LG>What is the language of Japan, Mike? (I'll give you a hint: no matter t
LG>fact that there may be someone living there who speaks only English, or
LG>only Spanish, or only French, the language is *Japanese*) 
LG>In France, no matter that there are people living there who don't speak
LG>French, the language is *French*.
 
       And these are hereditary lands where those languages were born
of the native soil.  English is a language we have borrowed from
England, not a langauge born in this land.  
       The French and the Japaneese are defined by their native
language, by their common ancestry, and by their mutual history. We, on
the other hand, share none of these unifying attributes but are bound
together, most uniquely among peoples of the world, by our common
ideals.  
       No matter what language we may speak, what ancestry we may
personally have, our what history or state or our forefathers may have
lived, the defining characteristic of "American" is none of these.
The defining characteristic of "American" is an uncompromising faith in
the proposition of liberty.  
 
LG>Yeppir. Entirely unimportant things, the language a person speaks. Why,
LG>person who doesn't speak English can be such a tremendous asset to the 
LG>United States. When he is fulfilling his obligation of being an informe
LG>part of his country's political process, I'm sure he can make his decis
LG>by the color of the candidates' billboards. Or if his country has to ca
LG>him up for service, his commanding officers can surely use some kind of
LG>pidgin sign language to communicate orders. Should he be called to jury
LG>duty, we can surely provide his own personal interpreter (would only 
LG>disrupt the court a *little*).
  
          S/Sgt. Marcio Garcia, who won the Medal of Honor in Viet-Nam,
spoke virtually no English at all, but that did not compromise his
valor on the battlefield.  In south Texas, it it not uncommon to have a
court translator acting on behalf of the entire court, including
jurors, and in other areas Spanish only speaking potential jurors are
simply excused where the court is overwhelming English just as in
Puerto Rico English only speaking potential jurors are simply excused
where the court is overwhelmingly Spanish speaking.
           It is our ideals that bind us, not language.  The issue of
language should be as insignifigant to us all as the issue of eye color
or religious faith.
 
          
LG>I am *very* distrustful of the motives of anyone who so desparately wan
LG>to become a citizen here that they can't be troubled to learn the langu
LG>Makes me wonder if what they see in this marvelous new country is a fre
LG>ticket, rather than a bag of bright shining opportunity.
 
      In most cases it is not a matter of desire, or "no being
bothered", but a matter of ability.  A foreign language is not
something easy to master and the degree of difficulty in doing so
varies greatly with the individual.  Some people aquire new language
skills with relative ease.  I, for example, was one of these fortunate
individuals.  Others seem to have a mental block that makes the
learningof another language virtually impossible no matter to what
degree they try.  My sister-in-law, for instance, has been in the
United States for almost 20 years, taken English courses, worked in
American homes, bought and studied tapes, and speant her small earnings
on ever every gizmo, whiz bang, and sure fire contraption imaginable in
an attempt to learn English, but, bless her heart, she's as inept at
englsih as the day she arrived on American soil.
      I deeply wish it were simply a matter of desire or even
commitment.  If it were Marixa would be teaching English at Harvard by
now.
MA> 
LG>S'okay. Having established, noted and commented upon our mutual mistrus
LG>I suppose we may now carry foreward.
 
     I think understanding and exposure often allievates mistrust.  We
quite often mistrust the unknown.
LG>I will say it again. The person who immigrates to a new country, and th
LG>attempts to live his life in the same way he lived it in his old countr
LG>shows no great affinity for his new land. He shows no intent to contrib
LG>but rather demonstrates loud and clear that he is there for his own
LG>benefit only.
 
      Outside of the distortions created by the welfare state, isn't
that really what being an American is all about?  It is my own
impression that we are a people, one of the few peoples of the world,
who believe that by working to build a better life for ourselves we
build a better life for everyone and, in turn, make our nation
stronger.  We are not a people who believes in a communal state where
we sacrifice our lives for the benefit of others, but a nation of
strong individualists who, by looking out for ourselves, also do a
better job of looking out for our nation.
LG>And the language of the United States is English.
 
       The most commonly used language in the United States is
English.  We have no "language of the United States".  In fact, I know
of at least two cases on American soil where English either shares any
claim of officialdom with Spanish, Texas, or Spamish is the offical
language, Puerto Rico.  
       Since our revolution in 1836, Texas has maintained official
parity between English and Spanish, even joined the American union with
the condition that this partiy would remain perpetually in place. If,
as you suggest, we are a mono-linguistic nation, how could such an
agreement be constitutionally supported?
      You see one very unique and interesting part of the American
constitution is that treaties carry more weight than anything else
constitutionally.  If, for instance, in a moment of extreme social
upheval, the United States were to pass an Englsih only amendement, as
some have suggested, even that would not over ride the treaty
obligations between the United States and Texas.  Not only is the
United States without an offical language, as long as Texas remains a
part of the United States, it can never claim that it is an entirely
English nation officially.
MA> Learning a language is not the easiest of things to
MA> accomplish. If it were, we would all speak several languages.  
LG>Taking up residence in a foreign country is not the easiest thing in th
LG>world to do either. Since things not easy should not be...should all
LG>immigration be halted?
 
     Not unless we wish to destroy who and what we really are, cut off
our own futures, and abandon entirely the dreams of the American
forefathers once and for all.  I would also suggest, in some places
such as Texas, where strong family ties are blind to the artificial and
sometimes arbitrary lines of govermental control, doing so would incite
an enormous and potentially destructive negative reaction.
MA> Once citizenship is gained, some never use English again
MA> since no real need exists for them to do so.  
LG>No real need? How then do they vote? By listening to others' spin on th
LG>issues?
 
    In Texas all ballots are bi-lingual.  We also have debates
conducted in both English and Spanish with mono-lingual candidates
using translators.  Newspapers, radio, and television, of course, are
available in both languages and political parties function across
linguistic lines.  
    These are not new circumstances.  In the 1836 presidental election
in our Republic Sam Houston campaigned sucessfully for the presidency
much to the credit of the assistance he received from our first
Vice-President and co-author of our bi-lingual Declaration of
Indpendence, Vice-President Lorenzo de Zavala.  Throughout our history
since that time, even up to this day, it is not umcommon that
gubnatorial candidates are often paired with Lt. Gubnatorial or
Attorney General hopefuls who speak fluent Spanish.  Our presnt Attorny
General, for expample, is Dan Morales and George Bush Jr., possibly
little known outside of Texas, speaks fluent Spanish as does Phil
Gramm.  There is a reason for this ability in Texas among sucessful
political leaders.  It's called necessity.
LG>How then do they fulfill the obligations of armed services when their 
LG>country calls?
 
     While I personally do not support involuntary servitude, even in
the guise of a military draft, and believe it clearly prohibitied by
the 13th amendment, prefering instead to allow a free people to vote
with their feet as well as with their hands, Spanish speaking Americans
have a long and distinguished record of military service in the armed
forces of the United States.
     In the old days, before World War II, entire Spanish speaking
companies, such as the company of Texans fron San Antonio that was know
as the "Rough Riders" and charged up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt
in Cuba, functioned quite well.  Even with the practice of doing away
with community based units, Spanish speaking Americans have managed to
continue to contibute.  S.Sgt. Marcio Garica from El Paso, for
instance, spoke vitually no English, apparently learning only enough to
win the Medal of Honor in Viet-Nam.
      When our liberty has been challanged the valor, commitment,
sacrifices, and duty of Spanish speaking Americans has never been at
issue.  Even in the recent events in Central America involving
Nicragua, when American regulars did exercises in Honduras, a Spanish
speaking National Guard batallion of Spanish speaking Texans was called up 
nd
deployed to serve in Honduras, under the Texas flag, as the opposing
force.  Had that war gone hot, those spanish speaking Texans, Lone Star
flag and all, would have turned and fought in defense of liberty with
the finest of regular American troops.
      Language is no a barrier to valor.
LG>Both of these are duties imposed as part of the price of freedom. 
 
     And history vindicates any claim that Spanish speaking Americans
have not, and cannot, pay that price.
LG>How do they answer the call to civil duty in the event of a jury summon
LG>How do they propose to meet the requirements for education without
LG>requiring *someone* to learn a foreign language? And why should it be
LG>native born people who never left their homeland's responsibilty
LG>to become the coerced? Where's your First Amendment's red herring
LG>protection for these people?
 
     As I have said, the willingness to do the duty is the key. In jury
duty where the vast mnajority are Spanish speaking, potential jurors
can be dismissed who only speak English, and the reverse.  In
thouroughly mixed courts a court tranlator can, and does now serve.
In parts of the Rio Grande Valley through Texas and into New Mexico,
which was once part of Texas, civil and Justice of the Peace courts do
that now.  I would suspect, in Puerto Rico, everything is reversed.
       As for education, there are classrooms in Texas where only
Spanish is spoken now.  Language is not a barrier to education and
English, just like Spanish, can be, and in some cases is, taught as a
second language.  It what a person learns, not thelanguage they learn
it in, that has signifigance.
        No individual should be coherced, Spanish or English speaking.
Each should be free to speak the language of their choice.  It should
be to ench individual to decide, for him or herself, if the need is
presnet in their own lives to learn an additional language.  It has,
for example, been traditional in my own family for generations, though
we are Anglo, to learn Spanish as a second language.  This was a
product of necessity in the years past working with the land and those
who worked for my parents and grandparents, but it also gives us an
ability to understand both of the cultures of our land.
       I have also raised my own children to be fully bi-lingual giving
them what I believe to be an advantage for the future not because any
law requires it, or because they cannot live full lives without
speaking two languages, but because of the very nature of the world in
which we live and because of the value that has always existed for any
Texan who does so.
         First Amendment freedom is the freedom to speak whatever
language, or languages, an individual may choose, not only what form an
expression of thought within a given language will take.  IMHO, noone
should be cohersed to speak any language.
LG>How 'bout employers, Mike? You for legally allowing business owners who
LG>wish to excercise *their* "First Amendment" rights to post "English 
LG>Speaking Only Need Apply" signs? 
  
        Employees should be free to hire who they choose.  Personally I
believe and individual who excludes a qualified individual on the basis
of language is only doing himself, his business, and his customers,
harm, but that ought be his, or her, free choice.  Those that will
benifit, however, and ultimately win the competitive battle, are those
that are willing to adapt of circumstances.  The marketplace is a
self-clensing proposition.  It needs no "help" from government.
 
                                          /\/\ike
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------