Quote: Original post by Sirisian
The guy who founded the movement, S. I. Hayakawa, was a "Canadian-born Japanese American". "He was an English professor [...]". I have to imagine his ideas were for the best of immigrants. Imagine you had a business and you had to hire between an immigrant that spoke simple English and another that spoke only in their native language (even if they were to apply). There's a serious disadvantage caused by not knowing English...

It just doesn't work like that in real life, though. You just can't force people to become profficient enough in English that they'd be able to make a difference in those kinds of situations.

If you force all interaction with the government to be conducted in English, what you'll probably find is that all the stuff the government currently does in multiple languages will move to the private sector. So you can currently file your tax return in your native language? Force people to use English, and they'll just and find an accountant that can speak their language and fill it in for them. Force them to vote in English and they'll just not vote.

Also, I don't think you can force people to take English lessons. I mean, you can but if people don't really want to learn, they're just going to sit there and not learn anything - you're just wasting your time and thiers. If you require people to take English exams (which Australia does if you want to become a permanent resident, for example) then people learn just enough to pass those exams, and nothing more. Besides, people will always find ways around taking those exams (for example, Australia recognizes certain English exams you can take in China and if you pass those, you don't have to take the Australian exam. Obviously, if you're a rich Chinese national, you can just bribe your way through the Chinese exam without sitting for anything).

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It seems really obvious to me that learning a second language would improve brain function.

I agree. That's kind of what I was getting at with my off-the-top-of-my-head list of benefits.

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
The guy who founded the movement, S. I. Hayakawa, was a "Canadian-born Japanese American". "He was an English professor [...]". I have to imagine his ideas were for the best of immigrants. Imagine you had a business and you had to hire between an immigrant that spoke simple English and another that spoke only in their native language (even if they were to apply). There's a serious disadvantage caused by not knowing English...

It just doesn't work like that in real life, though. You just can't force people to become profficient enough in English that they'd be able to make a difference in those kinds of situations.

Well not so much forcing, but providing incentives. You bring up some examples. If they had to go get their taxes filed for themselves then they're paying more. Simple incentives can be used to steer immigrants toward learning English. Though if the idea of getting a better job isn't incentive enough then that poses a problem. However, hopefully with all the incentives they'd want to pick up English to further their career (if English is even necessary for them).

I definitely won't argue with the fact that immigrants would do well to learn English. It is just much, much more common in the US than any other language, and the person would be missing out on many opportunities if they don't speak it.

However, as has already been mentioned, "official language" only deals with the language the government communicates with its population in. Choosing English as an official language would do very little to make people start speaking it. You would just have less people communicating with the government. It wouldn't change anything with business. There would still be Spanish-speaking customers, so they would still be catered to by some businesses. You would still have people accepting lower-paid and uneducated jobs because they cannot communicate in an educated way that an English speaker can understand.

The argument for an official language seems to assume that it will make everyone learn the language. It isn't that simple. Some of the people who communicate with the government the most are the elderly, and it is also the hardest for them to learn a second language. When I asked the question is the government would pay for English classes for all non-English speakers, I was really just trying to highlight how impossible that would be. It would be wonderful, but a mobilization of that magnitude, with that amount of qualified ESL teachers, that amount of monetary resources, and that amount of public awareness just isn't possible as far as I can see.

Quote: Original post by SiCrane
This is mixed in with other gems like "State snackfood. Popcorn is designated the official State snackfood of the State of Illinois."

This is why we can't have nice things. The down-side of the whole "states' rights" thing (racism notwithstanding).

Quote: Original post by SiCrane

Quote: Original post by Codeka
I don't understand the point. What government services are currently not available in English in the US? If you made English the "official" language, what does that actually change, on a practical level?

It's not that all services have to be offered in English, it's that all services have to be offered only in English (aside from certain exceptions mentioned in the first quoted block in the OP). Another term for the Official English movement is the English-only movement, though Official English advocates say that's an unfair term in the same way that calling pro-choice pro-abortion would be unfair.

I think it would be more accurate to call it "unfair in the same way that calling pro-life anti-choice would be unfair." Which is to say: not unfair at all, given that you're proposing a restriction on what people can do rather than an expansion, but distasteful to supporters.

Quote: Original post by ChurchSkiz
Immigrating without learning the language of your new home does not create a melting pot, it creates a chunky stew.

Seems to work damn fine north of the border.

Quote: If we start accomodating immigrant languages

"Immigrant languages"? You mean like English?

Quote: what's to stop Indians or Chinese or Russians from demanding documents in their language too?

Watch you don't fall off that slippery slope. I hear there are comfy pillows down there. (IOW: So what?)

Quote: I'm not being xenophobic, but if you can't take the time to learn the language of the country you live in, why should the country expend resources on you?

Uhuh. And as a second-generation American, you sure are qualified to tell all those first-generation Americans what's what, eh?

Anything else I might want to say has already been said by LessBread.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
I think it would be more accurate to call it "unfair in the same way that calling pro-life anti-choice would be unfair." Which is to say: not unfair at all, given that you're proposing a restriction on what people can do rather than an expansion, but distasteful to supporters.

Here is what ProEnglish, another Official English advocacy group, has to say about the English-only description:

Quote: In news articles and media interviews opponents of official English insistently use the term "English-only" to describe official English laws. There is just one problem. The term is incorrect. And it is time that we at ProEnglish and all other advocates for official English hold journalists, government officials, and others who use the term, accountable for its misuse.
Here is why "English-only" is wrong: To date there are 30 states in the United States that have designated English an official language either in their state constitutions or by adopting a law. And none of those states, not a single one - - - prohibits the state government involved from using other languages for common sense, non-official reasons that serve the public interest. Typically those reasons are to protect public health and public safety, promote tourism, teach foreign languages, administer justice, handle emergencies, and similar needs. In fact, there are 53 nations that have made English their official languages, and none of them can accurately be described as "English-only" in the sense that their laws would make it illegal to use other languages under any or all circumstances.

In today's world, it is plainly an asset and sometimes a necessity to speak a second language, and ProEnglish strongly encourages people to learn another language if they can. ProEnglish is also very sympathetic to any people who are struggling to preserve their native language and traditions. But to promote the use of English to allow communication, understanding, and empathy between different groups of people who share a common citizenship and territory is not anti-anything. It is false to pretend otherwise.

So why do opponents of official English continue to use "English-only"? Because it is a loaded term that conveys exclusivity and an implied feeling of linguistic superiority. For that reason it is divisive and can be upsetting to people whose native language is not English. Its misuse is intended to provoke an emotional reaction and subtly demonize anyone who favors making English our official language, as well as those who simply want to protect its role as the common language of the United States.

So, if all this is true what does the term "official English" mean? It means that a government has decided that in order for its actions, laws, and business to be considered authoritative, they must be communicated in the English language. It means that there can be no disagreement about which language is the controlling one for discerning the meaning that government intends. And it means that absent a broad, public interest reason for using another language, the default language of government operations is English.

Official English also has a symbolic meaning, which is very important. It sends a message to all those who want to participate as citizens in this great nation, that there are responsibilities as well as benefits for being here. And one of those responsibilities is learning to speak the language of our country--English. There is no reason why our expectations for non-English speaking immigrants today should be less than our expectations for the generations of immigrants that preceded them.

I'd like to just respond to the last portion:

Quote: There is no reason why our expectations for non-English speaking immigrants today should be less than our expectations for the generations of immigrants that preceded them.

I heard a study quoted on NPR some time ago, I think when they were talking about this very issue, that concluded that immigrants from previous eras, like Italians, took as many as 4 generations to speak the language. Now that figure is approximately 1 generation -- people come here, and their children speak English fluently, even if they themselves do not.

That's actually an improvement, but it would take some historical hindsight to have discovered that.

Quote: Original post by Pete Michaud
I'd like to just respond to the last portion:

Quote: There is no reason why our expectations for non-English speaking immigrants today should be less than our expectations for the generations of immigrants that preceded them.

I heard a study quoted on NPR some time ago, I think when they were talking about this very issue, that concluded that immigrants from previous eras, like Italians, took as many as 4 generations to speak the language. Now that figure is approximately 1 generation -- people come here, and their children speak English fluently, even if they themselves do not.

That's actually an improvement, but it would take some historical hindsight to have discovered that.

I personally belief this has to do with better integration in school and higher immigrant school attendance. In those eras where immigrants would not have a fluent speaker for 3 - 4 generations, they either did not go to school (most likely) or they went to an "Italian school" or another school that specifically spoke their language. This was another form of segregation.

Quote: Original post by Codeka
If you force all interaction with the government to be conducted in English, what you'll probably find is that all the stuff the government currently does in multiple languages will move to the private sector. So you can currently file your tax return in your native language? Force people to use English, and they'll just and find an accountant that can speak their language and fill it in for them.

Who knew that xenophobia could be so profitable? [grin]

Quote: Original post by Codeka
Force them to vote in English and they'll just not vote.

Bingo!

@jackolantern1 You would just have less people communicating with the government.

Yep. Dallas police ticketed 39 drivers in 3 years for not speaking English (October 26, 2009)

@Zahlman "Immigrant languages"? You mean like English?

Hehehehe.



I think it's misleading to portray S. I. Hayakawa as an immigrant. Canada to California - even with pre-WWII anti-Japanese sentiments - that's not a huge cultural gap to bridge. I find it interesting that there is no mention in that bio of his experiences during WWII, specifically regarding the question of Japanese-American internment. Did he retain his position at the Armour Institute of Technology (today known as the Illinois Institute of Technology) throughout the war? If he wasn't interned his "immigrant" experience was dramatically different from other Japanese-Americans.

I remember when he was in the Senate, but not much, although the more I think about it, the more I suspect that he might have influenced my interest in language. At any rate, he retired about the time I began to pay attention to national affairs. Hayakawa would be totally rejected by today's GOP. The wikipedia entry cites the thank you section of his book. He lists several intellectuals that today's GOP would readily condemn: Thorstein Veblen (as communist), Karl R. Popper (because George Soros is a fan), Jean Piaget (as French socialist), Sigmund Freud (as atheist), Margaret Mead (as libertine). This isn't directly relevant to the topic at hand, it's just a reflection and an observation of how the political landscape has changed in the last 30 years.

Which Senators today support this cause? INHOFE TO SENATE: ‘MAKE ENGLISH OUR NATIONAL LANGUAGE’. Inhofe pushed this issue back in 2006 instead of making a fuss over trying terrorists in US courts like he has been doing lately [1].

Quote:
So, if all this is true what does the term "official English" mean? It means that a government has decided that in order for its actions, laws, and business to be considered authoritative, they must be communicated in the English language. It means that there can be no disagreement about which language is the controlling one for discerning the meaning that government intends. And it means that absent a broad, public interest reason for using another language, the default language of government operations is English.

That sounds well and good, but the result is more likely to resemble the situation with those traffic tickets in Dallas. If 30 states have adopted this law there should be ample evidence to examine regarding the consequences. However, since the Federal government hasn't adopted this law, those consequences might be masked. For example, states administer Federal benefits - medicare, food stamps, etc - and are likely tasked with providing information on those programs in a variety of languages. State restrictions may be overridden by Federal requirements ---- anyway, I've got to run. I think you can figure out where I'm going with this.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by jackolantern1
You would just have less people communicating with the government.

Yep. Dallas police ticketed 39 drivers in 3 years for not speaking English (October 26, 2009)

I don't see the connection. That incident has nothing to do with "not communicating with the government". It's just about officers that thought there was a law that said you had to speak English.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: From ProEnglish
So, if all this is true what does the term "official English" mean? It means that a government has decided that in order for its actions, laws, and business to be considered authoritative, they must be communicated in the English language. It means that there can be no disagreement about which language is the controlling one for discerning the meaning that government intends. And it means that absent a broad, public interest reason for using another language, the default language of government operations is English.

That sounds well and good, but the result is more likely to resemble the situation with those traffic tickets in Dallas. If 30 states have adopted this law there should be ample evidence to examine regarding the consequences. However, since the Federal government hasn't adopted this law, those consequences might be masked. For example, states administer Federal benefits - medicare, food stamps, etc - and are likely tasked with providing information on those programs in a variety of languages. State restrictions may be overridden by Federal requirements ---- anyway, I've got to run. I think you can figure out where I'm going with this.

I really don't see the connection. No one is going to be fining people for not speaking English. They'd just make sure that the government documents were only in English. I'm curious how much of the governments normal operations happen in other languages anyway. I think knowing that would be key to finding out if the transition is reasonable.

With 30 states, I'm curious what happens when they reach 50 states. Seems like the next step would be to bring it to the federal level.

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
They'd just make sure that the government documents were only in English. I'm curious how much of the governments normal operations happen in other languages anyway. I think knowing that would be key to finding out if the transition is reasonable.

Also, if I were living in a country that isn't my own, I'd expect my embassy to provide me with transcripts (or at least counseling) on any legal document I needed to know. That's what they are for there anyway don't they?