English should be the official Language of America

Righty: "It will lower taxes. How will it lower taxes? Well, we can now deny people of social security, because they can't get a job due to only speaking Spanish. Heres how it would work: In the state of New Mexico, there are 5,000 people who get unaployment pay from the state. They get $10,000 annualy. They can't get a job, because they can't speak english, and they have no inntentions of learning. Now, they have to pay $50,000,000 to people who are just lazy to learn anything. If the english becomes the official language, they won't have to pay these people, because they don't know the official language, which is the reason they can't get a job. That's $50,000,000 (probably more) the citizens don't have to pay, or will but used to improve school, parks, etc." This may be the least logical paragraph you've submitted yet. Where to begin? 1)I have said several times, with no refutation on your part, that not being able to speak English already limits your ability to get a job in this country. Making English the official language wouldn't change anything in that regard, unless I am correct in point number 2: 2)Your refusal to define what an official language entails has made this entire paragraph completely useless. But it seems as though you are trying to say that if we had an official language, we could deny jobs to people simply because they don't speak English. A law denying American citizens jobs because of the language they speak would a.Be a disastrous blow to the workforce b.Result in much higher unemployment c.Result in higher poverty Beyond all that, a law denying employment to otherwise law-abiding American citizens would be unconstitutional. Life Liberty and Property. Also, SS money doesn't go to schools and parks, its put into the SS money. This has little bearing on the argument, I suppose, but that's how it is. Trust me, when the time comes, you'll notice that deduction on your paycheck, haha. Righty: "I beilve these were the same questions as why should we..., just diffrent wording." Actually, no. You still haven't told me what it entails. That means telling me what exactly the policy will be. Will we make it illegal to speak Spanish? Will we give money to people who speak English? Will it be purely symbolic? What? There's infinite possibilities, none of which you mentioned specifically. And you moved my wording around for some reason. I think you misread it or something. No harm done though I suppose. Righty: "Well, that's a tough question. First off, it'll change our country for the better. When tourist come to the country, they'll know what language to speak. Also, it will put more emphisis on WE in the United States." The tourist point is completely laughable. I feel foolish even addressing it, but okay. What tourist arrives in the United States after months of studying Latin in the hopes of being able to communicate? I cannot overstate how ridiculous that is. As for the "WE" comment, equally ridiculous, mostly because you give no explanation of what that actually means or what result an "emphasis on WE" would have for the country. Thank you for taking me on in my first debate, I hope I followed the normal format and made some good points. If you argue for this again, I suggest you begin with a clear definition. Thanks again! Good debating.