From: utzoo!decvax!duke!unc!smb
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Title: Re: Official Languages - (nf)
Article-I.D.: unc.3826
Posted: Thu Aug 19 00:02:02 1982
Received: Fri Aug 20 02:08:13 1982


As usual in such cases, there's a lot more to the vote than meets the eye.

First, note that although the vote was on an amendment to an immigration
law, the wording was that it was "the sense of the Senate that..." English
was the sole official language of this country; thus, it isn't binding, and
is purely symbolic.

Second, the real issue is to what extent the United States will assist
residents -- legal or illegal -- who don't speak English.  There are a
number of programs mandated by Federal law that require certain materials
to be available in other langauges.  For example, if a certain fraction
of the voters in an area are non-English speakers, ballots and election
notices must appear in their language as well as English.  Other laws
require that bilingual education programs be available in the public schools
if enough students need them.  Such programs have aroused a fair amount of
ire.  (It isn't just Spanish, either; some precincts in New York City have
Chinese ballots available, for example.)

Finally, there's a great deal of resentment in some areas of the country,
especially Florida and Texas, about the influx of Spanish-speaking people.
Apparently, the feeling is that "real Americans" are losing control of the
state.

In that context, the position of the 21 senators who voted against the bill
is fairly clear:  they're actively supporting such programs.  Many of the
others actively oppose them, but not a majority; thus, they put together
a "flag, applehood, and mother pie" amendment that could draw lots of nice
meaningless votes.  As you asked, who could vote against English as the
official language of the country?


		--Steve

P.S.  Let's try to avoid too many flames in *this* newsgroup about who's
right on this issue; the question is politics, not language.  Might I
nominate net.misc?