Kind of like the old school immigrants here. You had to adapt into the melting pot, be an American. My mother had said that her grandparents stopped speaking Italian the day they were able to communicate to each other well in English. Maybe things are a lot easier now for the immigrant than they were 80+ years ago.

LOL I totally don't intend to make fun, but speaking of learning English, "conversate" isn't a word. ;) (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Back to what ktsnake said: I don't think it would EVER be possible to require people in general to learn English. Facilitating would be awesome, although I have no idea how much that happens already.

Your point about candidates being "forced" to run dual-language campaigns is not compelling to me. First of all, I don't think it can be considered "force" if a candidate tries to appeal to voters by speaking their language. Do it or not -- of course not doing it will have consequences, but that doesn't amount to force in my opinion. Also, these candidates are free to move to a place where everybody speaks English and campaign there, right?

Finally, I don't think the issue of employees who can't speak English is an issue for the government/law/national policy. If you go to a store where the employees can't speak English and that bothers you, don't shop there. The government can't regulate that.

LOL am I wrong, or am I arguing for less governmental intervention here, while some I'd consider conservative are arguing for more?

To vote in an American election, you must be an American citizen, correct? To become an American citizen, you have to meet certain requirements. Unless you are above a certain age, you must actually be able to show a minimum level of competence in using the english language as shown at this random website I googled:

http://www.dar.org/natsociety/Citize...?TP=Show&ID=77

This raises 2 possibilities in my mind for a "citizen" to be catered to in a language other than english -- either they qualify under the exemption because of their age (which probably isn't a highly significant portion of the immigrant population) or they committed fraud on their applications to become citizens. It seems that either of those two must be true if they feel that a candidate must campaign in spanish.

I'm not really sure that as a matter of public policy we should be turning a blind eye to those who defraud the INS... But of course, there are certain 1st amendment rights that we must be conscious of here, and I think (I hope) that those win out. So valkyrie, I grudgingly accept that on this point, you're probably right -- I just don't like it :)

Quote:

Finally, I don't think the issue of employees who can't speak English is an issue for the government/law/national policy. If you go to a store where the employees can't speak English and that bothers you, don't shop there. The government can't regulate that.

Actually, I see some huge potential benefits. Often, communication is critical in ensuring safety for employees and ensuring that employers are doing all they can to avoid liability. I would think that the payoff for employees all being able to read the same safety manuals or to heed the same warnings from their supervisors could be huge.

The cost-benefit analysis may prove to be more complex than you propose.

Quote:

LOL am I wrong, or am I arguing for less governmental intervention here, while some I'd consider conservative are arguing for more?

Upholding the law we currently have versus maintaining the status quo which involves ignoring the law we currently have... Nah.. you're fine -- liberals love to ignore the law ;)

Hey! Only when the law invovles drugs.

JUST KIDDING!!!

I think we all know that the vast majority of Americans speak English, even if it is not their original language. That said, I don't think that it needs to be designated "officially." HOWEVER, I am tired of people whining that we need to accommodate other languages as a matter of course, in other words having signs, directions, etc in more than one language (Spanish is the one most cited.) In America we speak English, and if you choose not to do so then everyone else should not be expected to accommodate you.

Wow, I seriously didn't know some states had an "official language" but yet the entire U.S. doesn't.

I agree w/ Pika2001... everything is in English, so why not?

I also agree with MrsMcCartney -- this drives me absolutely nuts!

I'm hispanic, and I don't speak Spanish. When I worked in retail, it drove me NUTS how people would start talking to me in super fast Spanish and I had no clue what they were saying. Then they either got mad at me and left because I couldn't understand what they were saying and no one else in the store spoke Spanish, or they STARTED SPEAKING TO ME IN ENGLISH!!

Umm... why didn't you just talk to me in English to begin with? :confused: It was so frustrating.

Update: Senate proposes making English official language

^^^^^^^
 

The amendment to the Senate's immigration reform bill to which the article refers would not make English the "official" language of the US. It would declare English to be the "common and unifying" language of the country.

The exact language as it currently stands is:

The Government of the United States shall preserve and enhance the role of English as the common and unifying language of America. Nothing herein shall diminish or expand any existing rights under the law of the United States relative to services or materials provided by the government of the United States in any language other than English.

Re: ^^^^^^^
 

How is that different from an official language?

An official language doesn't force you to eliminate all other languages. The legislators that have introduced and supported this measure have said it is for an "Official" language, the news reports reflect that, and an "Official" language does seem to be defined as a "Common and unifying language", no?

-Rudey

Re: Re: ^^^^^^^
 

Common and unifying is unofficial, if it was official, then all government forms/paperwork/etc would be required to be in English.

From what I understand, if it goes on the books as "official", then we'll be saving quite a bit in tax dollars because government agencies wouldn't have to offer all of the paperwork in other languages anymore. If it goes on the books as "common and unifying", then it doesn't do jack for the taxpayers.

Someone please correct me if this is an incorrect interpretation.

Re: Re: ^^^^^^^
 

Actually, no. An official language is one that has privileged/protected status under the law, regardless of whether the majority of the people in the country actually speak it (i.e., regardless of whether it is the common language of the country or unifies the country).

For example, Irish (Irish Gaelic) is the "first official language" of Ireland, even though far less than 1/4 of the people in the Republic speak it as their native language. (Most schools are required to teach it.) English is the "second official language," according to Article 8 of the Irish Constitution. Accordingly, if there is disagreement as to the meaning of a provision of the Irish Constitution, the Irish text takes precendence over the English text.

English is the official language of Botswana, even though it is spoken on a daily basis by only about 3% of the population, while Setswana (spoken by over 75%) is the "national language" of the country. French is the official language of Burkina Faso and Benin, while the majority of people speak African languages and have to be taught French in school. The same situation can be seen in many former French and British colonies -- here, English or French may be "common" in the sense that they are the languages that various groups in the country hold in common, but they are hardly the commonly-used languages of most people. They operate almost as a diplomatic compromise.

For more: Wikipedia: Official Language and Wikipedia: National Language

I certainly haven't heard all reports, but I haven't heard any legislators who support this measure refer to this as an "official language" provision -- I've heard "national" and "common and unifying." These terms simply recognize that English is the de facto national language of the US-- the language spoken by most people and commonly used in government and commerce; they don't confer any privileged status on English.
Not necessarily. It would depend on the actual provisions of any law making English the official language of the country. A law could make English the official language, but still allow for the use of other languages or could prohibit the official use of other languages. Other languages could include Spanish and other immigrant languages, as well as native languages, such as Cherokee, Navajo, etc.

Re: Re: Re: ^^^^^^^
 

This is exactly right - and also addresses AlphaFrog's point (which is entirely fallacious).

At no point is there a 'guarantee' that an Official Language would eliminate documents in other languages, etc etc. Realistically, these provisions would have to be entered into the law individually - many have promoted these provisions as part of making English the official language, but they are not de facto elements of 'official language' status.

Re: Re: Re: ^^^^^^^
 

I believe the phrase is "Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other". :)

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Re: ^^^^^^^
 

Perhaps, if you can consider a language spoken on a daily basis by less than 10% of a country's population to be "common and unifying." ;)

The issue is simply whether the Senate amendments to the immigration reform bill confer any legal status on English, as opposed to symbolic status. Since "national" and "common and unifying" confer no real legal status, they do not create an official language.

I think the real issue is one of expectations. The cynic in me thinks that many politicians propose phrases like "national language" and "common and unifying language" in order to placate those who want to see English made the official language of the US, knowing that the phrases they are proposing are really only symbolic and accomplish little.