Saturday, June 18, 2011

English Should Be America's Official Language

By Semperpapa

Here is a video of an exchange that took place in the Texas Senate during a hearing regarding a bill designed to address the issue of illegal immigration, SB9.

http://youtu.be/hNKWISYPdZ4

Maybe I am the only one to see the irony in what this video shows. Here is a guy, Antolin Aguirre, who addresses state senators from Texas by speaking Spanish, on the issue of illegal immigration.
The question posed by the senator was more than legitimate, because someone who had come to the United States in 1988 should have gained enough proficiency in the language to be able to express their grievances or opinion in English.
That is even more significant when claiming to represent a specific civic issue in an official setting like a senatorial hearing.

Personally, regardless of the content of his deposition and its merits, the fact that Antolin spoke via an interpreter is an insult to the process and the country itself, a form of arrogance that is designed to push the multicultural envelop to the point of saying "you will listen to my complaints in my language as I am a guest in your home."

When confronted, the excuse came forward. Feeling "more comfortable" using his native language, while at the same time showing he could understand and speak English well.
Had Antolin made his speech in English, even with an heavy accent and even making some pronunciation mistakes, would have carried his message much further and would have had a potentially more positive impact than his arrogant stunt (BTW did anyone check Mr. Aguirre's papers?).

And I speak of personal experience on this one, as there was a time when English was not my native language and I too struggled with communication. The difference is that I saw my ability to learn and speak the language as my responsibility in order to integrate into American social structure. I did not expect any special treatment nor I received one, outside of the understanding of the American people I interacted with.
My efforts to speak the language, as bad as it might have been, was almost universally met with a benevolent response from those who i was speaking with, even if with some occasional chuckles. The main point, as it was expressed to me, was that I was trying, and trying hard, to adapt to the country that so gracefully allowed me to be part of it.

Multiculturalism has obviously failed as demonstrated by the distancing that liberal Europe is now attempting to reel back from, as it dilutes a nation's identity and instills in citizens and all others a destructive sense of entitlement.
It is irrelevant that someone speaks his or her native language in their home, or with family and neighbors, but when it comes to official business, English should be the language used.
I was recently summoned for jury duty. As instructed, I called the night before my date to check if I had to report to my local Superior Court. The automated message gave me the choice to hear the message in Spanish and I found it ironic. To be summoned for jury duty one must be a US citizen, which also means that one has to have a proven ability to speak and understand English. So why give the option in Spanish? And why not in Cantonese or Vietnamese or Italian or German or Russian? And does this mean that if a Spanish-only speaking juror is selected the court would have to provide an interpreter?
I know, it is a demographic issue, but the ideals of our Nation are equality for all citizens, which, in this instance, would be achieved by the use of English as a national language.

Just my thoughts!

1 comment:

  1. I have mixed feelings about a legal mandate, though I agree that for the purposes of business, education, and *obtaining citizenship*, English should be learned. However, where I am extremely guarded is in areas of law and healthcare, where even someone who is native-born American needs translation.

    I disagree with the false dichotomy that is raised with respect to this subject - and I say this extremely respectfully, because the dichotomy has been raise by *both* sides of the argument. Coming as I do from both a professional background and how this subject affects me in my personal life, my assertion is a third - very different - option.

    From a business perspective, both assimilation AND multiculturalism failed. Why? Because with assimilation, minorities felt marginalized. With multiculturalism, White males (predominantly) felt marginalized. Both ideas, while positively-intended as they were/are, have negative-impact outcomes...which affects everyone.

    The third option that has risen, and is showing remarkable success, is all-inclusion. Meaning - no "fill-in-the-blank" month...no Ms. Hispanic/Black/Asian/etc America. Magazines and television shows that market to a particular group? Fine...those are private choices in the sanctuary of one's own home. However in the business environment, equality - PERIOD. Gender/nationality/race/etc ALL equally celebrated and NOT pushed under the proverbial carpet. For legalese and medical information, multi-lingual (because of nuanced terminology that must be understood in one's mother tongue to make a fully-informed decision), but other things, such as obtaining a driver's license, high school education, etc...yes, English.

    We (as a nation) really need to stop treating every political subject like an either/or situation...to advance as a country, we need to start recognizing that there ARE other, better options, and quit entrenching ourselves in archaic ideas that got us locked in the situations we find ourselves today.

    ReplyDelete