We’ve written before about linguistic paranoia as a phenomenon that often accompanies the process of domestic multiculturalization within a nation’s borders. However, as witnesses to — and we’ll confess, occasional participants in — heated discussions about terminology and translations, we are the first to admit that language issues are often underpinned by convictions that run as deep as the etymologies of the words themselves. Last week, millions of Americans saw an example of this in prime-time television.

This language lesson for the masses came in the form of an ABC network show called, “What Would You Do?” The set-up, (literally): An actor plays the part of a deli cook who gets annoyed with a customer who cannot speak English. The cook then spouts off hateful remarks, mostly based on the Spanish speaker’s inability to understand English, encouraging fellow customers to join him in his tirade.

The result? Some of the bystanders join in with jabs of their own. Others snicker and nod in agreement. Then, one angry customer turns the age-old refrain, “You wanna live here, you better learn the language,” on its head by telling the cook that if he can’t handle treating people the way they deserve to be treated, then he — the cook — doesn’t belong in this country. Watch the clip, “We Don’t Speak Mexican Here,” and see for yourself.

So, who’s right and who’s wrong? Language policy and linguistic culture are complex subjects, and the U.S. situation is often seen as especially murky, due in part to the fact that Uncle Sam has no official language. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin, which includes language. Executive Order 13166 requires federal agencies to provide language access for individuals with limited English proficiency. As our 2009 predictions revealed, language policy isn’t fading into the background anytime soon. Academics and government officials have been steadily building momentum toward what has been deemed a Sputnik moment for languages.

Meanwhile, back in the marketplace, at the mere mention of the words, “untapped market segment,” savvy for-profit businesses come running. As investigative reporter Hilary Abramson points out, “The two out of five Los Angeles residents who speak Spanish at home would find it easier to buy a can of paint at Lowe’s than explain to a public hospital emergency room doctor where it hurts.” That helps account for some of the nearly US$17 billion that will make up the global market for outsourced translation services in 2009.

The “speak it or leave it” argument may fly in countries where official languages are required and no provisions are made for those who don’t happen to be fluent in a language prior to living in a country where it is spoken. But in a nation where more than 300 languages are spoken, roughly half of which happen to be native to the land itself, that logic is gravely flawed. Haadee nanina? Unless you speak Navajo or another Native American language, if you live on U.S. soil, chances are you’re part of a long tradition in which people took quite some time to learn the language of their host country, or simply never learned it at all. Like it or not, language services will always be needed, wherever there are people.