Making English the Official Language

[John]

I'm trying to do some research, for a short paper, on the debate over making English the official language in the US. Does anybody here know of any sources I can use for this?

[aleph_0]

As always, Wikipedia is a good start. If you want hard objects to reference, which naturally you should, you can always look at their citations and references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_United_States

For what it's worth, I like what it implies to have no official language: Here you can do whatever you like, speak with whatever language, bring whatever cultural identity. Bring your knowledge and resources from around the world, use what works, throw away what doesn't, and exchange with everybody else who does the same. Having no official langauges is one of the things I'm proud of America for.

[aleph_0]

Also, I ran a quick search on Jstor and found that most academic publications refer to this as the "official-English" controversy. I found several articles--do you have access to Jstor? Is this a college or high school paper?

[DavidOdden]

Here is a propaganda book that you might look at: Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy. University of Chicago Press. Although it should not generally be necessary for there to be an official language, as it turns out thanks to the perverse way that the law works, some kind of safeguards are necessary to protect individual rights, thus the need for an official language. The two issues are taxpayer-supported entitlements, and limits on the freedom of businesses. The reasoning goes like this: if you have the right to speak Spanish or Hmong (which seems reasonable), then you have the right to be provided with a free education in Hmong, a ballot in Hmong, any form of "public information" in Hmong, and when pulled over by the cops, to be Mirandicized in Hmong. In addition, your right to speak Hmong means that your employer has no right to require you to speak English on the job, and if you put up a sign in your bar that says "For service, please speak English", you can be fined or sued (for restricting the rights of non-English speakers to speak non-English).

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I do believe that the federal government in the US should use only English (perhaps Spanish in Puerto Rico). Anything else should be left up to the respective parties involved. And if it cuts too many people off from too many government "services" then, as I believe David Odden was trying to point out indirectly, that may be an indication that there are too many government "services"

[John]

Thank you, everyone, for you responses. The paper is for writing 101 at UMUC. For now, it only has to be 1,000 words, but later in the class it has to be upgraded to 2,000. The problem with the question I picked is, I have to argue for or against amending the constitution to make English the official language. It's a decision between forcing people to learn a new language before receiving government services or forcing the tax payer to pay for the added expenses of a multilingual government. Yet, I'm not sure if a private business would be able to refuse non-English-speaking customers if English was the official language. I'm going to look up the proposed amendment and read what it says. Thanks again.

[Tenure]

I'm confused John - why are the people being elected to office in the United States not expected to speak the language of the law?

[D'kian]

It's a decision between forcing people to learn a new language before receiving government services or forcing the tax payer to pay for the added expenses of a multilingual government.

This is a false dichotomy, meaning there are many more choices than those even if you confine government services to mean the morally justified functions of government. Suppose you only speak Mandarin, then surely there are other Mandarin speakers in your community who'd be willing to help you fill out forms and such, or some would provide such services for a fee.

BTW, the US government does provide visa forms in Spanish in the US Embassy in Mexico. The personnel that receives the applications and conducts interviews also speak Spanish. Tourists aren't required to knwo English in roder to be allowed to visit America.

Yet, I'm not sure if a private business would be able to refuse non-English-speaking customers if English was the official language.

Of course he could. he could also if English wasn't the official language. Again say you speak only Mandarin and come to my store to buy something. I'll try by sign language and much pointing to figure out what you want and how to charge you for it, but if that means neglecting 10 other customers in the meantime I'll likely ignore you. Even if the store is empty at the time, if I can't figure out what you want, then what am I supposed to do?

[John]

This is a false dichotomy, meaning there are many more choices than those even if you confine government services to mean the morally justified functions of government. Suppose you only speak Mandarin, then surely there are other Mandarin speakers in your community who'd be willing to help you fill out forms and such, or some would provide such services for a fee.

BTW, the US government does provide visa forms in Spanish in the US Embassy in Mexico. The personnel that receives the applications and conducts interviews also speak Spanish. Tourists aren't required to knwo English in roder to be allowed to visit America.

Of course he could. he could also if English wasn't the official language. Again say you speak only Mandarin and come to my store to buy something. I'll try by sign language and much pointing to figure out what you want and how to charge you for it, but if that means neglecting 10 other customers in the meantime I'll likely ignore you. Even if the store is empty at the time, if I can't figure out what you want, then what am I supposed to do?

I think I understand what you are saying, so maybe I should clarify what I meant. First our government is required to provide services in foreign languages (EO13166), and money is already being spent in this regard. If English becomes the official language the US is passing the expense of translation to those who don't speak English. I believe, for writing this paper, I have to decide between supporting one of these arguments. As far as a businessman is concern, EO13166 may be used to accuse him of discrimination based on language. At least, that is what I gathered from the website.

[D'kian]

If English becomes the official language the US is passing the expense of translation to those who don't speak English.

I see nothing wrong with that. As it is most government services consist of undeserved benefits, it isn't too much to ask that recipients be able to ask for them.

As far as a businessman is concern, EO13166 may be used to accuse him of discrimination based on language. At least, that is what I gathered from the website.

It may be. But that is ridiculous. Places like Disney World or the Las Vegas resort hotels can afford to have people on staff who can handle several languages. Requiring this of a corner shop simply doesn't make sense.

[eriatarka]

I do believe that the federal government in the US should use only English

Which English? English English? American English? Glaswegian English? If you want the government to have an 'official' language then this seems to necessitate the creation of an agency which controls/standardises the language and determines what counts as 'correct' English, much like the French/Germans have for their language. And this strikes me as being an inherently bad idea which is contrary to the nature of human languages (and certainly oversteps the proper role of government).

I dont really see whats wrong with the current system, or why some kind of 'government official English' doctrine would be useful.

It's a decision between forcing people to learn a new language before receiving government services or forcing the tax payer to pay for the added expenses of a multilingual governmen

The cost of translating important laws into Spanish/etc is trivial compared to the rest of the Federal budget. If spending about 0.000001% of the budget on translation prevents large parts of the country from being alienated from their elected officials then its a good use of money.

As far as a businessman is concern, EO13166 may be used to accuse him of discrimination based on language. At least, that is what I gathered from the website.

Here is the act: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.htm

Nothing in it sounds like it applies to private businesses which aren't receiving federal funding. Private entities obviously shouldn't be forced to provide services in non-English languages (although it would often be in their interest to do so), but there doesnt seem to be any law currently mandating them to do this anyway.

Edited October 10, 2008 by eriatarka

[Capitalism Forever]

As it is most government services consist of undeserved benefits, it isn't too much to ask that recipients be able to ask for them.

Well, the idea behind benefits is to reward people for not having abilities, so the ultimate benefit would be a dole to those who can't even do as much as ask for it!

[D'kian]

Well, the idea behind benefits is to reward people for not having abilities, so the ultimate benefit would be a dole to those who can't even do as much as ask for it!

Then you should be able to sue the government because it dind't divine your needs. And all the lawyers because none of them filed suit on your behalf without being told

[DavidOdden]

Which English? English English? American English? Glaswegian English?

American English, obviously; your question is a red herring, because we have no problem with a bunch of Geordies demanding that people speak their "language" to them.

If you want the government to have an 'official' language then this seems to necessitate the creation of an agency which controls/standardises the language and determines what counts as 'correct' English, much like the French/Germans have for their language.

That's completely false. There's no question as to what "English" is. Surely you have the ability to distinguish English from Spanish, Hmong or Somali. The proposal is not that people be required to speak according to a legislated standard, it is that for official purposes, the language we speak in America is in fact English. These proposed laws / amendments does not require you to speak English, they simply limit your ability to make claims against the public pocketbook because you feel like avoiding the nuisance of learning the language spoken here.

I dont really see whats wrong with the current system, or why some kind of 'government official English' doctrine would be useful.

It's necessary to give a legal foundation to limits on the ever-expanding welfare state and to protect the rights of individuals (the rights of businesses).

The cost of translating important laws into Spanish/etc is trivial compared to the rest of the Federal budget. If spending about 0.000001% of the budget on translation prevents large parts of the country from being alienated from their elected officials then its a good use of money.

This kind of reasoning -- "if it makes someone happy, then rights be damned!" is fundamentally evil. At what point do you decide that a man actually has the right to live for his own sake, that he need not be a sacrificial animal?

[eriatarka]

This kind of reasoning -- "if it makes someone happy, then rights be damned!" is fundamentally evil. At what point do you decide that a man actually has the right to live for his own sake, that he need not be a sacrificial animal?

No rights are being violated. Making sure that its laws are understandable the population is a necessary feature of rational government and if a significant minority of the country speaks language X this implies that it should be publishing things in language X.

It's necessary to give a legal foundation to limits on the ever-expanding welfare state and to protect the rights of individuals (the rights of businesses).

Having government decrees issued in Spanish has nothing to do with either the welfare state or the rights of private businesses, this is a total non-sequitur. Your first post in the thread is misleading because a) If we have to have state schools then theres no reason why there shouldnt be state schools which teach primarilly in Spanish rather than English and a move towards education vouchers would help facilitate this sort of thing anyway, and translating laws into Spanish would not prevent private companies from using only English for communication. Edited October 10, 2008 by eriatarka

[aleph_0]

So I want to be clear, here. Are we talking about proper government policy, as in an ideal political system, or are we talking about EO13166? Or are we talking about the proposed Constitutional ammendment?

If we're talking about proper government, then there should be no worry about the government offering all languages and restrictions on business practices--regardless of whether we have an official language or not.

[DavidOdden]

No rights are being violated.

Taxation is a violation of rights. Fining a business for disallowing use of a foreign language is a violation of rights. Rights are being violated massively.

[John]

So I want to be clear, here. Are we talking about proper government policy, as in an ideal political system, or are we talking about EO13166? Or are we talking about the proposed Constitutional ammendment?

If we're talking about proper government, then there should be no worry about the government offering all languages and restrictions on business practices--regardless of whether we have an official language or not.

I think it would be easier to talk about government as it is now. I mentioned EO13166 because the ammendment would squash it.

[eriatarka]

Taxation is a violation of rights. Fining a business for disallowing use of a foreign language is a violation of rights. Rights are being violated massively.

Noone has mentioned fining businesses for not using foreign languages except you, and its got nothing to do with any of my posts.

The funding for translation would presumably come from the same place that the funding for publishing the laws in English was coming from, wherever that was. Its a legitimate function of government, so no more 'rights-violating' than the funding of the legal system.

Edited October 11, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

Noone has mentioned fining businesses for not using foreign languages except you, and its got nothing to do with the discussion.

Given that this does happen, it has everything to do with the discussion.

The funding for translation would presumably come from the same place that the funding for publishing the laws in English was coming from, wherever that was. Its a legitimate function of government so no more 'rights-violating' than the funding of the legal system.

That's a specious argument. The cost of translation is astronomical, and to claim that somehow there is no significant cost associated with translating government documents or or classroom education into the hundreds of languages that we actually have to deal with is ignorance in extremis.

[eriatarka]

Given that this does happen, it has everything to do with the discussion.

But noone is advocating it, and its a completely separate issue from whether there should be an official language.

That's a specious argument. The cost of translation is astronomical, and to claim that somehow there is no significant cost associated with translating government documents or or classroom education into the hundreds of languages that we actually have to deal with is ignorance in extremis.

The cost of translation isnt 'astronomical' and you dont have to translate things into every known human language, only into languages where there a significant number of speakers. In most areas of the US that would probably just be English and Spanish, although government agencies in areas with large immigrant populations should use those languages too.

edit: Also I doubt there are laws in the US requring companies to use non-English languages so is there any evidence to support the claim that it does happen?

Edited October 11, 2008 by eriatarka

[DavidOdden]

But noone is advocating it, and its a completely separate issue from whether there should be an official language.

The fact that nobody here is advocating it has no bearing on the question. It happens and that motivates a change in the law to protect rights. A repeal of Title VI would help, alternatively an amendment to prevent the current practice of construing language-use requirements as "discrimination on basis of national origin".

The cost of translation isnt 'astronomical' and you dont have to translate things into every known human language, only into languages where there a significant number of speakers. In most areas of the US that would probably just be English and Spanish, although government agencies in areas with large immigrant populations should use those languages too.

You should do some actual research on bilingualism requirements in the US. There is no "significant numbers" requirement under the law.

[John]

I understand that Official-English would protect businessmen and limit government's expense. I think I can make a good argument for those but I'm stuck on how Official-English would not apply to a proper government. Wouldn't it make sense to use a common language?

I also think, the goal of the Official-English movement is to get everyone to speak English, not just in government, but in the daily life. The ammendment may be a stepping stone to regulations in business as well.