In 1923, the Supreme Court declared that restrictionist language policies like those in H.R. 123 were unconstitutional. In addition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that view by nullifying Arizona's English-only policy. While we want everyone to be able to be proficient in English, we must not employ measures that are inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech, representative democracy, due process, and equal protection under the law. The Serrano substitute supports the view that our Nation's strength lies in its pursuit of justice, freedom and opportunity. English-only supporters say that the common bond of our Nation is our language.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Extremist language policies like H.R. 123 are devisive and racist, uniting people behind misplaced patriotism. Just think of the hardship that it would place on athletes and tourists at the Olympics if services and information were only provided in English. Inhumane policies like those found in H.R. 123, will only encourage divisiveness and resentment and delay full participation of all people in our society. The Serrano substitute promotes the view that English proficiency is achieved through educational opportunities. Denying services and information will not help one single person learn English.