RSS
Home
An excellent example of an emotional anti-"English First" argument
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
A recent commentor here responded as follows to my post on the necessity, or lack thereof, of proposed "English First" legislation.
Thanks for raising awareness of this issue. There is no doubt that Nashville and TN, which are already lagging behind other metros and states in many economic development areas, will suffer more because of this measure. Imagine the plight of some Japanese or Korean executives arriving in Nashville for a meeting at their company branches. The companies will have to chaperon them around the city and the city hall if they have some business to do with the city or state government. This is the exact opposite of what is happening around the world. In countries like China, Brazil and India state and city governments are bending over backwards to attract international companies. This contrast is going to matter a lot. Such parochial policies are never good for any city or state that aspires to grow economically. All reasonable people should vote against this amendment.
I started to reply in the comment section but when my response grew to post length, I thought to move it here, instead. While I agree the amendment should be voted down, I believe your arguments both miss my point and utilize an emotional scenario clouding the issue and making it more difficult to have a rational and effective discussion. I offer the following not to directly contend with you but as an illustration of how and why this issue has become such a contentious matter in Nashville.
Your position will surely arouse some opposition to the amendment. That's a good thing. But it is ill-conceived and illogical opposition and that helps no one. My point was and remains "English First" is a senseless duplication of existing legislation. Nashville is already bound by an "English First" proposition established by state law. "English First" is already a legal reality in Nashville! You did not address that at all.
As for a scenario wherein visiting businessmen are unable to conduct business with the city of Nashville due to the policy, the possibility does exist for reality to play out as you describe. The question must, however, be asked, how likely is it that is will? I contend it is highly unlikely.
Consider that nothing in either current state law or Crafton's proposed amendment would prevent the company from hiring a translator to represent itself in your scenario. If the company has a local office which the non-English speaking employee is visiting, how was the company planning on having the visitor communicate with local colleagues? Do you believe the city should provide a translator for the company's needs in that case? Likely not. Either a local employee is sufficiently bi-lingual to satisfy the visitor's needs and could, therefore, also serve as an interpreter for business with the city or, if the company hired an interpreter for its business at the local office, that same interpreter could serve for its business with the city as well.
Further, I'm not convinced that in the scenario you describe, Crafton's amendment would prevent the city from hiring an interpreter, should it so choose, if it considered it needful from the city's perspective. The point of that hiring would be to render the business into English - the very thing state law and Crafton's amendment seek to do. What Crafton and other "English First" proponents appear to be objecting to is having the city forced to do so, because it is needful from the perspective of the person doing business with the city. Perhaps the difference is subtle. It is not, however, unimportant. In one scenario the city chooses, in the other it is required.
As to other cities assisting international companies wanting to do business with them, I agree that's a great way to do business. I find nothing in Councilman Crafton's amendment preventing Nashville from doing so. Indeed, as the city is currently bound by the state's legislation mandating "English First" and assuming it is transacting business with international companies, it's probably doing so already.
Which brings us full circle to my rationale for opposing the amendment. Not because it is bad for business, it demonstrably is not. It remains, however, unnecessary. Having a reputation of wasting time and money on useless legislation is a far more damning character flaw than insisting on conducting business in the official language of the state of Tennessee.
Related Articles:
Comments
