Hubbry Logo
English-only movementEnglish-only movementMain
Open search
English-only movement
Community hub
English-only movement
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
English-only movement
English-only movement
English-only movement
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Sticker sold in Colorado demanding that immigrants speak English

The English-only movement, also known as the Official English movement, is a political movement that advocates for the exclusive use of the English language in official United States government communication through the establishment of English as the only official language in the United States. The United States has never had a legal policy proclaiming an official national language, although an executive order issued by president Donald Trump on March 1, 2025, declared English to be the official language of the United States.[1] Historically, in various locations throughout the United States, there have been various moves to promote or require the use of English, such as in American Indian boarding schools.[2]

Following American independence, other European languages continued to be spoken and taught in bilingual education, especially German and later also Spanish following the country's Southwest expansion.[3][4] However, following a rise in nativism, support for the English-only movement began in 1907, under U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Non-English languages increasingly began to be devalued as part of forced Anglophone assimilation and Americanization, fueled also by anti-German sentiment in the 1910s, and bilingual education had virtually been eliminated by the 1940s.[5]

The English-only movement continues today. Studies prove high percentage in approval ratings. Republican candidates have supported this movement during elections. The English-only movement has also received criticism and rejection within societies and educational systems. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has stated that English-only laws are inconsistent with both the First Amendment right to communicate with or petition the government, as well as free speech and the right to equality, because they bar government employees from providing non-English language assistance and services.

Early efforts

[edit]

When the US Constitution was ratified, a multitude of languages were spoken in the United States other than English, including: German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Yiddish, Arabic, and hundreds of indigenous American languages. However, the elite idealized a country united by one language, shunning non-Anglophones (as well as non-Whites and non-Protestants) from society.[6]

Disputes between citizens and immigrants over English have been waged since the 1750s, when street signs were changed in Pennsylvania to include both English and German languages to accommodate the many German immigrants.[7] The German–English debate continued until World War I when international hostility resulted in the rejection of all things German, including the prohibition of the German language and German-language materials, particularly books.[8]

In 1803, as a result of the Louisiana Purchase, the United States acquired French-speaking populations in Louisiana. As a condition to admittance to the Union, Louisiana included in its constitution a provision, which was later repealed, that required all official documents be published in the language "in which the Constitution of the United States is written". Today, Louisiana has no law stating that English is the official language of the State.[9]

After the Mexican–American War (1846–1848), the United States acquired about 75,000 Spanish speakers in addition to several indigenous language-speaking populations.

An 1847 law authorized Anglo-French instruction in public schools in Louisiana. In 1849, the California constitution recognized Spanish language rights. French language rights were abolished after the American Civil War.[10] In 1868, the Indian Peace Commission recommended English-only schooling for the Native Americans. In 1878–79, the California constitution was rewritten to state that "[a]ll laws of the State of California, and all official writings, and the executive, legislative, and judicial proceedings shall be conducted, preserved, and published in no other than the English language."[10]

In the late 1880s, Wisconsin and Illinois passed English-only instruction laws for both public and parochial schools (see Bennett Law).

In 1896, under the Republic of Hawaii government, English became the primary medium of public schooling for Hawaiian children. After the Spanish–American War, English was declared "the official language of the school room" in Puerto Rico.[11] In the same way, English was declared the official language in the Philippines, after the Philippine–American War.

In 1907, US President Theodore Roosevelt wrote, "We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."[12]

During World War I, there was a widespread campaign against the use of the German language in the US; this included removing books in the German language from libraries.[8] (A related action took place in South Australia as well with the Nomenclature Act of 1917. The legislation renamed 69 towns, suburbs, or areas that had German names.)[13]

In 1923, a bill drafted by Congressman Washington J. McCormick became the first proposed legislation regarding the United States' national language that would have made "American" the national language in order to differentiate American English from British English.[7]

Support

[edit]

U.S. English is an organization that advocates for Official English, founded in the 1980s by former United States Senator S. I. Hayakawa and John Tanton.[14][15] ProEnglish is another group founded by Tanton that advocates Official English.[16]

In 2018, a Rasmussen poll found that 81% of American adults thought that English should be the official language of the United States, while 12% did not.[17] Another such poll found that, in 2021, 73% of Americans thought that English should be the official language, and 18% disagreed.[18]

Modern

[edit]

In 1980, Dade County, Florida voters approved an "anti-bilingual ordinance".[19] However, this was repealed by the county commission in 1993, after "racially orientated redistricting"[20] led to a change in government.[21]

In 1981, English was declared the official language in the commonwealth of Virginia.[22]

In 1983, John Tanton and U.S. Senator S. I. Hayakawa founded a political lobbying organization, U.S. English. (Tanton was a former head of the Sierra Club's population committee and of Zero Population Growth, and founder of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an immigration reductionist group.) In 1986, Tanton wrote a memo containing remarks about Hispanics claimed by critics to be derogatory, which appeared in the Arizona Republic newspaper, leading to the resignations from U.S. English board member Walter Cronkite and executive director Linda Chavez; Tanton would also sever his ties to the organization as a result. That same year, 1986, Larry Pratt founded English First, while Lou Zaeske, an engineer from Bryan, Texas, established the American Ethnic Coalition. Mauro Mujica, a Chilean immigrant, was later named Chairman and CEO in 1993.

In 1994, John Tanton and other former U.S. English associates founded ProEnglish specifically to defend Arizona's English-only law. ProEnglish rejects the term "English-only movement" and asks its supporters to refer to the movement instead as "Official English".[23]

The U.S. Senate voted on two separate changes to an immigration bill in May 2006.[24][25] The amended bill recognized English as a "common and unifying language" and gave contradictory instructions to government agencies on their obligations for non-English publications.[26]

In what was essentially a replay of the 2006 actions, on June 6, 2007 the US Senate again voted on two separate amendments to a subsequent immigration reform bill that closely resembled the amendments to the 2006 Senate bill.[27][28] Ultimately, neither the 2006 nor 2007 immigration reform bill has become law.

On January 22, 2009, voters in Nashville, Tennessee rejected a proposal under a referendum election to make "Nashville the largest city in the United States to prohibit the government from using languages other than English, with exceptions allowed for issues of health and safety." The initiative failed by a vote of 57% to 43%.[29][30]

In March 2012, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was criticized by some Republican delegates from Puerto Rico when he publicly took the position that Puerto Rico, a Spanish-speaking territory, should be required to make English its primary language as a condition of statehood.[31]

In 2015 during a debate, then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said, "This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish."[32]

On February 6, 2019, the 116th Congress introduced a bill in House establishing English as the official language of the United States. The House of Representatives named it the English Language Unity Act of 2019. Within this bill, there is a framework for implementation. They strive to enforce English as the only language by testing it during the naturalization process.[33] This bill has yet to be passed.

In 2023 then U.S. senator and current U.S. Vice President JD Vance introduced a bill that would have established English as the official language of the United States.[34]

Criticism

[edit]

The modern English-only movement has met with rejection from the Linguistic Society of America, which passed a resolution in 1986–87 opposing "'English only' measures on the grounds that they are based on misconceptions about the role of a common language in establishing political unity, and that they are inconsistent with basic American traditions of linguistic tolerance."[35]

Linguist Geoffrey Pullum, in an essay entitled "Here come the linguistic fascists", charges English First with "hatred and suspicion of aliens and immigrants" and points out that English is far from under threat in the United States, saying "making English the official language of the United States of America is about as urgently called for as making hotdogs the official food at baseball games."[36] Rachele Lawton, applying critical discourse analysis, argues that English-only's rhetoric suggests that the "real motivation is discrimination and disenfranchisement."[37]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has stated that English-only laws are inconsistent with both the First Amendment right to communicate with or petition the government, as well as free speech and the right to equality, because they bar government employees from providing non-English language assistance and services.[38] On August 11, 2000, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency." The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them.[39]

While the judicial system has noted that state English-only laws are largely symbolic and non-prohibitive, supervisors and managers often interpret them to mean English is the mandatory language of daily life.[40] In one instance, an elementary school bus driver prohibited students from speaking Spanish on their way to school after Colorado passed its legislation.[40] In 2004 in Scottsdale, a teacher claimed to be enforcing English immersion policies when she allegedly slapped students for speaking Spanish in class.[41] In 2005 in Kansas City, a student was suspended for speaking Spanish in the school hallways. The written discipline referral explaining the decision of the school to suspend the student for one and a half days, noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked the student] and others to not speak Spanish at school."[42]

One study both of laws requiring English as the language of instruction and compulsory schooling laws during the Americanization period (1910–1930) found that the policies moderately increased the literacy of some foreign-born children but had no impact on immigrants' eventual labor market outcomes or measures of social integration. The authors concluded that the "very moderate impacts" of the laws were probably because foreign languages were declining naturally, without the help of English-only laws.[43]

Current law

[edit]
Map of United States Official Language Status By State
Map of US official language status by state as of 2022. Blue: English declared the official language; light-blue: English declared a co-official language; gray: no official language specified.

No law has yet passed designating English the official language of the United States federal government; however, Executive Order 14224 declares English as official and is recognized by federal agencies. All official documents in the U.S. are written in English, though some are also published in other languages.[73][74]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

English-only movement

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The English-only movement, also known as the Official English movement, is a in the that promotes designating English as the of federal, state, and local governments while limiting the provision of government services, ballots, and in other languages. Proponents argue that this fosters national unity, reduces fiscal burdens from multilingual programs, and facilitates economic assimilation by encouraging English proficiency, which empirical studies link to higher earnings and employment rates among immigrants. The movement originated in the early 1980s amid rising and debates over , with Senator founding the advocacy group U.S. English in 1983 to lobby for official English policies. It drew on historical precedents of language restrictions during prior waves of but gained modern momentum through initiatives and ballot measures. By the 1990s, the effort had succeeded in establishing English as the in over 20 states, a number that reached 30 by 2025 through legislative and voter-approved actions. At the federal level, no statutory law exists, but President Trump issued an on March 1, 2025, designating English as the of the , directing agencies to prioritize English in communications and services. The movement has faced opposition from linguistic and civil rights organizations, which contend it hinders access for limited-English-proficient individuals, though advocates counter that such policies empirically accelerate without long-term detriment.

History

Colonial and Early Republic Periods

In the colonial era, English served as the primary language of , , and administration across the thirteen British colonies, with official documents and proceedings conducted in English despite the presence of linguistic diversity from immigrant groups such as , Dutch, and French speakers. persisted in private spheres, including non-English schools, newspapers, and religious services, reflecting a degree of tolerance in regions like , where German immigrants formed significant communities by the mid-18th century. However, concerns emerged over the potential erosion of English dominance; in his 1751 essay "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind," warned that unchecked German to risked "Germanizing" the rather than assimilating newcomers to English customs and language, as maintained their own schools, churches, and publications, impeding integration. advocated for policies encouraging English acquisition to preserve cultural cohesion, noting the Germans' virtues like industry but criticizing their linguistic separatism as a barrier to societal unity. During the early , following in , the U.S. made no provision for an official national language, leaving English as the tongue of federal operations while states retained autonomy over local policies. This omission stemmed from a focus on political liberties amid wartime priorities, yet early leaders recognized language's role in . In 1780, while serving as a diplomat in , proposed to the establishment of an academy to "improve, perfect, and fix the standard of our writing" in English, aiming to standardize , , and usage independent of British influence and to foster unity across diverse regions. The proposal, submitted amid the Revolutionary War, was referred to a committee but rejected as an unaffordable luxury, with critics arguing it exceeded 's mandate. Adams persisted in viewing English promotion as essential for republican governance, predicting its global spread through American innovation. These efforts highlighted an emerging consensus among elites that a shared was vital for civic participation and assimilation, though without legislative enforcement at the federal level. Webster's contemporaneous campaigns for an Americanized English, including simplified spelling reforms, further underscored desires for linguistic independence from Britain to symbolize republican . Absent formal mandates, English's prevalence relied on practical dominance in , printing, and commerce, gradually marginalizing non-English usage in public life.

Late 19th to Mid-20th Century Developments

In the late 1880s, amid rising immigration from non-English-speaking regions, states such as and enacted laws mandating English-only instruction in both public and private schools, targeting the prevalent use of German in education and reflecting nativist concerns over cultural fragmentation. These measures built on earlier precedents, like California's 1879 constitutional revision requiring English for all governmental proceedings, which sidelined Spanish in official contexts. By the early , federal policy reinforced this trend: the 1906 Naturalization Act established English proficiency as a requirement for , while the 1917 Immigration Act introduced a excluding illiterate immigrants, effectively prioritizing English literacy for entry. World War I intensified these developments through widespread anti-German campaigns, suppressing the —which had been taught in 25% of high schools in 1915 and used in numerous newspapers, churches, and parochial schools. Government propaganda and societal pressures led to the of German-American press, removal of German books from libraries, and a sharp decline in German instruction to just 1% of high schools by war's end; in extreme cases, this fueled violence, such as the 1918 of German-American in . Paralleling these efforts, the Americanization movement (circa 1915–1925) organized nationwide programs to assimilate over 13 million immigrants through mandatory English classes, civics education, and vocational training, with more than 30 states passing laws between 1917 and 1922 requiring non-English speakers to attend public evening schools. By the , the movement peaked with legislative momentum: 34 states had enacted laws designating English as the sole language of school instruction, and 15 states passed such measures specifically between 1919 and 1920, often banning foreign-language teaching in elementary grades to accelerate assimilation. The 1924 Immigration Act's national origins quotas, based on the 1890 census, drastically reduced non-Nordic inflows—dropping annual immigration from over 800,000 in the to under 100,000 by —easing assimilation pressures while entrenching English dominance in public life. Although the struck down extreme restrictions like Nebraska's 1919 Simons Act in (1923), it affirmed states' authority to regulate instruction for public welfare, sustaining English-only norms. Into the mid-20th century, English immersion remained the standard in schools, with immigrant children often placed in unsubsidized, unaccommodated classrooms leading to high dropout rates—only 13% of 12-year-olds with foreign-born parents attended high school versus 32% of native-born peers. was largely eradicated by the mid-1920s, and revived targeted suppressions, including bans on public use amid and anti-Axis sentiments. These policies reflected a causal emphasis on linguistic uniformity for national cohesion, though empirical outcomes showed mixed success in rapid assimilation, with persistent ethnic enclaves and economic barriers hindering full integration until post-1950 economic expansions.

Late 20th Century Organization and Advocacy

In the late 1970s, , an ophthalmologist and advocate, began coordinating efforts to promote English as the amid rising concerns over policies and increasing non-English immigration. Tanton's initiatives built on earlier local campaigns, such as the 1980 Dade County, Florida ballot initiative, where voters approved an ordinance designating English as the county's sole , prohibiting government use of other languages. This success galvanized national advocacy, highlighting perceived failures in multilingual government services to foster assimilation. The pivotal organization, U.S. English, was co-founded in 1983 by Tanton and retired U.S. Senator , who had introduced a bill in 1981 to establish English as the official . U.S. English focused on for federal legislation restricting non-English operations and promoting English proficiency requirements for immigrants, framing these as essential for national cohesion and economic integration. The group supported state-level measures, contributing to official English designations in states including in 1920 (reinforced later), but accelerating in the 1980s with adoptions in (1986), Georgia (1986), and (1988). Advocacy intensified in the 1980s with repeated congressional pushes, such as Hayakawa's English Language Amendment resolutions in the from 1981 to 1988, aiming to mandate English for federal laws, proceedings, and publications. U.S. English mobilized support through petitions and media campaigns, influencing bills like the 1988 English Language Empowerment Act proposed by Rep. Bill Emerson, which sought to limit federal multilingual services. By the early , the movement had secured official English status in approximately 20 states, often via legislative acts or voter referenda, demonstrating growing organizational reach despite opposition from groups. Internal challenges emerged in the mid-1990s when controversies over Tanton's private memos questioning cultural compatibility led to his from U.S. English in 1988, though he continued influencing the field. In response, Tanton established ProEnglish in 1994 as a dedicated lobbying arm, separating from broader efforts to focus exclusively on advocacy. ProEnglish targeted federal reforms, including support for the 1996 Emerson Bill, which passed the but stalled in the , underscoring persistent hurdles in achieving national policy amid debates over immigrant rights and government costs. These efforts reflected a strategic shift toward sustained, multi-level campaigning to embed English primacy in public institutions.

21st Century Evolution and Challenges

In the early , the English-only movement saw continued momentum at the state level, with voters approving Initiative A on November 7, 2000, designating English as the state's by a margin of 67.9% to 32.1%.) This followed similar efforts in the late , reflecting ongoing concerns over government costs and immigrant assimilation amid rising immigration. By 2010, adopted English as its via State Question 751, passed on November 2, 2010, with 83% voter approval, requiring state actions to prioritize English while allowing exceptions for and emergencies.) Organizations like ProEnglish and U.S. English sustained advocacy through litigation and public campaigns, challenging multilingual ballots and services as unnecessary barriers to unity. The movement faced renewed federal attention in the 2020s amid debates over border security and cultural integration. On March 1, 2025, President issued 14224, formally designating English as the of the for the first time, aiming to prioritize English in federal communications and rescind prior mandates for expansive translation services under 13166. This order directed agencies to limit non-English services to essential cases, citing cost savings and promotion of shared , though it preserved requirements for English learner support in under laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act. Public opinion polls underscored broad support, with a survey in March 2025 finding 73% of voters favoring official English status, including majorities across parties and demographics. A survey that month reported 51% of adults viewing it as extremely or very important, higher among U.S.-born respondents (52%) than immigrants (46%). Challenges persisted from civil rights advocates and legal opponents, who argued such policies risk violating Title VI of the by limiting access for limited-English-proficient individuals in health, education, and voting. Immigrant rights groups, including the National Immigration Law Center, warned of potential First Amendment infringements on free speech and increased discrimination, prompting anticipated lawsuits against the 2025 . Critics in academia and media, often aligned with multicultural frameworks, portrayed the movement as exclusionary, though empirical data from Census Bureau reports indicate 78.3% of U.S. residents aged 5 and older speak only English at home as of 2018-2022, suggesting limited practical need for widespread non-English government services. State-level implementations have withstood most court scrutiny, but symbolic opposition in diverse urban areas and from proponents continues to hinder broader adoption.

Core Objectives and Principles

Defining Official English

Official English constitutes a policy designation wherein English is established as the sole official language for governmental operations within a jurisdiction, requiring that all public business—including legislation, regulations, ballots, and administrative services—be conducted exclusively in English. This framework does not impose mandates on private individuals or entities to abandon other languages in personal, commercial, or non-governmental contexts, focusing instead on standardizing public sector communication to foster accessibility and efficiency. Proponents, such as U.S. English Inc., emphasize that Official English promotes national cohesion by ensuring a common linguistic medium for civic participation without curtailing multilingualism in voluntary settings. State-level implementations of vary in scope and enforceability; for instance, Alabama's 1990 declares English the and directs the to enforce its use in state affairs, while other states like feature more declarative provisions lacking specific enforcement mechanisms. As of 2021, at least 32 states had adopted such measures, ranging from binding statutes to symbolic resolutions, reflecting diverse interpretations of the policy's practical implications. Federally, efforts culminated in President Donald Trump's March 1, 2025, directing U.S. government agencies to prioritize English in official functions, though it stops short of a required for nationwide statutory authority. The policy's core principle rests on the empirical observation that a unified facilitates and integration, as evidenced by historical precedents in nations with or official languages exhibiting streamlined . Critics' assertions of inherent cultural erasure notwithstanding, Official English explicitly preserves rights to non-English speech in non-official domains, distinguishing it from absolutist language prohibitions. This delineation underscores the movement's intent to address governmental multilingualism's costs—estimated in billions for translation services—while upholding first-amendment protections for private expression.

Targeted Policy Reforms

The English-only movement has primarily targeted legislative and executive actions to designate English as the official language of the at the federal level, including proposals like the English Language Unity Act, which seeks to establish English proficiency as a uniform requirement for and limit federal government operations to English to reduce multilingual service costs. This act, reintroduced in various forms including H.R. 1862 in 2025 by Rep. , aims to codify English as the sole language for federal documents, proceedings, and communications, while preserving limited exceptions for emergencies or . Complementing such bills, President Trump's Executive Order 14224 on March 1, 2025, designated English as the official U.S. language, directing federal agencies to prioritize English in operations and phase out non-essential multilingual accommodations to promote unity and efficiency. At the state level, advocates have pushed for constitutional amendments or statutes declaring English , resulting in 30 states adopting such measures by March 2025, with 11 via voter-approved initiatives since 1920. Organizations like ProEnglish specifically endorse state-level laws to enforce English in public schools, eliminating federally funded programs in favor of immersion models that accelerate English acquisition. They also target reforms to and , opposing multilingual materials under the Voting Rights Act to ensure elections occur solely in English, arguing this fosters civic integration without taxpayer burdens for translations. Additional reforms focus on and processes, mandating demonstrated English competency for applications, as outlined in bills like H.R. 1772 (2025), which builds on the 2025 to standardize language rules and interpret federal laws consistently in English. Proponents further seek to repeal prior , such as Bill Clinton's 2000 mandate for language access in federal programs, to curtail non-English services in healthcare, welfare, and legal proceedings. These policies aim to centralize English in functions, with estimates from groups indicating potential annual savings of billions from reduced expenditures, though varies by and faces ongoing legal challenges.

Relationship to Immigration and Assimilation

The English-only movement posits that designating English as the facilitates immigrant assimilation by establishing a common linguistic foundation for civic participation, , and social cohesion. Proponents argue that official status reinforces the practical necessity of English proficiency, which empirical studies consistently link to improved outcomes for immigrants, including higher wages, greater employment rates, and increased intermarriage with native-born populations. For instance, research using U.S. Census data demonstrates that immigrants with stronger English skills experience wage premiums of 10-20% compared to those with limited proficiency, narrowing the earnings gap with natives over time. Historically, surges in non-English-speaking have spurred advocacy for English primacy as a tool of . During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, amid waves of Southern and Eastern European arrivals, federal policies like the 1906 Naturalization Act required English literacy for , while the 1917 Immigration Act barred illiterate aliens, reflecting a consensus that was integral to cultural and political integration. By 1930, over two-thirds of immigrants had applied for , with nearly all reporting some English ability, indicating market-driven assimilation despite the absence of a national . The modern movement, revitalized in the 1980s amid growth, echoes this by framing multilingual accommodations—such as ballots or services in other languages—as impediments to the generational observed in prior cohorts, where 91% of 1980-2010 immigrants spoke English versus 86% in 1900-1930. Assimilation metrics further underscore the causal role of English proficiency. Longitudinal analyses reveal that proficient immigrants exhibit higher rates, with English speakers more likely to engage in civic activities and form cross-ethnic social networks, reducing spatial segregation and fostering . Economic models estimate that host-language skills more than double probabilities in the initial post-arrival years, enabling upward mobility and reducing reliance on ethnic enclaves. While critics, often from groups, allege exclusionary intent tied to restrictionism, data refute claims of stalled assimilation: second-generation immigrants overwhelmingly adopt English dominance, with proficiency correlating to homeownership and entrepreneurial success irrespective of official policy. The movement maintains that symbolic official recognition accelerates this process by signaling expectations, without evidence of suppressing heritage languages, as private persists alongside public English use.

Arguments in Favor

Promoting National Unity and Social Cohesion

Proponents argue that a shared national language like is essential for fostering in diverse societies by enabling effective communication, shared civic discourse, and mutual understanding across ethnic groups. Without a common linguistic foundation, social fragmentation can arise, as communication barriers hinder intergroup trust and cooperation. Historical U.S. leaders reinforced this view; for instance, asserted in 1919 that "We have room for but one language here, and that is the ," emphasizing its role in binding immigrants into a cohesive . Similarly, in 1794 advocated assimilating immigrants through adoption of American customs and language to promote national integration. Empirical evidence from U.S. immigration history supports these claims. During the Age of Mass Migration from 1850 to 1913, when foreign-born individuals comprised about 15% of the population, immigrants rapidly acquired ; by 1930, nearly all reported some command of the language, and over two-thirds had applied for . This linguistic convergence facilitated social assimilation, evidenced by second-generation intermarriage rates exceeding 50% and the adoption of American-sounding names, which correlated with stronger economic and social ties to native populations. Such patterns reduced ethnic enclaves and enhanced overall cohesion, as enabled participation in shared institutions like schools and civic organizations. Official English policies further this process by signaling the expectation of assimilation, encouraging immigrants to prioritize for full . A 2014 Harris Survey found 83% of immigrant citizens supporting official English, indicating broad recognition of its unifying benefits. By promoting English mastery, these measures align with historical efforts, such as those championed by in 1915, who urged immigrants to become "thorough Americans" through linguistic and cultural adoption, thereby strengthening national loyalty and social bonds.

Economic Efficiency and Cost Reductions

Proponents of the English-only movement contend that designating English as the official language would curtail expenditures on routine multilingual services, such as document translations and interpreter hires, which currently impose substantial fiscal burdens. The U.S. federal has outsourced language services costing $4.5 billion cumulatively since 1990, averaging over $150 million annually based on data up to that period, with costs likely escalated by subsequent growth and expanded mandates under laws like Title VI of the . Specific programs illustrate the scale: translating materials for food stamp recipients alone runs $1.86 million per year nationwide, while Immigration and Naturalization Service multilingual operations were estimated at $114 million to $150 million annually in the mid-1990s, figures that exclude in-house efforts and have presumably risen with caseloads. Official English policies, by prioritizing English in public communications unless vital access is at stake, could redirect these funds toward English instruction, as evidenced by state-level adoptions where translation requirements have been streamlined without broad service disruptions. In education, English immersion approaches—mandated in states like California following Proposition 227's 1998 passage—offer cost efficiencies over prolonged bilingual programs by accelerating proficiency and minimizing needs for specialized bilingual staff and dual-language curricula. Dual-language immersion models, which maintain native-language instruction, incur additional expenses of approximately $100 per pupil annually due to requirements like two-teacher configurations, whereas structured English immersion leverages existing English-proficient educators for faster integration into mainstream classes. Post-Proposition 227, California saw a sharp decline in bilingual teacher preparation programs, reducing training and certification outlays that had previously strained budgets amid shortages, though initial transition costs were debated. Advocates, drawing from federal proposals like the English Language Empowerment Act, argue that reallocating savings from such shifts—potentially billions federally when including bilingual education subsidies—should fund targeted English classes for non-proficient immigrants, enhancing long-term fiscal returns through reduced remedial spending. Broader economic analyses link to aggregate productivity losses, estimated at $65 billion yearly in the late due to inefficiencies in participation and error-prone communications, underscoring how English could foster assimilation-driven gains. While critics from multilingual circles question these projections, citing unverified assumptions, empirical patterns in -English states suggest moderated demands correlate with streamlined operations, though comprehensive longitudinal audits remain scarce given the policy's non-mandatory nature on essential accommodations. Empirical research establishes a strong positive between proficiency and various measures of immigrant success, including higher earnings and rates. Immigrants with limited English skills often experience earnings penalties of 40-50% relative to native-born workers, which substantially narrow or disappear as proficiency improves to "very good" or native-like levels, even after controlling for and other factors. This wage premium arises from better job matching, reduced occupational downgrading, and access to higher-skill positions, with studies estimating host-language boosting probabilities and hourly wages by 10-20% or more across cohorts. Beyond economic metrics, English proficiency facilitates social assimilation, evidenced by patterns in , , and residential choices. Proficient immigrants are 32 percentage points more likely to marry U.S.-born spouses, who tend to have higher English skills, more years of , and 30% greater earnings than those of less proficient immigrants. Such unions correlate with fewer children per household (a reduction of about 0.44 on average) and reduced segregation, as proficiency lowers the probability of residing in ethnic enclaves by up to 1.4 percentage points, particularly for women and non-Mexican groups. Homeownership rates also rise with bilingualism or English dominance, reflecting accumulated wealth and integration. Historical comparisons reinforce these links, showing that early 20th-century immigrants with acute assimilation incentives—such as refugees fleeing —attained superior English vocabulary (0.4 standard deviations higher than economic migrants), which propelled intergenerational mobility through U.S.-specific investment. Modern data indicate that 91% of immigrants arriving between 1980 and 2010 reported speaking English, surpassing the 86% rate among 1900-1930 arrivals, with faster acquisition tied to occupational advancement and reduced reliance on co-ethnic networks. These patterns suggest that rapid English mastery, rather than prolonged multilingual support, causally underpins success by enabling direct participation in the host society's labor and social structures.

Opposing Perspectives

Allegations of Cultural Suppression

Critics of the English-only movement, including linguists and advocacy groups, have alleged that designating English as the equates to , systematically disadvantaging minority languages and eroding associated ethnic identities. James Crawford, in his 2000 analysis published in Educational Researcher, characterized the movement as "" by arguing that it imposes English dominance in public spheres like and , compelling non-English speakers to abandon heritage languages for full participation in society. This perspective posits that such policies foster linguistic assimilation that diminishes , particularly for Hispanic, Native American, and Asian immigrant communities, where home languages serve as vessels for traditions, , and intergenerational knowledge transmission. Specific allegations highlight educational restrictions, such as California's Proposition 227 in 1998, which curtailed bilingual programs in favor of English immersion; opponents claimed this suppressed Spanish cultural expression in schools by limiting instruction in students' primary languages, potentially hindering tied to native tongues. Similarly, the movement's push for English-only ballots and services has been accused of disenfranchising limited-English-proficient voters, framing it as a mechanism to sideline non-dominant cultures in democratic processes. advocates, referencing historical precedents like the suppression of Native American tongues in boarding schools from the late onward, warn that modern English-only initiatives revive coercive assimilation tactics, threatening the survival of endangered languages spoken by fewer than 10% of tribal members as of 2020 U.S. Census data. In response to federal proposals like the English Language Unity Act of 2023, critics including organizations contend that codifying English exclusivity would institutionalize cultural erasure by revoking multilingual accommodations, such as those under Executive Order 13166 from 2000, which mandated language access for federal programs. These claims, often advanced by groups like the National Council of La Raza (now ), emphasize that while private language use remains unrestricted, official signals devaluation of minority cultures, potentially accelerating rates observed in U.S. immigrant cohorts where third-generation proficiency in ancestral tongues drops below 20% per longitudinal studies. However, such allegations frequently originate from academic and advocacy sources predisposed toward multilingual preservation, with limited empirical demonstration of direct causal links between official English policies and measurable cultural loss beyond voluntary assimilation trends.

Defense of Multilingual Policies

Proponents of multilingual policies contend that bilingualism and support for non-English languages enhance cognitive abilities, citing research demonstrating advantages in executive function, problem-solving, and delayed onset of among multilingual individuals. A 2013 study published in found that bilingualism provided a protective effect against cognitive decline, with bilingual participants showing symptoms of 4.3 years later than monolinguals, based on data from 648 Indian patients. Similarly, meta-analyses of developmental studies indicate that early bilingual exposure improves and multitasking without impairing overall . Economically, defenders highlight that multilingualism boosts workforce productivity and competitiveness, particularly in trade-dependent sectors. A 2023 analysis of U.S. data revealed that bilingual workers, especially Spanish-English speakers, earned 5-20% higher wages in service and professional roles compared to monolingual English speakers, with benefits most pronounced for those at lower quantiles. for multilingual employees doubled from to , according to a New American Economy report analyzing job postings, correlating with expanded export opportunities in regions with high immigrant populations. Proponents argue that policies accommodating multiple languages in and facilitate this by enabling immigrants to leverage native-language skills for and consumer outreach, potentially adding billions to GDP through and . In education, advocates assert that bilingual programs accelerate English proficiency while preserving heritage languages, countering claims of segregation. Longitudinal evaluations, such as those from the , show that students in well-implemented dual-language immersion programs outperform peers in English reading and math by grades 4-5, with no long-term delays in assimilation metrics like parental involvement or cultural integration. A 2018 systematic of 31 studies concluded that yields comparable or superior literacy outcomes to English-only immersion, particularly for low-income and minority students, by building metalinguistic awareness that aids overall academic success. Critics of English-only measures, including the Linguistic Society of America, warn that restricting multilingual services could exacerbate educational inequities by limiting access for recent arrivals, though they acknowledge English dominance occurs naturally over generations without mandates. Multilingual policies are also defended on historical grounds, noting America's tradition of linguistic pluralism, from German newspapers in the to modern immigrant enclaves, which fostered innovation without fracturing . Empirical data from assimilation studies indicate that maintaining home languages correlates with faster English acquisition in second-generation immigrants, as familial transfer supports school readiness, per analyses of records spanning 1980-2020. Organizations like the argue that English-only initiatives lack evidentiary support for improving cohesion and may induce psychosocial stress by marginalizing non-speakers, potentially hindering voluntary integration. Opponents of English-only policies argue that such measures could violate civil rights protections by discriminating against non-English speakers on the basis of , particularly in workplaces where blanket English-only rules are presumed discriminatory under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines unless justified by business necessity. For instance, the EEOC has ruled that rules requiring English at all times impose burdensome conditions of and may foster harassment or on limited-English-proficient (LEP) employees, leading to lawsuits alleging Title VII violations. Critics, including civil rights organizations, contend that expanding official English mandates—such as the March 1, 2025, designating English as the federal 's sole —could erode language access requirements in public services, potentially denying LEP individuals equal access to voting, proceedings, and government benefits without translators or multilingual materials. In legal contexts, opponents highlight risks of constitutional challenges under the , asserting that English-only laws stigmatize immigrants and hinder for those unable to navigate English-dominant systems, as evidenced by historical opposition from groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which views such policies as forms of . The Linguistic Society of America opposed the 2025 , warning it could discriminate against non-native speakers by limiting federal accommodations and ignoring linguistic diversity's role in effective communication. Advocacy groups like the National Immigration Law Center argue that while the order does not explicitly repeal anti-discrimination laws, it signals reduced enforcement of language access mandates under Title VI of the , potentially increasing barriers for over 25 million LEP residents in accessing essential services. Educationally, critics maintain that English-only mandates, by prohibiting or restricting bilingual programs, disadvantage English learners (ELs) and lead to lower academic performance compared to dual-language immersion models. Research from indicates that bilingual programs outperform English-only immersion for ELs in reading and math proficiency, with dual-language approaches yielding higher graduation rates and long-term cognitive benefits. A 2023 review of studies found that maintenance bilingual education sustains native-language skills while accelerating English acquisition, contrasting with immersion's potential to cause short-term achievement gaps for ELs lacking foundational literacy in their . Opponents cite California's Proposition 227 (1998), which shifted to immersion and was blamed by educators for initial drops in EL test scores and increased dropout risks, arguing that denying bilingual options ignores evidence from programs like two-way immersion, which enhance outcomes for both ELs and native English speakers. These concerns extend to equity in , with detractors asserting that English-only policies divert funding from proven bilingual supports, exacerbating disparities for the approximately 5 million ELs in U.S. public schools, many from low-income or immigrant backgrounds. The has noted that such policies may perpetuate educational inequities by overlooking research on biliteracy's advantages in and problem-solving, potentially violating EL students' right to an effective education under precedents like Lau v. Nichols (1974), which mandated accommodations for LEP students.

Empirical Evidence and Research

Studies on Language Proficiency and Economic Outcomes

Research utilizing data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) from 1997 to 2013 demonstrates that English-proficient immigrants experience significantly higher wage earnings compared to those with limited proficiency, with ordinary least squares estimates indicating a 20-30% premium after controlling for , , and other factors; this effect extends to and income, though less pronounced for outcomes. Similarly, analyses of U.S. Census and data reveal that foreign-born workers with strong English skills earn 15-25% more than comparable limited-proficiency counterparts, narrowing the overall immigrant-native wage gap by facilitating access to higher-skill occupations. Causal evidence from instrumental variable approaches, such as exploiting critical periods in for childhood immigrants, confirms that English proficiency boosts adult earnings primarily through enhanced —adding up to 1.2 years of schooling—and subsequent occupational mobility, with returns comparable to those from additional native . For adult arrivals, self-reported proficiency measures in longitudinal surveys like the New Immigrant Survey correlate with 10-15% higher hourly wages, underscoring language barriers as a key driver of in low-wage, manual sectors. Employment probabilities also improve markedly with proficiency; a cross-national study including U.S. migrants estimates that host-language skills more than double rates within the first five years post-arrival by reducing hiring and enabling better job matching. (LEP) immigrants face higher poverty risks (24% vs. 10% for proficient peers) and concentration in hourly, low-wage roles (e.g., 64% rate but skewed toward precarious jobs), per 2019-2023 and labor , highlighting proficiency's role in long-term fiscal self-sufficiency. These patterns hold across origins, though magnitudes vary by arrival age and origin-language distance, with non-European immigrants showing steeper gains from proficiency due to baseline disadvantages.

Assimilation Rates and Historical Comparisons

Historical data from the early indicate that during the peak of European mass migration (1880–1920), when foreign-born populations reached levels comparable to today (around 15%), first-generation immigrants often retained native languages, with only about 86% reporting any English use by 1900–1930. However, linguistic assimilation accelerated across generations; by the second generation, English proficiency approached universality, driven by public schooling mandates and economic incentives absent widespread welfare supports. Studies using records show that name-based , a proxy for , occurred within 20–25 years for many groups, though slower for those forming dense ethnic enclaves. Contemporary immigrants exhibit similar or accelerated patterns when adjusted for demographics. Analysis of U.S. and birth records reveals that English-speaking rates among immigrants rose to 91% for those arriving 1980–2010, exceeding historical benchmarks, with second-generation proficiency exceeding 95% in speaking English at home. For instance, immigrants, often cited for slower initial uptake due to geographic proximity to Spanish-speaking regions, achieve high proficiency faster than 19th-century , with 44% of post-2000 arrivals reporting strong English skills upon entry and near-full by the third generation. Factors contributing to this include expanded English immersion in schools and market demands, though persistent bilingualism in media and policy-enabled enclaves can delay full shift compared to past eras lacking such supports.
GenerationEnglish Proficiency Rate (Speaking "Very Well" or Better)Source Period
First (Immigrants)50–60% (varies by origin; higher for recent Asians/Europeans)2010s–2020s
Second90–95%1980–present
Historical First (1900–1930)~40–50% initialEarly 20th century
Empirical comparisons underscore that while today's non-European immigrants face unique challenges like global native-language media availability, overall assimilation trajectories mirror historical ones, with no evidence of stalled progress threatening English dominance. Peer-reviewed assessments confirm economic and social integration correlates strongly with English mastery, achieved comparably across eras despite compositional shifts.

Evaluations of Multilingual vs. English-Focused Policies

Evaluations of multilingual versus English-focused policies often center on economic costs, educational efficacy, and immigrant assimilation rates, with empirical data indicating that English-focused approaches yield greater efficiency and integration benefits. Multilingual government services, including translation for ballots, documents, and public assistance, impose substantial fiscal burdens; for instance, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated costs between $114 million and $150 million annually for such provisions in the early 2000s, while broader federal outsourcing for language services has exceeded $4.5 billion since 1990. Additionally, among immigrants contributes to an estimated $65 billion annual economic loss through reduced productivity and . In education, structured English immersion programs demonstrate faster acquisition of English proficiency compared to bilingual education models, facilitating quicker academic progress for non-native speakers. A Texas State University analysis found that students in structured immersion outperformed peers in bilingual programs on reading assessments, attributing gains to concentrated English exposure that accelerates cognitive and linguistic adaptation. While some studies, such as those reviewed by Education Week, suggest bilingual instruction yields long-term advantages in subjects like mathematics and social studies, these benefits often emerge after extended timelines and may reflect selection biases in high-resource districts rather than causal superiority. English immersion aligns with causal mechanisms of language learning, where immersion mirrors natural acquisition processes observed in historical immigrant waves, leading to 91% English-speaking rates among 1980-2010 arrivals versus slower integration in multilingual settings. Assimilation metrics further favor English-focused policies, as proficiency strongly predicts , , and . Research from the Forum for Understanding Together establishes that English skills enhance job security, , and civic participation, with proficient immigrants naturalizing at higher rates and experiencing reduced isolation. A in the International Migration Review confirms English acquisition as the primary driver of , outweighing factors like age at arrival or marital patterns, evidenced by correlations with residential integration and fertility alignment with natives. States designating English as official, as mapped across the U.S., correlate with higher immigrant English proficiency and labor force participation, per analyses of census data, underscoring policy incentives for language convergence without empirical detriment to minority tongues in private spheres. These findings challenge claims of cultural erosion, revealing instead that English prioritization fosters cohesive, productive societies through verifiable pathways of skill acquisition and opportunity access.

Federal Initiatives and Executive Actions

In the 1980s, proponents of the English-only movement introduced federal bills to establish English as the through legislation or , such as the proposed English Language Amendment, which sought to amend the U.S. Constitution to mandate English for federal proceedings but failed to gain sufficient congressional support. Similar efforts persisted, including H.R. 997, the English Language Unity Act of 2005, introduced by Rep. , which declared English the , required federal documents and proceedings in English, and established uniform naturalization rules emphasizing English proficiency, though it did not advance beyond committee. Subsequent iterations, like the 2009 version reintroduced by King, aimed to limit non-English use in government functions but repeatedly stalled in due to opposition over concerns about restricting immigrant access to services. The English Language Unity Act continued to be reintroduced in later sessions, including S. 678 in the 117th (2021-2022), which obligated federal representatives to enhance English's role while preserving limited exceptions for , yet it garnered minimal cosponsors and no floor votes. In the 119th (2025-2026), Rep. sponsored H.R. 1862 on March 5, 2025, to declare English official, enforce its use in , and clarify statutory interpretations favoring English primacy, accompanied by a companion S. 542; Rep. also introduced related legislation on March 3, 2025, focusing on uniformity. These bills reflect ongoing advocacy for statutory codification but have not passed, highlighting legislative resistance amid debates on federal overreach into language policy. Executive actions remained limited until 2025, when President issued 14224 on March 1, 2025, formally designating English as the official language of the for the first time via . The order mandates that federal agencies conduct official business in English, prioritizes English in communications and publications, and revokes provisions of prior directives like 13166 (2000), which had required meaningful access to federally conducted programs for limited-English-proficient individuals through translation services. It directs agencies to streamline operations by reducing multilingual requirements where feasible, aiming to promote national unity and efficiency, though it preserves narrow exceptions for public safety, health emergencies, and . The Department of Justice followed with implementation guidance on July 14, 2025, clarifying that the order does not eliminate all language assistance but shifts emphasis to English proficiency for eligibility in federal benefits and services, potentially affecting millions with limited English skills by curtailing routine translations. Critics, including civil rights organizations, contend the order lacks statutory basis and may undermine civil rights laws like Title VI of the , but supporters argue it aligns with de facto English dominance and fosters assimilation without prohibiting private . This executive measure marks a significant policy shift, bypassing stalled legislative efforts while inviting legal challenges over its scope and authority.

State-Level Legislation and Ballot Measures

As of March 2025, thirty U.S. states have enacted laws or constitutional amendments designating as their , with eleven of these approvals occurring through voter-approved measures and nineteen via legislative action. These measures typically require operations, documents, and proceedings to be conducted in English, though many include exceptions for federal mandates, , , or indigenous languages in states like , , and . The adoption wave peaked in the and , reflecting broader national debates on , assimilation, and resource allocation for multilingual services. Ballot measures have been a key mechanism for the English-only movement at the state level, often passing with strong majorities to affirm English's primacy in public life. led early efforts with a 1920 initiative requiring English for official proceedings, records, and schools, approved by 83.63% of voters. Subsequent successes included Hawaii's 1978 measure (69.72% approval, co-official with Hawaiian), California's Proposition 63 in 1986 (73.25%), Arizona's Proposition 106 in 1988 (50.5%, later overturned by court in 1998 but reinstated via 2006 ballot at 74%), Colorado's Amendment 1 in 1988 (61.15%), Florida's in 1988 (83.87%), Alabama's in 1990 (88.52%), Alaska's in 1998 (68.60%), Utah's in 2000 (67.18%), Missouri's in 2008 (86.31%), and Oklahoma's State Question 751 in 2010 (75.54%). These initiatives generally mandate English for state business while allowing limited exceptions, aiming to promote unity and reduce costs associated with translation. Legislative enactments, often without voter input, have covered the remaining states, emphasizing English's role in governance and education. Examples include in 1969, in 1981 (revised 1996), multiple Southern states like Georgia (1986), (1987), and (1987), and later adoptions such as in 2002, and in 2007, in 1995, and in 2016. Provisions vary: Arkansas's 1987 law ties official status to equal educational opportunities in public schools, while 's explicitly states no obligation to provide non-English materials. Failed or challenged efforts, like Arizona's initial overturn in Ruiz v. Hull (1998), highlight legal hurdles, but subsequent voter reaffirmations underscore persistent support.
StateYearMethodKey Outcome/Provision
1920Approved; English for proceedings, records, schools.
1978Approved; co-official with Hawaiian.
1986Approved; enforceable by citizens.
1988/20061988 approved but overturned 1998; 2006 reinstated with exceptions.
1988Approved; legislative enforcement.
1990/LegislationApproved; enforceable by legislation.
2010Approved; exceptions for .
This table highlights select ballot successes; full legislative lists include states like (1984) and (1996), focusing on English for official communications without mandating bilingual services. No major new state adoptions occurred post-2016 as of October 2025, though proposed a 2026 ballot measure.

Recent Developments Post-2020

On March 1, 2025, President issued 14224, designating English as the official language of the for the first time at the federal level, aiming to streamline government communication, reinforce national unity, and promote assimilation by prioritizing English in official capacities while allowing exceptions for . The order explicitly revoked prior multilingual mandates where they conflicted, directing federal agencies to phase out non-essential non-English services and redirect resources toward English-language programs. Implementing the , the Department of Justice issued guidance on July 14, 2025, mandating English-only federal services in non-essential areas, such as informational materials and administrative proceedings, to conserve resources and encourage proficiency among limited English proficient (LEP) populations. Similarly, on August 17, 2025, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced an English-only initiative for all departmental services, requiring English as the primary for communications, applications, and hearings to ensure consistent policy application and reduce translation costs estimated in the millions annually. Legislative efforts complemented these actions, with the English Language Unity Act reintroduced in the 119th as S. 542 and H.R. 1862, seeking statutory codification of English as the , uniform requirements, and limits on multilingual federal mandates; however, these bills remained pending without passage by October 2025. Critics, including the Linguistic of America, opposed the order on March 1, 2025, arguing it could hinder access to services for non-English speakers without sufficient evidence of net benefits to cohesion. Analyses from organizations projected potential disruptions for over 20 million LEP individuals in accessing federal programs, though proponents countered that empirical data on assimilation rates in English-dominant environments supports long-term economic gains outweighing short-term adjustments. At the state level, no new statutes designating English as official were enacted between and 2025, maintaining the prior count of 30 states with such policies, primarily established pre-2020. Advocacy groups continued pushing ballot measures in multilingual-heavy states, but none advanced to voter approval in this period, amid ongoing debates over funding amid rising .

References

  1. https://www.thoughtco.com/english-only-movement-language-1690601
  2. https://www.usenglish.org/
  3. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/piaac-skills-outcomes-us-college-graduates
  4. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=hpt
  5. https://www.usenglish.org/about-us/
  6. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED426599.pdf
  7. https://news.ballotpedia.org/2025/03/03/thirty-states-have-adopted-english-as-an-official-language-11-through-ballot-measures-since-1920/
  8. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states/
  9. https://www.lsadc.org/lsa-statement-against-designating-english-as-the-official-language
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6559801/
  11. https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25489
  12. https://www.columbia.edu/~lmg21/ash3002y/earlyac99/documents/observations.html
  13. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-peter-collinson/
  14. https://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/officialamerican/
  15. http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/Adams.htm
  16. https://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/officialamerican/johnadams/
  17. https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/ADMS-06-10-02-pb-0130
  18. https://debaron.web.illinois.edu/essays/legend.htm
  19. https://immigrationtounitedstates.org/481-english-only-and-official-english-movements.html
  20. https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/immigrant-era-focus-assimilation
  21. https://www.npr.org/2017/04/07/523044253/during-world-war-i-u-s-government-propaganda-erased-german-culture
  22. https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/americanization/
  23. https://racism.org/articles/citizenship-rights/language-and-english-only/575-engonly3
  24. https://www.sfpublicpress.org/language-education-evolves-in-u-s-california/
  25. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/michigan/2017/03/15/mich-man-led-immigration-fight-nearly-forgotten/99193990/
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/making-english-official/origins-of-the-englishonly-movement/EA7B6A8504EE579CCEF68094D7ABFE5B
  27. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/john-tanton-architect-of-anti-immigration-and-english-only-efforts-dies-at-85/2019/07/21/2301f728-aa3f-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html
  28. http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/LLED.htm
  29. https://cervantesobservatorio.fas.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/language_legislation_us.pdf
  30. https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/english-only
  31. https://proenglish.org/
  32. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/trump-has-made-english-the-official-language-what-that-means-for-schools/2025/03
  33. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/73_favor_making_english_official_language
  34. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/17/how-americans-feel-about-making-english-the-official-language-of-the-us/
  35. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/designating-english-as-the-official-language-of-the-united-states-could-impact-millions-with-limited-english-proficiency/
  36. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/08/nx-s1-5324719/trumps-english-language-executive-order-explained
  37. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/language-at-home-acs-5-year.html
  38. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/official-english-order-language-access
  39. https://www.usenglish.org/official-english/about-the-issue/
  40. https://www.usenglish.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/State-Official-English-Laws.pdf
  41. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/104th-congress/house-report/723/1
  42. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/678/text
  43. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/997
  44. https://greene.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=936
  45. https://proenglish.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/PRO-ENGLISH-Summer2023-BW.pdf
  46. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/proenglish/
  47. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119-congress/house-bill/1772/text
  48. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/trump-anti-immigrant-priorities-national-language-executive-order/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2813069/
  50. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20220386
  51. https://wol.iza.org/articles/language-proficiency-and-the-economic-integration-of-immigrants/long
  52. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants
  53. https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-learn-english-immigrants-language
  54. https://forumtogether.org/article/the-relationship-between-english-proficiency-and-naturalization/
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137725000269
  56. https://www.hudson.org/domestic-policy/official-english-fosters-the-patriotic-assimilation-of-immigrants
  57. https://refugeeresearchonline.org/creating-social-cohesion-through-a-common-language/
  58. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/what-history-tells-us-about-assimilation-immigrants
  59. https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/assimilation-more-learning-english
  60. https://csa-research.com/Blogs-Events/CSA-in-the-Media/Press-Releases/US-outsources-translation-services
  61. https://www.usenglish.org/official-english/fact-sheets-costs-of-multilingualism/
  62. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/why-english-should-be-official-language-united-sta/
  63. https://www.avantassessment.com/blog/how-expensive-is-dual-language-immersion-really
  64. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/bilingual-teacher-shortages-california-factsheet
  65. https://proenglish.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Summer-2009.pdf
  66. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/668797/claim-feds-spend-hidden-billions-yearly-for-non-english-translations/
  67. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/223620/1/iza-wol-469.pdf
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292119300200
  69. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31730/w31730.pdf
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3957215/
  71. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1243028.pdf
  72. https://scispace.com/pdf/language-ideologies-critical-perspectives-on-the-official-quz7smw1tm.pdf
  73. http://languagepolicy.net/archives/LLPT4.htm
  74. https://trace.tennessee.edu/context/utk_graddiss/article/6451/viewcontent/utk.ir.td_432.pdf
  75. https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/lost-in-translation-language-discrimination-and-the-human-right-to-access
  76. https://bayanebartar.org/file-dl/library/Linguistic1/The_Cultural_Politics_of_English.pdf
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Teresa-Mccarty/publication/292589187_Dangerous_difference_A_critical-historical_analysis_of_language_education_policies_in_the_United_States/links/56cda90f08ae85c8233e6035/Dangerous-difference-A-critical-historical-analysis-of-language-education-policies-in-the-United-States.pdf
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5662126/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6168086/
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10309611/
  81. http://newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/new-research-examines-economic-benefits-bilingualism/
  82. https://www.seal.org/news/benefits-of-being-multilingual
  83. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/02/speaking-more-languages-boost-economic-growth/
  84. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/bilingual-education-vs-english-only-what-the-research-says/2025/08
  85. https://time.com/6899172/immigrant-languages-history/
  86. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/history-bilingual-education/412543/
  87. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/english-only-rules
  88. https://www.maynardnexsen.com/publication-everybody-talks-are-english-only-workplace-policies-legal
  89. https://www.nilc.org/articles/language-access-and-civil-rights-analyzing-the-impact-of-the-executive-order-claiming-to-make-english-the-official-national-language/
  90. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/docs/English_Only_Policies_Report-July-2011.pdf
  91. https://lulac.org/advocacy/issues/english_vs_spansih/
  92. https://tcf.org/content/report/ensuring-equitable-access-to-dual-language-immersion-programs-supporting-english-learners-emerging-bilingualism/
  93. https://www.seal.org/news/bilingual-education-works-best-for-english-learners
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3838203/
  95. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/WWC_DLP_IR-Report.pdf
  96. https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=eeb
  97. https://www.uh.edu/~achin/research/bleakley_chin_english.pdf
  98. https://www.nber.org/papers/w5763
  99. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/five-key-facts-about-immigrants-with-limited-english-proficiency/
  100. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22381/w22381.pdf
  101. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aeri.20190079
  102. https://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/study-latinos-learn-english-faster-german-immigrants/story?id=19428225
  103. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/bilingualism-persists-english-still-dominates
  104. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/08/21/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/
  105. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/10/pgae344/7795945
  106. https://manhattan.institute/article/measuring-immigrant-assimilation-in-the-united-states
  107. https://digital.library.txst.edu/bitstreams/724bce17-a87e-4c24-980e-b8ec6336326b/download
  108. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/997
  109. https://blog.oup.com/2010/09/english-language-unity/
  110. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1862
  111. http://aderholt.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-robert-aderholt-introduces-designation-english-official
  112. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr1862
  113. https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025
  114. https://www.aila.org/executive-order-90-fr-11363-3-6-25
  115. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-guidance-implementing-president-trumps-executive-order
  116. https://ballotpedia.org/History_of_English_as_official_language_ballot_measures_and_laws
  117. https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1407776/dl
  118. https://nypost.com/2025/08/17/us-news/hud-launches-english-only-initiative-for-all-department-services-speak-with-one-voice-and-one-language/
  119. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/542/all-info
  120. https://ballotpedia.org/English_language_policy_ballot_measures
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.