ENGLISH AS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: YES OR NO?

Quote:

I have two cousins who received a bilingual education at a German school in Spain. They have learned both languages well. So maybe the problem isn't that schools teach the wrong language. Maybe the problem is that American schools are wretched no matter what they teach.

Thomas- You may have a point there!

0 Replies

I favor Aramaic. If it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

SeriouslY. Trying to establish an official language is a ridiculous as the attempt establish homosexual practice and marrige as official customs.

Or the exclusive consumption of hot dogs at baseball games.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
I look at this whole issue a little differently than most. I think that the people who push bi-lingual education, are insuring the continuance of a large group of static, unskilled workers.

I have two cousins who received a bilingual education at a German school in Spain. They have learned both languages well. So maybe the problem isn't that schools teach the wrong language. Maybe the problem is that American schools are wretched no matter what they teach.

How are Germany's 7 million or so immigrants doing at learning German, I wonder?

Would it not be in their best interest to become relatively fluent in their adopted country's language in order to succeed?

If not, aren't they more or less assured of being 'left behind'?

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

How are Germany's 7 million or so immigrants doing at learning German, I wonder?

Some are doing well, others average, some not good at all.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I look at this whole issue a little differently than most. I think that the people who push bi-lingual education, are insuring the continuance of a large group of static, unskilled workers.

In other words, people who preach bilingualism in the US, IMO, want to keep Hispanic people on the lowest level of society, and maintain for large corporations a expanding pool of cheap labor.

There is no evidence to back up these claims. In fact, they couldn't be farther from the truth.

First, the people who want to insure the continuance of a large groups of static unskilled workers are the people yelling "no amnesty" while calling for a guest worker program.

People who want immigrants to be successful are pushing for earned legalization with a path to citizenship which means they can fully assimilate. History, including the 1986 amnesty, shows that with legalization immigrants largely are successfuly assimilated and by the second generation are fully English proficient.

Bi-lingualism is a great thing! Kids can easily be perfectly fluent in two languages. How is knowing a second langage a bad thing?

I know kids who came here in early elementary school with no English, went through a bilingual program and are now successful in high school. In fact, the son of a friend of mine graduated from high school last week with honors who speaks both Spanish (his first language) and English perfectly without accent.

Everyone in my family is bilingual. We talk to our kids in the house in Spanish. The reason is simple... we want our kids to be bilingual and they get enough English in school and out in the street. My daughter's (that's her cute avatar staring at you) first three words were "Mama, Papa and perro".

I expect that this will give them more options in life to be successful. I bet your kids don't speak a second language (or is that why you feel threatened by it).

The more kids know the better and asking them to give up a language is not only unecessary (since kids can learn even more than you think), it is a crime.

0 Replies

My wife went to The American School in Mexico City where she received a bi-bingual education. It did'nt hurt her. She has two Ph.Ds. (one from Mexico, one from the U.S.).

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I said that earlier: obviously this isn't a discussion about "official language" but immigration.

To her credit, Foxfyre linked to a website of an organization that supports a federal "official language" statute.

http://www.us-english.org/inc/official/states.asp

They have a copy of the bill they'd like to see passed.

http://www.us-english.org/inc/legislation/federal/hr997-2005.asp

Some points that struck my mind on first reading.

1) The constitutional foundation looks very shaky.

Quote:

To declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States, pursuant to Congress's powers to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

The part about naturalization is fair, and the sections making an English test mandatory for immigrants seems constitutional on the face of it. But the constitution does not grant Congress the power to provide for the general welfare in any way it wishes. It only grants it the power to tax and spend for the general welfare.

2) The bill has little to do with McGentrix's gripe that you have to "dial 1 for English". It only binds the government, while most institutions who put you in waiting loops are private businesses.

3) The bill contains an exception for "requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act;" and it shall not be construed to, among other things, "limit the preservation or use of Native Alaskan or Native American languages (as defined in the Native American Languages Act);" So Set's point about American Sign Language is pertinent: while the spirit of those exceptions would apply to it, the letter of the bill currently doesn't.

0 Replies

Yeah, but if she married you, her critical thinking skills must have been neglected . . .

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

SierraSong wrote:

How are Germany's 7 million or so immigrants doing at learning German, I wonder?

Some are doing well, others average, some not good at all.

I looked it up.

Quote:

[snip]

The German school system fails when it comes to educating immigrant children. That is the unsettling conclusion of a report presented on Monday in Berlin by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). When compared to native German students, first-generation immigrants (born outside of Germany) perform well below the average of first-generation immigrants in the 17 countries considered in the report. And the gap becomes even larger among second-generation immigrants (children with at least one parent born outside the country). Among this group, German schools' performance was right at the bottom of the survey.

The study, based on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test given to 15-years-olds in 2003, is not the first time the German education system has come under fire. When the overall results of the first PISA study -- conducted in 2000 -- placed Germany in the bottom third of industrialized nations surveyed, the country went into a fit of self-doubt and outrage. While the country's education system has since then made slight improvements, Monday's study is being read as a statistical excoriation of Germany's ability to integrate its immigrants.

As soon as the results were made public, Germany's Minister of Education Annette Schavan called for more money to be spent on the country's kindergartens and schools. "We don't just need appeals," she said. "We also need a new funding concept." She also emphasized that immigrant children need more help learning the German language. "We have to provide children all over the country with a chance to improve their German knowledge even before school so they have equal access to a decent education," she said.

[snip]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,416429,00.html

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

Would it not be in their best interest to become relatively fluent in their adopted country's language in order to succeed?

I'm not saying that acquiring fluency is bad. Of course it is in their best interest. The question is whether the government should do anything to force the matter. And my opinion is that it shouldn't.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

SierraSong wrote:
Would it not be in their best interest to become relatively fluent in their adopted country's language in order to succeed?

I'm not saying that acquiring fluency is bad. Of course it is in their best interest. The question is whether the government should do anything to force the matter. And my opinion is that it shouldn't.

Your government might disagree with you.

0 Replies

For God's sake, Set, don't tell that to her. She doesn't seem to be aware of that yet. Good thing I manage to keep my (male) ego in check.

0 Replies

SierraSong wrote:

Your government might disagree with you.

It might -- and it's welcome to show up in this thread and give its input too.

0 Replies

I know those sites - thanks anyway, Thomas.

You point to - what I think think is the most important factor: official languages just means that laws, constitution etc are published in this language.
Not more and not less.

I think, we Europeans have a very different view of this, since

Quote:

the right to use a regional or minority language in private and public life is an inalienable right conforming to the principles embodied in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and according to the spirit of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages :wink:

0 Replies

Frankly, I can't think of many things that should be made official, unless you include things like traffic lights.

0 Replies

Mum's the word JL . . .

I consider this entire thread to be just another example of Fox's immigrant paranoia, in which she once again attempts to present her hysteria as a plausible concern with which all right-thinking citizens ought to be concerned. The economy takes care of itself--in central Ohio, Hispanics are a very visible part of the low-wage culture--fast food, car washes, dishrooms in restaurants--their relative ability to communicate in English determines their ability to get a job which they consider acceptable. More than anything else, i have been struck by the ease with which they have made the transition to a foreign language culture.

These people are brown-skinned speakers of a foreign language. That scares the bejesus out of the rightwingnuts. Walter was absolutely correct--they represent a threat to a once-dominant Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. European immigrants who were not Anglo-Saxon or Protestant nevertheless assumed the imperatives of the dominant culture--now that it appears to be threatened by diversity, all the loonies come crawling out of the woodwork and wrap themselves in the flag.

Therefore, i refuse to take this thread and its idiocy seriously, and will continue to treat it as a child's playground, because it deserves no more respect than that.

JL--i've changed my mind . . . i'm gonna have to consider what will be the price of my silence . . .

0 Replies

I'm still knocked over by this:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I look at this whole issue a little differently than most. I think that the people who push bi-lingual education, are insuring the continuance of a large group of static, unskilled workers.

Even our really conservative state minister of education in a really conservative-liberalist government is heavily supporting bi-lingual education.

When I taught at university, you could take courses in Dutch (in the Netherlands) or in German (in Germany) ... and got thus two degrees in the same time others got one - done in the majority of cases by students who grew up educated bi-lingual.
[And by Dutch :wink: ]

0 Replies

Set, what we are seeing are the pangs of culture change, a feature of virtually all societies.
That I understand and accept, but your changes of mind....(???)

0 Replies

One wing of my family are Italians who immigrated in the l930's. My brother-in-law had already been conceived and was well on the way when they arrived at Ellis Island with very little more than the clothes on their backs. He is the fourth of six children and was the first to be born in the U.S. Not one of those who immigrated including his folks, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins spoke any English at all at the time they arrived. This family has become my family in all important ways.

There was no bilingual education offered at that time, but they set about to learn English. The parents demanded that the children speak English at all times, including in the home. The downside of that is that the kids forgot much of the Italian they knew or never learned it fluently and that is unfortunate. The upside is that my brother-in-law's generation has become virtually 100% successful people, mostly in the professions such as teaching, including one Supt of Schools, a state police commissioner, a couple of lawyers, several engineers, etc.

Now lets go to the Mexican wings of my family. Those who demanded that their children learn and speak English, and they did this mostly on their own, have finished school and have enjoyed great success in the American mainstream. Those who did most of their schoolwork in their first language, rather than English, mostly did not finish school and have enjoyed far less success if the mainstream is to be considered a component of success. This group, more than the Italians, have been more successful in remaining bilingual, however.

The issue is not whether being bilingual is a good thing. Of course it is a good thing.

The issue is whether a person is fluent and competent in the language in which business and society is most conducted. If s/he is not, then s/he is severely handicapped. Before the courts started ordering bilingual education, most immigrants did become proficient in English. Now it is apparently no longer required for citizenship as it once was, and you have people who just don't make the effort to get it done.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Should one assume that when a deaf or hearing-impaired person is provided with a sign-language interpreter during an official proceeding, that this represents an unacceptable concession to what is patently not the means of communication of the majority of American citizens?

There being a difference in that being deaf is a handicap and not speaking English isn't. Besides most deaf people read English just fine so this wouldn't be an issue with printed documents only with oral communication. A majority of deaf people that I know have friends that go with them if they have to go to the DMV or court. My wife has been known to go with friends and act as an interpreter for them.

The money saved by doing official govt business in English only would save a lot of money in the short and the long run. For those wanting the govt to cut spending this should be ideal for them. It is just one of many different ways for the govt to save money on non-essential things.

0 Replies

ENGLISH AS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: YES OR NO?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know