|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 22, 2006
"The policy of assimilation is absolutely excluded from the arsenal of Marxism-Leninism, as being an anti-popular and counter-revolutionary policy, a fatal policy."The Senate on May 18 voted overwhelmingly to make English the "national language" of the United $tates. "National language" was intended to be a euphemism for "official language." Several Demokkkrats were among those who voted for the amendment, and Demokrats voted for another amendment to make English the "common and unifying language" of the United $tates. Both of these amendments to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 passed. Although both amendments are seen by some as mostly symbolic, the amendment declaring English as the "national language" says nobody has the right to have the U.S. Government communicate or provide services in non-English languages. This creates an opening for documents, forms and services to be provided in English only.
Both amendments are supposed to be assimilationist. This is clear from the amendment texts and statements of purpose. Actually, the amendments are also motivated by Amerikans' desire to hold onto resources stolen from the Third World while denying them to Third World migrants, and strengthen the climate for intensified anti-migrant repression. What is less clear is that some common objections to so-called English Only proposals, which these amendments reflect, are also assimilationist in nature. This is true even though some of the most reactionary white nationalists are supporting English-only policies.
One argument is that English-only proposals aren't accompanied by increased federal funding for English language instruction for people with limited English proficiency, making English-only proposals highly discriminatory toward people who are forced to learn English but unable to. Another objection is that English-only proposals actually divide people in the United $tates, i.e., discourage assimilation, by excluding groups and denying them rights.
If English-only proposals really worked to undermine assimilation and "Americanization," and intensified the national struggle within U.$. borders against the oppressor Euro-Amerikan nation, we might actually welcome the proposals while pointing out that the people and forces raising these proposals are reactionary Euro-Amerikan nationalists who are shooting themselves in the foot by proposing measures that are counterproductive to their own goals. But what the recently passed amendments do is create a climate for a heightened anti-migrant movement that will repress more migrants while politically and economically subordinating undocumented and temporary migrants already in the United $tates. Imperialist privileges will be conferred and have a bourgeoisifying effect on migrants who do become citizens after meeting enhanced or stricter English requirements for citizenship.
Many Asians and Latinos are angered by the official language / "national language" amendment. The more people try to say it is just symbolic, the more it comes off as merely an insult, provocation or white hysteria. The amendments fuel a struggle that is needed. At the same time, the amendments threaten oppressed-nation people with more repression.
If even assimilationists oppose English-only proposals, we should consider the debate more carefully. The media is describing the amendment introduced by Jim Inhofe, in particular, as "historic." The amendment, like similar legislation passed by the House of Representatives, and local English-only laws supported by vast majorities of Euro-Amerikans in the past, is significant, but it is also somewhat of a distraction in light of anti-migrant legislation moving through Congress. Many of those opposing making English the official language still support stepping up the repression of migrants. Both sides in all of these debates, the so-called immigration reform debate and the English Only debate, support some level of increased repression and/or assimilation. Debates over the English-only amendments should not be a smokescreen obscuring this fact. The settler Euro-Amerikan so-called working class overwhelmingly supports the anti-migrant and anti-oppressed nation English-only movement. Even pro-imperialist multiculturalism is an opening for assimilation.
And confirming the fact that some legalization proponents are assimilationists who are against the self-determination of oppressed nations, many of those supporting the English-only amendments also support "earned" citizenship for undocumented migrants while opposing temporary-worker programs. Temporary-worker policies are imperialist, but they are being used as an excuse to oppose open borders and repress migrants who don't want to stay in the United $tates and assimilate. It is not surprising to see opponents of temporary-worker programs who are against open borders support English-only policies. Most of the current opposition to temporary-worker programs originates in white-worker and other white nationalist reactionary policies, not anti-imperialism. Simultaneously, some opponents of English-only policies just support bilingual education for assimilationist reasons. (So, bilingual education is contradictory. Although reactionaries oppose it, Euro-Amerikans try to use it for assimilationist purposes. Oppressed nations must gain control of their own literacy programs and education. Imperialist bilingualism isn't the only alternative to English-only policies.)
Making citizenship available to migrants without ending anti-migrant repression doesn't mean self-determination for oppressed nations. For nearly a century, reactionaries have been calling for "comprehensive immigration" policy that is both repressive and assimilationist -- flip sides of the same coin (although, some bourgeois open borders advocates also support assimilation). In fact, assimilationists have long supported immigration restrictions, to facilitate assimilation and for other reasons. Assimilation has even been compatible with and complemented segregation. The "earned citizenship" some are trying to pass off as the only alternative to temporary-worker programs (relaxed immigration restrictions and enforcement, not to mention open borders, being out of the question for the fascist and fascist-leaning white nationalists) is part and parcel of assimilation. English-only policies arise from the same movement to repress and control migrants and expose the assimilationist intentions of those who support "a path to citizenship" or even "amnesty," but not open borders.
Note:
Frank James, "Senate: Make English official," 19 May 2006,