English Language Unity Act: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:51, 23 January 2015

Revision as of 23:52, 2 May 2016

Line 19:

Some opponents of the bill also argue that the legislation is unconstitutional. They assert it would limit the government's ability to correspond with all its citizens, and that by restricting federal and state employees from communicating with citizens in a language other than English, the bill violates [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|first amendment]] rights of [[free speech]]. Some further contend that the bill would call for changes to the [[Voting Rights Act]] by eliminating all non- English ballots, despite the fact that nothing in the bill's language modifies the Voting Rights Act.

Supporters of the legislation take the position that accommodation of non-English speakers discourages [[LanguageCultural assimilation|assimilation]]. They acknowledge that the ability to speak a language other than English is valuable, and that its use in the home, church or private place of business should in no way be discouraged. At the same time, they argue that the government should not bear the responsibility of guaranteeing that non-English-speaking individuals can participate in government solely using their [[Mother tongue|mother language]]. They contend that as more immigrants learn English, the [[language barrier]]s that divide the country into separate groups will disintegrate and lead to a decrease in racial and ethnic problems. They also believe that by learning English, individuals can become more productive citizens and members of American society. They argue that [[immigrant]]s who are fluent in English have better economic opportunities, and assert that non-English speakers tend to find themselves restricted to low-skilled, low-paying jobs. Supporters of the bill also posit that the ability of immigrant groups to speak English will give them an increased political voice and allow them to participate more fully and effectively in the democratic process.<ref>http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/pub/eres/GSR716A_KUECHLER/monique.htm</ref>

Supporters of this legislation argue that accommodating non-English speakers is an unnecessary expense to the government. The total annual cost for the [[California Department of Motor Vehicles]] to provide language services is $2.2 million, while providing the same level of [[Department of Motor Vehicles|DMV]] translation services nationwide costs approximately $8.5 million per year.<ref>U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress: Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to Services for Person with Limited English Proficiency, March 14, 2002</ref> The total cost of providing multilingual services for the [[Immigration and Naturalization Service]] are between $114 million and $150 million annually.<ref>U.S. 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, March 14, 2002</ref> It costs $1.86 million annually just to prepare written translations for [[Food Stamp Program|food stamp]] recipients nationwide. The cost for government-funded speech translation increased to $21 million nationally per year.<ref>U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Report to Congress: Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, March 14, 2002</ref>