Making english official is unnecessary

Making English Official is Unnecessary English is the common language in America. No other viable language exists to replace
English as a main way of communication. Because citizens who do not speak English are protected by the First Amendment, establishing English as the official language of the United States would be a direct infringement upon their freedom of speech and could isolate communities of immigrants who haven't learned the language yet. In America, most business and work is done in English, but English has never been declared the official language of the country. Nevertheless Congressman Steven King hopes to change that by introducing the English Language Unity Act. According to King, a common official language would unify the country and would allow Americans from all walks of life and all backgrounds to share a common bond. But the bill is described as vague and the details are not entirely clear as to what having an official language would involve. The bill requires official government functions to take place in English, although currently in the US government business is already conducted in English. Other opponents of the bill point out that the bill is largely symbolic and that the proposed law does little to help immigrants or Americans. Robert D. King the author of the article Should English Be the Law? argues against making English the official language. He claims that “Language does not threaten American unity.”(P.538). King discusses the trend in America towards making English the official language. He gives many examples of where an official language has worked and where it hasn't. He explains that the countries where it doesn't work is because they did not have a connection through shared culture. He goes on to say "History teaches a plain lesson about language and governments: there is almost nothing the government of a free country can do to change language usage and practice significantly, to force its citizens to use certain languages in preference to others, and to discourage people from speaking a language they wish to continue to speak." The fact is the majority of Americans already assume that English is the official language of the US, and since the language is so dominant, many argue that establishing English as the official language would make few practical changes, other than possibly reducing people`s rights to speak other languages in schools and workplaces. First off, the composed bill is unnecessary, history clearly demonstrates this, surrounded by different languages from practically every country, our founding fathers and framers of our constitution saw absolutely no need to impose an official language. Even Charles Krauthammer who is known for his writing on making "English official", expressed "One of the major reasons for America's great success as the world's first "universal nation," for it's astonishing and unmatched capacity for assimilating immigrants, has been that an automatic part of acculturation was the acquisition of English." (P. 494). Somehow, America has made it under that system up until now without needing the imposition of an official language. In many countries that do have an official language – such as Sweden – there are as many as four official languages. What changed in American society that only now there should be a bill passed? An increase of immigrants? Hardly. We have historically, from day one, had multiple languages in our marketplaces, churches, homes, schools, etc. English has always dominated as the language of commerce and politics freely, and naturally, (as it does today throughout much of the world). Limiting freedom in this area was unnecessary then, and nothing has changed that scenario. Another important point is that the proposed law is opposed to the fundamental principle of liberty; explicitly infringing upon the First Amendment. Limiting choices by law is no way to preserve freedom; it is the exact opposite. Policy makers seem to always fall into the same practices when they want something done: control other people’s behavior by imposing their desires by law. As government grows, freedoms disappear. Myriam Marquez an award winning columnist wrote that (Being from Hispanic ethnicity) "We understand that English is the common language of this country and the one most often heard in international business circles from Peru to Norway. We know that, to get ahead here, one must learn English." (P. 497). Anyone who believes in a free society, or freedom of speech will want to have less government control over such fundamental choices. Instead of being annoyed at companies that offer customer service in Spanish, they would realize that this is how freedom works. If a businessman wishes to get ahead of his competition by serving the Spanish-speaking market, he will decide to cater to their language. Freedom of choice says let the businessman decide how he will meet the demands of the marketplace. There are multiple reasons for any American or Politician, weather they be conservative, libertarian, Republican, or Democrat, who care about freedom, to oppose an attempt to dictate an official language. The bill is completely unnecessary and evidence proves there is no need to make English official, when it directly contradicts with the philosophy and principles of freedom. In addition, it would be utterly pointless and hypocritical in the big picture today. The United States was built around liberty and justice for "We the people", and the constitution was created to help secure those freedoms. The point of emphasis for appointed government officials should be to give legal citizens ample means to achieve a higher standard of living, not to look for ways to repress already segregated minority groups.