Would you vote for or against a national language in the USA?

[TheGoverness]

I would use or like long term inhabitants to speak English.

I encounter 2nd generation Americans on a regular basis that do not have a more than a toddlers vocabulary.

Wat u meen

 

[Mustachio]

As above, would you vote in favor of a national language in the USA? It would not preclude you from speaking any number of other languages at home or in public, it would only serve as official business and IMO a way of uniting Americans instead of dividing us along those lines.

Also it doesn't matter what the language is, the most obvious would be English or Spanish being they are the most widely spoken and are the 2 longest occupying nationalities of what has become this nation.

So the vote is for or against 1 common language.

If the results are more pro then con maybe I'll then take a poll as to what language we should make it.

90% of communication is nonverbal, so we already have an international language by default. Sorry, people who voted, the winner is "nonverbal."

I have worked with many people who don't speak english or can't speak english for several reasons, and have had great relationships with them. I would definitely consider them my friends. Some of them at least. So nonverbal is alright for the international language. You could do worse.

 

[ecofarm]

I would use or like long term inhabitants to speak English.

I encounter 2nd generation Americans on a regular basis that do not have a more than a toddlers vocabulary.

Where does one encounter people whose parents were born here and they don't speak English?

Edit: Okay, I get it.

 

[Neomalthusian]

¡Sí! Una sola idioma!

 

[year2late]

Wat u meen

I am not sure if it should be a national language....but we sure seem to go out of our way to make it easier not to. Voting materials, drivers exams and tests, requiring facilities to have interpretation services, etc. I do not have issue with those that first get here...but 10 years later? 50 years later? I end up spending less time with my English speaking patients because of the extra time it takes to communicate.I care and respect all my patients - just wish iit was easier.

At the bank, DMV, social security.....I have seen individuals needing interpreters being called ahead.

When my son was in HS and we would have meetings with his counselor, the meetings ahead of us would run long because they were using interpreters. Our meetings were rushed and cut short because of this.

I absolutely adore living in a multicultural area.....but it should not be so easy for someone to stay here and expect to obtain services and not have at least a 5th grade command of the English language. Not sure that means a National language.

 

[JONRID]

I don't get it. Are you talking about an official language, the language the government uses to communicate with the citizens? Yeah, there has to be a choice. It doesn't have to be just one language- in Canada citizens can choose to communicate with the government in either English or French. In Switzerland they have four languages to choose from.
But if you mean business has to be conducted in the official language, forget it.

And in Canada the French speaking and the English speaking are at each others throats... There is a constant Quebecois succession movement which the French have lost several times.

Muti language countries almost always have violence between the balkanized ethnic groups.

I wonder what people are always comparing the USA to different European countries. Those countries are only the size of a USA state.

France, for example is about the size of Texas and Japan is the size of California.

More than size, the USA is an idea. The idea being that everyone comes to a new land for new beginning and becomes an American speaking one language.

Mutli languages only hastens the day the USA balkanizes and fractures into the Republic of California, Republic of New York etc.

 

[Cameron]

As above, would you vote in favor of a national language in the USA? It would not preclude you from speaking any number of other languages at home or in public, it would only serve as official business and IMO a way of uniting Americans instead of dividing us along those lines.

Also it doesn't matter what the language is, the most obvious would be English or Spanish being they are the most widely spoken and are the 2 longest occupying nationalities of what has become this nation.

So the vote is for or against 1 common language.

If the results are more pro then con maybe I'll then take a poll as to what language we should make it.

If having a national language doesn't prohibit people from speaking different languages and is purely symbolic, I don't see how it could do anything but divide Americans.

I don't see the point. I live in a city with a humongous latin American population and speak zero Spanish and I've never had any issues whatsoever. We do not have a problem of non-communication or miscommunication anywhere in this country. The "speak English" push comes from pure xenophobia and a desire to control things that have no affect on others.

 

[Grand Mal]

And in Canada the French speaking and the English speaking are at each others throats... There is a constant Quebecois succession movement which the French have lost several times.

Muti language countries almost always have violence between the balkanized ethnic groups.
.

Sorry, pal, you don't know what you're talking about. French and English get along great in Canada. The people in Quebec occasionally elect the Parti Quebecois because they like the social programs, and when a succession referendum is held (there's been a couple so far) they vote it down.
There's so many examples around the world of bi- and multi-lingual countries working just fine that I hardly know where to start citing them so I'll just give you two- Belgium and Switzerland.

 

[Excon]

No, I'm genuinely curious how you believe legislation that officialises a de-facto language created social cohesion.

You are playing a game.
As I stated.

You know damn well how a common language can unify and provided cohesiveness among a population. So you can stop with the game.​

Well, the thing is, unlike in China, in the West we think all citizens should be able to participate in democracy, not just those that can pass arbitrary barriers.

Irrelevant to what you quoted.

No, it's exclusion. My great-grandmother spent the last 15 years of her life only able to speak German thank to dementia. Completely forgot English.

No, it is not exclusion.
And pointing to a very rare occurrence doesn't make it exclusion either, nor could it.
Your claim is as stupid as it is wrong.

No, I'm not. Obviously there's a better case for English than Mandarin, but the problem with legislation is it's changeable. There's no reason it couldn't be changed to Mandarin, even if English was made the official language first. Would you learn Mandarin if the legislation said you had to?

Yes you are arguing nonsense and just did it again in the above quote.

---

There's nothing remotely unifying or cohesive about a law that hints of top-down social engineering. Designating Mandarin Chinese and Russian as official government languages (especially in public school instruction), and discouraging the use of native languages in day-to-day business, were the tactics of the Soviets as well as the modern day Chinese Communist Party.

A nation having an official language is now social engineering? iLOL Hilarious.
:lamo

 

[brothern]

A nation having an official language is now social engineering? iLOL Hilarious.:lamo

Absolutely. Both the USSR/Russia and China had (continue to have) problems of large non-majority ethnic groups that speak different languages. Those groups have separate national identities than the majority ethnic Russians or Chinese, and thus are not as cooperative to the State as they should be.

The USSR and today's Russia have attempted over the past two centuries to cease the use of the Ukrainian, Polish, Belarusian, Tartar, Uzbeki and Tajik languages. Among others. They've did this by creating Russian as a national language, and enforcing its sole usage in educational instutions, courts, government and business.

As another example, after Yanukovych fled Ukraine in 2014, one of the first acts of Parliament was to remove Russian as a state language and re-declare Ukrainian as the only official nation-wide language. That was used by Russia propagandists to terrify ethnic Russians in Ukraine, and help bring support to and initiate the Ukrainian civil war several months later.

Meanwhile the freedom-loving, small-government Communist Chinese Party, sees "Mandarin Chinese" as the unifying national language of China and has designated it the official language. I have that in scare-quotes because China declares Cantonese, Taiwanese, Mongolian, Zhuang to all be "Mandarin" despite the fact that they're mutually incomprehensible. They're different languages. Rather China relies on a law to standardize in schools, government and media the use of "standard" Mandarin which is coincidentally defined as the Beijing dialect or what we would call Mandarin Chinese.

So, when I hear conservatives throw about words like "unifying" and "cohesiveness" by establishing a national or official language in the United States ... it stinks of statism.

 

[Common Sense 1]

As above, would you vote in favor of a national language in the USA? It would not preclude you from speaking any number of other languages at home or in public, it would only serve as official business and IMO a way of uniting Americans instead of dividing us along those lines.

Also it doesn't matter what the language is, the most obvious would be English or Spanish being they are the most widely spoken and are the 2 longest occupying nationalities of what has become this nation.

So the vote is for or against 1 common language.

If the results are more pro then con maybe I'll then take a poll as to what language we should make it.

English

English is without a doubt the actual universal language. It is the world's second largest native language, the official language in 70 countries, and English-speaking countries are responsible for about 40% of world's total GNP. ... All over the planet people know many English words, their pronunciation and meaning.

 

[JONRID]

If having a national language doesn't prohibit people from speaking different languages and is purely symbolic, I don't see how it could do anything but divide Americans.

I don't see the point. I live in a city with a humongous latin American population and speak zero Spanish and I've never had any issues whatsoever. We do not have a problem of non-communication or miscommunication anywhere in this country. The "speak English" push comes from pure xenophobia and a desire to control things that have no affect on others.

What language are your schools taught in ??? English and Spanish ??
How about voting ballots ? Welfare applications etc.

I received a letter from my heath HMO the other day. There was a separate page offering translation services in about 15 different languages. Some I never heard of.

LA school district complains they have (by law) teach kids in about 80 different languages.
All of this adds a different layer of expense to everything we do.

 

[JONRID]

Sorry, pal, you don't know what you're talking about. French and English get along great in Canada. The people in Quebec occasionally elect the Parti Quebecois because they like the social programs, and when a succession referendum is held (there's been a couple so far) they vote it down.
There's so many examples around the world of bi- and multi-lingual countries working just fine that I hardly know where to start citing them so I'll just give you two- Belgium and Switzerland.

Quit blowing smoke.

The fact you post "The people in Quebec occasionally elect the Parti Quebecois because they like the social programs, and when a succession referendum is held (there's been a couple so far) they vote it down." means the English/French do not get along just fine.

If they got along just fine the matter would not have ever come up on the ballot to begin with.

Belgium and Switzerland --- how about some real countries not postage stamp sized countries. Heck they have ranches in Texas bigger than those two. I am exaggerating, but without googling it, I think I can safely say both of those countries are smaller than the smallest USA state = Rhode Island.

 

[Barnacle]

No. Too many who are here do not speak the same language, so it would be absolutely cruel to implement a set language on government documents.

Nonsense.

For my naturalization test (7 years ago) I had to proof that I could converse, read and write in simple English.
The day 50 or so of us who were issued our certificate of naturalization in court, one guy was pulled out of the group and returned to his lawyer because he didn't even understand why he had to sign his name on his certificate.

You want to live in a different country - as legal alien or citizen -, you better make sure you have at least a basic understanding of that country's language.

 

[Grand Mal]

Quit blowing smoke.

The fact you post "The people in Quebec occasionally elect the Parti Quebecois because they like the social programs, and when a succession referendum is held (there's been a couple so far) they vote it down." means the English/French do not get along just fine.

If they got along just fine the matter would not have ever come up on the ballot to begin with.

Belgium and Switzerland --- how about some real countries not postage stamp sized countries. Heck they have ranches in Texas bigger than those two. I am exaggerating, but without googling it, I think I can safely say both of those countries are smaller than the smallest USA state = Rhode Island.

You still don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'm right here, in Canada, telling you how it is. But if you can't take my word for it, how about the Montreal Gazette?

Dan Delmar: Quebec sovereignty movement has run its course | Montreal Gazette

"Polls consistently point to a downward trend, suggesting as few as one in five Quebecers would support the PQ."

I'm pretty confident, though, that the facts won't be allowed to get in the way of your narrative.

 

[JONRID]

No. Too many who are here do not speak the same language, so it would be absolutely cruel to implement a set language on government documents.

WHY ?????
This country became a super power before we took a stupid pill and decided to self balkanize our selves.

Of course, the people who built this country ran it for the benefit of the tax paying citizens who lived here --- not people who wanted to live here.

They had the silly notion of "if someone had to be inconvenienced - it ought to be the people fleeing their shxx hole home country", not the citizens of the USA.

 

[rowena]

How can a non-speaker participate in governance as it is? If they rely on a translator, they are essentially a second vote for the person who translates for them what is going on, and for whom they should vote.

 

[Excon]

Absolutely.

iLOL
No. :doh Simply no.

 

[JONRID]

How can a non-speaker participate in governance as it is? If they rely on a translator, they are essentially a second vote for the person who translates for them what is going on, and for whom they should vote.

If they don't care enough to learn English to read the ballot - they doln't deserve a vote.

In fact, how did they pass the citizens ship test ???

 

[AlbqOwl]

As above, would you vote in favor of a national language in the USA? It would not preclude you from speaking any number of other languages at home or in public, it would only serve as official business and IMO a way of uniting Americans instead of dividing us along those lines.

Also it doesn't matter what the language is, the most obvious would be English or Spanish being they are the most widely spoken and are the 2 longest occupying nationalities of what has become this nation.

So the vote is for or against 1 common language.

If the results are more pro then con maybe I'll then take a poll as to what language we should make it.

I voted "yes" because I think it is to the advantage of the country as a whole and certainly an advantage to each of its citizens to have a common language so that warnings, information signs, directions, educational material, etc. can be in that one common language. It was once a requirement for citizenship that new immigrants would learn enough basic English to be able to read and understand simple instructions, etc. and that they would take their citizenship oath in English.

I think it unfair to all immigrants who speak other languages to provide Spanish as an alternative to English but none of the other languages. And it is entirely impractical to provide instruction in all the first languages spoken by all immigrants.

So English for everybody meets the requirement of equal protection under the law.