Minnesota Votes

2005 Special Session 1 Senate Bill 23 (English as Minnesota's Official Language)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Mady Reiter on June 6, 2005, to establish English is the official language of the state of Minnesota. English would be designated as the language for use by the state and local governments, for government officers and employees acting in the scope of their employment, and for government documents and records.
    • Referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee on June 6, 2005.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Mady Reiter on June 6, 2005. New Comment

1) English should be the official language [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2006]
Through research, I have been unable to find any logical piece of research that a bilingual education or society has any benefit to the people. Learning English should be a priority to new immigrants and others as a primary language. These people should assimilate to our culture, not us to theirs. The potential cost to our government and school programs to become bilingual is enormous and I can find no benefits to this. Engish should be our official language.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Uncivil civil legislation [by Anonymous Citizen on August 17, 2005]
Establishing an official state language is offensive for two reasons. First, Minnesotans who do not speak English are already discriminated against, this law would only further the discrimination, making them legally second-class citizens. Secondly, it is offensive to the memory of the non-English speaking immigrants who settled the state of Minnesota, they were discriminated against and berated for their inability to speak English, but they built this state. Modern Minnesotans should remember their roots and respect their fellow Minnesotans.
Thank You.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) RE: English [by Anonymous Citizen on August 19, 2005]
My grandparents came to MN from Finland and Sweden. They spoke no English, but made every attempt to learn, even at their advanced age. They were discriminated against because of cultural differences, i.e., what some "native Minnesotans" considered Communism. (The true natives, Native American Indians, were accepting of the immigrants). My ancestors left their home country to escape communist rule by Russia. They had a culture of "socialistic behavior", i.e., strong ties to others in the community through picnics, dance halls, and other means of gathering. "Socialistic" was misinterpreted by "native Minnesotans" to mean "communism", which was totally off the mark. My father spoke Finnish at home and learned English in school, and thus was able to teach his parents some English. There is no reason that can't be the case now. Immigrants who move to the U.S. should expect to learn the English language.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) RE: RE: English [by Anonymous Citizen on August 19, 2005]
I applaud you for that earnest and heartfelt story about your grandparents.

And through it all, I'm glad you can see that asking immigrants to try to learn the language is not discrimination.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) You are missing the point [by Anonymous Citizen on August 18, 2005]
This legislation is appropriate, necessary, and long overdue. It should be proposed and passed in every state in the union.

In short, it has NOTHING to do with 'civil rights', bigotry, or racism. It has EVERYTHING to do with state spending, and the administrative operation of our state.

We do not need to spend billions of tax dollars on printing every state form in 30 different languages, hiring 30 interpreters for every meeting, changing every road sign, teaching every public school class in 10 languages... the list goes on and on. Once you start down this road, it is a slippery slope.

This legislation is not about discrimination. There will be nothing in this legislation that will cause us to disrespect our heritage, or foster racism against our immigrant population.

In fact, the very immigrants which you mention; the ones that built our heritage and made this country so great, did so because they worked hard to ASSIMILATE our language, while still bringing their honored traditions into our cultural melting pot.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) cost of language [by Anonymous Citizen on September 17, 2005]
I find it hard to believe that in Minnesota's multi-billion dollar budget, the cost of printing some forms in more than one language is so significant that we have to spend our time and energy making legislation that will add unnecessary barriers to those working to become productive members of our community.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Re: "Cost of language" [by Anonymous Citizen on September 19, 2005]
"... making legislation that will add unnecessary barriers to those working to become productive members of our community."

-----------------------

'Those working to become productive members of our community' are the same ones that are working to assimilate the language, and to become self-sufficient. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

Keeping immigrants dependent on government by conducting all business in 100 different languages is not good for our state or our society.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: