Commentary S.F. Sunday Examiner & Chronicle Guy Wright/u.s. ture in place, we may at last be able to gain some ground," he said. It is none too soon. Although there is virtually no public support for the proposition that this coun try should conduct its affairs in foreign languages for the conve nience of those who don't want to learn English, the ethnic leaders pressing that demand are highly organized and single-minded, and they have won every skirmish so far against the disorganized opposition of a general public with many other worries. Until a few years ago there was no problem. It was taken for granted that anyone who wanted to share in the benefits of American citizenship should learn English, Even today most immigrants realize the value of knowing English and are eager to learn witness the packed newcomer classes. The resistance comes from leaders of ethnic blocs, mostly Hispanic, who reject the melting-pot concept, resist assimilation as a betrayal of their ancestral culture and demand government funding to maintain their ethnic institu tions. We have seen the fruits of their victories. Laws now require multilingual ballots and voting aids, and tax money pays for voter regis. tration campaigns aimed solely at those who will vote in a foreign language. As for bilingual education, it has fallen into the hands of people less interested in building a bridge to help inimigrant children learn English than in building a bridge Mar. 20, 1983 head within the school system for foreign language pressure groups This anti-assimilation move. ment (a more accurate name than bilingualism) comes at a time when the United States is receiving the largest wave of immigration in its history. This influx strains our facilities for assimilation and provides fertile ground for those who would like to turn language minorities into permanent power blocs. To combat those forces, U.S. English offers this program: • Adopt a constitutional am. mendment to establish English as the official language of the United States. • Repeal law's mandating mul tilingual ballots and voting mater). als. • Restrict governnment funding for bilingual education to shortterm transitional programs only. • Control immigration so that it does not reinforce trends toward language segregation. U.S. English is no refuge for red-necked chauvinists. Among its guiding principles it says: "The study of foreign languages should be encouraged" and "the rights of individuals and groups to use other languages must be respected." But it also says: "In a pluralistic nation such as ours, government. should foster the similarities that unite us, rather than the differences that separate us." Amen. For the public response to this article, see the other side. Guy Wright/ Speaking English MR. WRIGHT: I have just written to U.S. English, saying, "Thank you, thank you, thank you." And now I want to thank you, too, for telling your readers about it. I have lived and worked abroad. Now I live in the Mission District of San Francisco and also work here. If I did not realize before the importance of a common language, I certainly have learned it over and over again in the past four years. Vivian H. Azadian. ̧ U.S. English, 1424 16th. St. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036, is the new national orgaization formed to combat the divisive bilingual movement. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you for > printing the name and address of this new and essential organization to combat the insidious pressure. from ethnic groups to displace English as our national language. I will join immediately and urge others to join. Azalene E. Lowe. We needed something like Edwards has used his power as chairman of the relevant congressional subcommittee to push biligual voting and to hobble its opponents. MR. WRIGHT: I applaud your column, former U.S. Sen. S. I. Hayakawa and Dr. John H. Tanton. I find it distressing that we have to fight this battle at all. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Pledge of Allegiance (and on and on) are in English. Are these not clear enough as to our official language? David A. Hansen. That's Chief Hansen of the Daly City Police Department. Sen. Hayakawa is honorary chair. man of U.S. English, and Dr. Tanton is chairman. MR. WRIGHT: Your article announcing formation of U.S. English could not have worded it better about the bad effects of the bilingual movement. My friends and I all feel the same way. It's high time the government did something. M.C.A. It won't be an easy battle. The bilingualists have their people in the key posts. But now that we have a GHQ, we have a fighting chance. MR. WRIGHT: As an immigrant who came here and set about acquiring a use of the national language. English. I couldn't agree more. I tell my students that if there is one factor that has kept this country a United States, it is the use of English perhaps not always the King's version, but even if spoken with an accent it enables us to understand one another. I fully agree: "English is and must remain the only official language of the people of the United States." E. F. A constitutional amendment to that effect is the goal of U.S. English. MR. RITE: I agree witcha bout them imygrent guys not noing how to talk English good. They aint got no bizness talkin' funny and not noing how to reed and rite. We Amerikens gotta stik two-gether and remember our motto werever we go in the world: Talk English. – Bill Callahan. Good spoof, but it evades the point. We aren't telling the rest of the world what to speak. But those who come here to live should accept English as the language of citizenship. 424 16th Street, N.W., Suite 714 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 232-5200 Post Office Box 27144 San Francisco, California 94127 415 661-6307 2398 M-119 Petosky, Michigan 49770 616 347-1171 One of the most serious dilemmas facing us today is how to preserve America's culture -- - its traditional language and civic values without imposing rigid cultural standards and controls. The protection of our common language has become a hotly debated public issue. It is likely that legislation of some type will eventually be enacted. As the controversy has grown, it has also become apparent that there is a serious void in constitutional scholarship on this issue, which inhibits the search for reasonable solutions. There are few judicial precedents to go by, and no agreement on their relevance today. The literature yields no current treatment of this subject area. As Senator Walter Huddleston has pointed out in the attached letter, there is an urgent need to commission scholarly work and to convene an academic colloquium to guide the national effort on the preservation of English. With the assistance of experts at the Library of Congress, we have assembled a list of the most eminent constitutional scholars in the country. One of these, Professor Albert Blaustein of Rutgers University Law School, is already working under contract with U.S.ENGLISH on a comparative study of language policies in the world's constitutions. Several other scholars have indicated an interest in undertaking an examination of various other aspects of the issue: how can we best protect our language and our civic culture, within a framework of respect for individual rights? As Senator Huddleston has indicated, this presents a historic opportunity to make a lasting contribution to future generations. My colleagues and I would be pleased to discuss this project further with you, and we look forward to hearing from you. P.S. Sincerely, S.1. Hayakawa S.I. Hayakawa, Ph.D. Honorary Chairman U.S.ENGLISH is a project of U.S., Inc., a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization. A copy of our tax letter is enclosed. Board of Directors: S. I. Hayakawa, Ph.D., Honorary Chairman; John Tanton, M.D., Chairman; Stanley Diamond, Leo Sorensen; Gerda Bikales, Executive Director Senator HATCH. Thank you, Senator Hayakawa, for your fine statement. Let me ask you this. What do you hope to accomplish with this constitutional amendment that, really, you cannot accomplish with the amendment that you put into the immigration bill? Mr. HAYAKAWA. Well, one thing it would do would be to beef up the language test that the Immigration and Naturalization Service people give to immigrants who are trying to be naturalized. I have had so many complaints from people who have been naturalized and said that their English language test was so perfunctory that they felt that they had wasted a couple of years studying for that examination and were not really examined at all. Senator HATCH. Let me just give you a few of the current laws we have on the books, and I would like to ask you whether they would-be allowed to remain in operation after this amendment is in place. Take 8 U.S.C. 1224, which would require use by Government agents of interpreters in the physical and mental examination of alien immigrants seeking entry into the United States. Do you think that would still be constitutional? Mr. HAYAKAWA. I think it would. They are seeking entry. They are not seeking naturalization. Senator HATCH. Yes, seeking entry into the United States. Senator HATCH. 28 U.S.C. 1827, I mentioned before. That would require the administrative office of the U.S. courts to establish a program making interpreters available to parties in Federal civil cases who do not speak English. Do you think that would be maintained as constitutional? Senator HATCH. 28 U.S.C. 1608, requires service of judicial process upon a foreign state to be accompanied by a translation into the official language of that foreign state. Do you think that would still be constitutional? Mr. HAYAKAWA. How does that work, again? Senator HATCH. It would require service of a judicial process upon a foreign state to be accompanied by a translation of that process for that foreign state. Do you think that would continue to be constitutional? Mr. HAYAKAWA. I think so. That is, when you are serving-Senator HATCH. Whenever you are serving legal process on another country. Mr. HAYAKAWA. Yes, of course, I would think so. That would be only courteous, wouldn't it? Senator HATCH. It would be mainly for purposes of expedition, it would seem to me. Mr. HAYAKAWA. Yes, I should think so. If you are serving a notice to another country, a judicial notice to another country, it would simply be not only more efficient, but certainly, simple courtesy would require that, I should think. Senator HATCH. 42 Ú.S.C. 254 and 4577, require use of foreign language personnel in connection with federally funded migrant and community health centers, as well as federally funded alcohol abuse and treatment programs which would serve a substantial number of non-English-speaking persons. How how do you think these laws would be affected? This is a little tougher question. Due process under the Constitution might protect the earlier statutes I mentioned. But what about requiring use of the appropriate foreign language in migrant and community health centers, as well as the alcohol abuse and treatment programs which provide services to a substantial number of non-English-speaking people? Mr. HAYAKAWA. Well, it would seem to me that there would be no constitutional barrier to this, since this is a matter of public health and public safety, to take care of their health-and if a community could afford it, I would think that it should be done. But we must be very, very Senator HATCH. What if the community cannot afford it, but the Federal Government requires it? Mr. HAYAKAWA. Well, this is a pretty affluent culture. We can afford an awful lot of things, can't we? Senator HATCH. I am not quite sure you answered my question, Senator. But, not wanting to jostle with semantics with you, I think I will just accept it. [Laughter.] Mr. HAYAKAWA. How far does one go in this? Senator HATCH. Well, that is one of the questions. I think that is one of the questions your amendment raises. Haven't we gone to almost ridiculous ends to have bilingual education, bilingual programs Mr. HAYAKAWA. It would make sense, for example, along our border with Mexico, if there are a large number of Mexican immigrants who have those problems with whatever, alcoholism, or whatever the problems are-that is one thing. But supposing you have isolated immigrants in small groups, speaking dozens of different languages, let us say, American Indian languages, that nobody around can understand. Do you have to supply them for everybody? Is there a limit to the number of people you have to have as patients in order to qualify for a staff member speaking that language? Senator HATCH. You seem to be advocating a rule of reason in this matter, which some people do not feel exists today, and that is why they support your amendment. Let me throw another one out, which is even more difficult: 42 U.S. Code 1973, that is, the Voting Rights Act, requires bilingual ballots in any jurisdiction in which more than 5 percent of the voting age residents are members of a language minority as defined by the act. How do you think that would be affected by this amendment? Mr. HAYAKAWA. Well, I would like to have that thrown out altogether. The problem with that is that it is extremely difficult to administer. How do you tell from a census report, going by surnames of the different families in a voting district, whether or not people named Hayakawa or Inouye or Matsunaga are English speaking or not? Maybe they just speak Japanese. Or, as in this case, they may not speak Japanese. But actually, what has happened in California repeatedly is that because they found, let us say, 5,000 Mexican names or supposedly Mexican names, in a district, they will print 5,000 Spanish language ballots |