'The English Only Movement in US\r'

'words has forever been an weighty part of a country”s assimilation and way of life. When the U. S. was founded, it was jet to hear as whatever(prenominal) an(prenominal) a nonher(prenominal) as 20 wordss spoken along with many documents that were printed in different expressions. in that respect diddle been many tilts over establishing a solid groundal phraseology, and a mannequin arose that strives to establish position as the nation”s appointed verbiage. This movement is known as the â€Å" side of meat b bely” movement, and it â€Å"promotes the enactment of legislation that restricts or prohibits the ingestion of styles other than incline by establishment agencies and, in some cases, by private businesses” (ALCU).\r\n numerous hoi polloi whom take over the â€Å" face Only” movement commits that multilingualism is alike costly and inefficient for the government to operate in. reservation English as an formalized vo cabulary leave nurse little day-to-day effect on the population and their lifestyles or private lives. They see that declaring English as the positive language is the fairest way to lot over 300 languages spoken in the U. S. (LIA). some(prenominal) people remain firm multilingualism and oppose having English as an formal language because it is unfair to singles who are not fluent in English.\r\nAlso, they create false stereotypes of immigrants and non-English speakers. They fill up that it violates the diversity embodied in our Constitution, creating restrictions and limits instead of defend someone right fields, and it does not divine service the integration of language minority citizens into the Ameri whoremaster mainstream. I personally back down keeping the U. S. as a multilingual nation. I sense that the nation is running smoothly overflowing and it does not need to be changed in that way. There are many nations that hold triplex positive languages that run actually smoothly.\r\nI do not see why it is necessary for our nation to take in English to be an official language with to a greater extent than 30 percent of the nation coming from a different ethnic group or polish. Therefore, I count that this nation should not enforce English as the official language. For more than 200 years, Americans nominate gotten by with step forward declaring English our official language. Congress had never even considered declaring English the nations official language until 1981. The entirely previous official-language legislation dates back to 1923: a criterion designating â€Å"American” the national tongue.\r\nAmericans have traditionally resisted language legislation, beginning in 1780, when John Adams proposed to establish an official Language Academy to set standards for English. This idea was spurned by the Continental Congress as an out-of-the-way role for government and a threat to one-on-one liberties. There was no English pr oficiency indispens fitness to become naturalized as a U. S. citizen until 1906 †the archetypical major language restriction to be enacted at the federal level. Before reality War I, multilingual statement was common in areas where nonanglophone groups enjoyed political clout.\r\nDuring the nineteenth century, conjure up laws, constitutions, and legislative proceedings appeared in languages as diverse as Welsh, Czech, Norwegian, Spanish, French, and of course, German. At other times, Americans have imposed restrictive language policies. calcium rewrote its state constitution in 1879 to eliminate Spanish language rights. In 1897, Pennsylvania made English proficiency a condition of employment in its coal fields, a none-too-subtle way to exclude Italians and Slavs.\r\nSecurity fears during the World War I era led to rare bans on public use of the German language †in schools, on the street, during religious go, and even on the telephone. (Crawford) Proposition 227 was passed by a substantial absolute majority of California voters. Its passage is the direct result of the states miserable student performance in English. Until its passage, California embraced multilingual education. Proposition 227 virtually ends bilingual education in California and reintroduces phonics based programs.\r\nThe California Content Standards and California Education Code clearly define the course requirements under Proposition 227 and the goals for grade level performance. Many groups and organizations find out 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. â€Å"This long tradition of assimilation has always included the adoption of English as the common means of communication” (USE). Many studies show that immigrants interpret English slower when they are supported by their aborigine language.\r\nSince multilingual government serv ices in truth encourage the growth of linguistic enclaves, this causes the U. S. to divide into ramify language groups because of racial and ethnic conflicts (USE). Also, immigrants will win from learning English by being able to participate in the government and the workforce. If immigrants were not good in English, they would be subjected to the low-skilled and low-paying jobs. â€Å"Knowledge of English leads to the acknowledgment of the American dream of increased economic opportunity and the ability to become a more juicy member of society, which benefits everyone” (USE).\r\nMany organizations in addition feel that official English can save capital from the excess duplication of government services in multiple languages. â€Å"It is not the responsibility of the government to provide services in the 329 different languages spoken in the united States. It is the responsibility of each individual to either learn English or to find a promoter or family member to translate” (USE). Of course in that location are exceptions including emergencies, foreign language instruction, safety and wellness services, and tourism promotions. Also, official English does not expunge private businesses, religious services, or private conversations (USE).\r\nOn the opposing hand, organizations oppose official English because they feel it is a violation of individual”s rights. They believe that â€Å"such laws are contrary to the spirit of leeway and diversity embodied in our Constitution. An English Language Amendment to the Constitution would turn that document from being a consider 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.\r\nThese groups that oppose the â€Å"English Only” laws believe tha t 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. â€Å"Today, as in the past, ‘English Only” laws in the U. S. are founded on false stereotypes of immigrant groups. such(prenominal) laws do not simply disparage the immigrants aborigine languages but assault the rights of the people who speak the languages (ACLU).\r\nWith the debate over â€Å"English Only” laws, a content of bilingual education arose. Many people who support official English oppose bilingual education. They feel that â€Å"bilingual education programs rely on the unproved theory that a child must reach years becoming literate in his native language before he or she can properly learn a spot language. to a lower place their own theory, bilingual educators should not have situated an English-speaking child in a Cantonese-speaking partition” (USE). Wasted funds have gone into the support of bilingual education with the schools being inefficient at teaching English.\r\nStudies have shown that these bilingual education schools have little or no effect. â€Å"At the very least, federal and state bilingual education laws must be reformed to ensure that parents can considerably remove their children from bilingual education programs. Because in America, a child shouldn”t be forced to consign 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 come along to provide cognitive advantages, although such effects are complex and difficult to measure (Crawford).\r\nAnother brush off notion is that children will learn a second language rapidly if they are totally immersed in it. â€Å"For generations, this philosophy served to justify policies o f educational neglect †depute 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 climb was ruled illegal by the U. S. Supreme motor inn in Lau v. Nichols. Research has shown that the quality of English pic is the major factor in English encyclopedism and not the quantity.\r\nMany believe that English as a second language is best taught in natural situations, â€Å"with the second language used in purposeful contexts rather than in repetitious drills of grammar and lexicon” (Crawford). This approach is common in bilingual education programs, coordinated with lessons in students native language. Also, native-language instruction likewise helps to make English comprehensible, by providing contextual experience that aids in understanding. Since language has always been an measurable part of a country”s culture a nd way of life, I feel that the U. S. should keep this nation a multilingual nation.\r\nIf 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 â€Å"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 parent”s decision where their children go to school.\r\nI 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, â€Å"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 nation”s official language, and that bilingual education should continue.\r\n'