In particular with the history of California and the proximity to Mexico, the opposite (that more than 50% speaks english) should be the story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Official_languages_of...
California is one
Almost 100% of Spanish-speaking Californians have come in the past 50-70 years. Basically none have historical roots to California.
Parent comment is mostly correct, californios are an insignificant part of California in comparison to eg Tejanos.
What is known as the American state of California was part of the state of Alta California in Mexico, which was annexed by the US during the Mexican American war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_California
Years later, the Mexicans as well as their descendants, who were Americans by Jus soli (birthright citizenship) were ethnically cleansed during the Mexican Repatriation, where they were kidnapped, put into buses and trucks and sent to Mexico.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation
Many Mexicans are mestizos (mixed with Native Americans), so they have a deeper connection to the land dating to tens of thousands of years and this is reflected in the population genetic haplogroups.
I am talking about at time of annexation, 1847.
source: a group that still does this, and has land near Mt Shasta too
>Almost 100% of Spanish-speaking Californians have come in the past 50-70 years. Basically none have historical roots to California.
Correct. I go into more detail on why this is the case elsewhere. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38415835>
Indeed, there’s even no official version of English unlike, say, French and Dutch.
De jure, Wales does
Cambridge Dictionary defines official language as:
> the language or one of the languages that is accepted by a country's government, is taught in schools, used in the courts of law, etc.
There is no debate whatsoever that English meets that criteria in the UK
What's your argument there?
Though now we’re just descending in to semantics which is not very entertaining