Should English be decalred official language by law

How many languages is the government supposed to support? Obviously Spanish. But how many others? Don't you think that it's also an immigrants responsibility to learn the language of his/her new country?

This is a good discussion and there is no easy answer but just as it would be bad for the culture of this country for everyone to speak English and only English it would also be bad for the country to get caught in the "we'll support whatever language you speak" trap. Right now we are somewhere in the middle. The government supports some languages (and that changes by location) and, while you are not required to learn English, you pretty much have to to get a good job. But how far should the pendulum swing to either side?

 

The govt. should be required support every language that a student's parent speaks. We can't just not do the best job on a child because their parent doesn't speak the language. There are literally hundreds of langauges children can be given primary language initial fluency tests, and support materials for their parents. A family that just moves here from a small village in the Philippines shouldn't see their child off to a bad chart because they aren't given information regarding their child's rights about his education, or progress reports of their child's class work. That child shouldn't be at a disadvantage because they couldn't test his skills and literacy in his native language to see how much can structure can transfer over as the child learns English.

Immigrants should definitely learn English. But they shouldn't be required by law to do it. By learning English they help their children, they help themselves, and will only have more options throughout life in the U.S. However if they don't learn it, those of us that do speak English aren't hurt by it.

Laws are supposed to protect people. This law certainly isn't protecting anyone, and may be obscurring the rights of some.

 

I don't beleive citizenship means having a law that makes people learn a language, when not knowing that language doesn't hurt the other citizens of a nation.

Forcing somebody to fit a rigid idea of what citizenship means to certian politicians, and lobby groups isn't my idea of improving the concept of citizenship.

I'm not for recreating another place inside our borders either. That isn't what is best of the immigrants IMO. However, if they can run a business or make a living then the free market dictates that they shouldn't have to run it in a way other than what works for them even if that business is a re-creation of one from their traditional homeland.

Again it also doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. We don't need to be protected from a language other than English. That isn't a threat.

 

Don't know. I guess that depends on the law. That is my suggestion though.

No, it hurts all of us. You create subsets within the greater whole that are not integrated to the whole. What is the problem with having someone who claims to want to be part of the United States learn the dominant language? Why is that bad? On the other hand it is good because it allows for those who come to the country to integrate at a basic level - communication. Again I am not an advocate for the ohio version of this issue. I am only commenting on the idea in general of requiring people to learn English if they want to permanently reside in the US.

 

Those subsets only exist in a few places and even still I'm convinced someone can't be a part of that as well as a part of the larger community. I know there are some that don't, but it doesn't mean it is impossible.

I don't think it is bad for someone to learn the dominant language. As I said before I think it is great for them to learn it, and believe they should learn it. It can only help them. I don't believe that they should be required by law to learn it or punished any more than the limiting of their choices that they already endure by not learning the dominant language.

My position is that they should learn the dominant language but not that there should be a law forcing them too.

 

Why? What is wrong with mandating they learn the language?

 

Yesssssss...!!!! No more EBONICS or Dubyan!

Does that mean all the street signs in CHINESE along Bellaire between Kirkwood and Gessner would have to be removed?

Seriously, what does making it "official" mean? Does this mean:

• You can only speak English at work
• You can only speak English on the street
• OR You can only speak English anywhere

Another question: is it only about what you speak, or what you write?

 

Exercise is great too. What is wrong with forcing people to get 3 hours of exercise a week? By the same token while it is great for everyone to exercise, it doesn't hurt those who do exercise when others don't.

It reeks of a lack of freedom. It is a law that doesn't protect anyone, and as I said it might actually hurt certain people where education is concerned.

Also in some immigrant families, the generation that moves here is doing so not really for themselves but for their children. It is their goal to come here take advantage of the opportunities to earn enough to give their children a new life. Very few second generation immigrants live exclusively in re-creations of whatever homeland their families are from. So even if one generation isn't concerned with assimilating themselves, their children generally do. It is a temporary problem. Some of the next first generation of immigrants may have the same problem, but the cycle will continue where their children continue to branch out.

Laws are to protect people, nobody is being protected by making law where English is our official language. It is more bureaucracy and curtailing of people's freedoms.

 

Exercise is a bad analogy. Requiring someone to make a proactive effort to integrate as part of their transition to becoming citizens/permanent residents doesn't have a down side.

You don't get to move here with no strings attached. Asking that someone learn the dominant language is hardly an unreasonable request, nor an overly intrusive one. You don't have a 'right' to do so anymore than you have a 'right' to immigrate here. I'm all for letting those who 'want' to come here get in, but a minimum effort towards becoming a good citizen should be required. Can someone who doesn't speak the language understand the election process? The speeches or material? Can they serve on a jury? In the military? The answers are no or not necessarily. Those people cannot be full citizens. I think that is a negative.

If you're talking about the ohio law then again let me clarify that I am for an english requirement but not necessarily for the ohio law. Requiring immigrants to learn english would have no deliterious effect on their education. On the contrary their prospects for education would increase exponentially.

Look, we're not talking about becoming slaves. We're talking about them learning the dominant language. IF they want to come here, for themselves or whatever other reason, it is not a huge burden on them to learn the language.

And? It is not unreasonable to require the first generation to 'concern themselves with assimilation.' If they don't want to do that, then stay where you are. Presumably those people would have to recognize the benefits of being here to 'move here for their children.' As such there is no reason for them not to 'concern themselves with assimilation.' Further, having a concept of what a citizen IS and doing what it takes to fulfill that OBLIGATION is the price you pay for the benefit of living in this country.

Your concept of 'freedom' is warped. The benefits of living here come with obligations, including being a good citizen. The freedoms we enjoy don't include coming and 'not being concerned with assimilating' into our society.

 

And what is the language of their new country?

Isn't that the question at hand?

I really don't see what the fuss is over. If it somehow is a major drag on our country, one could rationalize requiring English classes...just like we all had to take some foreign language classes in school.

I don't really see why we should make English the 'official' language. For what ends would we do that?

 

I think exercise is a good analogy. There is no downside to exercising either. It may have an even larger upside than forcing people speak English. Health costs are an enormous part of the budget, and those would be reduced if everyone had to exercise. Productivity would go up as well. The same argument of saying living here has strings attached could be used for exercise. We could say it takes fit people to keep our economy and work force moving, so everyone must do that.

People who come here for their children often work hours that are prohibitive of devoting a huge amount of time to learning English. I can speak of some people I know that worked in a store and were immigrants. They speak some English but not much. They worked almost non-stop to the exclusion of just about anything and everything else. They did so, in order to send their children to Harvard. It was a big dream for them. I think their son went to Harvard and is becoming a doctor, and their daughter went to Brown, but I am not sure what she is going to become. Anyway their immigration brought about two children which are going certainly a benefit to our society. The family pays taxes and requires plenty of obligations involved in being a citizen. They don't speak English and live and interact almost Exclusively with other Koreans. Nobody is hurt by that except perhaps them. Yet they chose that lifestyle and insane amount of work and owning a business in order to give their children a chance at great success. They contribute to society and their children do as well.

The obligation that any immigrant has is taxes, contributing to the work force etc. They do all that. They aren't here getting a free ride and not contributing.

Nobody suffers because they work 20 hours a day instead of learning ENglish.

We are also talking about a law for just a small percentage of people. Many immigrants come here and do learn English. A few don't. Nobody is hurt, and we all benefit from their tax dollars, their money flowing into the economy, etc.

I feel bad for people who live here and don't speak English, but I just don't see a need for forcing it on people. I don't see what we gain as a society by having what ever miniscule percentage of people speak English. I just don't see a 'NEED' for the law.

It isn't as if there is an epidemic of people who come here and refuse to learn ENglish.

 

No, its not a good analogy. This is not some random cost/benefit but one that strikes at the heart of the issue of immigration. Do you want to be a citizen of the US. What does it mean to be a citizen. What does a citizen do and what are the obligations therein. There is an inherent value in being able to participate as a citizen/resident. Not being able to speak the language is a barrier to that. This is commonly recognized by many other countries and its stated purpose is directly related to the concept of citizenship. Its not as if no other country has such requirements.

C'mon, that's such a red herring. You assert that they CANNOT spare the time to learn english and that's just ridiculous. Your two points contradict each other anyway. On one hand you claim almost all immigrants learn the language and on the other that immigrants can't find the time to learn the language. Oops.

A little information:

"As many as 1.9 billion people, one-third of humanity, have some knowledge of the English language, and most of these people are non-whites in developing countries.

First, and most obviously, knowledge of a language is an acquired, not an inherent, characteristic — anyone can learn English, regardless of nationality or skin color. After all, immigrants already in the United States who don't speak English are lining up for classes, confident that learning English will improve their prospects. And millions of newcomers have indeed mastered English as a second language, their children often growing up not speaking the language of the old country at all.

...But such a claim with regard to English is untenable, given that is has become the most widely used language in human history. English is the main language of books, newspapers, airports and air traffic control, international business and academic conferences, science, technology, diplomacy, sport, international competitions, pop music and advertising. Half of Europe's business deals are conducted in English while more than two-thirds of the world's scientists read in English. Three-quarters of the world's mail is written in English and 80 percent of the world's electronically stored information is in English. And this is a phenomenon that is likely to continue as the world is networked by computers — of the estimated 40 million users of the Internet, the majority communicate in English."

http://www.cis.org/articles/1996/back496.html

As I've pointed out there are fundamental obligations as a citizen that require you speak english such as sitting on a jury. That they make some of the OTHER contributions to our nation that other citizens do does not exempt them from such fundamental obligations.

There is no reason they cannot also learn english.

That's irrelevant. Whether its 1 or 1000 they should still meet the basic obligations of citizenry.

Wrong. They don't fulfill the basic obligations of a citizen. In addition you just blanketly assert there is no harm. One could easily contend that not having the ability to interact with the common citizenry is disadvantageous, both to that person and the population at large. Not being able to participate in fundamental obligations that a citizen is responsible for is also a negative consequence. If your contention is that the only obligation a citizen has is to pay taxes then we disagree fundamentally on what it means to be a citizen.

I don't see a NEED for immigrants who don't want to integrate at the most basic level. It has at least potential deliterious effects and there is no shortage of people who want to immigrate to the US. Why not let those who WANT to immigrate and integrate in first?

And that is irrelevant - and I haven't seen any facts to back up this repeated claim either - just as an aside.

 

If they vote, contribute to the economy, employ a helper, send their children to school pay taxes. They buy property, they contribute. They may not speak English but they still contribute. One does not need to speak English to contribute.

As far as interacting, they interact with other members of their community. They may not interact with English speakers much, but that doesn't mean they don't interact.

You say I haven't shown that is harmless, but the proof is for someone to show the harm. I have heard of zero cases where a community of non-English speakers caused harm to English speakers because they didn't speak English.

To me the idea behind the law is that people believe immigrants should learn English, so they want to force them to by law. It makes them angry that someone wouldn't learn English for some reason, and they want a law that would require it. That just isn't what laws are for in this country. If someone is incovenienced by a non-English speaker isn't justification for a law to be passed. It might meet some's idea of what an American citizenry should look like, but forcing people to conform when they don't have to conform to survive and even prosper isn't what America looks like to me.

On a side note if someone is working 20 hours a day, there really isn't time to learn English.

 

Speaking as a moderate Republican, the stuff your legislature has done in the past few years is shameful and a stain on Democracy.

 

Contributing on some fronts does not mean you fulfill the obligations of a citizen.

It means they interact less. That is less desirable than more.

I already gave a concrete example. You cannot serve on a jury - a fundamental obligation - if you cannot speak English. Whoop, there it is.

I guess I have a higher standard for being a citizen than you do. As I already said, which you ignored (among other things you ignored), there are more people who want to immigrate than slots available. Why not give those slots to those who WANT to integrate and participate?

Again you conveniently ignore my answer. You can't both claim the majority of immigrants learn english AND claim that immigrants don't have time to learn english. This is simply a red herring.

 

As far as some learning and some not having time, it isn't a red herring. It depends on the immigrant and their goals. Sometimes their goal is to integrate, learn English, etc. Sometimes an immigrants goal is to provide for their children above all else and give their families the best that this country has to offer. Those families may open up a small mom and pop place and work 20 hours and not have time to work. Other families who want more variety in their lives choose different paths and do have time to learn English.

I agree there are more immigrants than spots available. Perhaps knowing English or a willingness to learn it could be one of the factors. It shouldn't be the only one. Their ability to work, employ others, family members that are here, and working etc. should also be factors.

You are correct they can't serve on a jury but that isn't exclusive to non-English speaking residents. There are a number of English speaking citizens who don't register to vote and can't serve on juries.

Forcing a certain type of behavior when the other behavior isn't harmful(I don't consider not serving jury duty harmful) then that doesn't seem to have the feel for liberty that I associate with the U.S. Maybe you don't hold liberty as dearly as I do.

 

Here is the oath that all folks must take in order to become a naturalized citizen:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

It is clear that in the event some of these duties need to be performed, it would help tremendously to know English.

 

As I've pointed out multiple times, you argue both that immigrants have the time and don't have the time. The fact that so many DO have the time disproves your theory that they don't. We have other requirements for immigrants and they aren't absolved of those because they have to open thier convenient store early. No one is saying they have to speak fluently in 2 weeks. To claim they don't and won't have the time is simply ridiculous.

Look, even if I granted your argument that this only hurts the immigrant - which I don't - there are plenty of laws designed to protect the individual from harming themselves. Your assertion that 'laws don't do that' is patently false. And that's best case for you. If any there is any negative consequence to society in general: increase ethnic tension, more fraud perpetrated on non-english speaking people, confusion on 911 calls, greater staffing requirements for processing non-english speaking administration, less educated segment of populace from inability to communicate, balkanization instead of integration and on and on - then the bottom simply falls out of your argument. You can just blanketly say you 'don't believe' any of that but that is far from realistic.

More importantly, however, is a concept of citizenship. If you don't want to be a part of something greater then you shouldn't be here. There are plenty of people who DO want to take the obligations with the liberty. There is no reason to keep them out while letting in people who aren't willing to prioritize the greater whole at all. The liberty we enjoy now came from those who had a concept of citizenship before us. While we enjoy freedom - that neither means that we are free to do anything we want, nor that we should not require the basic tools necessary to contribute through said citizenship.

 

Immigrants having time and not having time is dependent on the choices they make. Yes there is time in the day. But if they CHOOSE to work 20 hours a day because that is the only way they can get their kids the education they want for them, then they don't don't have the time. Restricting choices that are lawful is curtailing their freedom.

A concept of citizenship is someone freely pledging their alegiance to our nation, and obeying its laws etc. The concept of freedom is in no way helped by forcing people into certain molds.

Additional staffing to handle problems like 911 calls and forms aren't huge obstacles. They are fairly easy to overcome. I think the problems associated with this are worth allowing the freedom to choose that life.

As I said I am not objecting to use English speech and willingness to learn as a factor for determining citizenship, but other factors like family already here, employable, willingness and ability to start a viable business that could employ others, past service such as military service and the like, political or refugee status are all important too.

As far as laws that don't only protect people from harm, they either protect others or themselves from harm in the case of something like drugs. I don't see a need to have an official language.

Honestly on the problems are society faces and things that should be legislated immigrants not speaking English just doesn't fit the bill. That is my opinion and obviously others have different ones.

 

That's the most nonsensical sentence I've ever seen you write. All choices are lawful before they're illegal, lol. Nor is freedom absolute. Asking that someone make a good faith effort to integrate is hardly draconian restriction on freedom.

Hmmm, making them pledge alliegance and obeying the laws forces them into certain molds...

Whether or not they are 'huge' obstacles they are negative costs. Your argument earlier was that there were NO negative costs. It's what I like about you, FB. You can change you opinion when you're wrong. And of course you've failed to address the rest of the potential negatives.

Before you said laws were 'only' protect other people from harm. Again you're changing your position. Kudos. The line you draw is arbitrary. The only 'negative' effect you've raised the immigrants would have to prioritize learning english higher than they do. Oh boy, that's quite a calamity.

Would it be extremely complicated to change citizenship requirements? Would it take a lot of time and effort? I don't think so.