| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Should English Be the Official Language? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 30 2006, 10:37 PM (3,297 Views) | |
| Post #41 Jul 23 2007, 08:07 AM |
|
|
Rapist Released! The only good that comes out of a case like this is adding momentum to English as an official language. Actually, though, in this case, my proposed amendment above would require the court to provide an interpreter (the standard being that, if the court would pay for an attorney, it would pay for an interpreter). I will go reword it to place the onus of finding the interpreter on the defendant. The court would simply pay for him. There also seems to be some question as to whether an interpreter would even be necessary. He attended high school in America and was able to communicate with the arresting officers in English. (As I am watching the news right now, they say that court-appointed psychiatrists made the decision that an interpreter would be necessary.) The court did find three Vai interpreters. (Vai is only spoken as a native language by an estimated 100,000 people.) The first quit because she was horrified by the details of the case and could not continue. The next was deemed to be incompetent (I don't know by whom; I suspect that it was the defendant). The last had a family emergency and had to leave. The speedy trial requirement would not be a problem if the defendant had to find one that would be paid for by the court. |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #42 Jul 23 2007, 08:12 AM |
|
|
You missed a couple zeroes. Should be 100,000 and not 1,000. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7072100660.html |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #43 Jul 23 2007, 08:18 AM |
|
|
I am sorry. You are correct. I went with what I heard on the TV, and failed to notice the discrepancy between the TV and the printed report. The printed report is almost surely the correct one since its details are well-vetted before printing, and it is easy to misspeak when information is presented live, where mistakes can slip through without being as easily caught. Thanks, I'll go back and edit the post. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #44 Jul 23 2007, 08:18 AM |
|
|
Sounds more of a failure on the court's part. I do not see how this lends credence to the English-only movement. I think the court mad a poor decision dismissing the case. It seems like the defendant is proficient enough in English that an interpreter is not required. On a side note, I think it's prejuidicial to expect a non-native English speaker to find his own interpreter. If the state of MD had trouble finding one, what about the poor guy that REALLY needs an interpreter? |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #45 Jul 23 2007, 08:37 AM |
|
|
The court did not fail. It found three interpreters. And, finding interpreters, particularly for a language spoken by so few, is no easy task. The person has to be legally in the U.S. He has to have an immigration status that permits work. He has to be highly competent in Vai. He has to be highly competent in English also. He has to be highly competent and translating between the two--in both directions. He has to be available for all court proceedings. I am sure there are even more requirements, many of them regulatory, tying the hands of the people trying to make the search in order to ensure maximum protection for the defendant. However, who would be more interested in protecting the rights of the accused other than the accused himself (and his attorney)? If he is responsible for finding the translator, all of the above requirements disappear, even the immigration requirements. (Short of being a criminal or terrorist, the translator would automatically be given any necessary immigration status.) Far from being prejudicial (a totally inapt term), making the accused provide his own interpreter (paid for by the court) would actually serve to protect his rights! I can see how this does not lend credence (I used the word momentum) to the English-as-an-official-language (not English-only) movement on the part of those already predisposed against it. However, those who support the notion will be reinvigorated in their pursuit of their goal and many fence-sitters will be motivated in the official-language direction. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #46 Jul 23 2007, 09:33 AM |
|
|
This just in... The state had a fourth translator, ready to go tomorrow. However, the judge dismissed anyway. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #47 Jul 23 2007, 09:53 AM |
|
| That's why I blame the judge for dismissing the case prematurely. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #48 Dec 17 2007, 10:00 PM |
|
|
Update on the ridiculous anti-free speech action against a restaurant owner and his "Please speak English" sign. Since when is "please" intimidation? This is political correctness causing government to run amok. It is truly time to make English the official language, if for no other reason than to stop this nonsense. This is America. Please speak lawsuit. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #49 Dec 18 2007, 03:30 PM |
|
| If this business owner has to appear in court, I think his lawyers (after they file all thier briefs in Pig Latin) should speak in Swahili and Japanese on Mondays, Portugese and Aramaic on Tuesdays... |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #50 Dec 18 2007, 07:50 PM |
|
| I wonder if the lawyers have thought of that. It would be an excellent strategy, especially if he hired a lawyer who spoke no English! |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #51 Dec 19 2007, 06:39 AM |
|
| It would be a better businesss decision if the vendor chose to learn Spanish. Why do you think there's Spanish labels on everything and businesses proclaiming, "Hablamos Espanol!"? Those people are potential customers and want to spend their money. I'm not saying that this guy is discriminating, but it would be more productive in the long run if he learned some basic Spanish. He could then increase his pool of potential customers. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #52 Dec 19 2007, 08:24 AM |
|
|
Our families that arrived in the US by whatever means when they arrived, all learned to speak English or at least do their best to learn the language. That was one of the "joys" of being a US Citizen - you spoke English whether it was your first language or not. As a person that grew up in Los Angeles - if a business is going to speak other languages to "attract" customers, in some areas the business better speak upwards of 3 - 5 languages. It makes more sense for the people coming to and living in the US to speak English. I personally refused in HS to take a foreign language. And since I don't speak any other language, I limit my travel to foreign countries. And I know just enough Spanish to go to Mexico. If I go to France or Germany or any country that does not speak English, I will learn enough of the language to not be rude to the culture of the country I am visiting. If I every plan to move to a country that doesn't speak English, then I'll most certainly learn the language before moving there. Why would a country cater to my language when I am in their country? When you have a dinner party, you don't ask your guests what they want to eat and then decide on the menu - you inform them of what you are serving and they have the choice not to come to the dinner party. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #53 Dec 19 2007, 01:35 PM |
|
|
I think we are missing one of the basic points here, whether it is nice or not, whether it is good business or not - this guy is the owner of a private business. As such, he should be allowed to require his employees to speak French and his customers Chinese! This is America - private owners should be able to discriminate if they so choose, they should be allowed to make stupid economic business decisions, too! IMHO the schools should teach children English and citizenship exams should require reasonable English reading and writing skills. Immigrants adn other foreigners should be required to enroll in English classes or otherwise demonstarte that they will either learn English or be leaving soon. In areas where one reasonably expects to find people (legally present) who do not speak English yet, essential signage and services should be available in their language if reasonable. Big Macs and rides on the carosel are not essential(nor is food at this guys privately owned restaurant); "fire exit" in a publicly owned buliding is. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #54 Dec 19 2007, 06:50 PM |
|
Contrary to the misrepresentations of "intimidation," that is exactly what this owner does. He accepts orders in Spanish. Or, in Hungarian, for that matter, and tries to make it work. In case some haven't noticed, the sign says "Please." It is not an order. It is not a mandate. No one will be refused service. It is advice. Good advice. However, frankly, having to produce all these documents in several languages is stupid. I picked up a package in the BX (the BX FCOL!), and I couldn't find the English on the package through all the other languages! It took 10 minutes to even figure out that the thing was a DVR. My new XM radio came with FOUR manuals, each in a different language. STUPID. This is precisely why English should be adopted as an official language. To stop such fascist-like attacks on businesses, like the one being suffered in Philly. Dumb or not, the business owner should have the right to conduct his business in English, without having to fear a governmental inquisition. Manufacturers should be able to produce a product, with manuals in English, without having to fear lawsuits from someone who chose not to learn English and couldn't read the warning not to eat the batteries. Language, by its very nature, is an agreed upon standard which allows effective communication. Encouraging, promoting, or even allowing a multi-lingual society to become the norm is one of the stupidest things leftists have done to this once-great, but now flailing, nation. God, we just need a little common sense in the U.S. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #55 Dec 19 2007, 06:53 PM |
|
Precisely. The only way we can stop the mandated-multi-lingual pushers is with an official language law or amendment. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #56 Dec 19 2007, 07:12 PM |
|
A proposed amendment to the Constitution:
Refer to the third post in the thread for a complete explanation. The purpose of this post is merely to state the exact wording proposed. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #57 Mar 21 2008, 08:25 AM |
|
|
A small victory in the campaign to have a single language join us. This is America... |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #58 Mar 21 2008, 02:22 PM |
|
| I'm still not functioning on all cylindars but I think (yeah, no making fun of that phrase) your link is not working. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| Post #59 Mar 21 2008, 02:55 PM |
|
| Are you sure? |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #60 Mar 22 2008, 09:51 AM |
|
|
Ok its working now - not sure which wasn't working yesterday - me or it ... The 2-1 vote makes me wonder what would happen if it went to court. |
Civil Servant
|
|
|
|
| 2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
2:26 PM Feb 7