Article wrote: ...it was "for all our servicemen and women who died for our country," ...

I wonder if these people realize how many foreigners have died while serving in the US military...

Whatever

For after all what's man in nature? A central point in between nothing & all, infinitely far from understanding either.

WHATEVER!!!

For after all what's man in nature? A central point in between nothing & all, infinitely far from understanding either.

This is my new favorite thread.

A completely bizarre example of irrational xenophobia and ignorance is showcased, and somehow SUPPORTERS surface!

The level of ignorance in this thread may, on an ignorance-per-post (IPP) basis, be approaching a forum record.  Usually it takes at least 4-5 pages for it to get this thick.

"No good reason to speak a language other than English in public"?  Are you freaking kidding me?!

I despair more for this crowd than I despair for my bumper-sticker-logic-misunderstanding friend.

oldsoldier wrote: And by the way, other than in the court of current public opinion what court, judge or whoever has found that: "the majority goes oppresses the views of the minority and blatently disregards the document that the country was founded."

Brown v. Board of Education, and a zillion other decisions.

It is my understanding that all these laws, acts, ordinances are written by lawyers, reviewed by lawyers, rewritten by lawyers, sold to the polititians to sell to the public by lawyers, and only when enacted or wins in a public vote, only then does someone on the non-winning side find it unconstitutional........

Lawyers are not a unified class.  They have disagreements, they have agendas, and some are just idiots.

Example:  Katherine MacKinnon (uber-feminist, and not an idiot) spent much of the 80s pushing an anti-pornography ordinance on municipalities around the country.  This ordinance was blatantly unconstitutional on its face for several reasons.  I have no doubt that she knew that.

Nevertheless, she forged on.  Most municipalities wisely didn't enact the ordinance, but public debate ensued (her real goal, IMO).  It was enacted in some towns, and was quickly slapped down by courts in each case.  This also did not dissuade MacKinnon.

Other times, towns may decide to override legal advice.  The Town of Dover anti-evolution school policy from a couple of years ago, for instance, was enacted AGAINST the very specific advice of the school attorney, who (correctly) predicted an expensive lawsuit that would be lost.

Moreover, you are wrong that these ordinances are always touched by lawyers.  Small-town politics is an animal all unto itself.  I am reasonably sure that no lawyer was involved in drafting the ordinance in some Florida (where else) town that declared that Satan was not allowed in their town.

It is unconstitutional to limit the "Freedom Of religion and the practice therein", but try and say a prayer outload in a public school, or have any religious belief in the public eye. Who is oppressing now, coulod it be the "Religion of No Religion"

This is so bizarrely wrong had to read it again.

People say prayers in school all the time - the right to do so is constitutionally protected.  Teachers can't pray when acting as teachers, because the government can't pray, but people can pray all they want.

And religious belief in the public eye?  Are you kidding?  How many times do you hear the President (and every other politician on TV) talk about their personal faith?  How many athletes thank god on national TV?

The only belief that is NOT socially acceptable these days is atheism.  We just elected a muslim to congress - I wonder what chance a public atheist would have.

Predatorr wrote: no.  it's just unnecessary to speak a different language in public.

This sweeping statement just shows that you need to get out more.  There are many reasons why you might speak something other than the local dominant language in public.

What you have to say can't really be something other people don't want to hear.

And the truth comes out - it truly IS xenophobia.  It has less to do with some vague desire for a unified nation than a simple desire not to have people saying things you don't understand.

(And, of course, your statement is completely false, but that is less important)

I don't mind that much when it's spanish, I speak the language.  There's just no reason to speak a different language.

Hypocrite much?

I'll translate this post:  "It's not xenophobia - except that it totally is."

Kristofer wrote: I dont see a problem with fining those who help ILLEGAL immigrants. And allow known ILLEGAL immigrants stay on their land.

That part does seem the odd one out.  While poorly done in this case, it isn't irrational in principle.

That's what makes this law extra puzzling, in terms of truly understanding the motivations of the people involved.  I would have loved to have been at the town meetings where this was discussed.

But I must say that this makes me want to go to this little podunk town and speak every language I know (other than English).  Heck, I'll even make up a few extra languages.  I wonder if pig latin is prohibited by this law?  Or the special language I speak to my imaginary friend?

Fine don't agree with it but admit that in other countries if you hung the american flag at your house you'd be hung. And by other countries I mean some of the countries whose flags are flying around here. And then talk to me about "DELICIOUS FORCED NATIONALISM"

For after all what's man in nature? A central point in between nothing & all, infinitely far from understanding either.

Galm </\> Zero wrote: Fine don't agree with it but admit that in other countries if you hung the american flag at your house you'd be hung. And by other countries I mean some of the countries whose flags are flying around here. And then talk to me about "DELICIOUS FORCED NATIONALISM"

Please point to one specific country where flying a US flag is punishable by death.  Just one.

That said - I am sure there are many countries where flying foreign flags is frowned upon.  I am also sure that those are countries that we should not be comparing ourselves to.

"It's illegal in North Korea and Iran" is not a good argument for making something illegal in the US.

I don't care one way or the other I really don't, but for all of you to get all up in arms that one pitiful excuase for a town made it a law, that probebly won't stick if it was taken to the supreme court anyway, is ridiculous. I'm sorry if you don't agree with the whole an eye for an eye philosophy. And did I say that you'd be hung by the government? No, you might just be hung by your neighbors though. Am I saying it's right? No, but is it right to get upset becuase one town outlaws it? If you have such a problem with it when the proposal comes to your town vote against it.

For after all what's man in nature? A central point in between nothing & all, infinitely far from understanding either.

Clearly there are places in the world where flying a foreign flag will make you unpopular with the locals.  Duh.  But again, these are not countries that we should be comparing ourselves to.

"You will get lynched if you fly a US flag in Mogadishu" is not a good argument for "let's make flying foreign flags illegal here".  In fact, it is a uniquely BAD argument.

As for Galm:

Galm wrote: ... you all need to learn how to back down when a topic really doesn't concern you, do any of you live in that city? do any of you fly a non american flag? then what does it matter to you

This argument is also known as "they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew so I didn't stop them".  Your position defeats itself.

And, BTW, I do fly a non-US flag.  So do many of my neighbors.  So even by your twisted logic I guess this does concern me, even if I don't live in Pahrump.

Well fine then, deal with it, somewhere other than here.

For after all what's man in nature? A central point in between nothing & all, infinitely far from understanding either.

Galm </\> Zero wrote: Well fine then, deal with it, somewhere other than here.

Other than where?

oldsoldier wrote: So if I fly the Stars and Bars, I am OK in the new PC world......

Of course you can fly the stars and bars.  It is your constitutionally protected right.  You might face individual criticism, much like others get for flying foreign flags, but that's an entirely different matter.

AdmiralSenn wrote: For some reason the sound of the language bothers me - nothing to do with the people speaking it. Dunno why. Maybe it's the fact that all of my Spanish teachers were brutally insane and I have bad memories of all three years...

I'm sure there is a clever joke here someplace, but I am not smart enough to develop it properly.

I still think that if someone plans to move to a country, they should at least try to learn the most commonly spoken language there so they don't have problems doing things like buying food.

Or getting a good job.  Not speaking the local language is a massive handicap, and not learning it is a foolish thing to do.  Absolutely.

Warning, anyone without a sense of humor should skip the first few sections.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: I'm Completely irrelevant.

Clark Kent wrote: I wonder if pig latin is prohibited by this law?

Okay, now that I got the childish behavior out of my system, I'll be serious.  In my own defense, this topic, and some of the reactions to it just demand childish behavior.  While I am in favor of immigration reform which includes not allowing illegal aliens of any nationality to sponge off of any taxpaying citizens this specific law is nothing more than blatant racism. It will not survive the least of legal challenges. (I agree with CK, it would have been quite interesting to listen in on that town meeting.)

Below, are a few things for both sides to consider in their arguments:

• Colorado http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_094003340.html - schools ban patriotic clothing (including flag representations).
• http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22188 - California and Arizona as well.
• When it comes to flying flags, http://www.readingeagle.com/blog/editorials/archives/2005/09/officials_are_r.html - where is the line drawn between free speech and hate speech?
  
• http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer.01/ - Supreme court decision on school prayer.
• The other side: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/855351/posts - In school, but not school sponsored , prayer.

Shorty -

You are right that this particular bill is generally harmless, mainly because Pahrump is a fair description of the town.

But:

1.  "English as the official language" - you are right that this would not prohibit other languages spoken in public.  That came up during this discussion, and is related only to the xenophobia of forumers, not this law.  BUT - (not having read the actual ordinance) "official language" is a meaningless phrase in a vacuum.  The impact depends on what it means.  Sure, town hall meetings will continue to be conducted in English.  Fine, whatever.  But some proponents of "official language" legislation have suggested stronger measures, along the line of "no government publications in non-English".  This becomes more problematic, as it can restrict the flow of information to citizens.  Shouldn't volunteers on election day be allowed to explain procedures in Chinese to citizen voters, to ensure a properly cast vote?  Won't AIDS awareness campaigns be more effective if conducted in multiple languages?

2.  The flag thing.  You are correct - it is dumb.  I see no other possible interpretation of that whole idea.

3.  Benefits to illegal immigrants - this is much more tricky.  As I indicated above, it is the odd one out, as it is actually more intelligently targeted.  While entirely nominal with regards to Pahrump, it is much more problematic in other cases.  "Benefits" is a rather large and vague category.  Should ER workers obtain proof of citizenship before saving lives?  Should the police check status of tenants before investigating burglaries?  Should Legal Aid not provide lawyers for illegals accused of crimes?  Many of the "benefits" that are intended to be covered by this type of law are already (theoretically) not available to illegals anyway, and these laws end up becoming "ask Hispanics for green cards" laws rather than true benefit restrictions.

I note that you (and others) also appear to divide the world into two groups - citizens and illegals.  There are millions of folks in the US that fall into neither category.  Some pay income taxes, some don't.  Some are here permanently, some are not.  Some speak English, some don't.

Addressing illegal immigration concerns is a laudable goal, but legislating xenophobia isn't the way to do it.

As to "pressing 1" - No legislation will make that go away.  Private businesses will continue to do that, because private businesses like money.  You may be able to call the IRS without pressing 1, but not your bank.  And, of course, why shouldn't the IRS have information in multiple languages?  Many folks will have legitimate questions for the IRS that do not speak English, including legal migrant workers whom few people would expect to speak English.  All money earned in the US is taxable here, regardless of where you actually live or how long you stayed.  It would only seem fair that if we are going to take their money for taxes we should try to answer their questions.

It's just not that simple.

Mack wrote: Below, are a few things for both sides to consider in their arguments: Colorado http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_094003340.html - schools ban patriotic clothing (including flag representations). http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22188 - California and Arizona as well. When it comes to flying flags, http://www.readingeagle.com/blog/editorials/archives/2005/09/officials_are_r.html - where is the line drawn between free speech and hate speech? http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer.01/ - Supreme court decision on school prayer. The other side: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/855351/posts - In school, but not school sponsored , prayer.

You're going to have to be a little more specific if you were making a specific point, Mack...

But I would generally be wary of using school dress codes and behavior codes as examples of law in action - I would venture that the bill of rights is violated more frequently in US public schools than in any other sphere of life (except maybe LAPD squad cars). 

Many good points, as always.

 - I recognize the difficulty with line-drawing as to how many/which languages should be included in any particular publication.  No answer will please everyone.  I would suggest, however, that trying to figure that out is time well spent, and simply declaring "English only" is both lazy and counter-productive.

 - I figured you would know about the "middle" categories of immigration, knowing what I do about your family background - that was addressed mostly to others in the thread.

 - As to legal immigrants - I also have some personal experience with the issue.  I will acknowledge that as a group legal immigrants tend to be harshly anti-illegal immigration.  But simply having gone through the system legally does not necessarily give their opinion greater weight.  I would suggest that this is mostly an emotional response.  In my experience, many (but certainly not all) immigrants who have lived here a very long time tend to have a more measured view of illegal immigration, and I know plenty of (non-Mexican) immigrants who marched with the illegals this summer.  I would suggest that our entire immigration scheme requires massive overhaul, both with regards to legal and illegal immigrants, and a result it can be (IMO) a bit arbitrary to draw a complete sharp contrast between the two.

Learning language is great.  We should encourage it, and we should provide language classes (like some other countries do - not the sad classes offered some places in the country, but real language training).

The issue arises when there are suggestions that people should be "forced" to learn English.  In my experience, these suggestions invariably arise from an incomplete grasp of the breadth of diversity that exists within our fine country.

EDIT - but, notwithstanding the foregoing, I fully intend to make efforts to learn Spanish, and will make serious efforts to teach my children the same.  Because the truth of the matter is that the country is slowly becoming bi-lingual, and you can become part of the wave or be crushed by it.

At the risk of drowning in my own metaphor...

I favor dikes as well, but we should take care that we build ones that work, instead of just standing on the beach like grumpy old men ordering the water to stop.

I also believe that it is better for the nation and the economy if everybody is fluent in a common language - multi-linguality is inefficient.

What I don't want is for us to be so determined to accomplish unilinguality that we forego more basic and important principles in the process.  Common language is a convenience, nothing more.  It is not worth sacrificing valuable ideals to obtain.