From: "Matthew B. Ward" 
Subject: English only
Date: 1996/08/10
Message-ID: <4uiut4$67p@ravel.seattleu.edu>
references: <4tgbui$du@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <31FC0099.4C96@pacbell.net>  <4u0b1q$hei@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <320468F0.1CA1@erols.com> <32052296.4464@ix.netcom.com> <4uhe1j$1t0@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Seattle University
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: alt.politics.immigration,misc.immigration.usa,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.perot,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.radical-left
x-mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)



"The protection of the Constitution extends to all,--to those who speak 
other languages as well as those born with English on the tongue.  
Perhaps it would be highly advantangeous if all had ready understanding 
of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which 
conflict with the Constitution,--a desirable end cannot be promoted by 
prohibited means."

--Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923).

This verdict concerned a public school teacher who was convicted of the 
"crime" of speaking German to his classroom, after the first English-only 
legislation was passed in the early 1900's.  Previously, many languages 
had been used by American government and public schools, with no adverse 
effects on American society.

The reason why the English-only movement wants a constitutional amendment 
which would prohibit virtually all use of languages in any public use is 
because there are so many precedents for bilingualism in America.  

English has been the majority language in the US since its founding, 
however, it has never been the only language.  Especially in the 1800's, 
a far more tolerant time concerning languages, English was not a symbol 
of national pride, a stake in ethnic strife, or an issue for legislative 
debate.

Unlike unfortunate countries such as Canada and Sri Lanka, the US has 
usually avoided divisive conflicts created by suppressing minority 
languages.  Government has traditionally left the choice of language to 
the people, rather than mandating it by law.

This laissez faire attitude, paradoxically, has resulted in the most 
massive shift in language history; what linguistic Einar Haugen calls 
"Babel in reverse," as millions of immigrant children lost the language 
of their parents to English.  This change has speeded up in recent years; 
immigrant children are becoming fluent in English faster than ever 
before, probably due to the influence of the mass media.

"The United States has probably been the home of more bilingual speakers 
than any other country in the world," writes Haugen.  "And yet, it 
remains among the most monolingual."

Some of the current wave of immigrants will not learn English well, as 
they are older people, and some older people have a great deal of trouble 
learning second languages.  However, their children will learn English, 
especially if they do not drop out of school as a result of being 
subjected to "immersion" programs.

In the last century, bilingualism was far more prevalent than it is 
today, even after the latest wave of immigration.  Many public schools 
and government documents used languages other than English, however, that 
only served to facilitate the immigrants' assimilation into American 
society, which inevidably resulted in English fluency in immigrant 
children (more than 95% of second generation immigrant children are 
fluent in English, more than 99% of third generation children are fluent 
in English.

The linguistic minorities who have managed to maintain languages which 
precede English:  the Louisiana French, the Guamanians, the Native 
Hawaiians, the Navaho and Hopi, the Puerto Ricans, and the 
Spanish-speaking New Mexicans whose families settled hundreds of years 
before New Mexico became part of the US, deserve our admiration for 
maintaining their native languages and learning English well (in most 
cases) at the same time.  We should let the time-honored American 
tradition of letting states and localities choose what languages are used 
in schools and governments, and tell the Federal government to stay out.

After all, we are the last country in the world which need worry about 
linguistically assimilating the children of immigrants.  We have mostly 
avoided the conflicts created by language repression in other countries, 
and we should stay on the path of the linguistic tolerance shown in the 
first century of our existence, and stay away from the conflict created 
by the first English-only movement in the early 20th century, where 
forcing such places as Puerto Rico to use English-only for official 
purposes resulted in chaos and resentment.

After all, we have operating without an official tongue since 1787, there 
is no reason why we need one now.

(MBW)