Posts
Comments

Bilingual budget

Aug 22nd, 2007 by Nelson Benton

Count me among those unimpressed with the recent decision by Lawrence officials to print the fiscal 2008 municipal budget in both English and Spanish.
Why? Take it from a former president whose profile is atop Mount Rushmore along with those of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. . . . But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. . . . There can be no divided allegiance here. . . . (W)e have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.

That was Theodore Roosevelt speaking in 1907 when he was president of the United States. I found the quote in a recent Providence Journal editorial, whose author had this to add:

What he (Roosevelt) meant here was that that one language — English — must be kept dominant to protect the mutual comprehensibility needed for American democracy to work in an ethnically heterogeneous society. English is one of those things that keeps our society and political system from flying apart.

People should be free to speak and write in whatever language they choose. But official documents should be in English only.

Posted in Nelson Benton | Comments

  • jacrlsn
    Amen to your comments. Many come here illegally (AKA undocumented) and then think we should speak their language. If they won't learn to speak English and there is a need to communicate, what is the alternative.
    By the way, have you noticed there are some phone systems where "press 1 for Spanish and 2 for English" is the new menu?
    Our priorities need to be 1)throw All the incumbents out and 2) make it clear that whether it's a law or not, our language is ENGLISH.
  • Mark Walters
    Sadly, your angst is tragically misplaced and the fact that you are supporting your opinion on a quote from a president whose words were largely empty speaks to your historical ignorance. While the text of his statement comes across as egalitarian, when President Roosevelt made the above statement, legal immigration to our shores was limited to a few eastern European countries. (This inclusion was not meant for Asians, Caribbean Islanders, Africans, or folk from the Middle East. but that's probably besides the point.) Coupling that with the fact that our country was engaged in the costliest and bloodiest war to date against the former countrymen of a large percentage of these people, it is clear why he felt moved to make such a statement.
    I too am unimpressed with the bilingual budget. However, it is because the city's leaders didn't think it was important enough to perform the translation on the earlier drafts. This should have been done in May or June. I am also saddened by the fact that it was only placed online a couple of weeks ago.
    Overall, I am happy with the effort. If it means that more people will become active participants in the way the city does its business, it's all good. We are a society that is built on democratic principles after all.
  • jacrlsn
    I'm sure Mr. Walters meant to say that he thought legal immigration was limited to a few Western European countries,(it wasn't- apparently the revisionist are attempting to rewrite history still.)
    I don't believe legal immigrants care about a bilingual budget. They are to busy learning English so that they can take the oath of citizenship which I hope is still in English
  • Tim
    If we stick to ONE language ENGLISH, then we are bias to no-one. If we choose spanish (regardless of the numbers) then we are bias and discriminatory to the rest.
  • Mark Walters
    No, I meant largely Eastern European; those remarks by President Roosevelt were made in 1919 while Woodrow Wilson was President. During the 30 year period from 1890 - 1920, most European immigrants were from the southern and eastern parts of that continent. The passage of major immigration legislation in 1921 and 1924 curtailed that trend. Revisionist history? Are you serious ? Immigration laws are drafted by the Congress. Immigration policy execution falls under the President's purview. They are written down and archived and we can look them up and read them for ourselves. It's strange that anyone would think that, especially since all US legislation is written in English. There are many decent books on the US immigration history at Lawrence's library. If you'd rather use wikipedia, read this article with a critical eye..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of...

    Help me, I have trouble understanding why some people have a problem with making things easier for others who don't have a strong command of English. Why should official documents be in English only ? How does Lawrence's budget being translated to Spanish have a negative impact on your life ?
  • Negative impact? Lawrence taxpayers don't want to pay for what they're getting from the city now, so how do you justify the cost of printing two sets of budget documents?
  • Steven Deschamps
    I'm unclear as to Mr. Walters' comments meaning. If I read his conclusion correctly, Roosevelt's speech was directed towards the European immigrants of that time. Those non-English speaking immigrant groups would include those from France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Greece and others.

    Does this mean that since there was such a diverse immigrant population, at that time, as opposed to the mostly Spanish speaking immigrant of today, that only those Europeans should have assimilated themselves by speaking a common language in their new homeland? Even if I were to believe that the former U.S. President's words were empty speak as was stated, there is logic in the premise. As far as I know, this blog is only written (or produced) in English thus alienating every other single-language speaking culture. Each single-language speaking person is now denied the opportunity to read, comprehend and respond to these opinions.

    Clearly, a single language is not detrimental to the Republic as it allows one citizen to express them self and be understood by their fellow citizens. Assistance by the government with assimilation into the English speaking culture is admirable and should be encouraged, however multiple languages, especially in governmental affairs, should be vigorously discouraged. Free speech, as guaranteed by the Constitution, can only flourish if all parties understand the issues and can debate them with a single language.
  • Tennis Lilly
    Has it occurred to anyone that CITIZENS from non-English speaking U.S. territories, i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa etc. can easily establish residence in the "mainland" thus gaining the right to vote but not being able to speak English (or at least not read it well enough to fully understand a ballot)? Under those very real (and in cities like Lawrence, all too common) circumstances would it not be reasonable and fair to provide ballots in languages other than English?

    There is no constitutional basis that I'm aware of for barring non-English speaking citizens from exercising their right to vote.

    Moreover...government, especially at the local level, serves ALL the residents of a community, not just voters, tax payers, or even citizens. The actions of the Lawrence School Committee or City Council effect ALL of the residents, regardless of their citizenship, language or immigration status. If we truly value effective government and democracy, we should want every voice to be heard. It makes perfect sense to produce important government documents in many languages for ALL of the residents. More democracy, not less.
blog comments powered by Disqus