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?