|
|
 |
March
8, 2005
M.E.Ch.A. members make mucho sense
The members of M.E.Ch.A. have nothing against partisan
opinions, but the blatant contradictions and weak arguments supporting
Arizona HRC 2030 (English as official language) in Brittney Bigler’s
recent column, “English only in public, please,” must be pointed
out.
First, the bill, as noted in Ms. Bigler’s column, recognizes that
our country benefits from diversity, yet calls for restrictionist legislation
insisting that “throughout the history of the United States, the
common thread binding individuals of differing backgrounds has been the
English language.”
Is this the same thread that was used to strangle a multitude of Native
American languages to death? The United States has never been a mono-linguistic
country. Rather, the common threads that bind Americans are tolerance
and acceptance. If the times are changing, we must change with the times.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled a similar 1988 English-only amendment
unconstitutional. Rather than waste taxpayers money again, why not push
for a measure that would devote resources to education. It would benefit
the non-Spanish speaking community to learn Spanish just as much as it
would benefit the non-English speaking community to learn English, thus
maintaining our diversity and increasing our strength as a multicultural
society.
Second, the bill, as noted in the editorial, “includes encouraging
opportunities for individuals to learn the English language,” but
gives no specifics on how this is to be done. Will wishful thinking fulfill
that requirement? It is also clear that the use of any non-English language
at government functions, including public meetings and in any government
publications, will be strictly prohibited. It is silly to assume that
forcing government functions to be conducted in English-only will “greatly
encourage the opportunities for individuals to learn English.” It
will, of course, greatly discourage citizens who are not completely comfortable
with the English language from participating in government functions.
Last, to rebut Ms. Bigler specifically, Mexicans are not a threat to Arizona;
we’ve been here a long time. We are not waging war against the English
language. We are, however, in “belligerent” opposition to
the hysterical appeal to fear of the under-represented. This hysterical
fear leads to radical racism, exclusionary laws, and separatism. This
fear is the real threat.
When looking at any proposed constitutional amendment it would be foolish
not to question who is sponsoring the measure, why, and what is to be
gained. The “belligerent” refusal to research and question
a constitutional amendment is nothing more than that: pure belligerence.
M.E.Ch.A. of MCC
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
|
|
|
