In the 1750s, when German was nearly as popular in some of the British colonies as English was, there was a lot of discussion about whether English should be designated an official language and how German speakers could best be accommodated in New England. In the 1890s, many states required English-only instruction in schools. The nativist movement of the 1920s, which coincided with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and widespread racism, saw laws requiring English fluency as a condition for naturalization and state “Americanization laws” requiring English instruction for adults who did not speak English. In the 1980s, English-only and English-first movements again became vocal, leading to embarrassing situations like presidential candidate Rick Santorum‘s gaffe in claiming that Puerto Rico couldn’t become a state without first making English the “main language.” 2025 saw a resurgence of the English-Only movement.
English only and English first
English-only promoters want English to be the only language spoken in the United States. This viewpoint ignores the fact that 68 million Americans speak languages other than English at home. While the Census data does not give a count of the total number of languages spoken in the U.S., citing only the 29 most common, it is clear that the United States is actually a polyglot nation.
But the English-0nly movement argues for the use of English in all official documents. Current laws require translation in medical settings, bilingual or multilingual street signs in areas with large numbers of limited English speakers, and multilingual ballots in such communities. Bilingual education programs are common, especially in elementary schools, to help students growing up speaking another language at home learn English quickly so they can keep up in school.
English-only advocates argue that these kinds of accommodations encourage new immigrants to delay learning English. This, they claim, limits these people’s economic opportunities and keeps them from assimilating into American culture.
English-first organizations may accept that some accommodations are needed but agree that everyone in the United States should be able to speak English. They often argue for English language classes and English fluency mandates for immigrants. In common with English-only advocates, they argue that a shared language supports national unity and makes the democratic process easier and more inclusive.
Other views
Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Linguistic Society of America, and the American Psychological Association have spoken out against this point of view. Arguments against English-only and English first rhetoric often points to the value of diversity, the fact that the United States is a historically multicultural society, and the cognitive benefits of bilingualism.
Free speech is another common motif in objections to English-only attitudes.
Why the resurgence?
On March 1, 2005, President Trump issued an Executive Order designating English the official language of the United States. While this announced policy has not been proven to be constitutional, Congress currently has two bills under consideration which would make the designation law. While there have been a number of official language laws in the past, none of which have passed, the current Congress might be more open to this kind of bill.
A rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, much like the one seen in the 1920s, is also taking place in the United States today. Some of this emotion rests on languages. One example is the negative reaction to Bad Bunny’s headlining halftime at the Super Bowl because his songs are in Spanish.
How might this affect Puerto Rico?
While Puerto Ricans are often comfortable in English and Spanish, and both are official languages on the Island, Puerto Rico is primarily Spanish speaking. In Puerto Rico, as in the United States as a whole, about 20% of residents are actually bilingual. In Puerto Rico, the 80% are Spanish speakers, while most of the monolingual people in the U.S. as a whole speak only English.
This issue could be raised in discussions of Puerto Rico statehood, as it has been in the past for states such as New Mexico and Oklahoma. In neither case did the issue prove fatal for their advancement to statehood.
