An official language isn't a mandate that enforces the use of English (take as an example India, which is probably the most multi-lingual country there is, but has Hindi as the "official language of the government". It's not the "national language", though in their case the splitting of hairs is probably directly tied to the number of languages spoken).

I know an American who spent several years in Paris, working in English, and never learned more French than was necessary to order her coffee. And this is despite French being the national language of France. (Interestingly enough, France is very multi-lingual as well, with many regions having their own history and language like Provençal, or Niçois, Breton, etc.).

It's more about a recognition of the status quo (as another commenter pointed out, most people acquiring US citizenship are required to demonstrate the most basic level of proficiency with the english language), and ensuring a baseline of support, no matter where you are in the country. Multi-lingualism is a plus, and in no way hindered by having a national language

> has Hindi as the "official language of the government”

First of all, I appreciate that you’ve made sure to draw this distinction between official languages of the central government and national languages.

However, English is still an official language roughly on par with Hindi as a result of indefinite extensions that were provided for in the constitution (as well as protests and uprising). For example, parliamentary legislation is authoritative in English but must also be translated into Hindi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_legal_status_in...

> What would be the benefit or reason for this?

If people are not forced to speak the official language they never learn and eventually self-isolate within their own communities. This leads to the Balkanization of the country. Canada is currently dealing with this in relation to its Indian population, which is approximately equivalent to the Hispanic population in America in terms of percentage of the population and the occupations they work in.

Canada has two official languages and knowledge of one or the other is theoretically required to immigrate there, but almost all government offices and most private banks provide services in multiple languages (e.g. Mandarin, Punjabi, Tagalog, Hindi, etc.), so it's quite common for immigrants to never bother learning English or French. There's also lots of entry programs which don't require the applicant to speak either of the official languages, as well as a lot of fraud in those programs that do.

This has not had positive effects on Canada's social cohesion.

Another (somewhat ironic) example is in Mexico City, where some local residents are upset about the influx of predominantly American digital nomads and retirees changing the character of the city because they do not speak Spanish.

Aren't individual freedoms and not having having to bend to communal norms core tenants of being American? I didn't expect to wake up to Trump introducing socialist policies today but things just get weirder and weirder.

> Aren't individual freedoms and not having having to bend to communal norms core tenants of being American?

I suppose you harbor similarly negative feelings towards affirmative action and the civil rights act?

Could you quote the parts of my comment where you felt my "negative feelings" were implied? I'm a European and a socialist watching this from outside. The idea of putting individual freedom above the common good is not one that I necessarily agree with, it's just one that I understood as being essential to the American experience, hence my question and surprise.

My point in essence is that I feel like this particular policy comes more from a desire to make life harder for those people who live non-normative linguistic lifestyles rather than to foster strength of community as was implied above. I'm all for community but I also believe in supporting diversity between communities as well as within communities. Hopefully that makes my feelings about the civil rights movement &c. clear to you.

> I'm all for community but I also believe in supporting diversity within communities as well as between communities.

A community is shared. You can't have a community if you can't communicate with your neighbor.

If precedent is what decides core American tenants... Every immigrant group in history has learned English over time, or at least their children have. Even if the majority of the country were ESL, English would still be the most commonly understood one by far.

Canada also has an English vs French problem that cannot be resolved at this point.

>What would be the benefit or reason for this?

Do you think it is a) easier and cheaper or b) harder and more expensive, to deliver services in a vast range of languages or a single language?

Of course it's cheaper and easier to deliver services in one language, but the United States is not a monolingual nation, nor has it ever been in its history. It would be a disservice to significant populations to assume otherwise.

Maybe so, but that's obviously the benefit.

Benefit to whom? I only see a benefit to the companies and government here (saving money), but it seems to me that you've forgotten to consider the people.

I'm not sure why you want to pick a fight; I was merely pointing out the obvious benefit the OP questioned.

It would be nice if government letters were written only in English. I.e. getting an 8-page letter with only one page in English is annoying for the people. I pay for that with my taxes and would wholeheartedly support a bill to stop doing that and reduce taxes or increase spending somewhere else that matters more, like road maintenance.

Well, I'm sure when your neighbor gets their 8-page letter in Spanish, Vietnamese, Russian, or whatever their language might be, they too find it annoying that the government finds it necessary to send them a letter in English. I mean, what a waste, right?

The logic of how you get from there to road maintenance... my god, the mental gymnastics it must take.

I think the context you’re deliberately omitting is that we’re talking about the US, not Vietnam, Spain, Mexico, or Russia.

If you moved to one of those countries, you’re saying you would demand official government programs be in English? That seems arrogant to me personally.

The country can accept immigrants without bending for them. And getting official docs in 10 languages makes people more wary of immigration.

Well then, you'll be ok with having Spanish as the official language the because the majority of American citizens in my area speak Spanish. Or would you prefer German, because for more generations my family has spoken German while being American citizens than English.

Nope, English only. I don't want my family's Persian or Arabic to be official either.

I actually think it is easier overall for companies and government to provide services in multiple languages than for every individual to have to learn fluent English including businessese and legalese. It is also cheaper to hire some translators and interpreters than to offer free and extensive courses to everybody.

And to refuse to provide services in other languages and then also refuse to offer courses, as in, “you're on your own now, good luck!”, is a real dick move.