the educational and economic life of this nation. All
levels of government should adequately fund programs to teach English to
any resident who desires to learn it.

10. Notwithstanding the multilingual history of the United States, the role of English as our common language has never seriously been questioned. Research has shown that newcomers to America continue to learn English at rates comparable to previous generations of immigrants. Our government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that this trend continues by promoting the widespread knowledge of English. Nonetheless, promoting our common language need not, and should not, come at the cost of violating the rights of linguistic minorities.

Just some food for thought. I would encourage you to browse the various advocacy websites... many vary greatly in terms of the spectrum of views presented.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cody C

Because they are here Illegaly, We don't let a theif take a car and keep it. The theif cheated his way into the car, hoping to avoid a system that is expensive and time-consuming, a system that makes it so that if he is late on a payment he loses his car. But we still take the car away Because it was wrong of him to take it in the first place!

What do we do about squatters?

'Illegal' and 'wrong' are non necessarily the same things. And they, for better or worse, are necessarily interpreted on a situational basis, especially when the interests of a nation are involved. The thief analogy captures some of the problem, but it's inadequate to convey the complexities of the immigration question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cody C

Because that accomplishes the exact same thing that sending jobs over seas does, it takes a job away from a legal american citizen, and gives it to somebody else, who does not live in america rightfully.

Who cares? Someone has a job, someone's doing better than they were previously. And frankly, if I had the choice between elevating a first-world citizen from unemployment to gainful productivity, and doing the same for a ex-third-world immigrant, I'd tend to pick the immigrant, because they have further to rise. True, America also has its destitute, and for them, I'd welcome a job placement where they can earn a living wage. But when a middle-class or higher citizen complains about a migrant taking his job, I've got very little sympathy. If the immigrant can do it cheaper, faster, better, etc., then why are we fostering an unproductive practice? Because it's patriotic? (Are you a capitalist or a jingoist, at heart?)

The problem is, the immigration system (in America) is principally constructed to keep people out. Every step of the way, there are hurdles and barriers to slow you down, to discourage you. And what's the point? Nearly none of that is devoted to getting people who can fill American needs; mostly, it's there just to get the number of immigrants down. And all this, when America clearly needs people to fill jobs in the service and manufacturing sectors. Apart from the fleeing criminals and sly terrorists (of which there are very, very few), illegal immigrants aren't sneaking in to steal your car or blow up your city. They see jobs unfilled in America, jobs that pay more than they're accustomed to, and wonder why the immigration system won't let them fill them. They skip around it, because they know that they don't stand a very good chance at all of getting in any other way.

So are they unwanted? Well, it sure seems that way, when you talk to a politician. But businesses will privately confide that they do value the services of the migrant workers, because that's the only way that they can compete with the offshore companies. They can't afford to pay American wages, because Americans aren't willing to pay commensurate prices for their goods. The immigrants aren't stealing jobs, they're filling jobs that would otherwise have disappeared, because of unsustainable wages.

The irony here, is that immigrants, be they illegal or otherwise, are prolonging the survival of many sectors of American industry. Without illegals, for example, the cost of California produce would rise dramatically. You'd end up importing much more from South America, because you wouldn't be able to afford domestic prices. The domestic industry would wither. So what do we do about it? Cut American wages? (Can't do that, American citizens object to low wages.) Bomb South America? (Let's not try that....) Among other possibilities, the most convenient compromise is really the one that exists now—look the other way at the illegals, because they, in large part, are the ones keeping prices down for the consumers.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Following just one thought from Jaine's post regarding the disappearance of the indigenous languages - I lived in Louisiana for several years before moving to Texas. Through one of my Cajun friends, I learned that the Cajun language and music is being threatened because the younger generations are not learning it. With that slow disappearance goes much of the history/culture with it.
That was a great post Jaine, thank you.
Jane

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

What do we do about squatters?

We let them stay in a house... PAYING TAXES on said house for SEVEN YEARS; This proves that the rightful owner of the house does not want it any more and the AMERICAN who has been squatting gets it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

What do we do about squatters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

We have the world's most successful economy because we do things a certain way. Illegal immigration stands to change that. Have you ever stopped to think about the REASON we only want skilled workers? It’s because our lower-to-middle class is made up of 60% unskilled workers. We have enough, and when you add more... you get people without jobs. Have you ever been to Mexico? Do you understand that there is as much opportunity to work down there as there is up here? We paint Mexico as being an economic hell-hole, when it really isn't. People that migrate illegally are looking for an easy way out. They don't want to work to become an American citizen, but they want to reap the benefits of being one. That doesn't seem right. (And I assure you, sir, that I am no jingoist.)

Sometimes when I think about a national language, I think that we aren't that far from the faceless mass of people portrait is so many sci-fi movies, but when I look at communication, as a whole, has helped the world... I can't imagine anything but good coming from a shared language.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cody C

We let them stay in a house... PAYING TAXES on said house for SEVEN YEARS; This proves that the rightful owner of the house does not want it any more and the AMERICAN who has been squatting gets it.

That's not an American phenomenon, and has nothing at all to do with whether the occupant is an American. That's British common law, which states, in principle, that any person may attempt to make such a claim. And the taxation is wholly separate from the issue of occupancy. Your claim to the property is not contingent on paying the back taxes (in most jurisdictions, at least). But the point is that even though we can probably consider it a crime, it's not treated in the same manner as an ordinary crime against property. It's intended as a counterexample for the supposition that every crime demands a swift response to counteract it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cody C

Alright; maybe you're not necessarily a jingoist, but you're going too far in attributing America's success to its "certain way" of doing things. (By the way, recall that you've also got 300 million people. When you look at per-capita GDP, on a working-time- and cost-of-living-adjusted basis, you're 4^th.)

Fundamentally, there's a problem with American labour, and with American companies: the workers want often wages that the economy can't support. (It's not exclusive to America, but it's certainly prevalent there.) Basically, if you want to earn $35/h, you need to contribute a proportional amount to the GDP. If you're not doing that, then your personal compensation represents a drag on the economy. This is neither the exclusive domain nor the fault of unskilled labour, though. America needs all sorts of labour that can do the job cheaper, or more productively. The thing is, cheap labour drags down wages—on one hand, the Mexican displaces an American, because the Mexican costs less to employ. On the other hand, by dragging down the wages in that industry, it is in a better position to compete with rivals overseas. Consequently, it can actually cause growth in that sector, restoring jobs (albeit at the lower pay scale). This is a simplification, covering only one facet of a big problem. But it's not insignificant, and represents a very good reason why immigrants in general can be good for the economy as a whole. Of course, American workers hate it, and since they, and not the Mexicans, vote for the government, is it any wonder that the U.S. government takes the stance that it does?

As for the surplus of unskilled labour, the cynic in me is coming out again: isn't there a surplus because in general, it didn't take much skill to earn a handsome wage? But with the competition from overseas increasing substantially in the last few years, shouldn't the focus be on training the workers who want to earn more with specialized skills (to be productive at a higher rate), rather than just paying them more, and hoping that the productivity will improve because of it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cody C

Sometimes when I think about a national language, I think that we aren't that far from the faceless mass of people portrait is so many sci-fi movies, but when I look at communication, as a whole, has helped the world... I can't imagine anything but good coming from a shared language.

The issue isn't really with outsiders needing to learn English as a de facto language of society. It's with the potential for the government refusing to provide essential services in a way that is accessible to everyone (aliens and citizens alike); they're the government—when we need the official word, we turn to them, so it's only reasonable that they make substantial efforts to permit everyone access. It's also with the way that this movement gets tied to the same people who, to be blunt, don't like Mexicans (or perhaps foreigners in general)—that's correlative, not causative, but in the event that there is a firm link between these things, it's unconscionable to let even one iota of racial prejudice dictate policy in America.

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita_per_ hour

See! Belgium is #5! The Democrats are weakening America so Belgium can gobble us up! We must take action!

(Sorry...Maybe we should all just lighten up and realize that internet debate does nothing but MAKE MONEY FOR BELGIUM!) :D

Re: Voting on making English the official US language (Was: "Hm...")

Andrew is right... In the end, the frivolous struggle with Belgium is all that matters. If you would like to continue to debate this, then PM me, but I'm done hijacking this thread :)

EDIT:

ANDREW WE HAVE BEEN TOLD FALSEHOODS, LOOK AT THIS SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT BELGIUM DOES NOT EXIST!!! http://zapatopi.net/belgium/