Bleacher Bums Forum

One major problem with getting the latin vote is that most Latinos are liberal on many issues.  Like most Americans, they thing the government CAN and SHOULD create and provide jobs.  They think the government SHOULD help people that were financially hurt by earthquakes, floods, hurricaine Sandy, Katrina, etc.  They think that the government SHOULD provide loans for college students.  They think the government SHOULD ensure that everyone has health care.

More than 50 % of the country believe these things, and the Latino community is among them.  The argument that the government has no constitutional power to do the above things is absolutely meaningless.  As long as conservatives are seen to be against the above actions, they will be looked on in the same way that a teen ager looks upon the parent that doesn't allow him to go an an expensive skiing trip that they can not afford.

First, dave, the Hispanics in this country are by and large more conservative than the rest of the electorate.  Next, if they are as you seem to describe them, how do you explain 41% of them having voted for Bush?

You are one of those who have called for making English as the national language... and you appear not to understand the way that alienates immigrant voters in general, and particularly Hispanics, who understandably (and correctly) believe such calls are generally swipes at them -- it is not because anyone is upset that the automated message when you call your bank offers you the option of pressing "3" to hear the message in Latvian or Mandarin Chinese.

You chase those voters away by supporting policy positions which would do nothing positive, and which cause the candidates you support to lose.  And then there are the idiots like Packrat who do so with more aggressive insults which they call "jokes."

Both of them cause Hispanics to feel unwelcome in Republican circles, even when the Republican positions may be much more in line with their positions than Democratic positions.

In the process the Democrats win, and the Hispanics will come to view themselves as Democratic and predictably and consistently vote Democratic, even when the party is out of step with their own beliefs.

First, dave, the Hispanics in this country are by and large more conservative than the rest of the electorate.  Next, if they are as you seem to describe them, how do you explain 41% of them having voted for Bush?

I am not very good at Jesmath, but that seems to mean that 59% of them did NOT vote for Bush, even though Bush had a reputation of being pro-immigration and his brother was married to a Latina.

I am in favor of making English the official language because immigrants continuing to speak the language of their former country delays their integration into the country.  If that causes them to vote against me, so be it.

But you are wrong when you say that immigrants are more conservative that the american public.  Recent studies have shown that on issues like government caretaking such as Obamacare, Social Security, etc. they are more liberal than the public in general.

But you are right that the american public in general tend to be middle left, rather than the commonly stated middle right. 

The issue is no longer whether or not the government should "fix" the economy, but only "how" they should fix it.

The issue is no longer whether the government should lower health care costs.  The issue is only "how" they should fix it.

The issue is no longer whether we should give amnesty to illegal aliens.  the issue is only "what we should do before giving that amnesty.

One last point in response --

I am in favor of making English the official language because immigrants continuing to speak the language of their former country delays their integration into the country.  If that causes them to vote against me, so be it.

Making English the "official language" would do virtually nothing to speed the rate at which immigrants learned English.  You would not be prohibiting them from speaking to each other in their native languages or from reading native language papers or listening to native language radio or watching native language TV.  The ONLY thing you would be doing is alienating them, and leaving them living more in the shadows as they were not able to function in society as well as if anything were translated for them.

You also have never really explained just how such foolishness would work.

Would the federal government pre-empt the states and prevent them from providing services or education in anything other than English?

Would criminal defendants who did not speak English just be scruwed in court because they didn't speak English?  If you had an important witness in a case, would you not be allowed to translate for them?  Would businesses be forbidden from providing services to their customers in anything other than English?

What would such foolishness do beyond making idiots like Sportster feel good about themselves and beat their chests, and to alienate the largest voting block in the country?

When a goal may be desirable, but the strategy to reach the goal is likely to be not only ineffective, but counter-productive on multiple levels, the strategy is not a good one.

If you are concerned about public schools being taught in Spanish in Milwaukee, could you answer the question I posed about it?  Would the federal government pre-empt the states and prevent them from providing services or education in anything other than English?  Would the federal government also prohibit states from offering driver's exams in anything other than English?

And if you REALLY want to get immigrants to assimilate, why NOT require them to speak only English, ban foreign language newspapers or broadcasts?

If you aren't concerned enough about the concept of federalism to give you pause regarding federal mandates of local school instruction, you really shouldn't be bothered about things like the First Amendment.

Certainly, if there was a Constitutional amendment to make English the official language, the Federal Government would prevent states from providing services in anything other than English.  That would seem to follow.

Not really, because there is nothing in making a language "the official language" which to me would even suggest that services could not be provided in anything other than the "official language."  I would actually assume it to mean that official business of government would be conducted in English, in other words that members of Congress would use English in the bills they drafted, the legislation they passed, and in their own debate on the floor.  That would not necessarily preclude a translation also being provided.

And as always, you are using the reductio ad absurdum fallacy in your argument.  There is no reason why making English the official language would reasonably necessitate banning the use of other language in personal or private interchange.  I certainly would not argue that we should do so, but you can use it as a straw man argument if you wish.

It is not a straw man.  It is a result of the ambiguity of the phrase "official language," combined with your stated goal.  You believe that requiring all government services and business to be conducted in English without any official translation, you will be meaningfully encouraging immigrants to learn English and assimilate -- that is your goal, but that goal would not be in any real way encouraging folks to learn the language.  When they went to deal with a government office, they would bring their neighbor as a translator.  Kids in school would not learn English any faster, and there is a very good chance they would learn it more slowly than they would in a school making any effort to accommodate the needs of the kids.

In substitute teaching I have subbed in classrooms where the school put all of the Spanish speaking kids together with a teacher who spoke no English, and the school provided no teaching assistants to help the kids.  These were high school kids.  It was a government class.  And these were a group of kids who did genuinely want to learn English, and who genuinely wanted to learn about their new nation and its government.... and they were not learning a damb thing.  The teacher lectured them.  Gave them textbooks they could not read, and then did not even allow them to removed the textbooks from class, and tested them in English.  Of course none of them learned anything.  It was an absolute waste, and assures that those kids will grow up and finish school as second class citizens.  It is a foolish, misguided approach.

But if you really wanted to get the goal you say you want, you would do the things I mentioned -- requiring folks to communicate in English at all times, or at least to require all newspapers/magazines/broadcasts to use English.

And you still have not addressed what would be done with a criminal defendant who did not speak English or the vital witness who did not speak English.

Those questions are not reducing things to absurdity (though the idea itself has always seemed rather absurd to me).  They are very real questions.

And, by the way, there is no logical reason why, if I want one portion of the Constitution changed by amendment, that I must therefore be in favor of ignoring all portions of the Constitution.

Perhaps I have missed it, but in the past I thought you had called simply for legislation doing this, not a Constitutional amendment, or said you were not really interested in addressing constitutional issues, but were simply discussing in an abstract manner how things "should be."  But if the issue were actually debated as a Constitutional amendment and it made it thru Congress and got sent to the states, things would be even worse, because the proposed amendment would fail, and the party seen as responsible for it would be signing its death warrant.

Certainly, government employees teaching in government schools at government expense could be considered "official business".  But if not, the contitutional amendment would allow a federal law to be passed banning such teaching.

It is often amusing to see folks who at times profess great concern for the Constitution, its limitations, and the concept of federalism, so eager to scrap, or at least ignore those concepts when it comes to something THEY want to do.

One such example is when "limited government" Republicans call for "tort reform" on a national level, replacing tort law in 50 states developed over well more than 200 years with uniform national legislation drafted by the same folks who have given us ObamaCare.

Another, dave, is when you call for the federal government deciding what STATE governments will do in dealing with people in those states, including when it tends to traditional state functions such as education.

Might as well scrap the concepts of federalism entirely if you are going to allow Congress to dictate how states will teach students in public schools.  Just have one set of national laws, everywhere, all made by our infinitely wise representatives in Congress.

And you genuinely think this is a good idea?

dave, the amendment you offer would scrap federalism, and that is at the very heart of the constitution.  Scrap federalism and the amendment process itself will effectively have been made easier because of the greater control held by the federal, and the vastly weaker position of the states.

You contend I have criticized Christianity because it did not ban slavery.  You are wrong.  I never have.  I have pointed out the Christianity has APPROVED of slavery. but that is quite different from either criticism or the matter at issue (a ban versus approval).

Do I feel it should have been left to each state to decide whether to allow slavery, until such time as the Constitution banned it?  Yes.  That is my belief.  I also believe each state should be allowed to legalize or criminalize abortion, despite my rather clear opposition to abortion, just as a state should be allowed to legalize or criminalize murder of those who have already been born.

But I notice that you STILL have not answered the question I have now asked you at least five times (not just in our latest exchange here, but also in prior discussions of your idea of making English the "official language"), since all government services would have to be provided in English, what would be done with the non-English speaking criminal case defendant or the non-English speaking vital witness in court?

And I have not contended that what you propose would not be allowed under the Constitution, or that the Constitution could not be amended to require the States to take part in it.  I have pointed out merely that what you propose doing would gut basis concepts at the very core of the Constitution.  This is not at all saying the Constitution would not allow it (which is what you suggest with your reference to hiding behind it), but instead to point out that what you propose would involve such fundamental changes in the relationship between the states and the federal government that you would effectively have altered it in ways and to an extent you seem not to have considered.

I don't believe I have ever argued, or even suggested, that there is anything in the Constitution which would prevent a state from establishing English as its official language.  I have argued against it, and pointed out that it would be mistaken, foolish and misguided, but not that it would be unconstitutional.  I have also pointed out that a state could adopt some OTHER language as its official language... and that that would also be mistaken, foolish and misguided.

But nowhere in my position has there been any hiding behind the Constitution.  A bit surprised to see that kind of a straw man argument from you.

But, as I have at lease alluded to before, if you are going to amend the Constitution to require English to become the official language not just of the federal government, but also the state governments, and you are going to so fundamentally alter the concept of federalism as to have the federal government dictate the language used in state funded schools, and if you are wanting to do all of this in the name of assimilation of developing a sense of a single national identity, it would make sense to also change the First Amendment to at least require all publications and broadcasts to be in English (that is not a restriction on content), and also to take steps to limit the plethora of broadcast choices now available on TV. After all, when there were only 3 channels available, a national identity was much more likely to develop and be fostered by limiting the entertainment options.  Make sure everyone is watching Lucy, Ozzie and Harriet or Leave It To Beaver and your goal will be much further advanced.

I, personally, do not believe that it is necessary to require "Ozzie and Harriet" to be broadcast only in English.  If you believe so, then make your case.  It certainly has nothing to do with my suggestion that official government business be conducted in English, since I am not aware of any official government broadcasts of "Ozzie" being broadcast in other languages. 

But of course, you knew that.