Official Language?
For decades now, duly elected members of Congress have been trying, on almost an annual basis, to pass legislation making English the official language of the United States. I have always been opposed to such a move in the past, but in the last few years I have seen some things that have begun to wear down that resolve. Should my opinion move so far, however, as to place me on the other side of the issue, it would certainly be with the understanding that there would be a generation-long federally-funded transition period, along with continued assistance for those who need Braille or sign language (ASL) support. Here are the points as I see them:
Government
While all major functions of government at every level are conducted either primarily or exclusively in English already, there is no law requiring that they be. The largest expenses for non-English speakers are in translation, voting, and tax services and forms. A non-English speaker or Limited English Speaker (LEP) who must appear in court (as a defendant or otherwise) is guaranteed access to translation services. This has been the case for longer than I have been alive, and it was expanded in 2000 by Executive Order 13166. Ballots and tax forms are also provided in a stunning array of languages. The expenses for the translation services would likely not diminish significantly for some time, but government spending on translated documents would likely decline rapidly after the first decade.
Education
The debate over bilingual education has been raging for as long as I can remember, and it is no closer to a definitive resolution now than at any time in the past. Students educated in our schools need to be prepared to live and conduct business in the United States, and for most that means achieving at least moderate English proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking. I'd like to see that achieved with native speakers, quite honestly, but many things would become simpler, particularly in the field of English education, if we were to have English as the official language. Does this mean we would serve the students better by such a move, though? Here I am not sure. I have no doubt that a student population more capable of using the language upon graduation as today's students would do better, on the whole, but I can't say that such a change in policy would affect such an improvement.
Immigration
Here's the big one, the reason I am writing this (a senator is currently proposing federal immigration legislation that includes an official language component). After an initial transition period (perhaps twenty years), anyone not able to communicate in English could be identified as a possible non-citizen. This assumes, of course, that citizenship requirements come to include stricter English language competence (we have had some measure for almost a decade now), but such a change in the citizenship test seems a no-brainer under such a change. The question, then, is this: What do we do with all of the citizens who are not currently able to use English with any measure of proficiency? While this might make the INS's job easier, it leaves many problems.
My greatest concern is, and has always been, that an English-only environment threatens a return to Jim Crow politics. You want to vote? Prove that you can read and understand the ballot. Hell, most Americans raised on English can't understand a ballot, and I know of no one who reads the supplied full-texts of ballot initiatives (I do this only for those issues about which I find it difficult to decide or on which I wish to hold discussions, though I spent years doing it with every initiative). You want to file your tax return? Great, but if you don't know English, you'll have to pay someone to prepare it for you, and any auditors we send will not be required to communicate in anything except English. Ouch! You're a Navajo? Oh well, nobody really uses your language for anything anymore, right? We can complete our destruction of indiginous cultures rather quickly by having the BIA do a few tweaks to rules for the rez, right?
You see what I mean? For all of the cost savings (and I am a fiscal conservative who belives we need to pay of our debt, not lower taxes and put sparkling pavement into Pennsylvania towns) and possible improvements in immigration policy (including enforcement) and education, I still cannot bring myself to back such legislation.
Government
While all major functions of government at every level are conducted either primarily or exclusively in English already, there is no law requiring that they be. The largest expenses for non-English speakers are in translation, voting, and tax services and forms. A non-English speaker or Limited English Speaker (LEP) who must appear in court (as a defendant or otherwise) is guaranteed access to translation services. This has been the case for longer than I have been alive, and it was expanded in 2000 by Executive Order 13166. Ballots and tax forms are also provided in a stunning array of languages. The expenses for the translation services would likely not diminish significantly for some time, but government spending on translated documents would likely decline rapidly after the first decade.
Education
The debate over bilingual education has been raging for as long as I can remember, and it is no closer to a definitive resolution now than at any time in the past. Students educated in our schools need to be prepared to live and conduct business in the United States, and for most that means achieving at least moderate English proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking. I'd like to see that achieved with native speakers, quite honestly, but many things would become simpler, particularly in the field of English education, if we were to have English as the official language. Does this mean we would serve the students better by such a move, though? Here I am not sure. I have no doubt that a student population more capable of using the language upon graduation as today's students would do better, on the whole, but I can't say that such a change in policy would affect such an improvement.
Immigration
Here's the big one, the reason I am writing this (a senator is currently proposing federal immigration legislation that includes an official language component). After an initial transition period (perhaps twenty years), anyone not able to communicate in English could be identified as a possible non-citizen. This assumes, of course, that citizenship requirements come to include stricter English language competence (we have had some measure for almost a decade now), but such a change in the citizenship test seems a no-brainer under such a change. The question, then, is this: What do we do with all of the citizens who are not currently able to use English with any measure of proficiency? While this might make the INS's job easier, it leaves many problems.
My greatest concern is, and has always been, that an English-only environment threatens a return to Jim Crow politics. You want to vote? Prove that you can read and understand the ballot. Hell, most Americans raised on English can't understand a ballot, and I know of no one who reads the supplied full-texts of ballot initiatives (I do this only for those issues about which I find it difficult to decide or on which I wish to hold discussions, though I spent years doing it with every initiative). You want to file your tax return? Great, but if you don't know English, you'll have to pay someone to prepare it for you, and any auditors we send will not be required to communicate in anything except English. Ouch! You're a Navajo? Oh well, nobody really uses your language for anything anymore, right? We can complete our destruction of indiginous cultures rather quickly by having the BIA do a few tweaks to rules for the rez, right?
You see what I mean? For all of the cost savings (and I am a fiscal conservative who belives we need to pay of our debt, not lower taxes and put sparkling pavement into Pennsylvania towns) and possible improvements in immigration policy (including enforcement) and education, I still cannot bring myself to back such legislation.
Ignited by Andrew Purvis at 11:41 AM
1 Comments:
I amnot sure how this is imperialist. After all, who is conquering whom here? As a single sovereign nation, the United States does haave the right to name an official language (or hundreds, if it chooses).
I can see, as I noted in my original post, benefits and drawbacks to such a proposal. In any case, how such a program might be implemented is the greater issue for me. If we wait until such time as English is named the official language (if such a time should come) without having worked out a method for implementation, then we will be in deep shit. Sadly, many groups advocating such a move have little or no idea how they might implement the change without the risk of Jim Crow, and that frightens me. How much better might it be to have the discussion now on the chance that it will yield information that will make any such change (at least reasonably) palatable than to wait for the change to be coming to an underprepared nation?
Post a Comment
<< Home