English-Only Negatively Impacts the Government’s Response to Disasters
English-only laws are rooted in political arguments and hold many negative implications from a public policy standpoint. In addition to jeopardizing political participation and risking violations of the civil rights of language minorities, these policies carry significant national security implications.
Examples of situations in which government officials must communicate efficiently and effectively to ensure the safety of the general populace abound. In the event of a natural disaster or terrorist threat, for example, federal emergency workers must be able to convey important information and instructions to as broad an audience as possible, a need that may require the use of languages other than English. A national English-only policy would impede the government’s ability to convey warnings or post danger or hazard signs in languages other than English. Such a policy would prevent local law enforcement from effectively investigating crimes, communicating with crime victims or witnesses, or providing critically needed services to victims of domestic violence and abuse.
In the area of public health, a national English-only policy would hinder the ability of medical personnel to communicate effectively with patients at federal or federally-funded hospitals, potentially complicating diagnosis and treatment, or even facilitating the spread of communicable diseases. English-only policies prevent language minorities from seeking cost-effective preventive health care, leading to dangerous or expensive complications, or prevent parents from immunizing their children, putting entire communities at risk.
Though these policies may make for easy attack ads in a competitive election, English-only policies carry significant national security and public health risks that should not be subject to political calculation. The conversation in Congress and in state legislatures across the country should focus on the need to provide language access, especially in emergency situations.

An official language doesn't mean the government won't hire translators. For such jobs it might be a good idea to require that employees be multilingual. What it does mean is that government and businesses can't exclude English from supported languages, while supporting any others is still an option. It might also mean that all businesses may require all employees to speak English (but not ONLY English); that would be their option.