The residue of the heated immigration debate that swept the country over the past few months has left a culture changing stain on American Society. No, I am not talking about the guest-worker program or the complicated road to citizenship the Senate bill called for. Those items actually make sense. Nor am I talking about the House Bill which makes giving aide to an illegal immigrant -- including food, shelter or health care -- a crime. That is too absurd an idea to even discuss.
The one thing that will have a lasting impact on the country's culture, which passed on Capitol Hill was the amendment making English the official language of the United States. While at first glance one would think this would be an example of why one would use the term "duh!" it echos a must hazardous tone.
The Senate first voted 63-34 to make English the national language after lawmakers who led the effort said it would promote national unity.
But opponents of that specific term argued the move would prevent limited English speakers from getting language assistance required by an executive order enacted under President Clinton. So in a second vote, the Senate voted 58-39 to make English the nation's "common and unifying language." I suppose this terminology makes the bitter pill easier to swallow.
I say bitter because the motivation behind such a vote strikes at the heart of the negative feelings so many supporters of so-called border security measures harbor. It seems to me, if one is to really have an honest debate over the fallacy of America's borders, we cannot leave out the poor --in fact poorer border conditions to our north.
While we do not know everything that the Intelligence Community has done to protect and defend Americans, we do know that at least three cases of terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda have been found plotting in Canada. Perhaps it's easier for them to assimilate into the Muslim mosques of Toronto and Montreal than the Catholic Cathedrals of Mexico City?
Yet is is that term, assimilation, that some proponents of English cite for their vote.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said of why he voted, "We are trying to make an assimilation statement."
If the vote was about assimilation and not aimed at targeting the fastest growing minority sect in America, then why was there no outrage during the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections when Bush, Gore and Kerry alike were going around the country peppering their speeches with Spanish terms? I don't recall anyone saying what is the President of the United States doing by speaking another language to Americans other than English. No, when it's time to vote its catering -- when its time to rev up the base of a party -- its casting off.
It seems assimilation is in the eye of the beholder. If this were not true we would see more effort to assimilate more disadvantage Americans into our society.
Take for example a new study from a team of Princeton University sociology professors , which revealed that race and criminal history continue to play a role in gaining employment.
The study described how participants of the study went on 3500 entry level job interviews. The researchers found men who were given the same qualifications and experience, while criminal history was randomly assigned.
The most alarming conclusions were that white males with criminal records were just as likely as blacks with no criminal history to find employment. And, the study also found that a criminal record reduced
the number of positive responses from employers by 57% for black applicants but only by 35% for their white counterparts. Latinos also fared better than blacks.
Thus, making it harder for black men with criminal backgrounds to find jobs, urge a decent wage and yes, assimilate back into society.
One could take these numbers if no racial breakdown was given to mean its harder for ex-convicts to get jobs. That would probably be a truism. However, the mere fact that whites with criminal backgrounds fared better in gaining jobs than blacks with no criminal records smacks of the inherent injustice that continues to plague our society and makes it harder for anyone who is disadvantaged and not able to benefit from white privilege to assimilate.
Before we start telling people they must speak English in order to make it in America, how about showing people of color they can succeed in this country if they are Americans.
Without question English -- speaking English -- is a symptom of success. It is, after all the language of commerce in this country. But should ones color be a symptom of failure?
Kapitol Hill publishes a new commentary each week. Feel free to leave a comment and don't forget to check back next week for a new installment.




Recent Comments