|  | 
| 
 why Quote: 
 | 
| 
 Quote: 
 Most of the people in this country are descendents from people that came from countrys that don't speak English. Yet do you really think this country would be better off if everyone had retained their native language and taught it to their children? The US is better off being a single language nation. I wouldn't care if it were Spanish, French or Swahili. But English is also the international language so every prudent and competitive country on the Globe is trying to teach their children English. We already have the advantage of having that international language being the predominate language - why would we change that? In every country I have ever lived in I made a serious attempt to learn the predominate language, and it never occurred to me to expect the government to cater to my English. If I decided to move permanently to Mexico or another Spanish speaking country it wouldn't even occur to me to not improve my Spanish or expect the government to print ballots or provide services to me in English. I have no problem with people immigrating to this country, but is it so much to ask that they learn English? Isn't it a prudent public policy to encourage English to be spoken in the United States? | 
| 
 Quote: 
 Quote: 
 Quote: 
 This doesn't seem to jibe with Replaced Texan's assertion that: Quote: 
 | 
| 
 Quote: 
 eta re: made-up problem -- there isn't a problem with having to do stuff in different languages, to the extent we do so now, so the law isn't addressing that problem. the law is thus being proposed for another purpose or purposes -- what do you think it or they might be? think hard, spanky, I suspect this won't come easy to you. | 
| 
 Quote: 
 But now you have social engineers that think mulitculturalism, as opposed to the melting pot, is the way to go. Until we got rid of it in California by proposition, you could pass the entire way through the California public schools without ever having to learn English. There is a certain section of the population that thinks that a bilengual United States would be a good thing and many of these progressive thinkers are in positions of power throughout the government and are putting that agenda into policy. They had screwed up the California Public Schools for a while, until that was fixed, but there influence is being felt everywhere. Hence the need for legislation. | 
| 
 Quote: 
 | 
| 
 Quote: 
 I'm actually in favor of a strong English education in our schools. I think ESL courses are not taught correctly. But this statute doesn't address that. I think that learning a passing level of English should be a requirement for naturalization citizenship (oh wait - it is!). This law doesn't address that, either. Instead, it's almost wholely symbolic. This is a non-issue. But somebody thinks it's important, and I'm pretty sure those same people (or their kids) are going to be the ones bitching the loudest when Spanish becomes as widely spoken as English in this country. | 
| 
 Quote: 
 to me, the law seems more symbolic than anything else. symbolic in a nasty, evil way. | 
| 
 Quote: 
 Spanky, the plural of "country" is "countries." Maybe you need to focus on your own English? ETA Hank PMed to say he was actually referring to bilENGual. Which actually is an interesting kinda error to have made . . . | 
| 
 Quote: 
 Quote: 
 | 
| 
 Quote: 
 | 
| 
 Quote: 
 | 
| 
 Quote: 
 | 
| 
 Quote: 
 Implicit in this statement is that it is a waste of tax dollars to use anything but English. Implicit in that statement is the idea that only English speakers have a right to have a say in the proper use of tax dollars. Why? And I'll remind you that the "we were here first" argument is incorrect, at least with regard to California (and Texas). My point with the bitching issue is that one must be careful what one demands - the same people who insist that there can only be one language for the govenrment are likely to regret that choice when the future majority of the country decides they were correct about the one language thing,* but decides to change the language. * As to the correctness of the one language thing in general, I'd point out that many countries have multiple official languages, and for much the same reason (combinations of lands where the populations speak another language - and this is this case here: Spanish is so widely kept in the US because there has always been a large geographically concentrated base of Spanish speakers in certain parts of the country who became citizens without the necessity of learning English - they were there when the territory they lived in became part of the US. Obviously, not all or even most Spanish speakers are decendants of these original settlers, but their presence has created a continuity of community in the Southwest especially, with some migration to oher areas). Switzerland has four official languages, one of which is spoken by less than 70,000 worldwide. | 
| 
 Quote: 
 Tal. Burn. | 
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 PM. | 
	Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com