J. S.

THOMAS

Why English Should Be

the Official Language of
the United States
A Conservative Approach to Thinking
Joseph Simon Thomas
Race, Ethnicity, and Multiculturalism
Professor Strobbel, Spring 2008
Sonoma State University

This paper examines the debate over whether or not English should be the official language of
the United States. The essay provides insight to the public opinion concerning this issue, the
costs involved in having a multilingual society, as well as the benefits for immigrants to learn
English.
 It is a myth that English is the official language of the United States of America.

After years of legislature, the United States does not have an official language. Almost

every year someone poses an amendment to be added to the Constitution, however; each

year it fails. Enacting English as the official language means that all governmental affairs

must be written, and communicated, in English. In the long term it would be beneficial

for our nation to declare English as its official language. It would save the American

economy billions of dollars and encourage immigrants to learn the language of their new

country. In the words of Senator Hayakawa, “English is the key to full participation in the

opportunities of American life.” By declaring English as our official language we will be

able to unite as one, and improve the quality of living for all citizens.

The United States is a country full of immigrants and those who are born

overseas, however; upon moving to the “home of the free,” they should learn how to

speak English. There are second and third generation immigrants who do not speak

English at all. Approximately 13.8 percent of residents speak a language other than

English at home. An alarming 2.9 percent (equivalent to 6.7 million people) did not speak

English at all. Learning English opens a variety of doors and is the key to success in the

country. Speaking English is critical, however; according to the 2000 Census, 21.3

million (or 8.1 percent) of residents spoke English “less than well.”

Those residents in America who do not speak English at all increased dramatically

from 1.22 million residents in 1980 to 3.37 million residents in 2000. Unfortunately

California leads the number of people who cannot speak English well by 6.3 million

residents, a whopping one-fifth of the entire state. In contrast, the residents who cannot

speak English well have merely doubled, in 1980 there were 10.2 million people who did
not speak English well. This is compared to 21.3 million people in the 2000 Census. In

1980 approximately 1 and 20 Americans did not speak English well, compared to the

2000 Census which shows 1 and 12 Americans did not speak English well. Currently one

fourth of the households in the United States are “linguistically isolated” in which 11.9

residents speak a language other than English in their home. Currently, in the United

States, residents speak over 300 languages. English is by far the most common, with

Spanish, French, Chinese, and German being the most popular besides English. In

California alone residents speak over 200 languages at home with states such as New

York and Washington coming in close. Surprisingly over 80 percent of immigrants speak

English “very well”, but the numbers depend on their ancestry. Egyptians are most

proficient in speaking English, followed by Lebanese, Pakistanis, and Iranians. Oddly

enough only 49.5 percent of Mexicans speak English very well.

In the United States as of 2000, there were 41,601,418 people who did not speak

English in their homes, which accounts for 16.3 percent of the population. California

accounts for 10,938,446 of those individuals, followed by Texas with 5,424,068 people.

Furthermore there were 10,513,832 people who did not speak English well in 2000,

accounting for 4.3 percent of the population. From 1990 to 2000 there was a 57.6 percent

increase in the number of people who do not speak English well.

In Ca lifornia one tenth of its population does not speak English at all or very

poorly. Approximately one million of those aforementioned over the age of 14 do not

speak English at all in the home. Approximately 39.5 percent of California residents over

the age of 18 speak a language other than English in their homes. California currently has

5,917,071 residents who only speak Spanish, and have 696, 387 residents who only speak

Chinese.
 Many immigrants come to the United States in hopes of making money for their

families and providing them with a better life. Some of the popular immigrant jobs

require little to no English proficiency, including factory and field workers. Employers

cater to the needs of immigrants by providing them with instructions in both English and

Spanish. Many employers do not want the workers to learn English. With learning

English comes great enlightenment. Workers would be able to see how poorly their

accommodations are. Compare the wages of immigrant workers who know little to no

English, and those who are highly proficient. The immigrant who speaks English very

well will earn $40,741 compared to $16,345 that the non-English speaking worker would

earn. Immigrants who knew some English, but were not proficient, still made half as

much as the worker who knew no English at all.

Those immigrants who could not speak English at all, or poorly, earned 57

percent less than what a native born person would earn. Those immigrants who choose to

speak English at work, but a different language a home, account for 90 percent of the

above native born people. Coincidently, those immigrants who are fluent in English will

earn 20 percent more than the average native born workers. According to the U.S.

Department of Education, those who are not proficient in English are more likely to fail

in society. These people are less likely to be employed and tend to work seasonal and

labor intensive jobs. They tend to do the jobs that Americans, or English proficient

immigrants, choose not to do.

As the United States faces the biggest budget crisis in the history of the nation,

luxury expenses such as producing government documents in multiple languages should

be, and can, be eliminated. Since English is not our official language, the government

must make documents in every language to accommodate the needs of its people. This
includes translation services, signs, ballots, and other documents. Canada has two official

languages: English and French, therefore their governments are required to reproduce

documents in those languages. Their government spends $260 million each year to

conduct affairs in both languages and accounts for less than one percent of their annual

budget. In terms of the United States, if they were to use the same percentage of the

budget, expenses would account for $3.8 billion. This is $3.8 billion that could be put

into the school system. Furthermore, the Canadian government spends approximately $24

per person in language expenses, if the United States were to do this it would be

approximately $5.7 billion.

The cost of language translation has affected countries in the European Union,

which includes 25 countries and 20 languages. The documents in the union have to be

translated into 380 different languages. Governments within the union must limit their

documents to fifteen pages or less to lower translation fees. Translators in the union

account for eight percent of the entire staff with 1,800 people. The annual cost for

translation services was $1.6 billion. In Los Angeles, it costs $2 billion, one eighth of the

city’s election budget, to print ballots in both English and Spanish. In San Francisco the

city must spend $350,000 per year to translate documents, which is mandated under the

city’s bilingual government ordinance. The California Department of Motor Vehicles

spends $2.2 million annually to provide service in multiple languages. The major

immigrant department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, spends up to $115

million each year to cater to multiple languages. It costs $1.86 million to provide written

language translations to food stamp recipients. Oral translation cost approximately $20

million each year.

 Hospitals and medical centers currently staff tons of full time and on call

interpreters. Many doctors are also practicing in other languages than English. For

example, in the Alameda Medical Center employs eighteen full time translators and has

nineteen on call translators. This costs the county approximately $1 million. Speaking

English and having health insurance are correlated, as 22 percent of the non-English

speaking patients do not have insurance, 66 percent of those non-English speaking

patients are on Medi-Cal or Medicare. Less than five percent of those who do not know

English have insurance. The hospital only gets a fraction of the cost of the appointment

from Medi-Cal. Hospitals which do not employ interpreters can expect to pay up to $130

per hour for consultants. Physicians have the right to provide services only in English,

however; if it is a state or government ran program they must provide outpatient service

in multiple languages, which costs $186 million per year. To provide language services to

patients in the hospital costs $78.2 million. Emergency room visit translation services

cost approximately $8.6 million per year, making the total for the healthcare sector

$267.6 million. Those who do not speak English are a nuisance to our economy. The

hospital is only reimbursed by Medi-Cal and Medicare for part of the translation services.

Often times a doctor is going to pay $500 per visit out of pocket.

As a nation we spend entirely too much money on language services within the

educational sector. To provide bilingual education we spend over $665 million dollars.

While Michael Bloomberg was running for mayor, he promised to provide students in the

New York school system the ability to take classes in their native language for a price of

only $20 million per year. According to the National Research Council of the National

Academy of Sciences, more than $100 million has been spent over the past thirty years to

evaluate the benefits of bilingual education. The study found that programs such as
Bloomberg’s native language instruction provide little to no benefit. The findings provide

evidence that children should begin reading in English first, rather than their native

language. In New York, more than 83 percent of students in their English as a Second

Language program were not proficient in English after nine years and could not test out

of the program to enter mainstream classrooms. In High School the Board of Education

discovered that one-third of the English Language Learners dropped out and only 30

percent of the ELL students graduated.

It is a myth that immigrants want to continue to speak their language and not learn

English. Most immigrants, if not given the option to receive services or documents in

their native language, would learn English much faster. Approximately 79 percent of

Americans believe that English should be the official language of the United States. A

majority of Americans (96 percent) believe it is essential for immigrants to learn English.

On the same terms, 85 percent of Americans believe if the immigrants do not learn

English, it will be very difficult for them to get jobs. Two thirds of adults born overseas

living in America say that it should be a requirement for immigrants to learn English.

Approximately 68 percent of Hispanic adults believe the bilingual program in the

educational system needs to focus more on students learning English. With this in mind,

three of every four Hispanics believe students should learn English first, and then catch

up on other subjects.

According to a survey conducted by the Luntz Research Company in 1995, 86

percent of the 1,208 respondents said that English should be the official language of the

United States. According to a poll conducted by CNN in 1995, 65 percent of respondents

said that English should be the official language of the country. According to a poll in

1986 conducted by CBS, 60 percent of respondents indicated that In parts of this country
where many people speak a language other than English, state and local governments

should only use English.

In August 2000, before the Clinton Administration left the Whitehouse, the

president signed Executive Order 13166. This law was monumental as it said that any

organization or company receiving funds from the government must provide documents

and services in any language. The law also stated that doctors and hospitals receiving

Medicare or Medi-Cal payments must provide translation services to patients. The

American Medical Association officially spoke against this law. The only responsibility a

doctor has is to deliver the best patient care possible – not cater to their language of

choice.

In the 110th Congress senators created H.R. 997, the English Language Unity Act

of 2007. This law states that English is the official language of the United States. The bill

claims that having English as the official language would remove any misconceptions or

mistranslations in interpreting the laws. The law states that English will be a unifying

language bringing all of us together. The law says that the federal government will do

more to help people learn English. The law says that the official functions in government

will be conducted in English, and includes teaching. There is a uniform rule for

naturalization in which all citizens must be more than proficient in English. In 2008 the

House of Representatives introduced H.R. 5971, the American Elections Act of 2008.

This act states that ballots used in the general elections are generally printed only in

English, except for certain districts. California created Proposition 63 in 1986 in which it

stated that “English is the common language of the people of the United States of

America and the State of California.”

 There are many benefits to having English as the Official Language of the United

States of America. In having only one official language it would remove any confusion in

the translating of laws and civil liberties. If there was such a confusion or misconception,

the English translation would hold up in the courts. Winston Churchill once said, “the gift

of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance.” With an official language no citizen has the

right, or entitlement, to receive documents in another language other than English. The

citizens should be the ones to pay the government for the translation expenses.

We often forget that as a society we were formed by the English, and by English

speaking people. Since our constitution was written in English it only makes common

sense to adapt an official language law. Currently there are 30 states that have created

official English laws, which is a majority. The federal government should do the same.

The people overwhelmingly agree that English should be our official language; the

government should take this into account.

 Bibliography

Why Official English?. n.d. ProEnglish Inc.. 19 Apr. 2008

<http://www.proenglish.org/issues/offeng/index.html>.

Census: English on Decline in USA. n.d. ProEnglish Inc.. 19 Apr. 2008

<http://www.proenglish.org/issues/offeng/census.html>.

Crawford, James. Language Legislation in the U.S.A.. 27 Apr. 2008. 30 Apr. 2008

<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/langleg.htm>.

Executive Order 13166. n.d. U.S. English, Inc. 19 Apr. 2008 <http://www.us-

english.org/view/23>.

Fact Sheets: Costs of Multilingualism. n.d. U.S. English, Inc.. 19 Apr. 2008

<http://www.us-english.org/view/301>.

Facts & Figures. n.d. U.S. English, Inc.. 19 Apr. 2008 <http://www.us-

english.org/view/24>.

Kirkham, Nathan. The Debate Over Whether English Should Be Made the Official

Language of the U.S.. 1999. The University of Tennessee. 21 Apr. 2008

<http://web.utk.edu/~nkirkham/pointrof99.html>.

Not “English Only“. n.d. U.S. English, Inc.. 19 Apr. 2008 <http://www.us-

english.org/view/11>.

Ten Reasons why we should make English the official language of the United States. n.d.

ProEnglish Inc.. 19 Apr. 2008

<http://www.proenglish.org/issues/offeng/10reasons.htm>.

United States. Cong. House. American Elections Act of 2008. 110th Cong., 2nd sess. H.

R. 5971. Washington: GPO, 2008.

United States. Cong. House. English Language Unity Act of 2007. 110th Cong., 1st sess.
 H. R. 997. Washington: GPO, 2007.

United States. Cong. House. English Plus Resolution' 110th Cong., 1st sess. H. CON.

RES. 11. Washington: GPO, 2007.

United States. Cong. House. National Language Act of 2007. 110th Cong., 2nd sess. H.

R. 769. Washington: GPO.

United States. Cong. House. Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to Establish English as the Official Language of the United States. 110th

sess. H. J. RES. 19. 18 Jan. 2007. 20 Apr. 2008.