The case for
English only
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
more than 320 other tongues that are spoken in America today.
Hispanics now comprise about 35% of the population of
California, 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?
But, it’s 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. Alameda
County Medical Center, which “has 18 full-time interpreters or staff in
addition to 19 on-call translators,” is but one example of the burden that such
laws can place on public institutions.
U.S. English, Inc. offers some interesting facts about
the situation:
• “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 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.”
Trying to accommodate all cultural groups
costs big bucks. For example, the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences reported in 1997, “More than $100 million have been spent
in the last 30 years to assess the value of bilingual education. The study
concluded: (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.” The federal government was already
spending $665 million a year on bilingual programs at the time.
President Theodore Roosevelt addressed this issue in a
letter he wrote shortly before his death in January 1919, barely two months
after the armistice that ended World War I. He said, in part, “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 man’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American.
“If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own
origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as
an American.
“We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and
this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and
civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which
we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English
language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as
Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding
house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] 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, HR 997, was introduced in the
House of Representatives in 2007, and U.S. English, Inc. reports that its
purpose was supported by more than 80 percent of all Americans and almost two-thirds
of Hispanics in polls taken in 2006.
Thirty states already have some sort of English-only law
and, to my knowledge, it there have been no 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. But, that’s just my opinion.