One Official Language Is Much Simpler

It's unreal how people against the Arizona bill spin it as anti-immigration and racist. Maybe it's misguided or gives too much powers in the hands of police thus threatening basic liberties but, as far as I can tell, it is not racist.

Again, from the top, it's about immigrants gaining access and entry into a country illegally. What's so god dang complicated? Why can't people make this distinction? Arguing that "we love their food and culture" (as one liberal commenter said) is a strawman fallacy. Stick to the original point. That being entering a country lawfully. The taco's for everyone will work itself out.

This debate has now morphed into a discussion about national identity including the notion of official languages in the United States. Touchy subject. I'm not allergic to touchy subjects. With that here's my advice: Don't have more than one official language. Or else America will find linguistic peace fleeting. No matter how much legislation is in place - and mark my words, if you have two official languages one will always seek a law from the state - there will always be one language that feels the pinch. It may get messier if Arabic eventually joins the party.

It makes me wonder, relative to the population at the time, with their great numbers why didn't German, Italian or Chinese become a "second" language in America? What were the social and cultural conditions at the time that made this impossible?

English as a common language in the end played a decisive role in maintaining its American identity while aborbing new nationalities I reckon.

Like most things in human nature, language is a battle between competition versus compromise. Here in Canada, we pride on being "officially bilingual" but Quebec doesn't. True, it has not led to violence but it's also a social annoyance if not disturbance.

Belgium too has its own linguistic conflicts and one that goes back centuries. 

Even the greatest and possibly only model in the West - if not the world - has its issues: Switzerland. Sounds like the practical Swiss winged it so to speaks. That Switzerland has functioned so well is more a freak of historical happenstance mixed in with willing consensus than deliberate design. Nonetheless, the Swiss believe Switzerland is greater than the sum of its part and by that they can foster a strong sense of nationhood. I don't think this is the case here in Canada. Quebec nationalists have succeeded in "two-tiering" Canada to the point we don't really have a strong, united country. It's more like two in one now.

For example, the Swiss accept a certain "common" language to communicate most likely to be French. They adjust on the fly. Here in Canada, it's less so. It's not uncommon to have a Quebecois refuse to speak English to a person and vice-versa. Call it immaturity and it doesn't help when politicians - especially in Quebec - contribute to this thinking by their "nationalism of convenience."

America is not Canada, Switzerland or Belgium. It has a different path. As a society that integrates cultures as good as any (if not better) country, it doesn't need to "officialize" a language to legitimize acceptance. This doesn't mean to discourage Americans from learning more than one language - most Swedes or Dutchmen speak English without official status.

Quite frankly, I don't see the connection. Americans can become fluently bilingual if they choose to without the extra paper work.