|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2006
On CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" May 28, Jimmy Carter opposed the part of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed by the Senate last week, that would make English the "national language" of the United $tates. Carter said the United $tates was "kind of a melting pot for languages around the world," the English-only provision wasn't needed, and that it could "turn one part of America against another." Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also said the "national language" amendment was "unnecessary." "We already know [English is] the language of commerce and success." It turns out there was a better argument in Ohio, but first we will describe the usual debate within oppressor norms.
Villaraigosa, slightly differing from Carter in what he chose to emphasize, pointed out that the Senate "didn't allocate money so people can learn English." "I can tell you that, here in Los Angeles, there are lines, thousands of people waiting to learn English in our adult schools." Villaraigosa also suggested that the amendment could lead to Los Angeles not being able to "communicate with people for badly needed services." Villaraigosa was responding to Wolf Blitzer's question, "Practically speaking, what does that mean for Los Angeles, in terms of providing services, information, in Spanish?"
English-only proposals are currently motivated by two things. One is an effort to assimilate migrants already in the United $tates. Another is a desire to whip up support for deporting migrants and increased immigration restrictions. These motivations sometimes intersect. What is also important to understand is that some criticisms of English-only proposals are themselves assimilationist in nature. Carter and Villaraigosa's answers illustrate this. Advocates of the "melting pot" want to deny oppressed nations within U.$. borders self-determination and want to control other oppressed nationalities, and migrants. There is another assimilationist tendency that says differences should be tolerated because in the long run migrants will learn English and assimilate; according to this view, English-only policies are premature or counterproductive. Some assimilationists oppose making English the official or exclusive language, fearing it will create division and even backfire, making English more difficult for non-English-speaking migrants to learn. Some critics of English-only proposals are quick to say that migrants already want to learn English, making English-only legislation and measures unnecessary. These critics include the kiss-ass politicians on TV trying to convince Euro-Amerikans that migrants are good candidates to be Amerikkkan citizens.
Those are all old critiques of English-only proposals, and they have existed for decades. Carter and Villaraigosa's ideas were nothing new. As if to confirm what this writer said about common objections to English-only policies ( "Senate votes to make English 'national language' of the United $tates" ), these ideas were raised on TV in front of the entire country within the space of a few minutes. Significantly, while opposing the English-only amendment (one of two English-only amendments that were passed by the Senate), Carter and Villaraigosa both supported stepping up the repression of migrants, Carter supporting "the approach that has been put forward and they're currently being considered, the bill in the Senate as supporting, the way I understand it, by President Bush . . . very compatible with my own views" and Villaraigosa supporting "the overall -- this broad immigration reform, comprehensive immigration reform," both referring to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The Act would, among many other things, continue the repression of millions of temporary and recent migrants, increase border repression, expand the triple border fence, build more detention facilities, increase electronic surveillance of migrants, and make it easier to quickly deport undocumented migrants who are caught by border patrol agents and other pigs.
English-only proposals are extremely reactionary. At the same time, there are different ways to respond to them. Now is not the time to be raising assimilationist ideas that go hand in hand with the anti-migrant movement. If people are compelled to persuade the bourgeoisie to oppose English-only policies in terms and language familiar to it, they should instead discuss how English-only policies may encourage unwanted protectionism. It is more useful to get the bourgeoisie and political elites to stick to their internationalist pretensions than pander to the chauvinism and nationalism of the labor aristocracy, and other white nationalists bent on repressing and controlling migrants.
Last week, the Ohio House of Representatives rejected proposed legislation "to require the use of the English language by state and local government entities in official actions and proceedings, subject to certain exceptions."(1)(2) The bill, H.B. 553, would have allowed English to be used to comply with federal and state law, in language courses, to "[p]rotect or promote the public health, safety, or welfare," to "[p]romote international commerce, trade, or tourism," and in other situations. However, the bill would add red tape to any official use of non-English language by requiring expenditures on materials in non-English languages to be described in detail beforehand in a way "appropriate to the public body, state agency, or political subdivision."
Critics of English-only legislation in Ohio cite division and lack of English education, but also concerns about investment
Opponents of the bill raised the usual assimilationist objections about English-only policies creating division and not doing enough to teach people English in the first place. Columnist Mary McCarty in the Dayton Daily News wrote:
"Government information in English-only could prove problematic: no instructions in Spanish for important stuff such as filing taxes or registering cars.
"In the meantime, for those Spanish-speaking immigrants too busy picking our fruit, cleaning our hotel rooms or mowing our lawns to find time for English classes, state government will put up a sign that says: No habla Espanol [sic]."(3)
This correctly pointed to the discriminatory and exclusionary effects of English-only policies. But McCarty still suggested that everyone in the United $tates should speak English. She agreed with Ohio Commission on Hispanic/Latino Affairs executive director Ezra Escudero's "education-based solution." McCarty only disagreed with the approach of trying to use legislation to get people to speak English.
According to the Columbus Dispatch , the Ohio Commission on Hispanic/Latino Affairs, a State of Ohio commission, voted to oppose the "Ohio English Unity Act" in March and "cited the lack of education funding, unnecessary prohibitions and its potential to drive a wedge between diverse Ohio communities."(4) Although English-only policies are reactionary and are inevitably inflammatory, so-called racial and ethnic harmony is rhetoric used by imperialists to hide national struggle and discourage national liberation. There is already a division between oppressor and oppressed communities.
The fascists and white nationalists of the anti-migrant movement intensified the struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. Struggling against this movement does not require perpetuating ignorance about oppression and the need for equality, liberation and reparations.
The Associated Press reported: "Lawmakers worried [the Ohio English Unity Act] would have unintended consequences, such as discouraging overseas businesses from investing in the state, and effectively killed the measure in a 65-28 vote." The details of this aspect of the debate aren't clear, but it may be that bourgeois internationalism, or at least concerns related to the state economy and employment, played some decisive role in defeating the bill. If so, that would be a good example of how to persuade exploiters, in terms they can understand, to oppose English-only policies without reinforcing assimilationist and settlerist ideas. If the Amerikan bourgeoisie could be convinced to welcome more investment from countries such as Japan, which is still perceived to have a "closed economy," that would be a significant blow against protectionist forms of Euro-Amerikans' economic nationalism. The United $tates' economic relationship with Japan is peculiar for historical reasons, and Ohio workers and politicians have a reason to favor Honda, but even if Amerikans just supported the free movement of capital, goods and labor, that would be progressive compared with Amerikan protectionism. Ohio could conceivably make an exception for Japanese and the languages of the European countries that invest in Ohio, but that would make the English-only policies even more obviously discriminatory.
If protectionist anti-migrant advocates find English-only proposals inconvenient because struggles over them end up reinforcing foreign investment, they may just drop the issue. The anti-migrant movement will continue to exist. Right now, debates over English-only policies, even criticisms of these policies, mainly serve to raise assimilationist ideas while whipping up support for the overall anti-migrant movement.
Notes:
1. Associated Press, "Ohio House rejects English-only bill," 30 May 2006, http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/14697171.htm
2. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_553
3. Mary McCarty, "English-only proposal overlooks the reality," Dayton Daily News , 18 April 2006, p. A4.
4. Jim Siegel, "Raising their voices across the U.S.; Let's speak English in Ohio, legislator says; Bill would make it the state's official language," Columbus Dispatch , 11 April 2006, p. 01A.
5. Jim Siegel, "House tables language bill," Columbus Dispatch , 27 May 2006, olumbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/05/27/20060527-A1-01.html
"Worried about how it might affect the state's efforts to lure a Japanese-owned automobile plant to Ohio, the Ohio House defeated a proposal to make English the official state language.
"Though the measure was designed mainly to encourage Latino immigrants to learn English, state officials don't want to give Honda any reason to choose Indiana over Ohio for its new plant."