One of the things that high-school American history classes are good at is teaching a version of history that instills us with a certain patriotism, a pride in our history.
Today the New York Times is reporting that the Senate has approved an amendment to the immigration bill, 63-34, adopting English as our national language.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
I, for one, was shocked and offended to read this, but not for a reason that any of the people interviewed for the NYT article were objecting. I was remembering back to those American history classes, where we learned about the fact that America's founders purposefully established no national language, as a statement, a symbol of America's status as a land welcoming to all, a country of opportunity, and all that patriotic stuff you're supposed to absorbe. I remember this so vividly because for whatever reason learning about this decision struck me as a succinct statement of what America is - a melting pot, a land of opportunity, welcoming to all. It's definitely a cliched image, but that's what history class is about, right?
And now a group of Republicans with some Democrats, in a government that brands itself by its patriotism, conservatism, and respect for the founding fathers and our country's heritage, has trashed that with this bill.
Why? It's actually harder to say than one might imagine. Surely, if we're to abandon such a rich symbol of our history, there must be some tangible reason, some practical good?
The debate of the New York Times article was over whether this bill will have practical implications, or not. Surprisingly, its one of the bill's principle supporters, Senator Lamar Alexander, who contends that the bill will be, practically speaking, useless - "it would simply affirm the pre-eminence of English without overturning laws or rules on bilingualism." Inhofe, the sponsor, emphasizes that the bill tightens language rules for citizenship, but citizens are already required to learn English, without it being our "official language." Surely it is apparent to all involved (including the immigrant) that it is English, not German, French (the horror!) or Chinese, that is prudent to learn in these parts.
I'm not qualified to pronounce on whether this bill will actually have a detrimental effect on bilingual efforts or not, as seems to be the principle debate. But given that it is a piece of legislation without major practical ramifications, what becomes clear is that the real motivation behind all of this is to modify a powerful symbol of American heritage - our Founding Fathers' rejection of an official language - turning it into a political tool to pander to the afraid and angry masses. Many on the fringe have pushed for the establishment of an official language for years, but now we have a bipartisan group passing it with little debate.
The Republican party is enamored of symbols instead of actual policy. Take, for one small example, the abortion debate, which for so long has focused on legality or illegality of an act which will occur no matter its status, instead of focusing on practical, sensible measures such as reducing teen pregnancy rates or helping mothers post-birth. It's pretty clear they care more about the symbol - America hates abortions - than the reality surrounding abortions.
Harry Reid called this amendment racist, and I'm sure that that will play pretty poorly, politically speaking. How can simply asserting that immigrants should speak English be racist? But I'm glad he's articulated the true motive. He's pointed out the real emphasis of this amendment - it is part of the effort to slowly change America's identity from that of the open, tolerant, and welcoming nation of the Founders, into one reserved for xenophobic anglophones.
Shame on the Democrats who have abetted them.
A few references (don't have any great links, haven't had much time to look, wish I had some of my old history textbooks though!)
http://www.lectlaw.com/...