To Continue in English, Press "1"
It's madness that making English the official language of the U.S. is even an issue, much less a partisan one. If you moved to Paris, would you expect your kids to be educated in English -- at a French public school? The PC notion that we should be "sensitive" to ethnicity by providing education, ballots, DMV offices, and street signs in other languages has to give way to economic common sense.
Mort, an avid HuffPost reader, says he's tired of hearing "To Continue in English, Press 1." Me, too, Mort. Most tourists here speak better English than an increasing number of citizens.
Having more than one official language is very, very expensive. Even with a budget surplus, we couldn't afford it. Every single government office will need people who speak all the U.S. languages. All government meetings, in every branch, will require interpreters. They'll have to be trained. And paid. By you and me.
If this sounds reasonable to you, visit India, where government agencies operate in some 22 languages. It's a big part of why India is, well ... India (great food, though).
Non-English residents have organized, demanding a "right" to American government services in their language of origin. They make their appeal in a politically "sensitive" way, sighting concerns about loss of ethnic identity. They're counting on us to be "sensitive," too.
Congressional Republicans have shown way more courage here than Democrats (I'm Independent). Focus group-addicted political advisers are reading polls and advising candidates, "Don't alienate the Hispanic voting bloc." (Someone, deliver us from government by focus group.)
If we cave in and provide more ballots and schools in Spanish, mainland Chinese will soon demand the same "fair" treatment. Then Koreans, Japanese, and Canadians (just wanted to see if you're paying attention).
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle desperately need common ground on some issues -- this could be one -- so that we can undo the kneejerk partisan divide of the past generation. It's preposterous that every issue devolves into Left vs. Right. It has castrated Congress.
If Congress wusses out on this issue, entrepreneurs and marketers will keep jumping in and profiting from America's increasingly separate cultures -- and they'll entrench the separation. Here's how the market solves it: Telemundo is the fastest-growing network on American TV. Good, in the short run, for Spanish speakers. Bad, in the long run, for a democratic community.
The fact that so many legislators active in making English official are conservative doesn't mean they're wrong on this. (And it doesn't make them less wrong on other social issues.)
Immigrants come to America for opportunities and constitutional protections (OK, maybe there aren't as many as there were seven years ago, but stay with me). If you want the advantages and protections the U.S. provides, learn English. If you don't want your kids to grow up ghettoized, learn English.
The U.S. is slowly splitting into two sub-nations. If you're in California, New Mexico, or Texas, you know I'm not exaggerating. Soon it'll be too late and we'll be seen as trying to take away a "right" to be educated, or vote, in another language.
It's not unfair to ask immigrants to learn English. They always have. It is unfair to ask American taxpayers to pay for immigrants to be schooled or vote in other languages within our borders. (With a possible exception for emergency rooms.)
Congressional Democrats could step up and be heroes here. I'm encouraged that many presidential candidates are way ahead of wuss-Congress on this (paging Hillary!). Because the costs -- monetary and social -- are paralyzing if we don't make English the official language.
I truly can't name one good reason why people seeking U.S. citizenship shouldn't learn English (though I'll bet I hear some in this space). English speakers rise faster, earn more, and, most important, become a truly engaged part of the American community.
It's not about sensitivity (c'mon, who's more sensitive than Reverend Camden?). It's about a diminishing commodity in American politics: common sense.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thanks, Stephen! I'm all a-twitter at being mentioned!
BTW, my wife is one of your great fans. We spent many a dinner together watching 7th Heaven. Thanks!
I totally agree with you stephen on this.Its the same over here in england,many want to live here but many don't want to bother learning english! Your correct in saying 'where has common sense gone',I honestly wonder sometimes!The schools had a survey in london and found that in some schools students spoke 7 different languages,which in turn needs translaters to help here,which costs money.If they used common sense and taught them english,they would save time and money.We are seeing ghettos here now and hardly any intergration,its so sad!I also feel afraid almost to give opinions as you are told your not PC,that drives me crazy.I do think learning another language is helpful,my husbands italian and im trying to learn as much as I can,but he says he now lives in england and so speaks english and hes not offended!By the way,great post!
To educate a Limited English Proficient student in their native language while teaching them the American English Language; so, that, they can be completely assimilated into full English proficient classrooms, is required by U.S. Law since 1968. The "sink or swim" principle of education that is now called "full emersion not to exceed one year," program is flawed from its inception and the Supreme Court ruled on aspects of that issue in the 1974 case of Lau v. Nichols. A.G. Alberto Gonzales has already stated that an English as Official Language of the United States act of congress would be symbolic. In order to prevent people from making announcements at stores in spanish or hearing spanish spoken on U.S. soil congress and the president would have to make the speaking of the language in public illegal through an amendment of the Constitution.
This has been a facinating discussion and for the most part very civil. I really appreciate being able to share diverse views on a topic without name-calling and demonizing those who don't agree with you.
Definitely there should be only one official language, and everyone should speak it. It should be a requirement of citizenship (as it is in many preogressive countries, like the one I came from). But improving our foreign language skills at the same time would have important national benefits as well: Rebuilding our image abroad, diplomacy, and yes, even in war (hopefully not for long).
Could we view the 'rich in languages' immigration population as a resource and work out an exchange, so we could all speak more than one language and be proficient in English?
You couldn't be more right. Thanks for bringing this up rationally. We Americans need to be MUCH better at learning other languages. As we lose our economic grip on the world, we'll have to.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
There are two facets to this discussion that are not being addressed here in the comments. The first is that voting in other languages is already mandated by federal law (one of the Voters Rights Acts over the years). So if you advocate making English the official language, would you change this law?
The second question that isn't being addressed is one of the products of the first Great American Empire experiment, over 100 years ago -- Puerto Rico. Everyone in PR is a full American citizen. PR may even eventually become the 51st state. And it's American because we took it over as a territory from Spain. Their original (imperial) culture was Spanish.
So if PR becomes the 51st state, what would you advocate we do?
http://www
-CW
Really good question. I'll have to ponder that one.
I do find it a little frustrating when I go to the drive-thru at any fast food restaurant and can barely understand what the employee is saying to me. But how upset am I gonna get at someone in their mid-30's doing a job I did in high school, making 8 bucks an hour, and who is probably living with 10 other relatives in a 2-bedroom apartment? If Telemundo wants to entertain and make money off these folks, then God bless them, Telemundo and capitalism.
I have a bigger gripe with non-English speakers who are working in higher-skilled jobs. I work for a very large bank and have seen and heard people who write and speak English around the level of a 6th grader. I can deal with that in a fast-food scenario, but when it’s someone who is earning $80,000 per year, that pisses me off. And if you think it’s no big deal, try working with them and having to ask them to repeat 90% of what they say (not a very efficient work environment), or getting an email from them which you have to re-read 15 times to figure out what they are trying to say. Maybe we should look at reducing some of their salaries and requiring them to become more proficient in English. And if you want to apply this to ALL employees, that’s fine with me, because the only thing worse than a foreigner who doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re” is an American who doesn’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re”.
By the way I'd like to congratulate Mr. Collins for engaging his commenters directly and encourage he and all the other fine folks at huffpo to continue to do so. While a discussion re: English as the officil language will be lively in any event; I really think it improves the quality of the debate when bloggers interact directly w/ their audience don't you?,,,,,tm
Thanks. I try to post at times when I'll be able to reply. The amazing thing about HuffPost is this ability to talk to each other, even when we disagree.
My dear Mr. Collins, If you are waiting for an epidemic of common sense to break out I fear you will be waiting for a long time, Sir.
The difference between this wave of immigration and past waves is the immense size of it. At their peak no other group comprised 40% of the population. At least not since the initial settlers. Which leads to two seperate, but co-mingled issues. You can't expect a business to ignore 40% of the population. That's way to big a market share. So I don't blame them for catering to this population. However, it also a mistake to ignore or anger the other 60% of the market place.
But government forms, street signs and public education are a completely different issue. In last Thursday's Chicago Tribune there was an article about monolinquistic teachers being reassigned to make room for bi-lingual teachers. The concern being that these monolinguistic teachers will soon be out of a job as more and more classrooms are converted to bilingual classes to accomondate the increase in Spanish speaking students. The goal of bi-lingual classrooms is to help these students learn english while they are also learning math and science. A lofty goal, but at what point do you leave the crutch of bilingual education behind and reguire these students to assimulate into English only classrooms. The longer this assimulation takes the more the disservice to these children. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the ACT or SAT are yet offered in a Spanish version and how many colleges accept their entrance essays in Spanish?
Spanish speakers are not 40% of the population.
I agree with Stephen to a point. Where I differ is on the word "official". I think we can take a stand that government will not endure the costs and complexities of multiple languages without mandating an "official" language. After all, the world is largely designed for right-handers, but there is no official American hand. And, we are still (in theory) a melting pot nation. We can have de facto standards rather than mandates.
I will actually do Stephen one better in another way. A high percentage of Hispanic Americans are illiterate in Spanish. So, agreeing to communicate with them in Spanish, while helping some, will leave literacy issues for many.
I think we agree in spirit. I don't care if it's officially "official" by mandate--simply that government should be forced down the road of doing its business in multiple languages.
The only thing that holds together a nation is its language. Get rid of that and you get rid of the nation. That said, I speak and write four languages fluently..
I agree, and also about a right to interpreters in court, which we do, and will go on doing.
For several years I was involved in the Deaf community. I learned ASL, the history of sign language and about the difficulties that Deaf people experience living in a culture that doesn't accommodate them, and largely seems to not even know they're there.
I learned sign language from many of my Deaf friends. One day, one of my friends was trying to get me to understand a sign. She would use it in a (signed) sentence, and ask if I got it. I was having such a difficult time! I finally asked her to spell it for me so I could learn, and I was surprised when she (somewhat angrily) refused. I thought she was being obstinate (he should learn it through sign!), but I found out later that she wouldn't spell it for me because she couldn't spell: she didn't know English. At this time, even though I was immersed in the culture, it still hadn't registered with me that sign language is not just a signed form of English, it is a different language altogether.
In 1817, the first school for Deaf people opened in this country, in Hartford Connecticut. Through the 1800s the use of sign language spread as more schools opened. Education for Deaf people flourished, including the teaching of English (via instruction in sign). In 1880, largely through the efforts of Alexander Graham Bell, the "Milan Conference" resolved that education for Deaf people should be conducted in English, not sign (a decision made exclusively by hearing people, as Deaf people were excluded). As a result, instruction in sign declined and instruction in English increased (often with severe consequences for those disobedient kids who would insist on using sign in the hallways and dormitories). Since then, education for the Deaf has declined in this country, to the point where many, many Deaf adults have poor or non-existent skills with English.
Anyway, continue to debate whether the government should provide education, documentation and services in multiple languages, but don't make the mistake of thinking that English is the only possible or correct language for American citizens.
Please don't get me wrong: I never would suggest for a second that English is the "only possible or correct language for American citizens." We're just talking about what government should have to provide. Thank you for your persepctive.
Besides what others have mentioned, English as a common language is an issue of our country's security, both internally and externally. In times of emergency, we need everyone to get the message. In times of war, we need our troops to understand each other. Even in peacetime, a country without a common language doesn't act in concert and tends to become a no-man's land. So yes, we should make English the official language, and more to the point, provide more support for English-language learners, both native-born and immigrant.
"If this sounds reasonable to you, visit India, where government agencies operate in some 22 languages. It's a big part of why India is, well ... India (great food, though)."
India's economy is growing faster than most. In India the official language is Hindi. Apparently having an official language didn't solve the problem. They also have an official language for those who refuse to learn the official language, a "link" language - English. You might want to take into account that all the languages spoken in India, except for English, are indigenous. Then again, Spanish has been spoken longer in some parts of the U.S. than English.
All the Indians I've met spoke English better than most Americans, even the ones that didn't speak Hindi. Maybe the solution is to have a "non-native" official language, like perhaps French or Arabic or even Esperanto or one of the Native American languages. Given where our money is going, Mandarin might be the most practical choice.
I'm all in favor of a single common language, but it's nothing more than bigotry to assume that it should be English.
So, let me get this straight..
Please, everyone, learn to debate a subject without resorting to insulting the other side. While I am liberal on many, if not most, litmus issues, I don't call myself a liberal because liberals tend not to be able to argue without resorting to low blows.
You can't argue with my point so you accuse me of "resorting to low blows"? You consider attacking the messenger when you can't argue with the message to be rational dialogue?
Arguing for a common language and arguing that English should be that language are two different arguments. Commingling those two arguments simply confuses the issues. Confusing the issues serves one purpose - propaganda. And, yes, propaganda that serves the interests of one particular ethnic or cultural group is bigotry. If you don't like being associated with bigotry stop talking like a bigot. It's not a low blow if it's the truth.
If you want to argue the merits of English as the common language then compare and contrast those merits with those of other languages. That was my whole point and it was the one thing you did not do. What choice did I have but to see bigotry in the clearly bigoted assumption that English was the only choice? Note that I did not call you a bigot. I said your assumption was bigoted and now, again, I haven't called you a bigot. I've simply shown how you are acting like a bigot.
As for not calling yourself a liberal, that superior attitude may feed your ego but it serves no rational purpose. I call myself liberal for the rational reason - I tend to favor liberal positions on political issues, even when I don't like some liberals. You're not the first "liberal" blogger here at HuffPo that I've stopped reading because they didn't have the intellectual abilities to make rational arguments and preferred to attack those who disagreed with them.
Oh, yeah, go ahead and get the last word. I'm sure you want to. (Now, that was a low blow.)
Hi, Stephen, thank you for the very well-articulated and thought-out piece. And for the patience with which you answer people who take your comments out of context, or put words in your mouth.
I am a liberal and I totally agree with you. I think it is absolutely better for a child to have full access to everything that this wonderful country has to offer, than to have access to only a subset. English is a door to a world of opportunity. Not knowing English restricts access, shuts a door before it's ever opened. English is the lingua franca of the world. I don't think the US government should participate in this restriction. I think everyone should learn English for their own benefit, not for mine or because I'm an "English-firster". Calling people that just shuts off all dialog.
SCaepio, I'm a liberal, too, and your post is spot on. My grandmother was born in 1900 in Wisconsin and spoke only Danish until she started school. Last year I found her writing tablet from the fifth or sixth grade. In it were organized, perfectly-written English assignments. Danish was still spoken at home, but everyone knew that in America, English was essential to a successful life. It still is; this country is so geographically vast that a common language is necessary for government and commerce to function.
"English is the lingua franca of the world."
Oh, the irony. "Lingua franca" is a Latin phrase that literally means "French language". Apparently, English is the French language of the world, but only if you say it in Latin. Both Latin and French were once the dominant languages of the western world. Maybe we should look to the future for our common language, instead of the myopic and parochial view of the language that dominated the world during the British empire.
Saying that everyone "should learn English for their own benefit" just cuts of all dialog, too, especially when you justify it with a non-English reason.
lingua franca - any of various languages used as common or commercial tongues among peoples of diverse speech
I think you have misunderstood the meaning.
(Taking a deep breath.) And thank you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
