English Only laws: Rob Toonkel, spokeswoman for US English, a group that promotes the use of the English language in government and that has helped several towns draw up ordinances to that effect, said such measures have nothing to do with racism. "Official English legislation as written has nothing to do with criticizing immigrants in any way," Toonkel told AFP. "What it says is 'you can't walk into a government office and demand service in a language other than English."
Many on the ANTI side say they agree with Toonkel and continue to say "English Only" laws will not impact our ability to speak other languages in public. Are they being honest? Or, in reality are these English Only laws actually trying to violate our 1st Ammendment, Freedom of Speech?
Here is the 1st Ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Question: "Do businesses have the right to require their employees to speak English Only when it does not impact the job itself?" Here are three Cases that say otherwise! What do you think? Will these laws, if enacted, limit Freedom of Speech?
Case 1:The Washington Times is reporting: Restaurant returns to English-only battle.
RD's Drive-In Restaurant in Page, Ariz., has reinstated its requirement that employees speak English while on the job, ending a five-year legal tussle, according to ProEnglish. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the drive-in in 2002, saying it was discriminating against its Navajo employees by requiring them to speak English on the job. The interest group ProEnglish stepped in to help the drive-in with legal costs as it fought the suit, but they lost in court in a federal appeals court in September. Now the drive-in has rescinded the original policy and put a new policy in place that includes a revised English policy.
Case 2: Ruben Navarette reports:
The Great Language Debate: Many Hispanics applaud the decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to sue the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required employees to speak only English on the job. The requirement was posted, and yet at least two Hispanic employees defiantly continued to speak Spanish while at work. The EEOC claimed that their firings violated the law. English-only proponents said the EEOC's position violated common sense. The critics are wrong. It's not that a business doesn't have the right to expect its employees to speak English. It does. It just doesn't have the right to prevent workers from speaking languages other than English. That's what this case is about, after all – not a requirement that employees be able to speak English, but a rule that banned the speaking of other languages. Of course, a business has the right to consider one's ability to speak English as a prerequisite for employment. But – once the person is hired – the employer shouldn't discriminate against some employees just to put other employees at ease. For one thing, there's the First Amendment. Courts have ruled that people have the right to converse with one another in whatever language they please as long as it doesn't interfere with how they do their job.
Case 3: Ruben Navarette Reports:
Library books frighten some folks in Lewisburg, Tenn. – library books in Spanish, to be precise. A while back, at the Marshall County Memorial Library, an employee named Nellie Rivera proposed a bilingual story time where children could have books read to them in Spanish. Some townspeople raised a fuss and demanded that all books in the library – whether bought with public funds or donated by private individuals – be in English. The silver lining is that there are good folks in Lewisburg, and around the country, who scoff at such cultural censorship. As word of this bilingual backlash got around, outraged patrons began sending checks to the library that were specifically earmarked for buying Spanish-language books. Perhaps to tweak the opposition, some of the donations were in Rivera's name. That's what I love about story time – in whatever language. There's usually a happy ending.
Here is the 1st Ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Question: "Do businesses have the right to require their employees to speak English Only when it does not impact the job itself?" Here are three Cases that say otherwise! What do you think? Will these laws, if enacted, limit Freedom of Speech?
Case 1:The Washington Times is reporting: Restaurant returns to English-only battle.
RD's Drive-In Restaurant in Page, Ariz., has reinstated its requirement that employees speak English while on the job, ending a five-year legal tussle, according to ProEnglish. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the drive-in in 2002, saying it was discriminating against its Navajo employees by requiring them to speak English on the job. The interest group ProEnglish stepped in to help the drive-in with legal costs as it fought the suit, but they lost in court in a federal appeals court in September. Now the drive-in has rescinded the original policy and put a new policy in place that includes a revised English policy.
Case 2: Ruben Navarette reports:
The Great Language Debate: Many Hispanics applaud the decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to sue the Salvation Army because its thrift store in Framingham, Mass., required employees to speak only English on the job. The requirement was posted, and yet at least two Hispanic employees defiantly continued to speak Spanish while at work. The EEOC claimed that their firings violated the law. English-only proponents said the EEOC's position violated common sense. The critics are wrong. It's not that a business doesn't have the right to expect its employees to speak English. It does. It just doesn't have the right to prevent workers from speaking languages other than English. That's what this case is about, after all – not a requirement that employees be able to speak English, but a rule that banned the speaking of other languages. Of course, a business has the right to consider one's ability to speak English as a prerequisite for employment. But – once the person is hired – the employer shouldn't discriminate against some employees just to put other employees at ease. For one thing, there's the First Amendment. Courts have ruled that people have the right to converse with one another in whatever language they please as long as it doesn't interfere with how they do their job.
Case 3: Ruben Navarette Reports:
Library books frighten some folks in Lewisburg, Tenn. – library books in Spanish, to be precise. A while back, at the Marshall County Memorial Library, an employee named Nellie Rivera proposed a bilingual story time where children could have books read to them in Spanish. Some townspeople raised a fuss and demanded that all books in the library – whether bought with public funds or donated by private individuals – be in English. The silver lining is that there are good folks in Lewisburg, and around the country, who scoff at such cultural censorship. As word of this bilingual backlash got around, outraged patrons began sending checks to the library that were specifically earmarked for buying Spanish-language books. Perhaps to tweak the opposition, some of the donations were in Rivera's name. That's what I love about story time – in whatever language. There's usually a happy ending.
You failed to indicate in what way the drive in changed its English requirement on the job. Perhaps the employer feels like the customers' in ability to be able to understand what is being said about them behind their backs is tantamount to giving them the "bird" behind their backs.
ReplyDeleteIf you call a customer a stupid jerk, a fat slob, or some other choice term, no matter what language it's in, it could be bad for business if the word gets out. Maybe the employer should record all conversations, have them translated, and if they are abusive to management or customer they could be a justifiable cause for dismissal. Why not just avoid all this and speak English on the job where one's co-workers and the customers would surely appreciate it.
It's stretching the 1st amendment pretty thin to claim this is a 1st amendment issue. There is is another solution, hire no more than a token one employee unless they agree to speak only English. An employer should certainly have the right to establish the conditions of employment and if they are violated to discharge the miscreant. Just common sense.
" our ability to speak other languages in public"
ReplyDeletePrivate businesses could be considered private in some sense even though they are open to the public. This isn't significantly different from an employer training an employee on how he wants to the job done, how he wants to the customers treated, and any other expectations he has to allow his business to thrive. English on the job could easily be construed as one of those training/customer service issues. When some spoke of public conversations I'm sure they meant in public, at the mall, in the park, on the street corner, on the bus, etc. They weren't referring to whatever conditions of employment a private employer might wish to impose. Some customers probably would feel very uncomfortable in an environment where there was extensive use of foreign languages on a regular and daily basis. It is discourteous and exclusionary.
Whatever the outcome of this issue, it has no relevance to the Official English idea which says all official business of government, written or oral, will be conducted in English -- period!
ReplyDeleteGiven the history of violence and unlawful scamming of members by the Minutemen Leaders Simcox, Gilchrist and Schwilk, I´ve often wondered why the same has not been said about Cesar Chavez and his gang who destroyed private property, indulged in violence, and scammed union members out of millions of dollars in dues. Cesar Chavez needed the opposition of an easily caricatured rapacious, racist, wealthy, white enemy, ignoring the small farmers with shallow pockets who often lived and worked next to and not much differently from their workers. He wanted a countryside not full of small family farmers but of a few big agribusinessmen. The agribusiness corporation was an easy foil, which under an avalanche of liberal commentary, boycotts, and high profile visits by the Kennedys and other celebrities could capitulate on television with the wave of a pen, sending Chavez' union millions of dollars in payroll deductions that, of course, were looted, lost, or mishandled by an extended clique of his family and cronies. Sounds an awful lot like the MM problem Dee ranted about last month. So what does that mean? Does it mean both parties were guilty of misfeasance? Does it mean that both were crooks who took advantage of the members of their organizations and situations? Probably both could claim, "Gee, I had some expenses I had to cover."
ReplyDeleteOr does it mean something more benign like a lack of knowledge of the elements of accounting control, separation of duties, and other such measures designed to provide full accountability and some degree of protection against theft, fraud or embezzlement. In the absence of knowledge of this sort the idea is to hire some who has that knowledge or to find volunteers who can implement such controls.
It makes sense to me judge both parties equally harshly for their dishonesty or stupidity in failing to realize that someone would ultimately call them to account.
Somehow it seems especially heinous to misappropriate the dues of ignorant and perhaps illiterate farm workers.
The 1st Amendment does not intend to allow the freedom of a foreign language to be usurped over the language of the USA, English.
ReplyDeleteThe intention of the 1st Amendment is to guarantee the right of individuals to say what they think and believe without fear of government reprisal.
What it does allow for is, the freedom to speak out and/or against the governments of either the individual state or that of the federal government.
I'll answer the 3 in order.
ReplyDelete1) Without knowing what the original requirement was, it's hard to justify an answer. Speaking English while on the job leaves a large brush to paint with. If it includes working with others at any time that do not speak the/a foreign language, then yes English should be required, mostly because it could be a safety matter, lesser yet it could be a public matter. If it is during the time the employees are on break, then I don't see where the problem lies, as long as they both are on break at the same time and out of public view, i.e. break room or outside break area.
2) Again same as #1. Naverette has an unclear picture of the 1st Amendment, his understanding is the epitome of ignorance on the issue.
3)It's a Library, they should have all kinds of books, to include those that are in different languages or from different cultures. Look at the library that the old empires use to have, papers, pages, books, stories, all from different parts of the world, that they used to gather knowledge.
I see no harm in speaking a foreign language on breaks and lunches as long as they are private conversations, preferably out of earshot of those who don't speak that language.
ReplyDeleteBut when on duty there is every reason to expect employees to speak English, the common language. One is a safety issue and the other is to not have divisiveness in the workplace. Many times when one doesn't understand the foreign language being spoken, it can be taken and used as an excuse to talk behind someone's back. Under these circumstances "English only" is appropriate.
English as the official language of our country is not the same thing. It would not prohibit other language from being spoken in public (although considered rude by some), it would mean we wouldn't have to print all those government documents in several different foreign languages. It would encourage English assimilation and save us a lot of tax dollars.
An employer should certainly have the right to establish the conditions of employment
ReplyDeleteAh, but there are "reasons of state" that trump employers rights, that is, keeping the economy on steroids with cheap imports, labor, and debt, lest it collapse.
It also trumps monolingual Americans' right to not suspect that foreign languages exist only to enable its speakers to talk behind their ignorant backs.
ReplyDeleteIn case one, there was no customer interaction. Instead a co-worker assumed that their peer was talking negatively about them (on break) in Navajo.
ReplyDeleteIn case two, again no customer interaction. Co workers were speaking to each other in Spanish.
In case three, as stated, a librarian was merely going to read children stories to children in Spanish.
None of these cases had anything to do with Government documents.
This is what will happen if we pass Official English laws.
1st Ammendment Denied!
You are full of crap, dee. English is the official language of the state of Calif. and I hear more Spanish being spoken than English here and no one is stopping them.
ReplyDeleteDee, you are just as ignorant as Naverette, neither of you understand what the 1st Amendment is about, or for that matter, its meaning.
ReplyDeleteCALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION,
ReplyDeleteARTICLE III, SECTION 6
(Proposition 63, 1986)
It does nothing to prohibit the speaking of a foreign language. DMV tests are in all foreign languages, for a total of 8 languages.
Right now there are 27 states that have made English the official Language of that state.
"This is what will happen if we pass Official English laws."
ReplyDeleteThis is a totally unwarranted extrapolation. You must have something akin to an autistic block if you cannot understand "...it has no relevance to the Official English idea which says all official business of government, written or oral, will be conducted in English -- period!"
Whatever you might think of the shortcomings of Congress and our form of government, the idea that expressing oneself in a foreign language would ever be prohibited in the broader context is utterly ridiculous. Not even the staunchist demagogue in Congress has suggested or proposed such an idea. This is a total figment of your imagination. You have already forgotten when you had essentially agreed that the Official English bill in the Congress was nonthreatening.
Perhaps all the demagogues are not in Congress.
"It also trumps monolingual Americans' right to not suspect that foreign languages exist only to enable its speakers to talk behind their ignorant backs."
ReplyDeleteIt's exciting when you talk dirty! The thing I'm not sure of is, whether at the bottom line, you might even believe this bit of sarcasm-- "...exist only to talk...". Perhaps you should have said "... it permits the speakers to talk behind the backs of the stupid gringos."
"Ah, but there are "reasons of state" that trump employers rights, that is, keeping the economy on steroids with cheap imports, labor, and debt, lest it collapse."
ReplyDeleteBut you predicted our economy is already on its last legs, so no need to continue to infringe the employers' rights.
It still has not collapsed. We need a good photo, like the crumbling of th Berlin Wall.
ReplyDeleteWhat Dee fails to tells us about case #1
ReplyDeleteThe business is located near the Navajo Reservation in northern Arizona. Nearly all of the employees are young people from the reservation. In the summer of 2000, some of the Navajo employees complained to the Kidmans that other workers were treating them rudely by talking about them in the Navajo language and by using offensive language in Navajo.
All of the employees spoke English. The employees who complained about the rude treatment generally spoke only English. They felt that the Navajo-speaking employees were making their working conditions unpleasant by talking about them inappropriately in Navajo. Some of the employees threatened to quit if the Navajo-speaking employees continued to treat them rudely. Furthermore, some customers had complained that they could hear employees swearing in Navajo.
So we have Navajo workers that speak only English complaining about Navajo workers that are speaking in Navajo. Customers complained that they could hear employees swearing in Navajo. The Kidmans therefore followed the EEOC's advice and posted a notice about RD's Drive-In's policy requiring employees to speak English while working, unless speaking to a customer who prefers to use another language. Four employees objected to the English policy and quit.
Dee, you always seem to leave out the FACTS!!
So much for case #2.
ReplyDeleteThe Christian charity, Clark said, believes precedent is on its side. Federal judges ruled in 2003 that another Boston-area Salvation Army store was within its rights to fire a bilingual employee who refused to speak English when told to do so by her boss.
Federal courts have broadly upheld an employer's right to require employees to speak English on the job.
"It still has not collapsed. We need a good photo, like the crumbling of the Berlin Wall."
ReplyDeleteSuch a photo would not be very apt. After all, the Berlin wall did not crumble. It had to be destroyed sometimes by individuals with hammers. Moreover, the wall was an artificial barrier between people of the same country with the same native tongue intended to keep people in East Germany rather than out of West Germany. That's a little different from a barrier between countries where one encourages its poor and illiterate to leave lest they foment a revolution and the other objects to the dumping of these problems in its backyard. Obviously, the folks in the latter case are not of the same country nor do they have the same mother tongue.
A friendly nation would agree that borders must be enforced and would see to it that they are. Perhaps if France were to ship all of its poor muslims to Mexico, the Mexican government would begin to understand and get the message.
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly what I am talking about. What is the difference between whispers, smirks, or another language. This is not a lanugage issue. It is clearly a coaching, discipline issue. Instead of dealing with the problem, they violate everyone´s civil rights by stopping their speech. Very poor management and it was also proven against the law.
Where was it proven against the law?? Nothing is stopping free speech, this is not a 1st Amendment issue. RD Drive-inn was following the EEOC guidelines, now EEOC is suing. RD's can't win for losing. RD is in the right, EEOC is wrong.
ReplyDeleteNone of these 3 scenarios have anything to do with free speech or the 1st Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe EEOC vs. RD's Drive-inn is still in proceedings, so is the Salvation Army case. Neither have been issued rulings yet. The previous ruling was in favor of the Salvation Army, although it was a different case. Still, none of this is pertinent to the 1st Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI think I have mentioned this before. My wife worked with some Hispanics. They were required to be able to speak Engish to gain employment there. The workplace rule was that one had to speak English while on the clock, breaks and lunches were the exception. There was a memo on their bulletin board about this. But one or more of the arrogant and defiant Hispanics tore it off the board because they didn't like the rule. They wanted to be able to speak in Spanish on the clock or whenever they wanted too even though they knew how to speak English. The company's management lacked the backbone to stand up to them. It created much divisiveness in that workplace among the employees.
ReplyDeleteLiquid,
ReplyDeleteHere is where you are missing it.
It is called "Implementation of the Law."
In each of these locations, local English Only laws were in force. Each of these business owners thought they were implementing the law.
That is the problem with these laws. Once these laws are passed, ordinary citizens, business owners, believe, often incorrectly, that their employees are NOT ALLOWED to speak any other language but English.
I would venture to say most ANTIs believe that if these laws are passed in their own communities, then no one is allowed to speak any other language and it is wholly within their rights to fire them.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem!
Case 1)
ReplyDeleteThe Kidmans (RD's Drive-In)therefore had to do something to solve the problem for their workers, nearly all of whom were Navajo. The Kidmans logged onto the website of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and read that it is legal for employers to require employees to speak English when there is a business reason to do so. The EEOC website also explained that the employer would have to inform its employees about the policy and warn them what would happen if they violated the policy.
The Kidmans therefore followed the EEOC's advice and posted a notice about RD's Drive-In's policy requiring employees to speak English while working, unless speaking to a customer who prefers to use another language. Four employees objected to the English policy and quit.
You are reading way to much into each of these cases that isn't even there. You are making things up as you go to conform to what you want. The Kidmans were following the outline of the EEOC when they implemented what they did. There was no 'ENGLISH ONLY' laws in place, you are dreaming. None of them thought they were implementing the LAW, they followed the EEOC guidelines and now are being sued by the EEOC.
Rep. Steven King was speaking in the House today on C-Span. He was talking about English as the official language of this country. He said that every nation on the face of this earth other than the U.S. has an official language. Some have more than one official language. Why should we be denied this? Since Mexico's official's language is Spanish, do anglo's or any other ethnic group down there feel they will be punished or threatened for speaking their native tongue? Nope! And neither will it happen here.
ReplyDeleteAs far as English only in the workplace as long as the employer is following the law and the employee is adhering to the rules, what is the problem? It doesn't matter what an employee perceives, if the employer isn't following the letter of law on it then they can be sued. No employer wants that.
dee again makes every lame excuse in the book not to allow Americans to claim their heritage, language, culture and the right to sovereign borders.
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteAs you said, the Kidmans were following "what they thought" was the law.
That is the problem with these laws. People apply their OWN interpretations and often they are wrong.
If they are wrong then they can be sued.
ReplyDeleteThey were following the EEOC Guidelines. The Guidelines are not the law, they provide oversight and coordination.
ReplyDeleteOther Discriminatory Practices
Title VII: A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.
RD's Drive-In believed the rule was necessary to prevent foul language being herd by patrons and for the discrimination of talking about others in a language that could not be understood by some of the same ethnicity. He posted according to the guidelines, the requirements. 2 employees didn't like it so they quit, later 2 more quit. Lawsuit takes place for discrimination, which is BS. The Kidmans should win this hands down. Again, this has nothing at all to do with the 1st Amendment at all.
These 3 cases are more a 'Civil Rights' lawsuits, they are not 1st Amendment rights lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteHere is the law as written.
ReplyDelete(k) (1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact
is established under this title only if-
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails
to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the
position in question and consistent with business necessity; or
(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in
subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and
the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.
(B) (i) With respect to demonstrating that a particular employment
practice causes a disparate impact as described in subparagraph (A)(i),
the complaining party shall demonstrate that each particular challenged
employment practice causes a disparate impact, except that if the
complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a
respondent's decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for
analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment
practice.
(ii) If the respondent demonstrates that a specific employment
practice does not cause the disparate impact, the respondent shall not be
required to demonstrate that such practice is required by business
necessity.
(C) The demonstration referred to by subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be
in accordance with the law as it existed on June 4, 1989, with respect to
the concept of ``alternative employment practice''.
(2) A demonstration that an employment practice is required by
business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of
intentional discrimination under this title.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a rule
barring the employment of an individual who currently and knowingly uses
or possesses a controlled substance, as defined in schedules I and II of
section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), other
than the use or possession of a drug taken under the supervision of a
licensed health care professional, or any other use or possession
authorized by the Controlled Substances Act [21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.]
or any other provision of Federal law, shall be considered an
unlawful employment practice under this title only if such rule is adopted
or applied with an intent to discriminate because of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.
(l) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in
connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for
employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff
scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(m) Except as otherwise provided in this title, an unlawful employment
practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any
employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the
practice.
(n) (1) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as
provided in paragraph (2), an employment practice that implements and is
within the scope of a litigated or consent judgment or order that resolves
a claim of employment discrimination under the Constitution or Federal
civil rights laws may not be challenged under the circumstances described
in subparagraph (B).
(B) A practice described in subparagraph (A) may not be challenged
in a claim under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws-
(i) by a person who, prior to the entry of the judgment or order
described in subparagraph (A), had-
(I) actual notice of the proposed judgment or order sufficient to
apprise such person that such judgment or order might adversely affect the
interests and legal rights of such person and that an opportunity was
available to present objections to such judgment or order by a future date
certain; and
(II) a reasonable opportunity to present objections to such
judgment or order; or
(ii) by a person whose interests were adequately represented by
another person who had previously challenged the judgment or order on the
same legal grounds and with a similar factual situation, unless there has
been an intervening change in law or fact.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to-
(A) alter the standards for intervention under rule 24 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or apply to the rights of parties who
have successfully intervened pursuant to such rule in the proceeding in
which the parties intervened;
(B) apply to the rights of parties to the action in which a
litigated or consent judgment or order was entered, or of members of a
class represented or sought to be represented in such action, or of
members of a group on whose behalf relief was sought in such action by the
Federal Government;
(C) prevent challenges to a litigated or consent judgment or order
on the ground that such judgment or order was obtained through collusion
or fraud, or is transparently invalid or was entered by a court lacking
subject matter jurisdiction; or
(D) authorize or permit the denial to any person of the due process
of law required by the Constitution.
(3) Any action not precluded under this subsection that challenges
an employment consent judgment or order described in paragraph (1) shall
be brought in the court, and if possible before the judge, that entered
such judgment or order. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude a
transfer of such action pursuant to section 1404 of title 28, United
States Code.
These cases you present are being tried under 'Civil Rights' violations of discrimination. See sections:
ReplyDelete(n) (1) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employment practice that implements and is within the scope of a litigated or consent judgment or order that resolves a claim of employment discrimination under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws may not be challenged under the circumstances described
in subparagraph (B).
(B) A practice described in subparagraph (A) may not be challenged in a claim under the Constitution or Federal civil rights laws-
It's not about free speech, rather discrimination based upon employment regulations.
Pat,
ReplyDeleteFrom wikipedia
A national language declared as such by legislation would be the same as an official language.
English IS our National Language!
No, it isn't the same thing dee. A national language just indicates what the dominant language is. It is the defacto language of a country. Official language goes much deeper in recognition on paper and enables us to stop having to print government documents in foreign languages. It is in comparison what our flag stands for in identifying our nation. It makes it official and an identifying part of our culture and heritage.
ReplyDeleteIf national and official were the same thing, then why is there legislation being considered in congress to change it from national to official?
By the way, Wikipedia gives two separate definitions for a "national" language and an "official" language. Your own source has hung you, dee.
ReplyDeleteYou miss the point Pat.
ReplyDeleteEnglish is our National language. It has been acknowledged and proclaimed as such in Congress.
I posted the earlier reference to help you understand while most countries have a National Language, many countries DO NOT enforce laws to proclaim their national language the "Official Language."
The problem with making laws to make English our "Official Language" are twofold:
1. Impose Restrictions
2. Cause Misunderstanding
Imposing Restrictions: the law itself will stop us (restrict in many cases) the publication of documents in other languages. I suspect the reason many on your side want to do this is specifically to impact the printing of documents in Spanish prior to the next Election. That is the reason for the big hurry.
Cause Misunderstanding: When these laws are enforced, many people misunderstand. Then they impose restrictive procedures, as occured when these laws were instituted in the locations for the 3 case studies. Businesses mis understand and impose confining and restrictive laws and in some cases fire people for speaking another language, even when it does not impact the job.
Liquid,
ReplyDeleteYou are misunderstanding my point.
When these laws are put in place, people, businesses, misinterpret the law and impose rules and discipline that violate the 1st Ammendment, Civil Rights Guidelines, EEO Guidelines. (all of the above)
There is no need to implement these restrictive (or perceived to be restrictive) "Official Language" laws and have all of this misunderstanding and negative impacts occur. National Language covers it.
English Only laws: Rob Toonkel, spokeswoman for US English, a group that promotes the use of the English language in government and that has helped several towns draw up ordinances to that effect, said such measures have nothing to do with racism.
ReplyDelete"Official English legislation as written has nothing to do with criticizing immigrants in any way," Toonkel told AFP. "What it says is 'you can't walk into a government office and demand service in a language other than English."
Many on the ANTI side say they agree with Toonkel and continue to say "English Only" laws will not impact our ability to speak other languages in public. Are they being honest? Or, in reality are these English Only laws actually trying to violate our 1st Ammendment, Freedom of Speech?
Here is the 1st Ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Question: "Do businesses have the right to require their employees to speak English Only when it does not impact the job itself?" Here are three Cases that say otherwise! What do you think? Will these laws, if enacted, limit Freedom of Speech?
Your question above asks: Will these laws, if enacted, limit Freedom of Speech?
There is no freedom of speech related to either the first or second case. They are civil rights discrimination issues, for which the Salvation Army won its first bout with and is now being tried again in a different way with new plaintiffs. RD's is the same thing. No laws were misinterpreted, they each followed the guidelines of the EEOC.
English only laws are for federal gov't and state gov't's. It would dhave nothing to do with the rest of us. You are still reading way to much into something that is very simple in form.
RD's drive-in didn't create the new policy for discriminatory reasons, they created it because of the patrons hearing dirty words in Navajo and for the sake of trying to maintain a good working environment for its employees. Had RD not done so then the other employees, the ones that were being talked about in Navajo, could have sued due to a hostile work environment. So you see, RD was caught in a catch 22, and preferred the stopping 2 acts at once by following the EEOC guidelines.
I didn't miss any point, dee. You were trying to claim that a national language is the same as an official one. It isn't true and I proved you wrong.
ReplyDeleteI never denied that English wasn't our national language but we want it to be our "official" language not just national.
You can stop playing mom in here again about you "helping me understand things". I am a grown man, knock it off!
I don't know what you mean that most countries don't enforce laws with an officlal language. What laws? Every country has an "official" language but us. It identifies on paper part of a nation's identity just as the flag does.
Why aren't all these other countries having a problem with having an official language? Is is a problem in Mexico, for example?
Most Americans have wanted to make English the "official" language of this country for years. Many states already have English as their "official" language. It has nothing to do with any upcoming elections. Only citizens can vote and an immigrant has to be able to speak English to gain citizenship. So your argument about needing ballots in Spanish or any other foreign language is moot.
So we shouldn't make laws because "some" people might misunderstand them? LOL! Boy you are really grasping at straws here, arent' you dee? Making English our official language has nothing to do with laws anyway.
Again you are lumping together the "English Only" rules at work with "English as the offical" language of this country. They are two different things and mean two different things.
Every country does not have one official language or even an official language at all. Most have a national language or two national languages.
ReplyDeleteThis is a list of COUNTRIES with official languages. Kind of blows your statement doesn’t it Dee.
ReplyDeleteOfficial languages of sovereign countries
There are 112 languages in this category.
Contents: Top - 0–9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Afrikaans:
• South Africa (with English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu)
• Namibia (with German, English and native languages)
Albanian:
• Republic of Albania
• Republic of Macedonia
• Montenegro (with Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian)
Amharic:
• Ethiopia
Arabic:
• Algeria
• Bahrain
• Chad (with French)
• Comoros (with French and Comorian)
• Djibouti (with French)
• Egypt
• Eritrea (with Tigrignan)
• Iraq (with Kurdish)
• Israel (with Hebrew)
• Jordan
• Kuwait
• Lebanon
• Libya
• Mauritania
• Morocco
• Oman
• Palestinian Authority
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
• Somalia (with Somali)
• Sudan
• Syria
• Tunisia
• United Arab Emirates
• Western Sahara
• Yemen
Armenian:
• Armenia
Assamese:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Assam
Aymara:
• Bolivia (with Spanish and Quechua)
• Peru (with Spanish and Quechua)
Azeri:
• Azerbaijan
Basque:
• Part of Spain (with Spanish)
Belarusian:
• Belarus (with Russian)
Bengali:
• Bangladesh
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Tripura
o West Bengal
Bislama:
• Vanuatu [1]
Bosnian:
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (with Croatian, Serbian)
• Montenegro (with Montenegrin, Serbian, Albanian and Croatian)
• Serbia (in the region of Sandjak)
Bulgarian:
• Bulgaria
Burmese:
• Myanmar
Catalan:
• Andorra
• Part of Spain (with Spanish)
Chinese (see also List of Chinese dialects):
• Republic of China in Taiwan (Mandarin is spoken, Traditional Chinese is written; Mandarin is designated as national language)
• People’s Republic of China (for most areas, Mandarin is spoken, Simplified Chinese is written)
o Hong Kong (Cantonese is spoken de facto , Traditional Chinese is written; co-official with English)
o Macau (Cantonese is spoken de facto , Traditional Chinese is written; co-official with Portuguese)
• Singapore (Mandarin is spoken, Simplified Chinese is written.) (With English, Malay and Tamil)
Croatian
• some municipalities in Austria (with German)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (with Bosnian, Serbian)
• Croatia
• part of Serbia
o Vojvodina (with Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovak and Ruthenian)
• Montenegro (with Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian and Albanian)
Czech:
• Czech Republic
Danish
• Denmark
o Faroe Islands (with Faroese)
o Greenland (with Kalaallisut)
Dari:
• Afghanistan (with Pashto)
Dhivehi:
• Maldives
Dutch:
• Belgium (with French and German)
• The Netherlands (with West Frisian)
o Aruba (with Papiamento) o Netherlands Antilles (with English and Papiamento)
• Suriname
Dzongkha:
• Bhutan
English (see also List of countries where English is an official language):
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Australia
• Bahamas
• Barbados
• Belize
• Botswana (but the national language is Tswana)
• Canada (federally, with French)
o New Brunswick (with French)
o Nova Scotia
o Nunavut (with French, Inuktitut, and Inuvialuktun)
o Northwest Territories (with Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, French, Gwichʼin, Inuktitut, and Slavey)
o Yukon (with French)
• Cameroon (with French)
• Dominica (with French creole)
• Fiji (with Bau Fijian and Hindustani)
• part of the People’s Republic of China
o Hong Kong (with Chinese)
• The Gambia
• Ghana
• Grenada (with French creole)
• Guyana
• India (with 22 other official languages)
• Republic of Ireland (with Irish)
• Jamaica
• Kenya (with Kiswahili)
• Kiribati
• Lesotho (with Sotho)
• Liberia
• Madagascar (with Malagasy and English)
• Malawi (with Chichewa)
• Malta (with Maltese)
• Mauritius (with French)
• Micronesia
• Namibia
• Netherlands Antilles (with Dutch and Papiamento)
• New Zealand (with Māori and New Zealand Sign Language)
• Nigeria
• Pakistan (with Urdu as the national language)
• Palau (with Palauan and Japanese)
• Papua New Guinea (with Tok Pisin and Motu)
• Philippines (with the national language Filipino)
• Rwanda (with French and Kinyarwanda)
• St. Kitts and Nevis
• St. Lucia (with French creole)
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines (with French creole)
• Samoa (with Samoan)
• Seychelles (with Creole, French)
• Sierra Leone
• Singapore (with Chinese, Malay, Tamil)
• Solomon Islands
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu)
• Swaziland (with Swati)
• Tonga
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Tuvalu
• Uganda (with Swahili since 2005)
• United Kingdom
• Vanuatu (with Bislama and French)
• Zambia
• Zimbabwe
Estonian:
• Estonia
Fijian
• Fiji (with English and Hindustani)
Filipino:
• Philippines (with English)
Finnish:
• Finland (with Swedish)
French (see also List of countries where French is an official language):
• Belgium (with Dutch and German)
• Benin
• Burkina Faso
• Burundi (with Kirundi)
• Cameroon (with English)
• Canada (with English)
o New Brunswick (with English)
o Nova Scotia (with English)
o Quebec
o Nunavut (with English, Inuktitut, and Inuvialuktun)
o Northwest Territories (with Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, English, Gwichʼin, Inuktitut, and Slavey)
o Yukon (with English)
• Central African Republic
• Chad (with Ara)
• Comoros (with Arabic and Comorian)
• Congo-Brazzaville
• Congo-Kinshasa
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Djibouti (with Arabic)
• Dominica (with English)
• Equatorial Guinea (with Spanish)
• France
o French Guyana
o French Polynesia
o French Loyalty Islands
o French Southern and Antarctic Lands
o Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean
o Guadeloupe
o Martinique
o Mayotte
o New Caledonia
o Réunion
o Saint Barthélemy
o Saint Martin
o Saint Pierre et Miquelon
o Wallis and Futuna
o (Adelie land)
o (Clipperton Island)
• Gabon
• Grenada (with English)
• Guernsey (with English)
• Guinea
• Haiti (with Haitian Creole)
• part of Italy
o the Aosta Valley (with Italian)
• Jersey (with English)
• Luxembourg (with German and Luxembourgish)
• Madagascar (with Malagasy and English)
• Mali
• Mauritius
• Monaco
• Niger
• Rwanda (with English and Kinyarwanda)
• Senegal
• Seychelles (with English)
• Saint Lucia (with English)
• Switzerland (with German, Italian, and Rhaeto-Romansch)
o Geneva
o Vaud
o Jura
o Neuchâtel
o Fribourg, Bern, Valais (with German)
• Togo
• Vanuatu (with Bislama and English)
Frisian (West):
• The Netherlands (with Dutch)
Gagauz:
• Moldova (with Moldovan, Russian and Ukrainian)
Georgian:
• Georgia
German:
• Austria
• Belgium (with Dutch and French)
• Germany
• Liechtenstein
• Luxembourg (with French and Luxembourgish)
• Italy
o Province of Bolzano-Bozen (together with Italian and Ladin)
• Switzerland (with French, Italian, and Rhaeto-Romansch) o 17 of the 26 cantons (monolingually German) o Graubünden (with Italian and Romansh) o Bern, Fribourg, Valais (with French)
Greek:
• Greece
• Cyprus (with Turkish)
Guaraní
• Paraguay (with Spanish)
Gujarati:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Dadra and Nagar Haveli
o Daman and Diu
o Gujarat
Haitian Creole:
• Haiti (with French)
Hebrew:
• Israel (with Arabic)
Hindi
• India (with 22 other official languages)
• Fiji (with English and Bau Fijian; known constitutionally as Hindustani as an umbrella term to cover Urdu, as well as Hindi.)
Hiri Motu:
• Papua New Guinea (with English and Tok Pisin)
Hungarian:
• Hungary
• part of Slovenia
• part of Serbia
o Vojvodina (with Croatian, Serbian, Romanian, Slovak and Ruthenian)
Icelandic:
• Iceland
Indonesian:
• Indonesia
Irish Gaelic is the national and first official language of:
• Ireland (with English)
Italian:
• Italy
• Switzerland (with German and French)
o Ticino o Graubünden (with German and Rhaeto-Romansh)
• San Marino
• Vatican City (with Latin)
• part of Croatia
o Istria county (with Croatian)
• part of Slovenia
o Izola, Koper and Piran municipalities (with Slovene)
Japanese:
• Japan (de facto)
• Part of Palau
o Angaur (with Angaur and English)
Kannada:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Karnataka
Kashmiri:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Jammu and Kashmir
Kazakh:
• Kazakhstan (with Russian)
• part of the People’s Republic of China
o Ili, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Barkol, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Mori, with Chinese (Mandarin)
Khmer:
• Cambodia
Korean:
• North Korea
• South Korea
• part of the People’s Republic of China
o Jahngbehk or “Changbai” and Yeonbyun or “Yanbian”, with Chinese (Mandarin)
Kurdish:
• Iraq (with Arabic)
Kyrgyz:
• Kyrgyzstan (with Russian)
• part of the People’s Republic of China
o Kizilsu (with Chinese (Mandarin))
Lao:
• Laos
Latin:
• Vatican City (with Italian)
Latvian:
• Latvia
Lithuanian:
• Lithuania
Luxembourgish:
• Luxembourg (with French and German)
Macedonian:
• Republic of Macedonia
• Republic of Albania
Malagasy:
• Madagascar (with French and English)
Malay:
• Malaysia
• Brunei
• Singapore (with English, Chinese and Tamil)
• Indonesia (Indonesian is Malay language with different name and a bit different word (vocabulary) choice in daily use)
Malayalam:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Kerala
o Pondicherry
o Lakshadweep
Maltese:
• Malta (with English)
o Kunsill Nazzjonali ta’ l-Ilsien Malti
o Akkademja tal-Malti
Māori:
• New Zealand (with English and New Zealand Sign Language)
Marathi:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Maharashtra
Moldovan
• Moldova (with Russian, Ukrainian and Gagauz)
Mongolian
• Mongolia
• part of the People’s Republic of China
o Inner Mongolia, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Haixi, with Tibetan and Chinese (Mandarin)
o Bortala, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Bayin’gholin, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Dorbod, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Qian Gorlos, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Harqin Left, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Fuxin, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Weichang, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Subei, with Chinese (Mandarin)
o Henan, with Chinese (Mandarin)
Montenegrin:
• Montenegro (with Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian)
Ndebele:
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu)
Nepali:
• Nepal
New Zealand Sign Language:
• New Zealand (alongside Māori and English)
Northern Sotho:
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu)
Norwegian:
• Norway (two official written forms - Bokmål and Nynorsk)
Oriya:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Orissa
Papiamento
• Aruba (with Dutch)
• Netherlands Antilles (with English and Dutch)
Pashto:
• Afghanistan (with Dari)
Persian:
• Iran
• Afghanistan (called Dari-Persian in Afghanistan) (with Pashto)
• Tajikistan (called Tajiki-Persian in Tajikistan)
Polish:
• Poland
Portuguese:
• Angola
• Brazil
• Cape Verde
• East Timor (with Tetum)
• Equatorial Guinea (since July 13, 2007) (with Spanish and French)
• Guinea-Bissau
• part of the People’s Republic of China
o Macau (with Chinese)
• Mozambique
• Portugal
• São Tomé and Príncipe
Punjabi:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Punjab
o Delhi
Quechua
• Bolivia (with Spanish and Aymara)
• Peru (with Spanish and Aymara)
Romanian:
• Romania
• part of Serbia
o Vojvodina (with Croatian, Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak and Ruthenian)
Rhaeto-Romansh:
• Switzerland (with German, French, and Italian)
o Graubünden (with German and Italian)
Russian:
• Russia (with regional sub-dialects)
• Belarus (with Belarusian)
• Kazakhstan (with Kazakh)
• Kyrgyzstan (with Kyrgyz)
• Moldova (with Moldovan, Ukrainian and Gagauz)
Sanskrit:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
Serbian:
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (with Bosnian, Croatian)
• Serbia
• Montenegro (with Montenegrin, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian)
Sindhi:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
Sinhala:
• Sri Lanka (with Tamil, and with English as a link language)
Slovak
• Slovakia
• part of Serbia
o Vojvodina (with Croatian, Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian and Ruthenian)
Slovene:
• Slovenia
• part of Italy
o Friuli-Venezia Giulia (with Italian)
• part of Austria
o Carinthia (with German)
Somali:
• Somalia
Sotho:
• Lesotho (with English)
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu)
Spanish:
• Argentina
• Bolivia (with Aymara and Quechua)
• Chile
• Colombia
• Costa Rica
• Cuba
• Dominican Republic
• Ecuador
• El Salvador
• Equatorial Guinea (with French and Portuguese)
• Guatemala
• Honduras
• Mexico
• Nicaragua
• Panama
• Paraguay (with Guaraní)
• Peru (with Quechua)
• Philippines (until 1973 and since 2008) (with Filipino and English)
• Puerto Rico (with English)
• Spain (Aranese, Basque, Catalan and Galician are co-official in some regions)
• Uruguay
• Venezuela
Swahili:
• Kenya (with English)
• Tanzania (de facto)
• Uganda (since 2005; with English)
Swati:
• Swaziland (with English)
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu)
Swedish:
• Sweden (de facto)
• Finland (with Finnish)
o Åland (monolingually Swedish) (an autonomous province under Finnish sovereignty)
Tajik:
• Tajikistan
• part of the People’s Republic of China
o Taxkorgan (with Chinese (Mandarin))
Tamil:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Pondicherry
o Tamil Nadu
• Singapore (with English, Chinese and Malay)
• Sri Lanka (with Sinhala, and with English as a link language)
Telugu:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Andhra Pradesh
o Pondicherry
Tetum:
• East Timor (with Portuguese)
Thai:
• Thailand
Tok Pisin:
• Papua New Guinea (with English and Motu)
Tsonga:
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu)
Tswana:
• Botswana (with English)
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Venda, Xhosa, Zulu)
Turkish:
• Turkey
• Cyprus (with Greek)
Turkmen:
• Turkmenistan
Ukrainian:
• Ukraine
• Moldova (with Moldovan, Russian and Gagauz)
Urdu:
• India (with 22 other official languages)
o Jammu and Kashmir
o Delhi
o Uttar Pradesh
• Pakistan (with English, Pothowari, Punjabi, Kashmiri (Koshur), Pashto, Sindhi, Siraiki, Balochi and Brahui)
• Fiji (with Englishand Bau Fijian; known constitutionally as Hindustani as an umbrella term to cover Urdu, as well as Hindi.)
Uzbek:
• Uzbekistan
Venda:
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Xhosa, Zulu)
Vietnamese:
• Vietnam
Welsh:
• United Kingdom (Wales) (with English)
Xhosa:
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Zulu)
Zulu:
• South Africa (with Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa)
Gosh Liquid, I guess you did not read my post.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I said:"Every country does not have ONE official language or even an official language at all. Most have a national language or two national languages."
Looks like your list confirms what I said.
Plus, I would be curious, of the ones with just ONE Official language, I wonder if there are actual LAWS on the books saying so and exactly what they say. Are they restrictive, such as the one you are proposing saying all govt docs have to be in the one language?
ReplyDeleteHmmmmm.. more research for you Liquid?
Dee says: "Every country does not have ONE official language or even an official language at all. Most have a national language or two national languages."
ReplyDeleteIts that 'or even an official language at all', where yo are wrong. Almost every country has an official language(s). The USA doesn't, however there are 27 states that have official English.
Theres those damned semantics again.
If you believe my list confirms what you have stated, boy aren't you confused. Comprehension is the key, Dee, comprehend the list.
CA has official English as law, yet DMV prints there tests in 8 languages. Where are the restrictions at that you are concerned with?? Nobody has proposed restrictions on anything by declaring official English for the USA. It would save the Gov't money by printing Federal Documents in English.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are missing Liquid is the interpretation of "Official Language."
ReplyDeleteEven by your list countries like Canada and England have multiple languages. Do you think they restrict the printing of government documents to one language? What about the 110 countries and territories you listed with multiple "Official" languages, most with much smaller land mass and India having 22 Official Languages? Do you think they use the same definition as you do about restricting how government documents are printed?
Admit it Liquid.
What your side is attempting to accomplish with this HUGE RUSH to pass Official English language is so you stop the printing of Election materials in Spanish before the next Election.
Isn´t this why the RNC (and Fox) is being so friendly to your side?
Spill it!!
You are wrong,dee. I was watching the House session on C-Span yesterday and Rep. Steve King said that every country on this planet has an "official" language except the U.S. Some countries have more than one "offical" language. I am sure you can google it and find out for yourself.
ReplyDeleteAre you purposely being dense here, dee? In order for an immigrant to become a citizen they must know how to speak English. So would any citizen or naturalized citizen need a ballot printed in their native tongue? I notice you only mention Spanish speakers, why is that?
ReplyDeleteThere is no "rush" all of a sudden to make English our official language. This bill has been kicking around congress for years. Most Americans have wanted it for years too but it keeps getting bucked by those ethnocentric politicians who are just like you.
I have no idea what having an "official" language means to other countries or whether not they only print government documents in the "official language or languages". What matters to me is that it would give English its proper place in this country's culture and heritage on paper and our federal government wouldn't have to print all their documents in other languages. A huge tax savings.
You forget Dee, I'm not a member of the RNC, I am a registered Democrat. Soon to go Independent if the Dem's don't come out for the working American Citizen the way they use to be.
ReplyDeletePat pretty much summed it up about Official English.
How is your side, Dee, the Hispanic Caucus??
House Democrats have an immigration problem on their hands.
Angry Hispanic lawmakers enraged party leaders Friday morning by staging a procedural protest on the floor against English-only requirements added to a spending bill last night.
These same Hispanic Democrats wanted to show their leaders that they are upset about the party’s perceived shift in support of enforcement-only immigration standards.
Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus voted against a measure to consider a much-anticipated tax measure Friday in a direct rebuke of party leaders.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) took extreme exception with the manner of their protest, berating their Democratic colleagues on the House floor during the vote.
A visibly frustrated Pelosi admonished her rank-and-file that their votes would be a big embarrassment for the party in power because it would prevent leaders from bringing much-anticipated legislation to the floor saving most middle-class taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax this year.
This is against me personally, she complained, according to lawmakers present.
Hoyer shouted down CHC Chairman Joe Baca (D-Calif.), one member present said afterward. But Baca did not back down, telling the Democratic leader that Hispanic lawmakers would continue to protest until he and other leaders realized how angry members have become.
Pat,
ReplyDeleteI did.
Steve King is Wrong!
Ask Liquid!
Don't even try it Dee, I already showed the wiki official languages of countries. Some do have more than one, some have only one. The USA has 0, zero, zilch, nadda. Official English is warranted in the USA, nothing less than any other country on the face of this planet. Don't blame us for your lack of comprehending such information on your own references.
ReplyDeletePat,
ReplyDeleteYou are funny.
You advocate every other country has an Official Language, so therefore, so should we. Then you say “I have no idea what having an "official" language means to other countries or whether not they only print government documents in the "official language or languages".
Unbelievable!
(Nevermind my logical question, if you don´t know what “official language” means to other countries, why on earth would you advocate we have it because they do.)
Et Tu Liquid?
ReplyDeleteThe majority of countries and territories you listed had MULTIPLE "official languages" and most of these countries had DIFFERENT interpretations of what "Official Language" means plus they DO NOT restrict the use of forms, plus most are much smaller land mass than here.
So what on earth is the point of listing them???????
Official English doesn't mean "English only." None of the 30 states with official English laws prohibit government agencies from using another languages when there is a compelling public interest for doing so. These include: protecting public health and safety, assuring equality before the law, promoting tourism, teaching foreign languages, providing for national defense, and many other legitimate, common sense needs.
ReplyDeleteHaving English as our official language simply means that for the government to act officially, it must communicate in English. It means the language of record is the English language, and that no one has a right to demand government services in any other language.
Official English would also reinforce America's historic message to new immigrants - that we expect them to learn English as the first step in their assimilation -- and that we are committed to ensuring that all Americans share in the economic, social and political benefits of having a common language.
I will reiterate,
ReplyDeleteEnglish is the NATIONAL language of the USA and it has been officially recognized as such in Congress. This is similar to the admonish of "Official" language in other countries.
England has 2 official languages.
Canada has 2 official languages.
Are you advocating that we also have 2 official languages in our USA?
I doubt it.
Your whole ploy is to try to restrict the 2008 Election ballots from being printed in Spanish. We know your agenda!
If they are American Citizens, then they should already be fluent in English, so why would we need to have ballots printed in any other language??
ReplyDeleteIn order to become a citizen, one must be fluent in the English language, otherwise they are not citizens, and according to your need for Spanish ballots, that would imply that 'Illegals' could/may vote. We both know that that is 'Illegal' in itself, so you wouldn't be advocating for felonies for 'Illegal Immigrants' would you now, Dee??
ReplyDeletedee, I am not advocating that we have and official language just because other countries do. That isn't my reason for it. I already told you what those reasons are. I was just pointing out that there is no reason that we shouldn't because every country has one except us. Don't twist my words.
ReplyDeleteSo what that I don't know what having an official language means to other countries as far as printing government documents in only their official languages. What has that to do with what it will mean to US? I know what it will mean to us and that is all that matters.
You come up with some of lamest arguments I have ever heard.
Liquid,
ReplyDeletePlease answer my question. I did ask it first.
Do you want to RESTRICT having Ballots printed in Spanish for the 2008 Election?
Please answer my question.
I believe that since only American Citizens can vote in Federal elections, and that in order to become an American Citizen you must show fluency in the English Language, that yes, all ballots in regards to Federal votes should be printed in English.
ReplyDelete1996: Los Angeles County reports costs of $1.1 million to provide language assistance in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, and Tagalog at more than 5,600 polling places.
ReplyDeleteThats just one county in California, there are a total of 58 counties in the state. Total savings could be $58.6M per election. Elections happen 2 - 5 times per year.
dee, you can reiterate all you want but even though our national language is English it still doesn't make it our "official" language. As long as it remains only our national language, we have to continue to print government documents in several languages. Americans have enough trouble making ends meet these days partly because of our excessive taxes. We should trim the fat where we can.
ReplyDeleteEnglish is the defacto language of this country. Let us honor it by making it our "official" language.
I will also reiterate here. In order to become a citizen of this country one has to be able to speak and understand English. Since only citizens can vote, there should be no need to have voting ballots in any other language other than English.
Liquid
ReplyDeleteI am glad you finally admitted the reason for the rush to "Official English" is to stop the printing of election materials in Spanish and other languages before the 2008 election. I knew that was your agenda.
BTW, my guess, your candidate is Thompson, right?
dee has a reading comprehension problem again. I stated myself that there has been a bill in congress kicking around for years to make English our official langauge. Most Americans like myself and probably liquid have wanted this legislation to pass for years. There is no "rush" all of a sudden.
ReplyDeletedee, why do you keep ignoring both of our statements that since immigrants have to be able to speak English to become citizens and only citizens can vote, there isn't a need for ballots in Spanish anyway. So why would some so-called "rush" to make English our official language come into play here? Stop ignoring the questions, dee. By doing so you are showing your ignorance.
Pat, Pat,
ReplyDeleteIf you read through the comments, you see Liquid listed a number of countries with Official language suggesting if they have it so should we. However, I responded many, many of those countries have more 2 or more official language and they do not restrict the printing of other languages as your bills states. So referencing them is a moot point. Therefore I asked and Liquid acknowledged the reason is to limit election materials in any other language. At least Liquid acknowledges this.
Are you clear on this now?
Regarding your specific question, why should we publish election materials in other languages.
ReplyDeleteFirst, know and understand only citizens can vote. They have to show proper ID and they have to register. This is the law. This is what I support.
As I have stated on countless occassions, it takes a generation to fully assimilate. I also know English is our national language, but I think it is good to be bi-lingual.
Therefore we have numerous legal citizens who can vote who may have a mastery in another language. We want knowledgeable voters to understand who and how they are voting. I think it is a plus to have these documents in multiple languages if they are requested as such.
The VRA act was passed in July by Pres. Bush. If you don't know what it is, look it up. It was passed for the next 25 years. My wanting ballots in only English is not what the Official English is about. I have told you before Dee, I am a registered Democrat, why would I vote for Thompson? Official English can go back as far as the '20's for trying to pass through Congress.
ReplyDeleteI listed the other countries in regards to your statements of, every country doesn't have an official language, to show that the majority of them do have official language(s). Don't read to much into my answers to your accusations, they are just pointing to the information you are denying.
The VRA was actually passed in 1965, dear Liquid and Bush signed a 25 year extension in 2006.
ReplyDeleteI know you said you are a registered Democrat. So who are you supporting for Prez in 2008. I didn´t see anyone on the list you would support based on your views here. Dodd? Kucinish? Biden?
I thought some degree of fluency in English was a requirement for naturalization. Is that wrong?
ReplyDeleteIf it is correct, then the answer is fairly simple. Make the naturalization test more stringent so that no one can pass it unless they are truly fluent. If they have met other requirements for legal immigration and permanent residency, they may continue to enjoy whatever privileges and rights that status grants them but unless and until they are fluent in English the right to be naturalized and vote should be withheld.
Bi-lingualism for the many is a waste of time and money. For the few who work in international commerce multi-lingualism may be necessary or desirable. I found that even in European countries where several different borders are just a few minutes away by auto, the knowledge of foreign languages learned in school soon disappears after graduation unless they have a job that requires that knowledge. Otherwise, many are just like U.S. citizens who travel mostly internally and who, if they travel abroad, use phrase books and whatever other knowledge they might have acquired but otherwise depend on proprietors to know enough English to be able to sell their products and services.
I had a smattering of Spanish and German in schools and had no trouble ordering food and getting a room anywhere I went, even in Poland. What does this experience tell us? First, if the world accepts English as the commercial or trade language, why would we want to do anything to weaken that system which enables us to communicate with others from a multitude of other countries? Second, instead of going the bi-lingual route, we should be moving to strengthen the English language. In fact that is what is called for in one of the bills introduced in the congress.
Bi-lingualism would be a bad mistake, another step toward disunity in our multi-cultural society. To hold this country together we need to be moving in the opposite direction.
I told you in the other thread, I am writing my name in on the other line. None of the choices, either Dem or Rep, have I heard anything that pertains enough to what I want. They all pander instead of standing firm in what they believe, and none have given enough of a path forward on anything as of yet.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't my 3rd sentence state that it was passed for 25 additional years?? I am fully aware of the VRA act. The better word would have been the Bush Re-authorized the VRA for an additional 25 years.
ReplyDeleteUlty, I agree that English is our National Language and all citizens should master it. We are in total agreement. What I disagree with is any exclusionary laws prohibiting the printing of information in other languages. The process we have now works.
ReplyDeleteLiquid, When you said you were writing your name in, I thought you were kidding. I also thought Pat was kidding when he said he would vote for you too.
ReplyDeletePS: Sorry. You won´t win. (yikes)
How do you know I won't win?? I have until Nov. '08 to campaign before you vote. How do you know that I don't have a following of supporters?? If I should win maybe you can work in the White House, cleaning dishes. (HAHAHAHAHAHA).
ReplyDeletePresident Liquid!! I like the ring to that.
Convince me Liquid.
ReplyDeleteI like you.
If you can convince me, maybe you can win!
No dee, I am not clear on what you are trying to imply here. Again, since immigrants have to be able to speak and understand English to become a citizen, there is no reason to print ballots in any other language other than English. You just keep side stepping that fact. You refuse to discuss it or acknowledge it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the official language bill, you give me one good reason why we shouldn't make English our official language and don't give me any " but what ifs either". I have already given you the reasons why we should make it our offical language.
Frosty Wooldridge is a Michigan State University graduate 1970, BA, Journalism/Advertising; Grand Valley State University graduate 1973, English with teaching certificate; served as a U.S. Army Medical Service Corps officer during Vietnam.
ReplyDeleteFrosty worked as a college guidance counselor for six years before taking up a career teaching in math and science. Along his journey, he became an 18-wheeler truck driver, bartender, dance teacher, ski instructor for the handicapped, freelance writer, cardiac catheterization technician, heavy equipment trainer, volunteer inner city teacher, public speaker, personal trainer and lifestyle coach. He created a drug/alcohol prevention program "Alcohol, Drugs, and Unique Alternatives" that he presented to hundreds of schools across the nation.
He has created an environmental program, "Closing Fast - a Global Environmental Crisis - and what you can do about it". Frosty is currently working on three books: "Incursion into America: How Immigration Adversely Affects American Citizens," "Zero Visibility: a Blind Man's Quest for the Summit of Everest", a 90,000 word non fiction account by Pasquale Scaturro, the man who organized and led blind climber Eric Weihenmayer to the top of Everest, and "When Your Father Left Too Soon," an 80,000 word non-fiction account of men, who between the ages of 8 and 18, have lost their fathers to an early death.
Frosty Wooldridge has been a guest lecturer at Cornell University, a teacher of creative writing workshops, a magazine writer at Michigan State University, and has presented environmental science lectures at the University of Colorado, University of Denver and Regis University. He also lectures on "Religion and Ethics" at Front Range College in Colorado."
Perhaps Dee would be willing to share with us her credentials as a a critic of Wooldridge's jounalism expertise. What is her degree? What are her achievements and experience that enable her to speak from other than the bias of Mexican-American who even at this late date is not fully invested in the U.S.? What are her publications? How can she explain her lack of objectivity and myopia?
Ultima, good accouting of Wooldbridge's credentials but I think you posted it under the wrong topic. It should be under the the prior topic.
ReplyDelete