Recently, the Republicans have been appealing to the racist base of their party by trying to play off their fear of immigrants -- especially Hispanic immigrants. One of the ways they are doing this is by trying to pass laws declaring that only the English language can be used in official government documents such as court papers, ballots and other documents.
Of course, this totally ignores the Hispanic culture that is a valued part of some states, especially the southwest part of the United States. In Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona and California, Spanish has been spoken for centuries longer than English. Trying to outlaw Spanish in these states is not just silly -- it is a denial of their history and culture.
But the main reason "English only" is stupid is its basic unfairness. It is currently being used as a way to deny access to undocumented immigrants. But it is not just unfair to this group -- it is also unfair to Hispanics who are legal residents with the proper documentation. Why should anyone be punished for speaking and writing the language they grew up with?
Consider this. Let's say you were a legal resident of a non-English speaking country and got arrested. Would you think it was fair if the trial and the legal documents were were in a language you could not understand and translations were not made available to you? You not only wouldn't understand the charges, but you would have no idea what the court and the witnesses were saying about you.
That would be the very definition of unfairness. But that is what the "English only" proponents want to do to Hispanic immigrants. They are not interested in being fair. They are only interested in soothing their own irrational fear of those who are not exactly like them.
These people want us to believe if an immigrant speaks Spanish, then that means he is not trying to assimilate into our culture. Not true. They are simply speaking the language they grew up with and are most comfortable speaking. New statistics by the Pew Hispanic Center show that by the second generation this is a moot point anyway.
While only 23% of first-generation Hispanic immigrants speak English fluently, by the second generation that number has risen to 88%, and by the third generation the figure is 94%. As D'Vera Cohn of the Pew Center says, "The second generation has a foot in each world, and the third has made the transition to English. By the third generation and beyond, English is dominant, and Spanish has faded into the background."
So "English only" is not needed to force immigrants to assimilate -- they are already doing that. It is just a code phrase for discrimination. In fact, Hispanics cite speaking Spanish as a greater source of discrimination in this country than immigration status, income level or skin color.
I have never understood how a person speaking Spanish harms this country or any of its citizens.
"English only" isn't stupid, you are! This Country is a "melting pot", i.e."blend together." You cannot do that without a common language. Get you head out of your ass, to use a quaint old English expression.
ReplyDelete2nd Generation WOP/Dago/Guinea (Italian for you PC twits!)
As a second-generation Italian, I must assume that you were against your parents speaking Italian? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe California school system has engish as a second language for 37 languages. The taxpayers take a hit and once in the workforce, most of those kids will have to learn english or be at or near minimum wage jobs. California also has state documents printed in many many languages. They must have listened to you! Parts of Garden Grove have shopping malls dedicated to Vietnamese speakers. All of the signage is non-english and a few have subtitles. This is an example of a very limited, local appeal. Its not and example of broad based success. That is my point - The mastery of English is anyones best chance at success in this country. Try to get a four year degree and get a job without English. It cannot be done. That is not a racist thing - its reality. Just because areas have a local flavor does not mean that it is good national policy. Having the taxpayer foot the bill for all of the various language interpretations is burdensome and pointless as you point out in your article. The second and third generation finally get it - they speak the language of success - English!
ReplyDeleteAls meine Grosseltern im neunzehnten Jahrhundert nach Amerika gekommen sind, haben sie schon eingenommen, dass man Englisch lernen muss, um Amerikaner zu werden, egal ob man von Deutschland, Italien, Mexiko oder irgendwo anders ist.
ReplyDeleteWenn dass nicht so wäre, wie könnten wir sich verstehen? Ich spreche fliessend Deutsch und Polnisch, aber kaum Spanisch. Sollten die Mexikaner Deutsch bzw. Polnisch lernen, um mich zu verstehen? Und wie wäre es mit den Vietnamesern, Arabern oder Chinesern?
Wenn man zu Hause seine Muttersprache sprechen will, habe ich nichts dagegen. Wir brauchen sprachbegabte Amerkaner. Aber am Arbeitsplatz muss eine gemeinsame Sprache (d.h. Englisch) gesprochen werden, sonst gibt es Chaos.
The purpose of my little object lesson above is two-fold:
ReplyDelete1) It shows the absurdity of catering to heritage langauges. How many people understood what I wrote? (I had thought about translating it into Polish, but that would just belabor the point.)
2) The subtext of this post is that Spanish stands alone as the one language to which we must accommodate. It would never occur to Germans (let alone Bosnians, Vietnamese, Sudanese, etc.) that when they call a government agency, they'd get a message saying, "Für Deustch, bitte bedrücken Sie die Nummer zwei" (that's German for "Para español, imprime el número dos.")
This attitude seems to imply what our soon to be former President has described as "the soft prejudice of low expectations." "After all," one might argue, "those poor Mexicans [Salvadorans, Guatamalans, etc.] are too [choose your favorite stereotype: lazy, stupid, obstinate, xenophobic] to learn English."
Now who's discriminating?
Spanish is not we only language we currently accomodate. Court and other government documents are translated into many languages. But if English only passed, all that would have to stop.
ReplyDeleteAs for your German comment, I doubt that many readers understood it, but I defend your right to do it.
How does it hurt this country to accomodate first-generation immigrants, especially knowing that the second generation will be English-speakers?
It hurts the very people you are trying to defend, and it hurts American workers. How? Here in New York, much of new construction is being done by Spanish speakers. These jobs, by the way, are most assuredly NOT ones that Americans won't do, or don't want to do. But when you have a Spanish crew, those citizens who only speak English are too often excluded from construction work. Why? Because they must be able to "accommodate" those who won't speak English. This leaves many working class English speaking construction workers out in the cold, all in the name of "accommodation". How is this right, in your reasoning?
ReplyDeleteIt also ghettoizes those who do not learn English, and is a tacit acknowledgment that a Spanish-only speaker is holding their host country hostage to their inadequacies.
My daughter went to school in Los Angeles, and I remember PTA meetings that were absolutely grueling. Why? Because they had to be translated into 4 languages. Everything that was said, had to be translated. It made the meetings less effective, and forced me to put my daughter in private school, although I believe in public school education, and pay taxes for it.
I am really tired of people claiming it is "racist" for wanting those legal immigrants to assimilate, and for those illegal ones to follow our laws. No one should move to another country and expect everyone there to "accommodate" them by speaking their native language. It's simply rude. NO one, by the way, is asking Spanish speakers to deny their heritage. It simply needn't entail everyone else immersing themselves in it, in order to communicate.
Intiende?
jobsanger, I know you to be a compassionate person, but I think this issue illustrates the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative approach to problems.
ReplyDeleteIn very broad terms, liberals (or, if you prefer, progressives) seem to think that immediately making a person's existence more comfortable is the compassionate thing to do. Whether it's affirmative action in hiring or higher education, long-term welfare, or in this case, accommodating public services to immigrants' native languages, the ultimate goal is to make outcomes equal.
On the other hand, conservatives (or - dare I use a term that's gotten a bad reputation in recent years - "compassionate" conservatives) focus on more long term solutions which may not provide as much immediate comfort, but ultimately give people something much more important: equality of opportunity and pride in owning a stake in their own destiny, not relying totally on the largesse of the government and condemning them to permanent second-class status.
To my conservative way of thinking, it's much more compassionate to offer first-generation immigrants the opporunity to learn English, rather than accommodate them in their own language, thereby removing the incentive to learn English and limiting their opporunities for advancement. To that end, I volunteered to teach English as a second language through the Amarillo Baptist Association for a couple of years back in the 90's. My church (Paramount Baptist) currently has a very active program in this area called L.E.A.F. (Learning English Among Friends). I believe that a volunteer program like this is preferable to a government bureaucracy, because success is measured in how many people no longer need these classes (as opposed to a government-run program, which measures success by how big it can become).
Regarding my comment in German, if I insisted on communicating only in my heritage language, think of how much I would miss out on (this blog being a prime example!). And if you were forced to translate all your posts and comments into German to accommodate me, wouldn't that be prohibitive for you, in terms of both time and resources?
English is the lingua franca of the United States, and that's a good thing IMHO. As languages go, with its paucity of verb inflections and noun, pronoun and adjective declensions, it's relatively easy to acquire a basic working knowledge. Once that level is acquired, immigrants can communicate not only with us citizens, but also with immigrants from other countries. I believe that's far superior to a Tower of Babel approach that serves to divide and not unite, to obfuscate and not communicate.
CT, I have to call BS. As much as you guys want to equate conservative=good and progressive=evil, history shows us the truth. Conservatives, by definition, want to maintain the status-quo. They wanted to stay an English territory, they supported slavery, they keep women from voting, the list goes on. Historically the conservatives have been on the wrong side of every social issue.
ReplyDeleteConservative/progressive is not a party affiliation, it is an ideology. The republican party had liberal/progressive elements to it during the civil rights movement and the democrats had conservative elements. Once the republicans embraced the southern strategy, the conservative democrats switched parties.
As far as immigration goes, just go back to the depression era. The exact same arguments were made then, that are being made now. Small history lesson on Mexican immigration.
Abdul Alhazred (It's really so much easier to simply call you Iman),
ReplyDeleteAs much as you want to lump me in with those guys who "equate conservative=good and progessive=evil," you should know me well enough by now from our encounters at the Panhandle Truth Squad to know that, as Mike Huckabee likes to say, "I'm conservative, but I'm not angry about it." I am so weary of political jihads; in the words of my favorite philosopher, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" I'd like to think we can disagree without being disagreeable.
If you read over my comments above, you'll see that I concede that liberals/progressives are concerned with "immediately making a person's existence more comfortable." I'm sorry if you inferred that I think that's somehow evil. On the contrary, it's a noble gesture. But in and of itself, it rarely improves a person's lot over the long haul.
I'd thought about going through each of your arguments point-by-point, but I really don't have the time, and I doubt if it would change your mind anyway. So let me offer this rather clichéd (did I spell that right?) and overly simplistic summary:
Giving a man a fish is a good thing to do, but teaching a man to fish is better.
Since I've been accused of always having to have the last say, I'll give you the last word.
P.S. When you "call BS," please tell Ms. Streisand I thought she was great in Funny Girl!
ReplyDeleteGiving a man a fish is a good thing to do, but teaching a man to fish is better.
ReplyDeletePlease, conservatives don't teach, they preach.
Conservatives seem to love that "teaching a man to fish metaphor", but in order to do that you'll need to give him a fishing pole (welfare?) and teach him in his own language (there goes "English only"). I doubt they'd do either.
ReplyDelete