The Case for English Only

Enough already! How many languages should we be expected to speak in America? And, how many languages should our government and other institutions, such as hospitals and schools, be required to accommodate? The problem is not just Spanish speakers. It’s the 322 tongues that are spoken in America today.

I ran the local hospital in the late 1980s and early 90s, and we were required to have translators available for about 16 different languages at that time. You may wonder how on earth could we do that in an area that had a population of less than 20,000 people at the time? Fortunately, because we happen to have many residents and visitors from other countries, it was not an impossible task for us. But, what about other small communities that do not have the resources that are available here in Santa Ynez Valley? Alameda County (CA) Medical Center, which “has 18 full-time interpreters or staff in addition to 19 on-call translators,” is another example of the burden that such laws can place on public institutions.

Because of the huge influx of Spanish speakers from south of the border, Hispanics now comprise about 40% of the population in Santa Barbara County, many of whom do not speak English. So, should we be required to print all government documents in both English and Spanish, teach school in Spanish, give civil service exams in Spanish, hire people who don’t speak English?

It's not just about communication, although that’s certainly important. It’s also a pocketbook issue, about the economic impact that trying to accommodate multiple languages has on our society. U.S. English, Inc. offers some interesting facts that surely should be considered in any discussion of the “English Only” issue.

>“Since 1980, the number of U.S. residents who are limited English proficient has more than doubled, from 10.2 million to 21.3 million.” (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

>“In 2000, 11.9 million U.S. residents lived in linguistically isolated households, meaning that no one in the household spoke English at home or spoke English ‘very well.’” (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

>“Immigrants who speak English ‘not well’ or ‘not at all’ have median weekly earnings approximately 57 percent of those of U.S. born workers.”

>“Poverty and the need for public benefits, such as food stamps, are more closely related to limited English proficiency than with citizenship or legal status.”

>“The Canadian Government spends $260 million annually to do government business in both of the nation’s official languages.”

>“The cost of multilingual ballots and translations represented one-eighth of Los Angeles County’s $16 million expense in the Nov. 2004 general election.”

>“The City of San Francisco must spend $350,000 for each language that a document is translated into under the city’s bilingual government ordinance.”

>“79 percent of Americans, and 81 percent of first and second generation Americans favor making English the official language of the United States.”

>“Air Canada spends more than $9,265,000 per year conforming to Canada’s bilingual requirements, requiring the airline to generate an additional $185,000,000 in additional sales to cover these costs.”

It’s clear that trying to accommodate all cultural groups costs big bucks. For example, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences 1997 reported, “More than $100 million have been spent in the last 30 years to assess the value of bilingual education. Two startling conclusions made in the study include:

(1) There is no evidence that a program of native language instruction has greater benefits than any other type of education program and

(2) Teaching children to read in English first, instead of in their native tongue, has no negative consequences.” At that point the federal government was already spending $665 million a year on bilingual programs.

Furthermore, there are healthcare consequences for non-English or limited-English speakers. The Commonwealth Fund found that “limited English proficiency Latinos are 3-1/2 times more likely not to have had their blood pressure checked in the last five years, three times more likely not to have a dental exam in the last five years and twice as likely not have had their cholesterol checked in the last five years.”

Multi-language also means multicultural, and such societies often engender a view of their fellow citizens that can easily lead to strife among the various factions. “My culture and my language are better than yours” often becomes the unspoken mantra of those on all sides. But, is the Chinese culture better than Mexican? Or French better than English? Or Hmong better than Vietnamese? Or Japanese better than Italian, German, Russian, or Slovak?

We may not hear it verbalized very often, but it’s clearly present in the attitudes, beliefs, and relationships of the many ethnic groups that make up our population today. It’s only natural. People tend to associate with those who are more like themselves, instinctively understand them, have a common history, the same cultural values and attitudes, and no legislation can change that. The saying, “Birds of a feather flock together” describes this simple reality quite clearly.

In my opinion, passing laws to accommodate cultural and language differences merely accentuates the differences and tends to separate people. All too often, it engenders or increases hostility between groups, such as we see today between certain ethnic groups and with many of those Americans who support “English Only.”

It seems to me that the goal is, or should be, to integrate everyone who immigrates to our country to become as American as possible as quickly as possible. And, speaking English is the cornerstone for accomplishing this. The idea of labeling ourselves as hyphenated Americans that has become vogue in recent years is anathema to me. Why do we want to identify people as African-American, Italian-American, Irish-American, Mexican-American, Chinese or Japanese-American, etc.?

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on immigrants and being an American spoke to this issue very clearly in 1907: "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes

here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming

in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

So, what is the “English Only” movement all about? Quite simply, it’s about making English the official language of the United States. A bill to accomplish this (H.R. 997) was introduced in the House of Representatives in February of this year, and U.S. English, Inc. reports that it is supported by more than 80%of all Americans and almost two-thirds of Hispanics, according to polls taken in 2006.

Thirty states already have some sort of English only law and, to my knowledge, it hasn’t had any significant negative impacts in any of them.

“The English Language Unity Act of 2007 would require the United States government to conduct official business in English,” while still retaining the flexibility to permit or require that other languages be used to protect public health and safety, national security, or for the needs of commerce and the criminal justice system.

I’m all for it.

© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved