Advocates of the opposite argument on English as the official language of the United States would take a different position, which is to leave the United States as a country without an official language, are suspicious of such arguments, however. They contend that pro-English activists use strategies that are intended to function as barely concealed “appeals to patriotism and unity, casting language minorities in the role of outsiders who deliberately ‘chose’ not to learn the English language” (Draper & Jimenez, para. 1). Draper and Jimenez argue that an official English policy would punish immigrants who cannot learn the English language. There may be various reasons why an immigrant cannot acquire language fluency besides the lack of desire to do so. Given the economic circumstances of many immigrants, they may not have the financial means to take an English language course. They may have other personal reasons –for example, they work and their schedules do not permit them to take a language course—which make it impossible or extremely difficult for them to acquire language fluency. Draper and Jimenez find the official English policy problematic because it shuts these immigrants, many of whom are legal residents or citizens, out from the common processes and procedures that have always, since the inception of the United States, been open to everyone irrespective of linguistic fluency.

Dicker adds to the points made by Draper and Jimenez by refuting the common arguments of pro-policy advocates. She observes that many official language supporters base their position on the belief that multiple languages are somehow divisive and threaten a uniquely American identity. Dicker argues that linguistic diversity actually enriches the American identity, and she articulates her concern about the threat that an English-first policy might pose to the continued existence of other languages, even among immigrants who are determined to preserve their native languages. Dicker does not concede that the adoption of an official English policy could facilitate social, political, and economic relationships, and in fact, calls for a more clear articulation of the practical changes that an official English language policy would have on a practical level.

Despite the arguments of the anti-English policy advocates, the number of Americans who support the official English policy far exceed those who oppose it, according to Toonkel. He contends that “more than four-fifths of all Americans and nearly two-thirds of Hispanics according to polls taken in 2006” indicate that they would support a resolution in favor of English as the official language of the United States (Toonkel para. 1). As of February, 2007, the United States’ House of Representatives was considering a bill, the English Language Unity Act, that proposed to make English the official language of the United States (Toonkel para 1.). Toonkel reported that this bill has widespread bipartisan support. At present, it has 78 co-sponsors and is believed to have a strong probability of being signed into law. It is unclear, however, what the declaration of English as the official language of the United States might mean on a practical, day-to-day level, however.

In this writer’s opinion, he adoption of English as the official language of the United States could be beneficial for all Americans, regardless of whether they are first, second, or third generation immigrants. As this country matures, it can begin to develop an identity that is distinctly American, but that identity does not necessarily need to exclude the richness of language, culture, and tradition that people bring with them when they arrive in this country. Still, the standard of English as the first—but not only—language establishes a common language for us to reach out to and relate with one another. People should not be punished in any way if they cannot learn English, but learning the language would facilitate their relationships with others and with the basic institutions of this country, which have always operated from an English-oriented position.

It is unlikely that the debate about the relative advantages and disadvantages of English as the official language of the United States will dissipate any time soon, even if the English Language Unity Act is passed into legislation. America is a social experiment that really has no other models or patterns which it can follow, and the determination of the place of languages in this society will remain an important concern in a nation that is comprised of immigrant populations. Rather than become mired in polarized debates, however, it would be more effective to consider the implications of an official English language policy, and determine how the policy would be implemented should it be passed. An official language policy can, if handled correctly, bring people together. On the other hand, it can also serve to splinter people into the divisive groups it seeks to avoid if the implementation of the policy is not handled well and if the needs and interests of all Americans are not considered.