CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Rob_N — Thu, 17 May 2007 17:21:11 -0000

Huh? -- What's your point?

Yes, ballots are in multiple languages. You can get a Chinese ballot if you want. So?

Welcome to America, melting pot of the world.

What you're implying is that people who speak English only are being forced to learn Spanish. You have no evidence of that. None.

What is happening (and what is apparently appalling to certain Carpentersvillers) is that some folks are producing material in two languages (Spanish and English) in order to sell products to people who speak one, the other or both languages. Some stores and the local first responders are also hiring bilingual employees in order to better serve the community.

Snidely Whiplash, in your zeal to echo only those with whom you agree as opposed to considering all the facts you missed the follow-up post describing how the English-French laws in Canada are actually serving to better unite Canada as a whole given that the Quebecois separatists are quieting down after years of tumultuousness. Essentially, you ignored the fact-based rebuttal in favor of perpetuating your opinion.

The fact you reference only the original post (an opinion on how horrible Canadian French is) as opposed to referencing the subsequent fact-based post about how the laws are uniting that country is what's known as "cherry-picking the intelligence". Conservatives for some reason seem to have a fetish for doing that lately.

Re: Question of the day

traveled in Europe — Thu, 17 May 2007 13:36:09 -0000

I didn't expect people in Germany and Switzerland to speak English. I did my best to use my transltion book and took lessons. All you have to do is leave the house and you can see, as a previous post mentions, we might have already lost the battle. Store signs, labeling, etc. are already bilingual. I'd like to see English declared the official language nationally. Books to translate are sold evrywhere you come into the country, legally.

Re: Question of the day

Snidely Whiplash — Wed, 16 May 2007 23:56:52 -0000

I don't feel it's fair that generally, only Spanish speakers are afforded bilingual services; if everyone doesn't get it, no one should!

That being said, it is unfair to both English speaking Americans and immigrants themselves that we are heading toward a veritable "Balkanization" of our country by catering to the languages of immigrants, rather than their learning the native language here (please, no Native American comments!). Americans are increasingly being faced with a career situation in which they are denied jobs in favor of immigrants (often non-citizens) because they cannot speak the language of a foreign country in their own community.

I like the above commentor's point on the French Canadien situation. You are creating two separate "nations" within our nation, and with the rate of immigration, we may lose control of our own country within our own lifetimes, or certainly within the lifetimes of our children.

300 years later, Spain may have the final laugh over England after all!

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Wed, 16 May 2007 22:21:00 -0000

Press 1 for English.

Re: Question of the day

NoGiftsPlease — Wed, 16 May 2007 22:04:20 -0000

I think this law is stupid. However, I have mixed feelings about our multi-lingual (or rather, bilingual) situation. On the one hand, everything is translated into spanish and most of the other languages are ignored. So, it seems like we expect that people speaking other languages will get along somehow. On the other hand, the most common non-english tongue is spanish so it is more efficient to concentrate on providing translations into that language to help the most people get the information they need. I'd say we should study the rate of learning english in the various language groups -- those that don't usually have translations available and those that do (spanish) to see if there is any difference. Are we hindering the rate of acquiring english by making it too easy to get along without it? This is based on the assumption that this is a de-fact english speaking country and people -- first, second or third generation? -- will eventually be speaking english and be assimilated as has happened throughout our history.

Re: Question of the day

fed up — Wed, 16 May 2007 21:56:17 -0000

how is english as an only language racist. Language is not race or skin color. how much does the state pay to have interpetors in court rooms or to translate documents into other languages. larning a second or third language is a great idea and real marketable skill.English as a common language should bring the country together not be divisive. English should be the language that all goverment affairs are cinducted in and if you need a translation to another language you should bear the cost not the goverment.

Re: Question of the day

Huh? — Wed, 16 May 2007 19:33:50 -0000

Ron_N said "Whose asking anyone to learn another language?"

Let me see - Have you ever heard of ballots in an other language or grade school teachers having to teach remedial education in a language other than english?

I am saying that if somebody is coming to the US on a permanent basis - they should learn english in order to communicate.

About 27 years ago, I spent 3 months in Brazil. I didn't speak any Portuguese. I was fortunate to be living with my future in-laws who spoke the language fluently. I did pick up a few words, just enough to keep me out of trouble, but I depended on my future wife to communicate when ever we were in public. It would have been arrogant of my to demand that the Brazilians learn to speak english to because I was there. Instead, the burden was on me to try to communicate in the local language. Not the other way around.

Re: Question of the day

Yellow Dog Democrat — Wed, 16 May 2007 17:40:29 -0000

My advice to bilingual, Spanish speaking, and Hispanic residents of Carpentersville: boycott the grocery stores, gas stations, and other businesses in Carpentersville for a week or a month, and shop across the municipal lines instead.

Perhaps when the numb-skulls on the City Council see their tax receipts going down, and when the business community sees their income going down, they'll rethink their ridiculous ordinance.

Re: Question of the day

yinn — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:50:38 -0000

Depending on how they plan to enforce it, the ordinance may violate the First Amendment.

Re: Question of the day

Xolotl_del_mictlan — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:46:09 -0000

the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, May 16, 07 @ 11:10 am:
The point of C'ville passes an English only ordinance is the same as the Quebecois passing Loi 101 in QuÃ©bec, to force out those they don't like. The Quebecois have gotten better since the 1970's as they have now embraced immigration and many other languages are spoken even in the business place and the French only mandate is not as harshly enforced as it was during the hay day of the PLQ.

Re: Question of the day

Some Guy — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:21:42 -0000

When I was in college I wrote a primary source research paper on my hometown (Schaumburg, IL). Settled by German immigrants in the mid-nineteenth century, St. Peter's Lutheran Church on Schaumburg Road had it's last German-language religious service well into the second half of the twentieth century, I believe in the early 1970s. Doesn't mean they never had any English language services before then, but they still had some of their services in German for over 100 years.

Heck the Lutheran Church's Missouri Synod established a series of schools largely in order to ensure the native-born generation learned German. The Augustana Synod tried something similar with Swedes, but they never had as much success.

The same arguments about making learn English made now were made then. The republic stood without any asinine ordinace like the Carpentsville one. It will continue to stand.

One key difference: a German-American farmer in 1915 Schaumburg was far more isolated than a Spanish-speaker in 2007 Anywhere in America.

Re: Question of the day

Wile Coyote — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:43:04 -0000

One word baby: Esperanto !!

Re: Question of the day

cg — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:49:44 -0000

A waste of time ... but we've got a fois gras ban in Chicago.
To make this less xenophobic, the English-only ordinance needs to accompany intensive ESL (English as a Second Language) training so that all residents have the opportunity to learn English. This would mean having classes at hours that meet the needs of those who do not speak English - late evenings, early mornings, daytimes. There would also need to programs to help families that do not speak English to integrate the use of English into their everyday activities. This would increase the skill-base of the non-English speaking population, thus putting them in better positions to get jobs ... leaving monolingual whitey without a job.

Re: Question of the day

Rob_N — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:29:02 -0000

Huh? says, "Immigrants who come to the US ought to learn English. It is arrogant of them to demand that we learn their language when they are in our country."

...Whose asking anyone to learn another language? There's a reason there are so many neighborhoods in the city of Chicago -- folks who spoke the same language stuck together whether it be Swedish, Polish, Greek, Chinese, Spanish or whatnot.

Nobody's asking you to learn a language you don't want to learn "Huh?" ... at least not yet.

Re: Question of the day

Ghost — Wed, 16 May 2007 14:03:05 -0000

If I understand the ordinance, it requires all buisness of the town, town publications/form documents, and signs to be English only.

Much of this debate seems to exalt form over substance. Many documents, publications, forms etc are used for the benefit of all by providing guidance on how to comply with ordinaces, zoning etc. If a large percentage of your population read a language other then english, then isntead of printing up 1000 english forms, print 500 of each.

I agree that town should be able to designate meetings should be conducted in english, but the town shopuld provide an interpreter so that those who do not speak english can have their oppinions heard as well. i.e. you are not prohibited from speaking, there just needs to be a translator available.

Re: Question of the day

Little Egypt — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:37:19 -0000

Even though I prefer the English language, I wish I had learned a foreign language as my sons have learned. English as the primary language is a good idea because there are so many other cultures in this country, how do we decide which one is going to be the secondary?

Re: Question of the day

Way Northsider — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:34:48 -0000

Xenophobic and ridiculous.

Re: Question of the day

leigh — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:29:40 -0000

Playing devil's advocate for just a moment, would making english the "official" language prevent a future law suit from someone who does not speak english but needs fire/ambulance/police assistance? I would think some basic understanding of english by all U.S. citizens and prevent misunderstanding. But if you want to speak french/spanish/german/pig latin/ whatever with your friends and family why would that be an issue to concern any one?

Re: Question of the day

Huh? — Wed, 16 May 2007 13:03:57 -0000

The Village of Hampshire already passed a similar resolution.

Immigrants who come to the US ought to learn English. It is arrogant of them to demand that we learn their language when they are in our country.

My Grandmother used to tell a story of her father emigrating from Germany. The kids would pester him to speak German. After a while, he would get mad and tell them to go away, he was an American and spoke English.

Immigrants used to be proud to assimilate into American society. It was a badge of honor for an immigrant to be able to speak English.

Re: Question of the day

Enough Already — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:52:01 -0000

Â¡No MÃ¡s!

Re: Question of the day

the Other Anonymous — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:51:39 -0000

Ken,

Seriously, what costs? Labels have to printed in two languages; how much extra is that? Other than that, I really don't know what other costs are involved or mandated. (This isn't meant in a challenging way; I really can't think of any other costs.)

Besides, how are those costs relevant to an English-only ordinance in Carpentersville? There's no mandate for bilingualism on businesses in Carpentersville; a business will incur the costs -- if any -- of operating in two or more languages to appeal to new and additional customers.

In fact, I would suggest that businesses in Carpentersville stand to lose Spanish-speaking customers if they are forced to operate in English only. (And yes, I understand that the ordinance would not force them to do so.)

In the case of the Carpentersville ordinance, I still suggest that the only two reasons people support it are dislike of foreign speakers; and fear of learning (or, more appropriately, fear of not being able to learn) a second language.

Re: Question of the day

Ferdy — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:48:35 -0000

What I'd like to know is how Carpentersville intends to enforce it. Every child is, by law, entitled to a public education. If the schools won't accommodate a second language for children who don't speak English yet, they are in violation of the child's rights. If a court won't provide an interpreter because they don't have to accommodate a non-official language, they will violate a defendant's rights. Are the immigrants too lazy to learn English, or are the English-speaking residents to lazy to learn Spanish? I say it's racism.

Re: Question of the day

Viator — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:41:38 -0000

I'm confused.

Spanish is an official language in Carpentersville and this requires legal remedy?

Please explain.

Re: Question of the day

Ken in Aurora — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:24:07 -0000

"Huh? How is bilingualism in Canada futile? For that matter, how are Belgium, Luxembourg (highest per capita GNP in the world!), Switzerland, or India harmed by being multi-lingual countries?"

Have you ever seen the costs forced on residents of primarily English speaking regions of Canada to comply with bilingualism? It's been a few years, but I have gotten a real earful about this from friends in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Re: Question of the day

For Crying outloud — Wed, 16 May 2007 12:19:03 -0000

When we Americans go to Europe and are able to measure our level of ignorance compared to most europeans who can speak three and more languages at the time. What is the problem with learnig several languages? I understand the need to have a common language, but why limit the possiblility of having ourselfs and/or our children speaking several languages?