America has been at crossroads on the issue of a national language since time immemorial. It should be noted that many legal documents of the primordial ages were written in various languages, most notably German. It should also be remembered that the populace in post-independence America conversed in 20 different languages, including French and Dutch, among others. This was brought about by the large number of Europeans who immigrated to American territories. This implies that the American culture comprised several languages.
In the same breath, calls for the declaration of English as a national language began in the ancient days. This lobby group was later known as the ‘English only’ movement. It advocated for the ratification of legislation, which prohibits the use of any other language during official transactions. Effects of this law would have been felt across private businesses and government agencies.
Opponents of the same argued that such laws would violate the constitution. They argued that prejudice and stereotypes against non-English speakers would increase (Ancheta, 2006). It was also noted that these laws violated the spirit of diversity and tolerance, which was personified in the American constitution.
In addition, many citizens would suffer. America’s diversity has forced the state to provide crucial services in several languages for the benefit of non-English speakers. Ratifying these laws would imply that the state would desist from printing official documents in multiple languages. Some of the areas that would be affected include societal welfare, education, and health services. Ballot papers, insurance premiums, contracts, and other crucial documents will also be printed in English only. Implementing such laws would disadvantage those persons who are not proficient in English. It is noteworthy that some basic needs may be satisfied by multilingual services. For example, a Spanish-speaking person may receive instructions in that language from a 911 operator in case of an emergency.
Enforcing these laws may also be attributed to racism since often targets Asians and Latino immigrants. They will be affected substantially since such laws will also apply to private businesses. This means that business and other public signs will be written in one language. Telephone directories and other operator services will also be provided in English. This will harm millions of American citizens who are not fluent speakers of English (Ancheta, 2006).
Proponents of the law argue based on existing limits to the available wealth reserves. They contend that the extension of welfare will bring bankruptcy; hence it should be avoided at all costs. This is brought about by the expense incurred in reproducing state information in different languages, which leads to increased taxation of the working-class citizens in society. In addition, advertisements would cost more, due to the need for multilingual banners and posters (Barnhart, 1996). This will bring about greater dependency in society by imposing a heavy welfare load, subsequently impacting negatively on the economic future of the nation.
Another school of thought argues that imposing English on the immigrants will spur the surge of growth in them. This is because most of them hail from poor societies, which are resistant to change, and subsequent development. Leaving these people in their comfort zones would negatively affect societal growth, due to a lack of common goals occasioned by differences in ideologies. Summarily, they believe that imposing English on these persons will change their mores and practices, hence inducing ambitiousness in them (Barnhart, 1996).
References
Ancheta, A. (2006). Race, rights, and the Asian American experience. New Jersey, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Barnhart, L. (1996). Why English Should NOT Be America’s Official Language. Fluxneo. Web.