- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,496
- Reaction score
- 31,061
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I look forward to Americans learning English. Great oaks from little acorns grow.....
omg say it isn't so!!!!"si quieres hablar con alguien en español, oprima el dos"
every.....stinking......phone call......to a business.
Wouldn't argue they don't have the right, but would and do laugh at their silliness in doing so.
Why is it silly? Why have to print things in 2 languages? If anything it's a good thing because it forces people to learn proper English. Having an official language is a good thing.
They have the right to do so.
"Si quieres hablar con alguien en español, oprima el dos"
Every.....stinking......phone call......to a business.
Wouldn't argue they don't have the right, but would and do laugh at their silliness in doing so.
Of course, in that part of New York, bi-lingual means English/French.
What is silly about doing something many states have already done and the national government SHOULD do???
I have explained what is silly about it. So, you skip that go with we should follow the crowd? Right over the edge?
Look, it's wasteful spending, does nothing effectively, and is only a let me feel superior legislation. Nothing more.
No, I need you to link me to something saying that because the town passed a law saying that official town business must be conducted in English, nobody in town can use US bills that have any latin writing on them. See how that's different from what you said?
It is not wasteful spending declaring an official language. Many states around the world have official languages -- including the one I presently reside in. Why shouldn't there be an official language in the United States. Do you think preparing driver's license exams in a dozen languages and then administering such tests is cheap? Passing a local ordinance? How expensive is that? How is THAT wasteful spending?
Needless spending is wasteful spending. Documents are already printed in English. No English speaker has any trouble getting a document in English. Those who need something else will still get something else as state business won't stop for the personal prejudice of a minority, even for the prejudices of a majority. The same number of exams and other documents will still be printed, even if they really do away with foreign language documents, which they really won't.
Again, as this will change absolutely nothing, it is needless spending, and needless spending is wasteful spending.
How much spending do you suppose went into passing this local ordinance?
In Iowa, when they passed the Bill, it was reported a couple of million was spent, and the bill changed nothing. Hence my thought that it was wasteful.
English speakers face no problem getting things printed in English. All government documents are in English accept when they need something else. After the legislation, they still have need from time to time, and still meet that need. Such legislation isn't worth the paper it's written on, let alone large sums of money.
1. This is a local ordinance in what is apparently a small town, not a state. This is likely to cost VERY little, if anything. You say "large sums of money", but you have been unable to convince me that this action by a small town will have that cost.
2. This isn't about English speakers. This is about putting in place measures requiring immigrants to learn English and to ensure that all government services are provided in English and only English.
I would support state laws requiring English for all state documents, including driver's license tests. We know the national government won't do the right thing in this regard.
I have no idea what money they actually spent, but it has to have some cost. And in a free country, you can't really mandate that. Not only that, historically, people have come here not knowing the language. Historically, their children learned the language.
This is about prejudice more than anything else. It hurts us in no way to accommodate more than one language. No one is hurt by knowing more than one.
There is little to nothing right about this movement. It is sheer ethnocentrism and hubris.
You can mandate government services. You can't mandate what private businesses do.
Except the tax dollars spent in providing services in multiple languages. In most instances, it doesn't need to be done. This is not about KNOWING languages. I speak several languages and of course encourage people to learn multiple languages. However, this law is not about the learning of foreign languages by Americans, is it?
Of course, ignoring the fact that most of the countries that these immigrants are coming from have similar or even more stringent language policies.
Should San Antonio, and other Latino cities like it, pass a law to make all government business in Spanish? Should Gary, Indiana pass a law making Ebonics the official language? Should San Francisco pass a law requiring everyone to slur?
Should San Antonio, and other Latino cities like it, pass a law to make all government business in Spanish? Should Gary, Indiana pass a law making Ebonics the official language? Should San Francisco pass a law requiring everyone to slur?
How much spending do you suppose went into passing this local ordinance?
Should San Antonio, and other Latino cities like it, pass a law to make all government business in Spanish? Should Gary, Indiana pass a law making Ebonics the official language? Should San Francisco pass a law requiring everyone to slur?