Language teaching, ethnic studies divide Americans

[caption id="attachment_19638" align="alignleft" width="300"] Hispanic salesman knows English well[/caption]

Carol Forsloff----Most new arrivals to America learned English, as knowledge of their language of origin did not pass to future generations; but in modern times ethnic groups are looking to revival of language and culture as a way to bind the old and the new and help youth take pride in their ethnicity.

In Wisconsin the Red Cliff Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa tribe has received a grant for the education of their children in their native Ojibwe tongue, which they will learn from the elders of the tribe. An immersion program will be developed through the Bayfield School District with the Ojibwe language immersion Charter School which is slated to open in 2015.

This has come about in response to the fact that the native American tongue, Ojibwe, is one of those that had dwindled in users among the younger generations. This effort of revitalizing the language for cultural bonding is one that speaks to many people who seek to elicit understanding, especially if the group comes from one of those who have been oppressed by the greater culture, as occurred with the native Americans as white settlers moved onto tribal lands and moved the indigenous peoples often to reservations far away from their birth homes.

The status of the Native American may be considered somewhat different than other ethnic groups, as the Americas are their land of origin.  In other words, their languages could be considered part of the language systems indigenous to the United States.  In some areas, however, ethnic studies that focus on one particular group are being reviewed as potentially divisive. In this case the focus is not just on language but on an entire cultural group that includes history, patterns of behavior and style as well as language. Some educators are questioning ethnic studies as separating the group from the mainstream education and knowledge, especially when the orientation is specifically toward the cultural group itself highlighted as the principal students.

Much of the conversation about ethnic studies has come about follow Arizona's enactment of a law banning ethnic studies. Critics declare that the ban is part of Arizona's anti-immigration stance specifically targeting Hispanics. Others say ethnic studies tend to focus on immigrants' culture outside of mainstream America when the accent should be on learning the new culture and language as part of assimilation.

This is what the Arizona Ethnic Studies Network has to say about ethnic studies: “Ethnic studies and programs such as MAS are about equality, not divisiveness; they seek to expore the complexity of power, inequality and conflict between, as well as within, ethnic groups. We support ethnic studies in K-12 schools, university classrooms and beyond.”

The Supreme Court has upheld the Arizona law.

And despite the arguments that Latinos don't learn English enough and the proposed new immigration law requires it, research has shown they have more incentive in modern times to learn English and are doing so at a more rapid rate than past generations.

 

 

 

 

Immigration expert: Suit against Arizona Immigration Bill will succeed

 

[caption id="attachment_10712" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Immigration leaders arrested"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - An immigration lawyer has taken a look at the lawsuit filed July 6 by the U.S. Justice Department against Arizona’s new immigration statute and believes it will succeed, at least at the appellate stage.




The suit has to go through several rounds, the first of which will take place before an Arizona federal district judge, which Stephen Legomsky, JD, DPHil, immigration policy expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, calls a "wild card."

“It’s very hard to predict what the district court is going to do,” says Legomsky.  "Its decision will be made by just one randomly selected judge, and that judge will be an Arizona resident who might come under intense personal pressure to defend his or her state’s law against federal intervention.’’

According to Legomsky it is likely that whoever loses in this first round is almost certain to appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  That court covers most of the western United States where a three-judge panel from a broader region will decide the case..

“They will be more likely than a district judge sitting in Arizona to invalidate at least portions of the law,” Legomsky believes. “Then, of course, there is always the possibility of a definitive ruling by the Supreme Court.”

Out of all portions of the law most likely to stand would be the law enforcement interrogation Legomsky says.  The statute contains a mandate for police officers to investigate the statuses of anyone they lawfully stop whenever they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present. But the worry of the law's opponents it is does not say what will make a suspicion reasonable, which is the reason for people's fear that racial profiling will therefore become more widespread.

Other controversial provisions, however, make certain immigration-related conduct a state criminal offense. 

Legomsky maintains, however,  that at least the latter provisions will be struck down as illegal interferences with the exclusive federal power to set the nation’s immigration policies.

For example, the Arizona law makes it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to be present in the state.

“While Congress has indeed made illegal entry a federal criminal offense. It has consciously chosen not to criminalize overstaying a visa; for visa overstayers, Congress has decided that deportation is a sufficient sanction,’’ Legomsky observes. "Thus, Arizona’s law is directly at odds with the federal immigration laws. Further, even for individuals who entered illegally, Congress had to balance a range of factors before settling on the proper level of punishment.”

“By increasing the penalty, Arizona has substituted its judgment for that of Congress. And for the past 100 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the regulation of immigration is exclusively a federal responsibility. Whether you feel that the existing penalties are too harsh, too weak, or just right, we can’t have 50 states and hundreds of cities and towns each passing their own immigration laws.”

Even so, Legomsky says it is likely other states will “go ahead and pass copycat immigration legislation before this case is ultimately resolved.”

Those who support the Arizona law assert the statute is necessary because the federal government fails to adequately secure U.S. borders. But Legomsky tells us the Obama administration has committed massive new resources to border fences, border patrol personnel, and new technologies.

“No law is capable of 100 percent enforcement,” Legomsky says. “It’s easy to criticize the federal government for failing to stem illegal immigration, but the real question is how much in the way of taxpayer resources do supporters want the federal government to spend on immigration enforcement?”

Legomsky has a unique background to discuss the immigration law of Arizona as he has chaired several nationwide committees, has testified before the U.S. Congress and has advised both Democratic and Republican administrations on immigration and refugee matters. His immigration law course book has been required reading at 172 law schools.