Does U.S. Need a 'National Language' Law?

On May 18, 2006, the U.S. Senate voted to declare English "the national language of the United States." If finally enacted, as part of a bill to crack down on undocumented immigrants, the amendment would, among other things:

Require the federal government to "preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language" ...
Deny any "right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English ... unless otherwise authorized or provided by law" ...
Increase the level of English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history required for naturalization as a U.S. citizen.

What would these provisions mean in practice? Numerous uncertainties remain about the amendment's direct legal effects. But it would likely have a restrictionist impact, making it harder for limited-English speakers to access government services and exercise rights they would otherwise enjoy. The symbolic effects could be even more significant, by providing an official justification for language-based discrimination.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the amendment's chief sponsor, argued that it was necessary to give English "a status in law that it has not had before" and to clarify that civil-rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of national origin do not extend to discrimination on the basis of language when it comes to providing government services. Existing laws authorizing bilingual assistance would be unaffected, he said.

Inhofe had originally sought to declare English the "official language." At the last minute, he modified his proposal to read "national language," so as to garner additional votes. Yet this is a distinction without a difference. Like other official-language measures, the amendment would designate English as the medium of government operations and restrict official usage of other languages. After a lengthy and contentious floor debate, the measure passed, 62-35, on a largely party-line vote; only one Republican, Senator Pete Domenici (NM), opposed it.

Critics, led by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), called the amendment unnecessary, divisive, and discriminatory. "While the intent may not be there," Reid said, "I really believe this amendment is racist. I think it is directed basically to people who speak Spanish."

Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) proposed an alternative amendment declaring English "the common and unifying language of the United States," while declaring no intent to "diminish or expand any existing rights ... relative to services or materials provided by the Government ... in any language other than English." Salazar's amendment passed as well, by a vote of 58-39.

It will be left to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the conflict between the two amendments. A final agreement remains in doubt, however, because of major differences between the two chambers on the overall immigration bill.

Numerous questions remain about the potential impact of the Inhofe amendment. Would it simply freeze existing rights and services for limited-English speakers in place, as supporters contended? Or would it have far-reaching effects on government operations, education, public health, and civil rights, as opponents warned?

There is a more basic question, however, that is worth considering first. The United States has gotten by quite well without an official or "national" language for more than 200 years. Why do we need one now?

Missing Rationale

The Senate debate was notable for what it lacked: any clear rationale – much less supporting evidence – advanced by proponents for an amendment that aroused so much controversy.

Sen. Inhofe argued for the need to "recognize [in law] the practical reality of the role of English as our national language." But he never said why. The dominance of English in this country, its primacy in public discourse and economic activity, and the importance of English proficiency for all members of society went undisputed. Inhofe himself cited a poll in which "91 percent of foreign-born Latino immigrants agreed that learning English is essential to succeeding in ... the United States." As several critics noted, Inhofe's amendment was a solution in search of a problem.

Supporters of the amendment, including Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argued that English, as our "common language," is a unifying force. While never quite saying so, they implied that granting rights to communicate with government in other languages would threaten national unity by discouraging newcomers from learning English. None volunteered any factual support for these claims.

Available demographic evidence offers no support, either. Census data indicate that, while the number of U.S. residents who speak languages other than English is increasing rapidly, largely because of immigration, the number who speak English "very well" is increasing at similar rates. Comparisons to language patterns in previous eras suggest that today's immigrants are learning English more rapidly than ever before. At the turn of the 20th century, a three-generation pattern of Anglicization – adopting English as the usual language – was typical. The grandchildren of immigrants grew up dominant or monolingual in English. Today the process is more likely to take just two generations. For example, the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study reports that 94 percent of second-generation youth speak English well, while only 44 percent speak their parents' language well; 72 percent prefer to speak English.

Proportionally speaking, non-English speakers were nearly three times as numerous in 1890 census (3.6%) than in 2000 census (1.3%). State-level comparisons show an even greater contrast. New Mexico was 65.1% non-English-speaking in 1890 vs. 1.6% in 2000; Wisconsin, 11.4% vs. 0.3%; Minnesota, 10.3% vs. 0.4%; Louisiana, 8.4% vs. 0.1%; and New Hampshire, 5.7% vs. 0.1%.

English as the nation's dominant language is no more threatened at the turn of the 21st century than it was at the turn of the 20th. To the contrary, it is all the other languages that are endangered – and would soon die out, if not for the replenishing effects of immigration. (Sadly, the process of extinction is already in advanced stages for most Native American tongues.) There are certainly no indications that Anglicization is slowing down. If anything, it is speeding up.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that linguistic assimilation had stalled. That newcomers to this country were failing to learn English as rapidly as their forebears had done. What public policy response would help in reversing such a trend? Wouldn't it make sense to address the shortage of opportunities to learn English, as shown by the long waiting lists for adult ESL classes in most cities?

Unfortunately, Congress has shown little interest in this common-sense remedy. Rather than adequately funding the federal adult education program, the Senate version of the immigration bill contains a token $500 "grant" that immigrants can presumably use at Berlitz or some other private language school (the House version lacks even that level of lip-service). This is a wholly inadequate amount that will have little impact on English acquisition.

Inhofe's amendment, meanwhile, stresses negative incentives. According to its underlying philosophy, language accommodations by government are likely to discourage immigrants from learning English. Government brochures in other languages presumably "send the message" that Spanish or Chinese monolinguals can get by easily enough in the United States. This phenomenon, in turn, might lead to "language ghettos" that would divide the nation. Again, no evidence has been mustered to support such claims – only a coercive mentality that assumes many immigrants will resist learning English unless government makes life as difficult as possible for limited-English speakers.

Restrictionist Impact

Supporters insist that the Inhofe amendment would have no effect on existing laws that provide for services in languages other than English. Yet only a few programs designed to provide access to government for limited-English speakers are specifically authorized by statute. These include the Court Interpreters Act of 1978 and the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act (now under attack by House Republicans). Most language accommodations at the federal level are the result of administrative regulations, executive orders, or agency discretion. Whether these would continue under a "national language" law is questionable.

During the Senate debate, Inhofe targeted in particular Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency," arguing that it has no legal foundation. The order, issued by President Clinton in 2000 and reaffirmed by President Bush in 2001, requires federal agencies and federal funding recipients to "provide meaningful access" to their programs for those whose English is limited. This ongoing initiative, administered by the U.S. Department of Justice, is grounded in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or national origin in the expenditure of federal funds.

Title VI, as interpeted by federal and state officials over the past three decades, has supported a wide range of language assistance requirements, from driver's license exams in languages other than English, to bilingual 911 operators and health care workers, to the translation of school notices for parents of English language learners. The extent to which these rules would be affected by the Inhofe amendment remains unclear. It is likely, however, that if the Senate measure becomes law, some state and local officials would no longer feel obligated to provide them.

Sen. Inhofe inserted a "legislative history" into the Congressional Record seeking to invalidate Title VI as a justification for "LEP access" programs. He asserted that because federal courts had failed to mandate bilingual accommodations in some contexts, they had rejected any equation of language discrimination with race or national-origin discrimination. In fact, when the Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1991, Justice Kennedy wrote:

"Language elicits a response from others, ranging from admiration and respect, to distance and alienation, to ridicule and scorn. Reactions of the latter type all too often result from or initiate racial hostility. ... It may well be, for certain ethnic groups and in some communities, that proficiency in a particular language, like skin color, should be treated as a surrogate for race under an equal protection analysis. And, as we make clear, a policy of striking down all [jurors] who speak a given language, without regard to the particular circumstances of the trial or the individual responses of the jurors, may be found by the trial judge to be a pretext for racial discrimination." (Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352)

Language restrictionist legislation clearly raises constitutional issues – not only equal protection but also freedom of speech. In 1998, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down that state's official-English amendment on First Amendment grounds (Ruíz v. Hull, 191 Ariz. 441).

If the Inhofe amendment becomes law, one legal effect can be predicted with certainty: protracted litigation.

Language 'Vigilantism'

Potentially more serious than its legal impact, the "national language" vote has created a new a wave of English Only fervor, targeting those who speak other languages, Spanish in particular. The result has been to increase ethnic tensions at a time when Americans are already divided over immigration policy.

In one recent incident, Joey Vento, the owner of a Philadelphia cheese-steak restaurant, posted signs instructing customers: "This is AMERICA. WHEN ORDERING 'SPEAK ENGLISH.' " Vento said he objected to the increasing use of non-English languages in what has become a multicultural neighborhood, home to Mexican and Korean immigrants. The restaurant's English Only policy has angered members of the community and received extensive media coverage.

Episodes of linguistic intolerance have occurred at various times in U.S. history, but seldom to the extent witnessed since the birth of the modern English Only movement in 1983. Efforts to restrict minority languages by law – ironically, promoted in the name of "unifying" Americans – have had precisely the opposite effect. They have inspired what Steven Bender of the University of Oregon Law School calls "language vigilantism," efforts by private citizens and local officials to create and enforce their own English Only rules. Numerous such cases occurred during and after the last round of Congressional deliberations on official-English legislation, culminating in House passage of a "Language of Government" bill in 1996. For example:

Tavern owners in Yakima, WA, refused to serve patrons who conversed in Spanish, posting signs such as: "In the U.S.A., It’s English or Adios Amigo."
A judge hearing a child-custody case in Amarillo, TX, accused a mother of child abuse for speaking Spanish to her five-year-old daughter. “Now get this straight,” he admonished. “The child will hear only English” – or else.
Police in Yonkers, NY, ticketed a Cuban American truck driver for his inability to answer questions in English.
In Huntsville, AL, the county assessor refused to approve routine tax exemptions for Korean property owners whose English was limited.
Norcross, GA, authorities fined the pastor of a Spanish-speaking congregation for posting placards that allegedly violated an English Only sign ordinance.
Business owners nationwide increased the imposition of speak-English Only rules in the workplace, defying guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

What's the Point?

Opposing an official-English initiative in his home state of Arizona, Sen. John McCain asked: "Why we would want to pass some kind of initiative that a significant portion of our population considers an assault on their heritage?” Good question. The unfortunate answer is that an assault on other cultures – Hispanic culture, in particular – is precisely the goal of many English Only advocates.

Some apparently do so in hopes of limiting immigration, legal and otherwise. First, there is the chance that a hostile climate, with few language accommodations, might discourage non-English speakers from coming here. English Only legislation is essentially an "Unwelcome" mat laid out for Latin Americans in particular. Second, a focus on the cultural costs of immigration could help build support among Americans for restrictionist legislation. It is no accident that U.S. English, the language-restrictionist lobby, was founded in 1983 as a spinoff from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates a total "moratorium" on immigration.

Dr. John Tanton, the founder of both groups, laid out his views about Latinos in an internal memo that was later leaked to the press. Among the unflattering stereotypes he mentioned were "Catholicism, with its threat to ‘pitch out the separation of church and state’; lack of concern for the environment; low ‘educability’; and resistance to birth control. "Gobernar es poblar translates ‘to govern is to populate,’ " Tanton wrote. "In this society where the majority rules, does this hold? Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile? … Perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down! … As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?"

After the memo made headlines in 1988, Tanton protested in his own defense: "I am not a racist. I want to bring all members of the American family to share in our Thanksgiving feast – but I also want us to be able to speak to each other when we’re gathered around the table." Nevertheless, the ensuing scandal forced him to resign as chairman of U.S. English. Linda Chavez, then president of the organization, also quit her job in protest, and an embarrassed Walter Cronkite resigned from the U.S. English advisory board.

Does this episode demonstrate that all supporters of official-English legislation have racist or xenophobic motives? Certainly not. But it does show that rhetoric about "unifying" Americans through a "common language" can serve a less honorable, hidden agenda.

Language issues are never just about language. It is no coincidence that Sen. Inhofe advanced his proposal at a time when Congress is feeling pressure to "get tough" with undocumented immigrants. In addition, the Republican party just happens to be mobilizing its largely white, monolingual, conservative "base" to turn out in the 2006 elections. Ten days before the "national language" vote, Sen. Alexander sponsored a nonbinding resolution that implicitly condemned the singing of the national anthem in Spanish. It passed as well.

Embracing English Only legislation represents a break from Republican strategy over the past decade. Apart from a hard core of conservatives, the party has sought to reach out to Latinos and other language-minority voters, whose numbers are increasing faster than the overall electorate. As governor of Texas, George W. Bush supported bilingual education and spoke out against Proposition 227, which restricted native-language instruction in California. Along with McCain and several moderate Republicans in the Senate, Bush endorsed an alternative language policy designed to foster, not discourage, multilingual skills for Americans. It is known as English Plus.

Bilingualism and the National Interest

On June 28, during House debate over funding for the bilingual provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), urged his colleagues to "vote against bilingualism."

To anyone unfamiliar with the anti-immigrant context, this suggestion would seem bizarre on its face. How could knowledge of languages be considered harmful? In a globalized economy, multilingual skills are increasingly valuable. What's more, this country is increasingly vulnerable, not only to business competitors but to terrorist enemies, because so many Americans are monolingual. When the United States invaded Afghanistan, five of its seven major languages – including Pashto, spoken by 8 million Afghans – were not even taught in U.S. universities. The 9/11 Commission has called for a thoroughly revamped effort to teach critical languages.

The English Plus idea is simple. Of course, all U.S. residents need proficiency in English to prosper here and participate fully in our democracy. From a national interest perspective, however, English is not enough. We need English, plus other languages to cope with the challenges and dangers of today's world. In this context, bilingualism is entirely beneficial. Who would want to "vote against" it?

Rep. Rohrabacher was, of course, talking about societal bilingualism, not individual bilingualism. In fact, he appears to see no connection between the two, assuming that monolingualism is the natural human condition. Thus, in places where more than one language is spoken, the Congressman expects trouble: "In every other country of the world where we have permitted and they have actually promoted bilingualism, it has led to divisiveness and balkanization of countries and hatred between peoples."

No doubt language has been a factor in many ethnic conflicts; so have race, religion, culture, and politics. Human diversity is an undeniable reality and sometimes it leads to trouble. Does that imply that governments should try to stamp out diversity, or to discriminate against those who differ from the majority group, in order to "unite the nation"? Or does it imply precisely the opposite, that ethnic tolerance and respect for minority rights are policies more likely to promote harmony?

Throughout most of our history, Americans have avoided serious strife over language, relative to the experience of many other nations, despite – or perhaps because of – our lack of a national or official language. Policies toward languages other than English and their speakers have tended toward laissez-faire and accommodation rather than repression or restriction. Language diversity has seldom been a symbolic divider or even a pretext for conflict. (Resourceful Americans have had no trouble finding other things to fight about.)

In many European countries, where harsh language policies were pursued until recent years – think of Russia, Spain, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire – language differences have persisted for centuries, often figuring in ethnic conflicts. Yet when these same groups immigrated to the United States, they have tended to forget their native tongues within a couple of generations and speak nothing but English. Nathan Glazer put it well when he observed that "languages shriveled in the air of freedom while they had apparently flourished under adversity in Europe."

There's a lesson here for today's English Only advocates.