Argument: The Identity and History of the United States are intrinsically linked to the English Language

From its very founding, English was the common language of the United States, and full participation in the national life was dependent on the ability to speak it. Theodore Roosevelt himself once noted that "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans ” [1]

Declaring English as the official language will give legal force to this history, and help provide unity to Americans at a time when many come from different backgrounds and hold different political views.

Furthermore, it will help immigrants with the process of assimilation. Rather than simply learning English for pragmatic reasons, the act of learning English will tie immigrants into a political and historical tradition going back to Thomas Jefferson.

[1] Opposing Views, ‘Linguistic Unity Is Critical in an Increasingly Diverse Society’, 2010, http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/linguistic-unity-is-critical-in-a...

Candidate 1: "English is the de facto official language of the United States already and that is not under threat at this time. There is no prospect of it being replaced with Swahili and of children three generations in the future being unable to read the declaration of independence.

As a consequence the major impacts of this move will be symbolic. First of all, it will enshrine and endorse the idea that the true Americans were the first Americans, that the English colonists who arrived on the continent speaking the language already were the only real Americans, and that everyone who arrived later is an American by integration.

Not only is this untrue – the Dutch settled New York [1] – but it also places a stigma on that integration. By tying American identity to the British colony the United States was rather than the ideals the nation was founded on, the government would adopting an exclusive definition that in some ways goes against those ideals, including for instance, the inclusion in the US constitution that anyone born within the territory of the United States would automatically be a citizen.

[1] New Netherlands Project, ‘New Amsterdam’, http://www.nnp.org/vtour/regions/Manhattan/new-amsterdam.html"
Candidate 2: "Bilingual education is exactly that – bilingual. Students do not simply abandon the English language – they intensively study it. The only bilingual classes are provided in other fields such as math and science - subjects critical for future employment to ensure they do not fall top far behind.

On the contrary, while immersion may teach English better, there is a lot of evidence that it tends to increase drop-out rates substantially, [1] indicating that for a number of students it is in fact less effective since it is hard to learn anything in school if you don’t attend.

Even those who don’t drop out tend to fall substantially behind, hurting their educational efforts, and undermining their position in the workplace. A mathematician or scientist does not need perfect English – they do need good grades in other courses.

[1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009, http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/04/07/boston_stu..."
Candidate 3: "All of those accents are varieties of English. The meaning of English as a unifying force is that across Americans’ differences of religion, politics, history, and yes dialect, at the end of the day they are all brought together by a common language and a common ability to communicate within it."
Candidate 4: "It may well be that some people backing the push to make English the official language have questionable motives, but the movement should be evaluated based on its results.

Right now Hispanics are already stigmatized, whether on one hand as temporary labourers unable to speak English and therefore destined for the worst jobs, or as an invading horde planning to conquer the United States.

For better or worse, the self-segregation of the community reinforces many of these beliefs, while it also prevents their kids from learning English. If this policy helps to break this self-segregation up, and the children of Hispanic Immigrants become as American as the children of German immigrants became in the early 20th century then their opportunities will be greatly increased."
Candidate 5: "The segregation of students in this case is not a function of their language skills, but of their lack thereof. Simply placing non-English speakers in a normal school will not suddenly make them friends with everyone, especially if they cannot communicate. If there are other speakers of their language, they will likely form a separate social group with those students, speaking their home language among themselves, which will undermine efforts to teach them English. At the same time they will likely do poorly in school as they will struggle to comprehend the content of their classes. [1]

If other ESL students don’t exist, they will likely become socially isolated, with all the negative results this can potentially lead to such as depression or even in extreme cases suicide.

[1] Vaznis, James, ‘Boston students struggle with English-only rule’, boston.com, 7 April 2009, http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2009/04/07/boston_stu..."
Candidate 6: "English-only policies are not about encouraging acceptance of diversity, and to the extent they are about bringing people together it is by forcing immigrants to abandon their culture.

From the very beginning of the English-only movement during the First World War, when anti-German sentiment led to attacks on German-speaking immigrants, the idea of English as a an official language has been brought up to stigmatize immigrants . [1] The very debate over the implementation of the policy would do more to stigmatize immigrants than could be made up for by any benefits it could provide.

It may well be that forcing Immigrants to speak English and work in it would help them to assimilate but so would deporting them across the country where they would be forced to sink or swim. We don’t do that because it would be wrong.

Secondly, all of the government’s benefits are based on the assumption that individuals can learn English quickly if they are forced to do so. But learning languages is a long process, and the government’s policies would leave large numbers of people worse off before they managed to pick up the language, assuming they ever did.

[1] Opposing views, ‘English-Only Laws Are Offensive to Our Nation’s Cherished Diversity’, 2010, http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/english-only-laws-are-offensive-t..."
Candidate 7: "England today owes much to Roman settlers, and for nearly four centuries it was governed by a French speaking nobility – yet this is not a reason for Britain to have either French or Latin as official languages.

The fact is that we can recognize that all Americans today speak English, while also recognizing that their parents, grandparents, and great-grand-parents may not have. In fact that is exactly what making English the official language will recognize, the role English has played in bringing people together and creating a national identity by making these people Americans."
Candidate 8: "This policy does not stigmatize people who cannot speak English. It rather affirms the hard work of those who have. There are numerous stories of how proud immigrants have been to take their citizenship test, and by strengthening the idea of identity it makes it more meaningful.

Secondly, if money is redirected from bilingual education to providing individual tutoring, it may well help individuals who have trouble learning English in a class environment. It has never been suggested that the government has no role to play in helping people learn English."

English is the de facto official language of the United States already and that is not under threat at this time. There is no prospect of it being replaced with Swahili and of children three generations in the future being unable to read the declaration of independence.

As a consequence the major impacts of this move will be symbolic. First of all, it will enshrine and endorse the idea that the true Americans were the first Americans, that the English colonists who arrived on the continent speaking the language already were the only real Americans, and that everyone who arrived later is an American by integration.

Not only is this untrue – the Dutch settled New York [1] – but it also places a stigma on that integration. By tying American identity to the British colony the United States was rather than the ideals the nation was founded on, the government would adopting an exclusive definition that in some ways goes against those ideals, including for instance, the inclusion in the US constitution that anyone born within the territory of the United States would automatically be a citizen.

[1] New Netherlands Project, ‘New Amsterdam’, http://www.nnp.org/vtour/regions/Manhattan/new-amsterdam.html
