From The Right:
The Case For “English Only”
By Harris R. Sherline
Enough
already! How many languages should
we be expected to speak in America?
And, how many languages should our government and other institutions,
such as hospitals and schools, be required to accommodate? The problem is not just Spanish speakers. It’s the 322 tongues that are spoken in
America today.
I
ran the local hospital in the late 1980s and early 90s, and we were required to
have translators available for about 16 different languages at that time. You may wonder how on earth could we do
that in an area that had a population of less than 20,000 people at the time? Fortunately, because we happen to have many
residents and visitors from other countries, it was not an impossible task for
us. But, what about other small communities
that do not have the resources that are available here in Santa Ynez Valley? Alameda County (CA) Medical Center,
which “has 18 full-time interpreters or staff in addition to 19 on-call
translators,” is another example of the burden that such laws can place on
public institutions.
Because of the huge influx of Spanish speakers from south
of the border, Hispanics now comprise about 40% of the population in Santa
Barbara County, many of whom do not speak English. So, should we be required to print all government documents
in both English and Spanish, teach school in Spanish, give civil service exams
in Spanish, hire people who don’t speak English?
The
problem is not just about communication, although that’s certainly important. It’s also a pocketbook issue, about the
economic impact that trying to accommodate multiple languages has on our
society. U.S. English, Inc. offers some interesting facts
that surely should be considered in any discussion of the “English Only” issue.
·
“Since
1980, the number of U.S. residents who are limited English proficient has more
than doubled, from 10.2 million to 21.3 million.” (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
·
“In
2000, 11.9 million U.S. residents lived in linguistically isolated households,
meaning that no one in the household spoke English at home or spoke English
‘very well.’” (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
·
“Immigrants
who speak English ‘not well’ or ‘not at all’ have median weekly earnings
approximately 57 percent of those of U.S. born workers.”
·
“Poverty
and the need for public benefits, such as food stamps, are more closely related
to limited English proficiency than with citizenship or legal status.”
·
“The
Canadian Government spends $260 million annually to do government business in
both of the nation’s official languages.”
·
“The
cost of multilingual ballots and translations represented one-eighth of Los
Angeles County’s $16 million expense in the Nov. 2004 general election.”
·
“The
City of San Francisco must spend $350,000 for each language that a document is
translated into under the city’s bilingual government ordinance.”
·
“79
percent of Americans, and 81 percent of first and second generation Americans
favor making English the official language of the United States.”
·
“Air
Canada spends more than $9,265,000 per year conforming to Canada’s bilingual
requirements, requiring the airline to generate an additional $185,000,000 in
additional sales to cover these costs.”
It’s
clear that trying to accommodate all cultural groups costs big bucks. For example, the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences 1997 reported, “More than $100 million
have been spent in the last 30 years to assess the value of bilingual
education. Two startling
conclusions made in the study include: (1) There is no evidence that a program
of native language instruction has greater benefits than any other type of
education program and (2) Teaching children to read in English first, instead
of in their native tongue, has no negative consequences.” At that point the federal government
was already spending $665 million a year on bilingual programs.
Furthermore, there are healthcare consequences for
non-English or limited-English speakers.
The Commonwealth Fund found that “limited English proficiency Latinos are 3-1/2
times more likely not to have had their blood pressure checked in the last five
years, three times more likely not to have a dental exam in the last five years
and twice as likely not have had their cholesterol checked in the last five
years.”
Multi-language
also means multicultural, and such societies often engender a view of their
fellow citizens that can easily lead to strife among the various factions. “My culture and my language are better
than yours” often becomes the unspoken mantra of those on all sides. But, is the Chinese culture better than
Mexican? Or French better than English? Or Hmong better than Vietnamese? Or
Japanese better than Italian, German, Russian, or Slovak? We may not hear it verbalized very
often, but it’s clearly present in the attitudes, beliefs, and relationships of
the many ethnic groups that make up our population today. It’s only natural. People tend to associate with those who
are more like themselves, instinctively understand them, have a common history,
the same cultural values and attitudes, and no legislation can change that.
In
my opinion, passing laws to accommodate cultural and language differences
merely accentuates the differences and tends to separate people. All too often, it engenders or increases
hostility between groups, such as we see today between certain ethnic groups
and with many of those Americans who support “English Only.”
It
seems to me that the goal is, or should be, to integrate everyone who
immigrates to our country to become as American as possible as quickly as
possible. And, speaking English is
the cornerstone for accomplishing this.
The idea of labeling ourselves as hyphenated Americans that has become
vogue in recent years is anathema to me.
Why do we want to identify people as African-American, Italian-American,
Irish-American, Mexican-American, Chinese or Japanese-American, etc.?
Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt's ideas on immigrants
and being an American spoke to this issue very clearly in 1907: "In the first place,
we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall
be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to
discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming
in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided
allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also,
isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We
have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we
have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
So,
what is the “English Only” movement all about? Quite simply, it’s about making English the official
language of the United States. A
bill to accomplish this (H.R. 997) was introduced in the House of
Representatives in February of this year, and U.S. English, Inc. reports that it is supported by
more than 80%of all Americans and almost two-thirds of Hispanics, according to
polls taken in 2006.
Thirty
states already have some sort of English only law and, to my knowledge, it
hasn’t had any significant negative impacts in any of them.
“The
English Language Unity Act of 2007 would require the United States government to conduct
official business in English,” while still retaining the flexibility to permit
or require that other languages be used to protect public health and safety,
national security, or for the needs of commerce and the criminal justice system.
I’m
all for it.
© 2007 Harris R. Sherline, All
Rights Reserved