English-Only Laws Are Offensive to Our Nation’s Cherished Diversity
English-only/Official English laws perpetuate false but persistent stereotypes about the immigrant community, and fuel divisiveness and anti-immigrant sentiment. Scholars across the political spectrum note the reality that new immigrant populations are integrating at faster rates than in years past. This integration, though, is challenged by the hyperbole and hostility that currently dominates any serious discussion of immigration reform.
One only needs to look at history to see the flaws and questionable constitutionality of English-only policies. The push for English-only policies today, and the hostile climate in which they have arisen, are hardly unique in America’s history. In the late 1910’s, amidst nationwide anti-German sentiment fueled by World War I, several states passed English-only laws that sought to restrict the use of foreign languages in public. The most famous example was a 1918 edict by Governor William Harding of Iowa, which became known as the Babel Proclamation, and outlawed the use of foreign languages in all schools, all public addresses, all conversation in public places, on trains, and over the telephone. Most of those arrested under this proclamation were turned in by eavesdroppers and switchboard operators for using a foreign language during private telephone conversations.
Although proponents of anti-German laws of that time portrayed them as efforts to have “a united people, united in ideals, language and patriotism,” these efforts had unmistakably xenophobic roots. The Supreme Court addressed the anti-foreign language movement in 1923 in the seminal case of Meyer v. Nebraska, in which it found that English-only laws unconstitutionally infringed upon liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The case involved a challenge brought by a German group against a Nebraska law that prohibited the teaching of the German language to young children. The Nation’s highest court noted that the life, liberty and property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment included the right “those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” In holding that teaching and learning a foreign language were privileges included in that protection, the Court stated:
”The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced with methods which conflict with the Constitution – a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.”
The Meyer Court’s invalidation of the challenged English-only law was rooted in the Court’s recognition of constitutional principles of tolerance and respect for diversity. Contemporary English-only proposals are no less offensive to these ideals and directives.
It’s time we move the debate away from perpetuating hostile myths and focus resources and attention on the progress of immigrant populations and how we can further their integration. Our nation has a rich history of diversity and serving as a melting pot for various cultures. English-only policies ignore history and offend who we are as a nation.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
You have to consider for a moment, what if you spent your entire life speaking one language, then you move to a country where freedom of speech and expression is supposed to be a given, then the moment you get there you're expected to learn a whole new language, a language that is rather more complicated than yours, as the English language is compared to languages such as Spanish. I do not believe that it is fair to ask citizens who have no reason to learn English (beyond our asking them to) to learn it because its the "official language". The country is in shambles right now and asking the government to supply the tools to teach them a language comprised of hundreds of other languages is nothing short of cruel to those immigrants and no doubt difficult to supply the means on the side of the government with the economy the way it is. All that considered, I think it would be better, if obtaining cultural knowledge is your goal, to have translators help. The children of immigrants no doubt do speak English and could help, and the government requires translators for countless languages because we have constant interaction with foreign countries. We shouldn't have an "official language" in my personal opinion. We have one flag, yes but we also have flags for different nationalities and for different branches of the government. We are a country of diversity and freedom, and therefore forcing people to learn another language when it is not completely necessary isn't fair. They can be a part of our society without speaking English.
Also, there is always going to be prejudice. Its human nature. A Mexican girl won't like a white girl because she's white or she's blond or because she talks different. Or a white male won't allow his daughter to be friends with a Jewish girl or a black girl or a Mexican girl, etc. Prejudice will always be here, no matter what the official language is and no matter what a person speaks. We may not like it but there it is.
Your argument does not work .
Do you know why Americans are not liked abroad at times? Because they go to France, Germany or any European country and EXPECT people to speak English. Based on your statement they should be able to expect that because they shouldn't change for any country or learn their culture or language because no one should be expected to work harder to be understood by the standards of their new place to live. Americans shouldn't go to France and expect everyone to know English. That's rude. The same has to be said for Mexicans that come to America and expect to just get by speaking Spanish...it's rude. It's rude and insulting for someone to expect to be catered to when they decided to move from a country where they understood the language to one they do not. It's lazy.
If I moved to Switzerland I can't expect to never learn the native tongue. That's just stupid.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
You are mistaken when you claim those who do not speak english can be part of our society . They, in fact, cannot. What this discussion is missing is that this official language would be what the government uses to communicate. Meaning, all official documents, signs, letters, directives, memos and leaflets should be in English and English only. We should have accomodate people who do not wish to learn English. Sure, it is there choice. They do not have to learn it, but then they will never be part of our society. What a shame.
Why? I have no problem with a Spanish subsign on roads... I want them to know what's coming too. Testing for English in the driver's course won't solve this; it will just turn immigrants into illegal and unsafe drivers. However, I would want this to somehow be subject to democracy ; we don't need to pollute roads with signs just because the sign-maker knows someone.
Although we should embrace and encourage the learning of many other languages, it is not logical to have more than one official language. This does not mean that no other languages can be spoken here.
New immigrants should be encouraged to learn English as quickly as possible. We should give them every tool at our disposal to assist them. It is to their benefit and the benefit of all of us to have them assimilate into our society.
How much precious cultural knowledge we can gain from our new citizens if we all speak the same language – and how much we all stand to lose if we cannot communicate with one another.Difference in language is just one more barrier in the battle to eliminate prejudice. The more we have in common with each other, the more we can learn from one another.
We should have only one language as our official language just as we have only one flag - The American Flag.