Have you ever seen a Spanish language publication and wondered what the title/headline means? Have you ever driven by a business with signage in Russian/Korean/Arabic etc and not had a clue what they were selling? Why is that OK? Certainly I understand that merchants in Chinatown are going to advertise in Chinese because of the many local residents who are more comfortable in their native language. That's cool. But doesn't such "Chinese Only" advertising discriminate against English speaking consumers?

I propose a law be created that requires: (1) all non-English commercial signage (of any size) to include English translations in a reasonably sized subscript [some sort of % of the original text size]; (2) all non-English publications must have English translations of headlines, titles, chapter names, and captions; and (3) all non-English broadcasts should have English subtitles/2nd-Audio per whatever the same rules are that currently support these features in the other direction.

Such a law will have two powerful benefits: (A) it will encourage the use of English in all commercial settings thus opening the door for potential customers that otherwise would avoid such businesses due to the language barrier, and (B) increase the opportunity for non-English speakers to be exposed to English words for familiar products thus expanding their ability to shop at English speaking businesses.

Nobody gives a damn about "English Only", there is no such policy in our company. We are happy to work and live in a harmony and friendly environment.

How many Americans are moving to Europe to take jobs for someone other than their own government and refusing to integrate into the society?

Admittedly the numbers are relatively small, but most of the Americans I have met here have done very little to integrate themselves into the society and remain in thought, dress, and language American.

Heck, most American soldiers I knew at least made some effort to learn German even though they were living and working in an American environment.

and most people who move to America, whether from Mexico or elsewhere, make efforts to learn English.
That is not what this law is about. It is being deliberately framed to stir up nativist sentiment. Then any disagreement can be tarred as being against business and against America. Last cycle it was the national anthem being sung in Spanish, this cycle it is English only, next cycle it will be something else.

You mean like virtually every American I have met in Europe?

How many Americans are moving to Europe to take jobs for someone other than their own government and refusing to integrate into the society? Heck, most American soldiers I knew at least made some effort to learn German even though they were living and working in an American environment.

The idea that people would simultaneously leave their native land for the opportunities available here but still feel the need to maintain their heritage, including dressing and speaking in the manner they did back home, is simply bizarre.

You mean like virtually every American I have met in Europe?

When I grew up in "da city" there were no Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans etc. There were only Italians, Irish and Germans. We all had relatives who never learned English. They were of the generation that wanted a new life, but also needed to maintain some sense of a coherent identity.

Later generations naturally formed our identities based on our experinces which were exclusively formed in America (well in New York at least...).

Thats the way things work. If the numbers in Latino communities today are such that there is a bit more of a buffer, a larger native-speaking community to be immersed in, and the result is that full homogenization takes place slower, so what? The process is relentless none the less.

Children born in America will deal with other Americans all their lives, they will not be able to remain ghettoized, nor would they wish to.

Maybe if those who are really concerned about this want to aid the assimilation process, who want current immigrants to behave like previous ones, they might consider erecting institutional channels to citizenship for those who are so well integrated into our economy.

My advice is to just chill out on all this.
It gets promoted as a big political issue by those who either have no sense of the dynamics of immigrants, or who have some nastier nativist agenda.

If EEOC is saying that any English-only rule is per se a violation incurring liability, that goes way too far. If they are saying that there may be some instances in which an employer's rule is in fact a disguised means of pointless discrimination (such as firing two employees caught speaking Spanish in an employer lunch room not accessible by customers), I'd be willing to hear out their theory that the government has a role, although federal rules that require case-by-case analysis seem to invite too much costly litigation.

The "plumbers" were Spanish only speakers.

That's an entirely separate issue, though. OSHA isn't requiring that people hire people who can't speak English.

In your case, presumably, the contractor was trying to get the cheapest possible laborers and simply didn't care that they spoke Spanish on the job.

In the case we're talking about, employers are forbidding employees from speaking other languages, even in casual conversation with co-workers, in the workplace.

While I had gone over everything with the project manager who assured me I'd always have someone that could speak English on premises, I still had a frantic moment explaining the negative affects of jackhammering a natural gas line in Spanglish. Normally, the homeowner wouldn't be home. In comparison, many OSHA rules seem trite.

Agreed but not on this scale.

We've never had a population on this scale before, either.

The closest analogue would be the 1890's and New York City, for example, had Yiddish-speaking neighborhoods for decades after the immigration of eastern European Jews to the United States.

Agreed but not on this scale.

The federal government is already involved through the EEOC. They are forcing the issue and are probably outside of the original intent of the law. Now congress is looking to remedy the situation by removing the government intervention.

And the first things most did was learn the language. The difference is that most now only want to work here, send money home and do not want to be an American. They don't want to assimilate.

An exaggeration. There continue to be communities in the United States in which German is the primary language. Within living memory there have been communities in which French was the primary language (there may still be—I haven't been to Louisiana lately).

There have always been situations of linguistic isolation in the United States. The difference today is that modern communications and transportation makes most linguistic isolation self-imposed and a political statement.