LG>Like it or not, Mike, English *is* the language of the United States.
LG>Japanese is the language of Japan, Persian is the language of Iran,
LG>English is the language of the United States.
 
      Unlike Japan and Iran (formerly known as Persia), the United
States has no true national language.  English is the language of
England, where it took on it's present form, not the United States.
Our use of English is no more than a matter of convience born of a
predominance of early immigrants to this land from that nation and
even the use of English itself was initially decided by a single vote
over German at an early Continental Congress.
      While I will grant you, at present, a clear majority of Americans
speak English, we, as a people, are no more bound to that language than
to any other and if the day arrives that any other language becomes
predominate, transfer of primary governmental operations to that
language would not be prohibited should it be the desire of the
majority.
       The nations of Europe are bound together by common languages,
common heritages, common blood, and common culture.  We, in contrast to
they, are only bound by a common faith in liberty.  If we adhere to
that faith, I believe it alone makes us stronger.
 
LG>That's fine. Don't speak it. No one's forcing you. Or anyone else.
LG>I don't run around speaking in algebraic equations, either. But I was
LG>required to learn them. Without them, my life would not have been of
LG>nearly the quality that it has. Nor would my contributions to my countr
 
      Funny you should mention that.  I attended a very poor, very
rural southern school and left to join the military at 16, having to
work a year before entering the service.  As a result I have never
mastered Algebra.  Not that this has any real revelance to our
discussion, but even with the self-recognized handicap my poor
foundation in mathematics has given me, I have managed to build a small
business in the computer industry and be relatively sucessful.
      The same, depending upon the individual, and possibly even more
dependent upon the location of the individual, can be true of Spanish
or any one of several other languages in the United States.  I know
many quite sucessful Hispanics in my area who have succeeded despite an
inability to speak English.  Houston, currently the nations third,a nd
by far fastest growing, largest city, has more Spanish daily newspapers
than English daily newspapers.  We have three Spanish television
stations, multiple Spanish radio stations, and very large segments of
our city where Spanish is spoken with far greater frequency than with
English.
      In this atmosphere, which I would imagine is applicable at least
to some other major cities such as Los Angles, New York, and most
certianly San Antonio, Dallas, and Miami, while the "need" to speak
English remains, the "need" to speak Spanish is almost as strong. 
Those who are handicapped are the mono-linguals whether they speak only
English or only Spanish and the advantage comes not in speaking only
one of either in deference to the other, but in being bi-lingual and
having the ability to speak both.
      Oddly enough, in the realm of bi-linguality, it is Hispanics who
have generally done a far better job of obtaining that advantage than
us Anglos.
 
LG>Coincidental only in that it was the language spoken by the people who
LG>conceived of this great experiment, who laid out the plans for this gre
LG>experiment, who founded this great experiment, and who died to implemen
LG>this great experiment.
 
         Not exclusively and most certianly not universally.  In the
American revolutionary period virtually all from Pennsylvania spoke
German.  Throughout American history Hispanics from Texas and the
southwest have distingushed themselves in American military service
including the late S/Sgt. Marcio Garcia who won the Medal of Honor in
Viet-Nam and hardly spoke a work of English. 
         We also do not all share a common link to the American
Revolution.  In Texas, for instance, we fought, and won, our own
revolutionary war and pay homage to our own founders, most of which
were either bi-lingual as were Sam Houston, Jim Bowie, Stephen F.
Austin, Lorenzo de Zavala, and Willian Barrett Travis, or were even
only Spanish speaking such as Juan Seguin, Jose Rodriguez and his
brother Antonio, or Oscar Benitez.  Yet, among our founders and those
who died valiently in the cause of Texas independence, we also have
mono-lingual Anglos such as David Crockett and David Burnet.
          Unlike many other nations, the United States is made up of a
variety of peoples with a variety of cultures, histories, and
experiences.  While the American colonies were fighting the English,
many of the people of Texas were struggling under the yoke of Spain
and far removed fromt he American experience not throwing off that
yoke until decades later in 1824.  
LG>Never met the first Indian who was incapable of speaking English. Perha
LG>they do exist somewhere, but I have yet to meet them. Lived in several
LG>areas where Indians did when I was growing up, too.
 
            You need then to go to either Alaska where native
languages still prevail, or perhaps visit Puerto Rico, where several
million American citizens, and their government, operate almost
entirely in Spanish.  Or, if you prefer, visit the valleys surrounding
Santa Fe, New Mexico where English is rarely heard and most people
remain unfamiliar with the language.  We also have large areas of south
Texas where English is not spoken and many native born American
citizens do not speak the language.
            Relative to native Americans, since there is but one very
small native American reservation in all of Texas, I have had no
exposure to native American languages or cultures so I cannot say.
LG>Nope. They were, like it or not, the conquering people. Else we would h
LG>been living under tribal rule, and all of the freedoms we both love wou
LG>be strictly theoretical.
 
      Are they not already?
 
LG>No one, to the best of my knowlege, has attempted to force any individu
LG>to speak English in his daily life. I still don't see the problem with
LG>requiring them to *know* the language before allowing them to demand 
LG>benefits, protections, and perks that are taken from the people who 
LG>populate their "adoptive" country. 
 
     I do.  First, the test administered by the INS is not a measure of
an individual's ability to speak English.  Second, I do not beleive it
is the language a person speaks, but the ideals they hold that define
them as an American.  I personally believe if we spent a little less
time working on language, and a little more time getting away from the
"benefits" and "perks", we would all be better off.
 
LG>I see. Would that be the same "First Amendment" that guarantees me that
LG>would never be forced to learn history...math...geography...government.
LG>English...or any of the other required subjects that I was forced, unde
LG>color of law, to learn? 
  
    In a sense, yes.  I do not believe the Constitution allows the
state to determine what a child will or will not be taught.  I beleive
that would be a parental choice, not a choice of the state.  As a minor
a child's rights are supervised by, and the responsibility of, the
parent.  If a given child's parent desires that these things not be
taught that child, then, I beleive, the parental preferences must be 
strictly adhered to.
    This would, I beleive, be a very odd case and most certianly not
the norm, but I am a fierce advocate of a free market, voucher
based, educational system whereby parental choice is the prime
consideration.
 
LG>Then explain to me why teachers in Scott County, Mississippi are given 
LG>choice of learning Spanish, or losing their jobs.
 
       Stupidity...there is no other explianation. When government
attempts of do anything, the result is absurdities such as this.  Let
the market, through supply and demand, determine what educations will
be offered, who will instruct them, and in what language they will be
given.  If there is not market demand for a language, the marketplace
itself will eleminate the need for any such requirement.  If the need
does exist, and the demand is present, a supply of bi-lingual
instructors will emerge to fill that demand.   
       Government operates from the position of central control,
attempting to anticipate demand and provide supply.  As such, it
produced unnecessary and ofter absurd inefficiences in an attempt to
blanket a potnetial demand that may never appear, thereby sacrificing
the ability to meet supply more efficiently in other areas. 
       The problem with the example you give is not the
multi-lingusitic nature of the children themselves, but the concept of
centralized government control of the educational sector.  Remove
governmetn from education and the inefficiecies and absurdities will
disappear.
 
MA> There are values that being an American relates to, but not a
MA> language. Our own citizens, from Puerto Rica to Alaska, do not all
MA> speak English. If we ourselves are not entirely fluent why should we
MA> require it of others?
LG>Before we go any further with this sidebar, perhaps you'd care to clari
LG>the terms "we" and "fluent".
 
       By "we", in this context, I am refering to the American people,
American citizens, as a whole.  Becuase of Puerto Rico, millions of
American citizens, with more born every year, do not themselves speak
or function in the English speaking world.  It seems a bit double faced
that we, American citizens, require those who have otherwise met all
the criteria necessary to become an American, to learn a language that
millions of American citizens themselves do not speak.
       By "fluent", I am referring to an ability to carry on a
conversation in a given language and covey, and well as receive,
full meaning of the conversation.  Generally, an individual who is
"fluent" can watch televison, listen to radio, or function without
great handicap in the language of fluency.  This, of course, does not
imply literacy in the second language which I consider an independent
skill.
 
      I consider the welfare state a separate issue and oppose it's
perpetuation.  Using a language requirement as a means to secure the
integrity of the welfare state, which has no fiscal integrity no matter
what we do, is simply suggesting, as do social liberals, that if we
just spend a little more money we can make socialism work.
      If the true objective is to reduce welfare spending, then the
appropiate means to do so is not to spend even more money on soething
else, the appropiate means to do so is to cut back on welfare spending.
It is the height of absurdity, although a common practice, to grant the
government more power and more money under the pretense of reducing
government power and spending.  That track leads to nowhere.
 
LG>Then again, we have dropped the necessity of even gaining citizenship
LG>before those benefits are wrested from the pockets of those rightfully
LG>here and given to those of illegal status.
 
        True...and the solution is not social isolationism, building
walls, laying minefields, turning our frontier into a militarized zone,
adding tens of thousands of new government employees and new agencies
and administrative units, restricting the liberties of the people, and
imposing criminal liabilites on businesses converting them into an
extension of the INS, all of which cost us billions and billions more
in tax dollars, but to simply cut the social spending programs
themselves.
MA> 
MA> I will join you in putting an end to social welfare and public
MA> assistance programs, for all, at the expense of taxpayers.
LG>Well, we're getting to *some* common ground. But I'll go you one better
LG>I'd be willing to deport all our welfare scuffs as well.
 
         Why?  Look beyond the welfare state.  If we put an end to the
social handouts, those now dependent upon them must become productive
memebers of soicety.  Even if they do not do so and become reliant upon
private foundations, charities, or churches, do they not continue to
have a right to live as they choose, where they choose, so long as they
respect the lives and property of others?
         All of the scapegoating, hatred, fear, paranoia, social
classification, exhorbinate counter-balancing programs, restrictions
upon our freedoms, and in-fighting we are doing among ourselves will
cease the moment the welfare state is dismantled.  All of it is a
product of the social left's attempt to perpetuate an idealistic but
unworkable proposition. 
 
           If I fire a weapon I must take responsibility for what I
hit.  The left fired the weapon of the welfare state and full
responsibility for the social ills that have resulted from it must be
placed squarely upon their shoulders.
  
                                         /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------