Explaination: Who would be hurt if anyone by implementing a National Language?Or would it be beneficial for all new immigrants and citizens to have 1 language to bind them and give them a common factor?
A National Language doesn't mean other languages are banned.People would still be able to speak and enjoy their original cultures.We would just have 1 common language utilized as a common denominator in the wide variety of cultures we enjoy as a Nation.
2007-07-24 03:19:19 · 17 answers · asked by Dog Tricks 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Photo shooting of dogs.For those curious.
2007-07-24 03:29:13 · update #1
No one would lose out. I think that's a great idea. A language bond would probably help in the long run!
2007-07-24 08:44:22 · answer #1 · answered by Ms.L.A. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We do have a national language, it is English, but we have so many Illegal AND Legal immigrants that just do not want to use it. We are a great nation, and yes, many wish to live here and prosper like you can no where else. BUT, at least they could respect us enough to learn our language. Maybe it is time we close our doors, for a little while at least, to let the world know that although we are made up of many, we are not the world, but a single nation with national rights that are not governed by what non US citizens think.
2007-07-24 11:13:22 · answer #2 · answered by Common Sense 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It would be beneficial. The savings in not having to post multi-lingual signs would be a boon, not to mention savings in translation costs. Immigrants would find it easier to assimilate and prosper if required to speak, read and write a national language. Most nations have language requirements in their immigration law.
The only ones who would lose by it would be the ones refusing to use the national language of a nation. Those people should not be able to burden the whole of a society with the costs.
2007-07-24 11:11:04 · answer #3 · answered by JustSaySo 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Everyone would benefit, as you mentioned. It's ridiculous that we don't already have one. I don't see what a big deal it is to declare an official language in the US, after all, English has been the most predominant language since this nation was born (actually even before). It's a shame that ACLU and other anti-English groups skew the truth of the matter. All immigrants need to assimilate into our culture and learn English! Why else are they here?
2007-07-24 10:32:00 · answer #4 · answered by MsLovely's6thSense 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
We would. An Official language carries a lot of legal issues!
We don't need a national language as English is considered the language mainly spoken in the US, though it was not always that way. Over 100 years ago German missed by 1 vote in becoming the official language. Very few spoke English back then!
Go tell the Indians that their official language is English!
2007-07-24 10:24:34 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It would hurt all those who cannot speak English....I think bilingual education has hurt many of these students who cannot speak English....The single most important act an immigrant can do is learn the language of the country they reside in....Many more opportunities will be opened to them if they would only learn the language....I think we should do away with bilingual education in our public schools...I had to learn English and it has brought me many more opportunities...
2007-07-24 11:36:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The states would be hurt. The fact is that currently (and constitutionally) the states have the right to make their own state languages. These are the languages that they will encourage and speak at home. The fact is that two of these states have chosen to embrace and respect their various cultural heritages: New Mexico (Spanish and English) and Hawai'i (Hawai'ian and English).
These states should have the right to conduct business in the manner appropriate to their states. Citizenship could require English classes and that would not affect everyone. But we are a diverse country with diverse histories--we need to allow states to conduct their politics in the languages they decide. It should not be federally decided.
Also, the unity claims from a national language are probably overblown. All that the creation of a national language would do would be to make all government services available in only one language. This would probably weaken unity in that it would prevent people without full proficiently in English from voting on bond issues and other claims. As you correctly mention, it would not lead to business or home languages being English. The only thing it could really do is say that all voting, all government forms will be in English only. That affects state decisions negatively but does not lead to that much unity.
2007-07-24 10:27:49 · answer #7 · answered by C.S. 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
People who didn't know it. Gosh that was simple.
Who would benefit from it? Everyone in one way or another. No more added expense of printing ballots in multiple languages. To more street signs in multiple languages. And the list goes on and on. All of which cost you and me more tax payer dollars that could be spent elsewhere.
2007-07-24 13:11:32 · answer #8 · answered by namsaev 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only ones that would be hurt would be sign makers and do gooders.
I have lived in a couple of countries where, if you did not speak their language, you got nothing. Worked there, could work here.
2007-07-24 10:23:26 · answer #9 · answered by Oldvet 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We speak English, everyone who came here hundreds of years ago learned to speak English. Why has that changed? If you come to America, learn to speak Egnlish and become a citizen. You can keep your home culture but you conform to the country you live in. If you don't like it, stay in your home country!
2007-07-24 10:25:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋