There has long been a debate about whether or not English should be the official language of the United States. The rhetoric on both sides of the issue has been heated and long-winded. Both sides have well-formulated points and stick to them firmly. The stillness leads one to wonder: which side of the argument has the correct answer; is the answer somewhere in the middle; and we can find empirical evidence to support one side or the other. Only with an examination of the beliefs, fears and facts as they currently exist can one conclude with the correct answer. To begin this examination, a clarification of the terms is appropriate. Opponents of any law making English the official language refer to supporters of English as the official language as The English Only Movement. The No English as Official Language (NEOL) side of the debate believes that the Office English Movement (OEM) side wants to exclude all other languages ​​from the United States. The NOEL refers to the OEM as the English-only movement. The renaming is an attempt to steer the debate in their favor. With respect to this document, each will be referred to as he refers to himself, the ACUL testified, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and the English Language Unity Act of 2011, placing himself squarely on the NOEL's side. The ACLU argued: • “an unwise and dangerous policy with negative consequences for a wide range of federal functions ranging from tax collection to voting access to naturalization procedures; • clearly opposed to civil rights laws that protect linguistic minorities from discrimination based on national origin; • unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment; • based on false premises about the proficiency and assimilation of English by immigrants and linguistic minorities (unfairly targeting, in particular, Latinos and Asian Americans).” (Murphy, Vagini