estion we need to ask ourselves is, Won't "English Only" laws speed up the assimilation of today's immigrants into our society and prevent their isolation? In fact the correct answer is, contrary to what "English Only" advocates assume, the vast majority of today's Asian and Latino immigrants are acquiring English proficiency and assimilating as fast as did earlier generations of Italian, Russian, and German immigrants. For example, research studies show that over 95 percent of first generation Mexican Americans are English proficient, and that more than 50 percent of second generation Mexican Americans have lost their native tongue entirely ( aclu.org/library/pbp6.html). Next, why should there be more than one language at the workplace? Communication at the workplace if there was only one language to worry about. Just imagine being the employers, and after every employee meeting once a week, they all start speaking Spanish right after you leave. I believe that would get very intolerable in the end, not knowing if they are talking about you and the information you just discussed with them.One might want to know how "English Only" laws deprive people of their rights? The ACLU believes that "English Only" laws are consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth Amendment. For example, laws that have the effect of eliminating courtroom translation severely jeopardize the ability of people on a trial to follow and comprehend the proceedings. "English Only" laws interfere with the rights to vote by banning bilingual ballots, or with some childrens right to education by restricting bilingual instruction. Such laws also interfere with the right of workers to be free of discrimination in the workplaces where employers have imposed " speak English only" rules ( aclu.org/library/pbp6.html). The next question is whether or not an only English speaking policy would restrict cultural expression. I do not believe so, I be...
