TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Should the U.S. have an official language?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should the U.S. have an official language? - Page 6

post #151 of 173
5/8/11 at 1:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
No one has a right to force their neighbors to pay for a translator for them.
So you feel that any government service that is not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
Reply
post #152 of 173
5/8/11 at 1:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
So you feel that any government service that is not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
You are asking questions you have already heard answered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69
The populace can decide what social services it does and does not collectively want by popular vote.

And the people are well aware of the budget crisis that affects this nation and the debt that we are placing on our children, and cuts and changes for streamlining and efficiency must be made. The people want schools, roads, and firestations and understandably will not see them cut. But one of those changes is to make English the official language on a national level, freeing up by estimates $1.6 billion annually amongst other commercial and social benefits already cited for promoting learning English.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that outright addresses an Official Language, and in a representative government the popular will of the people is to be enacted into law. To do any less is taxation without representation, and we've seen how that worked out. Proud Tea Party supporter!
Reply
post #153 of 173
5/8/11 at 1:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
You are asking questions you have already heard answered:
Yes, but your answer was incorrect. Popular vote enacted into law that violates the Constitutional Rights of any citizen or groups of citizens will not stand. As far as there being anything "specific" in the Constitution, there doesn't have to be, remember. The 9th Amendment protects any fundamental rights not "enumerated". That means, "not specifically listed".

So, do you think any Government service not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
Reply
post #154 of 173
5/8/11 at 1:43am
Thread Starter 
9th amendment nonsense was already debunked by a federal judge explaining that it is merely an explanation of how to read the rest of the constitution. It does grant you a right to be fed swiss cheese hamburgers by large chested women on Thursdays, merely because it is not enumerated. Trust me, I asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
So, do you think any Government service not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
Government services should be funded according to the popular will of the people being governed. That is how a republic works.
Reply
post #155 of 173
5/8/11 at 3:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
9th amendment nonsense was already debunked by a federal judge explaining that it is merely an explanation of how to read the rest of the constitution. It does grant you a right to be fed swiss cheese hamburgers by large chested women on Thursdays, merely because it is not enumerated. Trust me, I asked.
Of course not, because that is not a fundamental right. And therein lies the difference. The fact that you consider portions of the Bill of Rights to be "nonsense" does in fact explain even more of your position.

Quote:
Government services should be funded according to the popular will of the people being governed. That is how a republic works.
Except that the United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic. The popular will of the people in a Constitutional Republic vs. a Republic is in fact limited by said Constitution. And in the US, that means limited to those acts that do not infringe the rights of other citizens of the Constitutional Republic.

So, do you think any Government service not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
Reply
post #156 of 173
5/8/11 at 4:35am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Of course not, because that is not a fundamental right. And therein lies the difference. The fact that you consider portions of the Bill of Rights to be "nonsense" does in fact explain even more of your position.
Show us where the Constitution specifically dictates that government translation services are a fundamental right, or that an Official Language is forbidden. *crickets chirping*

Since you can not, it is up to interpretation, and the popular will of the people has to be respected by government, and the answer remains the same.

Reply
post #157 of 173
5/8/11 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Show us where the Constitution specifically dictates that government translation services are a fundamental right, or that an Official Language is forbidden. *crickets chirping*
Oh dear, here you go again, assigning your strawman (imaginary) points to me. Choosing a language as a primary form of communication is a fundamental right. And the government cannot take that from them through exclusion.

Quote:
Since you can not, it is up to interpretation, and the popular will of the people has to be respected by government, and the answer remains the same.
And it has, thus far, been interpreted exactly as I said. Which is why it is kicked to the curb, year after year.

So, do you think any Government service not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
Reply
post #158 of 173
5/8/11 at 7:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
So, do you think any Government service not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
I can think of plenty that are funded only by fee-based support, such as ports, airports, etc. Don't see why translation services, etc., shouldn't be.

The biggest example I can think of is AAFES, which gets no tax money, is required to operate on its own profits, and even returns major portions of the profits to the Army and Air Force welfare funds.

If you don't drive a car and buy gasoline (or a truck and buy diesel fuel), you're not paying for highways. In fact, the highway funds are actually going to support other, non-highway uses.
Reply
post #159 of 173
5/9/11 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
I can think of plenty that are funded only by fee-based support, such as ports, airports, etc. Don't see why translation services, etc., shouldn't be.
But the fees associated with ports, airports, etc are passed on to consumers of the services or products, the majority of which are elective. For the Government to communicate with it's citizens isn't elective, it's the Government's responsibility.

Quote:
The biggest example I can think of is AAFES, which gets no tax money, is required to operate on its own profits, and even returns major portions of the profits to the Army and Air Force welfare funds.

If you don't drive a car and buy gasoline (or a truck and buy diesel fuel), you're not paying for highways. In fact, the highway funds are actually going to support other, non-highway uses.
But if I buy gas to mow my lawn, I'm being taxed for Interstate Highways I don't use. If I buy gas to drive or ride on county roads, I'm being taxed for Interstate Highways I don't use. If the argument that people should not be forced to pay for services used by others holds any water at all, then that should not be the case.
Reply
post #160 of 173
5/10/11 at 2:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But the fees associated with ports, airports, etc are passed on to consumers of the services or products, the majority of which are elective. For the Government to communicate with it's citizens isn't elective, it's the Government's responsibility.
And communication is available by many means, but it is not their responsibility to provide special translation services in all languages. That is open for interpretation and citizens collective will, and the American people by and large have voted against such expensive measures. In some branches of government it would simply be impossible to cater to all languages, and thus all citizens, in all spoken languages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But if I buy gas to mow my lawn, I'm being taxed for Interstate Highways I don't use. If I buy gas to drive or ride on county roads, I'm being taxed for Interstate Highways I don't use. If the argument that people should not be forced to pay for services used by others holds any water at all, then that should not be the case.
The citizens of the United States can collectively decide what services they do and do not want. What you want as an individual, if not expressly granted or protected by law or constitution, is fairly unimportant. If the people vote for a service, you have to put in your fair share, and likewise if the service is not popular then it gets dropped.
Reply
post #161 of 173
5/10/11 at 3:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
But the fees associated with ports, airports, etc are passed on to consumers of the services or products, the majority of which are elective. For the Government to communicate with it's citizens isn't elective, it's the Government's responsibility.

But if I buy gas to mow my lawn, I'm being taxed for Interstate Highways I don't use. If I buy gas to drive or ride on county roads, I'm being taxed for Interstate Highways I don't use. If the argument that people should not be forced to pay for services used by others holds any water at all, then that should not be the case.
No, it's not the government's job to facilitate every form of communication. Just as people can ignore a warning sign, storm siren, or order to evacuate, it's not the job of the government to babysit everyone to be sure they've actually received, processed, and reacted to every communication. People can choose not to learn English; some do. I tried to tell a truck driver the other day that he was parked in a place that he would be ticketed for. I tried three times, and he just couldn't understand enough English (he was from some Slavic-speaking country) to get the gist of it. Maybe he did when he got the $150 ticket.

Our government has chosen to support federally-supported roads with gasoline taxes. Europe uses the taxes for other things, mainly health care. There, you'd be supporting health care, whether you use it or not. And you CAN buy non-highway fuels, both gasoline and diesel, that do not have the highway tax on them, to use for agricultural and other non-highway use. But your federal tax money (and the state tax money that is also in the price) support roads that you use every day, even if you don't go out of your own neighborhood.
Reply
post #162 of 173
5/10/11 at 4:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
And communication is available by many means, but it is not their responsibility to provide special translation services in all languages. That is open for interpretation and citizens collective will, and the American people by and large have voted against such expensive measures. In some branches of government it would simply be impossible to cater to all languages, and thus all citizens, in all spoken languages.
Why yes, communication IS available by many means, and many languages. Translation services aren't available in all languages. They are available the the languages that the American people use. Others could be added if the users of such requests it. As for "by and large voted against such expensive measures", where exactly has that taken place, when was the vote taken, and what was the margin?

Quote:
The citizens of the United States can collectively decide what services they do and do not want. What you want as an individual, if not expressly granted or protected by law or constitution, is fairly unimportant. If the people vote for a service, you have to put in your fair share, and likewise if the service is not popular then it gets dropped.
Why thank you. One of the points I was trying to make. Interesting that you didn't seem to get it before.

The representatives (the people who represent the citizens of the United States), HAVE collectively decided what services they do and do not want. And they are offering services in languages commonly used in the United States. What you or the proven racist whose web sites you cut and paste your entire argument from want as individuals is fairly unimportant. If the people vote for a service (if and WHEN, that is), then you have to put in your fair share.

So, do you feel that any government service that is not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?

Quote:
Reynolds: Meyer vs. Nebraska (1923) U.S. 390

The protection of the United States Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the constitution—a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.
Reply
post #163 of 173
5/10/11 at 4:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
No, it's not the government's job to facilitate every form of communication. Just as people can ignore a warning sign, storm siren, or order to evacuate, it's not the job of the government to babysit everyone to be sure they've actually received, processed, and reacted to every communication. People can choose not to learn English; some do. I tried to tell a truck driver the other day that he was parked in a place that he would be ticketed for. I tried three times, and he just couldn't understand enough English (he was from some Slavic-speaking country) to get the gist of it. Maybe he did when he got the $150 ticket.
No one ever said they had to facilitate every form of communication. Many warning signs are bi-lingual to multi-lingual, and close up shots of some of the evacuation orders in Mississippi show they are as well. And sirens are pretty much a universal language.

Quote:
Our government has chosen to support federally-supported roads with gasoline taxes. Europe uses the taxes for other things, mainly health care. There, you'd be supporting health care, whether you use it or not. And you CAN buy non-highway fuels, both gasoline and diesel, that do not have the highway tax on them, to use for agricultural and other non-highway use. But your federal tax money (and the state tax money that is also in the price) support roads that you use every day, even if you don't go out of your own neighborhood.
Our government has also chose to support the most commonly used spoken and written languages of the US citizenry. And here, we support it, whether we use it or not. And that money supports languages that are used every day, especially if the users don't go out of their own neighborhood.

English is the Interstate highway. Most people use them, they're fast and efficient much of the time. But the other roads are there, some almost forgotten, but there, and they're used, and they aren't ignored.
Reply
post #164 of 173
5/10/11 at 5:37am
Thread Starter 
You readily admit that the United States government MUST be exclusionary in language for practical, logistical, and cost reasons, and that the current system in various branches discriminates against minority languages by inherent design (the 2000 MLA Census states that there are over 300 languages in use in the United States). And yet in the same breath, you use the same logic as justification for why the American people's desire to enact English as the Official Language must be overruled.

As has been demonstrated to you, state after state has adopted Official English which already now represents the majority of the nation. You have been shown Rasmussen polls as recent as 2010 that show near 90% approval rating for English to be the Official language of the United States government.

Do you feel that the American government should levy taxes on its people against the wishes of the majority, when there is no express constitutional reason to veto their right to decide the services they do and do not desire?
Reply
post #165 of 173
5/10/11 at 6:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
You readily admit that the United States government MUST be exclusionary in language for practical, logistical, and cost reasons, and that the current system in various branches discriminates against minority languages by inherent design (the 2000 MLA Census states that there are over 300 languages in use in the United States). And yet in the same breath, you use the same logic as justification for why the American people's desire to enact English as the Official Language must be overruled.
I wish you'd quit using the strawman fallacy, as other members have pointed out they're seeing that word quite a bit, as in, every time you're called on it. There is no MUST. The government does not support language there is no demand for. If there is demand, they will do so. There is no demand for a $10,000.00 bill, but the means still exist to print one if someone wants one.

Quote:
As has been demonstrated to you, state after state has adopted Official English which already now represents the majority of the nation. You have been shown Rasmussen polls as recent as 2010 that show near 90% approval rating for English to be the Official language of the United States government.
You said the American people have voted on this. When? Where? With what margins? The "official language" of the states carry the weight of...what? Anything? The 1500 people polled amounts to what percentage of the US. The "over 1.8 million" members of us-english.org amounts to what percentage of the US? Something like roughly 0.51%, isn't it? (That's a tiny bit over half a percent) Hyper-inflating their fringe-group influence to that of "the American People" is folly. You are merely using weasel words, unsupported numbers, and cutting and pasting verbatim from racist websites (in fact, FAIR is a hate group) and an outdated "study" from which the numbers cannot be validated. In fact, no one can even figure out where they came from. And, FYI, that study was by a free lance writer and graphic designer...kind of short on the qualifications, don't you think?

eta: Excuse me, it wasn't 1500 people. It was only 1000. That's comical. I was told that the over 10,000 people gloating in the streets over Bin Laden's death doesn't represent the American people, but now I'm being told that 1000 people polled on the telephone must be. That's funny

Quote:
Do you feel that the American government should levy taxes on its people against the wishes of the majority, when there is no express constitutional reason to veto their right to decide the services they do and do not desire?
No.

But, they do. That's why we're paying for such things as the study of "Bovine emmissions". And since you will point it out, in this case, there IS constitutional reason. Already decided by Supreme Court opinion in 1923. 1923! Even before the Civil Rights act and the Voting rights act it was recognized that the government can't marginalize citizens for their choice of language, no matter how beneficial it may be to the government.

Your turn. Yes or No answer, but feel free to elaborate just as I did.

So, do you feel that any government service that is not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
Reply
post #166 of 173
5/10/11 at 2:24pm
Thread Starter 
California has the most languages spoken at home of any state with 207. New York is second with 169, followed by Washington, Texas and Oregon. Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and Arizona round out the top 10 states. (Source: Census 2000)

Your assertion that there is zero demand when by your logic even a single citizen need but ask for tax payers to fund translation of any and all government interaction in any one of hundreds of languages is ungrounded, and an attempt to accommodate any such request represents huge expenditure for a service the majority of American people do not want to pay for. As you seem to agree, levying a tax on the American people for services they do not want without an express requirement by the constitution represents taxation without representation. Such laws help explain the populist Tea Party patriots movement today.
Quote:
I wish you'd quit using the strawman fallacy, as other members have pointed out they're seeing that word quite a bit, as in, every time you're called on it.
As in, every time you use it... over and over ad nauseum.

I am quite sure the complaint was to ask you to stop abusing it, as with your rants that anyone that disagrees with your assertion is a racist and all the sites with facts and figures that you do not like and represent only the desire for common sense and to join the 92% of the rest of the nations in the world with an official language are hate sites as quite absurd. France, Germany, England, Japan, China, and most of the rest of the world is not full of hate filled racists, and surely you can defend your argument without having to resort to name calling.

As was mentioned, the vast majority of states have already enacted Official English on a state level with the pace rapidly increasing in the last ten years, further demonstrating popular appeal. Also, a refresher on how polling works, when one of the most reputable polling agencies creates a poll, and near 90% respond in one way, it is indicative of how a group as a whole will respond within a reasonable margin for error... not that only those polled at random just so happen to be the only people in the nation to agree so unanimously. And speaking of polls, the May 2010 Rasmussen Reports polls found that Americans reject the notion that it is racist or bigoted.

A 2001 Gallup poll found that 96 percent of Americans believe that it is essential/important that immigrants living in the United States learn to speak English. 86 percent of Americans call the ability to speak and understand English an absolutely essential or very important obligation for all Americans. (National Opinion Research Center survey of 2,904 adults, 1996). And that is not a case of negative attitudes towards immigrants, as nearly two-in-three foreign born adults say that the United States should expect all immigrants to learn English, an opinion shared by my immigrant family. (Public Agenda survey of 1,002 foreign born adults, 2002) Similar results are seen where 91% of foreign-born Latino immigrants agree that learning English is essential to succeed in the U.S. (2002 Kaiser Family Foundation poll). Again, that is not to say the the US should force anyone to speak English or that anyone recommends that I no longer be allowed to speak German at home or with friends and relatives, but that learning English is a reasonable expectation and that the American people do not wish to be taxed for the cost of universal non-english translation services.
Reply
post #167 of 173
5/10/11 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
California has the most languages spoken at home of any state with 207. New York is second with 169, followed by Washington, Texas and Oregon. Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and Arizona round out the top 10 states. (Source: Census 2000)

Your assertion that there is zero demand when by your logic even a single citizen need but ask for tax payers to fund translation of any and all government interaction in any one of hundreds of languages is ungrounded, and an attempt to accommodate any such request represents huge expenditure for a service the majority of American people do not want to pay for.
Existence does not equate to demand. As far as can be ascertained, the people who speak those languages (from which the demand would originate) have made no demands upon the US Government to address those languages in the course of their dealings with the Government. Or, are you suggesting that you are actually referring to English Only?

Quote:
As you seem to agree, levying a tax on the American people for services they do not want without an express requirement by the constitution represents taxation without representation. Such laws help explain the populist Tea Party patriots movement today.
So you're saying the Tea Party's ultimate goal is to remove Constitutional Protections? That's a bit frightening. In case you've never studied the Constitution, it limits powers, it doesn't grant them.

Quote:
As in, every time you use it... over and over ad nauseum.

I am quite sure the complaint was to ask you to stop abusing it, as with your rants that anyone that disagrees with your assertion is a racist and all the sites with facts and figures that you do not like and represent only the desire for common sense and to join the 92% of the rest of the nations in the world with an official language are hate sites as quite absurd. France, Germany, England, Japan, China, and most of the rest of the world is not full of hate filled racists, and surely you can defend your argument without having to resort to name calling.
It's not at all absurd. John Tanton, whose sites you continuously cut and paste from, is a proven racist by his own internal memos. He clearly spelled out his disdain for Mexican nationals, who in his opinion are all lazy, learning impaired and live corrupt lifestyles. One of his several "organizations" The Federation for American Immigration Reform is identified as a hate group due to their being funded by white supremacy and even pro-eugenics organizations. (that means forced sterilization of "undesirable" classes of people...so very pleasant company to keep) Neither Tanton nor FAIR are French, German, English, Japanese, Chinese or any where else in the world, so that's a very poor comparison, and obviously just an attempt to avoid the point.

Quote:
As was mentioned, the vast majority of states have already enacted Official English on a state level with the pace rapidly increasing in the last ten years, further demonstrating popular appeal. Also, a refresher on how polling works, when one of the most reputable polling agencies creates a poll, and near 90% respond in one way, it is indicative of how a group as a whole will respond within a reasonable margin for error... not that only those polled at random just so happen to be the only people in the nation to agree so unanimously. And speaking of polls, the May 2010 Rasmussen Reports polls found that Americans reject the notion that it is racist or bigoted.
So, spending obscene amounts of money on legislative sessions in order to pass less than symbolic, completely impotent and un-enforceable legislation is a good idea to you. I thought your major goal was to save money? Utah recently adopted an official gun. That makes nearly as much sense. It has no weight of law, offers neither protection nor restriction, and spent several months in session to the tune of over $60,000 a day. Really good job, wouldn't you say? And I know how polling works. So why is 1000 in a specific region a good sample, and 10,000 plus nationwide is not?

Quote:
A 2001 Gallup poll found that 96 percent of Americans believe that it is essential/important that immigrants living in the United States learn to speak English. 86 percent of Americans call the ability to speak and understand English an absolutely essential or very important obligation for all Americans. (National Opinion Research Center survey of 2,904 adults, 1996). And that is not a case of negative attitudes towards immigrants, as nearly two-in-three foreign born adults say that the United States should expect all immigrants to learn English, an opinion shared by my immigrant family. (Public Agenda survey of 1,002 foreign born adults, 2002) Similar results are seen where 91% of foreign-born Latino immigrants agree that learning English is essential to succeed in the U.S. (2002 Kaiser Family Foundation poll). Again, that is not to say the the US should force anyone to speak English or that anyone recommends that I no longer be allowed to speak German at home or with friends and relatives, but that learning English is a reasonable expectation and that the American people do not wish to be taxed for the cost of universal non-english translation services.
There you go bashing immigrants again. I can't imagine why. Immigrants have very limited Constitutional Protections, so they don't even figure into this debate. Unless secretly (to some) that is what the actual debate is all about. By the very studies you have cut and pasted, there are more native born non-English speakers in the US that there are members of the groups supporting your position. If your family so disagrees with US policy, why did they come?

It's still your turn. You're going to avoid this question again, aren't you?

Do you feel that any government service that is not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
Reply
post #168 of 173
5/10/11 at 3:54pm
Thread Starter 
Answering your question a sixth time does not change the answer, and I'm not going to dignify your racist name calling with a response. At this point, the conversation is clearly circular with plenty of facts, statistics, and polls available for anyone even remotely interested in the United States joining just about every other developed country in the world to come to their own informed opinion.

For further reading, here is a great article in Time Magazine that highlights some non-economic issues surrounding the Official English debate:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...200741,00.html
Reply
post #169 of 173
5/10/11 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Answering your question a sixth time does not change the answer, and I'm not going to dignify your racist name calling with a response. At this point, the conversation is clearly circular with plenty of facts, statistics, and polls available for anyone even remotely interested in the United States joining just about every other developed country in the world to come to their own informed opinion.

For further reading, here is a great article in Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...200741,00.html
Refusing to address the facts is an response in itself. Thank you. You can research them yourself. Because you cut and paste the articles, entire paragraphs can be used as search criteria, and it takes you straight to John Tanton, his groups FAIR and ProEnglish, and the paper written by J.S. Thomas (the original source of your material, though reposted numerous places), to include his references. And yes, his references are those supplied by Tanton and ProEnglish. Research into those people and groups and you'll see so yourself. One legitimate group that Tanton was co-founder of, US-English.org, got a black eye and lost several very prominent members (like Walter Cronkite) over Tanton's racist rantings.

That article reads like it was written by someone that's scared to death that English is losing ground. How does that support any of what you've said? If English is such a dominant language, why does this author feel it needs defending. His last paragraph is especially telling.

You've never answered the question once. You've told me how you think the answer should be decided, but have not once told me the answer in your opinion. In other words, if it were put to a vote; how would you vote?

Do you feel that any government service that is not used by 100% of the population should be defunded?
Reply
post #170 of 173
5/14/11 at 10:01pm
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing this question asked while voting.

I'm against an official language for our country. It just seems wrong to me for our government to say "You have to learn this language." My government can't tell me what religion I should be so why should they have the ability to tell me what language to speak? Perhaps I'm just in a weird minority who doesn't like rights to be taken away for inane reasons.
Reply
post #171 of 173
5/15/11 at 5:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaR View Post
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing this question asked while voting.

I'm against an official language for our country. It just seems wrong to me for our government to say "You have to learn this language." My government can't tell me what religion I should be so why should they have the ability to tell me what language to speak? Perhaps I'm just in a weird minority who doesn't like rights to be taken away for inane reasons.
So how about, "If you want to interact with the government, drive a car, use public transit, vote, and stay out of jail for not paying your taxes, you have to speak this language?"

Seems simply a matter of safety and smooth operation of society, to me.
Reply
post #172 of 173
5/17/11 at 6:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
So how about, "If you want to interact with the government, drive a car, use public transit, vote, and stay out of jail for not paying your taxes, you have to speak this language?"

Seems simply a matter of safety and smooth operation of society, to me.
To answer that I believe it should be one of these 2-4 languages. With English and Spanish being the first two and whatever languages are popular in the local population. Asking the government to publish in all languages is on the ridiculous side but just one language? Meh.
Reply
post #173 of 173
5/31/11 at 11:21pm
English and Spanish would make sense, like Canada has two.

In the South this has pretty much already happened.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Should the U.S. have an official language?