Why official english

Constitution, however, have traditionally afforded some legal protection to minority language rights. For example, the Voting Rights Act of , as amended, mandates the use of bilingual voting materials in states and political subdivisions when certain conditions are met. Congressional proposals to install English as the official language of the United States reflect yet another aspect of the complicated ongoing national debate over federal immigration policy. The modern "Official English" movement in Congress is traceable to the mid's, when various proposals to achieve linguistic uniformity by constitutional amendment were considered.

This effort culminated in with House passage of H. For example, during the th Congress, the Senate adopted the Inhofe Amendment as part of its comprehensive immigration reform package S. Standing alone, a legislative declaration of English as the "official" or "national" language of the United States would be a largely symbolic act of negligible legal effect.

Although an affirmation by the Congress of the central place of English in our national life and culture, such a pronouncement would not, of its own force, require or prohibit any particular action or policy by the government or private persons. Nor would it, without more, imply the repeal or modification of existing federal or state laws and regulations sanctioning the use of non-English for various purposes.

As in the past, however, any official English proposals introduced in Congress would give varying force to this declaration depending on the degree to which they would propose adherence to English in various governmental activities at the federal and state level. An example of legislation introduced during the th Congress illustrates this concept.

The bill proposed by Senator Inhofe in the th Congress H. Declaring English to be our "national language," the measure called on "the Government of the United States In terms of its jurisdictional scope, the Inhofe bill appeared to be limited to actions of the federal government rather than the states and localities. Indeed, the major controversy over the bill and its predecessors appeared to center on the measure's potential effect on Executive Order , a Clinton-era order directing federal departments and agencies to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency LEP are provided meaningful access to programs and activities conducted by the federal government or by recipients of federal financial assistance.

Although proponents of the Inhofe measure appeared concerned that E. Indeed, although E. As a result, it is unclear whether the Inhofe proposal, which did not actually prohibit the federal government from providing services or materials in languages other than English, would have altered existing law.

In addition, because the amendment would have denied any right, entitlement, or claim to documents in languages other than English "unless specifically provided by statute," it would not have precluded language claims brought pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Both E. Ultimately, given its largely symbolic declaration that English is the "national" or "common" language of the United States and its limited impact on existing laws regarding services or materials provided by the federal government in languages other than English, it appears that, had it been enacted, the Inhofe proposal would not have had a significant effect on current law.

The interplay of previously proposed legislation with current federal foreign language policy is perhaps best illustrated by E. That order, issued by President Clinton in , directed each federal department and agency to "implement a system" for insuring that persons with limited English proficiency LEP are provided "meaningful access" to programs and activities conducted by the federal government and by recipients of federal financial assistance covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The DOJ guidance notes that Title VI and its regulations require recipients of federal funds to take reasonable steps to insure "meaningful" access to information and services they provide. What constitutes reasonable steps, the document advises, will be contingent on a number of factors, such as the number and proportion of LEP persons in the eligible service population, the frequency with which LEP individuals come into contact with the program, the importance of the service provided by the program, and the resources available to the recipient.

In balancing factors for determining what steps are reasonable, agencies are to particularly address the appropriate mix of oral and written language assistance. Acknowledging that written translations are a "highly effective way" of communicating with LEP persons, the document states that oral communication may also be a necessary part of the exchange of information.

LEP persons include those born in other countries, some children of immigrants born in the United States, and other non-English or limited English proficient persons born in the United States, including some Native Americans. In its guidance, DOJ cited Lau v.

Nichols , 13 in which the U. Supreme Court interpreted Title VI as requiring that a federal financial aid recipient take steps to insure that language barriers do not exclude LEP children from effective participation in public educational benefits and services. Lau involved a group of Chinese students in the San Francisco public school system who received classroom instruction solely in English.

The Court ruled that the failure to provide such students with supplemental instruction in their primary language violated the Title VI ban on national origin discrimination.

The DOJ document extrapolates an extension of the Lau doctrine beyond education to other contexts. Note, however, that while the Lau precedent remains intact, its value as precedent may be diminished somewhat by subsequent judicial developments, most notably the Court's decision in Alexander v.

In rejecting a Mexican immigrant's claim that the state policy violated Title VI because of its "disparate impact" on ethnic minorities, a five Justice majority ruled that Congress did not intend a private right of action to enforce Title VI except as a remedy for intentional discrimination.

Federal regulations prohibiting state practices that have a discriminatory impact, regardless of intent, could not provide a basis for private lawsuits. Sandoval , however, did not directly confront federal agency authority, previously acknowledged by the Court, to enforce Title VI compliance administratively with rules condemning practices discriminatory in their effect on protected minority groups.

Thus, at least for now, "disparate impact" rules—mandating language assistance for non-English proficient clients of federally financed programs—may still be enforced by the government, just not by private litigants. However, some previous congressional proposals would arguably have negated any private Title VI remedy for linguistically-based ethnic discrimination. And any requirement regarding the government's "affirmative obligation" to promote English could portend similar perils for agency rules condemning the disparate impact of English-only policies under Title VI.

Judicial decisions involving the constitutional implications of government language policies have arisen in a variety of legal contexts. One series of cases has involved non-English speaking plaintiffs who have unsuccessfully sought to require the government to provide them with services in their own language. In Soberal-Perez v.

Heckler , 16 for example, the Second Circuit rejected an action on behalf of Hispanic individuals of limited English proficiency who claimed that the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide them with Social Security forms and instructions in Spanish.

The appeals court could find no basis for the constitutional and related statutory claims since the Secretary's action bore a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose:. We need only glance at the role of English in our national affairs to conclude that the Secretary's actions are not irrational. Congress conducts it affairs in English, the executive and judicial branches of government do likewise.

In addition, those who wish to become naturalized citizens must learn to read English Given these factors, it is not irrational for the Secretary to choose English as the one language in which to conduct her official affairs. And we have to worry when they are the evaluators of their own work," she said. The outdoor class is held every Sunday afternoon. Responding to another concern, that having English as an official language could undermine Vietnamese language and culture, Prof.

Chuong said this would never happen. He referred to the historical struggles that the Vietnamese language has gone through, including more than 1, years of Chinese and years of French colonization.

Even if students were to learn most subjects in English, the language used in the family and in other daily life activities would be Vietnamese, he said. The question then arises whether making English the second official language requires a constitutional amendment. An expert in constitutional law and administrative law from the University of Economics and Law at Vietnam National University in Ho Chi Minh City, Quang said that the development of English into an official language must be recognized by the constitution.

Quang suggests that Vietnam can promote the use of the language from a different approach other than a legal one. We can start from issuing laws and policies to encourage English usage in office and daily life instead," he told VnExpress International. In the absence of such long-standing association with the language, imposition of a foreign language as an official language can be problematic.

Taiwan recently announced that it will make English an official second language in While students learn the English language, they also learn why English is part of their cultures in relation to British colonizer. Furthermore, English is not only used for international communication, but it is also intra-national, as in the case of India, Tammy noted. Tammy also raised questions similar to that of Anh: "Can government officials speak English on formal occasions, without interpreters, and convey their meanings properly?

Besides, are there enough English teachers to teach all subjects in English in school? The professor questioned the assumption that Taiwanese will improve their English proficiency level simply because English becomes an official language. An English class in Vietnam. Photo by VnExpress. It was a result of strong and persistent language policies for a few decades," she wrote in an essay published by Thanh Nien.

Kasich: we are 'looking backwards' on race. Valedictorian's mom sues school. Historic black school vandalized with racist messages. It might be news to him that nothing in the Constitution or any federal law supports his comment that "they should be speaking English" because "this is America. Opinion: Hey 'Speak English' guy, you forgot something. A lot of multilingual countries promote an official language, but the United States has never done so with English. In fact, the US has no official language.

And they didn't want to offend their fellow Americans who helped fight for independence. Read More. People in this country have been speaking languages other than English since before the founding of the republic. In fact, common languages spoken throughout the 13 colonies included Dutch, French and German, not to mention the many languages spoken by Native Americans.

Still, trying to force people in the US to speak English is not new. Enslaved Africans were forbidden from using their native languages and at the same time forbidden from learning how to read and write English because slaveowners feared they would incite rebellions.

New York attorney in racist rant has history of confrontations. Native American children were forced to attend boarding schools where they were punished for speaking their own languages.

There's no question that English is the de facto language of the United States. It's the language of government documents, court proceedings and business contracts. Immigrants feel an immense pressure to learn it. Most people in the US only speak English.