English as Devicive Language

El lenguage tiene la potencia de ser divisivo o unificador. In English, the latter sentence says that language has the potential to be divisive or unifying. Many that see the United States as a country built on the English language wish to preserve the sanctity of the language. In Arizona, attempts to make English the official language of the state have incited a division between multilingual and English-only speakers. While the first attempt to completely make English the only language allowed in Arizona failed, a new bill is currently in the state legislative process that has traces of the previous bill. Citizens and politicians must come to understand, however, that language does not have to be divisive. Approximately one-fourth of the population of Arizona is composed of Spanish-speaking Hispanics, and many more citizens also speak two or more languages. Despite this mixture, “English-Only” laws continue to surface throughout the country. These laws, however, are morally wrong because they impede participation from citizens. The people must come before the government.

In a movement that began in the 1980’s, politicians across the country began introducing bills to make their states “English-Only.” Some of these bills eventually turned into laws, yet they differ on how far English is enforced as the official language. Ann Sinsheimer, professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and language scholar who has researched the spread of the “English-Only” laws in the US, tells us that while “the Florida constitutional amendment says that ‘English is the official language; the legislature has the power to enforce,’” other states like Illinois simply state in their constitution that “The official language of the State of Illinois is English” (Sinsheimer 68). Needless to say, some states take their “English-Only” laws more seriously than others. Some states “give the English language the same status as a state flower or bird” while others “give the residents of the state or people doing business in the state the power to sue to enforce the law [where it applies according to the Constitution]” (Sinsheimer 68). Almost half of the states, including Alabama, Florida, and Illinois, currently carry similar laws. Others have attempted to pass these laws, including California and Oklahoma. In fact, Arizona has already passed an “English-Only” law in the past.

In 1988, Proposition 106 was passed in Arizona. This proposition turned-law made the government of the state an “English-Only” government. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Arizona ruled, in Ruiz v. Hall, that “the constitutional amendment adopting ‘English-Only’ violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by limiting non-English speaking persons’ ability to access their government and by limiting the political speech of elected officials and public employees” (Sinsheimer 70). Although enacted for ten years, the “English-Only” law in Arizona was indeed extreme. Recently, a more water-downed version has been introduced to the Arizona Congress.

The atmosphere in Arizona politics as of now does not seem to welcome anything “un-American.” Proposition 200 [which denies certain welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants] was approved by Arizona voters last November, and bills like HB2030 (attempting to deny adult literacy programs and in-state tuition, among other things, to undocumented immigrants) and HB2592 (attempting to deny any city funding for the day-centers many undocumented workers turn to) are quickly passing through the legislative process. Alfredo Gutierrez, former Arizona senator and 2002 democratic candidate for Governor, is one of the most prominent Latino leaders of the state. “The political agenda of many legislators is very anti-immigrant, anti-foreign, and what they call pro-American. If something does not fit their view of American, they try to correct it by making it illegal,” Gutierrez says during a personally conducted interview.

Another “English-Only” proposition is passing legislative committees with ease, and will eventually go to the voters on the 2006 ballot. This new proposition, known as the House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 2030, was introduced by Republican Representative Russell Pierce from Mesa. Elvia Diaz, writer for the Arizona Republic and member of the Coalition for Social Change (which has worked on campaigns against Prop 200 and other similar bills) writes, “House Concurrent Resolution 2030 would allow voters to