• 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
I think we should declare English as the official language in the United States at the federal level. However, I believe the states should also be allowed to make other state recognized languages at the level of the state government. I think all immigrants to our nation should be fluent in English as a prerequisite for citizenship.
 
Americans weren't immigrants. You never even had a point, let alone that I made your point.

Americans were not indigenous. That's who we found when we got here. Everybody from the Mayflower on down emigrated here and (for the most part) became citizens. Their children were American.
 
A pocketbook is a purse.
A tonic is a soda.
A bubbler is a water fountain.
Not difficult.

Actually, only one of those words are words we use, that being said, it's not the words they use, but how they say them.
 
Last edited:
At one point,wasn't the language spoken by your ancestors the dominant language of their territory?
Did they require the European settlers to speak their language?
Did they try to assimulate as a whole?
Learn the language of the Cherokee/Creek as a whole
Or did they just kick your ancestors off their land like they did mine.

And that seems to be the root of the issue isn't it.
The fear of others doing to modern Americans what was done to the natives 200 to 300 years ago.
It might be moot point,but was it right what was done to our ancestors?

There is a big difference between having some ancestors that were Indian,and being half Indian.Such as myself.
I'm wondering,did you grow up on a reservation,did you go to a government Boarding school?
I grew up on the Wazi Ahanhan Oyaŋke (Pineridge Lakota ) "Res" in South Dakota in the '70's, I saw with my own eyes what the affects of 200-300 years have done. Try telling the poor of that region it's "moot point".
I remember as a little kid what happened at Wounded Knee in the 70's
I am relearning a language that was forcibly denied me as a child by our own government.

Like I've stated before on a previous post,there is a danger of an "Official Language" being turned into a "Forced Language". and that can easilly slide into a Forced Religion,and a Forced Ideology.

I've seen it happen.


Roughly half of my ancestors were mixed-blood Cherokee and Creek who joined with the white settlers early, settled down on farms in the Carolinas and Georgia and intermarried in the early 1700's. To my knowlege none walked the Trail of Tears... because they figured out which was the winning side and joined it. They suffered prejudice at times because of their mixed blood, yes, but they managed to stay on or near their ancestral lands and many became successful. Thanks to a large amount of racially mixed Natives in this area there was a certain amount of acceptance.

I didn't grow up on a Res, I grew up on a farm that had been owned by my family, or our kin, for over 100 years. My father was more obviously part-Native than I, but in the church I grew up in no one made any issue of it... we had a half-blood pastor at one point even though most of the congregation was white. In all, I'd have to say my Native ancestors made the right choices for their decendents.

I don't call myself Cherokee or Creek because I did not grow up as part of the tribal culture. That is one thing that was lost to me and my siblings. It was the price my ancestors paid to be successful survivors instead of refugees. While I respect those who fought to the end, in the end it didn't help them much. I was raised to think of myself as an American, period, instead of worrying about things from centuries ago that cannot be changed.

The reality of the now is that the USA exists, that it is a better place to live than at least 95% of the world, and if it is to continue to exist then all those who claim it as their home should be able to speak a common language. Speak what you like at home, but learn the common tongue: English. People who can't even talk to each other cannot feel very connected as citizens of the same nation.
 
I am asking this question because of an ongoing discussion .

here.

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

Globally, English is the un/official language of business. It follows that we reflect this.

The utility of an 'official' language is invaluable. All it means is that road signs, government forms, etc, are all in English.

This doesn't mean we can't accommodate people who have trouble speaking English, though. It simply means that the government operates in English first, any other language second.
 
Just how many fracking languages are we supposed to accomodate? Shall we make all documents available in Estonian? Should road signs include Mandarin, Cantonese, Swahili and Zulu? How far do you take this?

Maintaining a sense of national identity across several thousand miles of landmass, and several thousand miles of ocean in some cases, is difficult enough without the citizenry lacking a common language in which to speak with each other. Nothing makes people see others as alien moreso than not being able to communicate with them.

Diversity is all well and good but a nation of forty-seven languages, where half the population can't even talk with the other half, is no nation. It is a shambling mess looking for a place to fall apart.

Use ridiculous examples that don't make up even 1% of the country's population to attack 10% of the population. How right wing of you.
 
Last edited:
I voted no. If you forced millions of immigrants to learn English, they would certainly learn it, but they would not have a high proficiency level. That takes years of wilful practice. In the mean time, having concise info available in their mother tongue keeps things less complicated and reduces errors.

Our ancestors who helped form this country came from all over. The people who built our cities were mainly immigrants. Maintaining flexibility is what allowed all that to happen.

An American who can't speak English is still an American.

Since I have to learn Dari for Afghanistan, Mexicans should have to learn some English for America. They don't have to be very good at it, Lord knows I won't be very good at Dari, but everyone needs that baseline for communication.
 
The utility of an 'official' language is invaluable. All it means is that road signs, government forms, etc, are all in English.

This is exactly right and it's something that is already done.

Use ridiculous examples that don't make up even 1% of the country's population to attack 10% of the population. How right wing of you.

That still leaves 90% of the country that speaks English. Sure lets pander to the extreme minority. That's obviously to the benefit of the country. :roll:
 
So do you think that the Europeans that were settling into Indian land should of "adjusted" to the land,learned to speak the language,assimilate into their culture, and that the Indians had every right to defend their land,their culture,their,way of life,by any means necessary?



You realize that every time some crybaby from the boo hoo sniff snif waa evil Europeans stole our ancestors land group tries to make the argument about how European settlers did not speak common language of the land, did not assimilate and that there was no immigration control does not make a good guilt trip argument against making English the official language, against cracking down on illegal immigration or against requiring immigrants to assimilate. The only thing your argument does is say look what happened to my/our(some of us have ancestors who were native Americans) ancestors, they were ****ed in ass with a very splintery 2x4 because they did nothing to control immigration or require that new settlers didn't assimilate. Its like trying to using the fact your neighbors house with the crappy locks and no security system got robbed to endorse the fact that you do not need to replace your own crappy locks or to get a security system.
 
Last edited:
So do you think that the Europeans that were settling into Indian land should of "adjusted" to the land,learned to speak the language,assimilate into their culture, and that the Indians had every right to defend their land,their culture,their,way of life,by any means necessary?

So you think the current arrangement of united States is equivalent to the competing nations of native American's?

Every time 2 civilizations meet, and one is significantly more advanced than the other, the lesser civilization gets the shaft.

It behooves the lesser civilization to adapt to their superior, for if they do not the punishment they impose upon themselves will be far worse than anything the greater civilization could impose.
 
I believe that the USA should fully-fund learning centers throughout the country for both adult and child English courses.
Why? Why not just make it a condition of emigration? If you want to come here be able to pass a basic American-English proficiency test.

And for good measure let's add the same test to our welfare rolls. If you want the taxpayer to provide you with goodies show that you can read and write American-English.
 
No. Just because you don't speak English doesn't mean you aren't an American. This will never happen anyway.

I speak Portuguese but I was born in America.
 
Why? Why not just make it a condition of emigration? If you want to come here be able to pass a basic American-English proficiency test.

And for good measure let's add the same test to our welfare rolls. If you want the taxpayer to provide you with goodies show that you can read and write American-English.

And corporate welfare, if your corporation is going to receive federal government money or tax exemptions ALL your employees had better goddam well speak English proficiently.

I would include churches as well. If a church wants and expects to receive state and federal tax blessings then its members had better be able to speak English. No excuses!
 
Why? Why not just make it a condition of emigration? If you want to come here be able to pass a basic American-English proficiency test.

And for good measure let's add the same test to our welfare rolls. If you want the taxpayer to provide you with goodies show that you can read and write American-English.

Does this mean we can kick out people who don't understand English? That's more then a few users on this site who fail to grasp even a basic level of English Comprehension.
 
...and we've always had second-generation immigrants fully assimilate into American culture and speak English. This has been the case for over 200 years. So what exactly has changed that has you so worried?
But not any more. Second generation Mexicans speak Spanish. This is the beginning of the end of the nation.

So we decide that we want everyone to speak a common language in official business. Anyone can still speak privately in whatever language they choose. But public documents, voting, courts, all government associated acts and services should be in that common language.

Webster created a dictionary so that we could have a common understanding of the words each of us spoke with others. It was to prevent us from fracturing and become a handful of small, warring nations. I think he had the right idea.
 
I spent about 16 months bicycling cross-country in India, and can assure you, outside of the major cities, and tourist areas, it is very rare to find someone who speaks English,
LOL. Maybe that is because all of the call centers and technical support centers have moved to Pakistan!
 
Use ridiculous examples that don't make up even 1% of the country's population to attack 10% of the population. How right wing of you.
LOL. Up until this point I had not realized this was right versus left. I suppose I was wrong. Fortunately, I don't need to flip my vote. It is a good idea if we want to preserve this nation.
 
Does this mean we can kick out people who don't understand English? That's more then a few users on this site who fail to grasp even a basic level of English Comprehension.
Sometimes this sounds good to me. You propose it. I will support you!
 
You realize that every time some crybaby from the boo hoo sniff snif waa evil Europeans stole our ancestors land group tries to make the argument about how European settlers did not speak common language of the land, did not assimilate and that there was no immigration control does not make a good guilt trip argument against making English the official language, against cracking down on illegal immigration or against requiring immigrants to assimilate. The only thing your argument does is say look what happened to my/our(some of us have ancestors who were native Americans) ancestors, they were ****ed in ass with a very splintery 2x4 because they did nothing to control immigration or require that new settlers didn't assimilate. Its like trying to using the fact your neighbors house with the crappy locks and no security system got robbed to endorse the fact that you do not need to replace your own crappy locks or to get a security system.


Actually, from my studies, that is exactly why the Native Indian tribes were utterly defeated: The European settlers out-immigrated and out-bred them, largely because one Cherokee living by traditional hunter-gatherer methods needed eight square miles of good land... and that same 8sq mi of good land could support thousands of settlers using European farming methods. Moreso even than technology or firearms, that did the tribes in.

And it is a good lesson for America today... let an "alien" people who don't want to assimilate in langage, culture, norms or practices gain a large foothold and outbreed you, and you may soon find yourself a marginalized minority in your own nation. :(
 
Actually, from my studies, that is exactly why the Native Indian tribes were utterly defeated: The European settlers out-immigrated and out-bred them, largely because one Cherokee living by traditional hunter-gatherer methods needed eight square miles of good land... and that same 8sq mi of good land could support thousands of settlers using European farming methods. Moreso even than technology or firearms, that did the tribes in.

And it is a good lesson for America today... let an "alien" people who don't want to assimilate in langage, culture, norms or practices gain a large foothold and outbreed you, and you may soon find yourself a marginalized minority in your own nation. :(

Are you trying to say that the Cherokee didn't have agriculture? Actually, the Cherokee were among the more sophisticated agriculturalists east of the Mississippi river.
 
Actually, from my studies, that is exactly why the Native Indian tribes were utterly defeated: The European settlers out-immigrated and out-bred them, largely because one Cherokee living by traditional hunter-gatherer methods needed eight square miles of good land... and that same 8sq mi of good land could support thousands of settlers using European farming methods. Moreso even than technology or firearms, that did the tribes in.

And it is a good lesson for America today... let an "alien" people who don't want to assimilate in langage, culture, norms or practices gain a large foothold and outbreed you, and you may soon find yourself a marginalized minority in your own nation. :(

While sad? It is funny at the same time. The poor pitiful white men will be the minority... Yeah right. Not gonna happen. lol.
 
Are you trying to say that the Cherokee didn't have agriculture? Actually, the Cherokee were among the more sophisticated agriculturalists east of the Mississippi river.

They had agriculture, but it isn't as simple as had it/didn't have it: the European methods were more efficient, and the hunter-gatherer methods were still a major part of tribal culture and subsistence as late as the early 19th century. Some Cherokee turned to agriculture as a full-time activity, emulating the European immigrants; some also became slaveowners and had their own plantations. Many of them also intermarried with whites and became part of the expanding colonial/American civilization. My ancestors were among these.

Others kept more to the old ways: a limited amount of agriculture combined with hunting and gathering, and the large territories that required for each band and tribe. Although this faction of the Cherokee also took up firearms and steel weapons for war, they lost due to population pressure resulting from the colonists' more efficient agriculture, a lack of large-scale organization, and an inability to fight open-field battles on the scale the American militia and Select Militia were able.
 
English is the language of success worldwide at least until mandarin takes over. The cost of maintaining multiple languages is a burden on the people of every state in the union. One that should not be supported or needed. If they come let them learn the language.
 
English is the language of success worldwide at least until mandarin takes over. The cost of maintaining multiple languages is a burden on the people of every state in the union. One that should not be supported or needed. If they come let them learn the language.

What is this Caucasian nation you speak of?
 
Back
Top Bottom