Hopefully no one is assuming that you want to discourage people from learning English when they arrive in this country. In fact, immigrants should be encouraged all along the way and public schools and private agencies provide many services to enable that. I guess people such as myself question where to draw the line. Sure, part of this bill is merely political grandstanding, since most if not all of the state business is already conducted in English, but with so many different languages being spoken in Ohio and the seeming lack of interest by some immigrants in learning English and becoming more acculturated, if and where do government officials draw the line?

I think you make a lot of good points too – in addition to IDing Kyle's and others.

Thank you.

That is a FANTASTIC question for Ohio State Rep. Mecklenborg who is taking taxpayer dollars as his pay for his work in the Ohio General Assembly as someone elected by constituents in his district.

Why indeed would State Rep Mecklenborg who obviously spends a lot of effort thinking about politics, seeing as how he is an elected official and politicians, waste his time on an issue like this?

Let us know when you get the answer.

To me, the whole thing seems like an excuse for libs to call conservatives ignorant racists, and for conservatives to call liberals anti-American.

Now, check out how the equally racist crap that's showing up is now getting that eye roll treatment from Republicans and other non-Obama supporters while those of us who know it's racism are being asked, "What do you mean it's racism? How is it racism? Explain to me why you think it's racist."

If you don't realize that an English-only bill is wrong on all the levels described in this thread and at the Blogging in Tongues nineteen posts? Then you don't get it. There's nothing to add.

I conserve my parries for attacks worth blockin – yours don't rate an effort at this point – you write to read what you have to say – not because you actually care to learn, engage or otherwise be constructive.

When you write as if you care, let me know.

Wow that's weak, Jill. Can't you come up with some more fancy words like homogeneous?

Also, you wrote, "Do you wish to pay more in taxes to open a parallel civil service system for non-English speakers?"

Is there evidence that that's about to happen? Is that the basis of Mecklenborg's bill? Did he proffer such stats?

That's your interpretation Larry and I'd say it's very extreme in addition to being wrong.

Larry wrote: "Aren't there practical reasons that English should not be the "official" language? What is the "danger" from your side?

Larry – I don't need to find a danger. The burden is on the legislator and the folks seeking the legislation.

"Protecting our langauge" is exactly the goal of groups like LaRaza.

Do you wish to pay more in taxes to open a parallel civil service system for non-English speakers?

Of course when someone uses that term they're placing themselves in a position of being the opponent's psychoanalyst and/or intellectual superior. It's a tired strategy.

In this case, you seem to be saying anyone who disagrees with you is a racist stemming from their unsophisticated roots in homogeneous hick towns. Now whose mind do you think that will change?

Aren't there practical reasons that English should not be the "official" language? What is the "danger" from your side?

So – I'm not wielding fear or preaching it. I'm saying that I believe that Mecklenborg is manipulating people who possess some fear about the inevitability of diversity brought on by being an open society and allowing immigration. When people use phrases like needing to protect our language or preserve our language, we are using them based on an assumption that that there is a danger; assuming there's a danger means that you have a fear about something that is…endangering you, or, in this case, egads – foreign language is endangering us! (sarcasm)

So – that's the element of fearmongering by Mecklenborg and others who think this strain of legislation has any value that I'm pointing to.

It's entirely unfounded and to the extent that Mecklenborg is being preachy, I completely agree and thought that that's why he and other supporters hate so-called "nanny" laws – but they can't seem to get enough of Phil Burress and others.

Hope that explains it a bit better but if not, well – there's always more cyberspace.