ACLU Backgrounder on English Only Policies in Congress (12/10/2007)
In 2006 the Senate took up an amendment to make English the national language in
connection with the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (“CIR”) Act. The
amendment, offered by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), passed the Senate by a vote of
62 to 35. This amendment was substantially diluted by the subsequent
passage of an alternative amendment by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) which declared
English as the “common and unifying language of the United States.” Both
amendments, largely symbolic in nature, died when the Senate failed to pass
CIR. Similar amendments were introduced and passed in the 2007 version of
the CIR, which also failed to become law. Nonetheless, the fact that
nearly two-thirds of the Senate voted to make English the national language
illustrates the intense, and unfortunately misguided, fervor surrounding the
English-only debate.
More recently Congress considered the English-only issue in the context of
enforcement of employment discrimination laws. In October 2007 the Senate
passed a provision in the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and
Related Agencies (“CJS”) appropriations bill aimed at prohibiting the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) from suing employers that require
workers to speak only English while on the job, even when not justified by
business necessity. Last month tensions boiled over between Democratic
Leadership and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus when the House passed a motion
to instruct the CJS conferees to adopt the English-only provision from the
Senate bill (H.R. 3093, sec. 527). The GOP-offered motion garnered
the support of 36 House Democrats, including several Congressional Black Caucus
members and four House committee chairs. Shortly before Thanksgiving, CJS
conference negotiations broke down.
These recent votes on English-only reveal the divide among Democrats on
language and immigration-related issues, many of whom are anxious about being
labeled soft on immigration. Congress needs to understand that
approximately 45 million people in the U.S. (17.5 percent of the population)
speak a language other than English in the home.[1] The vast majority of
these individuals are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.[2]
English-only policies stigmatize U.S. workers including Latinos, Asians,
Pacific Islanders, Africans, Caribbeans, Native Americans, and other language
minority groups. These hardworking employees should not be fired just
because they are speaking a language other than English, so long as they are
competently executing their job duties.
It is unfortunate that those in Congress pushing English-only policies have
not focused on expanding adult literacy and English as a Second Language (“ESL”)
classes nationwide. Across the country, community colleges and ESL
providers report overcrowded classes and long waitlists, with demand far
exceeding supply. This has been confirmed by the Department of
Education. Millions of non-English speakers are eager to learn
English. Despite the undisputed evidence of overwhelming demand, the
federal government continues to devote a paltry amount of resources to adult
literacy and ESL classes.
As we enter into a major election year, we need to prepare for more
English-only attacks at the local, state, and federal levels. We need to
stand united and vigilant to protect the civil rights of all language
minorities.
[1] Census 2000 Brief.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf. Oct. 2003. p. 2.
[2] Ibid, p. 3.
|
