Spanish defacto US second official language

Rebar: According to you, any US citizen speaking any language other than English must be accommodated.

Click to expand...

Not according to me, but according to the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I didn't write it.

GT: They learned English DAMN quickly because the English speakers would not let them get away with turning the country "German". They didn't like the Germans and told them at every opportunity (see what Ben Franklin thought of them).

Click to expand...

You don't let the facts get in your way, do you?

Sorry, bub, but for nearly a century -- from the late 1830s until WWI, the German language enjoyed the same status in the U.S. that Spanish enjoys today. Schools taught in it. Business accomodated it. Newpapers printed in it.

There is no official language in this country.

The examples you posted are just the free market making a decision.

RileyMC: If that’s true (and I don’t accept your assertion that it is), the condition exists because government provides ‘language services’. Remove that accomodation, and they will quickly learn English. It’s axiomatic-what you subsidize, you get more of.

Click to expand...

I updated my post -- with a link to Immigration and Naturalization -- that shows there are tens of millions of legal immigrants. It's not me you have to believe, but the INS.

Do you or do you not oppose language services for the tens of millions of legal immigrants?

If you do, fine. But don't imply that the government wouldn't offer the services if not for the llegal immigration problem.

If you do oppose those services for the tens of millions of legal immigrants -- then stop saying that your opposition is simply about illegal immigration.

To backtrack a bit, isn't one of the requirements for becoming an American citizen to be able to speak and read at least a modicum of English? I could be wrong....
Biker

Popocorn......popcorn.............................get Your Popcorn Here!

cuchulainn- Do you even read the links you post? Language is not mentioned at all in that document. Are you assuming that all legal immigrants speak no English whatsoever????

They are are related subjects. They are not the same subject.

Click to expand...

Same subject, merely different aspects thereof. Are you the official topic master for the day? No? Then give it a rest.

You're the one who can't seem to get over it.

Click to expand...

Actually this is the first time I mentioned it in these recent threads.

We haven't talked about it in pages.

Click to expand...

Tejon mentioned it at least once today. Also keep in mind that pages pass while people are away, thus how many pages there are means absolutely nothing.

You disagree with the example. We've explained it multiple times. You still disagree. Move on.

Click to expand...

Yes, I disagree. No it has not been "explained" because it is a falacious argument with no relevence and thus can't be "explained" in any valuable sense relative to the discussion of Illegals and modern language concerns. I'll "move on" when people stop bringing up this strawman. As long as it continues to rear its empty head I'll continue to shoot it down.

RileyMC: Do you even read the links you post? Language is not mentioned at all in that document. Are you assuming that all legal immigrants speak no English whatsoever????

Click to expand...

No, I'm making no such assumption. In fact, in my original post on this particual issue (post #121), I wrote, "They have varying degrees of English proficiency."

In any event, the chart on page 4 of my link shows where the legal immigrants came from. Most of those places do not produce English-speakers.

Do you or do you not oppose government language services for those legal immigrants who do not speak English

2nd Amendment: I'll "move on" when people stop bringing up this strawman. As long as it continues to rear its empty head I'll continue to shoot it down.

Click to expand...

I'll conceed that if people bring it up in terms of whether illegal immigration is a problem, that it would be a strawman.

However, it's not a strawman when discussing whether we can survive having a secondary U.S. language. The example shows that we've already survived having a secondary U.S. language.

It's valid as El T used it today.

My ancestors read Swedish and German language newspapers all the time. Half the obits of my people from the 19th and early 20th century are in a foreign language, but they died in the US. At least Spanish is easy to learn and understand.

At the rate the invasion is going Spanish will soon be our FIRST national language. I've already read posts on here about people who couldn't get served in a Wal Mart -in America- because the would be customer didn't speak Spanish!
IT IS TIME TO BUILD A WALL AND CLOSE THE SOUTHERN BORDER. :banghead:

2nd, how is my historical analogy a straw man?

Plenty of THRers come from families that did not speak English, perhaps for generations, just like Cos'. How is my citation to the historical record a straw man?

It was no more a "second US language" in the context being presented here than French, Chinese, or any of the Amerind dialects were. The relatively small(in light of the primary period of legal immigration) German population used it largely among themselves in the original generation. The vast majority of the second generation learned English almost as an exclusive language not only in order to assimilate but also out of respect for their new home.

Since the topic here is controlled by the question of illegality and influenced by the sheer numbers of Illegals and directly concerns an unwillingness by them to learn, teach or accept English instead of their native tongue but rather to demand the LEGAL part of the nation adjust for their failures it IS a strawman, as well as being factually incorrect.

It's just another example of how the apologists will use the most absurd defenses for their agenda. I'd frankly like to see an honest explanation for their stances...but I really don't think even the apologists understand their stance.

I think you have a different definition of a straw man. May be it's an analogy that you do not accept?

German immigration was very large. German was used by generations of German immigrants as Cos just said in his personal example. Dozens of newspapers were published in German. Business, advertising and up until 1917, public education was conducted in German.

Not all German immigrants respected their homeland as the rise of the Silvershirts and the German-America clubs prior to WWII showed.

Spanish speaking immigrants are no different.

2nd Amdendment: It was no more a "second US language" in the context being presented here than French, Chinese, or any of the Amerind dialects were. The relatively small(in light of the primary period of legal immigration) German population used it largely among themselves in the original generation. The vast majority of the second generation learned English almost as an exclusive language not only in order to assimilate but also out of respect for their new home.

Click to expand...

It was much more significant than French. The German language was not "primarily among themselves" but taught in the public schools and accomodated by businesses. It was most certainly not "relatively small," Germany being the #1 place of ancestory for Americans. It lasted for nearly a century. It extended beyond the first generation (including my dad's side of the family) -- and indeed was a significant source of German translators even as late as WWII.

True, subsequent generations learned English too. But that's also true with the Spanish speaking immigrants. You're confusing "don't know" with "won't use."

But it's their right to not use English. They're stupid for doing it, but it's their right.

Not according to me, but according to the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I didn't write it.

Click to expand...

OK, let's get this straight: it's your position that the US government has the legal obligation to provide all services, including public schools, in any and all languages that a citizen might speak?

If Americans of Mexican, Syrian, Lithuanian, Swahili, and Mongolian background walk into a post office, it's a violation of their civil and consitutional rights if there are no provisions made to provide service in their native languages? Is that your position?

For the Record could we define:

1. Strawman

2. Non Sequitor

3. Ad Hominem(sp)

4. Specious

5. Supercalifragalisticexpialidocious

Sorry, I just really couldn't resist that last one, but I would like general definitions for future reference.

I am German(as well as Irish and Amerind). I know my history. German was used in business in German communities, such as Jasper was(and very much still is) locally. As a national issue it simply wasn't an issue. Second generation Citizens spoke English except when in primary German environs. Original immigrants learned English to a functional degree or they went home(I have ancenstors who did in fact go back).

It was never comparable to what we are experiencing today and it never had the kind of official or social sanction it has today. The comparison is specious and again apologists need to get into the 21st century and stop trying to dredge up and modify examples from the 19th.

Also, keep in mind that the numbers themselves are not comparable. German immigration was legal(90%+) and occurred over a century or more. Mexican immigration has brought in 7% of our population illegally in 15 years or less. This larger actual number in a 6th of the time period is far more influential because of our social services network which did not exist in the 19th century(and should not exist now) and because or our fundamentally weaker economic position.

Obsolete justifications citing legal immigrants, bolstered by hyperbole, are neither excuse nor justification for modern illegals. Get better arguments or stop the arguing.

Rebar: OK, let's get this straight: it's your position that the US government has the legal obligation to provide all services, including public schools, in any and all languages that a citizen might speak?

Click to expand...

My position doesn't matter. But since you ask -- personally, I don't care one way or the other. If they offer it, I'm fine with it. If they don't offer it, I'm fine with it.

However, my point is that's what the 13th requires. If states/localities offer a privilege, they have to offer it equally to all citizens. Since education is dependent on language, they've got a Constitutional obligation to at least accomodate language.

Yeah, technically, they would be required to accomodate all and any language. The reality is that they don't -- but I'd imagine that a Swahili-speaking citizen could force them to accomodate his language. And, indeed, big-city schools often do have classes in a myriad of languages, not just Spanish.

See -- with children who have zero control over what language they speak -- denying them a privilege based on their language is no different than denying them a privilege based on skin color. It's easier to argue against accomodating adults. Not children.

Of course, if we got rid of the public schools, this wouldn't be an issue...

I often add homonem (plural for hominy, right?) to my dinner. Love the stuff. Non sequitor is french for "Not tonight Baby, its my monthlies". And specious? Good Lord. Rermember the song? "Oh beautiful, for specious skies..." And the Strawman accompanied Dorothy and Toto....

thereisnospoon:

Most of your definitions -- and many others -- are at http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html.

Ad Hominem http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Strawman: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Specious: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=specious

Non Sequitur: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=non sequitur

Enjoy.

2nd, no, not just legal immigrants. The illegal immigrants of, for example, Chinese heritage all conducted business in Cantonese, Fuijen, etc. Their descendants mostly speak English now, just like the Germans or the Hispanics in a generation. Do you think people complained about the use of German and other non-English languages in the 19th century and early 20th century? Sure did.

The Chinese come in large numbers, just like the Germans in a short period. The Irish came in large numbers in a short period. The Italians came in large numbers in a short period.

Legal or illegal we've been here before.

cuchulainn :

See -- with children who have zero control over what language they speak -- denying them a privilege based on their language is no different than denying them a privilege based on skin color. It's easier to argue against accomodating adults. Not children.

Click to expand...

Again you bring the 13th Amendment which I feel in the use you are giving it is not correct, or at least very debatable. The priveledge of legal citizens to use the public school system and education regardless of their background applies. However to say that this means that then classes, instructions, and government papers and operations should be in each native tongue, then No - that's not the meaning. Since as you say too, it's not applied fairly. That's why the US Government needs to essentially assert English as the only langauge. All else will fall in naturally.

Many of you here may not know how many Asian immigrants assimilated, especially the children. Often they would go to the public school as normal, followed by then another school in their community. There they would get help in their English studies and also learn more of their native language. They also would even help some other family member with what they learned. I have seen this also for German and European families, and in Churches.

To say that the burden of this is on the state and tax payers, and the state education system is wrong. It is up to you, the individual and family to learn a language in the land you live in. It doesn't mean you should loose your native culture or language, although this happens too!

Why is it so hard for some communities and cultures to understand this?

I agree the discussions of immigration with German immigrants in the 18th and 19th centuries really doesn't apply to what we are talking about here, in the times we are in now, on the infrastructure we live in now.

ody, not saying that times are not different, but that the concerns of those that say the sky is falling is overinflated as we have been there, done that.

The "Icky furiners" from the Dutchies to greasy Eyeties to the Yellow Hordes all have proven to be just like everyone else.

Cuc-whatever:

You don't let the facts get in your way, do you?

Sorry, bub, but for nearly a century -- from the late 1830s until WWI, the German language enjoyed the same status in the U.S. that Spanish enjoys today. Schools taught in it. Business accomodated it. Newpapers printed in it.

Click to expand...

Don't call me "bub", numbnuts. I told you not to patronize me.
I know you think a lot of yourself, but I don't think much of your arguments.

Now obviously you have a hair up your nethers about this language/immigration thing, what with you yelling in color and all.
I am not sure if you are trying to convice us or yourself.

http://www.vernonjohns.org/vernjohns/sthfrnkl.html

This immigration (of Germans) stirred some nativist reactions. Not surprisingly, the greatest concern with immigration was in Pennsylvania which had, on the eve of the revolution, about one-third German in its population. Franklin wanted the Germans in western Pennsylvania to be better distributed in the nation and to mix more with the English. He worried that the new German immigrants would threaten the English language and English liberties, and so he insisted on Anglo-conformity as the model of immigration, demanding that the new immigrants conform to English ways.

Wright (1986:83) quotes the great philosopher and inventor as saying, "Why should the Palatine boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements and, by herding together, establish their language and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us, instead of our Anglifying them?"

Franklin's ideas were standard for the day; in fact, standard for any day in the United States (see Gordon 1964:89-91). Worries about immigration were shared by many of the founding fathers (see Gordon 1964). George Washington did not want to encourage immigration and certainly did not want to see concentrated geographic settlement of any one group because he thought this would lead to the preservation of separate values. Even the liberal Thomas Jefferson worried about the impact on American liberty of the influx of immigrants from countries dominated by absolute monarchies.

Click to expand...

As I said, the English didn't like the Germans and didn't want their language and customs.
In the same way we don't want the language and customs of Mexico. Note how well those customs and that language have worked so far in Mexico.

The current status of the Hispanics is not like that of the Germans of the 19th C.
The Germans were marginalized and forced to learn English and assimilate. The Hispanics today are encouraged NOT to learn English and not to assimilate.
That's the problem.


G