English As America’s Official Language
This is a short (it
had
to be one page long and no more--I could have said a lot more!) essay that I had
to write for my linguistics class concerning an issue that I believe is really a
non-issue: making English the "official" language of the United States.
I've attached a PDF of the most recent bill
proposing this (introduced by our own former GA Congressman, Bob Barr) for you
to skim over. Read a few of these provisions like this which
scare
me:
“Sec. 162. Official functions of Government to be conducted in English“(a) OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS -- The official functions of the Government of the UnitedStates shall be conducted in English. “(b) SCOPE – For the purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ means the severalStates and the District of Columbia, and the term ‘official’ refers to any function that (i) binds the Government, (ii) is required by law, or (iii) is otherwise subject to scrutiny byeither the press or the public."
(What does that last part mean? How is that power checked or restricted, may I ask?)
The bill goes so far as to literally mandate that persons wishing to become citizens of the US must be operationally capable in English. I love the idea, but it simply ain't gonna happen, folks. Immigrants for literally centuries--immigrants who have built this country from nothing--did not speak English but learned it here, on their own initiative, for they had to in order to succeed.
We've worked damn-well as a country and as a society so far, what is the need to legislate English as the official language of the country? How would things change from how they are now? How much money can one Congress really waste in one session?
What do you think?
--------------------------
The proposal to make English the official language of the United States is not new. Many individuals have expressed sentiments both for and against legislation that would mandate that the already de facto official tongue of this country be recognized as the only legitimate language for government and other institutions related to it. My position on this issue is clear and I can begin to explain it by voicing my belief that no legislation should be passed into law which restricts the personal freedom of any citizen, business or institution in this country; if something does not impede my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness no law should be made against it.
Rules and laws should have the intention to preserve personal freedoms and liberties, not to restrict them. Furthermore, proponents of “official-English” proposals dismiss common sense completely by simply introducing plans and bills that merely command that English be the official language in the country and lack many other provisions that might somehow assist this endeavor. From the Congressional bills that I have seen (the failed HR 1984 from the 107th Congress, in particular), efforts to make English the official language of the country have been nothing more than simple-minded attempts to further validate, on paper, an already overwhelmingly majority-used language, and to make a non-issue an issue that could prove to be extremely divisive and perhaps detrimental to our nation.
During the class debate, many groups taking the “con” position brought up the fact that over 90% of people in the US are competent in English. When I see percentages like that it makes me ask the question, what would a law that made English the official language of the country actually do in reality once passed? I brought up in the debate that some people seem to think that such a law would act as some sort of “magic wand”, planting the seeds of English knowledge into the minds of each non-proficient American and each person wishing to come to this country to live or to work; they contend that passage of such a law would further encourage non-English speakers to learn the language, as it would now be official instead of only being the language used primarily by approximately 94% percent of the population.
Proponents continue their argument by insisting that by officiating English in America that its people would be further united together. I contend that this may not indeed be the result of such a law; by making it unlawful for businesses to hang their signs on their property, with their money and their resources in a different language other than English such a law may foster resentment instead of unity, and would, furthermore, restrict the ability of such a business to conduct its affairs in a manner suitable to it. It appears to me, thus, that such a law, besides perhaps damaging elements of our civil society, would hurt businesses and the economy in the long run.
The United States has become the unparalleled success that it is because of its “freedoms from…”, not its “freedoms to…”, and if we begin legislating what our people can and cannot speak we will be going against every reason that this country was founded.
106_HR1984.pdf
“Sec. 162. Official functions of Government to be conducted in English“(a) OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS -- The official functions of the Government of the UnitedStates shall be conducted in English. “(b) SCOPE – For the purposes of this section, the term ‘United States’ means the severalStates and the District of Columbia, and the term ‘official’ refers to any function that (i) binds the Government, (ii) is required by law, or (iii) is otherwise subject to scrutiny byeither the press or the public."
(What does that last part mean? How is that power checked or restricted, may I ask?)
The bill goes so far as to literally mandate that persons wishing to become citizens of the US must be operationally capable in English. I love the idea, but it simply ain't gonna happen, folks. Immigrants for literally centuries--immigrants who have built this country from nothing--did not speak English but learned it here, on their own initiative, for they had to in order to succeed.
We've worked damn-well as a country and as a society so far, what is the need to legislate English as the official language of the country? How would things change from how they are now? How much money can one Congress really waste in one session?
What do you think?
--------------------------
The proposal to make English the official language of the United States is not new. Many individuals have expressed sentiments both for and against legislation that would mandate that the already de facto official tongue of this country be recognized as the only legitimate language for government and other institutions related to it. My position on this issue is clear and I can begin to explain it by voicing my belief that no legislation should be passed into law which restricts the personal freedom of any citizen, business or institution in this country; if something does not impede my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness no law should be made against it.
Rules and laws should have the intention to preserve personal freedoms and liberties, not to restrict them. Furthermore, proponents of “official-English” proposals dismiss common sense completely by simply introducing plans and bills that merely command that English be the official language in the country and lack many other provisions that might somehow assist this endeavor. From the Congressional bills that I have seen (the failed HR 1984 from the 107th Congress, in particular), efforts to make English the official language of the country have been nothing more than simple-minded attempts to further validate, on paper, an already overwhelmingly majority-used language, and to make a non-issue an issue that could prove to be extremely divisive and perhaps detrimental to our nation.
During the class debate, many groups taking the “con” position brought up the fact that over 90% of people in the US are competent in English. When I see percentages like that it makes me ask the question, what would a law that made English the official language of the country actually do in reality once passed? I brought up in the debate that some people seem to think that such a law would act as some sort of “magic wand”, planting the seeds of English knowledge into the minds of each non-proficient American and each person wishing to come to this country to live or to work; they contend that passage of such a law would further encourage non-English speakers to learn the language, as it would now be official instead of only being the language used primarily by approximately 94% percent of the population.
Proponents continue their argument by insisting that by officiating English in America that its people would be further united together. I contend that this may not indeed be the result of such a law; by making it unlawful for businesses to hang their signs on their property, with their money and their resources in a different language other than English such a law may foster resentment instead of unity, and would, furthermore, restrict the ability of such a business to conduct its affairs in a manner suitable to it. It appears to me, thus, that such a law, besides perhaps damaging elements of our civil society, would hurt businesses and the economy in the long run.
The United States has become the unparalleled success that it is because of its “freedoms from…”, not its “freedoms to…”, and if we begin legislating what our people can and cannot speak we will be going against every reason that this country was founded.
106_HR1984.pdf
Posted: Wed - April 21, 2004 at 12:09 AM
Quick Links
Illegitimus Non Tatum Carborundum
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Archives
FAVORITE LINKS
The Drudge Report
Neal Boortz
BBC News
MacNN
Andrew Sullivan
The Economist
Constitution Preservation.org
The Cato Institute
Air America Radio
Neal Boortz
BBC News
MacNN
Andrew Sullivan
The Economist
Constitution Preservation.org
The Cato Institute
Air America Radio
Emory Schedule
Notify List
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
iTunes Music Store
AMAZON LINKS
COUNTER
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 10, 2005 08:27 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 10, 2005 08:27 AM