home

Newt Gingrich Mocks Bi-Lingual Education

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:43:29 AM EST
Tags: Newt Gingrich (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Some people I know say that if Rudy Giuliani self-destructs or bows out as a GOP presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich will step in. He has said he's open to stepping at some later point in the cycle.

Here's Newt's latest, on bi-lingual education, which he equates with ghetto-living:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich equated bilingual education Saturday with "the language of living in a ghetto" and mocked requirements that ballots be printed in multiple languages.

"The government should quit mandating that various documents be printed in any one of 700 languages depending on who randomly shows up" to vote, said Gingrich, who is considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. He made the comments in a speech to the National Federation of Republican Women.

"The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. ... We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," Gingrich said to cheers from the crowd of more than 100.

He sounds like Tom Tancredo. Now, that's an idea for a frightening ticket combination.

< March Madness - Gators Go For Repeat | Hillary Raises $26 Million, Shatters Records >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Newt Gingrich Mocks Bi-Lingual Education | 114 comments (114 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sez Who? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Richard in Jax on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:18:43 AM EST
    """""So you favor having more uninformed voters participating?  Remove the race card from play for a  moment and think about it: a person who can't deal with a ballot in English almost certainly can't be well informed about an election.  Their vote will be a mindless process of voting by party, depending on which party tries to identify itself with that population."""""

    Why cant they? I live in a home of 3 languages and I see no diminution of political knowledge as a result of it. I suppose one might ask are you a better "voter" if you are poorly informed in English by FOX or Limbaugh or accurately informed about American events via Globo or Der Spiegel. Again the wingers lack the courage to just come out with it. Your concern is not about an educated electorate. It is about Republican victory and that is facilitated by ensuring voters in blocks likely to vote against the GOP are hassled.
    Go back and look at your post jarober. From my bilingual position: it is stone silly.

    PS: It is the right of any American to vote as they choose, effectively or ineffectively. It is preposterous to think the GOP concerned about anyones right to vote for anybody but them. You cannot go there anymore.

    Here's why (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    Why cant they?

    First of all, you display your bias when you claim that this is a party issue. While it may be for some on the Left, and the Right, there is a middle position.

    The requiremnet for citizenship is that you be able to communicate in English.

    If your English language skills are so poor that you can adequately evaluate a ballot, you obviously have not met the requirement.

    [ Parent ]

    Right as rain you are (none / 0) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    I hope Newt is the GOP candidate in 2008.

    Pleeeeeease, God, let him get the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    buy essay (none / 0) (#118)
    by yoyo on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:02:02 AM EST
    It's not so easy to make a professional essays written, first of all if you are booked. I advise you to find buy essays and to be spare from disbelief that your work will be done by paper writing service
     

    [ Parent ]
    THere is your answer... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Richard in Jax on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:26:12 AM EST
    """"My point is, an English speaking voter is capable of being informed on an election; I don't think a non-English speaking person really is - there just isn't enough coverage outside the English language.""""""

    Eureka...its a lot simpler than I thought. You have no idea what you are talking about. I thought it was something deeper...sorry to have intruded.

    http://www.elmundo.es/

    http://www.lemonde.fr/

    http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/

    Spanish, French and Portuguese for The World my good man. Read 'em and weep.

    If I moved to... (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    Germany, France, etc., I suspect that I would find that ballots are not printed in English.

    Am I wrong in this?

    Governing requires communications.

    You can't have multiple languages in a constitutional republic and be successful in the long term.

    [ Parent ]

    perhaps, but if you went to germany, france, etc. (4.00 / 1) (#26)
    by conchita on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    you would find an overwhelmingly bilingual population able to speak a mother tongue, english, and more likely than not, a third language.  sadly, it is the u.s. that does not foster the study of a second language as a required part of public school curricula.  this limitation breeds ignorance and xenophobia, which politicians like newt gingrich then exploit.  

    [ Parent ]
    That may be true. But this is not Germany. (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:20:50 PM EST
    And Germany is about the size of one of our smaller states, Wisconsin.

    The issue isn't bilingual, but being fluent enough in the "mother" tongue (if you please) to particapte 100% in the acts of a citizen without having to have special help.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:49:28 PM EST
    Your facts are as fair and balanced as ever I see:

    Wisconsin: 169,639 sq km

    Germany: 357,021 sq km

    You say:

    You can't have multiple languages in a constitutional republic and be successful in the long term.

    Why not? Switzerland is a constitutional democratic republic with four national languages and it seems to have had a fair amount of success at it.

    [ Parent ]

    i would be very surprised if pitted against a (none / 0) (#63)
    by conchita on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:42:37 PM EST
    newly sworn in naturalized citizen, you, like many of us born here citizens, would not fail miserably in a contest about who is better educated and informed about u.s. government and history.  the person you are opposing might still need assistance with a ballot, but would more than likely trounce you in the competition.

    [ Parent ]
    Another myth (none / 0) (#74)
    by LarryE on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 03:51:47 AM EST
    You can't have multiple languages in a constitutional republic and be successful in the long term

    Someone has already mentioned Switzerland. I'd add India, Finland, and Ireland. And those are cases in which there is more than one official language, not just more than one commonly spoken language.

    Oh, but I'm sure we'll get the nit-picking objections. Quibbles about size, about whether it's technically a constitutional republic, about what constitutes "long term," about how "the real issue is," and so on - the typical argument-shifting we've come to expect from Jimbo.

    By the way, Hawai'i, Louisiana, and New Mexico also are officially bilingual. I guess they're about to fall apart. Oh, wait, those are states, not constitutional republics, I guess they don't count. Even though then have constitutions. And representative government. Never mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Multi-lingual ballots.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Skyho on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:42:57 AM EST
    I would submit that most "english-only", Faux News watching citizens are much less informed about issues than an (any other language) citizen who gets their info from other sources.

    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    Great point Skyho! How true it is.

    Being informed and English language skills are totally unrelated.

    [ Parent ]

    he's just keeping in character (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by profmarcus on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:53:01 AM EST
    so, english is the language of prosperity and spanish is the language of the ghetto, eh, newt...? if you run and, god forbid, get the nod for the nomination, i suggest tom tancredo for your running mate... he hasn't traveled much either...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Professor (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:58:21 AM EST
    The fact is that almost all countries, especially in Mexico, Central and South America, with a common hertiage of Catholic Church domination, and that also means a Spainish and/or Portugal culture bias, there has been almost no real freedoms, and almost no real economic success.

    The real fear of most people of immigration, is a loss of the successful European culture bias to the unsuccessul culture bias of the immigrants.

    To counter that we need to shut down the flow and give them time to assimilate into an American Culture.

    [ Parent ]

    WTF (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:04:08 AM EST
    Sounds pretty bigoted to me. Europeans are smart and South and Central Americans are stupid? Catholics are stupid and Protestants et al are smart?

    WOW you paint your bigotry with quite a wide brush.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    See you still smear with a wide brush.


    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    No where did I say a single word about intelligence.

    So why do you make such jumps and claims?? Oh wait. I answered that at the beginning.

    Mexcio, CA and SA were settled primarily by Spainish and Portugal peoples, or prehaps we should say "invaded" to be more PC.

    That is basically their culture you are looking at when you look south.

    France was never dominated by the church to the extent Spain was, and France also had a revolution or two. And Ireland continues to have trouble, but at least it is no longer bleeding people all over the world.

    So tell me. In what area is these countrues better than the US?

    And why are all these illegal aliens here?

    [ Parent ]

    PPj lies again (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:44:01 PM EST
    By using my quote out of context you imply that I use Rove as my model. Nothing could be farther to the truth. Not surprising coming from you,  a stuck parrot.

    You are the lapdog of Rove and emulator of his smear tactics, lying and McCarthy like innuendos.

    [ Parent ]

    Got links!? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:32:50 PM EST
    c'mon ppj, you say squeaky said that, but where are the links?

    Do they reside in the same place as the links from you calling for the deaths of America political leaders? e.g.

    These are the same people who pissed away his father's presodentancy.. If I were him I'd send their name to the CIA with "Extreme Prejudice" stamped on the front of the report.
    In context: ppj was writing about members of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group.

    [ Parent ]
    PPJ quote of the day (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Al on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    The fact is that almost all countries, especially in Mexico, Central and South America, with a common hertiage of Catholic Church domination, and that also means a Spainish and/or Portugal culture bias, there has been almost no real freedoms, and almost no real economic success.

    Obviously, you haven't actually read any Latin American history. Maybe that's because most of it is in Spanish. And judging from your English, I suspect you might not be able to handle a translation:

    and that also means a Spainish and/or Portugal culture bias

    Say what?

    You might also want to do a bit of research before you make an ass of yourself. For instance, look up when slavery was abolished in Latin American countries.

    [ Parent ]

    I must need a new map (none / 0) (#75)
    by LarryE on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 03:58:03 AM EST
    the successful European culture bias to the unsuccessul culture bias of the immigrants

    Just when did Portugal and Spain stop being part of Europe?

    [ Parent ]

    Back on education (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by roy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:53:32 AM EST
    I'm no expert on languages (I speak almost enough French to explain how little I speak of it), but I can piece together a few intelligent-sounding points from common sense, things I've overheard smarter people say, and this great book.

    If students don't have access to instruction in their fluent languages, they will make absolutely no progress in any subject other than English until they attain basic competence in English.  A very young student can pick up a new language quickly, but an older student might take years.  An adult may never be able to attain fluency.  So ending bi-lingual education automatically sets back the education of non-English-fluent students by up to several years.  

    Imagine trying to learn calculus in French, while still learning French.

    That problem will exacerbate the difficulty in keeping a whole class moving at the same pace.  Even in a class where everyone speaks the same language, teachers have a hard time setting a pace that's fast enough for the bright students and slow enough for the dim students.  It will be even harder when some students can't translate fast enough in their head to keep up with the lecture, and some students are so fluent that their time is wasted listening to the teacher repeat himself.

    Further, it's reasonable to suspect that for many students, they will never be as good at English as they are at their native language, even if they work at at.  So forcing them to learn all their subjects through English handicaps them in all those subjects, for the duration of their education, even after they've learned as much English as they can.

    So by the time they finish their education, they may be very good at English, but they will not have reached their potential in any other subject.

    Personally, I'd rather have a lot of people running around with good knowledge of math, logic, history, art, physics, etc., and poor English, than a bunch of them with good English and nothing intelligent to say in any language.

    Last time I looked (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    Italy, France and Ireland had cultural traditions rooted in Catholicism that seemed to be holding up rather well and not too stifling to expressions of "freedoms", creativity, or the urge to "success."

    One thing those countries have had a shortage of for awhile though, is an agrarian-based peasant population that needed to be kept down-on-the-farm and away from any movements toward reform of the status quo.

    Jondee, catch up. (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    The issue really is Ireland, France or Italy, Jondee.

    There isn't 15 million illegl aliens here from those countries.

    [ Parent ]

    ouch. that 's the issue ISN'T (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:52:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yep, there it is (none / 0) (#76)
    by LarryE on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 04:13:09 AM EST
    The famous shape-shifting Jimbo argument.

    Guy, you said

    almost all countries ... with a common hertiage of Catholic Church domination, and that also means a Spainish and/or Portugal culture bias, there has been almost no real freedoms, and almost no real economic success

    You related "Catholic Church domination" to Spanish or Portuguese "cultural bias" AND to political repression and economic failure. You were wrong on both counts. When that was pointed out to you, you said "oh, but that's not the issue!"

    It is the issue because it is a direct reply to what you said.

    Oh, and don't try to say that the omitted phrase in the quote has any bearing or somehow proves you really meant something very different from what you said. If you have that much trouble expressing yourself clearly, maybe you're the one who should be kept away from ballots.

    [ Parent ]

    Duh (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:44:06 PM EST
    Oh good grief. If you didn't understand my point ask for extra instruction.

    [ Parent ]
    Like I said... (none / 0) (#105)
    by LarryE on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:38:29 AM EST
    ...the shape-shifting argument.

    "Never mind what I said, I meant something completely different and it's your fault if you didn't understand that I didn't mean what I actually said."

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe if (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jen M on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:06:39 PM EST
    Monolingual english speakers got off their low horses and VOTED they wouldn't have to worry about newbies and multilinguals voting.

    Yes, FWIW (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    I was visiting my sister and saw star search, or whatever it is called, for the first time,  and found out that the number of Americans who vote on that show exceed, by far, the number of Americans who vote in national elections.

    I couldn't believe it at first, but after thinking about it for a few minutes I was not in the least bit surprised.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, there's no age limit, no registration and (none / 0) (#116)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 08:03:40 AM EST
    no limit to the number of votes you can cast to the reality shows. So, you shouldn't be surprised at that recent discovery.

    [ Parent ]
    Jen M (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:04:41 PM EST
    The issue isn't worrying about voting, I want every citzien to vote.

    The issue is why we should be printing ballots in anything but english since you must be able to speak and write english to be a citizen.

    Non-english ballots facilitates voting by non-citizens.

    [ Parent ]

    Well that's just a plain lie (none / 0) (#56)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:38:51 PM EST
    The issue isn't worrying about voting, I want every citzien to vote.
    Actually, the issue was about bi-lingual education, which you and newt are against.

    And obviously you don't want every citizen to vote, all of your above statements show that you think only english speaking citizens should vote.

    Non-english ballots facilitates voting by non-citizens.
    Got links!?
    And it's pretty odd coming from a purported citizen who has called for the deaths of Americans.

    [ Parent ]
    Getting on a role, are you?? (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 07:03:57 PM EST
    And obviously you don't want every citizen to vote, all of your above statements show that you think only english speaking citizens should vote.

    Uh, one of the req's to becoming a citizen is that you must be able to speak and write english. So if you have came here and can't... well, even you must be able to make that connection.

    And it's pretty odd coming from a purported citizen who has called for the deaths of Americans.

    Yeah, I thought this by maheanuu was pretty bad myself.

    Thread - The "Faithful" Monica Goodling

    How do we get rid of the rest of them?

    by maheanuu on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:54:27 AM EST
    Perhaps Rat Poison might work, but then even a rat wouldn't be as bad as the repigs in office today.

    Now run along sailor the wind's coming up and you can't hold the point.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong again (none / 0) (#77)
    by LarryE on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 04:24:47 AM EST
    one of the req's to becoming a citizen is that you must be able to speak and write english

    No, you.... Mmmmm....

    One of the requirements to be a naturalized citizen is passing a test in English. Anyone born here is a citizen, no test required.

    You might expect that someone born here, even if it's to a non-English-speaking family, would gain some knowledge of English if only by cultural osmosis by the time they're old enough to vote, but there is no guarantee of that and even at that, it doesn't mean they'd be comfortable dealing with a ballot - indeed, I've known enough literate native English-speakers who found some ballot or another confusing to refuse to accept your flip, unthinking, biased contention.

    [ Parent ]

    Duh.1 (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:46:17 PM EST
    Actually, accordig to Sanity, or somebody like that, we were both wrong.

    And thank you for telling us that people born here are citizens.

    Wow. Who knew??

    [ Parent ]

    You're welcome (none / 0) (#102)
    by LarryE on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:33:56 AM EST
    thank you for telling us that people born here are citizens. Wow. Who knew??

    Apparently, you did, since your argument depended on the assertion that anyone who is a citizen must have demonstrated adequate command of English to deal with an election ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    Dang (none / 0) (#103)
    by LarryE on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:35:24 AM EST
    Amend that to

    Apparently, you didn't, because....

    [ Parent ]

    Even at the self-checkout counter, the (none / 0) (#117)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 08:05:16 AM EST
    computer screen starts with selecting the language you want to use. At least the touch screen areas can have multiple languages available.


    [ Parent ]
    can't help but note that while (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by conchita on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:52:43 PM EST
    some here take issue with bilingual education and bilingual ballots, i haven't heard anyone speak up about our greencard soldiers.  it seems that it's fine for someone to die for this country while not fully english speaking but not attend school or vote.  somehow that says it all for me.

    You're right, no one has. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:38:26 PM EST
    Let's see.

    Can you tell me what schools they have not been allowed to attend? As far as I know, all legal immigrants are allowed to attend US schools.

    In fact, so have the illegals' children.

    There has been some complaining about illegal aliens getting in-state tution.

    Now I don't think it is "fine" for anyone to die for this country. Perhaps you do.

    But if a green card holder wants to join the military, that is fine, and the reward is citizenship. Again though the requirement is there for them to be able to read, write and speak english.

    Especially if they are in the military.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's not forget our native people! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by mkb on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:21:00 AM EST
    Hi, there!

    It is amazing, at least to me, how people vehemently defend either English or Spanish or any other language that has roots on a continent other than the Western Hemisphere. It can be effectively argued that both Spanish and English are deculturizing, oppressing, and hegemonic languages if you analyze them within a Native American perspective. Why? Because Spanish was "impossed" by Spaniards to native people south of the Rio Grande in the same way that English was "impossed" by Englishmen to native people north of the Rio Grande. Obviously, while we cannot return to the past, I would welcome more governmental support to native languages in schools and universities in both the United States and Latin America. I don't see anything wrong in paying respect to the languages of native people of the Western Hemisphere.

    mkb (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    True, but you fail to recognize one thing.

    As bad as the "Spainish" and "English" model was, the natives found them both to be better than what they had.

    As for "native," be careful. A little study will show you that the "natives" displaced the previous "natives" a few hundred years before.

    History is just a story of people taking land from each other.

    [ Parent ]

    Native American languages vs English (none / 0) (#91)
    by mkb on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 04:13:33 PM EST
    I beg to differ, JimakaPPJ. Native Americans did not favor English merely by choice. From a linguistic research by James Crawford:

    "

    Take the example of Native American languages, which were targeted by the U.S. government in a campaign of linguistic genocide. In 1868, a federal commission on making peace with the plains Indians concluded: "In the difference of language to-day lies two-thirds of our trouble. ... Schools should be established, which children should be required to attend; their barbarous dialects should be blotted out and the English language substituted" (quoted in Atkins, 1887).

    By the 1880s this policy was institutionalized in the boarding school system established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Under strict English Only rules, students were punished and humiliated for speaking their native language as part of a general campaign to erase every vestige of their Indian-ness. A BIA teacher in the early 1900s explained that the schools "went on the assumption that any Indian custom was, per se, objectionable, whereas the customs of whites were the ways of civilization. ... [Children] were taught to despise every custom of their forefathers, including religion, language, songs, dress, ideas, methods of living" (Albert H. Kneale, quoted in Reyhner, 1992, p. 45). Lieutenant Richard Henry Pratt, architect of the BIA school system, summed up its educational philosophy succinctly: "Kill the Indian ... and save the man" (Pratt, 1973 [1892], p. 261).

    "

    Was this the proper way to treat Native American languages? I don't think so. Everybody has his or her opinion, and I respect such. However, in my case, I really feel ashamed of this part of U.S. history.

    MKB

    [ Parent ]

    MKB (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:57:17 PM EST
    You note English only, so I assume you'll agree that the Spainards were better than the heart ripping outers who were the previous rulers.

    As for up north, the various tribes all had various things that weren't all that wonderful from a societal view. One thing is for certain. They accepted the "English/French" enough to not band together and fight against them.

    I recommend you read "The Contested Plains" for a better view of who did what to who and when.

    As for langauge??? The NA would have been better off to NOT have been put on a reservation.

    Like it or not, you have to live with what is.

    [ Parent ]

    Reply (none / 0) (#100)
    by mkb on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:07:19 PM EST
    Hello, JimakaPPJ!

    Thanks for your opinion.

    >You note English only,

    Please excuse me about that, but I meant to be broader and encompass all languages like English, Spanish (plus Dutch, French, Portuguese, etc.) brought to the New World by conquerors, immigrants, etc., that were not spoken by any Native American.

    >so I assume you'll agree that the Spainards were >better than the heart ripping outers who were the >previous rulers.

    That is not my point. My point is that I fail to understand all the fuzz about bilingual education, electoral ballots, etc. Why? Because whatever happens, let that be favoring English or favoring Spanish or favoring bilingualism, neither Spanish nor English will dissappear because those languages are not endangered. On the other hand, Native American languages like Navajo are endangered, and in my point of view, it is more crucial to save Navajo than to engage into technicalities of languages that are not endangered.

    Before you tell me, yes, there is a parallel in Latin America as well. In most cases, Native American languages are not promoted enough by Latin American governments.

    >As for up north, the various tribes all had >various things that weren't all that wonderful >from a societal view. One thing is for certain. >They accepted the "English/French" enough to not >band together and fight against them.

    Good, but that doesn't mean we should not care about their languages.

    >I recommend you read "The Contested Plains" for a >better view of who did what to who and when.

    Thank you for your advice. I will check this book out. I think this book has been discussed before because it rings a bell.

    >As for langauge??? The NA would have been better >off to NOT have been put on a reservation.

    You might have a point here. However, those who leave the reservation should be proud of their heritage and their language....and this has not been the case for the most part due to reasons out of their own scope.

    >Like it or not, you have to live with what is.

    Do you mean that I have to accept the "fact" that Navajo and other Native American languages will become extintc? I am sorry, but I refuse to accept that, and that is why I am posting here.

    There are organizations that promote the survival of Native American languages. Kudos for them.

    MKB

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:15:46 PM EST
    Sorry but we spoke past each other. I thought you were speaking culture when, I guess, you are truly speaking "language."

    I don't care if all the languages of the world are saved. In fact, I would say that is a wonderful idea.

    All I want is that we have a common language for the US so we can all get along, just a little bit better.

    [ Parent ]

    Reply 2 (none / 0) (#106)
    by mkb on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:08:00 AM EST
    Hey, there!

    >Sorry but we spoke past each other. I thought you >were speaking culture when, I guess, you are >truly >speaking "language."

    I am talking about languages and people who still speak those languages. There are still Native Americans in the U.S.A. and Latin America.

    >I don't care if all the languages of the world >are >saved. In fact, I would say that is a >wonderful >idea.

    ???

    I don't know if you truly feel this way or not, but I am going to respond to you anyway.

    Of course, it is easier for you to state such when you are not a member of a group whose language is endangered. If you were at the other end of the rope, I am sure you wouldn't feel this way. And again, as I said before, both English and Spanish are not endangered.

    Let me make a parallel. There is a movement in Galicia to try to save Galician as it is on the verge of becoming an endangered language. Galician is a minority but native language in Spain. So, again, what is wrong in trying to save a minority but native language in the United States such as Navajo? The fact that you don't care doesn't mean that it is wrong to save it.

    >All I want is that we have a common language for >the US so we can all get along, just a little bit >better

    If you want to achieve that by "trying to kill" or by "trying to suppress" other languages like the languages of our Native Americans, I don't support you.

    If you want to achieve that by "mutual respect" of our native languages here in the United States, I support you.

    As I said before, I welcome programs for students that promote the learning of at least some aspects of Native American languages and Native Americans in general. I remember when I was in college when a professor let us know "the shame he felt" when he told us that it is not required at all to take any class in Native American history in order to graduate from most US universities. I extend this to Native American languages. In fact, I am of the opinion that it should be a requirement to take a class that deals with Native American issues before conferring any degree.

    So, in short, you can make the United States a monolingual country with English. I am fine with it inasmuch as Native American languages are taken into account.  Alternatively, you can make the United States a bilingual country with English and Spanish. I am fine with it inasmuch as Native American languages are taken into account.

    MKB

    [ Parent ]

    MKB (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:23:11 AM EST
    You seem desperately to want to lecture and misunderstand.

    I repeat. If people want to save all the langauages of the world, that's fine with me.

    I don't want to make the US "monolingual," I just want one language for officeal things like voting.

    Why? So that everyone can be on the same page.

    As for your college professor feeling shame, such politically correct nonsense has contribited greatly to the current problems that we have.

    [ Parent ]

    How Absurd (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    I don't want to make the US "monolingual," I just want one language for official things like voting.

    Why? So that everyone can be on the same page.

    Everyone on the same page?????  HAHAHAHA  Is that the faux news page? Or the Dobson channel? Or dkos?

    Do you think that Spanish speaking American citizens live in a sensory deprivation box? Or are you afraid that since you are monolingual that they are reading things you can't understand.

    Do you have a tape recorder playing the same tune over and over in your head that blocks out being able to take in all the information put out on this thread?

    [ Parent ]

    Keep on smearing (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:27:57 AM EST
    Thanks for joining in, squeaky. As usual you pay no attention to what is being written, just start claiming and smearing.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    Multiple languages within a country can never be helpful in bringing a country together. Different people will be saying different things and misunderstood even more frequently than what we do now. That is not politics, just facts.

    It has nothing to do with hispanics or indians or whites or blacks.

    Again. You do not have to be against people knowing two languages, three languages, heck, a dozen languages.... to understand that for offical matters it is best to have one language.

    So keep smearing. The reader can decide for themselves.

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ lies again (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:46:02 AM EST
    Can't help lying can you. You are the smear king as you prove once and again. Did the poor baby ppj feel smeared because the truth was pointed out again?

     It seems that you are the one that has not been paying attention to what has been said here.

    Multiple languages within a country can never be helpful in bringing a country together.

    Ever been to India? Switzerland? and other countries mentioned on this thread.  

    How many languages do you know, ppj?  

    Different people will be saying different things and misunderstood even more frequently than what we do now. That is not politics, just facts.
    And as for your facts where is your proof?  Links? Or are you just being your usual xenophobic right wing portal to Faux news.

    Seems to me, and most other commenters here,  that people that want to be informed will be informed regarding most topics including politics. Speaking english has nothing to do with that. You are a perfect example of someone who speaks english and is on a different page than the large majority of Americans.

    [ Parent ]

    Reply 3 (none / 0) (#113)
    by mkb on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    Greetings!

    >You seem desperately to want to lecture and >misunderstand.

    If that means that I am making a little bit of a difference regarding the existance of a problem, I am all for it. And an endangered language is a problem for me.

    >I repeat. If people want to save all the >langauages of the world, that's fine with me.

    Bravo. Your position is really commendable, and I  support you. Now, I hope that you agree with me that it makes more sense to save Navajo, a US native language, than some foreign languages simply because Navajo is a US native language.

    >I don't want to make the US "monolingual," I just >want one language for officeal things like >voting.

    Perfect. I support you. But I also support people who think otherwise. My position is that whatever happens won't affect the continuity of either English or Spanish. By contrast, a little bit of an effort can save Navajo.

    >Why? So that everyone can be on the same page.

    Good.

    >As for your college professor feeling shame, such >politically correct nonsense has contribited >greatly to the current problems that we have.

    I respect your opinion. On the other hand, had it not been for him, I may be thinking differently in respect to Native Americans. So I thank him very much for making me appreciate the value of our  Native Americans and, by extension, their language and culture. In short, I would not describe this teacher, his students, and myself as "problems that we have". I believe that the problem is to negate the opportunity for Native Americans and their supporters to promote and save their languages.

    MKB  

    [ Parent ]

    Say what? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Sanity Clause on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:30:05 AM EST
    We're talking about apples and oranges here.  There's no reason that immersion can't be used as a method to teach English so that non-English speakers become bi-lingual as quickly as possible, but denying them the ability to participate in any educational experience in their native language is simply punitive and counter-productive. And of course, young kids generally learn new languages pretty quickly by "immersing" themselves in TV, music, and hangin' at the Mall.  The "official language" doctrine, on the other hand, is just a way to exclude adult immigrants (including legal, working people) from "American" society and to continue to ghetto-ize them - exactly the opposite result of what Newt said he wanted to accomplish.

    And, yo, jima-PPJ-boy, wake up and smell the coffee.
    a. You're wrong about the English speaking requirement for naturalization - there are exceptions built into the law.
    b. Any person born to Spanish speaking parents anywhere in the United States, including Puerto Rico, is a citizen and can vote, whether or not he/she ever learns English.
    c. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California - all former territories of Spain and/or Mexico - have you no respect for 400 years of history?  Where were your ancestors 400 years ago?
    d. The United States is home to more than 40 million Hispanics, making it the fifth largest Spanish-speaking community in the world, after Mexico, Colombia, Spain and Argentina.Wikipedia  
    That's about the same as the total for the following states combined:
    Alabama 4.5 million
    Arkansas 2.8 million
    Georgia 9 million
    Louisiana 4.5 million
    Mississippi 2.9 million
    N Carolina 8.7 million
    S Carolina 4.2 million
    Virginia 7.5 million
    Would you mind if we just stopped funding education in those states - you seem to know it all already?
    e. Spanish is spoken most frequently at home by about 28.1 million people aged 5 or over. Of these, 14.3 million reported that they also spoke English "very well."Wikipedia  
    (How many of y'all are bi-lingual down home?)
    f. Just stop repeating the inane talking points that illegal aliens vote (and get welfare and Food Stamps, etc) if ballots and related forms are available in Spanish. ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE OR RECEIVE WELFARE OR FOOD STAMPS! Period. End of discussion. They sure as hell don't want an unsympathetic government to find them and escort them back across the border. Do you think they're going to stand up and yell (or vote) to get our attention?
    g. I'd prefer it if you would just admit your racist agenda and move on.
    h. Wouldn't it make sense to require mono-lingual English speaking Americans to learn Spanish (or French, or Chinese, or whatever the second most prevalent language in their home region is)? It would be a real boon to the economy, and, after all, you're demanding that immigrants become bi-lingual - are you admitting that it's beyond the ability of the typical red-blooded American good-ol' boy to learn another language? Are the rednecks intellectually inferior where you and Newt hail from?

    First, I'm not your boy, <em>boy.</em> (1.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 08:45:44 AM EST
    Thanks for the information re english and voting.

    If you are correct it looks like we need to change some laws.

    Now let's get down to examining your blatherings.

    ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE OR RECEIVE WELFARE OR FOOD STAMPS! Period. End of discussion.

    I just love it when people, who have no authority, make such a command. What ya gonna do when I reply, insult boy? Stamp your feet??

    Since I never made any mention re food stamps and/or welfare benefits it appears that you can't read english. Are you supposedly bilingual?
     Or do you just lose focus when angry?

    And try a little logic. The fact that they are not ALLOWED is meaningless. The question is, how much they, and the flood of legal immigrants, impact the infrastructure. And it is huge.

    I stand by my comment regarding the history of Mexico, CA and SA. They have  societies that are producing people they can not feed, can not educate and can not provide health care for.

    That is the problem.

    People do not leave their families and country in large numbers because things are good at home. That's just a fact. Deny it if you like.

    Instead of moaning over the fact that the rest of the world might not be too happy with this flood of people, why aren't you condemning the governments of these "people factories" that are sending their problems north while their elites live very well.

    Why aren't you demanding that these governments change the polices that is ripping apart families while millions starve and suffer from all the diseses of being poor?

    Why do you want the US to fix the problem? And if you think we should fix this problem, can I assume you are ready to stand with Bush on his solving the problems in the ME?

    And the common thread is a culture history that is basically a product of Spain and Portugal and a religious dominance by the Catholic Church. And they have been doing that for more than 400 years.

    As to your nutty question re ancestors 400 years ago..Who cares?? I have news for you. In Las Vegas they have a saying. "Money talks and bull sh*t walks." I hope that isn't to complicated for you to understand.

    No place in any of my comments have I argued against people being bilingual. My sole point has been ballots should be printed in english only, and that citizens should be required to speak/write/read english to insure a common means of communication and understanding.

    Your rapid repetition of how many hispanics are in the US, etc., and your demands that we not have a common languagae demonstrates that your agenda is not the common good, but some type of fake civil rights argument designed to balkanize the country.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually I agree with some of your points, (none / 0) (#92)
    by Sanity Clause on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    but probably not with the solutions.

    NOTHING Congress does is going to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country seeking an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.

    The immigration "problem" can't be solved with walls, or guns, or unenforceable laws. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants; most of our ancestors came here searching for a better life. The problem is not that the immigrants are "here" and not "there" - the problem is that our respective governments have failed to serve their respective people.

    If the US had spent the last hundred years spreading worker's rights and fair labor standards throughout the world, or at least throughout the hemisphere, or at least into Mexico, instead of encouraging Corporate America to export jobs to take advantage of exploitative working conditions, maybe we the people of all the Americas would have manufacturing jobs north of the border and a living wage south of the border. We won't need more border patrols if we work to eliminate the economic barriers that separate us.

    Do we take baby steps or giant strides?

    Where do you see us in 50 years?  A single United States of North America, Inc., serving all of your Foods/Textiles/Motors/Pharmaceuticals consumer needs? Why don't we just eliminate the borders (and the governments) altogether and annex Mexico and Canada now?

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, looks like we can talk... (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 07:16:59 PM EST
    If the US had spent the last hundred years spreading worker's rights and fair labor standards throughout the world,

    Well, we are having such success in Iraq, I am sure we could have done this in the rest of the world.

    I don't know if you have ever been actually involved in a situation where change was necessary, but the one that is almost impossible to do is "culture."

    How to stop immigration, legal and illegal??

    Fix the parent country. That's first and foremost.
    Problem is, we have a lousy record of fixing third world countries. We have a fantastic record of fixing European countries. (See the Marshall Plan.)

    The countries must fix themselves. This argues for change. Hopefully non-violent, but not always. To do that you must stop enabling the offenders. Shut down the escape valve. And yes, it can be done, if we want to do it.

    Match that with putting employers in jail for hiring illegals and you have a start.

    BTW - That we are a nation of immigrants has nothing to do with what we can, or can't do. That's just a slogan.

    Jobs flow to the least cost solution, each and everytime. I would be happy to pay 15-20% more for  "things" but I'm probably 1 in a 100,000.

    Note I said "cost solution." That means it is not pure "dollars."

    As for annexing Mexico, their ruling class would have a snit fit. I'd be happy with Canada West, but we can let the French have the east, except for Newfoundland .... ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    And (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:27:29 AM EST
    some people refusing to "take land from each other" because they adhered to these things called ethics and morality.

    I guess to some, the predetory ethos of the pimp and the mugger is enough.

    Give a rethug enough rope and eventually they'll come around to showing where they're really coming from.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:38:35 AM EST
    Your inability to accept historical facts do not change them, nor does it make you look clever or intelligent.

    Your constant attempts to imply something I did not say define you.

    Are you and Squeaky twins??

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry Jim (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:17:39 PM EST
    I didn't think using your word was so objectionable to you. You're still avoiding the fact that you made another false claim, with which you have no data to back up. Instead, when confronted with your BS, you simply state that the laws should be changed. Sounds like they already have been-in your head.

    Tail chasing (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    Your inability to understand english is a definitive problem.

    Then by your logic I should not be able to vote.

    Fascist in social liberal clothing. PPJ uber alles.

    Not at all. (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 07:21:42 PM EST
    I don't care if you do, or if you don't. That is your decision.

    I haven't said you can't vote, just that the ballot should be printed in English only.

    Why do you keep making such claims??  

    I swear, I'm gonna make Che, Squeaky and Jondee the Three Musketeers of False Speak.

    [ Parent ]

    A unified country (4.00 / 1) (#24)
    by wlgriffi on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    can only be realized when a common language is generally accepted. The purpose of having a public school system was the desire to have a populace on the same page in the development of the country. To attain this end a common language is essential. This is not a denigration of anyone's heritage. It is a method of bringing the "melting pot" together as one. The singling out of the voting language is a specious argument,waged by biased individuals on both sides. The real issue is one of is the american people going to be able to communicate with each other sufficiently to work out our shared problems. To be able to communicate the political issues facing the country as a whole dictates that one language developes a common approach. No one is saying that using one language,in this case english,necessitates the complete extinction of another.

    So... (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:44:09 AM EST
    So you favor having more uninformed voters participating?  Remove the race card from play for a  moment and think about it: a person who can't deal with a ballot in English almost certainly can't be well informed about an election.  Their vote will be a mindless process of voting by party, depending on which party tries to identify itself with that population.

    That's not a route to a well informed electorate.  

    If it's good enough for the rest of us... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by roy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:05:01 AM EST
    English-speaking voters are motivated mainly by party loyalty, too.  Even if they're getting more information than non-English speakers, it's all filtered through red or blue colored glasses.

    If it's not party loyalty, then it's just one or two pet issues.

    That said, you're probably underestimating the role word of mouth and other language media can play in keeping people informed.

    [ Parent ]

    Word of Mouth (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:09:55 AM EST
    My point is, an English speaking voter is capable of being informed on an election; I don't think a non-English speaking person really is - there just isn't enough coverage outside the English language.

    I'm not asking for literacy or knowledge tests, btw - I'm merely saying that I'd prefer to not go out of the way to make voting more mindless than it already is.

    you seem to be forgetting the many multi-lingual (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by conchita on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    speakers who can and do discuss issues with their non-english speaking friends, family, neighbors, etc.  

    you are also forgetting that there are newspapers printed in the u.s. and abroad in languages other than english that educate their readers about issues.  i would say that the spanish newspapers in new york do just as good a job, perhaps better, than the new york post.

    [ Parent ]

    he's also ignoring ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    ... how gingrich said any language except english was the language of the ghetto. That's just plain racist.

    It also implies that no one living in the ghetto should be allowed to vote ... which is pretty much a part of the rethuglican platform.

    Hey, just bring back the poll tax that would solve all of the rethugs election problems.

    BTW, anyone else notice how this english only policy would violate the Equal Protection Clause?

    [ Parent ]

    Sailor. ghettp definition (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    quarter of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure

    Living a ghetto doesn't make you good, or bad, just as living in a gated community doesn't make you good or bad.

    What it does do is say that you are probably at a low level on the economic scale with limited resources in health, education and upward mobility, plus at a much greater risk of criminal attack.

    [ Parent ]

    hate speech and segregation (none / 0) (#54)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 05:13:16 PM EST
    1. a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships.
    2.    (formerly, in most European countries) a section of a city in which all Jews were required to live.
    3.    a section predominantly inhabited by Jews.
    4.    any mode of living, working, etc., that results from stereotyping or biased treatment: job ghettos for women; ghettos for the elderly.

    newts' (and ppj's) willful ignorance of  the term ghetto that was used by Nazis to segregate Jews from the rest of the population is yet another example of how much these folks hate America and the ideals for which we stand.

    [ Parent ]

    So?? (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    What does that have to do with being able to speak and write english as part of passing the citizenship test?

    And if you can do that, you shouldn't need special help to vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Gingrich, Tancredo, and the rest.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 07:02:00 AM EST
    should try living in the ghetto, or visiting one.  They will find there is more character in the ghetto than on Pennsylvania Ave., for example.

    Not What they Want (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:59:42 AM EST
    Character? That's the last thing that they are looking for.

    [ Parent ]
    kdog (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:31:09 AM EST
    Given that one of the requirements for citizenship is to be able to read and write English, why should we need ballots in any other language??

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    Given that one of the requirements for citizenship is to be able to read and write English, why should we need ballots in any other language??

    My child was a citizen before she could say a word and several years before she could read.

    Wait, I think you are talking about NATURALIZED citizens, but once agan fell victim to your habit of oversimplification.

    [ Parent ]

    Quit parsing. (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:09:16 PM EST
    Your child cannot vote.

    And voting is the issue.

    [ Parent ]

    bi-lingual education, not voting (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by conchita on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:49:45 PM EST
    is the issue of this thread.

    [ Parent ]
    That doesn't enforce fluency (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:33:23 AM EST
    A) Only modest English skills are needed to pass the tests.  Text appearing on ballots, on the other hand, can be a tangled web of legalese, confusing even to native English speakers.

    B) Citizens who are born in non-English speaking areas may never even reach that minimal level of proficiency.

    C) Language skills atrophy very quickly, so a newly minted citizen may forget whatever English they learned.

    [ Parent ]

    roy (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    The problem then is not the ballot, but:

    a. Inability of the writers to write in simple language that all can understand.

    b. Inability of the reader to continue improvement in their language skills.

    [ Parent ]

    english is far from a simple language to learn (none / 0) (#28)
    by conchita on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    there are many more irregularities in pronunciation, grammar, etc. than most languages.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:08:23 PM EST
    the difficulty has nothing to do with the requirement.

    [ Parent ]
    Missing the point as usual (none / 0) (#53)
    by Sailor on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:51:52 PM EST
    newt was talking about not even educating American citizens in their native language so that they could learn english.

    Foreign language credits were a requirement in my school system ... but they had teachers who spoke english teach it to us.

    It's very difficult to learn a language if you can't realte it to the one you already know (see Rosetta stone.)

    [ Parent ]

    H*ck (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jen M on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    An unacceptable number of native born americans can't learn to speak, read, or write english properly.

    Some even pretend to consider higher education to be "ivory tower" elitism (well, at least when they are campaigning - never mind if they went to Yale)

    [ Parent ]

    Not to mention some who (none / 0) (#90)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    would be disqualified from voting if what they proposed be enforced on all citizens, regardless of said citizen's birthplace.

    [ Parent ]
    The one positive aspect of electronic voting... (none / 0) (#8)
    by jerry on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:30:25 AM EST
    Is that it should be trivial to allow people to vote in any one of 700 different languages.

    That said, electronic voting is an abomination and we should move back to paper ballots.

    I wonder where Newt is on that?

    Run, Newt, Run. (none / 0) (#10)
    by cal11 voter on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:39:06 AM EST
    Clinton vs. Gingrich.  That would make an interesting contest.

    Competence (none / 0) (#19)
    by jarober on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:55:44 AM EST
    "C) Language skills atrophy very quickly, so a newly minted citizen may forget whatever English they learned. "

    If you become a citizen and then participate in the country so little that your English language skills fade, then the chances of you casting an informed vote approach zero.

    Why is the left willing to ask so little of citizens?  Is it too much to request that anyone wishing to vote become minimally competent to do so?

    To participate in which part of the country? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by roy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    All you have to do to learn English is grow up around people who speak English.  That's all.  Doing so doesn't make you a participant in, competent at, or informed about anything other than the English language.

    So a native who spends his time watching cartoons and reading comic books is qualified to vote by your standards, because his parents (and Bugs Bunny) speak English.

    And a Spanish-speaking citizen who reads Spanish-language newspapers for stories about national news and local issues, who helps his neighbors improve the community, isn't qualified.  Why?  Because participating in a Spanish-speaking part of the country doesn't count as participating in the country?

    And as for whether one can make an informed vote without speaking the local language, why do you think citizens who speak only English should be allowed to vote on local issues in regions that speak predominantly Spanish?

    [ Parent ]

    roy (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:48:33 PM EST
    So you advocate splitting the country into regions??

    Heck, that just makes the argument for a national offcial language.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by roy on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    Are you trying to conflate A) my observation that there are places where other languages dominate with B) a suggestion that we start redrawing borders?

    That'd be a silly distraction.  But maybe I just wasn't clear.  That happens sometimes when I try to be concise.  Fortunately I'm willing to give up on that.  So let's try this:

    BEGIN ARGUMENT

    Do you think there are areas within the United States where languages other than English dominate?

    Do you think a person who speaks only English would have more difficulty being informed about what is going on in those areas, compared to someone who speaks the locally dominant language?

    Do you think a resident of such an area, who speaks only English, should be allowed vote on issues and races local to that area?

    My own answers, btw, are "yes", "yes", and "yes".  I suspect the answers would be the same from you and Jarober.  If that's right -- and please correct me if it's not -- then you advocate hindering non-English speakers' voting because they can't be fully informed, while not advocating similar hinderances for English speakers who are simiarly uninformed.  

    That's at best poorly thought out; maybe you didn't realize that people who can only speak English can't speak other languages.  At worst, it suggests that you aren't really motivated by the citizens' ability to be informed.

    END ARGUMENT

    And note that I intentionally equate refusing to provide non-English ballots with denying the right to vote.  I think they're logically equivalent.  If the voter can't understand the ballot, they have to either vote at random (which means votes will tend to cancel each other out), put themselves at the mercy of some other who claims to tell them what the ballot means (which means votes are effectively cast by that other), or vote by some simplified gimmick like straight-party (which means votes cast won't quite align with the voter's desires).

    I'd really like to read your take on the ARGUMENT part of this comment.  Harp on some other bit if you like, but I'll read it as an attempt to dodge the issues I raised, and I'll feel smug about it all day.

    [ Parent ]

    Mind-numbed "liberals" (none / 0) (#32)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    Let me tell you a tale about a racial demagogue named Nativo Lopez. A few years back, he was booted off the largely-Hispanic SantaAna SchoolBoard in the largely-Hispanic city of SantaAna because of his support for bilingual education.

    Meanwhile: ...Since monolingual Chinese speakers rely on the Chinese press for news, politicians not favored by the Chinese press are unable to compete for their votes...

    Im missed this (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    Oh, yeah.

    The slavery issue was settled about 142 years ago.

    Food on the table and a place to live is NOW.

    You're the one (none / 0) (#61)
    by Al on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:51:37 PM EST
    comparing freedoms, PPJ. I put it to you that North Americans are no more free than South Americans, and in many cases, in fact, less so. North American democracy looks good on paper, but not in reality.

    [ Parent ]
    ask the educated (none / 0) (#42)
    by diogenes on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    Actual parents of immigrants want their kids to learn english as quickly as possible and hate bilingual education.  You can skip math for a year and get immersed in English rather than learn math taught in Greek, Japanese, Czech, etc and never learn English well.  Language professionals everywhere say that immersion is by far the best way to learn a language.  So why is bilingual education, where people speak their native tongue both at home and largely at school a favor to anyone?

    diogenes (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:06:26 PM EST
    It's a favor to those being paid based on the bilingual theory.

    [ Parent ]
    I call BS (none / 0) (#87)
    by Sailor on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 01:56:42 PM EST
    Actual parents of immigrants want their kids to learn english as quickly as possible and hate bilingual education.
    Got links?

    [ Parent ]
    Your prefrence is your prefrence. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    Why should the rest of us pay for your prefrence?

    Get your news anyway you want it.

    Learn enough english to vote.

    The idea is to encourage (none / 0) (#60)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:30:28 PM EST
    more people to vote. Ballots should be printed in any language requested, or selected on the screen (how hard would THAT be?) this facilitates easy voting for all legal citizens. It is not a taxpayer burden, certainly in comparison to the thousands of other ways we waste tax money. There is absolutely no data to back Jim's claim that multilingual ballots encourage illegal voting. This country has a serious voter suppression problem. Only people with unpopular agendas want more restrictions on voting.

    No. (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 09:15:01 PM EST
    The idea is to have legal elections in which only citizens vote.

    I again note that you must be able to write/speak english to become a citizen. So if you can't do the latter, were you ever the former?

    You write:

    There is absolutely no data to back Jim's claim that multilingual ballots encourage illegal voting.

    I didn't say "encourage."

    1:  to inspire with courage, spirit, or hope : HEARTEN
    2 : to spur on : STIMULATE
    3 : to give help or patronage to

    I said "facilitates."

    to make easier : help bring about

    I mean speaking of understanding English...

    A common language removes all doubts and fears about what all are saying. No high priests, other wise known as "community leaders" are needed to tell us what we are saying to each other.

    Only those who fear the people understanding, as did the Catholic Church, and does the so-called "leaders" demand we let someone else tell us what was said.

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ does his word dance (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:33:04 PM EST
    so let's ask if he's gotta link to his claim about multi-lingual ballots facilitating voting by non-citizens.

    Dearest Dark Avenger: (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:43:03 PM EST
    I am channeling your link. I hope you enjoy. In the meantime...

    common sense

    1: The unreflective opinions of ordinary people
    2 : sound and prudent but often unsophisticated judgment




    [ Parent ]
    Ok- here's your link (none / 0) (#71)
    by Pancho on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:43:20 AM EST
    it is just plain

    [ Parent ]
    Fine (none / 0) (#69)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 10:47:15 PM EST
    Jim has shown absolutely no data to back his claim that multilingual ballots facilitate illegal voting.

    Stop wasting bandwidth.

    Che - Get a dictionary (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 08:54:50 AM EST
    Your inability to understand english is a definitive problem.

    [ Parent ]
    Unreflective should (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 12:28:59 AM EST
    be your middle name.

    As for the latter description, the first two aren't operative in your posts, as can be seen by perusing your comments in the archives.

    Strike 2, PPJ, swing and a miss this time, and you've lost all chances of winning your Rove points for the day.

    Ta-da!

    Try to catch up (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:31:04 AM EST
    to evoloution.

    Really, do try.

    Oh really?? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:43:48 AM EST
    Oh really??

    What does evolution have to do with Mexico, etc., having such a rotten economy and a culture requiring  people to have large families for mere survival?

    Do you think the illegal aliens want to leave their families and friends and come thousands of miles to work for low pay, live in terrible circumstances and  have almost no rights?

    Of course not.

    But that doesn't fix the problem. Mexico, etc., will have to do that. And as long as we are the safety valve, they won't.

    Try and think solitions rather than what to whine about.

    [ Parent ]

    Cherry picking (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:51:55 AM EST
    all the factoids that'll fit into a narrow cranium coming to a point (where that hood comes in), isnt "history".

    Funny (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    I thought providing dirt cheap labor -- in Mexico and the U.S -- was "a safety valve" for the U.S and U.S investors.

    Wow we agree (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 07:23:00 PM EST
    Largely, true.

    We need to shut off the jobs, and the illegals won't come.

    [ Parent ]

    Please Stop Insulting Each Other (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:36:43 AM EST
    Please stop the personal attacks and name-calling. You all know better.

    Bi-lingualism (none / 0) (#107)
    by MrHandy on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 06:32:31 AM EST
    I don't have a lot of favor for anything Newt says but in terms of dealing with bi-lingualism I will say this, I moved to Miami from Detroit in 1976 because the auto industry couldn't get it's act together and when the big three are suffering so suffers much of Michigan.  As an American I was appalled the first time some employer told me that I couldn't be hired because I wasn't bi-lingual.  I was degraded when in 1998 the company I was working for received a new partner who had me terminated (as I heard from a senior manager)because "He doesn't speak the language" (meaning spanish).  You don't expect this kind of discrimination in your home country but Miami's population is now 75% latin or latin origin and the culture has become largely spanish speaking oriented.   I can understand the urge to DO something about it however misguided the rhetoric  might be.

    Ah... the real world sticks its head in (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:34:16 AM EST
    Simple fact. The majority will enforce its culture and its language unless otherwise prevented.

    The way to keep a country, more or less, within the same cultural boundries is to limit immigrant to the extent that the new arrivals feel it necessary to assimilate.

    In the past this was further enforced by a lack of entertainment/news in the immigrants language. This is no longer true.

    What you saw, MrHandy, is the result. And we can expect it to become worse.

    [ Parent ]

    projects (none / 0) (#114)
    by tiberiu on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    Just imagine that such a project can have certain people with certain degrees that will do certain tasks and of course get a certain deal of money.

    education (none / 0) (#115)
    by florian on Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 05:55:06 AM EST
    Common language is of course important. What about other nationalities whose parents or relative could not able to speaks English. Students from other nationalities doing research writing in English but what about writing a paper on other language in exam ?

    Newt Gingrich Mocks Bi-Lingual Education | 114 comments (114 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment