Resolved, that English should be made the official language of the United States

Many thanks to my opponent for his response. Pro did not structure his round numerically, but it really helps me for clarity so I'll go over the arguments from the last round in order to see which rebuttals were made and which weren't. == Pro's Case == 1. Not knowing English will prevent immigrants from becoming productive citizens and will alienate everybody else. Pro didn't respond to my points here. 2. The government being responsible to translate documents is expensive and inefficient. Pro has apparently completely dropped this argument as well. 3. Making English the official language of the U.S. would unite everybody. Pro begins, "The entire purpose of this policy would be to prevent xenophobia." He explains that a language barrier will create tension between ethnic groups, and prevent them from communicating thus never ridding them of their fear of foreigners. While that can be true, in the last round I explained that those who don't speak English may be seen as defective or inferior if they cannot speak the official language when everyone is "supposed" to be able to. I also pointed out that we should be celebrating our cultural differences (including language) and not isolating people just because they speak a different language. I grew up in NYC where immigrants who don't speak English communicate with each other all the time. Perhaps in white suburbia this might be an issue, but immigrants do not tend to move to those places. In urban areas immigrants are generally accepted. Moreover, under PRO 3 in the last round I explained: Speaking English in the U.S. is already the norm, so making it official would not establish anything substantial. People would also not become magically unified just because they might speak the same language. The Linguistic Society of America argued that American unity has never rested primarily on unity of language, but rather on common political and social ideals." Imposing an official language often undermines national unity. This went unrefuted. 4. Defining English as the official language will help immigrants be more successful. This is similar to the last contention, and in R1 I pointed out that Pro cannot guarantee this; many immigrants are succesful while plenty of native Americans who speak English struggle profusely. Moreover I pointed out that it is not the government's job to encourage immigrants to be successful. Even if it were true that learning English would help them, it's their prerogative to learn or not learn. Pro hasn't responded to this. 5. Immigrants will be qualified solely for low-paying jobs if they don't know English. Pro merely repeated this contention in the last round despite me already responding to it in R1. First, a low-end service job in America may very well still be preferential to whatever job (or lack thereof) an immigrant would have in their native country. Second, people don't only come to America for a better life but to offer a better life to their children as well who tend to learn English in school or just by picking it up. Third, this is not true specifically because we don't have English-only laws, thus a business owner can hire whomever they want. Many immigrant owners hire their immigrant friends or family. 6. Everybody must have a common language in order to flourish. I pointed out that this is a mass generalization and unsubstantiated assertion, and Pro dropped the argument. For now, you can see that ALL of Pro's contentions have either been dropped or negated. == Con's Case == 1. The U.S. doesn't need an official language; at best it can be decided by city. Pro did not respond to this argument. 2. What about the possibility of Spanish being an official language... Pro did not respond to this argument either. 3. Immigrants are strongly encouraged to learn English even without it being the official language. This can also discourage preserving other languages. While my grandparents' children are bilingual because they learned English but spoke Italian in the home, their chldren's children don't speak Italian at all because it became obsolete once my grandparents learned English. Every generation hence forth will not know Italian unless they go out of their way to learn. Pro notes that he's not encouraging abandoning foreign language, and claims "It would just be the language the government uses, and that would encourage everybody to learn the language." However this ignores many of arguments from my last round, starting with number 4... 4. Having a multilingual country would protect public health, safety and promote tourism. I wrote, "This policy would impede upon the government's ability to convey warnings or post danger or hazard signs in languages other than English. It would also interfere with law enforcement communicating most effectively if they were forced to use English." Not only did Pro not respond, but he suggests in the previous argument that the government using English-only is a GOOD thing. Unless he can explain how this is safe, fair and effective then I maintain it is a bad idea. 5. This policy would not necessarily increase the percentage of Americans who can speak English, and it doesn't make people who don't speak English any less American than those who do. I explained that English-only laws do nothing to encourage proficiency, though Pro suggests that the government can always offer more English courses as a way to uphold this policy. However right here Pro defeats his own argument. In R1 he talks about how translating documents was inefficient and a waste of our resources. Well wouldn't the government hiring people to hold more courses and buy the space to hold these courses be even MORE time consuming and expensive? Indeed. Pro also failed to explain in detail how the translations would be expensive and burdensome thanks to current technology and other resources. 6. In this era of globalization, language resources should be developed in America's favor and not suppressed. I suppose Pro responded to this in saying he's not discouraging speaking multiple languages; however, I'm arguing that this would both be more likely to happen and happen at a faster rate if English was made the official language. 7. The ACLU finds that a national language would be unconstitutional and would violate an individual's right to due process. Pro didn't respond to this or any of the other legal infractions I've cited which will perhaps cost him the debate. These laws would bar government employees from providing non-English language assistance and services, and thus are inconsistent with both the First Amendment right to communicate with or petition the government, and the right to equality. Furthermore, In Hernandez v. New York, the Supreme Court held that language proficiency could be viewed as a violation of the 14th amendment [9]. These policies would also undermine Congress' Bilingual Eduation act which ensures equal educational opportunities for immigrant children. Additionally, it would make voting (a right) very problematic if people could not understand what was on the ballot. 8. The director of the Institute for Language and Education Policy spoke before the House Means and Ways Committee against English as a national language. Pro didn't respond to any of his reasons as to why he thought this was a bad idea. 9. English-only in schools disadvantages non-native students and increase non-native dropout rates Finally, Pro dropped this contention as well. In conclusion, all of my arguments have either been dropped (conceded in my favor) or still stand due to insufficient rebuttal. Thanks again to my opponent for a fun debate :) [9] http://www.advancingequality.org...