Editing English-only movement (section)

==Criticism==
The modern English-only movement has met with rejection from the [[Linguistic Society of America]], which passed a resolution in 1986–87 opposing "'English only' measures on the grounds that they are based on misconceptions about the role of a common language in establishing political unity, and that they are inconsistent with basic American traditions of linguistic tolerance."<ref>{{Citation
 |url=http://www.lsadc.org/info/lsa-res-english.cfm
 |title=Resolution: English Only
 |first=Geoff
 |last=Nunberg
 |date=December 28, 1986
 |publisher=Linguistic Society of America
 |access-date=February 17, 2008
 |url-status=dead
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080421145728/http://www.lsadc.org/info/lsa-res-english.cfm
 |archive-date=April 21, 2008
 }}</ref>

Linguist [[Geoffrey Pullum]], in an essay entitled "Here come the linguistic fascists", charges [[English First (lobbying organization)|English First]] with "hatred and suspicion of aliens and immigrants" and points out that English is far from under threat in the United States, saying "making English the official language of the United States of America is about as urgently called for as making [[hot dog|hotdogs]] the official food at [[baseball]] games."<ref>{{Citation | last = Pullum | first = Geoffrey K. | author-link = Geoffrey Pullum | title = Here come the linguistic fascists. | journal = [[Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]] | volume = 5 | issue = 4 | year = 1987 | pages = 603–9 | doi = 10.1007/BF00138990 | s2cid = 171070339 | postscript = .}} Reprinted in {{Citation | title = The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language | year = 1991 | publisher = University of Chicago Press | location = Chicago | isbn = 0-226-68534-9 | pages = 111–19 | author = Geoffrey K. Pullum.}}</ref> Rachele Lawton, applying [[critical discourse analysis]], argues that English-only's rhetoric suggests that the "real motivation is discrimination and disenfranchisement."<ref>{{Citation | last = Lawton | first = Rachele | title = Speak English or Go Home: The Anti-Immigrant Discourse of the American 'English Only' Movement | journal = Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines | volume = 7 | issue = 1 | year = 2013 | pages = 100–122 | url = http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/journals/cadaad/volume-7-1/ }}</ref>

The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU) has stated that English-only laws are inconsistent with both the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] right to communicate with or petition the government, as well as [[Freedom of expression|free speech]] and the right to equality, because they bar government employees from providing non-English language assistance and services.<ref>[https://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/11713pub20000908.html The Rights of Immigrants -ACLU Position Paper (9/8/2000). Retrieved on 2008-12-11]</ref> On August 11, 2000, President [[Bill Clinton]] signed [[Executive Order 13166]], "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency." 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.<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.php Executive Order 13166. Retrieved on 2008-12-11] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105211509/http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.php |date=January 5, 2009 }}</ref>

While the judicial system has noted that state English-only laws are largely symbolic and non-prohibitive, supervisors and managers often interpret them to mean English is the mandatory language of daily life.<ref name="kari gibson">[http://www.hawaii.edu/sls/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Gibson.pdf Gibson, Kari. English only court cases involving the U.S workplace. University of Hawai'i. Retrieved on 2008-12-11]</ref> In one instance, an elementary school bus driver prohibited students from speaking Spanish on their way to school after [[Colorado]] passed its legislation.<ref name="kari gibson"/> In 2004 in [[Scottsdale, Arizona|Scottsdale]], a teacher claimed to be enforcing English immersion policies when she allegedly slapped students for speaking Spanish in class.<ref>Anne Ryman and Ofelia Madrid, ''Hispanics upset by teacher's discipline'', The Arizona Republic, January 17, 2004.</ref> In 2005 in [[Kansas City, Missouri|Kansas City]], a student was suspended for speaking Spanish in the school hallways. The written discipline referral explaining the decision of the school to suspend the student for one and a half days, noted: "This is not the first time we have [asked the student] and others to not speak Spanish at school."<ref>T.R. Reid, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802122.html Spanish At School Translates to Suspension], The Washington Post, December 9, 2005.</ref>

One study both of laws requiring English as the language of instruction and compulsory schooling laws during the Americanization period (1910–1930) found that the policies moderately increased the literacy of some foreign-born children but had no impact on immigrants' eventual labor market outcomes or measures of social integration. The authors concluded that the "very moderate impacts" of the laws were probably because foreign languages were declining naturally, without the help of English-only laws.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Did the Americanization Movement Succeed? An Evaluation of the Effect of English-Only and Compulsory Schooling Laws on Immigrants †|journal = American Economic Journal: Economic Policy|pages = 258–290|volume = 7|issue = 3|doi = 10.1257/pol.20120219|first1 = Adriana|last1 = Lleras-Muney|author-link=Adriana Lleras-Muney|first2 = Allison|last2 = Shertzer|year = 2015|doi-access = free}}</ref>