America. Freedom Of Speech, English Only ©

Photograph By Jim Young I am dumbfounded or at least, wish I were. America has once again proved itself xenophobic! I awoke to the news, “Senate Votes to Set English as National Language.” Apparently, on Thursday, May 18, 2006, the Senate agreed to declare English this nation’s official language. The debate, prior to the formal poll was passionate. The word “racism” was tossed about. Nevertheless, the bigoted belied what they know to be correct and voted overwhelmingly to impose English upon all that enter this land. The final vote was 63 in favor, 34 against.

However, 'moments later,' the voice of reason filled the room, Senate members altered their stance slightly. They again voted, and this time passed a less powerful amendment. English would be titled the “unifying language.” I ask how a divisive dictum can unify rather than divide. Sadly, I am certain I will not receive an answer that I can comprehend. According to Democratic Senator Harry Reid “Although the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist. I believe it is directed at people who speak Spanish.” Mr. Reid, I trust that is true. America has become focused on Mexican immigrants. This nation wants the “Brown” out!

Our countrymen want to forcibly rid this nation of color, if they can. Any method that might work will be initiated. Though there are some voices of reason, Speaking of the situation, Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a leading opponent of immigration legislation stated, “The Senate should be ashamed of itself.” There are also reluctant vocalizations within the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee, and potential Presidential candidate, declined to state whether he intends to vote for the plan. He was willing to offer, "It's [his decision is] certainly moving in that [the affirmative] direction.

Should the Senate approve and House sign on, the President, our Emperor will need to accept the legislation. Baby Bush is conflicted. White House press secretary Tony Snow said, ''What the President has said all along is that he wants to make sure that people who become American citizens have a command of the English language. It's as simple as that.''

It is as simple as what? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speaking on the subject added to the confusion and complexity. Gonzales declared, “The president has never supported making English the national language.” The Attorney General then spoke for himself, ''I don't see the need to have legislation or a law that says English is going to be the national language.'' However, Congress does, or is pretending to in order to please their constituents.

The prejudiced population in this country presupposes that the English Only imposition is not enough to deter entrants’ citizenship. Therefore, the formal standards will be made more stringent. A working knowledge of the English language will not be acceptable; proficiency will be expected. Congress also added other stricter regulations to the bill. Mastery of United States history and government theory will be required. There will be little consideration for competency. An applicant will pass or fail, become a citizen or remain an “alien” because Americans are running scared and Congress is running for re-election.

It is for this reason, that the Senate, for the first time in its history has passed such an amendment. Sadly, states have engaged in similar restrictions for decades. In America, English only has long been increasingly made the standard.

For decades this nation and its “silent majority” have spoken. Subtlety, though significantly, America, has passed restrictive language laws. Of course, each of these specifies, “English only.” Nationally English Only legislation first appeared in Congress in 1981. A constitutional abridgement titled the, English Language Amendment was introduced. This proposal was never ratified. Had it been, English would already be America’s exclusive language. Federal, state, and local governments would have banned all others. The measure was not voted upon, even in Committee. Now times have changed; we are more openly discriminating.

However, it is important to note, since 1981, approximately thirty states have adopted English only legislation. Four states had approved policies barring the use of other vernaculars prior to 1981. Hawaii’s is officially bilingual, as is, Alaska. Arizona attempted to prohibit the use of other forms of speech; it voters passed English-only initiatives; however, these were declared unconstitutional. In 2002, Iowa became the twenty-seventh state to ratify an English only law.

Division within the country called for such measures in local elections and now nationwide we will visit the idea. Currently, citizens are in a tizzy. They fear for their jobs. Pensions are being pulled; health care is a privilege. Outsourcing is the standard. Life is not as stable as it once seemed to be. People are apprehensive and nervous; when they call American companies, the voices on the telephone are foreign. Here at home, the population is changing; neighbors no longer look as they once did. White has taken flight or is merely out-numbered. People feel great trepidation; they fear strangers. Chauvinism and intolerance are on the rise.

People are seeking solutions; they have explored many. Logistically, America cannot deport the eleven to sixteen million immigrants that entered this country illegally. Laws requiring employers to report questionable documentation are not enforced and therefore, do not work. Homeowners sponsor illegal entrants by offering them jobs. Trafficking is profitable, and thus the “problem” continues. Imposing a language on the “illegals” seems to be the only or best response to a growing quandary.

However, interestingly, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, English is widely spoken among immigrants.

Research studies show that over 95 percent of first generation Mexican Americans are English proficient, and that more than 50 percent of second generation, Mexican-Americans, have lost their native tongue entirely. In addition, census data reveals that nearly 90 percent of Latinos five years old or older speak English in their households. [And] Ninety-eight percent of Latinos surveyed said they felt it is "essential" that their children learn to read and write English "perfectly.”

Among these non-natives, education is the lost link. Desire is strong, active attempts to acquire the English language stronger. There is a shortage of English as a Second Language classes. Few states offer such an option. The states that do, receive little support. Communities are reluctant to serve those they want out.

Children of European descent think “Immersion” programs are best; no programs at all would be better. After all, their parents learned to speak the language, or at least some did. In years past communities were different and people learned, as they do today, based on need. Their progeny forget or reject this. In the last fifty years, “Language Acquisition” has been studied. Experts offer various theories; however, all maintain fluency in a second language can be a challenge.

The consensus is it takes approximately seven years to truly achieve fluency. The first two typically involve listening more then use. Private speech develops first. Societal situations, circumstances with a given community, and the history of each individual influences what is learned and exhibited. It is far easier to achieve expertise before the age of twelve. Is that not the reason for the amendment, at least in part? Eliminate entrance into America; require English proficiency.

There are other motives for such a measure. Eliminating the “Brown” is but one cause; elections are another. Members of Congress want the support of their constituents. Daily they receive a barrage of mail, electronic and snail. Calls are placed and the voice of the voters is influential, more so than the voices of immigrants. There is ample anxiety expressed. “Who are these aliens and why are they living in my country?”

Congress answered. In December, the House passed the Sensenbrenner Bill and the nation exploded. This law cut to the core; in country of eleven to sixteen million immigrants of questionable status, many were directly affected, or would be were this amendment became law. The legislation would make it a federal crime to live in the United States without written permission. Millions of immigrants that have long worked and resided in the States would become felons; they would be barred from ever obtaining legal status.

According to this initial proposition, individuals who assist or shield undocumented migrants would be subject to prosecution. Regardless of their title, an offender, be they a priest, nurse, or social worker, could face a five-year prison term. If convicted of such a crime, authorities would have the legal right to seize a portion of the individual’s assets. Spouses, and the employers of such émigrés would not escape judgment. They too could find themselves in jail for an extended time. Any association with an “alien” could be considered criminal.

This proposed law spoke to the people that thought it worthy. It also screamed to those in the helping fields and those actually working in the fields of this country. This agenda spoke to the millions directly and indirectly affected by this plan. The immigrants themselves stood up, shouted, and insisted they be noticed. They were. Millions of them flooded the streets, carried flags from their countries of origin [along with the red, white and blue], and they sang the American National Anthem in Spanish. Sigh.

If those that entered this country without certification thought they were being mistreated before, and in my opinion, they were, after these displays, further wrath would befall them, and it has. Thus, we have the latest proposal. English will be the official language in America. The “melting pot” will no longer be fluid; the ingredients will congeal and separate.

In decades past, signs were posted, “Whites Only.” Assuming this measure becomes law, might we expect banners asserting “English Only.” What this means legally is still in dispute. What it signifies ethically is unquestionable. Racism is rampant and we are a reactive society.

In this nation of immigrants, we want none. We want to remain pure, white, and bright. Thus, we accept émigrés that will advance our brilliance. We permit the highly educated to reside among us. Whites are always welcome and if an individual can verify by our own subjective standards, they are not tainted, we might consider their entrance, temporarily. They can work for us, be our guests. These barely benign can clean our homes, hotels, and offices. They can bend over in our fields; they can be our guests, for a time, as long as we are able to ensure that they never learn to speak English.

We want the Mexican migrants here and we do not. We want them to work and pay taxes; however, we do not wish to support their needs. We want no evidence of their permanent presence in our neighborhoods. We are willing to hire these immigrants for a day or an hour. Then we put them out as refuse. We have them in our homes; still, they are not in our hearts. In a nation founded on freedom, there is little for those not native born. Yet, less than a few centuries ago, few of us were. How quickly we forget.

“We're [also] a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways.”
George W. Bush, President Bush's Address to Nation, The Washington Post. Monday, May 15, 2006

For your pleasure. Please peruse.
• Senate Votes to Set English as National Language, By Carl Hulse. New York Times. May 19, 2006
• Senate: Make English official, By Frank James. Chicago Tribune May 19, 2006
• U.S. Senate says English is national, unifying tongue, By Donna Smith. Reuters. News.scotsman.com. May 17, 2006.
• English? Si. Maybe. White House backs both sides, By Suzanne Gamboa. Chicago Sun Times. May 20, 2006
• On Immigration, Bush Seeks 'Middle Ground By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post. Tuesday, May 16, 2006;
• Senators wrangle over English’s status in U.S., MSNBC. May 19, 2006
• Sessions: 'The Senate should be ashamed of itself' CNN News. Friday, May 19, 2006
• The Legendary English-Only Vote of 1795 By Dennis Baron, Excerpt “Do You Speak American?” MacNeil, Lehrer Productions. 2005
• Immigration Bill Shapes Up in the Senate By Nicole Gaouette, Los Angeles Times. May 20, 2006
• The Official English Question By James Crawford, Language Policy Web Site & Emporium
• S. J. R. 72, April 27, 1981
• Language Legislation in the U.S.A. By James Crawford, Language Policy Web Site & Emporium
• State Language Legislation – 2003 Language Policy Web Site & Emporium
• Congressman Toby Roth on English As The Official Language PBS Online Forum April 3, 1996
• Anatomy of the English-Only Movement, By James Crawford
• Arizona's English-only law ruled unconstitutional CNN Interactive. April 29, 1998
• ACLU Briefing Paper Number 6 "English Only" American Civil Liberties Union
• Action Alerts National Association for Bilingual Education
• Bush: Sing 'Star-Spangled Banner' in English, CNN News. Friday, April 28, 2006
• In English Only? By Bob Schieffer, Host of CBS Evening News anchor and Face the Nation
• Meeting the Needs of Students With Limited English Proficiency Report to Congressional Requesters, United States General Accounting Office. February 2001
• ESL Programs for Immigrants and Refugees English as a Second Language Information Center
• Second language acquisition Wikipedia
• Bill on Illegal-Immigrant Aid Draws Fire, By Rachel L. Swarns. New York Times. December 30, 2005
• The Sensenbrenner-King Bill’s “Greatest Misses” National Immigration Forum February 16, 2006
• NCLR Terms Sensenbrenner Bill “Appalling” National Council of The Raza. December 8, 2005
• Sensenbrenner Bill
• Illegal Immigration and the English Language, By Victor Davis Hanson. Tribune Media Services. April 17, 2006
• Language Immersion Education and Research
• UPDATE: President's Radio Address May 20, 2006
• Repealing Bilingual Ballots
• The English-Only Question. An Official Language for Americans?, By Dennis Baron. Yale University Press
• The Bill of Rights Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
• U.S. Constitution FindLaw For Legal Professionals
• President Bush's Address to Nation, CQ Transcriptions. Washington Post. Monday, May 15, 2006

Comments

[Adrienne]

Thanks for the thought-provoking post on a most concerning topic. Check out my literacy blog to see more about the educational implications of this new legislation. I am not American, but I am still very worried about what this legislation will mean for future generations.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Adrienne . . .

I am honored. I did look at your site, well done.

Obviously, I too am concerned about the implications and for future generations. I think when xenophobic policies are accepted any where in this world, we all have much to fear. What is satisfactory for one nation is thought to be so for all. We protest ethnic cleansing and then promote it. I find this frightening.

I am grateful that you too are a caring soul, working to better the globe, reaching out internationally.

May your life be full and fulfilling. May [spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and conjointly physical] abundance be yours . . . Betsy L. Angert

[KnightErrant]

I have a little more for you from my research posted today. Thanks for the links.

Louisiana is also officially bilingual, English and Cajun French. The "English-only" movement can be dated as far back as 1753 when Ben Franklin campaigned against German speakers in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania-Dutch are still with us. There are 53 Native American languages in the United States, the largest being Navaho.

The United States of America is a unique blending of cultures from around the globe. Like forging an alloy, this blending makes us stronger. Trying to impose some single, unitary language and culture is insane, impossible, and can only divide us.

[Adrienne]

Thanks, KnightErrant, for your wonderful research. I am still sifting through it! Very impressive. Betsy -- I am not sure if it is ethnic cleansing but it certainly is linguistic "cleansing." It certainly is asking immigrants to leave their culture at the door upon entrance to the USA.

What I find perplexing about the blog world on this issue is that there seem to be more bloggers out there in support of this legislation than opposing it. Don't people realize that it is unconstitutional?

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear KnightErrant . . .

I hugely appreciate the research and your sharing it here. You did a great job.

I am also grateful that you to honor the blending and fear the division. As Adrienne noticed, so many prefer to be segregated.

I found much as well. There is infinite information on the evolution of language in this country. I am fascinated that more do not acknowledge what was and is. This morning I accidentally stumbled on a great link. Tse, Lucy (2001). "Why Don't They Learn English?" Separating Fact from Fallacy in the U.S. Language Debate. I will pursue this one further.

Please continue to share any that you find. Learning is a pleasure; I am always interested.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Adrienne . . .

I wish that it were true. You say that Americans are only interested in cleansing the use of language. I disagree. The intent behind the proposal is to deter immigration. If you read the history of immigration law in America, you will discover it has always been xenophobic. I wrote of this in THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION, MEXICAN MIGRANTS ©

Funding for “English as a Second Language” classes is low; interest in increasing financial support for these programs is lower. Few classes are offered. The theories of language acquisition are lost on the public. The time needed to learn another language effectively is rarely considered. The contention is, if immigrants cannot speak the language, then, let them stay home.

Perhaps, because I am white, and therefore other Caucasians assume that I think as they do, I get to hear all the outrage they feel when people are speaking other dialects.

Adrienne, you might be interested in reading another piece I wrote. I was baffled when I realized so many in the liberal blog world are against immigration and for English Only. I wrote to many of my proudly progressive friends and asked what was their theory. Surprisingly, I discovered that they too were against immigration and some are for limiting the language. Please peruse, IMMIGRATION ISSUES, “WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH?” ©

May your life be full and fulfilling. May [spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and conjointly physical] abundance be yours . . . Betsy L. Angert

[mary]

My father was an immigrant, proud to become a citizen of the US. When I asked why he didn't speak his native tongue, he said "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". Several years ago the La Raza's (talk about racists & bigots) lobbied to have Spainish declared the National language, because there was none declared. I didn't ask to be born, and forced to learn English, but that is what was. So why should I suddenly be forced to learn a different language, even tho' I didn't choose to move to anohter country? It's really sad to not be able to get a job in the nation where one was born because one group of immigrants, many who disregard laws, feel they don't want to learn English, thus making speaking Spainish a job prerequisite to accomadate them. Speaking Chinese, Tagalog, French, German, Japanese, Arabic, to name a few (immigrants I personally know) isn't a job prerequisite, only Spainish. If the La Raza's have their way, they will get their 5 states, forcing those who didn't choose to immigrate to become citizens of their new land, Altzan. And I guess that's cool, that's what people have been doing forever.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Mary . . .

I thank you for sharing your story and your thoughts.

I was always sad that my German ancestors were so intent on assimilating they did not teach their children German.

An extremely close friend of mine is Japanese, though born in America. She experienced the same and feels as I do.

In most other countries, they learn more than the “native” tongue. I believe we are the most backwards of nations. I think that sad.

Obviously, we disagree.

I would love to be fluent in many languages. Perhaps if more people in America preserved their roots, we would all be better served.

May your life be full and fulfilling. May [spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and conjointly physical] abundance be yours . . . Betsy