• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should English be declared the official language of the United States?

Should English be declared the official language of the United States?


  • Total voters
    79
Everyone in the United States is either an immigrant or the descedant of immigrants, PERIOD!

What I'm saying is that the first settlers weren't moving to be part of the societies that were formed before they came. They were merely moving from one land to another and forming a new society in that region. Sorry for my term error, but my point was made before that. She was comparing the two and saying that its a double standard. When there is no double standard at all. The two situations are different.
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is that the first settlers weren't moving to be part of the societies that were formed before they came. They were merely moving from one land to another and forming a new society in that region. Sorry for my term error, but my point was made before that.

The first English immigrants were also bent on creating their own new society different from the one they left behind.
 
You know, in Taiwan, many people refer to 'English' as 'American language' 美語 - literal translation from Chinese...

I resent that.

But as to the OP, I don't see the point, it just disadvantages recent immigrants without any particular benefit.
 
I resent that.

But as to the OP, I don't see the point, it just disadvantages recent immigrants without any particular benefit.

Why resent it? Actually, it is largely because Taiwanese are generally very pro-American and the American dialect of English is what is typically taught here. And the word for U.S. literally means 'beautiful country'. What is there to be resentful about?

However, once again, to counter what some people have said, the country where I live has an official language, but many other languages are in use and are not under threat from the fact that Mandarin is official.
 
Oh, and I guess Native Americans never went to war with EACH OTHER? Right.

Of course they did.

OTOH, tribal wars were nothing like the large scale pogroms. massacres of women, children and old people, forced removal of children to "Indian schools" where they were beaten for speaking their own language and taught such lucrative career skills as mopping floors, gifts of smallpox-infested blankets, outlawing of religious practices, forced sterilization, enforced starvation by the slaughter of the buffalo and confinement on reservations, genocidal practices etc. etc. ad nauseum that were done TO the Native Peoples for, oh, 500+ years.

This is real life. There's no "original sin." Everyone has someone in their family tree with blood on their hands, if you go back far enough. It's just DNA - it says nothing about who that individual is as a person. I bet my ancestors had slaves. Does that make me pro-slavery? I bet your ancestors killed some people from other Native American tribes. Should I blame you?

I don't think he's asking you to wear a hair shirt and flagellate yourself for something some ancestor whose name you don't even know did in the 1800's. He's saying that we have to be vigilant that these things aren't repeated.

Those white people back then actually believed they were doing what God wanted, stealing land and killing Indians. They called it "Manifest Destiny". Google it. Large scale delusion that rationalizes genocide is a horrible thing.

Trying to guilt people who have nothing to do with whatever historical thing you won't let go of is completely pointless to the conversation. Nothing you've said has anything to do with having a national language. You're not even participating in the debate. Just flinging about emotionally-laden but argumentatively fallacious side-tracks from the conversation the rest of us are trying to have.

They're not fallacious. Everything he brings up is well-documented. And while some reparations are in order (nothing can make up for the things that happened, but I'd like to at least see some good intent - the Lakota were promised the Black Hills, for instance, in the Treaty of 1868 for "as long as grass grows and water flows" but it wasn't them who broke it. I'd much rather for them to have the Paha Sapa back than to have the current Flintstones Bedrock City and Sturgis Sausage Suck contest there.) he's not asking you to do anything but THINK. Who cares what language another person chooses to speak? What right does anybody have to make somebody else "unofficial"?

It's horrifyingly easy to fall into the behaviors he's talking about. Look at Germany - one day everybody's told that the economy's bad because the Jews are taking everything, so they're going to "relocate" them. Sounds harmless enough, doesn't it? Next thing you know they're going along with the story that Auschwitz smells the way it does because it's a "sausage factory". They know what it is, but they have to go along with that story if they want to live. My area was settled by Germans in the 1800's, most of the white people here are of German descent and they're not inherently sick or vicious at all, a lot of them are wonderful. It's just that the ones over in Germany in the 1930's allowed themselves to be sucked in by xenophobic propaganda. Then it was too late.

Most developed countries, with the best standard of living and the lowest crime, have a national language. The implementation of declaring an official language is well-known, well-practiced, and has nothing to do with ethnic, cultural, or territorial war. It is obvious to everyone but you that what you're saying has no bearing on the concept at hand.

I would say that the standard of living and the low crime rate is due to something other than having an "official language". My dog has fangs and he's a good pet. Does this mean that he's a good pet BECAUSE he has fangs, or that all animals with fangs are good pets?

There shouldn't be an "official language" anywhere. As you mentioned, people clash. Suppose the Chinese took over someday and declared Mandarin the "official language" here? Would you be ok with that?
 
Last edited:
Why resent it? Actually, it is largely because Taiwanese are generally very pro-American and the American dialect of English is what is typically taught here. And the word for U.S. literally means 'beautiful country'. What is there to be resentful about?

I'm not American and I speak English, that's why I resent it. :lol:
However, once again, to counter what some people have said, the country where I live has an official language, but many other languages are in use and are not under threat from the fact that Mandarin is official.

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying if all official documents have to be in English, it places recent immigrants at an unnecessary disadvantage. An official language has no real benefit, except when used, like in Ireland or New Zealand, to preserve a tradition language. English is in no danger of being forgotten, whereas Maori or Gaelic are.
 
Oh, and I guess Native Americans never went to war with EACH OTHER? Right.

Please do not try to equate warfare between regional tribes (which usually at most cost the lives of several hundred people at each skirmish with the systematic and wholesale landtheft,ethnic cleansing,and attempts at genocide which has cost thousands upon thousands (if not millions) of Native Americans lives.


This is real life. There's no "original sin." Everyone has someone in their family tree with blood on their hands, if you go back far enough. It's just DNA - it says nothing about who that individual is as a person. I bet my ancestors had slaves. Does that make me pro-slavery? I bet your ancestors killed some people from other Native American tribes. Should I blame you?

I don't excuse the blood on my ancestors hands,and I don't condone it.
But I'm not going to let that negate the blood on the hands of those who killed my ancestors for their land either.

Please put up the post where I blamed any modern person here for the atrocities committed in the past against my ancestors.
If you can,seeing as how I didn't.
Post 95 was only an analogy (and a bad one at that I admit) and not a direct blame on any modern person,

Trying to guilt people who have nothing to do with whatever historical thing you won't let go of is completely pointless to the conversation. Nothing you've said has anything to do with having a national language. You're not even participating in the debate. Just flinging about emotionally-laden but argumentatively fallacious side-tracks from the conversation the rest of us are trying to have.
Have you even actually carefully read all my posts?
And yet no one has come forward to claim that anything I've said was inaccurate or untrue.

I have stated a number of times on this thread that the logic used to support an Official Language (that the majority does it and has done it for a long time) can also be used to support an Official Religion, an official Ideology,or an Official Race.
No one has come out and refuted that.
Because it is a valid point.

I have asked what safeguards are in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening.
A valid question.
The answer has thus far seems to boil down to "there is no guarantee,you just going to have to trust us".

I have pointed out that an "Official language" can be turned into a "Forced/Mandatory Language" and used examples from my ancestry and my own past as to show how it can happen and the affects it can cause.
A valid point

Again,no one refuted the accuracy or the validity of it.

I have asked if there is a guarantee that atrocities cannot by committed because of it(Making English "Official).
A valid question
Again the answer boiled down to "no guarantee,you are just going to have to trust us".

I have asked why should we even need an "Official Language"
A valid question.
The general answer has been (including your's) "because other countries do it".
Very little statistical data or evidence that it can have benefits for us in this country.
It seems to me that's the equivalent of saying "because we say so".

Just because you and some others may not like the questions I ask,or the points I have made, doesn't mean that I have not participated or addad to this discussion.



Most developed countries, with the best standard of living and the lowest crime, have a national language. The implementation of declaring an official language is well-known, well-practiced, and has nothing to do with ethnic, cultural, or territorial war. It is obvious to everyone but you that what you're saying has no bearing on the concept at hand.

In other words " because other countries do it"
Do you have any statistics on this. Any empirical evidence.
I'd love to see it cause so far,none has been shown.
Show me how doing so will benefit this country.
If that's not too much to ask.

Can you give a hundred percent guarantee that there is absolutely no racism/bigotry nor ulterior motives within anyone who supports
making English the "Official language".
Because there seems to be a number of people on this thread asking that very same question.
 
Last edited:
Everyone in the United States is either an immigrant or the descedant of immigrants, PERIOD!

Depends.

For most intents and purposes, the Indians were always here. Of course the anthros say they came from Asia...but if you're going to go waaaaay back like that, why not just say we're all African since everybody's DNA can be traced back there?

I think if I went to Sudan and tried to pass myself off as African, they'd laugh at me. :D
 
That's actually a good point considering that every region of the country speaks a different dialect of the language. A man like with me, with a southern drawl, would have a hard time in Boston and visa versa.

A pocketbook is a purse.
A tonic is a soda.
A bubbler is a water fountain.
Not difficult.
 
Yes. The majority of the country already speaks it.

The majority of all legal processes are held in English.

Hey get this...the Contstitution is written in English.

All of our laws are on the books in English.

Our textbooks are in English.

I can keep going.

But my favorite, most selfish reason is that I'm sick and tired of pressing one for English when the VAST majority already speaks it!

So you'd marginalize millions of people to keep from havig to push a button?
 
It's horrifyingly easy to fall into the behaviors he's talking about. Look at Germany - one day everybody's told that the economy's bad because the Jews are taking everything, so they're going to "relocate" them. Sounds harmless enough, doesn't it? Next thing you know they're going along with the story that Auschwitz smells the way it does because it's a "sausage factory". They know what it is, but they have to go along with that story if they want to live. My area was settled by Germans in the 1800's, most of the white people here are of German descent and they're not inherently sick or vicious at all, a lot of them are wonderful. It's just that the ones over in Germany in the 1930's allowed themselves to be sucked in by xenophobic propaganda. Then it was too late.

Opps... may we now invoke Godwin's Law???
 
I'm not American and I speak English, that's why I resent it. :lol:

So, what is wrong with referring to the American dialect of English as "American"?


I'm not saying that, I'm just saying if all official documents have to be in English, it places recent immigrants at an unnecessary disadvantage. An official language has no real benefit, except when used, like in Ireland or New Zealand, to preserve a tradition language. English is in no danger of being forgotten, whereas Maori or Gaelic are.

All official documents SHOULD be in an official language. Even the UN has official languages in which all of its documents are published in. What about all of the people around the world who don't speak one of its six official languages?
 
Can you give a hundred percent guarantee that there is absolutely no racism/bigotry nor ulterior motives within anyone who supports
making English the "Official language".
Because there seems to be a number of people on this thread asking that very same question.

You can't give a 100% guarantee from any group of people on the planet that there is no racism or bigotry among those who support a political position. ANY political position. And it doesn't matter. It is about what is best for the United States. Unless the U.S. would like to become among the many bi/multi-lingual states with fractured identities, ethnic clashes and seperatist/irredentist movements...
 
Depends.

For most intents and purposes, the Indians were always here. Of course the anthros say they came from Asia...but if you're going to go waaaaay back like that, why not just say we're all African since everybody's DNA can be traced back there?

I think if I went to Sudan and tried to pass myself off as African, they'd laugh at me. :D

But they are still immigrants... hey, I am part Canadian First Nations myself... many Quebecois are...

It doesn't change the fact that in order to promote national identity and cohesiveness, the U.S. needs a single national, official language... and if states (like Hawaii and Alaska) declare a second language as official for State business, that is up to them... but the official language of the Federal government ought to be English...
 
You can't give a 100% guarantee from any group of people on the planet that there is no racism or bigotry among those who support a political position. ANY political position. And it doesn't matter. It is about what is best for the United States. Unless the U.S. would like to become among the many bi/multi-lingual states with fractured identities, ethnic clashes and seperatist/irredentist movements...

Not to mention this is guilt by association, and commits the fallacy of never analyzing the merits of such a policy, but merely the character of some of it's supporters. It's like attacking someone talking about the possible health merits of a vegetarian diet by citing the Nazi's
 
Opps... may we now invoke Godwin's Law???

Since we were talking about language and culture and genocide anyway. Nobody said "MY BOSS WON'T LET ME WEAR FLIP FLOPS MY BOSS IS HITLER!!!" :p
 
Forget English, Go straight to Chinese and save the fuss in a decade or two.
 
But they are still immigrants... hey, I am part Canadian First Nations myself... many Quebecois are...

It doesn't change the fact that in order to promote national identity and cohesiveness, the U.S. needs a single national, official language... and if states (like Hawaii and Alaska) declare a second language as official for State business, that is up to them... but the official language of the Federal government ought to be English...

How would handing down a verdict that english is the "official language" promote "national identity and cohesiveness" when so many people oppose it? And why would we even need "national identity and cohesiveness", except to oppose someone else's "national identity and cohesiveness"?

We're humans. We live on earth. That's all the "national identity and cohesiveness" necessary.
No "out" groups.
 
I am asking this question because of an ongoing discussion .

here.

Should English be declared the official language of the United States?

Looking at it from a practical perspective, I think so. I see many advantages and no real disadvantage to requiring that all citizens at least have a basic skill in the language.
 
How would handing down a verdict that english is the "official language" promote "national identity and cohesiveness" when so many people oppose it? And why would we even need "national identity and cohesiveness", except to oppose someone else's "national identity and cohesiveness"?

And how stable and cohesive are most nations that are bi/multi-lingual???
 
Please. Every time someone says they support making English an official language in America, someone says they just hate Mexicans. It's been racial for pretty much the whole debate.
except no one said that...

No, it isn't. We live in a different time, with a different culture, and everyone who perpetrated those things has been dead for a very long time. What happened hundreds of years ago is irrelevant to the situation now, and irrelevant to the discussion of what is the best course of action now.
Nope, a nation's history is never irrelevant, particularly when members of that nation try to characterize other people as "unAmerican" while doing perfectly American things.
 
I voted an unequivocal YES.


From 1880 to 1924, around two million Jews moved to the United States, mostly seeking better opportunity in America and fleeing the pogroms of the Russian Empire. After 1934 Jews, along with any other above-quota immigration, were usually denied access to the United States.

Congress passed a literacy requirement in 1917 to curb the influx of low-skilled immigrants from entering the country.

Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s. This ultimately resulted in precluding the all "extra" immigration to the United States, including Jews fleeing Nazi German persecution.

In 1924, quotas were set for European immigrants so that no more than 2% of the 1890 immigrant stocks were allowed into America.
See also: National and ethnic cultures of Utah#National groups from Europe
[edit] New Immigration
Mulberry Street, along which Manhattan's Little Italy is centered. Lower East Side, circa 1900.

"New immigration" was a term from the late 1880s that came from the influx of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe (areas that previously sent few immigrants).[31] Some Americans feared the new arrivals. This raised the issue of whether the U.S. was still a "melting pot," or if it had just become a "dumping ground," and many old-stock Americans worried about negative effects on the economy, politics and culture.[32]
Catholicism became a leading denomination 1860-1910. St. John Cantius, one of Chicago's "Polish Cathedrals" was one of the churches these new immigrants founded.

There were restrictions to immigration in the past and it was directed towards "GASP" White Europeans....we should stop this illegal immigration immediately...

History of immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
A quick and resounding YES ! from me.
And yes, the rights of the nation supersede those "personal" rights, IMO.
For over 200 years, all of the people who have emigrated understood the "one-language rule", until we went soft with all the Spanish speakers and the trade acts (Spanish, French, and English).
Now, it may be too late, Spanish is entrenched..
And its is a minor annoyance to have to put up with several foreign languages...
Twenty years ago, English should have been the official language...
 
I think English should be made the official federal language and that individual states could then add whatever second or third language they feel is necessary.
 
Back
Top Bottom