Rationality and immigration
English is Spoken Here - Yahoo! News
The second dumbest statement in the debate over Senate legislation establishing English as the national language came from Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who said it was needlessly divisive.
Wait. A law that unifies a country under a single language is divisive? What kind of logic is that?
many "accommodations" made to non-English (principally Spanish) speakers everywhere, from public transit to automatic teller machines to those annoying recorded messages when you call to complain about your phone bill.
Despite these warning signs, we're told "We don't need a law to declare the obvious--English is and always will be our national language."
Not if we continue on this course. That's why this debate is more than symbolic. Laws to strengthen English as our national language are an expected and reasonable reaction to a movement to turn America into a bi-lingual, or worse, nation, for no better reason that it's required by "progressive" dogma. It's a movement that will only divide us more.
From these folks, there's little or no discussion about how allowing America to become a nation of second languages helps to unify us. That's because it so obviously doesn't. So, instead of rational argument, they variously call their opponents "mean-spirited" and "divisive."
This is a good example of the 'logic' fallacy. Viz. only logically consistent arguments are valid. The author operates with the following syllogism. More unified entities have fewer parts than divided entities. One national language is less than multiple possible languages and therefore a nation with one 'national' language is more unified than a nation with two or more. The columnist's appeals to rationality are a common argumentative ploy on both sides of the argument along with equally frequent appeals to selected empirical evidence (whether qualitative or quantitative).