The Quote Below: More Misinformation from the Media
“Seven years ago this week and after much heated debate, Carroll County’s governing board of commissioners voted to make English the official language. Now, the same body appears likely to repeal the requirement, perhaps in a matter of weeks. The chief reason? Because, as Commissioner Dennis Frazier reports, the original legislation has done nothing to improve life in the county except send a divisive message to those who work or live there. . . .
“And what is that divisive message? It’s not difficult to discern. The modern “English-only” movement was a reaction to the growing presence of non-English speakers, especially Latinos, and their influence in the United States. Suspicion of immigrants, whether legally present or not, runs deeply within our culture but has become especially virulent in recent years, anti-immigrant anger having proven useful to Republicans seeking to court working class voters. Making accommodation for non-English speakers by translating government documents into other languages, for example, has been twisted into an unpatriotic act or at least contrary to the goal of assimilation. That’s not true, of course. Tolerance of cultural differences remains an American virtue, but fear of “other” does unfortunate things to judgment. . . .
In 2013, Carroll’s English-only ordinance was promoted as pro-taxpayer. . . .The taxpayer savings mantra was just a fig leaf for raw anger toward outsiders. Indeed, it’s not clear there was much substance to be found in the measure whatsoever aside from its unwelcoming message. English remains the nation’s dominant language whether in Carroll County, Maryland or Carol City, Florida. But the only thing English-only jurisdictions have in common is that most lean toward the GOP, Carroll County included. “English only” is an anti-immigrant rallying cry much like building a wall.” – Carroll County Reconsiders Anti-Immigrant Message, Baltimore Sun Editorial Board, Baltimore Sun, 1/22/20 [Link]
Fact Check of Above Quote: Just what, one wonders, is divisive about having a common language to do official business? Lack of a common language for this purpose—most obviously it would seem—would promote divisiveness. How do we work together if we cannot even communicate with one another? This does not mean that people in the United States should only speak English. Certainly they have the right to speak whatever language they want in their private lives. But for public business, a common language is essential. It is the most basic requirement for civic unity.
And contrary to the editorial above, the official use of English is a most reasonable goal for the assimilation of immigrants. Immigration is not a right; it is a privilege that Americans citizens may choose to grant to foreigners who wish to settle here. This is what the citizens of a democratic and sovereign state have the right to do. To say otherwise is unpatriotic because it denies the significance of our nation and citizenship. Thus when we generously allow foreigners to come here, we have the right set conditions for their entry and residence.
Official English is one example. It gives them incentive to learn our common language well. This promotes their assimilation which benefits our national unity. It also benefits the immigrants. Without a mastery of English they are at a great disadvantage in our society. Official English most definitely is not “anti-immigrant.”
The writers of this editorial seem to think that advocates of official English can have no decent motives, that they are driven by irrational prejudice, “raw anger,” and “suspicion.” These are moral flaws, they suggest, that particularly beset Republicans.
But if they wish so to speculate on motives, they ought to be fair-minded enough to cast their gaze toward those Democrats who dogmatically support mass immigration. Some of them, it seems, actually oppose assimilation—which reduced immigration and steps like official English could bring about.
Vast linguistic and low-income cultural ghettos are not good for our country, but they are good for politicians who will offer social services to secure a reliable voting bloc. In his book, How Progressives can Win, Democratic strategist Robert Creamer advocates mass immigration and pandering to immigrants as a means for his party to gain an unchallenged control of American politics.
Nevertheless, many Republicans seem equally self-interested and indifferent to national interest—but for a different reason. They promote mass immigration to obtain an endless supply of low-wage workers.
For the sake of cheap votes and cheap labor America is losing her unity and sovereignty. In plain English, this is simply treason.