Is English the Official Language of the United States?
It was November 2008 in Miami. Election day: The lines were long, and the ballots were even longer. Many initiatives were included in the ballots, and it took some time to go over them. Even more surprising was the number of language options utilized. Yet, there were cries from people complaining that their language of choice was not included.
The most-asked question amounted to, “Why are we utilizing any language other than English?”
Perhaps it is because English is not the United States’ official language.
A Common Misnomer of the Official Language
Mario Mojica, former director of U.S. English, explained, “Most Americans assume that English is the official language. But it’s not and never has been.”
In a 2007 poll conducted by U.S. English, 87% of Americans thought it should be.
“There was a bill that officially proposed it in 2007,” said then Pro-English.org Director Jane Cannava. “But Chuck Schumer killed it in committee.”
“Why?” you ask.
“I couldn’t tell you,” Cannava lamented. “It seemed that it was more about political correctness than anything.”
The revelation inspired a new project: A book that proposed a constitutional amendment making English the official language in the U.S. It was an exhilarating albeit arduous endeavor. During the literary journey two additional benefits surfaced from this proposed amendment, accompanied by an ugly truth nobody seemed to want to discuss.
Flaws in the American Education System
Having an honest discussion about language preference begins with an honest discussion about literacy in America. To do this, you must begin with the uncomfortable question, “Why would anyone not want all U.S. students to graduate from high school literate?” There is an answer and it’s not pretty.
Former Florida U.S. Senator Mel Martinez pointed out the problem of not forcing Spanish language students to learn English. He contended that by discouraging English usage, “linguistical ghettos” resulted. He accused both the public schools and private organizations of encouraging people not to learn English.
“Why?”
“Because those new to America who do not learn English are easier to control,” Martinez expanded. “When Cubans first came to America during Castro’s rise, they were literally forced to learn English. And we did!” Thanks to the emersion experience, Cubans took the lead in the Miami Latino community and today essentially run what many consider America’s most cosmopolitan city.
This exhibition of accelerated assimilation gave me the idea: “What if every non-English speaker in America was incentivized to learn English?”
Creating Constructive Motivation
The proposed “E” Amendment, as outlined in my book “E is for English,” makes English the official language of the United States. It also goes one step further: Requiring passage of a fourth-grade English proficiency examination as a prerequisite for a voter identification card. In essence, no ID card, no participation.
The exam would be created by professionals who administer the college entrance examinations (GMAT, GRE, SAT, and ACT). They mostly sit in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and would be the sole providers for all states. The voter ID cards would include photos and signatures of the voter and could be obtained, free of charge at the voters’ home counties. Only U.S. Citizens would be eligible.
As expected, there would be enormous pushback from groups claiming that the goal of “E” advocates was voter suppression.
A Paradigm Shift Would be Required
This would be the tricky aspect of our proposed “E” Amendment. We would need to bring a change in Americans’ point of view: “That voting was a privilege, not a right.”
Opponents would argue that the measure would deprive millions of voting, calling advocates “racists, fascists, bigots, homophobes, xenophobes” and pretty much everything including the devil incarnate. Yet none of these assertions would hold water.
English itself is the glue that holds the country together and creates a unifying force. It transcends all differences, including race, sex, creed, national origin, religious preference, and gender preference. It brings us all together, ultimately making the country smarter, stronger, and more secure.
To put it bluntly, the “E” amendment’s implementation would make sheeple into people. It sounds good. Power brokers see it in a different light, however.
A more literate population would be more difficult to control. Better-educated people ask more questions. Some of these questions are the wrong questions, in the eyes of those in control.
A Second Tangible Benefit
Sadly, almost half of the Republican party believes that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Lax voting requirements contributed to this position. The “E” Amendment would stop voter fraud/election fraud.
I recall a 2008 Indiana report stating that a young man allegedly voted 17 times. This would never happen under “E.” Without the ID card, you would not participate. Because voter participation would be essential in winning elections, there would be a newfound incentive for political parties to stress literacy for the electorate.
Could “E” Really Happen?
I believe that it could. Thirty-eight states would be required for ratification. Presidential participation is not required, per Hollinsworth v. Virginia, 1798.
The support group outlined in writing is called “Eagles for America.” Their watchwords for all politicians would be simple: “Those favoring ‘E’ advocated a stronger, smarter more secure America.”
Opponents would be labeled as “un-American, unpatriotic, and unfit for leadership.”
These words will eventually have an impact on the most dogmatic politician. Just imagine a piece of bread under the continuous drip from a water facet.
Get the picture?
