I'd like to chime in and agree with Erin that "English-only" activists are not necessarily racist/anti-immigration, etc. Though I recognize the involvement of anti-immigration groups in English-only advocacy, the most passionate English-only supporters that I've personally met were quite the opposite: often immigrants themselves who want to help others escape bad circumstances (I'm thinking here of some social workers I met in L.A. They told me story after story of teenagers who felt learning English was unnecessary and too hard). I can understand the concerns about cost, too.
However, I believe that "English only" laws will not solve immigration problems, for all the reasons that others have laid out. And even the cost issue, when I think about it, doesn't seem solvable by English-only laws. In the abstract, it can be hard to see how translating documents into umpteen different languages is a good use of limited resources. But when I start thinking about where cuts should be made, I always conclude that the English-only cure would be worse than the disease.
Here's why: when government services communicate effectively with non-English speakers, I benefit. If people can't understand how to pay their taxes, it'll be much harder to collect those taxes. Lower tax income hurts me. At my kids' school, do I want non-English-speaking parents to be involved their kids education? Having kids floating around the school with little parental involvement hurts my kids (and not just with academics--I want these parents to understand what is needed for vaccines, lice control, etc.) Do I want people who drive to be licensed? Unlicensed drivers endanger me, etc.
Not only that, but sometimes we need to pay for things because it's the right thing to do. e.g., I'm happy when emergency service providers can speak some Spanish. If a mom can't speak English, that doesn't mean she and her kids deserve to die unhelped from fire or crime. (Plus, it's safer for the emergency providers to know some Spanish themselves.) And ballots should be available in the languages people speak because it's the right thing to do. All U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to vote, no matter what language they speak, and the proliferation of news media in multiple languages means that people can be informed without speaking English. It seems there must be a natural limitation on the costs of translating ballots--you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote, and becoming a naturalized citizen normally requires reading/writing/speaking English--so the chances of, say, a Xhosa-only speaker demanding a multi-thousand-dollar translation initiative are remote. (Picking Xhosa as the toughest-to-translate language that comes to mind right now.)
Surely there are some translated government materials that could/should be cut--I'm not familiar with the entire catalog of the GPO, but as it's run by humans, there's zero chance that it is perfectly efficient. But an English-only law would seem the wrong way to go about cost-cutting. A hatchet instead of a scalpel, or whatever the metaphor is.
Beth
>>> Erin Karl <[log in to unmask]> 12/13/2009 10:55 PM >>>
For many the support of English-only is money-driven. The US and state governments spend millions every year printing signs, pamphlets, and other published material in lanuages other than English. They also spend money to have other-language phone support, "para espanol, marque numero dos," etc. I am a HUGE fan of the free market and have no problem with Americans having the freedom to speak or write whatever language they personally choose, but I would like to save the enormous amount of money spent every year on other-language pubs, recordings, and staff. Although many make conservatives' feelings on English-only out to be racist/anti-immigration/etc., the vast majority support these measures simply as a way to reign in spending.
Erin
________________________________
From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, December 13, 2009 10:44:17 PM
Subject: Re: "We speak English ...
The overwhelming success of English in this country and the eagerness of immigrants to learn English are evidence of the power of the free market. We became and have remained an English-speaking nation because of competition in the marketplace of language since colonial days, and the debate over English has frequently been intense, even acrimonious. Ben Franklin wrote a well-known attack on increasing German immigration into Pennsylvania and their continuing use of their language rather than English. In the late 20th c. there were predictions of a shift from English to Spanish; the President's Commission on Language under the Carter Administration estimated that by 2020 the US would be a majority Spanish-speaking nation. The success of English has required no legislation; it simply reflects the free market at work.
I've made this case with a number of friends of mine who favor legislation to make English the official language and to restrict the use of other languages in civic and governmental matters. They are largely conservative in their politics and so strongly favor free market solutions--except in the case of language, where it has obviously worked well but where they want government intervention nonetheless.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
