The national debate on whether or not English should be the official language of the United States did not begin in earnest in 1981.
The leadership of the late Sen. S.I. Hayakawa helped intensify the debate at the national level. Hayakawa, an immigrant himself, began to express alarm about the reluctance of the growing immigrant population to learn English. As Hayakawa began to express his views, he found that many people shared his views.
With these people, Hayakawa helped established one of the most powerful pro-official English organizations in the country. Known as U.S.English Inc., it is currently the largest citizens' action group dedicated to making English the official language of the United States.
Hayakawa had his view on the importance of learning English formed by his own experience of leaving Chile to study architecture at Columbia University. Several statements made by Hayakawa are posted on the English First website. These statements make Hayakawa’s view on the language debate clear.
“Learning English was never an option nor was it something to which I objected or feared. It was required for success if I wanted to enjoy a prosperous life in the United States”.
This view, indicative of immigrants from a relatively high socio-economic status who primarily come to the U.S. to study, is clearly not the view of the majority of immigrants who have arrived in the U.S. in the last 20 to 30 years.
As Dr. Carol Wilkerson, dean of foreign languages and English to speakers of other languages at Georgia Perimeter College notes: “The largest number of recent immigrants primarily come from the five poorest states in Mexico. They come looking for work and often they have been encouraged to come by American businesses and politicians.”
Until recently, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services paid little attention to the large number of immigrants who entered the country without documents. These immigrants, often working as migrants in the onion field of South Georgia or the lettuce fields of California, have little in common with immigrants like Hayakawa.
Thus, in important ways, the debate about making English the official language of the United States, becomes a debate about the cultural and linguistic identity of different immigrant groups. Seen in this context, it is clear that the language debate is clouded by issues of power and economic privilege.
Dr. Karen Harris, president of the Georgia teaching English to speakers of other languages organization said, “Although coalitions such as English First have not yet succeeded in their efforts on a national level, they have enjoyed much success at the state level. There are currently 30 states that have enacted laws making English their official language.”
The predominate arguments the pro-English groups do not address the different perspectives created by differing socio-economic status and/or power. Rather they focus on the idea that making English the official language will unite Americans and encourage immigrants to become more involved in American civic life.
These arguments ignore the complex questions created by the fact that a significant number of recent immigrants have entered the U.S. without proper documents. Discussion about these immigrants is more often linked to the debate about immigration in general rather than to the specific debate about language.
Ignoring the language difficulties of immigrants who have entered the country without papers is one of the major criticisms against pro-English groups. Dr. Judy Holzman, professor emeritus of Spanish and English to speakers of other languages at Kennesaw State University said, “It diminishes the language debate in terms of failing to adequately understand the reality of the daily life of immigrants in the United States.”
The focus of pro-English group on national unity makes a focus on the daily reality of illegal immigrants almost impossible. However, failure to address this issue strengthens the suspicions of those who think that pro-English groups are not as patriotic as they present themselves.
As reported on James Crawford’s Language Policy Web Site & Emporium, pro-English groups such as English First are united in their efforts to keep the debate about the English language alive and well. Almost every session of Congress, an amendment to the Constitution is proposed.
While these national efforts have not been successful to date, there is every indication that the pro-English groups have the resources and will to keep the debate alive for many years.
An additional and equally effective pro-English argument is that making English the official language of the country will save taxpayer money. For example, U.S. Rep. Paul Broun’s “English the Official Language Act of 2008” says that no person has a right to receive federal documents or services in languages other than English. While the 2008 bill failed to pass in the Senate, similar bills are being introduced this year.
While limiting federal documents or services in languages other than English may cause confusion, it could save money on costly translations. While Broun’s arguments about saving money and streamlining government have failed in the past, they may be better received in the 2009 Congress, a Congress struggling with many issues related to the economic recession.
If opponents of the pro-English groups are able to successfully demonstrate that the savings of a pro-English government are insignificant, the pro-English argument focused on national unity may be more difficult to challenge.
Broun succinctly captures the essence of the pro-English movement focus on unity in an interview reported by Jim Brown in the politics and government section of One News. He said, "We have a saying: 'E Pluribus Unum' -- and the Unum, unity, oneness of America should be officially the English language," argues Broun. "It's what's going to bind us together, ... and it's, I believe, critical both economically as well as societally to have English as the official language in America."
