I have very little time to post a lot of verbiage about the debate - so I will just mention a few quick observations.
Tom Tancredo
Tancredo really had a lot going for him going into this debate. While everyone could see he was the most outspoken on immigration - he really seemed to stand for limited government. Last night he had the opportunity to discuss the caveat of the English language. Quite frankly, I was appalled. He refuses to have his website in Spanish, and then, in the most outrageous proposal of the year from any politician thus far, declared that all immigration (both legal and illegal) be stopped:
We talk about all the immigration reform we want, and what it’s got to get down to is this: Are we ready for a timeout? Are we actually ready to say, “Enough is enough”? We have to stop all legal immigration except for the — for people coming into this country as family members, immediate family members, and/or refugees.
Granted, Tancredo also had the best statement in the debate on what Role he would have for George W. Bush if Tancredo was president:
Some time ago, 2003 I think it was, I got a call from Karl Rove who told me that because of my criticism of the president, I should never darken the doorstep of the White House. I have been so disappointed in the president in so many ways… I would have to tell George Bush exactly the same thing Karl Rove told me.
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Mike Huckabee
The most memorable moment of the night for Huckabee, was his literal sermon on God. I really couldn’t doubt the man’s sincerity. Very eloquent, specific and unashamed about his views on creation.
Duncan Hunter
I think Hunter’s idea about a border fence are all washed up. I watched a great episode of Penn and Teller BS [WARNING: ADULT LANGUAGE] that demonstrated just how weak his fence was (physically and in terms of policy). He hammered on it over and over, making his aluminum fence sound like stone ramparts.
John McCain
As in the last few debates, McCain has had responses more scripted than dialogue from Titanic. I think even God got a little tired of it.
Mitt Romney
Romney got asked directly about his blatantly socialist health care system. He then proceed to write a second book on doublespeak. His system is virtually identical to Hillary’s plan, and identical in principle. Sorry Mr. Romney, but “mandated” and “free market” do not belong in the same sentence.
I noticed a lot more disagreement among the Republican candidates than among the Democratic candidates. I’m not sure whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing for the party. Certainly the Republicans were not as well behaved during the debate; they didn’t answer the questions as directly, and often segued into canned speeches.
Did anyone else notice that Rudy Giuliani couldn’t bring himself to say he is pro-choice? He said “my view on abortion is that it’s wrong” but that he thought it’s wrong for the government to enforce a pro-life policy. I could respect him if he said that he doesn’t believe the Constitution and the rule of law permit the government to ban abortion, but that’s not what he said. He said he doesn’t want the government to get involved, which makes me doubt whether he truly understands what it means to oppose abortion.
I’m also disappointed that all of the candidates supported making English the official national language. We all know and understand that a common language–English–is important to forging a common national identity, but it’s not necessary to make it official in any way. Most people in the world speak more than one language, and it’s not something that Americans should be afraid of. The move to make English official is nothing but anti-immigrant prejudice.
To paint everyone who supports making English our official language as a bigot is an unfortunate way to frame the debate and is, in effect, a form of intellectual surrender, and is usually an argument style reserved for those on the left. There are very valid reasons for establishing English as the official language. I know it’s not “multicultural” to say so, but immigrants should learn the language of whatever country they move to, rather than having that country provide translators for everything, including election ballots. Besides, who decides which languages to exclude and which ones to offer translations? Languages divide, just look at the Tower of Babel story. If people truly care about a “united” country, making English official would be a great start. Allowing immigrants to come here and not adopt our language but rather create their own country within a country condemns them to poverty. To be truly anti-poverty is to actually believe in policies that help the poor, not just in ones that make us feel good.
“Allowing immigrants to come here and not adopt our language but rather create their own country within a country condemns them to poverty.”
Come on, you know the debate is more complex than that. The question is not whether immigrants should learn and use English. That’s a given. Immigrants need to learn to speak the national language, which is English. Whether English is official or unofficial doesn’t change that. And English will–and must–continue to be the only language used in the judicial system. It’s simply too complex to introduce another language into the system.
But why not offer translations to new immigrants who have a hard time speaking English? Not everyone is good at learning languages. Their children will speak English, but we can’t expect adults to quickly or easily learn to read and write a complex new language. If we can make English an official language but still respect those who speak Spanish, French, Arabic, Mandarin, then that’s fine. But generally, the call to make English official goes hand in hand with the desire to stamp out other languages.
“Languages divide, just look at the Tower of Babel story.” Languages only divide when there is no common language. Just look at Indonesia. A population of over 200 million people, most of whom speak Indonesian as a second language. They have a common language that unites them, but aren’t afraid of the local languages. Why are Americans so afraid of foreign languages? We’ve got a common language–English–and there isn’t any chance our national language will be threatened. Making it official won’t change a thing except to make it more politically acceptable to discriminate against people who speak other languages.
Sorry about double-posting. What I’m trying to get at is that
1) English is America’s de facto common language
2) Every American should learn to speak English
3) The government has no authority to tell its citizens what languages they should speak
If an American chooses to speak German and chooses not to learn English, that should be his choice. We don’t need the government to force him to speak English. Of course he needs to understand that the rest of the country speaks English and isn’t likely to go out of its way to accomodate him. But it should be his choice.
And likewise, if a local city government realizes that a lot of its citizens don’t speak English, it should be acceptable for them to offer services in another language. Why should the federal government meddle in local affairs? We simply don’t need an official national language at the federal level.
I don’t think you understand what making English our official language entails. Like defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, making English official does not mean that government bans the use of all other languages. Government is not FORCING everyone to learn English or get out, just that it is not going to abet people in their ignorance of our main language. Saying that I am not going to put up signs with a Spanish translation in my store or business is NOT the same as saying that if I hear you speak Spanish in my store, I will throw you out. Yours is a straw man argument.
The English language itself came about in its current form precisely because it was not “official” in the mandated sense. Surely English is the standard language in America. Anyone coming here should learn it - but not because of laws, because of pure pragmatics. For the most part, you aren’t going to be able to communicate with your employers, employees, neighbors, officials, etc… However, in total contradiction to Darius’ idea that “Allowing immigrants to come here and not adopt our language… condemns them to poverty” all kinds of non-English business communities have been established through the market and are radically increasing the wealth of these people. That phenomenon is actually one of the great American traditions: groups of Irish, Chinese, Mexicans, etc… banding together to form their own markets and adding to the wealth of both themselves and the country as a whole. Why anyone would want to legislate these people out of contributing to all our wealth is beyond me!
On a side note, it was Marx who argued that one of the most effective ways to bring about a proletariat army was for the state to control the means of communication. That is exactly what legislating the English language does. We lose out in so many ways by restricting entrants to our country using something as asenise as language.
From a practical perspective, it can be frustrating to live in a bilingual country if you don’t speak both languages. In the Philippines there are two official languages: English and Tagalog. That’s fine for the most part. But during the three years I lived there, I had a hard time understanding Filipino newspapers or television, because they mixed the languages so much. (Plus they have their own dialect of English.) I only spoke English, and so half the time I couldn’t understand what was going on. When politicians gave speeches, they often switch back and forth between Tagalog and English, which makes it rather difficult for someone who knows only one of the languages. (Not that I followed Filipino politics very much, what with me being a foreigner and all.)
That’s not going to happen in America. We’re not in any danger of becoming a bilingual country.
This chart compiled by Chris Dodd’s campaign, demonstrates my point about the imbalance in speaking time:
Nice chart. I wondered if somebody was tracking that information. I hope somebody at CNN was keeping track too, during the debate. I didn’t realize that Romney got so much speaking time. I think he’s going to emerge as one of the strongest candidate. Really, the only thing he’s got going against him is that he’s a Mormon, and he shouldn’t have much trouble easing people’s fears about that.
Good point about the communities of immigrants that have done well with their own businesses. However, they usually don’t thrive until they have become relatively fluent in English in order to appeal to other English-speaking Americans. For instance, places like Chinatown in San Francisco wouldn’t be half as successful as it is with tourism if the resident Chinese business owners had not learned English so that tourists could understand them. If they only spoke Chinese in Chinatown, the only people going to visit and spend money there would be other Chinese speakers. Again, making English the official language does NOT ban use of other languages, it just means that the government quits enabling people to live here yet not know the primary language. If a particular business feels it’s advantageous to provide signs in multiple languages, that’s fine. Let the free market work as it should. However, our government is already enough of a nanny state (and nanny states by definition tend to infantalize its occupants) without helping immigrants stay reliant on their native tongue. Remaining reliant on Spanish is not a wise way to pull oneself out of (relative) poverty in this country.
As much as it would be nice to give equal time to all the contestants, it’s just not feasible. Besides, some of the candidates don’t have a chance of getting the nomination and should drop out so we can get down to really finding out what the frontrunners think. Once Thompson gets into the race, we’ll have 4 main candidates, which is much better than a typical primary.
Darius: “and is usually an argument style reserved for those on the left.”
Wow. Having a genuine Jerry Falwell around should make our discussions even more interesting! Whoops, did I just use a leftist argument style?
Darius, please feel free to join the forum. There’s no such thing as a dead thread; you’re welcome to reply to any discussion, even if it hasn’t been active for a long time.
“Making English the official language does NOT ban use of other languages, it just means that the government quits enabling people to live here yet not know the primary language.”
Making English official won’t solve that problem. English is the official language in California and the public schools still provide bilingual education. Besides, the federal government doesn’t have the authority to tell the state governments they can only use English. There’s no Constitutional clause that could be stretched so far as to justify that sort of federal meddling.
“As much as it would be nice to give equal time to all the contestants, it’s just not feasible.”
In that sort of debate format, I think you’re right. Equal time isn’t a logistical possibility. But I don’t think that’s any reason to dismiss some candidates out of hand. Hopefully there will be other debates where the format allows for a more even distribution of speaking time.
“some of the candidates don’t have a chance of getting the nomination and should drop out so we can get down to really finding out what the frontrunners think.”
And this is EXACTLY the reason why we have a two-party system in America. It doesn’t make us concise, it makes us polarized and myopic.
“the federal government doesn’t have the authority to tell the state governments they can only use English. There’s no Constitutional clause that could be stretched so far as to justify that sort of federal meddling.”
True, but that didn’t stop Roe vs. Wade.
Even though the feds can’t tell the states what to do, it can serve as an example to them. Federal laws and signage could be monolingual.
“genuine Jerry Falwell”… not sure if that’s supposed to be a negative, but I would be honored if I were half the man of God that Falwell was. As even Larry Flynt admitted in an op-ed after Falwell died, the Reverend was a very kind man who truly lived out Jesus’ example of godly living. Did he say foolish things? Sure, who hasn’t? But 95% of the time he spoke God’s truth, and did so with love. He loved the sinner yet hated the sin.
“If they only spoke Chinese in Chinatown, the only people going to visit and spend money there would be other Chinese speakers. Again, making English the official language does NOT ban use of other languages, it just means that the government quits enabling people to live here yet not know the primary language.”
And how, pray tell, does making English the “official language” of the US force people to learn it? And pray tell, tell me how this will make the government “quit enabling people to live here”? Do we need this law to enable the US to quit enabling non-English speakers? Or will this become another “feel good about America” law like the attempts at making flag-burning unconstitutional?
“Federal laws and signage could be monolingual.”
I haven’t actually seen much bilingual signage around here. Highway and street signs are all English. Occasionally there are some construction signs in English and Spanish, but those are put up by the construction companies, not the government. I’m curious to know if there are any parts of the country where there is significant bilingual signage. I imagine border towns like Laredo or El Paso might have signs in Spanish.
I do see a lot of non-English signs on stores and restaurants around where I live, but that’s because I live in the Asian part of town.
Not to mention multi-lingual street signs, etc could be useful for tourism and travel sake alone. I know I always appreciate having things written in English when I travel. Besides, since our current market is indeed going more global, perhaps exposure to other languages needs to increase in the U.S. We can’t expect the whole world to cater to us, you know.
“Not to mention multi-lingual street signs, etc could be useful for tourism and travel sake alone.”
Yeah. That reminds me of when I went on a mission trip to Nicaragua. The capital city, Managua, is a city of over a million people and it has no streets signs. It has no street names, even. No street names, in a city of a million people. Addresses are just directions based on landmarks. (E.g., 1.5 km south of the airport, two blocks before the mall.) We take street names and signs and addresses for granted, and it shocked me to realize that not every place has them.
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/592.cfm
I guess I wasn’t talking about street signs. Election ballots are the most outrageous example of something that should only be in English. Unless I have misunderstood the current drive for making English official, I don’t think that it would mean that businesses and the tourism industry would be banned from displaying whatever language they choose. Go to Utah in the summer and you’re more likely to hear German there.
“Election ballots are the most outrageous example of something that should only be in English.”
Hmm, I guess maybe. But we don’t have any federal elections in America. Even presidential elections are run by the state.
“Even presidential elections are run by the state.”
You beat me to it, Jew. While this “making English and official language” law seems like a possible good idea (from the emotional side of things), it ends up being rather pointless. Once again, it ends up being another nationalist/feel-good-about-America law (like outlawing flag burning). I also think this is just a temper-tantrum reaction to this perceived immigrant threat. I think learning English is an unspoken requirement, since in order to succeed properly, you HAVE to learn the language of where you live. While it may seem that things are crutched, I don’t think it is to an extent that requires more laws.
Ok, I do agree that of the current issues, making English official falls somewhere between outlawing flag-burning and making sure farmers in Wyoming have enough subsidies. In other words, very low on priority. But since it was brought up, I thought I would discuss it. I think one can legitimately support making English our official language and not be a bigot, xenophobe, or Mexican-hater. That was my main point, since Jew implied that in his first two comments. Just because we may not agree with someone else doesn’t make them scared or hateful or ignorant.
Absolutely not, Darius, I agree. I’m not sure I got what you are driving at from Jew’s comment. He did say it was anti-immigrant prejudice (which is basically what I said), but you were the one that implied he was referring to bigotry. I think what Jew meant, and what I meant, was that it is a pointless stab at immigrants meant to make a point. I don’t think anyone here is thinking Mexican-hater in regards to the candidates. Xenophobic, possibly, which often goes hand-in-hand with nationalism (the “love America or get out” crowd. When their idea of loving the country is “no dissent, learn English, and pretend you were never from anywhere else”, which is inherently foolish considering our country’s origins.), which often leads to such silly laws.
Oh, and never feel bad about bringing something up. We are all a VERY opinionated crowd here (have you noticed?) so we all speak up. Like I said, while I can see some salient points in making English an official language, I don’t like the timing, the backing OR the point. While I will agree that I think printing ballots in two languages is sorta pointless (since to vote you have to be a citizen, and by that time, you should have enough grasp of our main language to be able to vote), I don’t think it requires a law of officiating the language to do as such. Then again, I’m an “English is my one and only language” guy, and even then, some ballot measures are impossible to read, even for ME!! Perhaps they are printed in spanish (our second most commonly spoke language in America, which actually might be a good thing. I think we need to be bilingual. It would help in a lot of commerce and relations) in order to make native speakers able to understand just what they are voting for?
Then again, I have private comments about this that may appear elsewhere in the future….
To say someone is prejudiced against a group of people is to call them a bigot, just in a slightly more subtle manner. While I am sure there are plenty of “dem dare mexicans shud go hom” bigots who support whatever legislation that assists their disgusting views, I wanted to point out that there are also logical, well-meaning reasons for the legislation we’ve been discussing. Support from one extreme or another doesn’t necessarily make a side of an issue less viable.
Don’t worry, I will jump in to any discussion if I have something to add; as you already found out and is readily apparent from my blog, I am not loath to express my opinions.
As to how I happened upon this blog, I lived on the same dorm floor as Jasen in college and linked over here from his blog.
Darius is right, prejudice and bigotry are pretty much synonyms in this context. I shouldn’t have conflated the English-only movement with the anti-immigrant prejudice that does exist in America. I don’t know enough about the English-only movement to make that claim, and I withdraw it.
I just looked up both words, and I guess I mis-interpreted. My mistake. I got confused on definitions.