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 3

post #61 of 173
5/4/11 at 1:09pm
What exactly does an official language mean?

It could mean that government business be conducted in that language. In this case, one could be barred from participating in any government business if he could not speak that language. So an elderly person who has been in a primarily Spanish-speaking Southwestern neighborhood all of his life could not get government services even though he is a legal citizen of the US. Citizens could be denied rights of voting.

It could extend to all forms of business meaning that someone could not work in any business if he was not speaking English. If they spoke any other language while at the business, they could be fired. Even if it was not business related. After all, they weren't using the official language.

It could extend into private life. Anywhere out in public, if one was not speaking the official language, they could be penalized because they are not using the official language.
Reply
post #62 of 173
5/4/11 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
What exactly does an official language mean?

It could mean that government business be conducted in that language. In this case, one could be barred from participating in any government business if he could not speak that language. So an elderly person who has been in a primarily Spanish-speaking Southwestern neighborhood all of his life could not get government services even though he is a legal citizen of the US. Citizens could be denied rights of voting.

It could extend to all forms of business meaning that someone could not work in any business if he was not speaking English. If they spoke any other language while at the business, they could be fired. Even if it was not business related. After all, they weren't using the official language.

It could extend into private life. Anywhere out in public, if one was not speaking the official language, they could be penalized because they are not using the official language.
The proponents of an official language would probably say that is ridiculous. However, once that right is taken away from the people, it's only a matter of time before it snowballs into something else. Every big change started small somewhere. (inch = mile).
Reply
post #63 of 173
5/4/11 at 2:08pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
What exactly does an official language mean?

It could mean that government business be conducted in that language. In this case, one could be barred from participating in any government business if he could not speak that language. So an elderly person who has been in a primarily Spanish-speaking Southwestern neighborhood all of his life could not get government services even though he is a legal citizen of the US. Citizens could be denied rights of voting.

It could extend to all forms of business meaning that someone could not work in any business if he was not speaking English. If they spoke any other language while at the business, they could be fired. Even if it was not business related. After all, they weren't using the official language.

It could extend into private life. Anywhere out in public, if one was not speaking the official language, they could be penalized because they are not using the official language.
I only know of three developed countries in the world that do NOT have an official language.

This is not a hypothetical. All you have to do is look at Canada, France, Spain, Germany, the UK, Singapore, China, you name it. France for example has more foreign language speakers per capita than the US, and a greater number of Spanish speakers... but the sole official language is French.

Does it extend to private life anywhere in the world? NOPE. Does it extend to business anywhere in the world? NOPE. So what is with the fear mongering in the US acting as if basically the entire world isn't a long-term existing template?

It would mean the same thing it does everywhere else, that the government offers services in the official language(s), so if you speak Afrikaans (an official language of South Africa), no problem but you are responsible for your own translation services.
Reply
post #64 of 173
5/4/11 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

It would mean the same thing it does everywhere else, that the government offers services in the official language(s), so if you speak Afrikaans (an official language of South Africa), no problem but you are responsible for your own translation services.
So, simply put, it establishes a category of 2nd class citizens.
Reply
post #65 of 173
5/4/11 at 5:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
So, simply put, it establishes a category of 2nd class citizens.
According to Skippy, yes.

According to 84% of America that supports English as the official language per the 2010 poll and the citizens of just about every other country in the world that have official languages... no.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the overwhelming majority of the world doesn't share yours. Its just a matter of time though, state after state has adopted English as the official language, and most of them after 1990, so its a pretty recent movement and the majority of states are already on board w/ two joining in 2007 and Oklahoma just declaring last year.
Reply
post #66 of 173
5/4/11 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
According to Skippy, yes.

According to 84% of America that supports English as the official language per the 2010 poll and the citizens of just about every other country in the world that have official languages... no.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the overwhelming majority of the world doesn't share yours. Its just a matter of time though, state after state has adopted English as the official language, and most of them after 1990, so its a pretty recent movement and the majority of states are already on board w/ two joining in 2007 and Oklahoma just declaring last year.
Still not getting it I see. If 99% support it, but it is found to be even questionable under the Constitution, then 99% is left wanting. It then falls to the courts to decide. And, to make the point that will be ignored once again...the majority of the world is not governed by the US Constitution.
Reply
post #67 of 173
5/4/11 at 6:21pm
It all depends on who is interpreting the laws. When a law says "English-only", many people believe that if there is an official English-only law, it means that only English should be spoken. After Colorado passed their law, a bus driver told the students that they could not speak Spanish on the bus. A fast food manager was fired for translating a menu for a customer. In North Carolina, a bilingual school secretary was fired after speaking translating for parents to help them resolve issues with the school.

Is it right that we deny people their rights because they don't have proficient English skills? A common language is useful, but these laws restrict communication to only one language. Many people take it that there should not be any secondary languages used to communicate.

The reason we have a representative government is so that the majority doesn't trample the rights of the minority.
Reply
post #68 of 173
5/4/11 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
It all depends on who is interpreting the laws. When a law says "English-only", many people believe that if there is an official English-only law, it means that only English should be spoken. After Colorado passed their law, a bus driver told the students that they could not speak Spanish on the bus. A fast food manager was fired for translating a menu for a customer. In North Carolina, a bilingual school secretary was fired after speaking translating for parents to help them resolve issues with the school.

Is it right that we deny people their rights because they don't have proficient English skills? A common language is useful, but these laws restrict communication to only one language. Many people take it that there should not be any secondary languages used to communicate.

The reason we have a representative government is so that the majority doesn't trample the rights of the minority.
Thank you for these examples. What this tells me is that a lot of people simply wouldn't grasp what it actually means to have a law like this passed. When it happens, there will clearly be discrimination, even if the law never intended it that way.

So it does come down to an argument for saving a little bit of money in government signage, versus discrimination against minorities.

I am against government regulation in this matter. Not only would it discriminate, but it would be impractical to enforce. How much money would they spend in enforcing this law versus leaving it alone?
Reply
post #69 of 173
5/4/11 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
How much money would they spend in enforcing this law versus leaving it alone?
Hehe, first thing they'd probably do is change all the signs that have so much as one word of another language on them (like all the Danger signs that also say Peligro), spending millions to update the signage. I work for a semi-governmental agency, I know how they roll .
Reply
post #70 of 173
5/4/11 at 9:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
Thank you for these examples. What this tells me is that a lot of people simply wouldn't grasp what it actually means to have a law like this passed. When it happens, there will clearly be discrimination, even if the law never intended it that way.
That makes sense, so even though the rest of the world that has official languages does not discriminate, if it happened in the US, unlike Canada, we'd go crazy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
So it does come down to an argument for saving a little bit of money in government signage, versus discrimination against minorities.
A little bit of money? And how do you imagine this affects just sign-age? The US doesn't release figures on current costs, but the EU does. $1.6 billion every year, with limitations on document length to 15 pages for member countries. That is $1.6 billion that could go to education in America or paying off the debt we shove on our children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I am against government regulation in this matter. Not only would it discriminate, but it would be impractical to enforce. How much money would they spend in enforcing this law versus leaving it alone?
Wait, what? Enforce?

I don't think you understand how official languages in just about every other developed country in the world works. Enforcement is very simple. The government produces all services and documents in the official languages. If you call and ask for an interpreter or documents translated for you, you don't get one.

That is pretty simple to enforce. What, do you imagine that the police are going to walk around listening to people speak other languages? You have been woefully misinformed, as an official language does not prevent anyone anywhere from speaking any language they wish. It also doesn't force anyone to learn to speak English. It simply means that you are responsible for being able to communicate in the official language with government, whether you have someone translate or you learn the language.

Again, just look to Canada, they are not that dissimilar to us. Yes, with any new law, some people may misunderstand at first, but after a year I'm sure everyone would get the drift in the US just as they do everywhere else. Americans are not somehow braindamaged compared to every other country.
Reply
post #71 of 173
5/4/11 at 11:18pm
Thread Starter 
Here's a little more on costs:
Quote:
Los Angeles County spent $3.3 million, 15 percent of the entire election budget, to print election ballots in seven languages and hire multilingual poll workers for the March 2002 primary. The county also spends $265 per day for each of 420 full-time court interpreters. San Francisco spends $350,000 per each language that documents must be translated into under its bilingual government ordinance. Financial officials in Washington, D.C., estimate that a proposed language access would cost $7.74 million to implement. The bill would require all city agencies to hire translators and translate official documents for any language spoken by over 500 non-English-speaking people in the city.
The health-care industry, already reeling from a shortage of nurses and the costs of treating the uninsured, was dealt another blow by President Clinton. Executive Order 13166 was signed into law on August 11, 2000. The order requires private physicians, clinics, and hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid to provide, at their own expense, translators for any language spoken by any patient. The cost of an interpreter can exceed the reimbursement of a Medicare or Medicaid visit by 13 times--costing doctors as much as $500 per translator.
http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/pub...ber/cipub2.asp
Reply
post #72 of 173
5/5/11 at 4:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
That makes sense, so even though the rest of the world that has official languages does not discriminate, if it happened in the US, unlike Canada, we'd go crazy...
Or England imposing English as an official language in Ireland. It only soaked the region in terrorism and bloodshed for a few decades.

Quote:
A little bit of money? And how do you imagine this affects just sign-age? The US doesn't release figures on current costs, but the EU does. $1.6 billion every year, with limitations on document length to 15 pages for member countries. That is $1.6 billion that could go to education in America or paying off the debt we shove on our children.
The function of the US Government is, in a nutshell, to serve all it's citizens equally, not to make all it's citizens equal.

Quote:
Wait, what? Enforce?

I don't think you understand how official languages in just about every other developed country in the world works. Enforcement is very simple. The government produces all services and documents in the official languages. If you call and ask for an interpreter or documents translated for you, you don't get one.
Which discriminates against citizens who choose to speak their birth language, as is their right.

Quote:
That is pretty simple to enforce. What, do you imagine that the police are going to walk around listening to people speak other languages? You have been woefully misinformed, as an official language does not prevent anyone anywhere from speaking any language they wish. It also doesn't force anyone to learn to speak English. It simply means that you are responsible for being able to communicate in the official language with government, whether you have someone translate or you learn the language.
Which puts people exercising their rights as US Citizens at a disadvantage, as in, making them 2nd class.

Quote:
Again, just look to Canada, they are not that dissimilar to us. Yes, with any new law, some people may misunderstand at first, but after a year I'm sure everyone would get the drift in the US just as they do everywhere else. Americans are not somehow braindamaged compared to every other country.
Yet again. Canada is not governed by the US Constitution, nor us by Canada's. If proponents were able to slip such a law in tonight, the decades of court challenges to follow up to the Supreme court, where it may or may not prevail, will cost an obscene amount of money. After all, even after a couple centuries of debate, even the scholars haven't decided on what is a fundamental right and what isn't. The case would float around in the courts for a very, very long time
Reply
post #73 of 173
5/5/11 at 5:57am
If I moved to another county legally, I would do my best to learn their language. I no way does that diminish my heritage.

Doesn't this all boil down to illegal immigration?
Reply
post #74 of 173
5/5/11 at 6:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zohdee View Post
If I moved to another county legally, I would do my best to learn their language. I no way does that diminish my heritage.

Doesn't this all boil down to illegal immigration?
Good points, but, yes and no. Some proponents think it's about immigration, which is actually rather funny. Because, we have 24 people working at the plant through a temporary service, and nearly all of them immigrants. And every immigrant in the crowd is working on learning English.

Nearly half of the native American languages are now extinct. The first step in doing so was the creation of Christian "boarding" schools designed to "Americanize" the native Americans. I quoted "boarding" because it was a code word that simply meant a place to store kidnapped native American children while they were beaten into accepting "Christian and American values and customs".

This step is nothing more than a new attempt at social engineering and to force any other language used by US citizens into disuse so that they will eventually "just go away".
Reply
post #75 of 173
5/5/11 at 11:08am
Working on learning is different than not even bothering to learn. That is where the issue is.

As I said, if I were to move to Japan I would learn the language and not rely on the government to provide translator services for me.

And, I have been to many, many pow-wows to know that the native language is still taught.
Reply
post #76 of 173
5/5/11 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zohdee View Post
Working on learning is different than not even bothering to learn. That is where the issue is.

As I said, if I were to move to Japan I would learn the language and not rely on the government to provide translator services for me.

And, I have been to many, many pow-wows to know that the native language is still taught.
Well, for one, the fact that people think there is a "the" native language is part of the problem.

There will always, always, always and forever as long as any kind of immigration is allowed to the US, be someone "working on learning". In the time it takes them to learn a new language, should they be barred from Government services by a language barrier?

And then again, this NOT being Japan, US citizens have the fundamental right of proficiency in the language of their choice.

Perhaps we should make signing/Handspeak and Braille the official language. It's nearly universal and doesn't promote any one culture above the other, and therefore, Constitutional.

Handspeak is also pretty darned precise compared to spoken languages, and would also include the hearing impaired, a group that would be totally left out of any spoken official language. And we're in the digital age, while braille was the world's first true digital language. Their use would therefore be even more inclusive, allowing the impaired and the non-impaired to communicate seamlessly.
Reply
post #77 of 173
5/5/11 at 12:35pm
Thing is..one needs to know the native language to use braille or ASL.
Reply
post #78 of 173
5/5/11 at 12:39pm
Thread Starter 
I think its safe to ignore your brail comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
In takes them to learn a new language, should they be barred from Government services by a language barrier?
Again, wrong, the Government services are always available but one way or another someone is going to have to pay for an interpreter and translation services. When applying for naturalization, YOU have to show a proficiency in English and YOU have to provide for the translation of non-English documents for review.

So the question is if the person that requires special assistance should pay for it themselves, or if the American people should have money taken away from them against the public's majority will to cover the cost... or the current plan which just involves printing more money and constantly increasing the limit on the national debt for all these special services and special interest programs that the country simply cannot afford.

The facts are simple, amongst the other benefits already highlighted, English as an official language is of great economic benefit in reducing costs of government and healthcare, both of which are bloated beyond reason with cuts that need to be made to remain sustainable.
Reply
post #79 of 173
5/5/11 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
I think its safe to ignore your brail comment.

Again, wrong, the Government services are always available but one way or another someone is going to have to pay for an interpreter and translation services. When applying for naturalization, YOU have to show a proficiency in English and YOU have to provide for the translation of non-English documents for review.

So the question is if the person that requires special assistance should pay for it themselves, or if the American people should have money taken away from them against the public's majority will to cover the cost... or the current plan which just involves printing more money and constantly increasing the limit on the national debt for all these special services and special interest programs that the country simply cannot afford.

The facts are simple, amongst the other benefits already highlighted, English as an official language is of great economic benefit in reducing costs of government and healthcare, both of which are bloated beyond reason with cuts that need to be made to remain sustainable.
You are interpreting "Official English" as English Plus which allows for a translator for interacting with the government. Many people take it as English Only. I could easily see a clerk refusing to help someone using a translator by saying that only English should be spoken in his office.
Reply
post #80 of 173
5/5/11 at 1:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
You are interpreting "Official English" as English Plus which allows for a translator for interacting with the government. Many people take it as English Only. I could easily see a clerk refusing to help someone using a translator by saying that only English should be spoken in his office.
Which country does this? I've lived in Germany, Spain, France, and Singapore, all with official languages, and I've never heard of such a thing.

Again, this is not an experiment, a country having an official language is the norm around the world, and why would the implementation in the US be any different than the rest of the planet?
Reply
post #81 of 173
5/5/11 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Which country does this? I've lived in Germany, Spain, France, and Singapore, all with official languages, and I've never heard of such a thing.

Again, this is not an experiment, a country having an official language is the norm around the world, and why would the implementation in the US be any different than the rest of the planet?
Why are you assuming that it would be implemented the same here? In the case I was talking about where the secretary was acting as translator got her fired. The principal demanded English only. You are saying that never happens in these other countries?

Also, the argument that other countries do it doesn't mean we should do it. Look at any discussion about health care to see that argument.
Reply
post #82 of 173
5/5/11 at 1:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Why are you assuming that it would be implemented the same here?
You answered a question with a question.

Is it more logical to assume that the US implementation of an official language would be the same as it is in the rest of the world, or that the US would be unique with completely unreasonable conditions that don't even exist in communist China? Which makes more sense? Cmon now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
In the case I was talking about where the secretary was acting as translator got her fired. The principal demanded English only. You are saying that never happens in these other countries?
There are 300 million people in the United States, and billions across the planet, you know that question can't be answered. What can be answered is how the law would rule if there were a complaint. In Texas you can be fired for any reason (save for protected reasons like race), even if you just don't like an employee's attitude, and language can be considered an employment criteria (can't very well have waiters that can't understand people's orders). And with your example, I really don't know what you are talking about or the people or circumstances involved or whether it was challenged or if the challenge would even be legitimate regarding why she repeatedly defied instruction on her job function and school policy to the point of getting fired. I also find it hard to believe that a government employee was fired for anything... I thought you had to kill someone or blow up a building to be fired from a school.
Reply
post #83 of 173
5/5/11 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zohdee View Post
Thing is..one needs to know the native language to use braille or ASL.
True. But someone is going to have to learn something, and those are far, far more inclusive for many more citizens who cannot use spoken or written English. So, it makes as much, if not more, sense.
Reply
post #84 of 173
5/5/11 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
I think its safe to ignore your brail comment.
I would expect you to ignore anything that made sense.

Quote:
Again, wrong, the Government services are always available but one way or another someone is going to have to pay for an interpreter and translation services. When applying for naturalization, YOU have to show a proficiency in English and YOU have to provide for the translation of non-English documents for review.
And once they are a citizen, they have the right to never use it again. You seem to keep missing that one.

Quote:
So the question is if the person that requires special assistance should pay for it themselves, or if the American people should have money taken away from them against the public's majority will to cover the cost... or the current plan which just involves printing more money and constantly increasing the limit on the national debt for all these special services and special interest programs that the country simply cannot afford.
Braille has to be translated as well. Are you suggesting on those that need it pay for that as well?

Quote:
The facts are simple, amongst the other benefits already highlighted, English as an official language is of great economic benefit in reducing costs of government and healthcare, both of which are bloated beyond reason with cuts that need to be made to remain sustainable.
The facts ARE simple. The US Government cannot demand lifestyle uniformity for it's citizens. That's pretty much all there is to it. State's are adopting completely token "official language" bills purely to try to pacify their WASP voters who are panicking over the ballooning of the number of bi-lingual and multi-lingual switchboards and the fact that Amazon.com is available in multiple languages. But, they've found they can't act on them. English has been the world's business language for many years, but it's losing ground rapidly. The digital world is making common language obsolete, and that's throwing the elitists into an absolute tizzy.
Reply
post #85 of 173
5/5/11 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
You answered a question with a question.

Is it more logical to assume that the US implementation of an official language would be the same as it is in the rest of the world, or that the US would be unique with completely unreasonable conditions that don't even exist in communist China? Which makes more sense? Cmon now.

There are 300 million people in the United States, and billions across the planet, you know that question can't be answered. What can be answered is how the law would rule if there were a complaint. In Texas you can be fired for any reason (save for protected reasons like race), even if you just don't like an employee's attitude, and language can be considered an employment criteria (can't very well have waiters that can't understand people's orders). And with your example, I really don't know what you are talking about or the people or circumstances involved or whether it was challenged or if the challenge would even be legitimate regarding why she repeatedly defied instruction on her job function and school policy to the point of getting fired. I also find it hard to believe that a government employee was fired for anything... I thought you had to kill someone or blow up a building to be fired from a school.
That is assuming the wronged party is willing to go to court. It is expensive and a long haul. The challenge to Arizona's law covered a similar case where an employee spoke English to English speakers and Spanish to Spanish speakers. It finally ended up at the Supreme Court. But look at what the court's decision was based on:

On March 3, 1997, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision written by Justice Ginsburg declined to rule on the merits of a constitutional challenge to an Amendment to the Arizona Constitution that establishes English as the official language of the state . The Court dismissed the case because the state employee who challenged the amendment had resigned seven years ago, and thus the issue was moot,

So much for legal recourse. Can you point out what safe-guards these other countries have in place to protect their citizens' rights?
Reply
post #86 of 173
5/5/11 at 1:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
So much for legal recourse. Can you point out what safe-guards these other countries have in place to protect their citizens' rights?
I can point out that we have courts and a US constitution here, and an official language would not invalidate that.

I also do not believe that people need to be PROTECTED from learning English, and instead it should be highly ENCOURAGED for the plethora of reasons already cited numerous times.

Language is a skill, and if you are simply too lazy or unmotivated to learn the official language(s) of the country, then that is fine but YOU have to pay for YOUR own translation services. It is not reasonable to ask myself and my neighbors to pay for you, and the government and healthcare industry simply can't afford to continue throwing money around as it is, its as simple as that. Budget cuts are needed, and such luxuries as offering free translation services in all languages is a cut the majority of the country is happy to see implemented (as shown on national polls, and fact that its passed in just about every state its gone to vote for to date) and we have basically the entire world to use as a template for what that would be like.
Reply
post #87 of 173
5/5/11 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
I can point out that we have courts and a US constitution here, and an official language would not invalidate that.

I also do not believe that people need to be PROTECTED from learning English, and instead it should be highly ENCOURAGED for the plethora of reasons already cited numerous times.
Which explains precisely why you don't understand. You are looking at the issue as the dominate party off which all others are sapping resources. No one is protecting anyone from learning English (your view). What is being sought is to protect people from being forced to use English (which is what you want to do).

Quote:
Language is a skill, and if you are simply too lazy or unmotivated to learn the official language(s) of the country, then that is fine but YOU have to pay for YOUR own translation services. It is not reasonable to ask myself and my neighbors to pay for you, and the government and healthcare industry simply can't afford to continue throwing money around as it is, its as simple as that. Budget cuts are needed, and such luxuries as offering free translation services in all languages is a cut the majority of the country is happy to see implemented (as shown on national polls, and fact that its passed in just about every state its gone to vote for to date) and we have basically the entire world to use as a template for what that would be like.
But it is constantly kicked to the curb over concern for individual and fundamental rights every single year at the Federal level, and the fact that funds could be withheld from States that actually attempt to enforce it stays their hand. What does that tell you? In a Federal Constitutional Republic, 99.9% of the electorate cannot vote to infringe on the rights of the .1%.
Reply
post #88 of 173
5/5/11 at 2:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
What does that tell you?
That there are too many Mikes in the United States.
Reply
post #89 of 173
5/5/11 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
That there are too many Mikes in the United States.
The really, really neat thing about rights is, that you don't have to have any reason at all to exercise them.
Reply
post #90 of 173
5/5/11 at 3:58pm
I agree with Teddy Roosevelt:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/...troosevelt.pdf

Jan. 3, 1919, Letter from Theodore Roosevelt to Richard K. Hurd, original in the Library of Congress:
Quote:
Dear Mr. Hurd:

I cannot be with you and so all I can do is to wish you Godspeed. There may be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over.

There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple.

In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

Faithfully yours,
Bold is mine.

Smart man, that TR!

I am firmly against printing voter ballots in any language other than English. Likewise with Driver's tests and road signs.
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?