The connection between official languages and legitimisation of a given ethnic group is extremely important when looking at the issue of bi-lingualism. One of the first thing that happens when a new ethnic group comes to power is the legitimisation of that group by the naming of that group's language as an official language. In today's European configuration there are many languages that have become official languages in quite recent history. Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are probably the most recent of these examples. There are also examples of countries that consider it necessary to express their ethnicity by the use of local dialects. This is often the case in countries where the local dialect is not the official language. In Switzerland, the Swiss would never think of talking about their free time pleasures amongst themselves in 'High German'. In Sardinia, children learn Italian at school but speak Sardinian at home; Sardinian is also well maintained by immigrant Sardinians working in Germany or other countries. The fact that they are Sardinian (their ethnicity) is more important than the fact that they are Italian!

In the US there is currently much heated debate about bi-lingual education in schools. In fact, California has passed proposition 277 banning bi-lingual education in their schools. Much of this debate seems to center not around the issue of pragmatic applications of learning skills in the English speaking environment of the US, but rather about attaching (or the lack of attaching) ethnic 'badges' to certain ethnic groups. The argument is stated that if a South-American child is educated bilingually then that child will always remain a bilingual South American instead of being integrated into the larger US structure. The same arguments are being made when discussing the legitimacy of educating bilingual using the AAVE dialect. The point always seems to be made that these people will be prejudiced against because of their ethnic bilingual capability instead actually being more well-rounded individuals because of these capabilities. Once again, the argument contains racial and ethnic overtones and is not based on actual pragmatic education reasoning.