[dmayle]

One of the starting points of this article is that the current president has signed an executive order "making English the country's official language".

I think it's important to remind people what executive orders can and can't do. An executive order is an instruction sent to the government itself. It instructs government workers how to perform their job. It is not directed at the American public (though it can and does have an effect on the American public by way of government policy).

As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing. We've attempted to pass laws that make English the national language, but have consistently failed to do so.

And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so.

[wasabi991011]

Reading the executive order[1], the only change is to revoke Clinton's executive order 13166 ("Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency")[2]. There are no specific instructions of what it implies to revoke this order.

My interpretation is that federal agencies will stop providing non-English services, unless these are already happening at 0 cost. (For example, not instructing agents to speak only English, but no longer considering second language proficiency in future hiring.)

IANAL, but there may be legal complications, as order 13166's stated goal is to prevent title VI discrimination on the basis of national origin. However, the revocation explicitly states it should implemented consistently with applicable laws.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/desi...

[2] https://www.transportation.gov/civil-rights/civil-rights-awa...

[prawn]

Shouldn't second language proficiency be an advantage if you were genuinely about hiring on merit alone, or am I misunderstanding the situation?

[jedberg]

> As such, this current executive order effectively does nothing.

That's not true. For example, there was a story the other day of a librarian who was instructed to throw away all passport application forms in Spanish, as they would no longer be accepted.

If you go to the official Spanish page, you can see that the links to the forms are either broken or now redirected to their English version:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/es/pasaportes/requis...

That's just one example of many.

[n3storm]

Thanks. Feels funny seeing people say this government is doing nothing or nonsense and has no ulterior motives or implications. Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters?

Hundred of technocrats and modern nobility cannot be wrong.

[dmayle]

There's an effect to be sure. I am, however, talking about legal status. As one of the other commenters pointed out, the actual text of the executive action is about rolling back a previous executive action designed to prevent Title VI discrimination. So, if I were affected as mentioned in the parent post to this, I would be reaching out to the ACLU to find a lawyer to help with challenging this.

As to the stated wording though, "making English the country's official language" (which mirror's wording used in the most recent presidential address), the executive order has no power to do so, because it's not a law.

[kortilla]

>Funny in the sense of: are they blind? are they naive? or are they supporters?

You’re not understanding the comment you are laughing at.

There was no legal change, there was an operations change in how the federal government does things.

It’s still legal to speak whatever language you want and you don’t need to speak English

[n3storm]

I do understand. Everybody knows they are not going to ban spanish or put in jail gay-trans writers.

It's all about twisting laws to disserve whatever collective they go after, so their voters (voters believing they are antagonists of the other collective) keep satisfied and vote again.

Meanwhile they give contracts and move money and services towards their friends, the ones that financed their campaign so they can bring the message about the evil collective to the voters.

One of the oldest tricks in the world.

[OJFord]

I assume GP meant as a legal instrument, rather than it's sociological effect. (Otherwise there would be little point to the comment? They mean to prevent the latter by raising awareness of the former.)

[wegfawefgawefg]

i live in japan. i do all my paperwork in japanese. yes it is hard. no i dont think they need to offer it in english. i learn new kanji every time.

[jedberg]

Japan is famously anti-immigrant though. Almost everyone in Japan is of Japanese ancestry.

The USA was built on immigration. It's called "the great melting pot" for a reason.

[schnable]

A common language is a key component of the "melting" part.

[2muchcoffeeman]

But you need to take actions to build that sense of identity and make everyone feel welcome. You also want your citizens to feel like they can share their traditions and participate in others traditions.

So at some point, you’re going to have to make accomodations for everyone, at least in the most popular languages because if you want new talent, you might be dealing with a family that has to bring their aging parents along if they want to migrate, or someone’s spouse.

[SoftTalker]

They did used to make immigrants change their names when they arrived, though -- if they were too unlike "regular" English names.

[wegfawefgawefg]

my great grandpa changed his name when they came to new york because it sounded too italian. I have his modified name as my middle name. Its a cool story to me that everybody in my family knows.

Even amongst the older people of the family it didnt seem like a big deal.

[throwaway2037]

    > Japan is famously anti-immigrant though.

These misinformation needs to end. I'm tired of it. More than 20 years ago, this was true, but today it is certainly not. There are all varieties of non-Japanese working in convenience stores, factories, farms, and hotels all over Japan. Plus there are more non-Japanese attending uni than ever before. Many will stay for work. Plus, getting a skilled work visa in Japan has never been easier. Sure, not as easy as Germany, Australia or Canada, but still light years ahead of 20+ years ago. They even have a special highly skilled visa now that allows people to get permanent residence in 1 or 3 years. Again: 20+ years ago this was impossible to imagine. Today, it is the reality.

[wegfawefgawefg]

I live here. Wish it wasnt but sorry its still true. I wont give too much context because it would make me look horribly racist, but to put it in vague terms: Japanese people are regularly confronted with weird and bad aspects South Asians bring to Japan. These aspects would be funny annoyances in the USA, but in Japan is more serious business.

This happens regularly enough that the average city dwelling Japanese person has to confront these negative aspects on a daily basis.

This seems like the primary basis for the racism.

The secondary basis is just general racism you are familiar with. Women regularly wil take the stares to avoid getting on the elevator with me. I have seen them stop and turn 180° to the stairwell. My friend with a big beard gets lots of wacky suspicion. We are stopped at every single airport in asia for a bag search, japan, korea, and taiwan. Japanese people have told us he looks like a terrorist cultist... Hes literally just a regular fat mexican with a beard.

[tchalla]

There are many countries around the world which conduct paperwork in more than one language.

[AlecSchueler]

Japan is a different country.

[fzeroracer]

Japan offers a decent amount of paperwork in English. Not all of it of course but many government sites, applications etc will have both English and Japanese versions.

[tombert]

It already kind of was.

If you want to become a US citizen, you have to show you're competent in English. [1] It's been this case for quite awhile.

I know that doesn't strictly mean that "English is the official language", but it is an official government body requiring you to know English in order to become a US citizen, so that seems a little official to me.

[1] https://www.usa.gov/naturalization

[deepsun]

Just to clarify, "competent" is a long stretch. It's more like "how are you" -- once you can just _read_ that phrase you're passed. There are couple more questions, but civics are much harder than English (e.g. how many voting representatives are there in Congress?).

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> civics are much harder than English

you can learn them all in your native language, and it really doesn't take a lot (done it).

by contrast, you then still need English competency to answer the questions.

[cogman10]

> I'm for having English be the national language of America

I guess it depends on what that means. I'm for all services being in English at a minimum, that makes sense. I'm really not for removing obligations to translate or interpret.

Non-english speaking US citizens exist and interact with the government. For example, someone that's deaf. Or for reading, someone that's blind. Having access in those cases is important.

But further, there's a humanity aspect as well. Any asylum seeker can get railroaded. Or heck, a visitor from another country. If these people are accused of crimes they should have the right to understand why the government is punishing them if for no other reason than to give their side of the story.

Treat others as they would like to be treated.

[dmayle]

> I guess it depends on what that means.

A quick Google suggests that about 22% of Americans are multi-lingual, and roughly 8% of Americans do not have English as their dominant language (though I suspect that entirely non-English speaking Americans are at least one order of magnitude less).

I think only about 2% of countries in the world don't have an official language (America among them), and yet about 50% of the world is multi-lingual, so having an official language doesn't seem like an obstacle for other governments when it comes to support.

I suspect that the lack of of national language has more to do with the power struggle between the federal government and state governments then any issue, which is why I find this latest executive order quite baffling (for a party that is in the process of dismantling federal government, this is very much a federal power grab).

With all of that being said, I see it both as a recognition of the status quo, and a commitment to what is one of the greatest strengths of the United States (a single-language, single-currency market). Our largest economic rival (China) also has an enormous single-language, single-currency market, but that strength is largely focused inwards, since the use of a non-romanised language makes it very difficult for the non-Chinese reading population to adop sub-parts of the Chinese language.

[Aloisius]

Census Bureau in 2019, for people over the age of 5:

    - Can't speak English at all: 1.3% (~3.9 million people)
    - Speak English "not well": 2.9% (~9 million people)

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

>Treat others as they would like to be treated.

I have never expected a foreign government to provide English-language materials (especially non-tourism related materials) on any of my travels to other countries. Why should that be an expectation?

[cogman10]

And yet they do [1]. I'm not saying that the expectation be there for all interactions in the country, I'm saying the expectation should be there if you are about to be charged with a crime in that country.

Why should that be an expectation? Because if you or I am being held against our will, wouldn't it be nice if you had an interpreter who could translate what the officer, lawyer, and judge are telling you? IE, if they tell you "you have to do this to not be locked up for 10 years" wouldn't it be nice to know how to comply with a ruling against you? Wouldn't it be nice if when they asked you questions you could actually answer them?

[1] https://eucrim.eu/articles/directive-201064eu-on-translation...

[nineteen96]

Nice? Sure. Do I expect it? No. I’ll go to the consulate before leaving my country to ensure I understand the laws of the country in which I’m going to be a guest, and obey those laws. In cases where I’ve needed translations, I’ve obtained them at my expense. I certainly don’t expect them to be provided freely.

[cogman10]

What will you do if you are arrested by mistake?

Innocent people are arrested all the time. You can't just "obey all the laws" and assume you won't have a run in.

Without the legal protection to get a translator, you are assuming after being arrested you can simply call a translation service. Yet, you should know that most countries and most cops will take your cell phone.

It's a humanitarian principle that before being prosecuted you should at a minimum know why you are being prosecuted.

> I certainly don’t expect them to be provided freely.

I never said they had to (though I think they should). What's more important is that you have access to translation services.

[SoftTalker]

Generally if you are a tourist, on a tourist visa, doing touristy things in a place where lots of tourists go, there will be multilingual (probably at least English) support. If you're going deep off the beaten path into China or Mexico or Russia or some other part of the world where tourists are rare and the local language is all most people know, then you should be think about how you are going to function in both ordinary and exceptional circumstances, including "what if I get arrested?"

[bigstrat2003]

I agree. If I travel to another country as a tourist, much less live there, I have zero expectation that the people there will speak to me in English. It's nice if they do, but I see it as my obligation as the outsider to bend to their ways, not the other way around. I think that similarly, if someone lives here they should be expected to learn English. They don't have to give up their native language and culture, but the onus is on them to learn our ways, not the other way around.

[tchalla]

I hope you never have to call an emergency ambulance in a foreign country where you don’t speak the language.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

Thank you, same! I certainly include that as a risk calculation when making travel plans.

[alistairSH]

And yet many of them do. Because it makes life easier for everybody.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

The underlying contention is that it does not make life easier for everyone. Specifically, that the lack of cohesive American identity actually makes it harder for the people who matter most in the United State of America: Americans.

[alistairSH]

How does providing government paperwork in Spanish or Korean make life harder for an English-speaking American? And the contention that Americans only speak English is just wrong. Most do, but there are massive numbers of residents and citizens who have something else as a primary/first language.

What ever happened to being a melting pot. And taking on the poor, huddled masses? Growing up in Virginia, we were always taught our variety was one of biggest strengths, not a weakness.

[briandear]

In Spain all (national) government forms, documents, and services are Spanish only. Even in autonomous regions such as Catalonia that has a co-official language (Catalan,) if I want to interact with the national government, it’s Spanish only, even on immigration/residency forms.

In France, same thing. In Korea, also the same. Also China. And Mexico. Canada mandates French and English.

I see nothing wrong with a country having an official language. That doesn’t preclude people from speaking their own languages, but of you want to live in country Y, then learning that language should be a prerequisite.

[mportela]

While that's true, one of the reasons why Spain mandates Castellano in the federal level is a legacy of Franco's push to annihilate the other languages spoken in the country. In a way, forcing a single language and culture is a textbook example of what authoritarian governments do.

[clarionbell]

I agree. Unfortunately, almost entire developed world has this aspect of authoritarian government. Including most of Europe.

[poulsbohemian]

>And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself), but this executive order does not make that so.

What would be the benefit or reason for this? I am also a multilingual person, and in many of the communities where I work, the Spanish speaking population is a significant majority such that to mandate English would be sisyphean. Sadly I can't get anyone to speak German with me, despite that being equally represented among Americans at the founding of our republic.

[lurk2]

> 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.

[hot_gril]

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

[AlecSchueler]

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.

[hot_gril]

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.

[lurk2]

> 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?

[AlecSchueler]

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.

[lurk2]

> 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.

[dmayle]

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

[vinay427]

> 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...

[alvah]

>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?

[poulsbohemian]

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.

[hot_gril]

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

[poulsbohemian]

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.

[hot_gril]

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

[alvah]

Maybe so, but that's obviously the benefit.

[Timwi]

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.

[octopoc]

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.

[alvah]

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

[Timwi]

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.

[pavlov]

Coming from North Europe, I always felt America’s loose definition of identity was its core strength.

No national religion. No national language. No centralized identity registry. Social security numbers that are more like timid suggestions than actual identifiers. Opening a bank account with just two pieces of foreign identity. Enrolling your kids in school by simply showing up and filling some forms.

I grew up in a country where I was assigned at birth with one state religion (out of two), a national language (out of three), and an ironclad digital identity number.

The American approach felt like a breath of fresh air. I — and millions of others — could choose to be someone else than what the computer says.

But the rise of Trumpism disillusioned me. Now I’m back in my home country and happily paying taxes to the state church while my children enjoy free education in four languages. What seemed like an identity straitjacket when I was younger now appears more like a spectrum of cozy options that I know how to navigate. Meanwhile America looks hell-bent on acquiring the straitjacket.

[ljsprague]

I'm confused. Is the "straitjacket" supposed to be good or bad? You seem to have ultimately happy to have chosen it for yourself but Americans choosing the same somehow disillusioned you?

[AlecSchueler]

It "seemed like" a straitjacket when they were younger but now that they recognise the plurality that actually exists around them it no longer seems like one.

[bigstrat2003]

I personally believe that the last few decades have shown us that a lack of unifying identity in America is a weakness, not a strength. We no longer have shared values, shared religious beliefs, shared customs, or really shared much of anything any more. And as a result, half the country viscerally hates the other half of the country. People living in cities disdainfully speak about "fly-over country" and how backwards and ignorant people are there. People living in rural areas complain about "big city liberals", and how they think they know everything but have no actual practical knowledge of anything. Both groups try to jerk the steering wheel of government back and forth with every election, and try to give even more power to the federal government so that they can use it to stop the other group from doing things they disapprove of.

In my opinion, this sort of thing greatly weakens us as a nation and will eventually destroy us if we can't figure out how to find common ground again. It should be possible - we've come back from worse (say what you will about modern day US politics, it hasn't come to civil war yet like it did in the past). But I think if we're going to find common ground, part of it will have to involve cultivating a shared national identity like we used to have.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> We no longer have shared values, shared religious beliefs, shared customs, or really shared much of anything any more.

We never had any of these, except for, possibly, just one shared belief: the idea that a constitutional democracy was the best sort of government to live under.

What we did have was a media/cultural environment that glossed over the differences between people, minimized various minority demographics, and worked hard to convince everyone that "we're all Americans and we all believe, do and want the same things". But that wasn't true then, any more than it is true today.

I want our shared national identity to be limited to our belief in our form of government. I don't want to have to know the same songs, go to the same church, drive the same car, watch the same shows as everyone else, and I don't think they should have to do that w.r.t my choices (nor are they likely to want to).

That was the beauty of "American identity", but even the belief in our form of government has been severely eroded. By whom or why ... I'll leave unremarked upon here.

[bobthepanda]

shared religious beliefs, is possibly the biggest lie. As recently as the '60s there were questions about whether people would accept a "papist" president in the form of JFK. at least part of the reason why the separation of church and state existed was because otherwise it would've meant picking one of the many versions of Christianity or otherwise that had sought refuge in the US, which would mean excluding the others. The Quakers, the Puritans, the Pilgrims, the Catholics, the Anglicans, etc. were all very different and had very different opinions of each other.

[ljsprague]

Yes because America was formerly a Protestant country.

[bobthepanda]

This isn’t even strictly true; Maryland, one of the original colonies, was founded as a haven for Catholics and named after a Catholic queen.

[Barrin92]

>that a lack of unifying identity in America is a weakness, not a strength

America's proper and authentic identity always is its pluralism, entailing all the conflict that brings. If America made one unique contribution to the world its that it has shown how identities, plural, can be built from the bottom up and are in constant tension with each other, and that this is a feature, not a bug.

An American government trying to impose identity, by renaming lakes and mountains, mandating language(s) or what have you is so performative it looks more like North Korean state television than culture, it's utterly foreign to Americans and going to fail for that reason. Americans are instinctively allergic to having culture, regardless from what direction, declared on them by fiat.

[userbinator]

No national religion. No national language.

US currency says "in God we trust". The government's official communications are in English.

[jrmg]

US currency says "in God we trust" …since the 1950s.

For a lot longer, it’s said “E Pluribus Unum” (“From Many, One”). The phrase has been associated with the USA since its inception. Diversity is a traditional American value.

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

[elif]

While I appreciate the sentiment and underlying truth to what you are saying, one of the more sinister, real effects of this order will be that virtually all federal employees who are employed for multilingual reasons, can now be argued redundant. When you consider the racial and cultural backgrounds likely in foreign language speakers, the defacto action is to fire a lot of nonwhite people.

[psunavy03]

As the law exists right now, you can only specify that people speak English for official work purposes. You can't stop two Puerto Rican dudes from speaking Spanish on their break talking about unofficial topics.

[hilux]

I mean ... you could hassle them, ask for their passports, arrest them at gunpoint ... (all things that ICE has done to US citizens within the past week).

[VWWHFSfQ]

> making English the country's official language

I've always wondered what this actually means in practicality. The NYC MTA is still going to print the instructions for riding the train in 7 different languages. Is Taco Bell in Tulsa not allowed to print the menu in English and Spanish anymore?

Like, what is the point of this. I'm willing to accept that it's just a feel-good for the President's base. Like Gulf of America.

[crazygringo]

Generally, yes it means that in interactions with the government, there is more of an obligation for a citizen to speak English, rather than for the government to provide services in multiple languages.

It doesn't affect Taco Bell because that's a private corporation. And it doesn't affect transportation because that's also intended for travelers, visitors, etc. Nor would it affect health care.

But a good example would be driver's license exams. California offers those in 32 languages. Almost all states offer them in at least 2. If English is made the official language by legislation, there would be a strong argument to only offer driver's license exams in English.

[thechao]

Well, even more precisely: an executive order applies to federal workers in the executive branch. It doesn't apply to federal workers in the legislative, or judicial branches, and other sorts of workers. It certainly doesn't apply to private citizens or the states.

[kweingar]

~98% of people employed by the federal government work in the executive branch (if we count military, postal service, etc.)

[jrmg]

All of your examples are not Federal services.

[Finnucane]

Basically, the point is to make it more difficult for non-English speakers (or people with limited language skills) to deal with the Federal government. As noted above, it's not a law and has no legal force to make private businesses do anything one way or the other.

[jedberg]

> I've always wondered what this actually means in practicality.

It means the Federal government now has a reason to not offer services in any language other than English. Before, they would offer services in Spanish, Chinese(various dialects) and other popular languages. They no longer have funding or a mandate to do that.

[bigstrat2003]

I think that your Taco Bell example is strictly off the table. I don't doubt that some people exist who want to make it illegal to use anything but English in the US, but realistically there isn't much political will to make that happen. So we're probably talking only passing laws which restrict the government.

As far as what that means for the government, it's hard to say because of the way government is structured here. Let's put executive orders aside and say that Congress passes a law declaring that English is the official language, and that all government communication shall happen in English and nothing else. Certainly that would apply to the federal government. It shouldn't apply to the states, because the Constitution doesn't grant that power to the federal government - but we've been blatantly ignoring the Constitution in that respect for almost a century now, so it wouldn't be surprising if we ignore it in this case too. It would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court, but it's hard to say whether they would strike the law down or decide to torture the Commerce Clause even more.

If they strike the law down or clarify that it only can apply to the federal government, then you'd probably see some states pass their own similar laws (or amend their constitutions) to achieve a similar effect. But other states would still use whatever language. If they say yes, the law can affect states as well, then obviously it would. But either way I think you wind up at a point where private parties use whatever language they feel like, while government communications are in English only (at least to some extent).

[regularjack]

I'm surprised that executive order didn't make American the country's official language.

[mlindner]

Executive orders have force of law so your nuance is kind of wrong here. This is well covered by court precent. It's not simply an "instruction".

[dmayle]

It's the scope. Executive orders only apply to the execution/actions of the federal government. Laws apply to the general public. The creation of laws is a legislative power, and reserved to the legislative branch of the government.

[bryananderson]

> And personally, I'm for having English be the national language of America (as a bilingual American myself)

Why are you for this? What problem does this solve, and how?

Seems to me we have made it 250 years without an official language and that this has caused approximately 0 problems.