However, nativist groups in the 19th and 20th centuries—like the eugenically motivated Immigration Restriction League—paved the way for language laws aimed at restricting unwanted immigrants (such as Catholics, Southern Europeans and later Asians). These groups exploited fears that certain immigrants, and their languages, threatened American unity. Rhetoric like this, coupled with now-debunked studies that affirmed racist stereotypes, influenced the enactment of the 1906 Naturalization Act, which made the ability to speak English a requirement for citizenship.

While the organization that shoulders the English-only movement today—the advocacy group U.S. English—does not share the overt racist sentiments of its nativist predecessors, they similarly argue that one official language will unite us and that multilingualism, conversely, is divisive. While we agree that English is a useful lingua franca, it is not language but rather liberty and democracy that surely bind us as Americans. These are two words that are translatable into every language, which is why immigrants come to America from all over the world.

Proponents of official English fear the decline of English and it is true that bilingualism is increasingly common. However, the census data reveal that today's immigrants are learning English as fast, or faster, than their parents and grandparents. Immigrant families typically become monolingual English speakers by the third generation.

While we feel it is silly to think that the language of our Constitution, a language which is rapidly spreading throughout the world, is in any real danger, we agree that we should increase the opportunities to learn English. Many of us have, in fact, devoted ourselves to this cause as English teachers and linguistic researchers. However, official-English laws do nothing to motivate our students or benefit our efforts to teach English, which is one reason why all the major linguistic and English-language education organizations oppose this legislation. If Pennsylvania legislators want to help us and our students, they should craft educational policies that promote sound language pedagogy.

Still, we don't consider it a question of one or the other. We should increase English competence but at the same time strive to preserve and foster multilingualism, an increasingly crucial skill for finance, commerce, health care and, especially, national security. Discouraging native-language maintenance promotes the "un-training" of our own potential bilinguals. When these same people try to learn later in life, it is virtually impossible to attain native-like bilingual proficiency. This is perhaps what President George W. Bush had in mind when he said, "I support a concept I call English-plus, insisting on English proficiency but recognizing the invaluable richness that other languages and cultures bring to our nation of immigrants."

People often fear what they do not understand, and multilingualism is threatening to some Americans. However, we can conquer this fear by embracing the multilingual society in which we live. Immigrant languages and their speakers are not problems but resources—multilingual citizens benefit the U.S. economy and contribute to our security. Thus, we agree with President Bush that the United States should adopt an English-plus position, and instead of an English-only law, Pennsylvania should pass an English-plus law. We do not have to choose a single language—and should instead take advantage of the increasingly rich linguistic landscape with which our country has been endowed.

The Educational Linguistics Forum is based at the University of Pennsylvania.