GOP introduces bill to make English Minnesota’s official language
Monday, January 10, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Among the first bills introduced in the Minnesota House this session is one aimed at establishing English as the official language of the state. Republican Reps. Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, David Hancock of Bemidji, Sondra Erickson of Princeton, and Roger Crawford of Mora introduced the bill on Monday.
HF 64 would make English the official language of Minnesota: “No law, ordinance, order, program, or policy of this state or any of its political subdivisions, shall require the use of any language other than English for any documents, regulations, orders, transactions, proceedings, meetings, programs, or publications, except as provided in subdivision 3.”
The bill is nearly identical to previous bills that have been proposed under a DFL-controlled legislature.
Exceptions to the English-only rule include teaching languages other than English in educational settings; complying with the Native American Languages Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; promoting trade, commerce, and tourism; and promoting state or agency mottos.
Minnesota’s state motto is in French: L’Etoile du nord.
The English-only issue came to a head last summer when Lino Lakes, St. Paul suburb, passed an English-only ordinance at the urging of an extreme anti-immigration activist.
Rep. Drazkowski is the lead author of the bill and has introduced similar versions in the past. In 2009, former Rep. Cy Thao of St. Paul challenged Drazkowski to a spelling contest in English. Thao, who is Laotian-born Hmong, said if he lost the contest, he’d vote for Drazkowski’s bill.
Here’s that exchange:
28 Comments
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
Hah! Oh christ…good to know they’re tackling the tough challenges. A gay marriage bill is only days away.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 4:07 pm
What’s the point? Is English being discouraged somewhere? Where are public documents in some other language and not English too? Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. It sounds like the exceptions are numerous enough that the practical effect is nil.
If they want to make an exception for tourism, how about taking it a step farther and making information easier for non-English speaking tourists? If they want to make an exception for teaching other languages in school, how about actually funding those courses?
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
If you want to send a quick note to these folks telling what an incredible waste of time, money and effort this is, here’s the link of email addresses. It’s really simple to do.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/housemembers.asp
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
This is to prevent legal action taken by on english speakers alleging that all govenment materials should be made available in all languages. You can imagine what a waste of resources THAT would be.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 5:06 pm
Kevin, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, telling these clowns that they are wasting everyone’s time is itself a waste of time. Budget deficit? Unemployment? Crumbling infrastructure? Don’t be silly–somewhere, some government employee might be tempted to say “Buenos dias” to a patron.
After all, what could be more important than preserving our culture from the relentless onslaught by . . . whom, exactly?
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
This, of course, would actually end up costing the state money. Immediate and visceral gratification is the only thing this might satiate. Long term, it would turn us into a backward state. It’s safer and economically advantageous to have people be able to get a driver’s license, even if they are still learning the language. So driver’s test are given in multiple languages. It’s a matter of public safety and giving new immigrants the chance to get better jobs or education while they still work to learn the language.
That’s just one example of how this is long term detrimental, even if it makes some people feel mighty patriotic in the short term.
Most of the Republican agenda is about immediate gratification and long term effects be damned.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 5:57 pm
I hope the Minnesotans who voted these people into the majority come to regret their votes.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 5:57 pm
So the circus comes to town a bit early. How much will it cost to replace the French on all of the state seals, ect.? With all of the real and pressing problems facing the state, the new Republican house starts with this. It would be funny, if the problems that we face were not so serious.
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 6:54 pm
Now I do not believe that this is being done to repress or punish any group of people. I think that the idea behind it is to have a uniform language for our laws to be written in. It should also save the government money as they will only need to write the laws in one language. This though will case a strain on foreign language representation groups. They will now need to pay to have all bills and laws translated into pertinent languages.
I personaly believe that if the Minnesota government is made english only we should also add something to the bill that would acknowledge the main populations of foreign speaking citizens. They do pay taxes as well and need their proper representations.
Pingback posted January 10, 2011 @ 7:22 pm
[...] A bill to make English the official language of Minnesota was introduced to the MN House today. Complying with the Native American Languages Act of 1990 (pertaining to Native languages), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (pertaining to ASL), it wouldn’t combat teaching foreign languages in school. Note that Minnesota comes from Dakota: mni (water), sota (hazy) “sky-tinted water” or “cloudy water”, and its state motto is in French: L’Etoil du Nord (the Star of the North). However, though primarily pertaining to the issue of illegal immigration, this measure can potentially conflict with the total immersion approach proven most successful in maintaining Native languages, which is a concern in Arizona. Several Ojibwa (Chippewa) and Sioux bands are indigenous to the state. [...]
Comment posted January 10, 2011 @ 7:46 pm
Oh My Fu@king GOD!!.. I might be off on this but, didn’t we pass a Law about English Only back in LIKE the 1900′s ?? I remember stories of my Grand Mother (She spoke 100 % German) and she was outraged when the Gub- Ment made her speak English.. She told me that at the time it was outrageous!! Really Republicans?? Can we worry about JOBS, ECONOMY, Fair Taxation AND JOBS AND JOBS AND JOBS???? Here we go Mark Dayton !! This is the political climate you are dealt with!!!! Mental Retardation and Fox idiocy!! Ugh…
Comment posted January 11, 2011 @ 9:13 am
“They will now need to pay to have all bills and laws translated into pertinent languages.”
No, John, that’s not what this is about. The state does not publish “bills and laws” in “pertinent languages” other than English. That is just some polite way of justifying a plainly eliminationist bill.
What this bill would do is “save money” by prohibiting drivers’ manuals, school registration forms, immunization advisories etc. from being “translated into pertinent languages.” That’s fine, until some (perfectly lawful) immigrant doesn’t understand the traffic rules that are written in a language not perfectly understood. Maybe they’ll go to court for their transgression, and be given a flurry of forms they don’t understand and don’t get translated. Hey, that’s too bad, but at least the state saved the cost of putting it into Spanish!
Comment posted January 11, 2011 @ 3:30 pm
First generation immigrants have to learn English. Second generation, grow up speaking it. By providing documents in other languages, we’re helping immigrants make the transition.
Which I guess is what this proposed law is all about: making it more difficult for people to immigrate to the US (and especially Minnesota). Funny considering the fact that very few immigrants that settled in Minnesota originally spoke English.
What’s next; making Caucasian the official race of Minnesota?
Comment posted January 11, 2011 @ 10:35 pm
I would love it if the immigrant community would protest this bill loud and clear (as many do protest issues like this in their own countries) so that these legislators proposing this bill can see just how many Somali, Hmong, Latinos, Russians, Canadians, Middle Eastern, etc, etc, etc immigrants this law would affect!!
Jerry’s & Randy’s comments hit the nail on the head, these documents help keep our immigrant community informed. I do not know one single immigrant who doesn’t want to learn English–they do and know it is important for their success in our country. But just when does an immigrant mother or father have the time to take English classes when often they are working more than one job and having to take care of their families.
Why can’t we make lheir assimilation a bit easier by providing some necessary documents in another language? Doesn’t that make us a more tolerant and accepting society? Since when did we become so ethnocentric?
Comment posted January 13, 2011 @ 1:08 pm
Why wouldn’t we want Minnesota to offer information about ourselves to people in a variety of languages? Wouldn’t that help us on international commerce, especially tourism? Of course – the bill they propose makes an exception for commerce issues.
So … what is this really about? Making sure non-English speaking citizens have difficulty with things like voting, getting fair treatment in our courts, etc?
Sounds like a nonsolution to a nonexistent problem.
Comment posted January 14, 2011 @ 7:17 am
@jeff-minneapolis – What I don’t get is why ANYONE thought the Repub rhetoric about jobs would translate into action. As soon as they were elected, they started making plans to ratchet up the culture wars full blast. Expect to see SB1070, English-only, and the virtual criminalization of LGBT be attempted in the next two years.
Comment posted January 14, 2011 @ 1:03 pm
GOP is obviously getting to some really important issues first thing.
Comment posted January 15, 2011 @ 9:02 am
So what will we do with all the townships, cities, and counties whose names are from a language other than English. I live in one that is Dakota. What now?
Comment posted January 16, 2011 @ 8:11 am
Why waste so much time talking about this issue. We’ve always have spoken English in this country. No need to be official about it. We need to spend more time on REAL issues, like poverty, jobs creation, stop the corporations from manufacturing overseas, health care, etc.
Comment posted January 16, 2011 @ 5:02 pm
This makes no sense. The official language of Minnesota should be Ojibwe. They lived here first. It’s only fair. Alert Sondra “gunnin’ to be the next Michele Bachmann” Erickson. Pathetic.
Pingback posted January 16, 2011 @ 7:23 pm
[...] days of the beginning of Minnesota’s legislative session, the GOP has introduced an English-language only law that puts non-native speakers on the defensive and would remove multilingual documentation of [...]
Comment posted January 19, 2011 @ 10:43 am
This is great news, let’s get rid of the french motto and then get rid of all the latin and greek words used in law. No more de facto, no more habeus corpus (conservatives will love both no foreign language and no rights), no more quid pro quo (except for the actual quid pro quo between lobbyists and politicians).
And get rid of that e pluribus unum. Those founders never intended the use of Latin or Greek, they hated intellectuals.
I assume that Latin masses will still be ok because of the separation of church and state that isn’t mentioned in the Constitution?
Comment posted March 16, 2011 @ 8:46 am
I sent an Email to Rep. Drazkowski this morning (March 16th) and I received a message saying my Email had been blocked. Isn’t that sweet? I admit to being a bit harsh in previous comments to him but they weren’t bad enough to warrant blocking my Email – at least I didn’t think so..
Comment posted April 19, 2011 @ 1:36 pm
Here is a link to a website that is working towards making English the official language of the United States.
http://www.us-english.org/view/8
Most of the comments above me seem to reflect a lack of understanding about what this means. Most immigrants support this. My closest friend came to the US when she was 7. We had no ESL classes. So was so fluent in English by the time I met her a year later, I didn’t know she wasn’t born here. She was simply immersed and had to sink or swim. None of the kids at my school sank. Providing everything is someone’s native tongue can actually stunt their English speaking development.
My friend is now a bilingual teacher and is very frustrated by the ESL system. It keeps her Spanish-speaking students separate from the English-speaking students. They are not learning English. She is required to teach them course material and test their knowledge in Spanish. They go to English classes a few times a week and learn surprisingly little by the end of the school year.
Another reason I support this is the astonishing amount of tax money spent on document translation and translator services. As of now, government entities are required to provide translation services for anyone who needs them because we don’t have an official language.
I would also recommend you look into the other states that have already done this. They don’t take the Latin out of law documents…lol. It’s “official English” not “English-only”. Please take some time to read up on it, especially about the tax money that could potentially be saved, which I think a vast majority of us would be happy about!
Thanks!
Comment posted September 3, 2011 @ 5:34 pm
I was looking for a petition that I signed a couple months ago before I got my new laptop and found this! You are a bunch of fools! We NEED English to be a requirement in this counrty! If they can drive, but can’t read English how can they read “deaf child” or “no turn on red”???? No American should ever get paid less because they do not speak a foreign language or told they cannot get the job because they do not speak a foreign language! I am so angry with you fools I can hardly see straight Do you have any idea how many bilions are spent on people who do not speak English??? Yes, there will be court costs, but it will be much cheaper in the long run! Think of the kids who are born here who can’t get the help they need because there were cuts for ESL students to learn English!!! Many of the low lives that don’t speak English are on public aid becuase they can’t get a good job! Lets get rid of the illugals and anyone who does not speak English unless on vacation! I am a liberal usually, but this just sets me off!!!
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







