Below you will find some of the answers you and your classmates have found to the research questions I posed to you in an earlier e-mail about speakers of other languages in the United States, current laws that govern their rights, and the effect proposals to make English the official language of the country would have on those rights and on the federal budget. Because several of you submitted similar materials (much of it provided by usenglish.org, a website that promotes efforts to make English the official language of the United States), I have edited and consolidated your work. (My apologies to those researchers who don't get a name check!)
The Numbers
We have read that there are 322 languages spoken in the United States. How do those languages break down in terms of number of speakers? How many people in the United States have limited proficiency in English? 
Caitlin: According to the 2000 Census …80% of the population over 5 report speaking English well or very well. Spanish is the second most widely spoken language with about 29 million speakers. The top 10 languages other than English and Spanish are: 1. Chinese- 2 million; 2.French- 1.6 million; 3. German- 1.4 million; 4. Tagalog-1.2 million; 5. Vietnamese-1 million; 6. Italian-1 million; 7. Korean-.9 million; 8.Russian-.7 million; 9.Polish -.7 million; 10.Arabic-.6 million
Kate writes: Spanish: Has increased 201% since 1980 and they have the highest concentration in California, New York, Miami, and Chicago.
Paula adds: In 1980, fewer than 1-in-20 Americans struggled with English. Now, nearly 1-in-12 do. (Source: U.S. Census). In 2000, the number of linguistically isolated households--meaning that no one in the household spoke English at home or spoke English "very well"—is up 54 percent. In all, more than 1-in-25 households in the United States is linguistically isolated. (Source: Census 2000)
 |
| Documents Required in 322 Languages? |
Civil Rights and Current Law
English is not the Official Language of the United States. Does that mean that the government is required to publish all official documents in each of those 322 languages?
Lisa: In answer to the question whether the government is required to publish all official documents in each of the 322 languages, I found it to be "no."
Nathan: Looking at the forms required to apply for a social security card, I found that the application was offered in many widely used languages, but offered no translation of the site for lesser spoken languages. One option however which points to the U.S. publishing in other languages is that it does offer free translation services. The problem with that of course, is that the website tells those with limited english the directions for an interpreter in English. This link--http://www.archives.gov/research/alic/reference/govt-docs.html—is for the government’s archives which holds all published documents. Of those available, I found none in another language.
What does the Law require?
What does the Law require?
Amber (source: www. http://www.strictlyspanish.com/whitepaper2.htm: "... Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “requires that vital materials be available in the language of everyone receiving benefits subsidized by the Federal Government. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 2000 Executive Order No. 13166 require that public entities receiving federal funds must have all vital documents available in every language that their clients speak; every language, not just Spanish. Why? Because the U.S. has never declared an official language and as such, the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 still applies. Basically, Title VI was best described by President John F. Kennedy in 1963: 'Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races [colors, and national origins] contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial [color or national origin] discrimination.'"
 |
| MLK &LBJ,after LBJ signs Civil Rights Act of 1964 |
Felisha (source: http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/can-mult.htm):
Immigration: interpreters must be available during the physical and mental examination of foreigners seeking entry to the United States – 8 U.S.C. 1224;
The Courts (due process): court interpreters must be provided in federal civil and criminal trials that involve parties or witnesses who are not proficient in English – 28 U.S.C. 1827.
Health care: bilingual personnel must be provided in federally funded migrant health centers and alcohol abuse programs that serve a significant non-English-speaking population – 42 U.S.C. 254b(f)(3)(J), 245c, 4577b.
Voting Rights: Bilingual ballots and voter information must be provided in jurisdictions where speakers of Spanish, Native American, and Asian American languages exceed 5 percent of the population or number more than 10,000 and have below average rates of voter turnout and English proficiency – 42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a.
Education: Federal civil rights law requires schools to take "appropriate action to overcome language barriers" that bar full access to the curriculum for children who are limited in English (20 U.S.C. 1703f). This was also the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lau v. Nichols. Yet there is no federal mandate for bilingual education.
Lisa (source: http://www.lep.gov/13166/eo13166.html): 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. It is expected that agency plans will provide for such meaningful access consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the fundamental mission of the agency. The Executive Order also requires that the Federal agencies work to ensure that recipients of Federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries.
To assist Federal agencies in carrying out these responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Justice has issued a Policy Guidance Document, "Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency" (2002 LEP Guidance). This LEP Guidance sets forth the compliance standards that recipients of Federal financial assistance must follow to ensure that their programs and activities normally provided in English are accessible to LEP persons and thus do not discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI's prohibition.
Current Expenses
We have read that not having English as the Official Language of the United States costs billions of dollars a year. What are the exact expenses that this claim refers to?
A number of students uploaded details provided by www.us-english.org about the cost to various states and municipalities of providing interpreter and translation services Ashley, for example, writes that “for the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the total cost of their multilingual services would be anywhere from $114-$150 million annually! The last figure I read was that for food stamps recipients nationwide it costs the United States $1.86 million to give out written translations per year.”
Lisa (source: http://www.lep.gov/13166/eo13166.html) writes that: The “billions of dollars in expenses” mentioned refer to federal expenses and the expenses of “any entity receiving federal monies” since that is what proposed Official English [legislation] would supposedly do away with . . .In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget said the costs of the executive order [13166—signed in 2000—see details below] are likely less than $2 billion per year, and maybe less than $1 billion per year, although the government has nearly doubled in size since that estimate was made.
According to Wikipedia, the 2011 federal budget was 3.834 trillion dollars. So if the above numbers are correct, the for every $10,000 the federal government spends, somewhere between 2.5 and 5 dollars goes to satisfying the requirements of Executive Order 13166.
Proposed Legislation:
English Only vs. English as the Official Language vs. What We Have Now (no official language)
If English were declared the Official Language of the United States, would the government spend less money on interpreters and translators?
If English were declared the Official Language of the United States, would the government spend less money on interpreters and translators?
Lisa (source: http://www.us-english.org/view/9): Declaring English the official language means that official government business at all levels must be conducted solely in English. This includes all public documents, records, legislation and regulations, as well as hearings, official ceremonies and public meetings. Official English legislation contains common-sense exceptions permitting the use of languages other than English for such things as public health and safety services, judicial proceedings, foreign language instruction and the promotion of tourism.
This kind of legislation is different from policies that would make English the “official” language of the United States (or of any particular state).
Amber: “… declaring an official language would abridge the rights of individuals with limited English proficiency, individuals who are paying taxes and who are entitled to the same rights as those who speak English. . . .Although twenty seven states have declared English as their official language, in order to receive federal financial assistance those states still have to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Projected Savings Promised by Proposed Official English Legislation:
Lisa: Passing the bill into law would likely reduce government spending, but it is difficult to estimate the savings. In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget said the costs of the executive order are likely less than $2 billion per year, and maybe less than $1 billion per year, although the government has nearly doubled in size since that estimate was made.
Lisa: …all I have been able to find are claims that Official English would save us so much money and trouble, but no certain examples about how that would happen. I just don’t buy this way of thinking that doing away with the service will get rid of the need for the service, and most of all I don’t buy that it will have any significant impact, unless they refuse all translation services, which is just absurd.
Jaime: At the website us-english.org, they had, columns of myths and realities. On the myth side, it stated . . . "a 911 interpreter would violate official English" by saying that the reality is "Any bill sponsored by U.S.ENGLISH would provide a specific exemption for 'actions ... that protect the public health.'" So does that mean it comes out of the non-English speaker's pocket instead of our taxes if they choose to use an interpreter? I think that's what they're hoping we'll assume somehow, that it will affect us less financially if English is the official language, but they never say how that works.
No comments:
Post a Comment