The connection between a national identity and a singular official language does not exist. India, with its 19 official languages (King, 1997), is more united as a country than Canada or Belgium (King, 1997). So clearly language has little to do with national identity. The author refers this unity in the absence of a single official language as "unique otherness." If a nation wants to be more united, then it needs to rely on the strength of its diversity, instead of forcing itself to adhere to a singular identity or culture than could potentially offend certain citizens looking to practice their own traditions. AS King points out, historically speaking there is no evidence that a government can successful control the languages of its citizens in order to create a more unified state. In fact, quite the contrary is true, as evidenced by countries like Canada, when the English speaking and French speaking populations are nearly always in disagreement about the correct cultural path to follow.

Attacking certain languages and

The "English Only" movement is not about unifying a nation under on language, it is about the preservation of a particular culture and way of life. Outside influences, whether they are Hispanic, African, Asian, European, or otherwise are a threat to those who wish to gain more cultural and political power through the passing of an "English Only" law. Passing a law that identifies a single language, in a sea of diversity, is not only culturally insensitive; it robs the U.S. Of the very identity and foundation that the country was built upon.
Works Cited

King, Robert D. "Should English Be the Law?" The Atlantic Monthly, April, 1997. Retrieved: December 12, 2009, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97apr/english.htm.