John Mercier

Official-English is a term used regarding the debate over making English the official language of the United States. The Official-English debate stems from the belief that learning to speak English gives citizens increased opportunities to live the "American-Dream." The idea is, without making English the official language, the United States' "melting-pot" society will no longer be possible and growth in power and wealth will suffer as a result. Without a common language to exchange ideas, citizens will be segregated by cultural boundaries. Supporters of Official-English believe that by breaking the language barrier, citizens will not be segregated by language, and the government will not have to pay to provide its services in other languages. Opponents of Official-English believe that it is wrong to force a new language on any citizen, and the government should provide its services in the languages required by its citizens. The opponents claim language discrimination is discrimination based on "national origin" which is illegal according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Both arguments are formed by the premise that government needs to intervene and somehow shape society. While making English the official language of the United States encourages unity under a common language, it is not a proper goal of government. The United States was founded on the principle that the government would be "a limited government that did little else than preside over and adjudicate conflicts in a basically self-regulating social order" (Locke 12). Yet, the United States has grown into a massive welfare state. The United States should make English the official language because it creates a legal limit on the ever-expanding welfare state and protects the rights of businesses.

The concept of a welfare state is not new in the United States. It is the idea that citizens have the right to a safety net, or certain guarantees in life from the government. "Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes" (Greenspan 100). These welfare schemes have been created to provide a safety net for citizens and even businesses. There are three welfare systems used in the United States: social, fiscal, and corporate welfare. Social welfare programs, funded by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, take the form of Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and supplemental income. Fiscal welfare, controlled by the Internal Revenue Service, "provides income support to individuals and families indirectly through tax exemptions, deductions, and credits--known in today's budget parlance as 'tax expenditures'" (Abramovitz). Corporate welfare is provided through every major department of the government in the form of "direct government grants, tax reductions, support for research and development, and discounted user fees for public resources" (Abramovitz). Interestingly, the government's solution to the current financial crisis is a corporate bailout which "would cost each and every American more than $2,300" (Sheehan).

This so called right violates the rights of citizens who earn their paycheck and struggle to make their own safety net. The specific right being violated, is the right to property. "Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his" (Locke 12). Disregarding property rights, the government collects billions of its own citizens' hard-earned money and redistributes it to those in need through the various welfare systems. Thus, the needs of others justify government's expenses and taxation. This is a major violation of property rights, and there is no end in sight. What does this have to do with Official-English?

Welfare definitely exists in the United States, and there is evidence that it is growing. For instance, there has been an increase in immigration and an increase in the number of citizens that don't speak English. "The U.S. Census that found that the number of 'linguistically isolated' households (Those where English is not spoken) soared by 65% between 1990 and 2000 to a whopping 11.9 million households. And a 2007 Migration Policy Institute study that found that an astounding 57% of all limited English-proficient adolescents in the U.S. are native born and 30% are third generation" (McAlfin). As a result, the welfare state has been expanded with legislation requiring any entity using government funds to provide its services in all languages of those likely to receive it. "Executive Order 13166 signed by President Clinton and enforced by President Bush requires federal agencies and federal fund recipients to provide translations and interpreters for non-English speakers in their native language--at taxpayer expense" (McAlfin). This is a concrete example of how the needs of others is used to justify government expense. With the current rise in immigration and the increase in segregated families, the government believes it is necessary to support other languages. This added expense is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers.

In contrast, a proper government would not need to support other languages because it would not be a welfare state. It would recognize a citizen's right to earn and keep his property. It would not spend tax payers' money on another citizen's needs, resulting in Official-English not being an issue. Official-English would not be an issue because there would be no welfare programs requiring language services. If a citizen needed something translated, a proper government would recognize that the citizen's need does not constitute a right to translation and put the burden of translation on that citizen. In other words, those that don't need a service wouldn't have to pay for it through taxes. One of the founders of the United States, James Madison, believed the "governing elite" would "respect liberty, justice and property and run a limited government that did little else than preside over and adjudicate conflicts in a basically self-regulating social order" (Kramnick 74). Unfortunately, the United States has not applied this principle, resulting in the necessity to limit the cost of language services in government.

Just think of all the different languages spoken in the United States and all of the services the government provides. Any license a state provides is probably funded in part by the government. The tests to get those licenses must be provided in all the languages of the citizens that may take those tests. A report to congress by the United States Office of Management and Budget states, in California the annual cost for the DMV "to provide language services is about $2.2 million." The report goes on to state, "costs for all states to provide the same level of DMV language services as California would be about $8.5 million per year" (26). For the food stamp program nation wide, the estimated annual cost for translation, written material as well as oral services, is $25.2 million (33). Immigration services are also an example of services provided in other languages. In the report to congress the estimated annual cost is "$150,007,831" (42). There is also Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Voting, and hundreds of other government services that are required to support other languages. The report concludes by stating, "The costs of enhanced language assistance are difficult to quantify, but may also be significant" (60). There is something that should be kept in mind when reading the above figures and that is--those expenses only account for a fraction of the languages spoken in the United States. There are many languages the government does not support. Not mentioned in the report, is the cost of government not following Executive Order 13166. What happens if government services aren't provided in other languages"

The government can be sued because of the current legislation. It has been sued repeatedly for failing to provide services in other languages. In one case it was taken to court for failing to provide a drivers license test in Farsi, the language used in Iran (McAlfin). This is just one instance, among many, that adds to the expense of supporting other languages in government. There are other laws that have been used to sue businesses as well.

A business can be sued for language discrimination. In these cases, businessmen make a policy that employees can on speak English while at work. This makes sense because customers may get offended--they may believe the employees are insulting them--or confused if employees speak in another language. Language discrimination is a new concept in law which is rooted in laws against discrimination based on national origin and race. There is no actual law against language discrimination, but lawyers have been able to tie it in with discrimination against national origin and race. "For example, federal agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission routinely distort the definition of 'national origin' to charge the Salvation Army and other employers with illegal discrimination for requiring employees to speak English at work" (McAlfin). This is a terrible reason to take away a businessman's right to make his customers feel welcome.

There is no method for solving this problem other than making English the official language. Policy needs to be changed because the Government is getting sued for not following its own mandate, businesses are getting sued for language discrimination, some citizens of the United States are segregated by language, and there is no legal limit on the expansion of welfare. A constitutional amendment, making English the official language used in government, would be a step in the right direction, even if it is not necessary in a proper government. It could possibly even set a precedent for businesses and protect business owners from lawsuits based on language discrimination. Yet, the real solution, a long term solution, is to eliminate the welfare state and change the government's philosophy of shaping society into one of protecting rights.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control. (Rand 19)

Government support of multiple languages is a result of a fundamental principle of welfare: the safety net. If this principle were removed from our government's philosophy, then Official-English would no longer be an issue. Obviously, any fight against the welfare state requires fundamental changes in our culture and should be a long term goal to solve the root of the Official-English debate. For now, limiting the welfare state with this amendment will only stall it. This country needs a revolution in philosophy.

Works Cited

Abramovitz, Mimi "Everyone Is Still on Welfare: The Role of Redistribution in Social Policy." Social Work 46.4 (Oct 2001): p297.

Greenspan, Alan, "Gold and Economic Freedom," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Tiptree: Signet 1986.

Kramnick, Iaac, ed. The Federalist Papers. By James Madison et al. New Yourk: Penguin Classics 1987.

Locke, John Two Treatises Of Government. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2004.

McAlfin, K. C. "McCain should pledge to Make English Official Language." Human Events 14 Jul. 2008: 7.

Rand, Ayn, "What Is Capitalism?" Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Tiptree: Signet 1986.

Sheehan, Cindy, "Cindy Sheehan Denounces Opponent for Putting Corporate Interests Ahead of the Will of the Voters in Pushing for Failed Bailout." Market Watch. 30 Sep. 2008. 26 Oct. 2008 <http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/cindy-sheehan- denounces-opponent-putting/story.aspx?guid=%7BC8DB1509-6DE8-4A45-9436- EBA68B07B5D1%7D>.

United States. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 1964. 27 Oct 2008. <http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html>

---. Office of Management and Budget. Report to Congress: Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs on Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to Services for Person with Limited English Proficiency. 14 Mar. 2002. 27 Oct. 2008. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/lepfinal3-14.pdf>