Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Ah, so it's an effort to disenfranchise voters that don't speak English. Gotcha.
Figured as much.
|
Do you really think a bilingual nation is to our advantage? Do you really think that the existence of French speaking Quebec has really helped the Canadians? Has its bilingualism helped Belgium? In addition, English is the international language so our country has a huge competitive advantage in that we have native English speakers. There is a reason why there are call centers in India (where because of English colonialism there are many English speakers) and not in China or Indonesia. The United States has everything to gain by staying a single language English speaking nation and nothing to gain by becoming bilingual.
Most of the people in this country are descendents from people that came from countrys that don't speak English. Yet do you really think this country would be better off if everyone had retained their native language and taught it to their children?
The US is better off being a single language nation. I wouldn't care if it were Spanish, French or Swahili. But English is also the international language so every prudent and competitive country on the Globe is trying to teach their children English. We already have the advantage of having that international language being the predominate language - why would we change that?
In every country I have ever lived in I made a serious attempt to learn the predominate language, and it never occurred to me to expect the government to cater to my English. If I decided to move permanently to Mexico or another Spanish speaking country it wouldn't even occur to me to not improve my Spanish or expect the government to print ballots or provide services to me in English.
I have no problem with people immigrating to this country, but is it so much to ask that they learn English? Isn't it a prudent public policy to encourage English to be spoken in the United States?
