User:Mmallay

The English Language Unity Act was first introduced in 2005. It hoped to establish English as the official language of the Federal Government of the United States. If passed it would require that all official functions and proceedings of federal and state government be conducted in English. It would also require that applicants for naturalization be tested on their ability to read and generally understand the English language. They would be tested on the laws of the United States as well as other important documents that relate to the law, including the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It would also require that all naturalization ceremonies be conducted in English. If a person became injured because of violations of this Act they would be able to file suit in court. Before this act could be considered by the House of Representatives it had to be approved by the House Judiciary, and Education and the Workforce Committees.

History 

The English Language Unity Act is based on a similar bill, "The Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act", which passed in the House of Representatives in 1996. However, it never became law. It tried to amend Federal law to declare English to be the official language of the U.S. Government. If it became a law, it would have required state representatives to conduct official business in English. It would have required that all officials conduct naturalization ceremonies entirely in English as well. Conservative Republican lawmaker Representative Steven King introduced this act to the House of Representatives on March 1, 2005 it was known as the English Language Unity Act of 2005. Before the 109th session ended of congress, the bill accumulated 164 sponsors. The last action on this bill was the introductory remarks on the proposed bill on May 19, 2006. The bill did not come up for debate during this session of Congress, so it is said to have died.

Representative King reintroduced the bill as the English Unity Act of 2007 on February 12, 2007. This time it gained the support of 153 cosponsors. The last action on this proposed bill was on June 5, 2007 when the House Committee on Education and Labor referred the bill to the subcommittee on Early Childhood Education, Elementary and Secondary Education. Congress adjourned before further action could be taken, so the bill died again in 2007.

Representative King alongside Senator Jim Inhofe introduced the English Language Unity Act of 2011 on Friday, March 10, 2011. In a release King defended his proposition by saying "A common language is the most powerful unifying force known throughout history. We need to encourage assimilation of all legal immigrants in each generation. A nation divided by language cannot pull together as effectively as a people." Inhofe added: "This legislation will provide much-needed commonality among United States citizens, regardless of heritage. As a nation built by immigrants, it is important that we share one vision and one official language."

Controversy

The issue of making English the official language of the United States has come up time and time again in the past. Each time it has sparked a heated debate. The matter does not solely focus on language; it includes various issues. Feelings of financial burden, discrimination patriotism, and unity fuel the arguments on both sides. With the number of immigrants coming into America increasing every year, this issue cannot be ignored any longer.

Those against the legislation argue the bill deals with a non-issue. Congress does not need to establish legislation in order to teach others the importance of knowing English since majority of Americans already speak the language. The main question then that opponents of this legislation have is that if the United States government has flourished without such a declaration of an official language for the past two hundred years, why is there a need to do so now? They argue that it is not the official language that binds Americans together as a country, but the freedoms and ideals that the citizens stand for.

Opponents to the bill argue that this type of legislation is unconstitutional. It limits the government's ability to correspond with all its citizens. By restricting federal and state employees from communicating with citizens in a language other than English violates the first amendment rights of free speech of the employees. This bill would call for changes to the Voting Rights Act, eliminating all non- English ballots. This would prevent many citizens from voting, going against the principle of a democracy, which is the foundation of the country. This type of legislation will lead to increases in ethnic and racial intolerance. It would also discourage immigrants from coming to the United States. It would show them that if they cannot speak fluent English they are not welcome in our country, thus making them second class citizens in the eyes of the government.

Individuals for the legislation feel that by accommodating non-English speakers, assimilation is discouraged. They feel that although speaking a language other than English may be valuable, its use in the home, church or private place of business is not discouraged; but the government should not have to guarantee that these individuals are able to participate in our government through their mother language. They feel that as more immigrants learn English, the language barriers that divide the country into separate groups will disintegrate and lead to a decrease in racial and ethnic problems. They also believe that by learning English, individuals can become more productive members of society and not depend on others. By knowing to speak English, immigrants will have better economic opportunities, since most non-English speakers remain in low-skilled, low-paying jobs. Supporters also say that the participation of immigrants in the government will most likely increase and guarantee them a greater voice in the democratic process.

Supporters of this legislation say that accommodating non-English speakers is an unnecessary expense to the government. The total annual cost for the California Department of Motor Vehicles to provide language services is $2.2 million, while providing the same level of DMV translation services nationwide costs approximately $8.5 million per year. The total cost of providing multilingual services for the Immigration and Naturalization Service are between $114 million and $150 million annually. It costs $1.86 million annually to prepare written translations for food stamp recipients nationwide. The cost for spoken translations increased to $21 million nationally per year.

Thirty - one states currently have adopted legislation similar to the English Language Unity Act. Alabama (1990) Alaska (1998) Arizona (2006) Arkansas (1987) California (1986) Colorado (1988) Florida (1988) Georgia (1986 & 1996)  Hawaii (1978)  Idaho (2007)  Illinois (1969)  Indiana (1984)  Iowa (2002)  Kansas (2007) Kentucky (1984) Louisiana (1812)  Massachusetts (1975) Mississippi (1987)  Missouri (1998 & 2008) Montana (1995)  Nebraska (1920) New Hampshire (1995)  North Carolina (1987) North Dakota (1987) Oklahoma (2010) South Carolina (1987)  South Dakota (1995)  Tennessee (1984) Utah (2000) Virginia (1981 & 1996) Wyoming (1996).

References