Fwd: National Language -- Republican Mistake

[Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>]

> From: James Crawford <crawj@EROLS.COM>
>
> Just posted at: 
> <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/
>
> English as the ?National Language??
> Republicans Are Making a Mistake
>
>  By James Crawford
> May 2006
>
> English Only has always been about fear. Fear of 
> demographic and cultural change, as American 
> communities are transformed by immigrants. Fear 
> of strangers speaking Spanish in public places 
> or posting business signs in Chinese. Fear among 
> Anglos about losing their majority status and, 
> with it, their political dominance. Fear of ?the other.?
>
> The latest fear is more specific. Republicans in 
> Congress ? battered by charges of extremism, 
> incompetence, and corruption ? are terrified 
> about facing the voters in November. Rather than 
> addressing these issues, they have adopted a 
> strategy of solidifying their conservative base, 
> by appealing to its basest instincts. A 
> long-term strategy of reaching out to Latinos 
> and other language-minority Americans has given 
> way to short-term political panic.
>
> U.S. Senate action to declare English the 
> ?national language? is best understood in this 
> context. An amendment to the immigration bill, 
> sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), passed on 
> May 18 by a 63-34 vote, largely along party lines. It provides the following:
>
> ??The Government of the United States shall 
> preserve and enhance the role of  English as the 
> national language of the United States of 
> America. Unless otherwise authorized or provided 
> by law, no person has a right, entitlement, or 
> claim to have the Government of the United 
> States or any of its officials or 
> representatives act, communicate, perform or 
> provide services, or provide materials in any 
> language other than English. If exceptions are 
> made, that does not create a legal entitlement 
> to additional services in that language or any language other than English.?
>
> U.S. residents, whether citizens or not, would 
> have to be proficient in English to enjoy all of 
> the rights and services guaranteed to other 
> Americans. Access to government would be 
> restricted to English only, unless Congress 
> passed laws authorizing exceptions.
>
> Let?s call this what it is: an official language 
> measure ? Sen. Inhofe substituted the term 
> ?national language? at the last minute to garner 
> more votes ? although its direct legal 
> implications remain uncertain. Supporters argued 
> that there would be no effect on existing laws, 
> such as provisions of the Voting Rights Act that 
> require bilingual assistance for voters in some jurisdictions.
>
> Yet there are very few such laws at the federal 
> level. An Executive Order signed by President 
> Clinton in 2000 requires federal agencies to 
> develop plans ?to improve access? to their 
> services for those whose English is limited. But 
> it specifically ?does not create any right or 
> benefit? for such persons. Most bilingual 
> assistance is now provided on a discretionary 
> basis. The ?national language? amendment, if 
> enacted as part of a new immigration law, would 
> likely send a signal to government officials at 
> all levels ? federal, state, and local ? that 
> they no longer need to offer services in any language but English.
>
> Symbolically, however, the amendment?s message 
> is clear: One must speak good English to be a 
> ?good American.? Those who do not will be 
> relegated to second-class citizenship. Minority 
> language speakers take note: you must conform or 
> you will not be welcome here. English rules in 
> this country. Government will make life difficult for anyone who doubts that.
>
> In effect, the Inhofe amendment legitimizes 
> language-based discrimination. This is not a 
> wise decision for the country ? or for the Republican Party.
>
> Back in 1996, Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole jumped 
> on the English Only bandwagon, hoping to ride it 
> to electoral gains. The House of Representatives 
> passed a ?Language of Government? bill that 
> year, and Gingrich instructed his members to 
> talk up the issue with voters in their districts 
> during the August Congressional recess. But when 
> they reported back in September the news was not encouraging.
>
> Polls show that a substantial majority of 
> Americans, then and now, see nothing wrong with 
> the idea of officializing English. A common 
> language is a good thing, they reason, and in 
> this country English is it. So what?s the big 
> deal? Not having thought much about the issue, 
> they haven?t considered the downside. On 
> recognizing the divisiveness of English Only, 
> many change their minds. Or they wonder why 
> Congress is wasting its time on such matters. 
> It?s an issue that only a minority of voters feel strongly about.
>
> As Republican House members reported back to 
> Gingrich, Americans who do feel strongly fall 
> into two groups: those eager to restrict 
> immigration, who already vote Republican, by and 
> large, and ethnic minorities who are deeply 
> offended by English Only, many of whom are swing 
> voters who might be attracted to a non-nativist Republican Party.
>
> It made little sense to push legislation with no 
> constructive purpose ? official English bills 
> have never included funding for English classes 
> ? which delivered a gratuitous insult to Latinos 
> in particular, the fastest-growing part of the American electorate.
>
> An astute politician, Gingrich dropped the issue 
> immediately. So did Dole. The Language of 
> Government Act was allowed to die a quiet death 
> in the Senate. For the next decade, the 
> Republican Congressional leadership kept the 
> issue from coming to a vote ? or even a 
> committee hearing ? until Sen. Inhofe introduced 
> his amendment into this year?s polarized debate over immigration.
>
> Meanwhile, as governor of Texas, George Bush 
> came out squarely against English Only 
> legislation and in favor of a policy stressing 
> the benefits to the nation of encouraging 
> proficiency in English, plus other languages. 
> This stand paid off handsomely in Latino votes 
> for President Bush in 2000 and 2004.
>
> Even earlier, English Plus legislation was 
> promoted by senators including John McCain, Pete 
> Domenici, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, Mike 
> DeWine, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Orrin Hatch. 
> No forward-thinking Republican wanted to follow 
> the example of Gov. Pete Wilson, whose 
> anti-immigrant advocacy proved expedient in the 
> short term but drove away enough Latinos to 
> transform California into safe territory for 
> Democrats. Over time, the same pattern is likely 
> to repeat itself in all but the least diverse 
> states if Republicans persist in catering to nativists.
>
> Yet among all the Republicans mentioned above, 
> only Sen. Domenici opposed the Inhofe amendment. 
> Will this help their party win in 2006? Possibly. In 2012? Not a chance.