English as the US official language?

[slamdunkpro]

Should we borrow a page from the Canadian playbook and declare English our official language?

This would mean:

A: Anyone applying for naturalization or permanent residence (green card) must be proficient in both written and spoken English
B: All signs and advertisements must be in English and be the first and largest lettering.
C: All Government sponsored education must be in English

I know, the Canadians have French too because of Quebec’s political power , but that’s not the question.

[ptmusic]

This is an issue I lean to the right on. I don't completely agree with your c, though - for example, I think we need to keep ESL (English as a Second Language) and in some cases BiLingual education in place in our public schools. But the emphasis should be on moving students to an all English education as soon as possible.

-ptmusic

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we need to keep ESL (English as a Second Language) and in some cases BiLingual education in place in our public schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If anyone applying for naturalization or permanent residence (green card) must be proficient in both written and spoken English, why would we need bi-lingual education?

I can see English as a second language for Diplomat’s kids and visiting Military kids but that’s a very small group.

[lehighguy]

While I find value in the populace knowing many languages (the lack of this in the US is a detriment) it is clear that the cultural destabilization of huge chuncks of the population being unable to communicate with eachother is causing damage to our society.

However, we will never make english our official language because of the PC crowd.

[HtotheNootch]

[ QUOTE ]
While I find value in the populace knowing many languages (the lack of this in the US is a detriment) it is clear that the cultural destabilization of huge chuncks of the population being unable to communicate with eachother is causing damage to our society.

However, we will never make english our official language because of the PC crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's something that should have been done a long time ago, but the ship has sailed.

[mackthefork]

Hi

I like the idea of you US guys adopting English as your first language, my only concern is you all learn how to use it properly before you formally adopt it. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Mack

[Matty]

Should Native Americans be forced to learn English? How about Hawaiins? Who does it hurt to have state-sponsored education in the Hawaiin language in Hawaii?

[andyfox]

"Anyone applying for naturalization or permanent residence (green card) must be proficient in both written and spoken English"

-I'd be in favor of this if it applied to all citizen, not just those applying for naturalization or residence. It would probably cut the population by about two-thirds.

"All signs and advertisements must be in English and be the first and largest lettering."

-Wouldn't this be judged a violation of free speech?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this be judged a violation of free speech?

[/ QUOTE ]I'm amazed so many people jumped on the bandwagon of limiting freedoms without a good reason.

What benefit would these restrictive laws have? Considering how desperately dependent our economy is on immigration, how can anyone say the benefits outweigh the costs?

[lehighguy]

For the same reason it hurts that the Spanish kids at my mom's school can't speak English. They can't get into college, they can't get ahead, and they can't interact with anyone outside the community.

[Matty]

So wouldn't these proposed restrictions hurt them even more?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Should Native Americans be forced to learn English? How about Hawaiins?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is specious and irrelevant. Read what I wrote:

“Anyone applying for naturalization or permanent residence (green card) must be proficient in both written and spoken English”

American Indians (non-PC that I am) are already citizens.

[ QUOTE ]
Who does it hurt to have state-sponsored education in the Hawaiin language in Hawaii?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one – until they move out of Hawaii. I just don’t think the federal government should pay for it – It’s a State’s rights issue if the state wants to.

[IQ89]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"All signs and advertisements must be in English and be the first and largest lettering."

[/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't this be judged a violation of free speech?




[/ QUOTE ]


Asian American Business Group (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/asian.htm)

[coffeecrazy1]

I voted NO for that very reason, grey...and I'm a little surprised at lehigh, especially, being in favor of this. We can't make English the official language any more than we can make Christianity the official religion. In fact, I think that there's more of a Constitutional backing for this than the religion argument.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this be judged a violation of free speech?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if Roberts get on the Court /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Seriously – how could this be a free speech issue?

Nowhere did I imply you couldn’t talk or write in a foreign language, you just need to be proficient in English to gain permanent status or citizenship

[slamdunkpro]

Crap like this is [b]why we need Roberts on the SCOTUS[b]

[slamdunkpro]

I don't know - this bill has a shot.

http://www.us-english.org/inc/legislation/federal/hr997-2005.asp

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone applying for naturalization or permanent residence (green card) must be proficient in both written and spoken English

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who has done this it would help if the forms were written in something approaching understandable English.

[FishHooks]

I just knew this guy was going to object.

[FishHooks]

I agree. Also most immigrants are here illegally so we wouldn't have to worry about immigrants leaving and hurting the economy anyways. However if we do make english an official language then less immigrants will try to get legalized and just stay as illegal immigrants which would suck as well.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Should we borrow a page from the Canadian playbook and declare English our official language?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Let the market decide what language(s) are viable for commerce. Why should some bureaucrat get to tell you how to talk?

EDIT: note that the "market" isn't just restricted to *commercial* markets, but for the sake of discussion, it's unlikely that the state would try to regulate what language you spoke at home. Well, then again, it would be easier for the spooks to spy on your private conversations if everyone spoke english.

[andyfox]

Point "B" from your original post.

[andyfox]

"most immigrants are here illegally"

Anybody have any statistics on this?

[lehighguy]

No, they never learn English because they don't have too. If forced to they would, and then they could join the rest of society instead of being stuck in thier immigrant community.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Let the market decide what language(s) are viable for commerce. Why should some bureaucrat get to tell you how to talk?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would it be illegal for you to talk in another language? I think the point was for the gov't to require those who wish to become citizens to at least speak/read/write english. Who cares if they don't speak english after they become citizens, so long as they can understand/communicate in english?

I would object to the forcing of advertising to be in English (unless they were some kind of safety warnings, etc.)

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they never learn English because they don't have too. If forced to they would, and then they could join the rest of society instead of being stuck in thier immigrant community.

[/ QUOTE ]So the government should legislate what is best for them?

This forum is so confusing. Sometimes it's overwhelming for smaller government. Then something random like this comes up, and everyone jumps on the big government wagon, assuming they know enough to do the cost-benefit analysis within seconds in their head.

This is an overwhelmingly popular idea as per the polls, so why doesn't the government implement this? Could it be it's -EV? Could our gut reactions for once not be the best government policy?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would it be illegal for you to talk in another language? I think the point was for the gov't to require those who wish to become citizens to at least speak/read/write english. Who cares if they don't speak english after they become citizens, so long as they can understand/communicate in english?

I would object to the forcing of advertising to be in English (unless they were some kind of safety warnings, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The original post stated:

[ QUOTE ]

B: All signs and advertisements must be in English and be the first and largest lettering.
C: All Government sponsored education must be in English

[/ QUOTE ]

That's clearly imposing a certain approved form of speech.

Even in your restricted "official" status where english proficiency must only be demonstrated to get citizenship/residency/whatever status, it's obvious that the next step would be enforcement of the use of english... why have an official language if you're not going to enforce it's usage?

Note the bureaucratic bloat that follows... there must be a committee to decide what is "acceptable" english and what isn't. That's reason enough to oppose it, since one of English's great strengths is its ability to quickly adapt, absorb new words, and chage as "market" conditions require. Cf. French, with it's imposed, ridgid "purity" - and stagnation.

[BCPVP]

You said:
[ QUOTE ]
Why should some bureaucrat get to tell you how to talk?

[/ QUOTE ]
I responded by asking why this bill would "force" someone to talk in English.

[ QUOTE ]
it's obvious that the next step would be enforcement of the use of english... why have an official language if you're not going to enforce it's usage?

[/ QUOTE ]
Enforcement of this law would be not letting those who couldn't speak/write English in.

On a somewhat related note, I thought I read that it was already required that you be able to read and/or speak English, but it wasn't enforced much if at all. I could be wrong, though.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You said:
[ QUOTE ]
Why should some bureaucrat get to tell you how to talk?

[/ QUOTE ]
I responded by asking why this bill would "force" someone to talk in English.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which bill are you talking about??? The one that the original poster was proposing clearly WOULD force people to speak english, as it would require english in advertisements (this doesn't force EVERYONE to speak english 100% of the time, but it is still government imposing language) and also would require english in government funded schools (again, government imposition of language).

If you want to only require a check at the time citizenship is granted, why? What's the point if it's not required to be used afterwards? Just to make another arbitrary hoop to jump through? Why not require them to be able to demonstrate basic breakdancing abilities, or the ability to create fire with two sticks?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Which bill are you talking about??? The one that the original poster was proposing clearly WOULD force people to speak english, as it would require english in advertisements (this doesn't force EVERYONE to speak english 100% of the time, but it is still government imposing language) and also would require english in government funded schools (again, government imposition of language).

[/ QUOTE ]
My bad. You're right on this, and I've disagreed with the advertising restriction.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to only require a check at the time citizenship is granted, why? What's the point if it's not required to be used afterwards?

[/ QUOTE ]
Encourage integration and discourage the new immigrant from holing up in their community. This would also most likely ensure that the children of said immigrants also understand english. This would cut down on school budgets requiring ESL type stuff. The english in schools would most likely (in my ideal world) be a byproduct of the parents knowing English, not a requirement for entry.

To reiterate, I wouldn't fully support a bill like the OP's, but I would be open to making the comprehension of English a requirement for citizenship.

[lehighguy]

It's not legislating that they need to speak English in thier homes. Nor is legislating they need to change thier culture.

It is regulating that people need to learn to use the language spoken by the vast majority of the population and in which all major business is conducted.

Just as we assume new citizens must know about the principles of the declaration of independence, we should also require them to speak the national language. Just as we require students to be able to add and subtract in order to graduate high school.

Why does the government not implement it, they don't give a [censored] about the kids in my mom's school. They never have. They want votes, you get votes by pandering to the lower common denominator, not by advocating good governance.

No we shouldn't. This is not one of the roles that I believe the federal government should have. The states should feel free to adopt whatever official languages they want.

Why have all the Republicans turned into federal government lovers?

[coffeecrazy1]

Lehigh...I love ya...you and I are two of the staunchest Libertarian voices on here...but I need to say that you need to take a step back and look at the big picture. First, check the full implications of the OP's bill...there are some major things there(like the advertising and such). Second, how does this not hit the First Amendment? I agree that there should be cultural pressure to learn English as one's primary language here, but how can we justify legislating as such?

Again, I have the utmost respect for you, and we are almost always on the same page, but I think that you need to take a closer look at what we're really saying in this one.

[lehighguy]

An official english language doesn't mean we need to purge other languages. I'm sure as hell not about to listen to dubbed anime. But it does mean that OFFICIAL US government business will be conducted in English. IRS forms, school curriculums, etc.

I see no first amendment problems with this. There is absolutely no constitutional imperative forcing the US government to conduct its business in other languages. Is president Bush forced to give his speech in Spanish from time to time?

This wouldn't apply to the private market at all, as well it shouldn't. However, having US government business conducted in English and having English taught in schools, should provide sufficient motivation for immigrants to learn the language.

It doesn't even have to be thier primary form of communication, but they should be able to communicate with people who aren't Hispanic. Currently, you can find whole communities of immigrants were a lot of people don't know any English because they don't speak it. It's like tiny little countries within America. It isn't healthy for our democracy if we can't even speak to eachother. We have a hard enough time doing that when everyone speaks English.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It is regulating that people need to learn to use the language spoken by the vast majority of the population and in which all major business is conducted.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is authoritarian, central-planning thinking. Short sighted, anti-freedom.

[ACPlayer]

No.

If in 20-30 years Spanish is the preferred language in America, so be it.

Incidentally, I believe that at present all naturalized citizens are tested for a basic knowledge of english.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we need to keep ESL (English as a Second Language) and in some cases BiLingual education in place in our public schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If anyone applying for naturalization or permanent residence (green card) must be proficient in both written and spoken English, why would we need bi-lingual education?

I can see English as a second language for Diplomat’s kids and visiting Military kids but that’s a very small group.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are forgetting about all the current non-english speaking children (and adults). And you are forgetting about all the future illegal immigrants crossing our borders, as long as Bush and others on both sides of the aisle want to allow them in. I lean to the right on that issue too.

But you can't blame the immigrants themselves, and we are much better off educating the children than leaving them uneducated. Hence, the need for ESL and bilingual education.

Also, I read "b" too quickly - I'm for mandatory english on all government-funded signs, not privately owned signs.

-ptmusic

Of course we should. If you believe we should make the official language English then you should join the Paul Revere Society. Borders, Language, Culture.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
The one that the original poster was proposing clearly WOULD force people to speak english, as it would require english in advertisements (this doesn't force EVERYONE to speak english 100% of the time, but it is still government imposing language) and also would require english in government funded schools (again, government imposition of language).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh,,,,

That’s the whole point. Our nation is an English-speaking nation. Why shouldn’t we insist that if you want to live here you speak, read and write this country’s language. This doesn’t seem to be a problem in Canada, or in the Airline world where the official languages of the air are English, French and Japanese.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
This forum is so confusing. Sometimes it's overwhelming for smaller government. Then something random like this comes up, and everyone jumps on the big government wagon, assuming they know enough to do the cost-benefit analysis within seconds in their head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh please, you’re one of the most pro “big socialist government” types on this board. Yet in this instance you carp about “big brother”

[ QUOTE ]
This is an overwhelmingly popular idea as per the polls, so why doesn't the government implement this? Could it be it's -EV? Could our gut reactions for once not be the best government policy?

[/ QUOTE ]

January will be the first time that this bill has come up before a Republican majority in both houses of congress. It’s passed the house several times but has always been obstructed by the Dems in the Senate.

[lehighguy]

Making English the official language would not force advertisements to be in English. In fact, it would have no effect on the private market at all. They would not be bound by such restrictions.

However, all government forms and proceedings would be in English. If you couldn't read english you couldn't do your taxes.

When you do your taxes you use a base ten counting system. The government is not required to provide forms in base 5 because some people would prefer to use it. Nor should the government be required to provide forms in Spanish if it doesn't want too.

[lehighguy]

All US government business and forms are conducted in a base 10 numeric system. If someone requests and IRS form conducted in base 5, should it be provided?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s the whole point. Our nation is an English-speaking nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the US is already an "English-speaking nation" then why do you need a law?


[ QUOTE ]
Why shouldn’t we insist that if you want to live here you speak, read and write this country’s language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that's anti-freedom. You're just looking for an excuse to tell someone else what to do. Case closed.

[lehighguy]

No ones proposing that the US government forbid other languages. We are only purposing that official US government business is conducted in English.

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they never learn English because they don't have too. If forced to they would, and then they could join the rest of society instead of being stuck in thier immigrant community.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this affects you, how?

We've had immigrants coming in who didn't speak American English for a couple of centuries now and it's worked out fine.

Some enterprising first generation immigrants will learn to speak English (or more likely already speak it) and the rest who don't will live fairly simple lives not speaking English. Their children, however, will become fluent in both languages which will increase their future ability to contribute to the GNP.

It's not like this non-native language barrier become a major development overnight...Without trying to be PC this is just a thinly disguised anti-immingration argument. If you don't like our immigration policy, fine, call a spade a spade but haing a few non-English speaking citizens in America isn't really worth the time wasted on arguing about it.

IMHO Extending US government benefits to non-working immigrants is a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed as well as bringing in cheap foreign labor to fill hi-tech positions that they have not been trained properly for.

[lehighguy]

Not sure were you came up with those conclusions.

For one, I know second generation kids that go through the American school system and don't know English. It's pretty said, but when its possible to do EVERYTHING in spanish there is no pressing need to learn English so people just don't. This is the case with my mom's school in NYC.

What happens is they settle into these little countries within America. They can't communicate with anyone on the outside. It's not healthy for our society to not even be able to talk to eachother and live in these seperate little ethnic enclaves and not interact.

P.S. I don't think you'll find a bigger supporter of immigration on these boards. But that doesn't mean that there aren't issues associated with it that need to be dealt with.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
No ones proposing that the US government forbid other languages.

[/ QUOTE ]

But *requiring* one particular language is still imposing governmental dictates on the populace. Further, the original post applied to commerce as well as governmnetal business.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
For one, I know second generation kids that go through the American school system and don't know English. It's pretty said, but when its possible to do EVERYTHING in spanish there is no pressing need to learn English so people just don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this sad?

[ QUOTE ]
What happens is they settle into these little countries within America. They can't communicate with anyone on the outside.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh no, self-determination!

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
For one, I know second generation kids that go through the American school system and don't know English. It's pretty said, but when its possible to do EVERYTHING in spanish there is no pressing need to learn English so people just don't. This is the case with my mom's school in NYC.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this at all. I've lived in probably one of the most culturally diverse (sorry PC word) areas in the US (the SF Bay Area) and a second generation child not speaking English at fluent or near fluent levels would be a real rarity by grade 4 even if they didn't speak English at home at all.

[FishHooks]

Very nice post.

[lehighguy]

It's sad because it causes indefinate harm to those kids. You can't make it in this country without speaking english. Sure, you can get some [censored] minimum wage job in an immigrant community for the rest of your life, but I really think we are selling these kids short.

There is a difference between self determination and not being a part of a society at all. We all live togethor, we all need to be part of a society. Being able to communicate with eachother is essential.

If you want to see the effects of having completely seperate perpetually unintegrated immigrant communities look no farther then Europe. The problems France, Holland, Brittian, and others have from not dealing with the issue are vast.

We aren't treading on anyones rights by saying official government business has to be conducted in English. As I said in another post, the US government has the right to communicate in whatever medium it wants.

[lehighguy]

Come to the Ghettos in NYC.

Even the ones that do speak it very poorly. Not well enough to get into college or land a job.

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
What happens is they settle into these little countries within America. They can't communicate with anyone on the outside. It's not healthy for our society to not even be able to talk to eachother and live in these seperate little ethnic enclaves and not interact.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what seperates these little 'ethnic enclaves' from the rest of the suburbs?

People are always going to group around common areas and cultures. I'm not going to hang out on the rec.games.scrabble looking for poker advice.

[lehighguy]

As I said, we require people to use a base ten counting system. We do this because the government realizes the importance and practicality of clear communication amongst the populace.

I'm not OP, and if he asserts the authority should spill over into the private spheres I disagree.

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the ones that do speak it very poorly. Not well enough to get into college or land a job

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not just a NY thing...There are plenty of 5th or longer generation Americans that speak English poorly.

[lehighguy]

The difference is that you can talk to the guys in rec.games.scrabble. You can ask them thier opinions on taxes, foriegn policy, and constitutional issues. You can debate with them about what direction the country should take.

You can interact with them in the business world (having your lawn mowed is not interacting). You form ties that make it mutually beneficial for you to succeed. You can learn more about eachothers culture, what your different values are. You can learn to respect, appreciate, and understand eachother.

You can't do that if you can't even talk to eachother. You can't do it if one ethnic group is completely cut off from societal advancement because they can't speak the english well enough to get ahead.

In short, we are a society. Not a bunch of little individual dots in a big sea. We can't function completely independent of eachother. Just as we expect government to provide defense or a national currency, we expect it to provide other basic things, like a national language.

Yes, people of different ethnic group clump togethor. My Irish ancestors did, and while I still retain part of that culture, I've assimilated. At the very least assimilated enough to speak english. The Koreans in my high school all clumped togethor, especially freshmen year, but they eventually broke apart a little and became more american and interacted more with americans. This only happened because they spoke english well and were in a school/community where only half of the population was like them. They became citizens instead of temporary visitors.

The problems associated with completely ignoring immigrants communities and not trying to integrate or understand them can be clearly seen in Europe. There are issues associated with immigration that have to be dealt with, they can't be ignored. To do so only invites disaster and an inevitable backlash against immigrants.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's sad because it causes indefinate harm to those kids. You can't make it in this country without speaking english.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) So why only require it for immigrants?

2) Do you believe that kids cannot learn english if their parents don't teach them?

3) Should we outlaw laziness?


The bulk of your argument comes down to "the trouble with you is you're not like me."

[lehighguy]

1) Well I suppose natives that don't speak english would have a hard time as well. I just don't know a whole lot of them.

2) That's a big problem, especially in my moms school. However, government shouldn't have the right to regulate peoples private lives invasively. That would be going to far.

3) No, but we should stop rewarding those that are with other peoples money.

The trouble is we need some basic fabric holding us togethor. A national language merely makes it easier for us to communicate with eachother, just as a national currency helps us conduct commerce better. I'm argueing along the same lines as people who introduced the Euro.

Having the government make it an official language is the best way to do it. It is the least invasive, doesn't violate constitutional principles, and largely leaves people free to speak whatever language they want except when filling out government forms or speaking to government employees.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
3) No, but we should stop rewarding those that are with other peoples money.

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument there.

[ QUOTE ]
The trouble is we need some basic fabric holding us togethor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. If people want to associate, they can. Forcing a common culture is anti-freedom. See "russification."

[ QUOTE ]
A national language merely makes it easier for us to communicate with eachother, just as a national currency helps us conduct commerce better. I'm argueing along the same lines as people who introduced the Euro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of things can be done to make things easier, but that doesn't mean they should be done. Invasive surveiliance makes police work "easier" but isn't good for people.

Re: currency, a free market in money would select a common currency. We didn't need a multi-national bureaucracy for gold to become the standard currency back before governments went to fiat currencies in order to more efficiently rob the populace.

[lehighguy]

I understand your concern. I don't like the idea of forcing culture on people. It's my big pet peeve with republicans.

However, we all believe in some modest level of government intrustion in our lives. After all we've told it what it can't do ("Bill of Rights") and what it can do (maintain and army, run the judicial system, foriegn policy, etc.) People cede some of thier rights to the government because they believe it is beneficial to them to function in a civil society.

I believe in extremely minimal government involvement. I don't want to give up a lot of my rights. I don't think government should be able to regulate private use of language (that would violate the first amendment), but I do think having the government adopt a national language would achieve valuable benefits at our society at an extremely minimal cost. Just as allowing the government to enforce the rule of law yields valuable benefits at the expense of our ability to engage in vigilantism.

There is no right/wrong in political debate, just as there is no such thing as absolutist morality. There exist two forms of disagreement in politics:

1) Procedural
A minor disagreement over how to achieve an objective. Should we give direct welfare payments to people or foodstamps, which is the best way to achieve the objective. Totally boneheaded programs like farm subsidies fail this test as people realize how bad an idea it is over time.

2) Idealogical
A difference over the objectives of government, the power of government, and/or major disagreements over the methods of achieving an objective. Things like do we want a bigger pie or a more evenly divided pie.

Democrats or Republicans are not right or wrong. As Bill Clinton said at his library dedication, we're just two parties that believe in different ways of doing things and have different values.

Perhaps having an official government language is something you consider to invasive. I don't, for reasons I've listed. This is a difference of opinion. But I see no way to prove that one side is correct and the other isn't. Proof is impossible. As human beings we can only struggle to learn more through trial and error and the dichotomy of ideas as we attempt to form a more perfect union.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
However, we all believe in some modest level of government intrustion in our lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I don't. I "accept" government intrusion but I don't "believe in" it or think it's right.




[ QUOTE ]
There is no right/wrong in political debate, just as there is no such thing as absolutist morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. However, we CAN say for a fact that imposing an official language *is* a restriction of personal freedom.

In your proposed "restricted" official language system where only government business is required to be conducted in the offical language, you're still restricting people's freedom.

In the market, I can do business with vendors (and buyers) that speak my preferred language. Unfortunately, the "market" in government services is somewhat uncompetitive.

You claim that the government has a right to use the language that they want to (I'm not sure governments actually have rights, but we will allow it for this discussion) but what you don't mention is that people don't have any choice in goverments (assuming it's non-trivial to move from country to country).

Now, that said, the people we're talking about got here somehow. And it is unreasonable to expect the government to be able to conduct all of their activities in every language on earth at any given time. There's already a defacto official language for government forms. I don't see any need to add legislation. If you cant read the required forms, get someone who can. Government obviously has an incentive to provide forms in language that large numbers of people can comprehend, as it's counterproductive to imprison large percentages of the population for non-compliance. Just let it work itself out instead of imposing your desires on the system.

[Bulbarainey]

yes, except for puerto rico