Monday, May 28, 2012

English as Official Language Key to Other American Ails

English only foundations have made steady progress, especially on the state level.

Visit their websites! U.S. English, and English First all can be applauded for their advancements. It has been a slow process! But, state by state, piece by piece, it is happening! And, if you are a 10th amendment advocate, it is being done in the correct manner. English is, after all, a state concern. Isn't it?

A question was recently asked at a Taylorsville, Kentucky Tea Party function. "Is English as an official language a violation of the 10th amendment? Or, is it like the military, where each state has it's own militia but the country has a national armed forces?" The second amendment stipulates that the states have the right to bear arms and hold a militia. There is nothing in the constitution about a national language.

Diversity proponents would argue that there is no official language in the United States. They might reference the 10th amendment as a state's right to speak whatever language the majority wanted. Or, to have multiple languages as acceptable. This seems to be the direction that we have settled upon. The foundations evidently see this opposition as something to avoid. A better path may be to focus on the most "English friendly" states gaining victories whenever possible.

The opposite argument is simply, "87% of America favors English as the official language." These U.S. English numbers would indicate an overwhelming majority of the country wants it. What are the disadvantages?

Opponents use "discrimination" as a reason for not adopting English as our official language. This familiar excuse seems to resonate with diversity cultists. For some reason, they continue to believe that a uniform, first language excludes unfortunates who can't or won't assimilate. I know that they exist. But, they seem to be increasingly difficult to find!

The foundations seem to have some disagreement on "to what extent" English as the official language should be advanced. Pro English and English First like the idea of English only voting ballots and drivers license testing. They have a potential ally in some of the Tea Party groups. This development would save federal, state and local governments billions. Seems prudent! What's the problem?

To truly understand the question, it becomes important to understand the true importance of assimilation. And when that occurs, it becomes obvious that to truly have equally in the country, we must all have comparable understanding of one language. The diversity cultists argue vehemently that this isn't the case! But are they looking at the question from a "multidimensional sense?"

American tradition is one of a vast "melting pot." We come from nations all over the world, intermarry and our children are the fruits of our diversity. It can be easily argued that this is the "true diversity" of America. It makes us unique and the products of why our ancestors sought a new life in a new world. These opponents who object to English as the official language may have ulterior motives.

A "Balkanized" America offers profit and control to the limited few. In exchange for compromising assimilation for many, they continue to reap big dividends in the way of alternative language marketing. Plus, they maintain control of various segments of the population by making it easy to remain separate. Assimilation translates to a loss of both profit and control.

It begins with advancing English literacy in America. The more literate in English a citizen is, the more difficult that he or she will be to influence. It amounts to having improved access to communication. The more information that is available, the more knowledgeable the native. The more knowledgeable the native, the less dependent they are to those who would tell them what and how to think.

Should the foundations be taking a more aggressive approach?

Some would suggest that this isn't their place. They have a goal and they are quietly moving toward it. The alternative argument is that that the overwhelming support for English as the official language in America may create opportunities to address and resolve other needs.

With 87% of the population in favor of an idea, and a group founded on fiscal conservatism in solid support of it, you have the beginning of a coalition. Add those who strive to eliminate voter fraud and the coalition grows larger. Bring those groups in who are addressing identity theft and the coalition grows even larger.

To discuss English as the official language, coupled with the need for Charter schools, merit pay for teachers, school choice and six years of a second language in the public schools creates the potential of still another coalition. But would these goals "mesh?" It would appear so, but not so fast? There are actually education foundations who favor Charter schools, merit pay and school choice who would turn "thumbs down" to English as the official language. Why? Good question!

Then there is the issue that always seems interrelated with English as the official language: Immigration reform. This may explain the reluctance of some foundations to form coalitions. There are many proponents on the state level who might become alienated with foundations who sought alliances with Immigration reformers!

Immigration reform is a touchy item. It is, in the words of Karl Rove, "a politically toxic" subject. Still, if a moderate plan could be introduced with promise of advocates' support for English only, voter I.D.'s and Identity theft measures, a sweeping, far reaching compromise might come together.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

English as Official Language/ Immigration Reform are Linked


When legally mandating English as the one and only official language, we are designating it as a cornerstone for American society. It therefore plays a role in the forward direction of our nation. This includes persons illegally in the country through no fault of their own who have assimilated and those who "overstayed their welcome" but could assimilate quickly if given the chance.

Perhaps it depends on your perception! When targeting immigrants best capable of accelerated assimilation, "English as the official language" and "immigration reform" are connected.

Implied, of course is "meaningful immigration reform." Amnesty is not considered "meaningful." Of foremost importance are (a) what to do with illegal immigrants currently within our borders and (b what measures will improve the nation, making America stronger?

We need to rid ourselves of the asinine immigration lottery. How could arguably the most desirable of countries put forth a concept that is totally and exclusively based on "luck?" The proponents claim that it is in the spirit of "diversity." But this term, "diversity" has become an excuse! It's actual translation is akin to "settling for something less than the superlative!"

A priority points system for immigration should take into account any impact or implications made on Social Security. Our population is aging. We need younger immigrants. This should be a benchmark of any new system. When we use age as the first consideration, we immediately set in place a future guideline that will arrest the problem of insufficient new workers to fund the entitlement system.

The second benchmark should be education. We need better educated immigrants. But this goes beyond those with college degrees. America has a shortage of skilled craftsmen. In addition to Nurses and Engineers, we need Plumbers, Steamfitters, Electricians, Welders, Bricklayers, Stone Masons and Carpenters. There are trained workers abroad who can bring these skills with them when they immigrate.

Donald Trump suggested that "any international student receiving his PHD should be automatically issued a green card upon graduation." Why not? Our universities educate these people. Why not allow them to stay?

There should be weight given toward English proficiency. An English proficiency test should be given to any and all immigration candidates. If they can pass an elementary exam(4th grade), they would be given added consideration. An intermediate exam(10th grade) would earn a higher preference. We need immigrants who can assimilate as quickly as practicable. Those coming to the country with the language will shave anywhere from three to ten years time needed for complete assimilation.

Diversity cultists would vehemently oppose such a standard. They would claim that the system was being rigged to benefit selected countries. But this isn't necessarily the case! Visit Europe. Or, visit the Middle East, Asia or Africa for that matter. English is the international language of business. We should use this to our advantage!

Finally, there needs to be a preference for immigrants coming from N.A.T.O. countries. What's wrong with rewarding our friends and allies? Many of these immigrants would be coming from overcrowded European nations and would bring with them, not only the English language but a needed skill or profession.

Some would claim that a mythical points system based on age, education, language and country of origin would be at odds with uniting many families. True, we would be basing acceptance on more than family connections, proximity and luck. The question to ask is "what's best for America?" There should be some preference for family members! Especially children and siblings of newly naturalized Americans! But age, education and English proficiency should hold equal merit!

Requiring passage of an elementary English proficiency test as a prerequisite for a "green card" would have critics. But what are they truly protesting? More independent newcomers?

Opponents will abound who oppose giving N.A.T.O. countries a preference. They will call it "a backdoor strategy" designed to "maintain a white majority" in the United States. We can't change history(although revisionists long to do such)! Such an overture to our N.A.T.O. associates would be be seen as "the United States still remembers who her friends are."

Some will warn that those attempting to immigrate extended family members from outside the country would be delayed, perhaps permanently. This could happen, if the family member was older, uneducated and without the language!

The proposal clearly favors immigrants from English speaking countries. But it would not eliminate those who came from non-English speaking countries! They might need to add an extra step to the process. But there are millions outside our borders who speak English fluently. Most reside in countries where English is not the first language.

What about those currently in the country illegally?

When it becomes impossible to survive, human nature dictates migration. This has been the rule of humanity for eons! Passage of a 10th grade English proficiency test would be easy; for someone who had grown up in the U.S., attended and graduated from American schools or who had lived in the nation twenty plus years. For someone without that history, it could be a tough verdict!

When immigration is linked to English proficiency and literacy, those unable to make the cut will depart. The United States becomes quite inhospitable when you can't work, drive or have access to entitlements! Expect a silent, surprisingly speedy departure!

However, those able to pass an intermediate English examination would be welcomed into the family! They could then begin the path of "what can I do to earn" my place in America?

This standard alone would promote many possible and productive outcomes. One nagging question remains.

"What about those who came to the United States legally on a short term visa and never returned?" After all, this accounts for a large part of those in the country illegally. Would they be allowed to take an intermediate English exam and be given a probationary path to citizenship?

It is important that we differentiate persons who came into the country as minors and those who didn't. Those who happen to be in the country illegally through no fault of their own should be given a path to citizenship! This amounts to something similar to the D.R.E.A.M. Act without entitlement access. But what about the intentional offenders?

Intentional offenders should be rewarded for honesty if they come forth and confess. For example: We have perhaps as many as 50,000 Irishmen illegally in New York City today. They speak English. The majority of them could pass a 10th grade proficiency test. Many hold college degrees, professions and skills. In most cases they have family living in the states. This would immediately earn them top priorities. If they were given an additional "honesty" preference by voluntarily confessing to their status, two results might be possible.

Intentional offenders would face a "more rigorous path" in comparison to those who entered involuntarily. For those who entered the country as minors, the time required for naturalization would be five years. For those who came as adults(18+), it would be ten years. For those illegally in the country through no fault of their own, there would be several service alternatives. For those entering the country on their own accord, there would be only the military option.

During this time, all illegals participating in a path to citizenship would pay into the entitlement system. The more rigorous alternative would be available only to offending illegals thirty years of age and younger.

The second option would be to return to their native land and apply with the benefit of having improved their points priority through honest confession. Let's examine a mythical illustration:

24-year-old, James Bryant of Dublin, Ireland overstayed his visa and has been living with his American girlfriend in Queens, New York for 10 months. James has an undergraduate degree in history, speaks English fluently and wants to immigrate. He reports to the authorities, admitting that his six-month visitors visa expired the previous year.

James is given three points for his being under thirty years of age. He receives a point for his high school diploma, an additional point for a college degree and two points for his ability to pass an intermediate English proficiency exam. He is told that because he voluntarily turned himself in, he will receive an additional "honesty point." That totals eight points. But this is only if he returns to Ireland and applies through normal channels.

Had Ireland been a member of N.A.T.O., James would have received an additional two points. Had his degree been in Engineering or Nursing, he would have received an additional point. If James had parents living in the U.S., he would have received three points. A sibling would have earned him two points. A grandparent or first cousin would have been worth one point. These points, however, are meaningless if James does not return to Ireland.

James elects to not return to Ireland. He is given thirty days to report to the military branch assigned. If he fails to do such, he will be deported without further recourse. He will also become permanently ineligible for future immigration application or visas of any kind, including a K-1(Alien Fiance) visa.

The United States armed forces would be given the right to accept or reject his application. If rejected, he would return to Ireland retaining his priority points.

By rewarding offending illegals for honesty(turning themselves in to the authorities) we would be telling the entire world that we value truth and the ability to admit a mistake. We would be telling the offender that we were giving them one chance to begin their path toward citizenship. Because James was older than 17, his path would span a minimum of ten years. However, he would have permanent resident alien status upon acceptance by the armed forces.James would not be eligible for entitlements, including unemployment insurance. He would be required to pay into the system for ten years prior to becoming eligible for benefits. He would be granted all benefits offered by the U.S. armed forces.

Many would argue that this model is "too soft." But not if the plan is presented in conjunction with a modification of the 14th Amendment's citizenship interpretation. Adding a provision that required at least one parent to hold "green card status" would discourage illegals from parenting "anchor babies."

Meanwhile offenders holding intermediate English skills could return to their native countries and proceed through normal channels holding enhanced priorities. Or, they could remain under these stringent conditions. If they chose the latter, they would begin contributing to the entitlement system without drawing immediate benefit from it.

Where immigration is concerned this is the true "bridge for the moderates." We make it clear that we have a preference for young, well educated, English savvy newcomers. They simply would pay for breaking line!

Sunday, May 6, 2012

English as Official Language Represents "Politically Toxic" Issue; Chance to Unify the Nation

Whatever one may think of Karl Rove, it must be concluded: "he's a brilliant, contemporary political mind."

When Rove refers to an issue as "toxic," wise men pay heed. If you don't belief it, ask Texas Governor, Rick Perry! He learned quickly that the "truth can be deadly." Especially when he described Social Security as a "Ponzi Scheme." Never mind that he was right! When you embark upon verboten topics with truthful candor, even would be allies can turn on you! Perhaps that is why political leaders have been slow to turn up the heat on "English only."

According to U.S. English, as many as 90% of Americans favor making English the official language in the United States. "Pro English" and "English First," two other Washington based English advocacy foundations seconded the assertion. State by state, brick by brick progress is being made. But there are setbacks. HR 997, which has languished in committee for years is likely to make it through the House of Representatives in 2012. There it will remain until 2013, with the hope that Republicans will retake the Senate. As "Pro English" Communication Director, Phil Tignino reminded, "Harry Reid will not allow the measure to come to a floor vote."

The question becomes, "why?"

Why would the Senate Majority leader block legislation that is favored by 90% of the population? Simple. Harry Reid and friends see "English only" as the ultimate weapon to destroy the "Plebyeih"(Pronounced PLEB-YEA-IH) in America.

"Why" would any responsible leader want to maintain a segment of ignorant,illiterate, know nothings labeled "Plebyeih?" We are using the Russian word, because there is no English equivalent. The label was coined by the bourgeoisie in the Soviet Union during and shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. "Plebyeih" were frequently seen in the streets of cities carrying banners and spouting Communist Party slogans.

For the record, Karl Rove never described "English only" as a "toxic issue." But he has made minimal mention of it. Rick Santorum took the issue to head in the Puerto Rico primary. Desperate to maintain momentum, Mitt Romney assumed the counter position. This was the politically correct posture and consistent with Washington leadership. While important and relevant, the issue of "English only" could antagonize certain elements. But who are they?

Deeper analysis of the "English only" question reveals a graphic glimpse of the dark side of America. Actually, there are two "dark sides." Let's first look at Harry Reid's argument.

For Communism to work in America, there must be a "Plebyeih." They represent a solid voting block necessary to wage class warfare. This segment can't read at a fourth grade level. They are typically poor and live on government relief. They are the most susceptible to the politics of jealously. It is easy to convince them that the system is rigged against them.

Plebyeih aren't necessarily children of immigrants. Most actually are not. But underachieving newcomers without the language are easy targets for recruitment. Reid and company see "English only" as the first rung in dismantling this important block of voters. That's why they are fighting "English only" so voraciously! The immigration issue is directly linked to maintaining a potent "Plebyeih."

It's probable that Rove has described "immigration reform" as another "toxic issue." It is. Marco Rubio learned that Tea Party support may evaporate following his efforts to produce something contrary to "unconditional deportation." Give him credit for tackling the problem! "McCain-Kennedy" was "amnesty," and nothing less. Presidents Bush and Obama supported "McCain-Kennedy." The D.R.E.A.M. Act had mostly partisan support. Rubio's idea is a scaled down version. Learning English has always been a part of all proposals. But there has never been a direct link to assimilation and citizenship in any plan. The same could be said for voter identification cards.

When you mention voter I.D. cards, Reid and his friends cry foul! According to Reverend Al Sharpton, this is nothing more than a tool of discrimination. In his mind(and obviously scores of Democrats)proponents of "English only," voter I.D. cards and anti-amnesty positions are racists, bigots, fascists and imperialists. Sharpton and evidently Reid believe that open borders, no official language and no required documentation lead to a better America, and maybe more Democrat voters.

Harry Reid's reasoning is relatively easy to fathom. The key to power within his party is grow the "Plebyeih." That equates to the continued "dumbing down" of large segments of the population. The more "Plebyeih" the better! When you have more than 50% of the country paying nothing into the system, Reid and cohorts will have won.

Mitt Romney certainly doesn't support this position! But what does he support? Spanish as the second official language? In witnessing his words in Puerto Rico, it would be logical to assume as much! Or maybe, he was just being his "trimmer" self?" There is always the third possibility, which brings us to the second dark side of America.

The very notion of "English only" reflects "excellence" in English. Totally zealous advocates such as myself strive for Americans to be the "masters of the English language." Better, even than the English themselves. Is this unrealistic? No. In fact, it opens the door to making the country stronger, smarter and more secure. Isn't this Governor Romney's objective?

Yes. Within reason. Like any noble cause "excellence in English," initiated by "English only" can have a negative backlash! The sequence is predictable.

In "E" is for English, "English only voting ballots" and "English only drivers license testing" are proposed. The position is supported by both "Pro English" and "English First." But the book goes one step further. While removing all other languages from government, it mandates six years of a second language in the public schools.The premise is simple: English understanding improves when a second language is formally learned. Producing multilingual high school graduates would result in a more cosmopolitan, more sophisticated society.

It's easy to understand why Reid, Sharpton and associates would fight such a measure. But Mitt Romney? In getting to know him, one would assume that he would embrace such action. Regretfully,"where there are roses there are thorns."

Under this practice America would be producing many more candidates for the service sector workplace. That, in in itself could pose a problem! A high school graduate would emerge bi-lingual, and likely unemployed. The book proposes making offshore outsourcing illegal for any job requiring the use of even part of an American's social security number.

Identity Theft is the fastest growing crime in America. There is growing suspicion that the rise is linked to the large numbers of service sector jobs that have been shipped to India, the Philippines and Central America. Fortune 500 companies would "howl" if such a standard became law. They would predict higher prices for everything, due to the expense equated with hiring American workers. This would almost certainly be Mitt Romney's stance.

The case has been made that "English only" will ultimately contribute to improved English literacy in America. In an abstract way, it's possible to link "Immigration reform" to "English only." But how does identity theft relate to "English only?"

An American monopoly on service sector jobs could be the end result of "English only." The rest of the world would be dismayed to learn that the United States had taken the position that "only Americans could be trusted with Americans social security numbers." It is a position totally contrary to that of globalists. For stockholders, it could prove costly.

In his book, "The World is Flat,"Thomas Friedman described a globalist intention to level the world's playing field. They would facilitate the super rich while bringing peace, harmony and economic parity to the inhabitants of our world. The proposed legislation unveiled in "E" is for English would, in the words of University of Kentucky ESL Professor, Dr. Kay Combs "run contrary" to this objective.

The idea of "English only" in America is the beginning. What's especially dangerous to both Communists and Globalists is that an overwhelming majority of Americans support it! The next step is to build a coalition. That coalition begins with those wanting to curtail identity theft. 100% of the country acknowledges the problem. Even Karl Rove would admit that Identity Theft curtailment is not a toxic issue!

From there we move to the next toxic issue: Immigration Reform. "E" is for English introduced a plan that deals with the present and future. It is directly linked to English proficiency. It would stipulate that anyone who planned to drive, work and vote in America, learn English. For newcomers it would amount to "accelerated assimilation." For illiterates with American roots spanning generations, it would finally mean "inclusion." Which bring us to the final toxic issue: Literacy.

None of the "English only" foundations have spoken the unthinkable. But I will and I did in "E" is for English. We are at a point in America where we must destroy the "Plebyeih." We simply cannot have Americans who are illiterate in English. English is the strand that binds us as one. It transcends all differences. Race, color, creed, sex, national origin, religious preference, it covers them all! We must accept nothing less than totally literacy. We must insure that every American has access to the American Dream.

Requiring a "fourth grade English proficiency test" as a prerequisite for a voter I.D. card will do it. Yes, this is a tough, new standard. It will take a constitutional amendment to do it. But, when we raise the bar, we will be saving millions from illiteracy and ignorance. True, literate masses are more difficult to control than illiterate masses. That's why Harry Reid and like minded "Plebyeih proponents" so vehemently oppose "English only." They would prefer an illiterate, Balkanized America.

This proposal is the ultimate in political incorrectness. It likely sets the gold standard for toxic issues!

"Would the majority of Americans favor it?" I believe that they would!

"English only" foundations have enjoyed marginal success. But the main objective remains unresolved for want of the right coalition. When joined by anti-identity theft groups,anti-voter fraud activists, and those wanting "fair, practical and comprehensive" immigration reform measures, the numbers are there. The education "purists" will follow. When opponents of "English only" are properly positioned as "Communists and Globalists" the battle lines will be drawn.

One remaining question: "Should we be satisfied with HR 997? Or, should we take advantage of the overwhelming support for "English only" to fix other needs?"

"E" is for English's aim is to "create a stronger, smarter, more secure America." Could we use "English only" as the catalyst for reforming immigration, eliminating voter fraud and curtailing identity theft? The book's proposed "American English Unification Amendment"("E" Amendment) addresses all issues, linking them to the goal of 100% literacy in America. It's a notion that nobody dared to dream!

The proposal comes at a time when an increasingly partisan America shows division not seen since 1861! Any concept offering constructive solutions in conjunction with unity measures should be studied. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that billions of tax payer dollars can be saved with the adoption of this legislation. It comes down to Congressmen and Senators looking past the "toxic," stop protecting their jobs and start doing them!

We must remember that the President will not be involved in the amendment process. Passage in the House and Senate will send it back to the states. We will need 37 states for ratification.