My Take On The English First Proposal
First off, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Thankfully I live about five miles away from the Davidson County line, so this ballot measure doesn’t really affect me. Well actually I guess it does, since I do a lot of business in Nashville and have been fined by Metro at least twice over the last six years. But since I am not a resident and don’t get to vote, this discussion really isn’t any of my business. Like many issues that really aren’t my business though, I just can’t help myself.
First off, have any of you ever actually read the proposed bill? Seriously, I have a feeling that the vast majority of you parrots out there screaming “English only” have probably never even read the text of the bill you are screaming about. You just hear the words “English only”, and conjure up some image of other languages being outlawed. Seriously folks, calm down. Read the text below. By the way, the only place I found the actual text was at Wikipedia.
English is the official language of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Official actions which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language, and all official government communications and publications shall be in English. No person shall have a right to government services in any other language. All meetings of the Metro Council, Boards, and Commissions of the Metropolitan Government shall be conducted in English. The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety. Nothing in this measure shall be interpreted to conflict with federal or state law.”
Now please tell me, what the hell is wrong with that? Do you all really want government services to be available in any language? Do you even know how many different nationalities live in this country? Good grief. There is nothing xenophobic or nativist, or racist about requiring that your government only do business in one language. To me it just makes good common sense.
This law only has to do with government business and government documents. Private business can and should, if they are smart, cater to people who speak foreign languages.
You might say that this is a solution looking for a problem. Maybe so. I certainly don’t feel a lot of emotion over this issue. But to call the people that support this measure nativist or racist is just wrong. In fact, when you pull words like racist, nativist, or xenophobic out of your ass, you are revealing yourself to be an intellectual lightweight. You are basically taking the easy way out. Rather than participate in a debate/discussion, you would rather shut down debate.
AC, your conduct has been especially embarrassing. What would your hero Pat B. think of you right now? It’s almost like you thrive on being praised by the wackiest of wackjobs.
The best place to look for the text of a measure being voted on in a Davidson county election is the Davidson County Election Commission. The full texts of both referendum measures are here.
I can’t vote for this proposal. I would vote yes, if I still lived in Davidson County.
My reaction to the immigration (to the illegal immigrants) has always been the same: they are coming here illegally, and most of those in that tide are making no effort to assimilate to our culture. They want to be aside and apart; to keep their foreign ways and their language. There is no real attempt to learn our language (maybe because those who are illegal are, frankly speaking, the most ignorant sorts who aren’t missed by the countries they’ve fled). Without making an attempt to learn the basics, the language, it’s obvious they aren’t ever going to want to assimilate. Unless they’re forced to. This measure forces them to realize they ain’t in Kansico anymore.
You can see the ‘progressives’ flock to defeat this measure. They of the “Unicorn Socialist Party”, the party of O!topia, know where their votes are coming from, eh?
Otopia. Heh!
Thanks Michael. It sure was hard to find that text in media reports though.
I oppose the English Only measure. (Actually, I oppose both measures. But, we’re not discussing the second one at the moment.) If any one calls me a “progressive” I might have to smack them. (Just kidding. We’re being civil here.)
While neither the word “first” nor the word “only” appear in the language of the measure, the concept of “first”, implying a second, viable choice, does not appear. This is an English Only measure.
We do not need this provision. This is indeed a “solution in search of a problem.” As such, it should be opposed by conservatives. Conservatives shouldn’t be passing laws just for the fun of it.
My opposition centers on the phrase, “. . . all official government communications and publications shall be in English.” Metro Nashville has thousands of employees. Every time any one of those employees speaks to anyone as part of their job, it is an official government communication. Think of the thousands of times each hour such communications take place and of the multitude of people with whom government must communicate. This measure would prevent the bus driver who speaks a little French from helping the tourist with understanding bus fares. This would require that the next time the mayor is in Japan trying to entice business to Nashville, all of that would have to be done in English. The ways in which this would hamstring government and hurt real people are myriad.
Of course, this bill allows exceptions. But note the language: “The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety.” The Council cannot anticipate every contingency in which it might be helpful for a city employee to speak in something other than English. And a continuing process of trying to cover all those exceptions, which are limited to health and safety, would be unnecessarily time consuming and wasteful.
I’ve traveled to foreign lands - legally. I am grateful that none of the non-English speaking countries I’ve been to have had a measure which would have prevented their government employees from speaking to me in English.
I oppose illegal immigration and believe we should not cater to those here illegally. But, this measure goes far beyond that. This is bad policy.
first thing wrong is you looked in wikipedia - just a liberal mouth piece
Section 4-1-404 –English and Legal Language (1984)
English is hereby established as the official and legal language of Tennessee. All communications and publications, including ballots, produced by governmental entities in Tennessee shall be in English, and instruction in public schools and colleges of Tennessee shall be conducted in English unless the nature of the course would require otherwise.
Michael, your opposition is certainly well stated and thought out. That is something that is lacking from many who oppose it for no other reason than they are parrots that just repeat everything they hear.
If it became a problem though, and small groups began suing over the fact that government services are not provided in their language, would you support something similar then?
Glen, that changes the scenario significantly. It moves from “what should government be permitted to do?” to “what should government be required to do?” My initial thought is that neither citizens nor non-citizens have a right to have the government communicate with them in a particular language and that government should not be required to do so. I’m going to have to give that additional thought.
Glen:
Let’s at least be honest about what we’re talking about here. This isn’t about any other languages. It’s about Spanish in particular. As the number of Hispanic immigrants increases (most of them legal, no matter what Serr8d would have you believe), the knee-jerk reaction among the nativists — yes, I think that’s an accurate term — is to fight against the influx of Spanish-language influence.
As to what’s objectionable about the bill you excerpted, it’s that it doesn’t just make English a preferred language, or remove any requirement that government do business in other languages (a requirement which, as I understand it, doesn’t exist anyway) — it seems to actively prohibit the government using any language other than English.
If a large enough portion of the population speaks a common language other than English, I simply don’t see what’s wrong with providing appropriate services and documentation to those people in that language. If it costs too much to do so, fine, then argue against it on that basis, on a case-by-case basis. But a blanket prohibition seems overreaching, and dare I say anti-liberty.
How about this interpretation everyone…
English is the only required language, but others are not specifically excluded.
Does this make it hurt less?
I forgot to note that with very few exceptions, the non-English-speaking immigrants who come to the US wind up assimilating and speaking English organically, even without the government essentially forcing them to do so.
Emmett:
I have no objection to that. Then again, that’s the way things are now, so it represents no change.
Tgirsch, what do you mean bringing honesty into this discussion, especially intellectual honesty? Don’t you folks up in Fonzi-land know how to blog?
Seriously though, if the bill said that government documents and official business can only be in English and Spanish, would that satisfy you?
As for your second post, I don’t think this ballot measure amounts to the government forcing people to speak English. It just requires that the government only do business in English. You see this is what I am talking about. You say something like that, in spite of the fact that you are intelligent enough to know better, and then some parrot hears it and runs around repeating it. Then suddenly lots of people who have never read the bill, are all up in arms over the government “forcing people to speak English”.
People can still get by living in their own communities without speaking English. I have worked with people that hardly spoke any English, not just Mexicans either. I know a lady from Thailand that has been here for twenty years and she can’t speak hardly any. She knows how to count money though. Strangely though, a lot of the immigrants that I have known from the Middle East, particularly Kurdish people, not only speak good English but they also are eager to learn Spanish. Of course that doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion. Just saying.
tgirsh.. most of them legal, no matter what Serr8d would have you believe
I call bullshit. You provide a link to where most of our current wave of illegal immigrants are actually legal.
I give you this. There’s 21M illegal immigrants in this country. $397B cost in social services by these illegals, since 1996. 10.8M jobs taken by illegals.
The problem is there, and obvious. You seem to ignore the real stats, in favor of your ‘Progressive’ narrative.
Awaiting your link..
Glen:
Tgirsch, what do you mean bringing honesty into this discussion, especially intellectual honesty? Don’t you folks up in Fonzi-land know how to blog?
Yeah, you got me.
I’m trying to work on it…
if the bill said that government documents and official business can only be in English and Spanish, would that satisfy you?
No, it wouldn’t. I don’t see why there’s a need to put any such hard-and-fast restrictions. If the population demographics change such that providing some service in another language — whatever it may be — becomes prudent, agencies ought to be able to respond to that to the extent that they can, without having to wait for the legislature to remove what is for all intents and purposes an arbitrary restriction.
If you want something I can get behind, you might put in place a law that says that government agencies are required to make all documentation, forms, and services available in English, and these agencies may provide such forms and services in other languages, at their discretion, but are not required to do so. But, of course, that’s the way things are right now. The proposed change in law would actively prohibit the government from doing anything in any language other than English, and that, to me, goes too far.
I don’t think this ballot measure amounts to the government forcing people to speak English. It just requires that the government only do business in English.
To what purpose? Sorry to call for honesty again, but do you really think that the people who support this measure are doing so primarily out of a desire to save a few bucks on administrative costs? Because they don’t want to have to press 1 or listen to “para continuar en español, markque el dos” when they call in? No, the reason they’re behind it, by and large, is because their attitude is “if you’re going to live hear, speak English or get out.” If you don’t speak English, you don’t deserve the basic rights of citizenship. Most won’t admit as much, but it’s largely born of hostility to non-English speakers, and specifically Spanish speakers. There’s a feeling among many that “they’re” taking over, even though “they” still only make up about 5-7% or so of the Davidson County population.
In other words, in the minds of most supporters, it’s not a practical law, but a symbolic one. From a libertarian perspective, it really is wasteful, unnecessary legislation, which is why it surprises me that you’d support it.
And for what it’s worth, the attitude is far from unique to Davidson County, or even to the US. Look at the constant pissing contests that go on between Quebec and the rest of Canada, and you’ll see what I mean.
Serr8d:
You provide a link to where most of our current wave of illegal immigrants are actually legal.
That’s silly, and impossible. None of our illegal immigrants are legal, by definition. What I’m saying is that in a place like Davidson county, the number of legal Hispanic residents outnumber the illegal ones. You can find statistics here showing the Hispanic population of the US in 2006 to be 44.5 million. Even if your dubious number is correct, and 21 million are illegal, then 23.5 million of them are not, ergo, most of them are legal. But your number is far greater than most estimates, which put the figure at around 12 million illegals, 20% of which are non-Hispanic, and only a little more than half of whom are Mexican. The number of Mexicans illegally in the US is probably somewhere around 7 million.
As to the social service figures, even those don’t really tell the whole story. A large majority of Mexican illegally working in the United States are actually paying taxes — they got their jobs by providing false documentation (e.g., a fake SSN). They receive paychecks just like any legal resident, and federal and state income taxes, plus FICA taxes, are withheld from those paychecks, just like any legal resident. Sure, there are many who work for cash under the table, but they’re far outnumbered by the ones who actually pay taxes.
Now it may surprise you to learn that I agree that something must be done about the illegal immigration problem. I just don’t favor an immigrant-centric / let’s-build-a-giant-wall approach to fighting it. Instead, you need to go after two far more important entities: the people and companies that employ illegals, and the people who are providing the false documentation. As long as illegal immigrants can get better jobs here than they can at home, they’re going to keep coming here, no matter how many you arrest and deport. But cut off the supply of jobs, or their ability to get those jobs in the first place, and now you’ve created a disincentive for them to come in the first place.
It’s similar to the drug problem. If you’re going to try to fight illegal drugs (a questionable proposition in my book, but take it as read for the moment), it doesn’t do any good to arrest the drug users. You have to go after the dealers and producers. Go after the documentation providers and unscrupulous employers, and then you start to get somewhere.
I like it. You are right that the status quo is obviously okay. But we live in an age of litigation. As I said to Michael, this right now may be a solution looking for a problem. But that might not always be the case.
Regardless of the evil intent of some, the law still only has to do with government business. Unless there is a provision in there that says you will be arrested for speaking another language, your statement “the government forcing them to do so”, is quite ridiculous and, dare I say, intellectually dishonest. It paints a false picture, an exagerrated one used to scare people.
As for what the rest of what you said, you are over-reacting again and making assumptions about people based on your typical liberal cynicism, which is that most everybody else, not you all of course, are a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic hicks.
Regardless of the evil intent of some, the law still only has to do with government business.
Yeah, and “separate but equal” looks good on paper, too.
your statement “the government forcing them to do so”, is quite ridiculous and, dare I say, intellectually dishonest.
See? I’m getting better on the whole blogging honesty already.
I’ll admit to engaging in a bit of hyperbole there. Nobody’s being forced to speak English. But they are being offered a choice — if you want government services, even something as simple as renewing your driver’s license, you need to learn English to get it, or at the very least find your own bilingual agent to do it for you.
And whether you like it or not, that’s precisely what this is about for most of the supporters — making it even more inconvenient than it is today for people who don’t speak English. I mean, seriously, what practical difference does it make to John Q. Public if the BMV agent speaks Spanish, and helps Spanish-speaking citizens using Spanish? None whatsoever, as long as that agent is also fluent in English and helps Mr. Public in English. That “speak English or go away” mentality is more pervasive than you think, and it’s far from unique to Republicans, by the way. I expect there are plenty of dyed-in-the-wool Democratic blue collar union types who would like nothing more than for all the “damn wetbacks” to go back where they came from.
Looping back around to the proposed law itself, the only questions of concern, in my estimation, are “What does it accomplish?”, “How much does it cost or save?”, and “Are there any civil liberties implications?”. Even setting aside the third question, the answers to the first two questions don’t come anywhere close to meeting the standard I’d want met — and I would have expected you to want met — in order to justify its passage.
Put even more simply:
You: We should pass this law.
Me: Why?
First off, I don’t live in Davidson, and I’m not really a proponent of the law. However I would probably vote for it if I happened to live in Davidson and make it to the voting booth that day. My main reason for writing this post was to point out how many people out there have no idea what the actual measure states and that they are just parroting words like nativist and xenophobe because that is generally what liberal bloggers do. In fact, most of those people are so uptight you couldn’t…. Well never mind.
The why is that if you give government services in more than one language, then you will have to give them in all. Eventually somebody other than Spanish or English speaking is going to sue because the Spanish speaking people were helped out and the Swaheeley person was not. They will say that isn’t fair and they will have a good case. In New York, they provide services in many languages. But like I said though, the time hasn’t come yet and this may very well be a solution looking for a problem.
That is an amazing example. I mean, are you serious? Last time I checked, stop signs still said stop and not el-stoppo. Do you really want people driving that can’t read signs? Seriously, that is an amazing example. It says a lot.
The why is that if you give government services in more than one language, then you will have to give them in all.
Except in very limited circumstances, I’m not particularly impressed with slippery slope arguments. And in fact, you can’t point to a current example of that happening. There’s not some lawsuit out there trying to require Davidson County to provide services in Spanish or any other language. There’s no such requirement at all. If the only purpose of the law were to stipulate that the county is not required to provide services in any language other than English, I probably wouldn’t have a big problem with it. I’d still think it’s wasteful, do-nothing legislation, but I wouldn’t find it morally objectionable.
That is an amazing example. I mean, are you serious? Last time I checked, stop signs still said stop and not el-stoppo. Do you really want people driving that can’t read signs?
Last time I checked, all stop signs have the same shape and color scheme (as do all other common road signs), and you don’t have to be able to speak fluent English to understand them. When I drive in Montreal and Quebec, I’m able to easily figure out what the octagonal red sign with the white border that says “Arret” is trying to tell me, even though I don’t speak a lick of French. When I first drove in Puerto Rico, I was able to figure out that “Salida” meant exit, even though I spoke almost no Spanish at the time. As it turns out, you don’t have to be able to read at all to understand and obey standard road signs, many of which (e.g., school crossing) don’t have any words at all. I’m surprised that someone as concerned about personal freedom as you are would prohibit the illiterate from driving under any circumstances. (I can’t speak to Tennessee, because I don’t remember, but in Ohio, at least, to get your license you had to be able to identify what common road signs meant based simply on the shape and color of the sign, generally with no words on it at all. See, for example, this test, or a somewhat harder one here.)
That you would find that example so objectionable tells us a lot more about YOU than it does about ME. But hey, if we’re preventing the illiterate and non-English speakers (including legal foreign visitors) from being able to drive legally on our roads, then fine, make it a state issued ID card (also provided by the BMV) with no associated driving privileges.
P.S. Swahili.
I’d love to keep some of those folks off of the road. I actually thought the el-stoppo comment was more funny, and also much more offensive, than the Swahili. Spanish is easy. You just put el in front of the word, and o after it.
Btw, be patient with those lawsuits. They are coming. But they aren’t here now, so your argument is valid. Like I said before, I don’t have a lot of emotion attached to this. If I did, I would probably make up some stuff or something.
Btw, tgirsch, the TN DoS (the people who issue driver licenses) do insist that one is able to speak and comprehend English before they will give the driver exam. In this case, it makes sense to me; I heard the examiner explain to someone’s English-speaking friend why this is the case. The person taking the driving exam must be able to clearly and quickly follow the verbal commands of the examiner, for sake of public safety.
.
Like I said before, I don’t have a lot of emotion attached to this. If I did, I would probably make up some stuff or something.
Wow, this blog honesty shit must be contagious!
.
I’d love to keep some of those folks off of the road.
Shit, there are a bunch of literate people that I’d love to keep off the road…
I actually thought the el-stoppo comment was more funny
Oh, it was, and I didn’t really think it was offensive. The only thing that was even remotely offensive was your moidelizing the spelling of “Swahili.”
Btw, be patient with those lawsuits. They are coming.
And I’m all in favor of them being summarily tossed out.
But all joking aside, I’m surprised at your stance on this. As an advocate for erring on the side of freedom, and of limited government, I would expect your default position on any proposed new law to be “in the absence of a compelling reason to support it, I oppose it.” You have not provided a compelling reason to support this law, even as you say you would probably vote for it if you could.
Glen, I recommend reading the Metro Nashville Law Dept. legal opinion, particularly the parts on the practical effects and the constitutional implications of an ordinance such as this one. The opinion is here (14 pages). The really relevant stuff starts on page 7.
tgrish, you’ve fallen, hammer and sickle, for the narrative it seems…
I do agree that we should target the folks who offers jobs and encourage these illegal non-citizens and their families. I also would like to see the U.S. do away with the ‘anchor baby’ attraction (see, for example, Canada andr their policies). If we could just mirror the immigration rules set by, say, Mexico, and apply their rules to their immigrants, then the problem would diminish significantly.
I support this proposed law, if nothing else than to make Tennessee a less-than-attractive destination for the immigrants who skirt normal channels.
Reclaim Nolensville and Murfreesboro Roads~!
Just to let yall know, I’ll chime in tonight. Stupid job. It’s like they actually expect me to work.
First off, whose freedom is being limited here? Does one have the “right” to have government services in the United States be provided in his or her native tongue? Do city employees have some kind of right to do business in a bunch of different languages? I don’t see this as a liberty issue at all. Not unless you are dumb enough, like most of those parrots I spoke of earlier, to think that foreign languages are being outlawed.
I felt like I did give a good reason, but I can certainly be persuaded otherwise. Everybody has made good arguments. I think the best is that this is already the status quo and that the reasons for supporting it have not come about yet.
Michael, I think the attorneys make a good case that foreign language should be used with discretion on a case by case basis for things like public safety.
You have convinced me. As the law is currently worded, it probably is a bad idea. Perhaps it should just say that “the city isn’t required to provide services in other languages, but may do so in cases deemed necessary.” Sure thats a big enough loophole to drive a truck through, but it still addresses the concerns I talked about. What do you think?
Glen, that makes a great deal of sense to me. It gives the city freedom to respond to situations as they arise without being unduly burdensome.
A little discussion and we worked it out. Why doesn’t everybody just leave the important issues to us? What’s next?
Yeah, no kidding. Leave it to us
Glen:
Not unless you are dumb enough, like most of those parrots I spoke of earlier, to think that foreign languages are being outlawed.
Not being outlawed. It merely relegates its non-English-speaking citizens to second-class status. If that’s not a liberty issue to you, I don’t know what would be. I suppose non-English-speaking citizens have no right to know what their rights are, if they can’t understand them when they’re read in English, either.
I felt like I did give a good reason, but I can certainly be persuaded otherwise.
It just seems to me like you’re fighting a problem that doesn’t exist. The government isn’t required to use anything other than English now, so I fail to see the point of taking it a step farther and prohibiting it from doing so.
You have convinced me. As the law is currently worded, it probably is a bad idea.
Wow, that’s big of you, and I don’t mean that in a snarky way. And I don’t have a problem with your revised wording, other than the fact that it still seems unnecessary. It hasn’t been a problem thus far, and I have no reason to expect that it will become one any time soon.
Serr8d:
You’d repeal the 14th? Wow. Just, wow.
Oh Lord. Come on.
“Conservatives shouldn’t be passing laws just for the fun of it.” I would agree. I used to think I was a conservative, but sometime in the recent past i think i got lost. Since when has passing more laws become a conservative platform, I thought it was smaller more manageable and effective government. These days it seems like we’re working againt government to make sure it doesn’t work. Are we forgetting the word effective? Common sense needs to have a place in our lives as well, we shouldn’t set the bar so low that we don’t have to look both ways before crossing the street. I think its similar to banning cell phone use while driving, we already have a citation in most cities and states called “driving while distracted” or “careless driving “.
These days it seems like we’re working againt government to make sure it doesn’t work. Are we forgetting the word effective? Common sense needs to have a place in our lives as well, we shouldn’t set the bar so low that we don’t have to look both ways before crossing the street.
Thank you. You’re right, of course.
It seems like when one campaigns on the premise of government being the problem, it’s counterproductive for the elected who espouse this to prove how effective government can be.
.
Sorry, xenophobes. Y’all lost. Again.
You might wanna get used to that.
.
This, from someone who hasn’t worked in years and is relying on the government to ship cheese every month.
I feel sorry for the cats..
This, from someone who hasn’t worked in years and is relying on the government to ship cheese every month.
For someone who obsessively goes through my blog, you do seem to be able to completely ignore years of it when it suits you.
That’s okay — you guys still think you can create your own reality. Roll with it!
.