So James Inhofe has time to propose legislation that would make English our official language. I guess he might as well stir up a lot of bad feeling because it's starting to look the man can't do anything else. I mean he's our representative in Washington but he can't bring home the bacon. Thanks to him and his buddy Coburn Oklahoma has a bacon problem folks. He couldn't get federal disaster assistance for a lot of Oklahoma after our deadly ice storms. That was pitiful. He's turning to the state now for help with the Tar Creek buyout. Like Oklahoma has money to burn. He presided over the gutting of Tulsa's economy with the great exodus of oil companies. He was the man in charge when the company left the company town. But now he has time to grandstand and showboat and play the politics of division. I mean, are we getting our bad karma or what?
The official language legislation comes up every year. The main issue I agree with is that currently government documents are printed literally in dozens of languages. That means IRS and other government agencies have to hire translators for tons of languages and proof and print forms in almost every language imaginable The overhead cost is bordering on ridiculous.
Most countries at least limit themselves to a handful of languages.
Some folks think this young knight in shining armor could slay that old burnt up dragon.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/Knight_Andrew.jpg)
Draft Andrew Rice (//%22http://www.runandrewrun.com/%22)
More about Andrew (//%22http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/05/andrew-rice-populist-hero-to-take-on.html%22)
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The official language legislation comes up every year. The main issue I agree with is that currently government documents are printed literally in dozens of languages. That means IRS and other government agencies have to hire translators for tons of languages and proof and print forms in almost every language imaginable The overhead cost is bordering on ridiculous.
Most countries at least limit themselves to a handful of languages.
That would be the case even if English was the official language. There will still be visitors, temporary workers, exchange students, newcomers and their family members young and old, refugees, and yes illegals...All of which it is better to have them know whats what than not.
If there is an emergency, shots that need to be given, or other important health or emergency information that needs to be gotten to everyone, your not going to say only those who can read English will get that info. That could put us all at risk. If someone can't read English, are you going to send them information on English classes in English? Unless we pass a law that says you must be fluent in English in order to visit or before you become a citizen, then the government will have to have forms in many languages. If I moved to another country it would take me years to learn the language and I would be thankful for any help in my language during that time.
At first blush I have no problem with English being the official language. I would have assumed it already was. Not sure what such legislation would entail though.
Heard an intersting statement on the radio today that was on a different topic. Speaker said: I know a lot of people around the world that speak English, but who are in no way Americans.
I find it entertaining to see that corporate America is far outpacing the government in the adaptation of bilingual signage and service.
Just got gas at the convenience store and the instructions on the pump were in both English and Spanish.
I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever, whether someone speaks English or not, I'd hate to see them doused with gasoline and catch on fire!
Inhofe is, as the Governer of California has already pointed out, still living in the stone age.
It is an absolute embarrassment that he is an elected representative of our state.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/DumbAndDumberer.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
So James Inhofe has time to propose legislation that would make English our official language
Why should tax payers be forced to pay for bi-lingual nonsense in a English speaking country?English should be our official language it is what we speak.Heck it is even one of the requirements for citizenship in this country. If you want to live and work in this country you should speak the language of this land.If you want to speak Spanish or French then get the **** out and go to a Spanish or French speaking country.Real Americans speak English.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The official language legislation comes up every year. The main issue I agree with is that currently government documents are printed literally in dozens of languages. That means IRS and other government agencies have to hire translators for tons of languages and proof and print forms in almost every language imaginable The overhead cost is bordering on ridiculous.
Most countries at least limit themselves to a handful of languages.
That would be the case even if English was the official language. There will still be visitors, temporary workers, exchange students, newcomers and their family members young and old, refugees, and yes illegals...All of which it is better to have them know whats what than not.
If there is an emergency, shots that need to be given, or other important health or emergency information that needs to be gotten to everyone, your not going to say only those who can read English will get that info. That could put us all at risk. If someone can't read English, are you going to send them information on English classes in English? Unless we pass a law that says you must be fluent in English in order to visit or before you become a citizen, then the government will have to have forms in many languages. If I moved to another country it would take me years to learn the language and I would be thankful for any help in my language during that time.
At first blush I have no problem with English being the official language. I would have assumed it already was. Not sure what such legislation would entail though.
We don't necessarily need 1040-greek though.
Making an official language or languages would mean that if you don't understand one of these official languages, we may not be able to provide EVERY service to you.
I am content with the status quo:
English is the defacto official language, but both business and government go out of their way to serve significant minority languages. In Tulsa, that means Spanish documents in the courts, bilingual government signage in some places, and interpretors where needed. I would like to see it include some Spanish training for officers (much like soldiers receive before going in country, more 'get the job done' than conversational).
Any mandatory language would alienate parts of our immigrant community. Mandating multiple languages would cost thousands to implement and put lots of red tape and compliance costs on the table. As it stands, it is up to the community to either serve non-English speaking members of the community or alienate them. Communities that serve them will attract and retain the best people to their community.
quote:
jamesrage said "Why should tax payers be forced to pay for bi-lingual nonsense in a English speaking country?English should be our official language it is what we speak.Heck it is even one of the requirements for citizenship in this country. If you want to live and work in this country you should speak the language of this land.If you want to speak Spanish or French then get the **** out and go to a Spanish or French speaking country.Real Americans speak English."
I'm thinking of all of those brave souls who gave there lives so we would not be speaking German, so those in France would be able to still speak french.
Why should I have to press #1 for english?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I am content with the status quo:
Most people are. It's a wedge issue, nothing more.
quote:
Why should I have to press #1 for english?
Try legislating that out. Forcing companies to be completely anti-hispanic, the wave of the future.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
We don't necessarily need 1040-greek though.
Making an official language or languages would mean that if you don't understand one of these official languages, we may not be able to provide EVERY service to you.
According to NWLC (//%22http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=1614§ion=newsroom%22), as of September 2003, the 1040 wasn't available in Spanish or any other language than English. Has this changed?
quote:
(Washington, D.C.) Many of the most commonly used IRS forms are not available in Spanish and other languages – including the 1040 form and its instructions -- and the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) called on the IRS to correct this serious deficiency immediately in a letter delivered today. According to a new Department of Treasury report, 21 million U.S.residents who have a limited proficiency in English would be assisted if the IRS would translate key tax documents. Only 16 (28%) of 58 documents identified as important in an IRS survey have been translated, according to the Treasury report.
Seems to me it would be significantly less expensive to have a Spanish 1040, rather than hiring translators. Unless we're planning on dumping the Arabic Numerals, and coming up with our own American version of numbers. Maybe we can use something in wingdings.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I am content with the status quo:
Most people are. It's a wedge issue, nothing more.
quote:
Why should I have to press #1 for english?
Try legislating that out. Forcing companies to be completely anti-hispanic, the wave of the future.
Legislating that would not be possible, we both know that. I am not suggesting that companies should be anti-hispanic. Spanish should be the option, not the rule. In other words, press #2 for Spanish.
No one has ever accused me of being politically correct, I just don't see the problem with requiring English to be the "official language".
But here's an idea. Since the roots Oklahoma, in fact the entire country, are founded in the indigenous people why not require the official language to be Muskogee or Cherokee, uh... maybe Apache or Sac and Fox. It might be a little hard to agree on which one so lets make them all the official language, teach them all in schools and require students to be proficiant in at least two of them, maybe three, in order to graduate. You know some of the first migrants to this country were Irish and Italian I think we could make a case for supporting making one or both of those the official language.
I had to call the IRS just this morning due to correct an error on an SSN for a dependent on my return. You get a welcome message in English, then Spanish, then you get your menu options.
I believe a lot of legislation is being interpreted as anti-Mexican. It is not. As far as languages go, it's a Pandora's box. Next you have people wanting forms in French, Italian, German, Greek, Swahili, Cherokee, Dutch, the various 20-some odd Chinese dialects, Vietnamese, etc. Why discriminate against EVERY other language if forms, signs, etc. are in English & Spanish only? That's what it would eventually come down to. Everyone will want their language represented.
As CF alluded to, it is a requirement to learn English to become a citizen.
I understand there should be some accomodation for the predominant immigrant population in America, but if you don't declare an official language and you are favoring one foreign language over all others, I believe it creates too many opportunities for sleazy ACLU attornies.
Oh and HT- It's just hateful, just hateful I tell you!
I don't necessarily "see the problem" with it being "official" either. But I don't see what YOUR problem is, that requires English being made "official".
If nothing changes, why bother? If you support it out of bigotry, that's a fair answer. If you support it out of libertarianism, let's see if that holds water. If you support it out of some kind of idea of punishment against corporations, ok, we can talk about that.
If there is no need for it, why would you support it? What makes this a good idea? Other than the rhetorical "press 1 for English" or "no 1040-greek" what's your case?
As far as I can tell, the best case is going to end up being "we don't like Spanish speaking people, we want to convert them to English speaking people. An official language can be used as leverage."
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Why discriminate against EVERY other language if forms, signs, etc. are in English & Spanish only?
If a city or company wants to cater to Spanish speakers, why would you want to legislate it out? It's understandable IMO why a city would have signs in Spanish, or a company would have a Spanish language option. What are your motives? What offends you so much, that you feel it has to be legislated out? And if an "official language" doesn't legislate it out, what's the point in supporting it?
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I don't necessarily "see the problem" with it being "official" either. But I don't see what YOUR problem is, that requires English being made "official".
If nothing changes, why bother? If you support it out of bigotry, that's a fair answer. If you support it out of libertarianism, let's see if that holds water. If you support it out of some kind of idea of punishment against corporations, ok, we can talk about that.
If there is no need for it, why would you support it? What makes this a good idea? Other than the rhetorical "press 1 for English" or "no 1040-greek" what's your case?
As far as I can tell, the best case is going to end up being "we don't like Spanish speaking people, we want to convert them to English speaking people. An official language can be used as leverage."
The cost of doing business. As was mentioned in Conan71's post. The next step will be for every single minority that speaks another native tongue will be wanting to legislate forms and official documents be printed in their language.
Parents will require schools to buy text books printed in the langauge of their native tongue. Teachers, bankers, lawyers, doctors etc. will be required to learn another language so they can communicate with the minority. Think that is far fetched, think that some liberal minded politition will never suggest that type of legislation? They will, you can take that to the bank. At some point paper money will have to be printed in God know how many different languages.
If English is the official language all of the above can be dispensed with. If companies, doctors lawyers etc. want to learn another language that would be fine. I don't care as long as it's a choice not the rule.
So, you're whole point is you're afraid that at some point the US gov't might force Spanish upon businesses and gov'ts. And this is a preemptive way to stop that from happening.
You're saying that the legislation would essentially do nothing, except to preempt this potential future legislation.
Not just Spanish and not at some point. Government agencies are already required to print documents in multiple languages.
And yes thats my point.
Spanish and English are the predominant languages in this area.
There's not going to be another minority that will have the leverage to get more signage changed.
Right-wing talk radio loves to use this point in their argument for 'English Only,' but it is a weak one.
And you don't believe that English as the "official language" would force cities and states to provide English only documents.
My concern about this, it's either A) useless in that it does virtually nothing and is a wedge issue. In which case, pass it, I couldn't care less. Or B) It's diabolical, meant as some kind of leverage to force Spanish speakers into English, and requires gov'ts not to assist Spanish speakers.
Seems to me, you could solve part of this problem if you solved the border issue. The diabolical part, you can't really fix unless you can prove that "we want this because we don't want Spanish to ever be heard or seen in the USA", is untrue.
There are good reasons why it's talked about. And there are good reasons why not even the GOP would think too seriously about it.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Why discriminate against EVERY other language if forms, signs, etc. are in English & Spanish only?
If a city or company wants to cater to Spanish speakers, why would you want to legislate it out? It's understandable IMO why a city would have signs in Spanish, or a company would have a Spanish language option. What are your motives? What offends you so much, that you feel it has to be legislated out? And if an "official language" doesn't legislate it out, what's the point in supporting it?
Michael, you seem to have some inherent dislike for me that muddles your comprehension of my posts to have some underlying context of hate, bigotry, xenophobia, and being some sort of rubber stamp right-winger. Please quit casting such a critical eye on everything I post. The only thing I'm offended by is your consistent mis-reads of my posts and trying to cram things between the lines which are not there.
The line you quoted from me doesn't even come close to registering with your remarks. Where do I EVER say I'm offended???? Please point this out.
I was not offended by the Spanish instructions on the IRS hotline, just answering to you that there is some accomodation at the IRS to the Hispanic community, no commentary one way or the other. The part you failed to quote from me says "
I understand there should be some accomodation for the predominant immigrant population in America".
From what I can research on the bill (the text has not been submitted to the LOC yet) it calls for English to be the "official language of
government". It does not ban other languages, but singles out one language for government (I assume this applies to Fed. level only and cities or states can do whatever they want with state and local gov't)to operate in.
It is estimated it will save taxpayers about $2 billion per year in costs. It will also do away with bi-lingual ballots, which, IMO, we should not have in the first place since, by law, a condition of citizenship is to speak and read English. Laws do allow an interpreter to be present in the voting booth. According to a Zogby poll last year, 84% of all Americans favor English as the official language, 63% oppose bi-lingual ballots including Asians and Hispanics who were polled.
(Source http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/05-08-2007/0004583964&EDATE=TUE+May+08+2007,+06:20+PM)
My point, pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less is this: if you favor one foreign language over any others, then the government can wind up in a position of having to accomodate ALL foreign languages on signage, official forms, and laws. It would be a costly logistical and legal nightmare.
quote:
Originally posted by South_Tulsan
Spanish and English are the predominant languages in this area.
There's not going to be another minority that will have the leverage to get more signage changed.
Right-wing talk radio loves to use this point in their argument for 'English Only,' but it is a weak one.
It's interesting that you changed your post to this from how I was intolerant of other people because I think the official language should be english.
Most folks never thought Hispanics would soon be the majority, the Muskogee nation never thought they would be force marched to Oklahoma, I never thought we would be an I do away from gay marriage. You think there will never be another minority with enough clout to change signage. wow!!! I'll bet the Catholic Church never thought that the Muslim religion would ever replace them as the largest religion in the world.
What Michael C said.
And then, you have the state of New Mexico, which is officially bilingual. That's because Spanish-speaking peoples were there hundreds of years before the white man arrived.
Then you have Oklahoma, which had Indian tribes here before the white man arrived. They're more entitled to have their languages be "official" because they were here first.
And RLitterell, if you want English to be the official language, it would behoove yourself to be fluent in it first. The proper spelling is "their lives," not "there lives," as you put it.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Why discriminate against EVERY other language if forms, signs, etc. are in English & Spanish only?
If a city or company wants to cater to Spanish speakers, why would you want to legislate it out? It's understandable IMO why a city would have signs in Spanish, or a company would have a Spanish language option. What are your motives? What offends you so much, that you feel it has to be legislated out? And if an "official language" doesn't legislate it out, what's the point in supporting it?
Michael
Personal jab aside, you're saying you subscribe to the "Domino Theory of Languages". Accept one, you have to accept them all.
It's not hatred for a specific language, it's this gloom and doom concept of city signage in 185 languages. Got it.
Sad, isn't it?
But that's history. 500 years from now, what will it matter? The U.S. will both an Hispanic and English nation.
What will you be doing in 500 years? I plan to be in heaven, where English probably isn't the official language. At least I'll be able to say I didn't try to run off people who weren't like me.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
What Michael C said.
And then, you have the state of New Mexico, which is officially bilingual. That's because Spanish-speaking peoples were there hundreds of years before the white man arrived.
Then you have Oklahoma, which had Indian tribes here before the white man arrived. They're more entitled to have their languages be "official" because they were here first.
And RLitterell, if you want English to be the official language, it would behoove yourself to be fluent in it first. The proper spelling is "their lives," not "there lives," as you put it.
This is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing business in English and declaring English as the official language of the U.S. GOVERNMENT. Not states, not cities. You guys are taking a run-away mentality with this that doesn't appear to be in the bill. We will find out for certain when the GPO has the text of the bill printed. If you are that concerned about it, I'm sure you can call or email Sen. Inhofe, or Rep. King.
quote:
Originally posted by South_Tulsan
Sad, isn't it?
But that's history. 500 years from now, what will it matter? The U.S. will both an Hispanic and English nation.
What will you be doing in 500 years? I plan to be in heaven, where English probably isn't the official language. At least I'll be able to say I didn't try to run off people who weren't like me.
Who am I runing off, I never mentioned or suggested that anyone leave, Just learn English.
Where did you get your figure of 500 years? Most populace experts suggest 10-20 years and Hispanics will be the majority. Most of them being illegal.
Your arguement lacks merit since you didn't really bother to read the posts.
Personal Remarks Removed
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Why discriminate against EVERY other language if forms, signs, etc. are in English & Spanish only?
If a city or company wants to cater to Spanish speakers, why would you want to legislate it out? It's understandable IMO why a city would have signs in Spanish, or a company would have a Spanish language option. What are your motives? What offends you so much, that you feel it has to be legislated out? And if an "official language" doesn't legislate it out, what's the point in supporting it?
Michael
Personal jab aside, you're saying you subscribe to the "Domino Theory of Languages". Accept one, you have to accept them all.
It's not hatred for a specific language, it's this gloom and doom concept of city signage in 185 languages. Got it.
Hello??? Michael???
I never said anything about city signage. The only reference to a city would be my opinion that this does nothing to impact individual cities and states.
This is a Federal bill about the official language of the Federal Gov't.
Si comprende?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Personal Remarks Removed
I'm calling "Godwin's Law" ! [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
This is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing business in English and declaring English as the official language of the U.S. GOVERNMENT. Not states, not cities. You guys are taking a run-away mentality with this that doesn't appear to be in the bill. We will find out for certain when the GPO has the text of the bill printed. If you are that concerned about it, I'm sure you can call or email Sen. Inhofe, or Sen. King.
Sorry, 1040s in 185 languages. My bad.
I just can't seem to care if 1040s, or other forms, are in more than one language. If it's a simple useless wedge issue, again, by all means pass that, I don't care. Just get it over with, let Inhofe go find something else to latch onto.
It'll be difficult for many in the population, and probably most congressmen to avoid the question of what this bill actually does. What will be the effects of this bill, both direct and indirect? It is fair to question whether or not this bill is punitive towards Spanish speakers.
Michael C
Thank you for pointing out my typo you are correct it should have been their lives not there lives.
Thats the way it usually goes, when they run out of arguements they resort to correcting everyone elses spelling.
I don't know who corrected you. But it wasn't me.
If I had to think about spelling, I wouldn't post so much.
I think it boils down to what should be incumbent upon a government who has used English as it's only language for over 200 years, and whose founding documents are all written in English.
I don't think the government should dictate what language its citizens speak amongst themselves nor in their communities (and I don't believe this bill is attempting to do that), but I do believe they have the right to declare what language it will use in conducting its business and in communications between the government and it's citizens.
And the federal gov't can and will continue to use English regardless of any legislation. To legislate that a 1040 can never be in Spanish seems like overkill. And a bit of a fear-tactic, since the gov't doesn't have a Spanish 1040.
It does go to the question of, is this punitive for Spanish speakers?
Spanish being a large minority language, I don't see what's so unreasonable about having a Spanish 1040. If that were to happen at some point, I don't know that I'd care too much. I don't see where any other languages would be necessary or logical at this time. Of course technologically, the 1040 could be made available in tons of languages on the cheap with virtually no problems to the IRS.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I think it boils down to what should be incumbent upon a government who has used English as it's only language for over 200 years, and whose founding documents are all written in English.
I don't think the government should dictate what language its citizens speak amongst themselves nor in their communities (and I don't believe this bill is attempting to do that), but I do believe they have the right to declare what language it will use in conducting its business and in communications between the government and it's citizens.
Yeah, that's kind of the way I look at it. This isn't English Only that would in fact dictate language. Americans throughout our history have been united by a common language. Making that language the official language of government is just plain common sense. United we stand, divided we fall.
Inhofe still sucks. He's a political Dead Man Walking.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
And the federal gov't can and will continue to use English regardless of any legislation. To legislate that a 1040 can never be in Spanish seems like overkill. And a bit of a fear-tactic, since the gov't doesn't have a Spanish 1040.
It does go to the question of, is this punitive for Spanish speakers?
Spanish being a large minority language, I don't see what's so unreasonable about having a Spanish 1040. If that were to happen at some point, I don't know that I'd care too much. I don't see where any other languages would be necessary or logical at this time. Of course technologically, the 1040 could be made available in tons of languages on the cheap with virtually no problems to the IRS.
I don't think there is a diabolical intent to the law. Inhofe haters may disagree, but I'd say the color of those glasses are at least
slightly tinted. [;)]
It doesn't only relate to tax forms. There are many other forms that our government uses in communicating or transacting business amongst its citizens and amongst various branches.
I'm sure if the IRS felt it was losing revenue by not having bi-lingual forms, they would make sure that people who do not speak English would be able to complete a tax form.
That being said, many illegal immigrants do not file a tax return, so that pretty much makes it a moot point. Those who are here on legal work visas or are working on naturalization (BTW welcome to the 55 new citizens who took the oath yesterday in Tulsa) tend to have a decent grasp of the English language as they tend to respect our laws and de-facto official language quite a bit more.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I don't think there is a diabolical intent to the law. Inhofe haters may disagree, but I'd say the color of those glasses are at least slightly tinted. [;)]
Not that you can prove that. You said yourself that automated system at the IRS gave you a Spanish option. This legislation would, theoritically, eliminate that.
You can paint it as some kind of national priority to officialize English. But you can certainly make the argument that this is nothing more than denying services to Spanish speakers.
Is it punitive to Spanish speakers? That case can be made. I have not seen anything that tells me it is necessary or just in any way to officialize English.
It appears to reflect the will of the people if Zogby is to be believed. 84% for English as the official language.
Yep, it would very likely remove instrucciones de espaniol from the automated gov't phone systems.
Practical, most likey. Hateful or punitive intent, not IMO.
Let's see what the text of the measure says when the GPO releases it before we get our collective panties in a wad.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Practical, most likey. Hateful or punitive intent, not IMO.
Practicality: Disaffecting millions so that you push one less button.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I believe a lot of legislation is being interpreted as anti-Mexican.
Indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I believe a lot of legislation is being interpreted as anti-Mexican.
Indeed.
I should have said
wrongfully interpreted...
But you didn't. And that is the point.
This entire argument will always teeter on outright bigotry, unless you've got a really good argument. There has to be a decent reason to disaffect millions of people, otherwise, if you've got nothing there aren't many conclusions to be drawn.
I still believe it's a wedge issue, and currently, a dead issue. Meant to fire up neocon supporters, people who are offended when they walk by someone speaking Spanish at a grocery store. People that are offended by signs in Spanish in downtown. People that want to close down Soccer parks because Hispanics dwell there.
There's a year and a half until the next elections, a few of these Representatives are looking to get their names onto something their constituency will support. Doesn't matter whether it flies or not, that was never the point.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
But you didn't. And that is the point.
This entire argument will always teeter on outright bigotry, unless you've got a really good argument. There has to be a decent reason to disaffect millions of people, otherwise, if you've got nothing there aren't many conclusions to be drawn.
I still believe it's a wedge issue, and currently, a dead issue. Meant to fire up neocon supporters, people who are offended when they walk by someone speaking Spanish at a grocery store. People that are offended by signs in Spanish in downtown. People that want to close down Soccer parks because Hispanics dwell there.
There's a year and a half until the next elections, a few of these Representatives are looking to get their names onto something their constituency will support. Doesn't matter whether it flies or not, that was never the point.
Only as long as people are willing to scream the word "bigot" when it comes to making common-sense laws. Call it what you like, just as long as you don't insinuate
I'm a bigot.
I don't see how people who are complying with our immigration laws would be disaffected dealing with the government. Somehow Italians, Russians, Polls, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, et. al. have managed to get by without multi-lingual phone systems and documents. Why are we demanding special treatment for only one nationality of immigrants? Isn't that biased and bigoted
in favor of Hispanics to the disadvantage of the millions of Hindi, Chinese, and Arabic-speaking (and others) population?
Don't we want our Congress to pass laws which refect the will of the people? 84% in favor would make it pretty much a bi-partisan issue, unless Zogby only polled Republicans to come up with those results. I don't think you can characterize the majority of Americans a bunch of bigots.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Only as long as people are willing to scream the word "bigot" when it comes to making common-sense laws. Call it what you like, just as long as you don't insinuate I'm a bigot.
You haven't made the case that this is in any way "common-sense". You've only made the case so far, that you're perfectly fine with cutting off services to Spanish speakers, for little to no apparent reason. That may answer my issue, the bill may indeed be quite worthless. Satisfying both total bigots and those who don't care.
quote:
I don't see how people who are complying with our immigration laws would be disaffected dealing with the government. Somehow Italians, Russians, Polls, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, et. al. have managed to get by without multi-lingual phone systems and documents. Why are we demanding special treatment for only one nationality of immigrants? Isn't that biased and bigoted in favor of Hispanics to the disadvantage of the millions of Hindi, Chinese, and Arabic-speaking (and others) population?
Yes, and there are probably 10 or 12 Pygmies living around here somewhere, surely we can figure out their language. It's rediculous to assume that all languages would be included. Completely impractical.
quote:
Don't we want our Congress to pass laws which refect the will of the people? 84% in favor would make it pretty much a bi-partisan issue, unless Zogby only polled Republicans to come up with those results. I don't think you can characterize the majority of Americans a bunch of bigots.
Not necessarily. When 77% of Hispanics are in favor, it brings to mind serious questions. Either the polling is questionable ignoring the effects of "Official Language", or there are no effects. Again, the legislation could be completely meaningless. I'm beginning to think it is.
To me, it sounds like whining about the fact that Hispanics are now the No. 1 minority in America and their clout is ever-growing.
So what if America was an English-speaking country for 200 years? It was an Indian-speaking country for hundreds of years before that. Pockets of it were Spanish-speaking 400-500 years ago. Other parts were French-speaking. Things change.
When society inexorably evolves and changes, you have to change with it, not act like a dinosaur like Inhofe.
I guess I don't have the anger to get riled up about demanding an "English-only" country. It's like using a shovel to dam the Mississippi River.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I guess I don't have the anger to get riled up about demanding an "English-only" country. It's like using a shovel to dam the Mississippi River.
It's not what it seems.
From NY Times (//%22http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/washington/19immig.html?ex=1305691200&en=ba019a0b7f448a43&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss%22)
quote:
Under the Inhofe proposal, the federal government is directed to "preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America." It does not go as far as proposals to designate English the nation's official language, which would require all government publications and business to be in English.
Instead, it says government services and publications now offered in other languages would be unaffected. But the proposal declares that no one has "a right, entitlement or claim to have the government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English."
All the bigotry, fear, and misinformation used to support this bill on this thread, are for not. The bill is virtually meaningless.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I don't know who corrected you. But it wasn't me.
If I had to think about spelling, I wouldn't post so much.
My apologies, Someone above attributed the correction to you, now the post has been removed.
Hey! Someone removed my Grammar Nazi picture. What gives? It was funny and pertinant to the discussion?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Hey! Someone removed my Grammar Nazi picture. What gives? It was funny and pertinant to the discussion?
The post Gestapo returns!!!
The word "bigot" is becoming as tired and over-used as "Nazi". I'll just start calling everyone a bigot who disagrees with me so I can be with the "in" crowd. [xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
The word "bigot" is becoming as tired and over-used as "Nazi". I'll just start calling everyone a bigot who disagrees with me so I can be with the "in" crowd. [xx(]
I'm glad you brought it up. Let's dive into the word "bigotry", and see if it applies.
Hypothetical: One says "We should round up all the Mexican in this Country and execute them". On face value, that would be bigotry. Now, said person may a have good reason for it, I don't know what that would be, but said person should be able to explain himself. Otherwise it is indeed bigotry.
Hypothetial: One says "We should cut off services to all those who speak Spanish." On face value, that would be bigotry. Now, said person may a have good reason for it, I don't know what that would be, but said person should be able to explain himself. Otherwise it is indeed bigotry.
If you don't like the word floating around, stop supporting simple bigotry with no explanation. Otherwise, it's your own damn fault.
Hello Pot? This is Kettle...
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his own."
Paging Webster's....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hello Pot? This is Kettle...
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his own."
Indeed, the last bastion: you must tolerate my intolerance.
You're opinion has been tolerated. That it's bigotry is apparently something you're ok with. Can't fault you there.
You've been given ample opportunity to explain how cutting service to Spanish speakers is NOT bigotry, so far you've failed completely.
Hey, Bank of America doesn't po$t multi-linqual $ign$ to be politically correct.
Michael C -- You rule.
Okay, Inhofe get busy doing some real work and bring home some bacon for the people of Oklahoma.
One government agency which would not quit rendering services in Spanish is the Border Patrol.