When Will the Immigration Debate Ever End? Part 1: The English Only Dilemma
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published November 14, 2006, 11:43 am in News, Ethics, Morality, & Justice, Economic Issues.
Probably never, unfortunately. And it just keeps cropping up in the news. As most of you probably know, the U.S. Congress passed "The Secure Fence Act of 2006" allowing the construction of a 700-mile fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexican border. This measure was prompted at least partly because the House refused to back the more comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate. For more information on the fence, see my earlier column, "Terrorists and Borders: Real or Political Threats?"
Many communities see this measure as a diversion or at best a preventative measure. It's not a solution to their current "problem," as they see it. According to many people, illegal immigrants have hurt communities and something must be done to prevent immigrants from moving to their particular community. If the group--illegal immigrants in this case--hurts the community, then they they shouldn't be allowed or should be discouraged from moving into the community.
This is what the people of Hazelton, PA tried to do, and now a Dallas, Texas suburb, Farmers Branch, is following suit.
Here, I want to look at exactly what the community passed and what the implications are.
First, I need to explain that immigration is one of the toughest issues for me. I still haven't made up my mind about it. Even though I tend to be fairly liberal, I believe in the rule of law, and I believe in obeying the law, even when it comes to things many people consider okay, such as file sharing or downloading pirated music, for instance.
So for me, the issue of illegal immigration comes down to one basic premise at this point: if it is illegal, it should not be done. If people do it, there should be consequences. If others make it easier for them to do it, then they are subject to being labeled as an accomplice.
So even though I'm generally conflicted on the issue, it comes down to reforming it. If laws are passed, I will obey them, even if I don't necessarily agree with them, however. I know many people who don't think federal income taxes are Constitutional, yet they pay their taxes just like everyone else. So if Farmers Branch passes a law concerning issues surrounding immigration, I have to obey them when I'm in that community.
So we will talk here about the effects and implications of the law, not whether it should be obeyed.
English Only
The first resolution passed by the City Council of Farmers Branch is RESOLUTION NO. 2006-130: RESOLUTION DECLARING ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CITY OF FARMER'S BRANCH. This law stipulates two main things. First, all official city business shall be conducted in English, including documents. Second, city employees need speak only English.
In theory, I agree with this resolution. I don't like it when I see every public service or document translated into several different languages, when all I need is English. "Why doesn't everyone just speak English?" I think. "After all, this is America, not Mexico, Cuba, or Vietnam." I also don't like it when I find an interesting job advertisement and then I see that it requires the applicant to be bilingual. I know a little Spanish, sure, but I wouldn't call myself bilingual.
But is this what our government is really about? Should it be about what I like and dislike? Is that how we should pass laws? I sure hope not. That means that we're at people's whims. We need a basis for laws, not merely what I happen to find annoying, like sitting through an automated telephone call waiting to press "1" for English.
So what is this resolution getting at? Well, believe it or not, many states already have English as their official language. Texas does not, but California does (the state with a HUGE hispanic population). All state business must be in English only. But city or county business must be conducted in all languages. Why?
Because the U.S. does not have an official language. Practically every Congress has attempted to pass some version of an English only law, but none of them have succeeded. Let's look at arguments for English only laws, whether city, county, state, or federal.
The Motivating Factors
Money. Isn't this usually the motivating factor? It's a big motivator for me, I know, and I would love to see more responsible fiscal policy at every level of government. (I probably define "fiscal repsonsibility" differently from a lot of people, but that's another column altogether.) Consider Canada, for example. Canada has two official languages--English and French--and one study says that the Canadian government spent $260 million Canadian dollars on bilingual services. It's expensive to do things in more than one language if you think about it.
First, there are the translators of public speeches, hearings, or whatever else should be done in all languages. If English is not the official language, is it right that open Congressional meetings are conducted in English? Nope. We need someone to translate all of that stuff, and that costs money.
Then there are the documents themselves. People claim that all documents must be available in all languages. Any citizen must have offical documents available to him or her in the language that he or she speaks. Notice that I said "citizen." If I go to France, I don't expect to be able to read all of their government documents because I don't read French (at least not that well). But if I become a French citizen, I expect to have things available to me in my language. But France has an official language, so that analogy doens't work that well.
People claim that all of those documents cost money becuase they have to be printed in multiple languages, but that's not really the point. The point is that they have to be translated into multiple languages. There is a finite number of people who want social security paperwork, for example. Whether I want that paperwork in Spanish or English is beside the point because only two pieces of paper must be photocopied--one in Spanish and one in English. But translating it from one language to another does cost money.
But the Real Motivation Is?
So money is a motivating factor, but I don't think it is the primary one. According to English only laws, there are exceptions. In the Farmers Branch resolution, for example:
"The City of Farmers Branch and its subdivisions may use a language other than English for any of the following purposes, whether or not the use would be considered part of an official action:
a. To teach or encourage the learning of languages other than English;
b. To protect and promote the public health, sanitation and public safety;
c. To teach English to those who are not fluent in the language;
d. To comply with the Native American Languages Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Voting Rights Act, or any other federal or state law;
e. To protect the rights of criminal defendants and victims of crime;
f. To promote trade, commerce, and tourism;
g. To collect payments, fines, or other financial obligation due and payable to the City;
h. To create or promote mottos or designations, inscribe public monuments, and perform other acts involving the customary use of a language other than English; and
i. To utilize terms of art or terms or phrases from other languages which are commonly used in communications otherwise in English.
j. Printed materials, signage, or other materials or documents of the City printed in languages other than English at the time of the adoption of this resolution and not otherwise excepted in this Section 3 shall not be discarded or reprinted in English only at the additional cost and expense of the taxpayers of the City until the materials have been exhausted or until they have become otherwise obsolete."
Those are more exceptions than the "i" before "e" rule. So will it save taxpayers money? Sure, it will. But will it save a lot? It doesn't seem like it. Sure, there are instances that don't fall into those nine exceptions, but the exceptions seem almost all-encompasing.
Then what is the primary reason? If it's not money, what motivates the debate over the English only laws? Why do people see it as a such a dividing issue on both sides? One side says that "This is America, and we speak English!" The other side says, "You just hate hispanics!"
Both of them are right, aren't they? Perhaps they overstate the case, but yes, this is the U.S. Most of us do speak English. But the Constitution does NOT stipulate a national language, and it seems purposeful that it omits this. It's no oversight. Those guys knew what they were doing, and they wouldn't have left it off if they had wanted it there.
So there really is something about this inclusion/exclusion bit. Citizens feel as if they should be able to communicate with anyone and that people who want to become citizens should assimilate, partially by learning English.
Non-English speakers say that they have the same rights as English speakers, and they may not think that assimilation is even necessary. Sure, they live in the United States, but that doesn't mean that they have to be just like any other U.S. citizen. Part of the way they may want to distance themselves is by speaking their native language only and not learning English. Or maybe they just haven't had the chance to yet.
So the entire dilemma seems to come down to whether the U.S. should attempt to exclude those who cannot speak English. The purpose of it is to say that the people in the U.S. should speak English, that they should become metaphorical U.S. citizens, and part of the way to do that is to assimilate by learning English.
But what about illegal immigration? Isn't that what prompts all of this in the first place? Yep. It's no coincidence that these two communities passed these laws at this time, especially when it is passed at the same time as ORDINANCE #2892 - CONCERNING APARTMENT COMPLEX RENTALS in Farmers Branch. There is a link there. What Farmers Branch is actually trying to do is to discourage illegal immigrants from moving to their community. If they don't provide services in languages other than English, then illegal immigrants (many of whom are not fluent in English, the thinking goes) will not move to their community.
So are they hatemongers? Is Farmers Branch a bunch of racist lowlifes? Well, I can't say that for sure, but these resolutions and ordinances aren't evidence of it. What they are, however, is exclusionary. They want people in their community to know English, and like it or not, that's discriminatory. If the federal government won't keep these non-English speakers out, then local communities will. In the process they may want to make legal immigrants move away, too. But I guess that's fine with them.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 4 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment