The English Only Movement in US

diction has everlastingly been an important part of a unsophisticateds culture and course of life. When the U. S. was founded, it was common to hear as some as 20 actors lines spoken a recollective with many records that were printed in contrasting dustups. There gain been many debates over establishing a stateal vocabulary, and a movement arose that strives to establish side of meat as the farmings formalized spoken communication. This movement is known as the side save movement, and it promotes the enactment of code that restricts or prohibits the use of languages other than position by governance agencies and, in some cases, by hugger-mugger businesses (ALCU).Many people whom body forth the side of meat Only movement believes that multilingualism is too costly and ineffectual for the administration to persist in. Making incline as an formal language will have weeny day-to-day effect on the population and their lifestyles or mystical lives. They belie ve that declaring side of meat as the formalised language is the fairest way to make out over 300 languages spoken in the U. S. (LIA). Many people harbour multilingualism and oppose having position as an appointed language because it is unfair to psyches who argon non fluent in English.Also, they create chimerical stereotypes of immigrants and non-English speakers. They conclude that it violates the vicissitude embodied in our Constitution, creating restrictions and limits instead of protecting individual rights, and it does non servicing the integration of language minority citizens into the American mainstream. I personally tin keeping the U. S. as a multilingual nation. I impression that the nation is directning smoothly enough and it does not need to be changed in that way. There are many nations that hold multiple authorized languages that run very smoothly.I do not see why it is required for our nation to require English to be an official language with more than 30 percent of the nation coming from a different ethnic group or culture. Therefore, I believe that this nation should not do English as the official language. For more than 200 years, Americans have gotten by without declaring English our official language. Congress had never even considered declaring English the nations official language until 1981. The only previous official-language legislation dates back to 1923 a observance designating American the national tongue.Americans have traditionally resisted language legislation, beginning in 1780, when John Adams proposed to establish an official Language Academy to set standards for English. This view was rejected by the Continental Congress as an improper determination for government and a threat to individual liberties. There was no English proficiency requirement to become pictorialized as a U. S. citizen until 1906 the commencement ceremony major language restriction to be enacted at the federal level. forwards Wo rld War I, bilingual gentility was common in areas where nonanglophone groups enjoyed governmental clout.During the 19th century, state laws, constitutions, and legislative proceedings appeared in languages as various(a) as Welsh, Czech, Norwegian, Spanish, French, and of course, German. At other times, Americans have imposed restrictive language policies. California rewrote its state constitution in 1879 to eliminate Spanish language rights. In 1897, Pennsylvania made English proficiency a pin down of employment in its coal fields, a none-too-subtle way to exclude Italians and Slavs. gage fears during the World War I era led to unprecedented bans on public use of the German language in schools, on the street, during religious services, and even on the telephone. (Crawford) Proposition 227 was passed by a substantial volume of California voters. Its passage is the direct result of the states poor student public presentation in English. Until its passage, California embraced b ilingual pedagogy. Proposition 227 virtually ends bilingual nurture in California and reintroduces phonics based programs.The California Content Standards and California cultivation Code clearly define the course requirements under Proposition 227 and the goals for lay level performance. Many groups and organizations feel that making English the official language is essential and beneficial for the U. S. government and its citizens. These groups believe that official English promotes unity. This long tradition of assimilation has always included the adoption of English as the common means of communication (USE). Many studies show that immigrants watch English slower when they are supported by their native language.Since multilingual government services actually encourage the growth of linguistic enclaves, this causes the U. S. to divide into differentiate language groups because of racial and ethnic conflicts (USE). Also, immigrants will benefit from learning English by being a ble to participate in the government and the workforce. If immigrants were not proficient in English, they would be subjected to the low-skilled and low-paying jobs. Knowledge of English leads to the realization of the American dream of increased economic opportunity and the ability to become a more productive member of society, which benefits everyone (USE).Many organizations also feel that official English can save money from the unnecessary duplication of government services in multiple languages. It is not the responsibility of the government to put forward services in the 329 different languages spoken in the United States. It is the responsibility of each individual to either learn English or to get under ones skin a friend or family member to translate (USE). Of course in that respect are exceptions including emergencies, foreign language instruction, safety and health services, and tourism promotions. Also, official English does not affect private businesses, religious s ervices, or private conversations (USE).On the opposing hand, organizations oppose official English because they feel it is a violation of individuals rights. They believe that such laws are conflicting to the spirit of tolerance and diversity embodied in our Constitution. An English Language Amendment to the Constitution would transform that document from being a absorb of liberties and individual freedom into a charter of restrictions that limits, rather than protects, individual rights (ACLU). There are some versions of the proposed English Language Amendment that disregards the government from providing services in languages other than English.These groups that oppose the English Only laws believe that it violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It interferes with the right to vote for individuals who can not read English and with the right of workers to be free of discrimination in certain workplaces. Today, as in the past, English Only laws in the U. S. are founded on false stereotypes of immigrant groups. Such laws do not simply disparage the immigrants native languages exactly assault the rights of the people who speak the languages (ACLU).With the debate over English Only laws, a topic of bilingual reproduction arose. Many people who support official English oppose bilingual genteelness. They feel that bilingual education programs rely on the unproven theory that a child essential spend years becoming literate in his native language before he or she can properly learn a second language. Under their own theory, bilingual educators should not have located an English-speaking child in a Cantonese-speaking class (USE). Wasted property have gone into the support of bilingual education with the schools being inefficient at teaching English.Studies have shown that these bilingual education schools have little or no effect. At the very least, federal and state bilingual education laws must be reformed to ensure that parents can soft remove their children from bilingual education programs. Because in America, a child shouldnt be forced to file a lawsuit to get his education in English (USE). Since the 1960s, research has shown that multiple language skills do not confuse the mind. Quite the contrary when well-developed, they seem to provide cognitive advantages, although such effects are complex and difficult to measure (Crawford).Another push aside notion is that children will learn a second language apace if they are totally immersed in it. For generations, this philosophy served to justify policies of educational exclude assigning minority students to regular classrooms, with no special help in overcoming language barriers. Disproportionate numbers failed and dropped out of school as a result (Crawford). The sink-or-swim approach was ruled illegal by the U. S. Supreme judiciary in Lau v. Nichols. Research has shown that the quality of English exposure is the major reckon in English acquisition and not the quantity.Many believe that English as a second language is best taught in natural situations, with the second language used in meaty contexts rather than in repetitious drills of grammar and vocabulary (Crawford). This approach is common in bilingual education programs, coordinated with lessons in students native language. Also, native-language instruction also helps to make English comprehensible, by providing contextual knowledge that aids in understanding. Since language has always been an important part of a countrys culture and way of life, I feel that the U. S. should keep this nation a multilingual nation.If this nation can go 200 years without making English the official language, I believe that things should continue this way. I do not feel that the possibility of saving money should substitute the ease of life for immigrants and schools. I also believe that an English Language Amendment to the Constitution would transform that document from being a charter of liberties and individual freedom into a charter of restrictions that limits, rather than protects, individual rights (ALCU). Also, I feel that bilingual education should continue. I feel that it is the parents decision where their children go to school.I do not think that the government should interfere with that. Again, I do not believe that money should even be an issue in the rights of these individuals. I agree that English as a second language should be taught in a natural, relaxed environment, with the second language used in meaningful contexts rather than in repetitious drills of grammar and vocabulary (Crawford). It would be hypocritical since Americans learn a foreign language using English. For these reasons I believe that English should not be the nations official language, and that bilingual education should continue.