Readers React: What our English-only attitude costs America

To the editor: While your editorial chastises Donald Trump for calling on his fellow Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush to “set the example” by speaking English (and not Spanish), your own use of language betrays a common and unfounded attitude prevalent in the U.S. (“Bush vs. Trump, en Español,” editorial, Sept. 4

By invoking the possibility of a nation “divided” by linguistic diversity, you give legitimacy to such a view. Why must a nation be “divided” by linguistic diversity and not enriched by it, as most other modern nations are?

Though it is true that speaking English is associated with higher earnings, it is also true that being literate in more than one language (including English) confers economic advantage and that the children of immigrants who are denied the opportunity to become bi-literate actually suffer an economic penalty. They would earn more (and go to college at higher rates) if they were bi-literate.

Refusing to speak in a language other than English also carries a real economic cost to individuals in a globalized society and to the state.

Patricia Gándara, Los Angeles

The writer, a professor of education at UCLA, is co-director of the university’s Civil Rights Project.

..

To the editor: I think your editorial missed the point. It is not a question of anxiety that the U.S. will be turned into a multilingual and culturally diverse society. It already is. It is a question of why one group of immigrants is and has been treated differently by the major political establishment.

Historically, all immigrants to the U.S. have been expected to learn English. It is part of becoming a citizen and finding common ground to communicate and flourish.

How would we function if candidates married to Chinese partners “reached out” by speaking to their constituents in both Chinese and English? Imagine the ruckus if Jewish candidates “reached out” and spoke Hebrew and English.

Clearly Latinos have been treated differently because they are such a large voting block and it is a way for politicians to try and get their votes. This is not reaching out — this is pandering.

Unfortunately your editorial perpetuates the myth that this kind of pandering is simply “outreach.”

Ellen Freyer, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Trump continues to show a very narrow vision of America, a country with many languages (although certainly English is the key to success).

Bush’s example is the one to follow as he shows a more comprehensive view of the country’s linguistic landscape. It’s a very rich tapestry that goes far beyond English and Spanish but includes languages from around the world as well as Native American languages.

Is Trump telling Native Americans that they must also speak English in their own country?

Domenico Maceri, San Luis Obispo

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook