Should English be decalred official language by law

I'll repeat what I posted earlier. If you like, you can leave the "illegal' from in front of 'immigrants," but where is this host of Spanish speaking people coming from that you claim are going to make Texas, and similar states, areas where Spanish will be the dominant language? Millions are here illegally. You imply that they will just keep coming until we are Spanish speaking in those areas you refer to, including Texas.

My point is that the legal immigrants, which have always, until the last few decades, made up the vast majority of our immigrants, adapt and learn English. It's just a fact. Sure, there are small areas where you might find something similar to the areas of the past, like the "little Italy," that I referred to. There always have been those, and it's understandable. That's not what you are saying is going to happen.

What you are implying, if you didn't come right out and say it (in my opinion), is that Spanish speaking illegal immigrants will lead to whole regions of this country becoming Spanish speaking. If that is what illegal immigration is going to lead to, which I don't believe will happen, but that is what you are implying, then we must get a handle on the problem. If they are going to be here in uncontrolled numbers, which has never been a problem in the past on a similar scale, then we have to vastly increase spending on education. The state of Texas needs to do that already, so I don't have a problem with that.

I still truly believe that this will stay an English speaking country. Immigrants, hopefully legal ones, but whatever their legal status, will learn English and adapt to the American way of life, adding their own cultural influences, to be sure, as all our waves of immigrants have. They will become English speaking Americans, hopefully bilingual, or multilingual (as I hope all Americans become), because this country truly is a melting pot.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

GISB, I know you were replying to Hayes, but I wanted to be clear that I have never advocated English as the official language of the United States. I don't think Hayes believes it should be, either... not in the way you are describing it. (in my opinion. Hayes may disagree)

My sister taught ESL in elementary schools until she retired. I fully support doing whatever is needed to allow immigrants of any status to learn English in a way conducive with retaining their cultural heritage. In an earlier post I mentioned how my mother-in-law wasn't allowed by her husband to speak her native language, Dutch, at home, and how as a result my wife lost a really important link to her cultural heritage.

Frankly, I don't understand why, based on our history, Sishir thinks vast areas of the country are going to be Spanish speaking, with English as a second language. I just don't see that happening.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I'm going to reply to Hayes and Deckard together here since you're both addressing my same point.

As I said before I agree with you that immigrants should learn English for their own good the issue though that I see is whether English should be made the official language and to what extent that state and federal governments should go to accomodate non-English speakers. Our culture is very flexible and subject to change so while English has been the primary language of this country I don't see it as being tied to being a requirement of this country. Assimilation to me doesn't necessarily mean adoption of the language of this country. I agree that it would help them economically to learn English but I have a hard time seeing that as a requirement for being a good American.

Now Deckard you're being to sound like some of those in the birthright thread going off about illegal immigration.

Yes I agree that there are many illegal Spanish speaking immigrants but if you noted that one of my examples regarding where English isn't widely spoken had nothing to do with illegal immigrants from Mexican countries or the Spanish language. Also if as I stated in my posts that leaving out illegals there are more more and more legal immigrants from Spanish speaking countries. As you noted language isn't tied to one country and it so happens that Spanish is spoken as the mother tongue among the vast majority of countries in this hemisphere. As we open up to greater immigration from countries in this hemisphere we automatically open to far more Spanish speakers from the Carribean to Argentina. Immigrants who also happen to be choosing to settle in Southern and Southwestern states because they are growing economically and because they allow them to maintain closer ties to their original countries.

In regard to your little Italy example yes I will agree that is an example of an immigrant community that has largely forgotten their native tongue. That said you are aware of that the last great wave of Italian immigration from Italy was around 1910, we don't share a common border with Italy, no country in this hemisphere is Italian spoken widely in, and that Italy has never been a major trading partner with the US. So yes that is an example but it totally ignores the differences in context between the immigration of Spanish speakers to the US and the waves of Southern and Eastern European immigrations a hundred years ago. Not only is there an increas in ongoing immigration, even just considering legal immigration, from Spanish speaking countries Spanish speakers have far more opportunities and incentives to maintain Spanish because there are greater cross border ties that are only increasing because fo NAFTA and CAFTA.

Why I think your's and Hayes' attitude is nativist is because both of you are seeing this as a cause for concern and that English is somehow innately tied this country. As you say its our language. That strikes me the same as those who say Christianity is our religion. Yes historically and traditionally the US has been an English speaking country as historically Christianity has been the majority religion but I don't see anything sacred, pun intended, about English and accept that much of this country just through the osmosis will end up being where English is the majority language.

For all of you so worried about this prospect I would say consider why the Founders didn't consider it important enough to make English the official language at the founding or why since then it hasn't? They understood that language wasn't necessary for defining the country.

This is a country of immigrants and whether they speak English or not and while I think all immigrants should learn English I don't see any problem with having local governments accomodate those who don't speak English.

 

English should be the official language here in the States!

 

If we make English an official language, this is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to see mandatory public school training in foreign languages from grades K-12. I've been abroad for almost 5 months now, and I'm both embarrassed and ashamed that pretty much everybody in the world who is able chooses to learn english and does it very well despite enormous handicaps both physical and otherwise. Same with most of our European counterparts, those from the continent all speak moderate to good English and frequently speak a few other european languages as well.

Meanwhile the average american takes a few years of Spanish or french in High school, and hence is able to say "Voulez vous couchez avec moi" or "donde esta los banos?" and calls it quits. If even barely literate, dirt poor people from cambodiaa can speak English (despite the grammar and in some cases the alphabet being nearly as complicated and incomprehensible to a tonal language speaker as tones & khmer/chinese etc characters are to us) I really think we hsould try to reciprocate.

I learned some spanish growing up and then took several years of French in high school and at the university level took upper level classes in both, but I'm not nearly as good as either as I would have been had I started younger. It's a shame, really - it is so rewarding in many ways.

 

Wonderful points, SamFisher! It would b great if our kids can learn or at least understand a diff language or two. However, I don't know if the state or government will put up the money! I hope they can.

 

Deckard is right in that I am an advocate of immigrants having a requirement to learn English more than English as the official language (as you describe it anyway). But I don't understand why having it as our main language would kill bilingual education programs. You can both require the learning of english and the learning of other languages as well.

Only if we have a common language. If I speak Japanese and you speak Swahili we're going to have a hard time integrating. If I speak Japanese and English - you speak Swahili and English - we'll have an easier time integrating.

I don't know why that's true. The examples of this currently in the news - in France - in the Netherlands - speak French and Dutch. I'm not saying language is the ONLY barrier to integration but claiming a language requirement causes balkanization is silly. Further, in many of the Western European examples it is the drive to be 'muticulturally tolerant' that has led to these problems - an issue these countries are just starting to realize.

Hmmmm, well since the regions are unified by the ability to speak English I think you're misunderstanding the implications of requiring English. Having an English requirement doesn't prevent learning other languages. Then again, maybe a positive of the States is that we've moved beyond a tribal identification. States here aren't like countries in the EU, or states in India or China. There is a national identity that subsumes the local. That's a good thing.

Nobody is arguing the culture should stay exactly as it is and outside influences should be barred. Saying the language that provides commonality and easy integration of new immigrants should be stressed is not a position against acculturation, not nativist.

Again not sure why it kills ESL or other language programs, but again MY requirement is that immigrants learn english. If that 'antagonizes' immigrants than I suggest we let those who want to abide by that requirement in first. Luckily there are more that want to come in than we let in.

That's because the waves of immigrants in the past have pushed to learn the language from within. The more the government accomodates alternate languages as anything other than a bridge to english the less that will be true. Then the problems Western Europe, with their grand experiments for multiculturalism, is experiencing will increasingly be our own.

Yeah I was pretty embarrassed when I first met cousins from Europe that spoke flawless English, German, and other languages. The consensus is that children pick up new languages easily. You're right that it ought to be a requirement - actually whether or not English becomes the official language.

 

You're just misusing nativist unless the only alternative to 'nativist' is 'multicultural relativism' where anything goes. For example - a couple comes from a east central african country where female genital mutilation is practiced. Are we nativist to say we shouldn't allow that practice here? This example is not to equate a different language with FGM, but to ask where the bright line is that distinguishes a nativist from something else (whatever a non-nativist is). Neither of us are concerned with protecting the culture from any outside influence. We both acknowledge that 'our' culture is the proverbial melting pot, and I don't want to speak too much for Deckard but I believe we both appreciate new influences and new immigrants. I want an English requirement to aid assimilation and hinder balkanization. Neither of those are an anti- 'outside influence' stance. They are practical considerations. In the future you're right, there will be more spanish speaking immigration. If the southwest becomes predominantly spanish speaking without a language connection to the rest of the country there is a risk that they will identify MORE with the southwest than with the US. Look at Quebec. I am not arguing to cease ESL or bilingual programs. I am not arguing there should be NO accomodation of other language speakers. But those should be efforts to bridge a gap while the immigrants learn English, not permanent accomodations. We should have a language in common. Should those who are US citizens learn Spanish to accomodate spanish speaking immigrants? What about the Chinese immigrants? They have to learn Spanish and English? Use the common base, not because its 'sacred' but because its practical. There are more people who want in that we let in. Its practical to let those in who want to assimilate and learn english. It also shows a willingness to identify with the nation, rather than a pocket that recreates the native country.

 

This comes pretty close to the points I was trying to make. I don't understand this "either, or" nativist argument. Why must someone be one or the other? I am absolutely for America becoming bilingual, or multilingual. Why the necessity for a common language for the country, one we have had since the Revolution, seems somehow "bad" is baffling to me.

I'm not for English being our "official language," because I don't think that is necessary. What is needed is for our children, like Sam said in his post, to learn other languages besides English. I have traveled the world, and I've been lucky to have had the chance to do it. Everywhere I've gone, whenever I've encountered people of other countries who are educated, I've been embarrassed that they are, almost without exception, bilingual or multilingual. That is a rarity in the United States. It is complete hubris for Americans to think that the rest of the world should adapt to us, and learn English, without any requirement that we learn Spanish, or German, or French, or Chinese.

Those who live in the Northeast, with French speaking Quebec across the border, should have French taught to them in school, in my opinion. Those who live in the Southwest and West, adjacent to Mexico, and the countries beyond it to the south, should learn Spanish in school. Not simply because there are large numbers of people of Latino origin in Texas, with many of them speaking Spanish, or lots of former French Canadians who speak French in New Hampshire, for example, but because it just makes sense. The people of the United States need to learn other languages, for economic as well as cultural reasons. In an ever smaller world, knitted tighter and tighter by increased ease of movement between countries, and increased communication via media like the internet, it's mad for this country to continue with it's head in the sand, thinking English is all that is needed.

Why is that difficult to understand? And why do I feel like I keep repeating myself? As for India? They are an excellent example of a country of many, many languages and dialects, held together by a common tongue spoken by virtually all educated Indians... English. I spent a summer in India many years ago, and it's damned embarrassing to be surrounded by multilingual people, and not even have a decent command of Spanish, and that being in a country that was both amazing to experience, and amazingly poor. (the poor of this country, truly, have no idea how well off they are in comparison to so many places around this earth)

Hayes, I was "let down" by using the spell checker from Outlook Express for my post. It doesn't recognize "nativist." I should have googled it, having forgotten the meaning of the word, although it came to me later.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I spoke incorrectly. The district where my wife teaches has classes in all of the major elementary disciplines (math, social sciences, electives) that are taught in Spanish. In addition there are ESL classes in which the students earn their grammar credits for the year.

If a student needs to learn English then he or she should have 8 hours per day of intense English class.

i was referrinhg to the other classes being taught in Spanish. Sorry.

 

That's ok. I used 'dictionary.com' to make sure, lol.

 

Hayes and Deckard;

I apologize for answering both of you at once again but since your points are similar and my time limited.

As I said before I think your views are Nativist because of the presumption of the need for English to the point that you would require immigrants to learn English as a requirement. Underlying your presumption is that this is good for the immigrant and good for society. I think Deckard goes farther by stating that its innately American as it is "Our language" or "the common language since the Revolution." While you yourselves might not see it but if you put yourself into the position of a non-native English speaker this is a Nativist argument by implying that English is the traditional and historical language of America and to be a good American you must speak English. Otherwise you will encourage the balkanization of the US and you will never fully integrate.

I agree that its better that you do but I strongly disagree with English being a requirement for being a good American.

I don't think are positions are all that different and agree that immigrants should learn English, where we differ is whether immigrants should be required to learn English for the good of America or whether they should be encouraged to learn English because it will benefit them in the long run.

 

I'm in a hurry, so I'll make this short... where have I ever said that speaking English be made a requirement as the "Official Language" of the United States? Show me the post, because I am unaware of it. And do you disagree that English has been the lingua franca of the United States since independence? I have yet to say that learning English be a requirement for an immigrant. That's ludicrous, based on the history of this country.

Sishir, I don't know where you are getting what you are posting in regards to my position on this issue. I suggest you go back and read my posts again, in which I went to pains not to do exactly what you are "accusing me" of. If I didn't know better, I would think that you were suffering from a reading comprehension problem. Get a grip, old chap. I'll come back to this after my daughter's softball game. (geez!)



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I differ from Deckard in that I have said it should be required, although I have not endorsed the 'official language' part. You have not, however, given us any indication of what constitutes the perjorative term you use - nativist - other than to indicate it is some resistance to outwardly influences. As I described in my example - if that includes resistance to ANY particular outwardly influence rather than EVERY outwardly influence, then call me a nativist. I don't think we should allow human sacrifice or cannablism just because a particular immigrant did it where they came from. I don't think that accurately encompasses the term and as such until you explain further I'd appreciate you stop using it. English IS, in fact, the traditional and historical language of the country. However, as I went to pains to explain in the last post I fail to see how that is relevant since my argument is that it is PRACTICAL that new immigrants take the basic step of learning the COMMON language. That such a step would further ease assimilatation/integration is beyond reproach. The question you must answer is why would it be BAD for such a requirement to be in place? Because its nativist? Well let's go in circles as Deckards sig declares. How about a little deeper response? Just FYI: I am not totally removed from this debate as you imply with your query to 'put ourselves in the non-native speakers position' as my father is an immigrant who didn't learn English until he came to this country.

 

Ok so basically we agree on almost everything. I said a while earlier that great language education serves as a stopgap to balkanization and promotes greater cultural competency. (since generally in most language you learn about the culture behind the language)

The only reason I'm confused is that I've said this three times earlier and people were still responding and now everyone seems to agree on this...

 

Before you jump on righteous indignation horse you might've missed where I wrote:

Along with where Hayes wrote:

Remind me next time not to apologize in advance when I respond to two posters at once with similar points.

 

I've already defined it why I consider it nativists as

You're asking for an all or nothing definition of the term when there are gradations. For instance if someone said "I believe in tax cuts, reduced government spending and stronger defense but not faith based initiatives." would it be correct to term that person a "conservative"? Or does that person have to embrace every single position of the modern conservative movement to be one? If that the case then its certainly wrong for Basso or even Bigtexx to claim to be a conservative.

If it makes you feel better howabout "moderate Nativist". Anyway if you notice I don't call you a Nativist just say in regards to language your views regarding English are Nativist.

Again as I stated I agree with you on the practical position and even pointed out that it was Deckard not you who brought up the traditional historical argument. Once again remind me in the future not to apologize when I reply to two posters at once who make similar points when they will still get their panties in a wad.

The difference us, you and me and not Deckard for the moment, is that you want to make English a requirement for immigration why I don't. As I said before I don't agree with it because language has never been what defines an American. I think its nativist and its goes against the idea that we aren't defined by our language. As I said it would be a good thing for all immigrants to learn English but then again it would be a good thing for all immigrants to come here with college degrees or highly marketable skills and having those would also aid assimiliation and hinder balkanization but I'm guessing even you would balk at making that a requirement for immigration.

It comes down to should we require immigrants to learn English to come here. Under your reasoning if your father hadn't learned English he wouldn't have been allowed to stay. Whereas I would've encouraged him to learn English but if he didn't I still would've allowed him to stay.

The difference is between encourage vs. require.

 

Sishir,

I think just for practical reason, the approach by "encouraging" would not work, despite its good intention. Under no pressure, many immigrants won't have incentive to use English if they only live 24x7x365 in their limited community. Much of the ease and pleasure I had when I was in the cities such as Cupertino is quickly offset by my feeling of the frustration from the non-Mandarin out-of-towners like your friends experienced there. This is after all America, and English is the language. I'd be mad as hell if I roamed into a place in this country where I had hard time communicating with the locals in English.

As for my personal experience, knowing I wouldn't be in the States to speak/read/write any language other than English, I worked my butt off to learned it before I came here and I have zero ounce of regret about my effort.

On this language issue, I somehow agree with Hayes etc that Americans have no impetus to accommodate immigrants, who, by all accounts, chose to come here.

 

Wnes;

I hear what you say and as I've said repeatedly I think for their own good that immigrants should learn English. I used to even think that we should require it. What changed my opinion was considering the make up of immigrants who come to this America. Under a requirement there are many immigrants who come here who couldn't stay because either they are too old or just not bright enough to learn English. I've done some work with the Hmong community here and many of the older ones who've come here can't speak English even though they've been here for more than 25 years. It isn't that they don't want to they just can't because they grew up as illiterate farmers. I wouldn't send them back because they can't speak English because they have no place to go and also because their children are growing up here and learning English. For that matter my Grandma never learned English and I wouldn't have deported her. Its easy to say that English should be a requirement but when you consider that immigrants are more than just people coming here to work but are refugees or the families of immigrants who've come here to work that becomes a much more different matter.

It comes down to do you think its right to break up families or send back refugees because they don't learn English. I don't which is why I wouldn't make it a requirement but encourage immigrants to learn it for their own good.

 

Sishir, I agree, and one of the greatest problems we have, particularly in Texas, is the underfunding of education. I don't have the figures handy, but as a percentage, state funding for education has dropped dramatically over the last several years. That coincides with Republican rule in Texas, which is a coincidence, I'm sure.

It's a miracle that we get good teachers to continue in their profession in this state. I know several, and I also know some who retired early out of disgust with the current system, one my ESL teaching sister, and one a close friend who is much younger. They were tired of fighting a mountain of paperwork dumped on them by the state, and having to teach for state test scores, and not for what they were trained for, and had been doing for years... teaching our kids what they were trained to teach them, and had a gift for doing just that, and to love learning, as they loved teaching, and not just teaching to have the class pass the state mandated tests. And the state mandates greater burdens on teachers while cutting state funding.

Talk is cheap from our Republican state leadership. If their meaningless hot air, spewed out for public consumption, could be bottled and sold for a profit, the state would have a budget surplus. The state of education in Texas is something everyone here should be ashamed of, and it affects the education of immigrants, just as it affects the education of everyone else.

Sorry if I dumped on you some, Sishir. I got a bit frustrated. My bad.



Keep D&D Civil.