Should the U.S. have an official language?

Besides, it already irks me that English isn't the official language of the US, but I'd be downright PO'd when calling the government if I had to press 2 for English.

Sadly, I know that all too well. Every other country I've lived in had an official language (well Singapore aims for bilingual w/ English as the official working language), with great practical benefit... people in the same country can talk to one another and you don't have to produce books of official documents in various languages. There are dozens of popular languages spoken in China for example, but at least they were smart enough to pick a popular one, Mandarin, as the official language. But I digress....
Woah, thats a huge shift, I hadn't been following that. Still point stands though, since its still the overall majority.

No, you're right.

Historically, I believe the largest non-English speaking immigrant group were from Germany, outnumbering those of English heritage. While they brought over kindergartens, christmas trees, hotdogs, hamburgers, beer, and so forth, they quickly picked up English and became so assimilated that many wouldn't even recognize that Pershing, Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Boeing, Chrysler, Einstein, Babe Ruth, heck even Donald Trump (birther-crusader, lol) are of German heritage. Ultimately, like in the China example, it doesn't matter what you speak at home since their land is so very geographically and culturally diverse, as long as everyone in the country shares one official language in common. Considering English is the business language of the world and the most common tongue in the US, its a no-brainer IMO... and yet people still fight it every time it comes up. Ugh!

Perhaps because there is tremendous practical benefit for a society to be able to communicate with one another, and its a lot easier to pick a dominant language that just so happens to be the world business language to boot as a means of communication.

I'm fluent in English and German, loose conversational in Spanish, and basic understanding of Mandarin, and let me tell you that learning four languages is WAY hard enough as it is, and that isn't going to cover everything in the mixing pot that is the US. With an official language, you only need to be bilingual at most for everyone to communicate. And the administrative cost would be greatly reduced being able to share information w/ a unified language... just about every developed country has figured this out. Not quite sure how such an obvious benefit is "racist" or somehow violates the constitution.

Imagine if everyone on this forum was talking at each other in various languages!

Setting a single standard for all citizens is not discriminatory, sorry.
Simple solution: Learn it. Surely you aren't arguing they are incapable. Besides, 33 states already have English as the official language on a state level, and an official language works for just about everyone else. The only developed countries I know of that don't have an official or national language are the US, Australia, and Mexico... pretty exclusive company.

OK, I'll be quiet now before the thread gets more derailed!

A language is something that anyone can learn, just like basic math, and is in fact required in the public school system. It doesn't matter what your gender, color, age, or creed, you can learn a language, and setting an official language does not single out or discriminate on any group as it is a universal condition that applies to anyone that anyone can achieve (now granted my mom still has a heavy accent, but she's proficient enough).

For immigrants to apply for citizenship they have to show proficiency in English for obvious reasons, and those immigrants that do not are merely guests of the state (in many cases, unwelcome guests violating US law), and it is no more reasonable for a guest here to expect the US to cater to their language limitations than it is for me to expect Japan, China, or Spain to communicate with me in English... if I need a translator, that is my responsibility which is by no means unreasonable.

Eighty-four percent (84%) of Americans say English should be the official language of the United States. Only nine percent (9%) disagree, according to a new Rasmussen Reports, demonstrating an overwhelming public demand that has not been met by representatives.

The United States is unquestionably in a budget crisis. Since English is not our official language, the government must make documents in every language to accommodate the needs of its people. This includes translation services, signs, ballots, and other documents. Canada has only two official languages: English and French, therefore their governments are required to reproduce documents in those languages. Their government spends $260 million each year to conduct affairs in both languages and accounts for less than one percent of their annual budget. In terms of the United States, if they were to use the same percentage of the budget, expenses would yarn for $3.8 billion. This is $3.8 billion that could be put into the school system. Furthermore, the Canadian government spends approximately $24 per person in language expenses, if the United States were to do this it would be approximately $5.7 billion. That is assuming that the US were able to limit its translation services to only two official languages (English and Spanish for example). The cost of language translation has affected countries in the European Union, which includes 25 countries and 20 languages. The documents in the union have to be translated into 380 different languages. Governments within the union must limit their documents to fifteen pages or less to manage translation fees. Translators in the union story for eight percent of the entire staff with 1,800 people. The annual cost for the translation services alone was $1.6 billion.

Simply put, a country comprised almost exclusively of immigrants has to be able to communicate with one another, and it is unreasonable and impractical to expect everyone to learn dozens of languages to achieve this. An inability of a society to communicate with one another affects not only solidarity of its people but commerce, individuals unable to speak the common tongue are at tremendous economic disadvantage, and the cost of a government to lack an official language are billions that can be put towards far more economically fruitful endeavors, first and foremost of which should be to pay off the overwhelming national debt to reduce the burden on our children.

There is also no reason that emergency services and public safety would have to discontinue multi-lingual support, as that can be governed entirely separately and is still of vital interest to guests of the nation.

In fact, you don't even have to call it "English", but make it patriotic and unique by calling it "American" since there are subtle differences in pronunciation and vocabulary.

I don't think anyone implied that English is the simplest language, but it can be learned by anyone, it is already in overwhelming distribution in the United States (poll shows 96% claim to speak English "very well"), and it is the international language of business. Put a group of wordly Chinese, Filipino, Germans, French, and Nigerians together and they will speak English with one another to communicate, so it is of obvious interest to promote English above other languages in the United States to support national unity, commerce, and great cost savings which are especially important of late.

Canada having only two official languages as demonstrated may not be cheap, but it is still a huge cost savings over NO official language, which the United States is one of less than a handful of developed countries in the world to lack.

Since the overwhelming opposition appears to be from Hispanic special interest groups, if setting the US official language to English and Spanish would allow for the bill to be passed for once, I would support it. Its not ideal for all the reasons already highlighted before, but it'd still be a huge improvement over what we have now IMO.

I don't see what I am missing.

For one, an amendment can be made at any time if there is political support behind the movement, which there is at almost every session due to obvious benefits.

It is also entirely up to legal interpretation as to whether not an official language is discrimination, since it sets a single standard for all citizens that no citizen is precluded from meeting. Language is not an inherent trait, but a skill that those of average intelligence can achieve (the idea that non-native speakers are incapable of learning English is ludicrous), the same as a driver's license.

"no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
^ says nothing with regard to an official language.
Are you claiming that the latest Rasmussen poll showing 88% support for English as the official language is inaccurate, or that 88% of the country is not only conservative but united on this issue? Rasmussen Reports is amongst the most accurate and reputable polling agencies.
We have well seen how liberal special interest groups have abused the legal system, so I have no doubt that lawyers can do damage. However, they would have no case if English were adopted as the official language on a federal level.

Yes, that is the current policy. No one has claimed otherwise to date. The thread is asking the question, "Should there be an official language in the US like in just about every other country?", not any claims that it is current policy.

Policy can change at any time, it just needs popular support and representatives that heed the people's will and exercise their authority to make it happen.

This movement has been gaining steam as communication barriers have become more and more apparent due to a recent increase in non-English speaking residents and the financial, commercial, and other burdens this places on communities.

And again, we both agree 100% that people should not be treated differently based on race, gender, age, etc. The only thing we seem to disagree on, is that treating them exactly the same under a single standard that any person can meet is somehow "not equal". We're not that far off the mark.

I read the link, it is merely a policy. Policies can change tomorrow if we want them to, and that is merely a very loose interpretation of the ACTUAL language in the Civil Rights Act which says absolutely nothing specifically about an official language(s).

I personally think that the idea that people are incapable of learning a language as insulting to immigrants. What makes myself and my relatives so special that we can learn English, but they somehow inherently lack the intelligence to do the same?

Language is a skill, it is not an unalterable state linked to any particular race, gender, sexuality, etc. Whether your heritage is from Germany, France, Egypt, Nigeria, or Japan, you can learn to speak English. And as demonstrated, there is a great ROI for learning English.

Being unable to speak English in the United States not only alienates one from the community but statistically places a tremendous barrier to economic advancement on the individual. Combine that with the costs to society as a whole and all the other issues already discussed, it is hardly a fruitless endeavor to make the investment.

There is nothing in the constitution that expressly prohibits adoption of an official language.

Separation of church and state is though, so that is a poor analogy. Besides, I don't think learning English (which doesn't require abandoning your own language; I speak German with my relatives) and adopting a different religion are exactly analogous.

Because its the accepted universal language of business internationally, and it is already the overwhelmingly common tongue as shown in the poll with 96% claiming they speak English "very well". Thus it makes far more sense than the second most common language, Spanish, which only hovers around 10% adoption.
Its not about heritage, but yes, English and Hindi are the official languages of India.

Adopting English as an official language in India has brought tremendous economic benefit (quite simply, the vast majority of their international business would be lost if English use weren't widespread), and is a necessity in a country with 29 common languages for people of different regions to communicate and trade and retain unity. Considering the United States also has a myriad of common tongues as a country of immigrants, if anything the need is even greater than India's from a PRACTICAL standpoint.