Blogging in Tongues Against English-only legislation

Anyone who believes that linguistic diversity is good has never worked in a hospital or emergency room. Trying to commute with people who are not really proficient in their own language and who cannot speak English leads to worse outcomes.

How can the U.S. funciton as a free and democratic country if people cannot communicate with each other.

And last, Why should my children and grandchildren have to learn Spanish in order to work in the U.S.?

I don't have a problem with having an official language. We have to have a common language in which everyone can communicate. For that reason, i also support efforts that encourage newcomers to learn English.
It ranges from annoying to alarming when people on whom you are dependent for vital information can not speak English well enough to be understood., or who can't even understand the question.

This law does appear to be too draconian, however. It seems to overshoot the goal of having a commong language into the range of making the necessities of survival here inaccessible to newcomers.
Whether English is required for employment, for example, should depend on the job, it seems to me.

It's possible to overshoot in the other direction, too. Making it too easy to get along in every situation without English removes the newcomer's share of responsibility in his adjustment.

On a personal note, my mother never learned to speak English properly (too shy), but my father and I aided and abetted by always being there to translate. Thinking back about how this limited her life, I'm wondering if we overshot as well.

Super -

Do you currently feel that the US is not operating as a free and Democratic country?

Runasim - Reading into your comment a bit, I hope you don't mind that I'm adding some info which I think you might find persuasive: In Ohio, as in other states, there is no actual danger of English not being used as prescribed in the bill. It IS already in use as prescribed in the bill. Likewise, there are so many exceptions as to make the bill completely unnecessary, because it basically echoes exactly what's in practice.

The only purpose the bill is serving is political. This post does a good job of describing the Ohio situation. I suspect that in many states, it's the same thing going on.

That is a big reason for the objections: the anti-immigrant message it sends and its completely political nature.

JMZ-
Thanks. On using the link the first time, I had trouble following the requirements and exceptions relaitonship. Foggy brain on my part.
Second readings do help.

The English language is in no danger. In fact, our nation once had speakers of at least a couple hundred languages and almost all of them are gone now with the language's former speakers all being English speakers now. There are very few exceptions to this. Navajo is a fairly robust language still. Ignoring the almost gone native languages, the Chinese immigrants of the 19th century almost universally spoke English after about two generations. The former French speakers of Louisiana all speak English. Almost all of the Italian speakers in the East Coast, such as NY, speak English. Virtually all of the German speakers who moved to the midwest speak English. All of the Wolof and Hausa speakers (these are west African languages) now speak English. All of this happened without there being an official language policy.

The point is that English is the single most dominant language throughout the world and it remains entirely dominant in the U.S. I have heard of virtually no child who was an English speaker drop English to become a Spanish speaker in the U.S. The opposite happens in the hundreds of thousands all over this nation. My son's day care is packed with little children who respond to their parent's non-English question with an English answer. Almost every single position of prestige and power in this nation requires not just an ability to speak English, but an ability to speak a certain standard dialect of English.

All of this is already the case without the U.S. ever having an official language. The key to having a common tongue is having all children welcomed and participating in the society of the common language. Every action we take to keep migrants apart from the society at large retards the natural inclination of children to learn the language of their peers. An official language policy in the end does little other than say we don't like your language - officially.

What a great comment, pacatrue! Thank you.

And FYI, Karen Tumulty at TIMEs Swampland calls it, "an ingenuous protest."

And BuzzFlash did a lengthy piece too:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/358

Pacatrue,

Comparisons to 100 years ago are not applicable. The U.S. put a stop to lage scale immigration for forty years and thus immigrants where encouraged to integrate. The Germans gave up the langauge duirng WWI to show that they were really Americans. The Italians did the same during World War II.

However, these days, with cell phones, DVD, and satellite television, it is much easier for immigrants to maintain their own langauge. Decades of unlimited immigration have create large aeras where only Spanish is used. Unless you can speak Spanish, you cannot get a job in El Paso, Miami, Harlingen, Laredo, etc. As immigrants are encouraged for political reasons to remain isolated and with unlimited immigration, many more cities will become defacto Spanish speaking cities.

There are also the enclaves of Korean, Tagalog, and now arabic speakers who have large enough support groups that they do not bother to learn English.

If Hispanic immigrants cannot be expected to learn English to live in the U.S., then why can the government expect American born whites to learn Spanish in order to deal with the illegal immigrants?

Superdestroyer, you wrote, "If Hispanic immigrants cannot be expected to learn English to live in the U.S., then why can the government expect American born whites to learn Spanish in order to deal with the illegal immigrants?"

The decision, motivation to learn or not learn comes from within, not from the government. There have always been enclaves as you call them and there always will be.

What you haven't said, or aren't saying or are avoiding saying is whether you think such things are bad or good - I'm inferring that you think they're bad. I disagree.

Am I reading your writing correctly?