<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
That's a good question... as I understand it, most of the "English Only"
laws are mostly symbolic, having little or no legal force. That doesn't
mean that there aren't plenty of reasons to oppose them, however.<br>
<br>
The law in question, however, was supported by millionaire Ron Unz, who is
concentrating on anti-bilingual education. I have been concerned for years
that his initiatives would endanger immersion programs, and this article
confirms my fears. As someone noted earlier, a similar law (I don't know
whether it was Unz-backed or not) is tied up in the courts in Alaska, because
Natives feared that it would prevent them from using their languages in the
public sphere. So far, the only state to defeat one of these Unz-backed
initiatives has been Colorado (round of applause). <br>
<br>
If there is a silver lining here, it is that this makes the initiatives look
very bad: it isn't "helping" immigrant kids to learn English, it's prevent
Native Americans from taking the steps necessary to preserve their languages.
That's wrong, and yes, barbaric. I believe that the majority of Americans
can recognize this. <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Rrlapier@AOL.COM">Rrlapier@AOL.COM</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid125.2b95ce76.2d78bf20@aol.com"><font
face="arial,helvetica"><font size="2" ptsize="10" family="SANSSERIF"
face="Arial" lang="0">Another question, I believe there are now 23 or 26
states who have passed "english only" legislation? How many are states with
significant Native populations?<br>
<br>
I know that Montana is an "english only" state and we have 7 reservations
and 12 tribes.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Rosalyn LaPier</b><br>
Piegan Institute<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.pieganinstitute.org">www.pieganinstitute.org</a></font></font></blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>