Making English the Official Language Argumentative Persuasive Essays

Making English the Official Language

As everyone agrees, English has been America's common language since its foundation. In recent years, however, English is in danger of losing its status as a national language. As you would see in metropolises and cities in Border States, use of non-English languages among immigrants has been increasingly common. Some immigrants stick to their native language in everyday life and can't speak English well even after several years of immigration. Because the lack of common language causes a lot of problems, some argue that the use of other languages should be legally restrained. But other people oppose it by saying that restraint will put non-English speaking people under pressure and the lack of bilingual supports will jeopardize their lives in cases of emergency. One of the problems is that neither the Constitution nor laws states English as the official language. As a reaction, Proposition 63, which would legally put priority on English above other languages, was proposed in California. There have also been some movements in Congress toward constitutional amendment to make English a national language.

Avila and Rooney express their opinions about this issue from the opposite sides and in different strategies. In his article "The Case for Bilingual Ballots" on San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle, Avila argues that we should continue and strengthen the bilingual support to non-English speaking immigrants. On the other hand, in his article, "Liberty and Language for All" on the newspaper, Rooney argues that we should make English an official language and stop bilingual support for immigrants in public. As reading the two articles several times, I felt an apparent difference of strength each article has on me. Avila's argument seems to be stronger than Rooney's because Avila's article is more based on the serious situation of immigrants.

In his article, Avila concentrates on providing objective information regarding the Proposition 63 to Californians who are going to vote. He first explains about an insufficient environment for immigrants to learn English, giving a specific example of a lack of ESL classes. As seen in the following sentence, "San Francisco Community College Centers had about 3,000 names on waiting lists for English as a Second Language (ESL) classes in Asian and Hispanic areas last year,"(Avila 345) his sentence is very particular and contain concrete numbers. He makes his article unquestionable by using those facts. Then he claims that the bilingual support is necessary and not a waste of money. Although he rarely expresses his personal opinion in this article, his own arguments are well understood from the facts he gave. He wants to say that governments and society are to blame for immigrants not to learn English because they have fault in not providing sufficient environment to learn English. Because Avila's article was on the local newspaper, his article is intended to be read by everyone who is concerned with Proposition 63, mainly voters in California. He is an activist for non-English speakers' right. His use of objective information is very successful to persuade readers, especially for people like him who don't have authority or power.

Avila appeals to our emotion by providing facts which are opposite of our assumptions. For instance, we tend to think that immigrants can't speak English because they are lazy in learning English. But his use of evidence about the lack of classes overthrows this thought, and the readers realize that the governments and society are to blame, not immigrants themselves. Next, he claims that the bilingual support in elections should be continued because it is effective compared with its cost. Also in this argument, he destroys the assumption that the bilingual support is expensive. The strategy of overthrowing is dominant throughout his article. This is especially apparent in the following two statements, "The motivation is there; the ESL classes are not..." and "Some charge that bilingual ballots waste taxpayers' money. The numbers tell a different story." (Avila 345) This strategy gives stronger impression about the bad situation of immigrants, and it works to sympathize with them.

Rooney claims that English should be declared as an official language and bilingual support should be abandoned. Although he supports his claim by explaining that being not able to speak English is great disadvantage for immigrants themselves and bilingual support hinder learning of English, his article overall seems to be intended to justify the prejudice he has against immigrants. As he agrees at first, he personally dislikes "people who have lived in this country for years and can't or don't speak English." (Rooney 346) His scornful attitude toward non-English speakers, especially to Spanish speakers, can be seen all over his article. For example, he says, "we're giving young Hispanics the impression they'll always be able to make out here," (Rooney 347) if we support bilingual language in public. This statement implies that he thinks non-English speakers are less intelligent, and they won't learn English unless they're forced to do. He says again at the end that, "I personally enjoy being intolerant once in a while. I'm intolerant of people who come here to live and don't want to learn to speak English." (Rooney 347) As the words "personally enjoy" imply, his article is motivated from his personal feelings. Therefore his argument is weak, especially who have different values from him.

It's clear that Rooney's article has not been written for non-English speakers on contrary that Avila's article is for every kind of people. He seems to divide Americans into two groups, the traditional English-speaking citizens, mostly whites, and new non-English speaking immigrants. This can be inferred from the following sentence, "There's a growing division in this country between the great number of Spanish-speaking people who've come here in the last 10 years and the rest of us." (Rooney 347) He is talking to "the rest of us" which includes himself. This article's purpose is just to make sure and strengthen their feeling against the immigrants. His arguments are appreciable only in their group and don't bear universal ideas that can be supported by all people.

Not only Avila and Rooney are in the opposite sides on the issue of bilingual support, their status in the social hierarchy is also quite contrastive. While Avila is a grass-roots activist who supports socially weak people, Rooney is a famous personality on nation-wide television whose opinion can have an influence on entire States. This difference appears in their style of texts. In his text, Rooney is overconfident in his authority and arrogant to the people different from him. On the other hand, Avila is sincere and modest in his way to persuade the readers; he tried to provide self-decision making materials to vote for or against Proposition 63. When persuading readers, especially in such a specific issue of making English official language, it's more persuasive to argue with concrete facts like Avila did than just to impose one's opinion.

Works Cited

Avila, Joaquin G. "The Case for Bilingual Ballots." Robinson 345-46.

Robinson, William S., ed. English 100 Custom Reader. New York, Heinle & Heinle,1998.

Rooney, Andy. "Liberty and Language for All." Robinson 346-37.