Nashville 'English First' Proposal Rejected By Voters

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Nashville voters rejected a proposal on Thursday that would have made it the largest U.S. city to require that all government business be done in English.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, unofficial results showed the "English First" proposal losing with about 57 percent of voters against it and 43 percent in favor. Proponents said using one language would have united the city and saved money, but business leaders, academics and the city's mayor worried it could give the city a bad reputation. Similar measures have passed elsewhere.

"The results of this special election reaffirms Nashville's identity as a welcoming and friendly city, and our ability to come together as a community," Mayor Karl Dean said in a news release.

The referendum's leader, city Councilman Eric Crafton, had promoted it as a way to unite Nashville and prevent the kind of extensive translation services _ and the associated expenses _ provided by cities like New York or Los Angeles. He has pushed for English only since 2006 and got the issue before voters through a petition drive.

"I support the collective wisdom of the voters. I am not going to bring English up again because the people of Nashville have spoken," Crafton said during a phone interview late Thursday.

It wasn't clear exactly how much translation would have been silenced had the measure passed. While it called for all government communication and publications to be printed in English, it would have allowed an exception for public health and safety.

The only documented expenditure is for Monterey, Calif.-based Language Line Services, which provides phone interpretations in 176 languages. Expenses for the service have totaled $522,287 since 2004. By comparison, the special election cost $300,000.

Nearly one in five registered voters cast ballots Thursday, a high turnout for a special election in Nashville. A total of 73,896 people cast ballots, compared with 51,484 people who voted in the last special election in 2005.

Supporter Glenda Paul, 35, said as she exited a voting precinct Thursday that having one language is an important part of keeping government small.

"If I moved to France to start a business, I would be expected to speak French and that doesn't mean that I am not welcome there. It just means I need to respect the language."

But Claire King, 31, who lives in East Nashville, said Thursday that she voted against the amendment because "it sends a message of intolerance."

The debate over establishing a national language is centuries old.

In 1780, John Adams proposed to the Continental Congress an academy be created to "purify, develop, and dictate usage of" English, the American Civil Liberties Union reports. His proposal was rejected as undemocratic.

Thirty states, including Tennessee, and at least a dozen cities have declared English their official language, said K.C. McAlpin, executive director of the Arlington, Va.-based ProEnglish which contributed at least $19,000 to support the referendum. Opponents collected about $300,000.

About 10 percent of Nashville's nearly 600,000 people speak a language other than English in their homes, according to census data. The city is 5 percent Hispanic and home to the nation's largest Kurdish community and refugees from Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

___

Associated Press Writer Rose French contributed to this story.

Comments

[janeyu]

11:13 AM on 01/24/2009

Nice going.. no way these leeches will even try to assimilate into our country now..gimme gimme gimme and we wonder why the country is headed right down the tubes.

[FZliveson]

10:50 AM on 01/24/2009

My father was from Holland. Spoke Dutch, French, German, English his whole life.
There are millions of students in China who speak English at U.S. University level.
In Japan, many factory workers know more about American Literature than most
college graduates from the U.S.A. do.
Why all this brain cell burning in protection of uneducated people? It is clear
that our educationa­l edge, plus an abundance of raw materials and a geographic
isolation is what made the U.S.A. become the success we have been, up until about 20
years ago? Just what is it that allows people to justify the inability to communicat­e
in place of the desire to teach and fine common bonds? I would say it is a combinatio­n
of fear of success, laziness and a tradition of not wanting to show anyone else up.

[glaze]

09:25 AM on 01/24/2009

An "OFFICIAL" language?
No.
A common, always evolving language?
Yes.

[gastoys]

05:54 PM on 01/23/2009

It does cost millions more to translate signs, instructio­ns, notices to other languages, plus it adds to material required to print the additional characters which in turn uses more resources. So yes it is good for the environmen­t and cost effective if public signs, instructio­ns, notices where all in one language. America has been an English speaking country for over 200 years, but now we are a nation of over 150 languages. Going to be interestin­g to see and Exit sign that this 20 feet tall written in 150 languages.

[ZimboChick]

04:59 PM on 01/23/2009

The lengths that b i g ot s will go to. DO not tell me they are worried about the costs. Nonsense. Its their way of keeping others from functionin­g. I applaud the people of Nashville who heeded the President'­s call to stop with the childish actions. I speak English and have no problems, but I feel irritated because some bored crusty man wants to make life difficult for others. Boo

[marignymitch]

04:57 PM on 01/23/2009

The election result seems very unlike Nashville. (I'm a native Tennessean­.) Thanks so much for the dandy surprize, voters.

[brabc1]

04:01 PM on 01/23/2009

What is the problem with the south? They just don't seem like they want to be part of the good old USA.

[essbird]

03:53 PM on 01/23/2009

Two comments: First, we need to welcome and assimilate immigrants­, because we white folks have stopped having enough babies to sustain the next generation and pay taxes. The communitie­s that accomplish this will thrive; the ones that turn a cold shoulder will shrivel.

Second, it wouldn't be a problem if Nashville, or Anywhere, USA, had the same portion of non-native language speakers as just about any other literate nation on Earth. You have to travel to see it: You can speak English just about anywhere. If we could do the same with just Spanish and French, we would be as welcoming. But no. We can't be bothered. America is the only country that counts, and English is the only worthwhile language, isn't it?

[pros54]

02:17 PM on 01/23/2009

I was travelling through the Nashville internatio­nal airport on Thursday. After inspecting my ticket the TSH agent asked me for my passport. I wondered in my mind why he asked specifical­ly for a passport rather than identifica­tion. I said nothing but kept on searching till I produced my drivers license which I gave to him for inspection­. His next question was is this pointing to the town of my final destinatio­n -Presque Isle -
in America? I said yes it is in America and they are people who live in that part of America whose language is French and has always been part of America? He looked at me with a gaze of frank incredulit­y and intoned -are you sure? I answered yes and his response was this country has gone to the dogs. I wanted to say to him it is having ignorant people like working in such public places that may actually be a reflection of the country going to the dogs but for fear of what may happen to me (like end up in Guatanamo) I shut my mouth and said have a good day, so I was quite pleased to see that Nashville has many more enlightene­d people than are otherwise.

[indiamaria]

02:17 PM on 01/23/2009

For those of you who think that immigrants don't want to learn English, I recommend reading, "Why Don't They Learn English? Separating Fact from Fallacy in the U.S. Language Debate" by Lucy Tse. It's a short book but informativ­e.

[SwingingFromCenter]

03:13 PM on 01/23/2009

As I said in another thread: They have enough money to hire a coyote to get them across the border, so they should have enough money to buy a copy of Rosetta Stone.

[pros54]

04:12 PM on 01/23/2009

Charge the interest to the Coyote too and use the Rosetta Stone on the I-mac bought for them by the Coyote. You are too smart and a half.

[missviv]

07:11 PM on 01/23/2009

Of course, ALL immigrants come from Mexico, Central, and South America. My word, you are a brilliant person.

[BlackJAC]

02:16 PM on 01/23/2009

Why is it that the regions of the country that want English to be the official language aren't exactly fluent in it themselves­?

[nomoredead]

02:50 PM on 01/23/2009

good one !

[FrTown]

03:18 PM on 01/23/2009

For the same reason that those who actively speak against gay marriage are themselves hiding in their closets.

[HeatherLeila]

02:11 PM on 01/23/2009

I love how people assume anyone who can't speak English is here illegally. This is simply not true. Speaking English or not has nothing to do with your status as legal. Think of official refugees, greencard holders, etc. These people ARE here legally, and yes, it takes time to learn a new language. In the mean time, do you want them left ignorant of their rights? I'm sure from anti-immig­ration leaders we would hear a resounding YES. But does it benefit anyone in the country to have a whole segment of the population that doesn't understand its rights? Of course not. Refusing to translate materials would be a nightmare for Public Health, Education, the DMV. Even the IRS would suffer (yes, immigrants pay taxes whether they speak English or reap the benefits of those taxes). Don't be ignorant, don't be xenophobic­. Understand your world is changing with or without you.

[SwingingFromCenter]

03:14 PM on 01/23/2009

Here we go again, they must all be refugees.

Do you have any idea how FEW people with refugee status there are in this country? Not many. And you have to speak English to get a green card. Knowing the language is a requiremen­t for coming into this country legally.

[HeatherLeila]

03:57 PM on 01/23/2009

Sorry, but tens of thousands of refugees come to the U.S. every year and that's not nothing.
http://www­.ncela.gwu­.edu/exper­t/faq/06re­fugee.html
And as a relative of a citizen, you can legally come to the U.S. without an English test.
I just felt I had to correct that misinforma­tion.

Here we go again....d­on't sound so exhausted.

[pros54]

04:15 PM on 01/23/2009

Swinging from the center has difficulty understand­ing the language he or she is shilling to have people die for. Just like the gay bashers and their closetedne­ss.

[dnadeem3]

02:08 PM on 01/23/2009

Congrats to Nashville.
It may be practical, and shrewd for everyone to learn english, but it is in no way constituti­onal for the government to have an official language or religion. Conservati­ves love to use the slippery slope argument when it comes to Gay Marriage(i­.e we will all be marrying our pet goldfish one day), but when it comes to the slippery slope of government mandated culture, they ignore it, and if they have their way they will be very sorry when Dearborne declares the official language Arabic or Corona mandates all business to be done in Spanish.
Lets turn Tennesee blue next election!

[FZliveson]

03:11 PM on 01/23/2009

WELL EXKUUUUUUZ­E MEEEE dnadeem3:
You say, Quote: "but it is in no way constituti­onal for the government to have an official language or religion"

Where in the constituti­on does it say anything about NOT having an official language?
Which article, Amendment, Federalist Paper, Declaratio­n of Independen­ce?
Tell us.

It's okay to be firm in your beliefs, but don't start making S*IT up when it comes to the Constituti­on.
That is what the last administra­tion did that lubricated the already-sl­ippery slope the nation was on.

Give us the truth or give us a break

[patrickhenrypress]

05:39 PM on 01/23/2009

I see. So omission justifies bigotry? There is no Constituti­onal prohibitio­n of murder, so I suppose it's "Constitut­ional" to murder now. The Constituti­on grants Congress the power to make and enforce laws. It also has a "general welfare" clause in the Preamble which implies, to me at least, that erecting language barriers to a significan­t portion of the population might be an issue for the Supreme Court.

Specious arguments are the best when you have nothing worthwhile to say, I suppose.

George Bush? Is that you?

[maryyooch]

02:05 PM on 01/23/2009

Thank God that out of this ridiculous­ly red state, Nashville usually votes democratic­. I live here in Metro-Nash­ville and it would have been terrible if they had passed that bigoted ref. There are many immigrants here, not just Mexicans. After all, that was Crofton's true intention, Mexicans.
It is great to see that he failed. Once again.

[FZliveson]

10:42 AM on 01/24/2009

Maryyooch: There is this bogus context held by many that; "There is strength in diversity.­"
Even metal alloys and chemical compounds have bonds that hold the molecules together.
There is strength in UNITY. To have a fragmented populous mingling without a common language
causes enclaves, derision, suspicion, ignorance and dis-unity. To have a society, we need to have a
common foundation­. Just as Obama is trying to unify us as a nation (while speaking English) we should all be conversing in a common language. It was the way of it for many many years during the
early years of this nation. It is only softy political correctnes­s that makes it somehow palatable to some people that we can have a dis-united language in a nation that calls itself the "United States."

[FZliveson]

10:59 AM on 01/24/2009

ZimboChick you say "I speak English and have no problems"
No problems! What color is the air on your planet?
Language barriers create tension between people.
Language barriers dis-empowe­r people to find work.
The inability to communicat­e naturally creates fear and fear transforms into anger.
Lack of commonalit­y weakens society.
What's this "bored crusty man" blather?
That sounds like the words of a bigot to me.

[poster1122]

01:17 PM on 01/23/2009

I have mixed feelings about these initiative­s. On one hand, I find some of the proponents unsavory, and it annoys me to ever make common cause with them.

Other the other hand, having a good command of the English language is absolutely essential to thriving in this country. It is the language of business, and not knowing it ghetto-ize­s your prospects to much narrower markets. The reason why I sympathize with the notion of requiring people to learn English is the same reason why I think it's important that people have to learn math.

[Topsailsman]

01:29 PM on 01/23/2009

To me it all comes down to, do you want to have legal immigrants or not? If you do, then you will have people in their 60's who CANNOT learn a new language. This is not laziness, it is a fact that after age 20 it is difficult to learn a new language for most and it gets more difficult as you get older. I taught English to an immigrant couple from Korea. The best they could do was rudimentar­y, not sufficient to read moderately difficult text. Their son, on the other hand, was fluent since he arrived at age 10. This kid is a genius and will be renowned in bio sciences in the next decade. But no, we'd rather have him in Korea because his 50 year old parents couldn't learn English. What a ridiculous idea. Those who want to require English do it simply because they don't want immigratio­n, period.

[poster1122]

03:08 PM on 01/23/2009

I disagree with your premise that people in their 60s *cannot* learn a new language. I do agree it's more difficult with age, but plenty of people (including my own parents and all their friends) do and have done it. Because they had to.

I don't suggest that everyone needs to have perfect English, but it should be functional­. And certainly exceptions can be made for very specific situations­, but again those should be the exceptions­, not the rule.

The problem I have with accomodati­ng people who don't have functional English is that the system creates a dependency that actually hurts the people that it's supposedly trying to help.

I believe most people do rise or fall to the level of expectatio­ns people set for them.