Posted on 11/15/2007 4:39:26 PM PST by SmithL
Now, on the other hand, I distinguish being a “tourist” (staying in decent hotels, going to cultural events, etc) from being a traveler (sleeping in railway stations, carrying everything you have on your back). After reading what you just wrote, I realized that you (and most people) don’t differentiate between “tourists” and “travelers,” so my point about “your’re not really in a position to be a tourist if you can’t hire someone to help you,” was misleading.
(FWIW, I have also been a traveler, and, in that capacity, got very good at sign / body language, using english-to-whatever dictionaries, and picking up a lot of the local language as fast as possible. As a traveller, however, with no budget for a translator, I never EXPECTED anyone to accomodate me unless I could charm them into it.)
Sorry about the confusion; let me rephrase:
"If you can’t speak English, and can’t hire someone to help you, and can’t get by on sign / body language, and can’t use a translating dictionary, and can’t be personable enough to get people to WANT to help you, then you are in no position to be a tourist / traveler. In no case, tourist or traveler, should you demand that the local government / society accommodate you, though, as a good tourist, you should be able to pay for a translator, and as a good traveler, you should be able to make them WANT to VOLUNTARILY accommodate you."
Based on what you last wrote, I'd think you'd say "no, I would not." But i am not sure so I am asking. I bet some that have posted here wouldn't gesitate in saying "yes, I would support that kind of legislation."
Businesses should be able to do anything they want in any language they want. But the government shouldn't require them to supply anything in any language other than English. Likewise any official business transacted with any element of the government should not be required to be in any language other than English -- such as voting ballots, applications for medical licenses, air traffic controller exams, etc.
This thread, based on the article at the top, is not about prohibiting companies from accommodating their clients. This thread is about (direct quote from the article here): “a law that prohibits employers from firing people who don’t speak English on the job.”
The thread has nothing to do with the scenario you just posited. Rather, it has to do with the right of an employer to demand that his employees speak English IF THE EMPLOYER SO WISHES, vs. the demand that employers accommodate (by continuing to employ, in this case) people who will not comply with that demand. Moreover, this thread is about whether or not the government should force the employer to make such accommodations.
I’ll answer the question you asked: I think that a private employer should be able to demand that his employees speak any language the employer wishes. Again, however, the question you asked is NOT THE QUESTION AT HAND.
To address the question at hand: I don’t think that immigrants, tourists, travelers, or anyone else, should be able to use the force of any government or quasi-government organization (including, but not limited to, the US government, foreign governments, the UN, or other NGOs) to force US society to accommodate a lack of English proficiency.
An addendum to my last post: while I do think that an employer should be able to demand that an employee speak any language the employer wishes, I also think that, with rare exceptions mostly relating to being blind or mute, there’s an argument to be made that all employees of US companies should be able to speak and read English, or have someone who does so on their behalf. Otherwise, for example, all the OSHA and EEOC posters would be meaningless to people who didn’t understand English, and, to the extent that OSHA and the EEOC impose costs on all employers who employ people who know what OSHA and the EEOC are, employers who hire people who can’t understand the EEOC and OSHA posters would be unfairly advantaged.
I had purposely deviated from the article because, on the surface, some of the earlier posters had done so with their words and their pictures. I have addressed the main questions posted by the article. I’ve also addressed the statements of those who kept their comments within the bounds of the rational. Have you checked out some of the posts by me that occured AFTER post #12 and BEFORE you first posted to the thread?
OK you’re trying to confuse me....;)
susie
I support legal immigration. I also support those who have broken the law to come here going HOME and those who have waited going to the front of the line. I also support allowing only immigrants who will be self supporting being allowed to come. Of course, I also support a huge overhaul of our welfare system anyway, since I think it is like a bright beacon to those who would rather live *poor* than in their home countries.
susie
Yes. And the federal government is just as bad by accommodating people who are supposed to be assimilating into our country. How far should we go as a society to accommodate them? Will this lead to Balkanization along linguistic and cultural lines?
The Hispanic Challenge By Samuel P. Huntington
"The size, persistence, and concentration of Hispanic immigration tends to perpetuate the use of Spanish through successive generations. The evidence on English acquisition and Spanish retention among immigrants is limited and ambiguous. In 2000, however, more than 28 million people in the United States spoke Spanish at home (10.5 percent of all people over age five), and almost 13.8 million of these spoke English worse than “very well,” a 66 percent increase since 1990. According to a U.S. Census Bureau report, in 1990 about 95 percent of Mexican-born immigrants spoke Spanish at home; 73.6 percent of these did not speak English very well; and 43 percent of the Mexican foreign-born were “linguistically isolated.” An earlier study in Los Angeles found different results for the U.S.-born second generation. Just 11.6 percent spoke only Spanish or more Spanish than English, 25.6 percent spoke both languages equally, 32.7 percent more English than Spanish, and 30.1 percent only English. In the same study, more than 90 percent of the U.S.-born people of Mexican origin spoke English fluently. Nonetheless, in 1999, some 753,505 presumably second-generation students in Southern California schools who spoke Spanish at home were not proficient in English.
Spanish retention is also bolstered by the overwhelming majorities (between 66 percent and 85 percent) of Mexican immigrants and Hispanics who emphasize the need for their children to be fluent in Spanish. These attitudes contrast with those of other immigrant groups. The New Jersey-based Educational Testing Service finds “a cultural difference between the Asian and Hispanic parents with respect to having their children maintain their native language.” In part, this difference undoubtedly stems from the size of Hispanic communities, which creates incentives for fluency in the ancestral language. Although second- and third-generation Mexican Americans and other Hispanics acquire competence in English, they also appear to deviate from the usual pattern by maintaining their competence in Spanish. Second- or third-generation Mexican Americans who were brought up speaking only English have learned Spanish as adults and are encouraging their children to become fluent in it. Spanish-language competence, University of New Mexico professor F. Chris Garcia has stated, is “the one thing every Hispanic takes pride in, wants to protect and promote.”
Dual-language programs, which go one step beyond bilingual education, have become increasingly popular. In these programs, students are taught in both English and Spanish on an alternating basis with a view to making English-speakers fluent in Spanish and Spanish-speakers fluent in English, thus making Spanish the equal of English and transforming the United States into a two-language country. Then U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley explicitly endorsed these programs in his March 2000 speech, “Excelencia para Todos—Excellence for all.” Civil rights organizations, church leaders (particularly Catholic ones), and many politicians (Republican as well as Democrat) support the impetus toward bilingualism.
Perhaps equally important, business groups seeking to corner the Hispanic market support bilingualism as well. Indeed, the orientation of U.S. businesses to Hispanic customers means they increasingly need bilingual employees; therefore, bilingualism is affecting earnings. Bilingual police officers and firefighters in southwestern cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas are paid more than those who only speak English. In Miami, one study found, families that spoke only Spanish had average incomes of $18,000; English-only families had average incomes of $32,000; and bilingual families averaged more than $50,000. For the first time in U.S. history, increasing numbers of Americans (particularly black Americans) will not be able to receive the jobs or the pay they would otherwise receive because they can speak to their fellow citizens only.
If the spread of Spanish as the United States' second language continues, it could, in due course, have significant consequences in politics and government. In many states, those aspiring to political office might have to be fluent in both languages. Bilingual candidates for president and elected federal positions would have an advantage over English-only speakers. If dual-language education becomes prevalent in elementary and secondary schools, teachers will increasingly be expected to be bilingual. Government documents and forms could routinely be published in both languages. The use of both languages could become acceptable in congressional hearings and debates and in the general conduct of government business. Because most of those whose first language is Spanish will also probably have some fluency in English, English speakers lacking fluency in Spanish are likely to be and feel at a disadvantage in the competition for jobs, promotions, and contracts.
"In 1917, former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said: “We must have but one flag. We must also have but one language. That must be the language of the Declaration of Independence, of Washington's Farewell address, of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and second inaugural.” By contrast, in June 2000, U.S. president Bill Clinton said, “I hope very much that I'm the last president in American history who can't speak Spanish.” And in May 2001, President Bush celebrated Mexico's Cinco de Mayo national holiday by inaugurating the practice of broadcasting the weekly presidential radio address to the American people in both English and Spanish. In September 2003, one of the first debates among the Democratic Party's presidential candidates also took place in both English and Spanish. Despite the opposition of large majorities of Americans, Spanish is joining the language of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and the Kennedys as the language of the United States. If this trend continues, the cultural division between Hispanics and Anglos could replace the racial division between blacks and whites as the most serious cleavage in U.S. society.
By 2050, one in every four residents of this country will be Hispanic.
The same thing it means in the many states that have passed English as the official language of the state. All official business will be conducted in English, including documents and official correspondence. In Arizona, Prop 103 passed by a 74% to 26% in 2006. Here is the text of that Proposition:
We need something similar for the entire country. For example, can you explain to me why the SS Administration must publish the Trustees Annual Report in Spanish? Many USG websites have Spanish versions.
It's called a "separatist movement".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.