|
ACLU of Wisconsin Opposes English-only Resolution
December 18, 2000
The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin on December 18, 2000
expressed its opposition to the approval of Calumet County Board Resolution
2000-31 which will adopt English as the official language of the Government
of Calumet County. In a letter sent to Mr. Merlin Gentz, Chairperson of
the Calumet County Board, the ACLU addressed their concerns and asked
for the resolution to be withdrawn altogether.
"From its inception, the United States has been a multilingual nation.
At the time of the nation's founding, it was commonplace to hear as many
as twenty languages spoken in daily life, including Dutch, French and
numerous Native American languages." said ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation
Legal Director, Micabil Diaz.
"We at the ACLU oppose any proposed Constitutional amendments or legislation
which will characterize English as the official language of the United
States or any state or local jurisdiction to the extent that such [amendments]
would mandate or encourage the erosion or have the effect of eroding the
rights of language minority persons," Attorney Diaz added.
"It is ironic that we have to fight this battle when this nation's Articles
of Confederation were printed in German , as well as English and even
in Wisconsin our own constitution was printed in languages other than
English," Diaz concluded.
The American Civil Liberties Union has long opposed English Only laws,
in the Congress, in the Wisconsin Legislature and in the courts. For an
analysis of a Congressional proposal see the ACLU's testimony
before Congress.
A copy of ACLU/WIF's letter to Mr. Merlin Gentz is attached.
December 18, 2000
Mr. Merlin Gentz
Chair
Calumet County Board
2611 S. Greenview Street
Appleton, WI 54915
RE: Resolution 2000-31
Dear Mr. Gentz:
The purpose of this letter is to address our concern and opposition
to the above resolution making English the official language of Calumet
County.
From its inception, the United States has been a multilingual nation.
At the time of the nation's founding, it was commonplace to hear as many
as twenty languages spoken in daily life, including Dutch, French, German
and numerous Native American languages. As a historical note, the Articles
of Confederation were printed in German, as well as English. In Wisconsin
our legislature in 1848 passed a measure publishing our constitution in
English, French and Norwegian.
Just as languages other than English have always been part of our history
and culture, debate over establishing a national language date back to
the country's beginning. John Adams proposed the Continental Congress
in 1780 that an official academy be created to "purify, develop, and dictate
usage of," English. His proposal was rejected as undemocratic and a threat
to individual liberty.
Nonetheless, restrictive language laws have been enacted periodically
since the late 19th century, usually in response to new waves of immigration.
These laws, in practice if not in intent, have punished immigrants for
their foreignness and violated their rights.
The ACLU opposes proposed Constitutional amendments or legislation which
will characterize English as the official language of the United States
or any state or local jurisdiction therein to the extent that such amendments
or legislation would mandate or encourage the erosion of or have the effect
of eroding the rights of language minority persons. These rights include
the right to free speech and to petition for redress of grievances, the
right to participate equally in the political process, voting rights,
bilingual education, civil and criminal due process, and access to health
care and other public services. We believe, further, that such laws perpetuate
the false stereotypes of immigrants and non-English speakers. An English-only
law is contrary to the spirit of tolerance and diversity embodied in our
Constitution and would transform it from being a charter of liberties
and individual freedom into a charter of restrictions that limits, rather
than protects, individual rights and language origin. The English-only
resolution purposeful singling out of language minorities is the functional
equivalent of national origin discrimination.
The proposed English-only resolution also is directed at pure speech.
The purpose of speech is to make oneself understood; imparting a comprehensible
message is the essence of communication. Communication involves a free
exchange, with people both giving and receiving information. By requiring
that government officials communicate only in "a language which is incomprehensible
to non-English speaking persons, the [English-only statutes] effectively
bars communication itself." See Ruiz v. Hall, 957 P.2d at 998. Because
it is expressly directed at pure speech, in the form of meaningful communication
with non-English speakers, the English-only statute "poses a more immediate
threat to First Amendment values than legislation which regulates conduct
and only incidentally impinges upon speech." See Ruiz, 957 P.2d at 999,
citing United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 3657, 375, 382 (1968); Clark
v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). "Laws
'directed at speech' and communication are subject to exacting scrutiny
and must be 'justified by the substantial showing of need that the First
Amendment requires.'" See Ruiz, 957 P. 2d at 999, citing Texas v. Johnson,
491 U.S. 397, 406 (1989); First National Bank v. Belotti, 435 U.S. 765,
786 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1976).
In closing, we at the ACLU are deeply concerned with this resolution
and would disapprove its approval. We will continue to be vigilant wherever
civil rights are interfered and reserve the right to take appropriate
action where action is needed.
Sincerely,
Micabil Diaz-Martinez
Attorney at Law
Legal Director
cc: Melody Buchinger, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
Related links:
If you agree with the ACLU and want to protect diversity in our schools
and metropolitan areas, please consider joining the hundreds of thousands
of patriotic Americans who are members of the ACLU.
|
