This article makes doesn't completely add up to me. I read the whole thing and its just seems... convoluted and weird. I'll argue the points of the article with all the "partisan sniping" left aside. Those are just juvenile.
The author states "It is, in fact, distinctly un-American and quite liberal and progressive to use government to compel people into what we feel are good social manners." but how is that true?
First of all, it is not un-American to speak the native English of the country. The only part that is un-American in where it would compel the private sector to "comply" which is wrong because a business is built on whatever is the best for its business plan, but I'll get back to that. The idea that everyone should speak or be able to communicate in a common tongue has nothing to do with "feel good social manners" rather it is important for the basics of trade, law and order. If you go into a store to buy something and you cannot communicate with the seller, you most likely will not bother buying anything and leave. If there are three hundred languages being spoken and everyone only speaks one, then there are three hundred isolated groups and that is NOT a country. That is the birth of enclaves of isolation. Secondly, it is a fact (take France for example) that if a group of immigrants does not speak the native language and do not learn it, they are at higher risk of ghettoization of that group. This is the problem in France where the African Muslims do not speak the native French. For this reason, they feel isolated and thus cannot be a part of society. This decays into huge amounts of internal abuses and crimes which ultimate start to grow and influence the outter communities. The problem is, the ones on the inside cannot communicate with the resources (police, lawyers, health care, etc) on the outside. The isolated community ends up creating its own little nation inside the nation (like mini-algieria inside of France) thus furthering horrible atrocities like honor-killings and the like. Common language requirements are very useful at undermining these ghettoizations. For this reason, to say a common language is about "social manners" is terribly off base.
The problem with the author's argument that since the Founders did not need it, that it is not needed now is simple. The Founders did not anticipate a globally interconnected world with such dense super connectivity as we have now. 200 years ago, it was reasonable to expect that you were not going to travel much beyond 50 miles of where you were born for the entirety of your life. You would have your job there, your wife, your kids, your death etc with hardly any dealings of the outside world. That does not exist anymore. Now, we deal with people in every sector of the world constantly. This is the reason that English is as near to the World Language as history has ever seen. There are more non-native English speakers in the world then there are English natives by a factor of nearly 2 to 1. English is not just an American language, it is a global language which is needed in the US to keep American pre-eminence on the world stage. This does not mean that we should speak ONLY English, but it does mean that we need to have a significant command of English to enable commerce on a worldwide scale. Its simple commercial viability which government is supposed to foster.
The next problem with the author's argument is this vague concept of "freedom". When people, immigrants and natives, are required to know English, how is that an imposition on their freedom? He talks about an increase in bureaucracy but how will it increase? By the enforcement of the law? That is possible depending on how the law is interpreted and there, rightfully, he believes that the law should not control private sector, BUT it SHOULD apply to public sector. Why? It should because government bureaucracy would be reduced by reducing the different languages all your forms are in, reducing the amount of translators required, increasing the amount of information available from crime hot spots etc. For this reason, the author's argument is only partially correct, but mostly wrong.
This limiting freedom argument makes no sense because the author apparently has no notion of what freedom means. Freedom is given to you within the confines of the social structure. What does that mean? It means that you are free to do lots of things, but you aren't free to kill. Does that mean you have no freedom because you cannot kill people freely? No, it means that what is socially promotive is legal and what is socially inhibitive is not legal. To have a common language is socially promotive. If we know our neighbors can talk the same language as we can, we are more likely to make friends. If we make friends with people who are different, we are more likely to enrich ourselves (socially) and if all the lives of Americans are socially enriched, we would be a far more broad minded nation instead of a bunch of narrow minded zealots who only think their own view is right because we never met someone who is different. The one part of the author's argument which I seem to feel he is trying to say is that this law will make English the "only" language speakable? Is that correct? If that is what he is interpreting, I don't see that in the bill, but if it were, then he would be right in that to make English the ONLY language speakable would be a reprehensible act because it would undermine American plurality and the very foundational motto of "E Pluribus Unum"
The part about regulating in the private sector, I agree with the author. Commerce will find a way to fill in the weaknesses. That is something true capitalism is good at. The private sector influence in the bill should be stripped out completely
The final point of political hypocrisy is somewhat accurate, but the author is going about it the wrong way. One wrong cannot be justified with another wrong so to say that immigrants should not be required to understand and speak english because inner city high schoolers cannot either is a bad argument. The fact is that BOTH groups should be required to be fluent, the high schoolers should be much more highly fluent in English than the immigrants because the high schoolers have been trained for years in an English system so its only reasonable. The immigrants need rudimentary skills which I would expect them to improve as time goes on anyway. Perhaps the author should make it more broad and say that any person in the United States (immigrant or native) who is at the high school graduation age, must be able to pass advanced English language testing. Those who cannot must go back to school or back to their country until they can or pay for remedial help until they can.
Finally, most of the arguments of the author's are misguided. The idea of the United States IS very much a melting pot from its inception. The fact that the author disregards this is a blatant act of wilful ignorance. The Great Seal of the United States was developed for the simple reason that the people of the US were from many different countries but we united under one banner. The term E Pluribus Unum, means Of Many, One. The "Many" is the many different origins of the US's people and the One is the binding factor which ties us all together. One of those binding factors should be a common language and a common pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Mar 03, 2012 @ 16:41:00
