1
   

Push for 'official' English heats up

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 05:55 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Thomas wrote:
"Official English" ordinances typically say that official government communications have to happen in English, with exceptions for 911 calls and the like.That dosesn't make it hard for anyone to be bilingual. It merely makes it hard for people to be monolingual in their old country's language.

That's true, and if access to government services could be conditioned on speaking English, the government could deny people their rights based solely on that condition. But there's nothing in US law that says that the government's protections can be limited to that class of persons who speak English, just as there's nothing that allows the government to confine its bounty to members of any other distinct group (absent some compelling state interest).

Look at it this way: suppose the government instituted an "Able-Bodied Americans Only Law," which said that government benefits would be bestowed only on those Americans who were not physically handicapped. Sponsors of the legislation, in defending the law, say that, historically, Americans have been overwhelmingly able-bodied, and that passing such a law would encourage people to become able-bodied. Would that law survive constitutional scrutiny? And, if not, why would an English-Only Law be any different?

I don't think anyone's even contemplating denying anything to anyone. Lots of countries have an official language, don't they? Products of the government would just be in English only. We're obligated to make road signs in every possible language?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 06:07 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lots of countries have an official language, don't they?


Certainly. And most have several, like the more than half dozen we have in Germany or the 12 or so in Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:01 am
Thomas wrote:
Even if there is a denial of rights, it doesn't rise to the same level as your "able-bodied-only" law would. I remember a waiver I had to sign as a condition for getting my Green Card. It said I couldn't receive any welfare payments during my first X years in the US, where X was either 5 or 10 -- I don't remember which. Obviously, then, the US government can deny me services based on my nationality. Are you saying this was illegal of the INS to do? Or is this one of those discrimination cases where the "equal protection component" of the Fifh Amendment's due process clause yields a different outcome than the equal protection clause of the 14th would have? If not, I would argue that if the government can discriminate based on nationality, it can certainly discriminate based on language.

The government can discriminate against you because you're not a citizen, not because you're of German descent or because you speak German. Indeed, any law that prohibited a German-speaking immigrant from receiving welfare benefits, but which allowed an English-speaking immigrant to receive those benefits, would, I think, be constitutionally suspect.

Thomas wrote:
Are you saying language-based categorization are a quasi suspect class in a similar way as race and gender? I doubt it, based on what little I know about American law. In reading the recent gay marriage cases before State Supreme courts, I have picked up on some of the relevant tests. As far as I can make out, foreign language speakers seem to fail all the tests by which courts usually determine which classes are suspect or quasi-suspect.

The first test I've seen of whether something is a quasi-suspect-class is whether there is a long-standing history of repression. I don't think there is such a history for Americans who can't speak English. (Indeed one might argue that one of them is currently your president.) That's a stark contrast to he case of gays and some groups of handicapped people.

The second test I've seen courts apply in the gay marriage cases is whether the behavior the state discriminates against can be changed. Not speaking English can be changed, unlike most physical handicaps and homosexuality. In the short term, people can have a relative translate for them, or they can hire a translator. In the long term, they can learn English. So, not speaking English is not immutable.

The third test I noticed courts apply in gay marriage cases is whether the people discriminated against lack political power. Immigrants do have political power, as the demonstrations this spring have shown. Going further back in history, immigrants have proven their power by getting repealed many of the "English only" laws that states had enacted in the 1920s. They did get a little help from the Supreme Court -- what was the first Amendment case about teaching foreign languages again? [that was Meyer v. Nebraska: jfc]-- but for the most part these laws got repealed through the political process.

Against this background, I think you probably couldn't persuade the Supreme Court to categorize non-speakers of English as a quasi-suspect class. You probably couldn't persuade them that rational basis review is not the appropriate level of scrutiny. And considering how leniently rational basis review usually plays out, I also doubt the court would find the currently proposed "English only" bills so insane they wouldn't withstand it.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do the research necessary to respond to this fully. I'll just say that, if a law singling out non-English speakers was designed primarily to discriminate against a particular ethnic group (in this case, quite clearly it is Spanish-speaking people), then the law would be unconstitutional even if discrimination against non-English-speaking people were otherwise permissible.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:07 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lots of countries have an official language, don't they?


Certainly. And most have several, like the more than half dozen we have in Germany or the 12 or so in Afghanistan.

But there is no denial of service contemplated, except in the reasonable sense that if people come here, they may find it inconvenient if they cannot function at all in the national language.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:07 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
I don't think anyone's even contemplating denying anything to anyone.

Oh, I'm sure someone somewhere is contemplating denying something to someone else.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Lots of countries have an official language, don't they?

Lots of countries also don't have the fourteenth amendment.

Brandon9000 wrote:
Products of the government would just be in English only. We're obligated to make road signs in every possible language?

Road signs aren't the problem: anyone can understand them. Consider a more difficult example: suppose a non-English-speaking defendant is charged with a felony. Should the government be obligated to provide him with an interpreter at his trial?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:16 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
But there is no denial of service contemplated, except in the reasonable sense that if people come here, they may find it inconvenient if they cannot function at all in the national language.


So for what are you asking: English to be the national language of the USA or the official?

Quote:
On May 19, 2006, the United States Senate voted to make English the national language of the United States. According to the bill, written by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the federal government will no longer provide multilingual communications and services, except for those already guaranteed by law. Shortly after the approval of the Inhofe amendment, the Senate voted for another bill by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), according to which English is the "common unifying language of the United States," but mandated that nothing in that declaration "shall diminish or expand any existing rights" regarding multilingual services.

Previous incarnations of this bill were co-written and supported by Ron Unz, California millionaire. He, along with his organization (U.S. English), has been pushing for the "English-Only" cause for many years.

The impact of these bills is not immediately clear. It is also interesting to note that Inhofe switched the language from "official language" to "national language" in a last minute change.
Source
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:18 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
But there is no denial of service contemplated, except in the reasonable sense that if people come here, they may find it inconvenient if they cannot function at all in the national language.


So for what are you asking: English to be the national language of the USA or the official?

Quote:
On May 19, 2006, the United States Senate voted to make English the national language of the United States. According to the bill, written by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the federal government will no longer provide multilingual communications and services, except for those already guaranteed by law. Shortly after the approval of the Inhofe amendment, the Senate voted for another bill by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), according to which English is the "common unifying language of the United States," but mandated that nothing in that declaration "shall diminish or expand any existing rights" regarding multilingual services.

Previous incarnations of this bill were co-written and supported by Ron Unz, California millionaire. He, along with his organization (U.S. English), has been pushing for the "English-Only" cause for many years.

The impact of these bills is not immediately clear. It is also interesting to note that Inhofe switched the language from "official language" to "national language" in a last minute change.
Source

Yes.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 08:24 am
Yes to 'official' or yes to 'national'?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 09:01 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Yes to 'official' or yes to 'national'?

Just yes. I'm not constrained to play this game with semantics.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 09:02 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Yes to 'official' or yes to 'national'?

Just yes. I'm not constrained to play this game with semantics.


Nor with facts, apparently.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 09:21 am
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Yes to 'official' or yes to 'national'?

Just yes. I'm not constrained to play this game with semantics.


Nor with facts, apparently.

BBB

In what way is my above opinion invalidated by the lack of some fact, or do you just generally believe that no one has the right to disagree with you?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 10:14 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Yes to 'official' or yes to 'national'?

Just yes. I'm not constrained to play this game with semantics.



Of course legal terms have to do with semantics - that's why the subject is sometimes so difficult for persons with no knowledge about it.

But indeed, a national language is different to an official language, not only as a legal term.
0 Replies
 
Joeblow
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 10:17 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Products of the government would just be in English only. We're obligated to make road signs in every possible language?


joefromchicago wrote:
Road signs aren't the problem: anyone can understand them. Consider a more difficult example: suppose a non-English-speaking defendant is charged with a felony. Should the government be obligated to provide him with an interpreter at his trial?


Hearings are conducted in English now, yes? Presumably they are never conducted in Spanish, or Urdu, or French. Are you suggesting that the legislation would/should be drafted so they are no longer required to provide translators for such purposes?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 10:25 am
woiyo wrote:
What racist card? There is no debate here.

This is America. We speak English. If you want to speak Spanish, go ahead, but then expect no help from me. I speak English and ONLY English.


Apart from boasting that you only speak English--way to go!--your point seems to be that it's a new thing, these folks speaking other languages. My granny, may she rest in peace, spoke three, and English was the third.

Why, now, is this such a big deal to some people?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 10:44 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Road signs aren't the problem: anyone can understand them. Consider a more difficult example: suppose a non-English-speaking defendant is charged with a felony. Should the government be obligated to provide him with an interpreter at his trial?

Makes sense to me. It's similar to giving poor defendants a gratis defense lawyer, whatever good it will do for them. So far, I haven't seen any "official English" law prohibiting this, so I don't see how your case applies to them.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 11:24 am
Joeblow wrote:
Hearings are conducted in English now, yes? Presumably they are never conducted in Spanish, or Urdu, or French. Are you suggesting that the legislation would/should be drafted so they are no longer required to provide translators for such purposes?

Nope.

Thomas wrote:
Makes sense to me. It's similar to giving poor defendants a gratis defense lawyer, whatever good it will do for them. So far, I haven't seen any "official English" law prohibiting this, so I don't see how your case applies to them.

If an English-Only law said simply that "the official language of this state is English," then I don't think there would be any problem. On the other hand, if the law also said "no public funds may be spent on providing non-English services," then I think there would be a major problem with providing a translator for a criminal defendant. And I would imagine that the English-Only proponents would defend that result by saying: "if the defendant was planning on committing a crime, he should have learned English first."
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 11:32 am
joefromchicago wrote:
If an English-Only law said simply that "the official language of this state is English," then I don't think there would be any problem. On the other hand, if the law also said "no public funds may be spent on providing non-English services," then I think there would be a major problem with providing a translator for a criminal defendant.

Perhaps we should work from an actual bill so we don't have to talk in hypotheticals. I suggest we take the "English Language Unity Act of 2005", which to my knowledge was introduced to the House last year. Do you see any way this act could compel a constitutionally suspect outcome?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 11:52 am
Thomas wrote:
Perhaps we should work from an actual bill so we don't have to talk in hypotheticals. I suggest we take the "English Language Unity Act of 2005", which to my knowledge was introduced to the House last year. Do you see any way this act could compel a constitutionally suspect outcome?

Not that particular act, because it contains an exception for services provided to criminal defendants. Other state acts, however, have already failed to withstand constitutional scrutiny (e.g. Arizona and Alaska).
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 12:09 pm
That act seems mostly useless. If I am reading it correctly its only real effect would be to require an English test before an immigrant is naturalized.

It could possibly be read to prohibit voting in other languages except for the constitutionality clause which prevents interpretations that violate the 14th amendment and the voting rights act.

But there are explicit exceptions for all of the important areas including health care and legal procedings.

This is basically a law that does nothing.

What's the point?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 12:12 pm
And this clause is a bit puzzling...

Quote:

All citizens should be able to read and understand generally the English language text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the laws of the United States which are made in pursuance thereof...


What would we with citizens who, for example, don't see what's wrong with Bush's wiretapping program.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2025 at 05:42:15