English – The Official Language of the USA

1. English has nothing to do with race or "white supremacy"; and nothing to do with the question. English use in the US has to do with immigrantional and foundational history of the country. Could have been any race and language that established here, and the use of a language is not discriminatory at all. The question was about learning from other countries. I don't believe that the US is so arrogant in believing we are always better than everything else; there are benefits from learning from other nations. Our legal system, government, currency, etc, are all inherited from other systems around the world. I would agree that there are things that may be "beneath" us that we wouldn't want to adopt, but I don't see any clear case that this is one of them.

2. No there should not be a limitation to a non-english speaker, but realistically they would be limited if they could not effectively debate or perform their duty should language get in the way. Translators for all members of Congress (congress is just one area, so lets say all areas of higher government) could be quite a cost, so we raise taxes to pay for 24 hour translation then that seems fine -sure that's a possibility. Alternatively, a simple document that says that one person should be able to use an official language where appropriate (which may be spanish) is a lot easier. And cheaper, even if we need to pay for someone's lessons, should they manage to work in such a position. I think the adage about "teaching a man to fish" might be appropriate.

Ultimately, you have to ask why an official language is used in any country, and the answer is that there are benefits for using it (money, education, literacy).
What are the cons? Really, I don't believe there are any tangible cons; I don't believe anything will actually change should this be written in. Translations will continue to be available, just as they are today. Nobody will be discriminated against.

 

In point of fact this is false because native American tribes didn't typically believe in the ownership of "nature" or "land" and actually existed based predominately upon the "natural right of property" as argued by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5. The native tribes never fought over ownership of land but instead fought over hunting grounds (territory) that no one owned and that was limited by the number of members of the tribe that required those hunting grounds (territory) for survival. In most cases there was no conflict at all as most tribes lived in undisputed territories peacefully with their neighbors. There were exceptions but they were really quite rare related to the nomadic tribes of America and in no case did they ever "own the land" as they didn't believe in the ownership of land or the natural resources. Everyone was equally entitled to use the forests, plants, minerals, water, wildlife, and other natural resources for their survival and comfort and no one was entitled to more than what was required for their "support and comfort" (as also argued by John Locke).

It was the European settlers that brought the concept of "statutory land and natural resource ownership" established under the doctrine of the 'divine right of kings" to America and in doing so violated the "natural right of property" enjoyed by the native Americans that never owned land but merely survived off of the land and natural resources.

 

While "English" has nothing to do with White Supremacy the arguments for "English Only as the Official Language" are exclusively based upon the doctrine of WASP supremacy.

There is not logical or pragmatic argument that supports to proposition that English should be the "official language" of the United States. The arguments are all founded in the WASP Supremacy ideology.

Arguments that it would cost a few dollars to be non-discriminatory don't float the boat.

When our equality as individuals is denied or compromised based upon a cost in dollars it is the most invidious argument possible. Our very government exists to protect the equality and rights of the person and ultimately the value of our government is judge based upon it's effectiveness in accomplishing this. Ideally every dollar of taxes collected and spent should be tied to the protections of our equality and rights under the US Constitution.

 

So basically the claim is that a person not fluent in English and/or German is incapable of clear thinking and/or scientific reasoning? If that's the claim then it's clearly false and racist as well.

 

No, the claim is that English is a useful tool that I am not willing to give up, particularly if the other option is Spanish, which I experience as being "mooshy".

If you wish to doggedly cling to your belief that anyone that does not agree with you is holding a racist position, sorry, that is not my problem, it's yours.

 

We don't need an official language. We've done fine without one all this time.

Why now? Oh yea, people fear immigrants.

 

Please prove your assertion with an appropriate link.

 

No thanks.

 

Really folks where is the problem? Is the fact the English is not our official language causing any problems at this time or ever? Why do we need to make a law about this?

 

IMO there are a certain number of people that are not bothering to learn English in this country because they believe they will not have to. They even sit at home all day watching TV in their own language instead of even trying to watch it in English.

It is inconvenient and costly to deal with them, especially since the least motivated ones pay no taxes. I do not feel jurisdictions should have to pay for translation services for these people. If they are not willing to learn the language of the country, they need to go elsewhere where they will fit in or provide their own translation services.

 

I think it's an idea who's time has come. I don't see the down side.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously. As demonstrated here.

 

Absolutely.

 

No one is being asked to give up English in the United States. Where did that silly idea come from.

So we should just ignore the fact that the "English Only" idea originated from and was propagated by White Supremacy hate groups like Stormfront, the KKK, and Aryan Nations? I refuse the ignore the connection.

 

The "English Only" position existed long before Stormfront and was taken and used by racists as a tool....this does not make it an invalid proposition. There are a great many reasons for people to use English when they move here, from medical to retail and more. There is ONLY one reason for mw to learn Spanish/Arabic,etc....., and it is a very poor one.

 

Can you show that the cost to help these citizens costs more then what they pay in taxes? Your statement assumes an awful lot.

 

It doesn't have to cost "more than"; their taxes also should pay for other things, too, just like the taxes of everyone else do.

 

I disagree. First, I think having an official language is useful, as per the previous mentioned list. Given this, for me, if there was to be an official language written in - what language would be best? I think it's fair to look at the historical language use, the language that important historical legal documents are written in (Declaration etc) - as well as current legal documents, the language that is used in the majority of the country as normal use in both speech and, say, sign writing. If that's Spanish, then it seems fair to use Spanish. If English, it seems fair to use English.


I see plenty of reasons, as listed above, that are logical.
Whilst our nation was founded by... white, protestant, etc... that doesn't mean to me that any "ideology" is being catered for just by looking at history or existing use of the language.
I haven't seen ANY evidence that "WASP ideology" is the/a reason that English is being selected as the official language.

Compromised? There was no question or suggestion that is the case at all. It is in the interests of government, and citizens alike, to achieve a way to protect equality and rights in the best way possible, and that includes with expenditure (considering the current debt status). We could provide translators, or provide education. I would prefer the latter, and it does not mean there is any discrimination whatsoever, achieves a better solution to the task (as there are NO delays in getting translators as a simple example) and costs less. I could suggest that if an earpiece is broken, or a translator not available then discrimination can be inferred by default (such legal cases would be successful). Education can not be faulted in the same way.

Using translators would be the compromise. By not teaching someone "to fish" and instead giving them "a fish" whenever they need it, it wholly the wrong way to approach such issues.

 

How is it useful? All of our laws are already in English. Court proceedings and court records are already in English. All official documents are already in English.

Is declaring English to be the "official language" going to create anything new in English that isn't already in English? The answer is, "No, it will not."

The law serves no purpose except to discriminate against those Americans that don't speak English and discrimination is not a "useful" purpose..

The ideals of America establish we should be an "inclusionary" nation and not an "exclusionary" nation and the purpose of this proposal is exclusionary. This discriminatory law goes against every ideal upon which America was founded were "all people are equal" under the law and in the eyes of society.

The national motto of this nation from when it was founded, and that lasted for almost 200 years until Christians in the 1950's corrupted it, was E Pluribis Unum (i.e. From Many, One) and that did not imply that everyone coming to this nation should be forced into a cookie cutter mold but instead that we were "all one" regardless of any possible difference. We are a nation of differences united under one national banner.

This law is based upon the monoculturalism of White Supremacy and it's racist to the core.

It is literally no different than a law declaring "white" is the official race or that "Christianity" is the official religion of the United States.

 

I've already given reasons why it is useful, are you not reading my whole posts?

Not true. You can't argue that everything is already in English as you have asserted above and it's not going to create anything new, and then say that it's going to be discriminative. "Everything in English" would already be discriminative if that was the case. Putting it "into law" will not cause any discrimination.

You keep saying it's discriminatory, but you haven't given any proof of why that would be. Translations would still be available, as they are today. What do you believe will change? In what way will someone be discriminated against?

That will continue to be the case, even if English is the official language, except you will get the benefits too (if you don't want to read my earlier post, just google some benefits of an official language).

Proof please? I see no evidence to suggest that history and common use of anything implies racism or racists undertones. To suggest so is grasping at straws to refute a an incomplete argument against it. Prove it to me.

 

I am still not seeing how this law would enhance our rights or protect us from a threat. If it does not do any of those things it is not needed. Making something more difficult for our any of citizens without providing a clear benefit is wasteful.

 

I don't really have a response to this. I realize that for you, all issues are always racial issues. No exceptions. However this is so ridiculous that I just had to thank you for writing something so earnest and absurd that I actually did laugh out loud when I read it!

 

There is a huge difference between "English and other Languages" and "English Only" which is what disparaging other languages creates under the "English Only Official Language" proposition.

As the case in California that established "English Only" the "translators" are eliminated. In Californian bilingual eductation fundamentally ended with the passage of their "English is the Official Language" law. The translator was removed from the classroom. If removal of the "translator" in the classroom is "acceptable" in California then why wouldn't we eliminate them in the courtroom as well?

There are Americans that don't speak English. That's a fact. Why shouldn't they have laws translated into their language? They are arrested and have to go to court so why shouldn't the laws be provided to them in their language and the court proceedings conducted in their language?

This belief that an American that is fluent in English is superior to one that doesn't is purely racist.

Once again there is nothing wrong with English being the dominate language in the United States anymore than Christianity being the dominate religion but we wouldn't make "Christianity the official religion of the Unites States" (it would violate the Constitution) and doing the same thing to language is no different.

It is not the place of Government to define the People but instead it's the People that define the Government.

 

No, not all issues are racist but some of us we see when they clearly are.

There is no necessity for the "English is the Official Language" law. We've survived as a nation for well over 200 years without it and there's no reason for it now. The only reason anyone is advocating for it is because they don't like Spanish speaking Americans that would be the primary group adversely affected by such a law.

 

Anything less is unAmerican.

 

No, the reason and need for this law is because our government began creating official documents in multiple languages. Businesses as well now cater in foreign languages. Consequently, there is a rift and division created by this nonsense.