fully realizing what it was doing, the U.S. Supreme
Court last week struck a small blow for American
rather arcane legalistic reasons—the
lawsuit of an immigrant woman demanding the right to
take a driver`s license test in Spanish, it actually
helped protect the English language and the national
bond that a common language makes possible. If this sort of thing keeps happening, we might even reach a
point where the Court recognizes a common national
The case before
the Court involved a lady from Mexico named Martha
Sandoval, who claimed that the state of Alabama to which
she had immigrated refused to give her a driver`s
license test in her native language.
Alabama, like 19 other states, has a law making
English its official language, and it conducts its
driver`s license tests—in
You`d think that
was logical enough and that anyone moving here from
another country would want to learn English well enough
to be able to pass driver`s license tests in it—not
to mention to be able to read road signs while actually
driving a car. But
no, Mrs. Sandoval insisted that the narrow–minded
nativists of Alabama were unfairly discriminating
against her when they made her take the test in English
(of course, no one made her take the test at all, for
most states, receives money from the federal government,
and under Title
VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, recipients of
federal money are not allowed to discriminate on the
basis of race, color, or national origin.
Mrs. Sandoval claimed
in her suit—backed
by multimillion–dollar leftist lobbies like
the NAACP and the Southern
Poverty Law Center—that the Alabama law
discriminated against her because of her national
majority in its wisdom did not actually speak to that
Mrs. Sandoval cannot sue the state for discrimination at
all because Congress in passing the act did not
explicitly enact what Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking
for the majority, called
"a freestanding right of action to enforce (such)
That throws Mrs. Sandoval`s claim in file 13, but
it still doesn`t answer the more important question that
this case raises: Can we, the American people, have our
own language or not?
We do know what
the four dissenters think.
The four are the usual suspects who constitute
the left wing of the current bench——Justices
Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter—and they, rather sourly,
opined that earlier cases did in fact recognize the
forbid "the provision of governmental services in a
manner that discriminated against non–English
other words, four justices of the Nameless Nine—just one short of a majority—think
the American people should not have the right to
establish their own language in their nation.
That`s what the
opinion argues that non-English-speaking
immigrants can continue to challenge official English
laws throughout the country, with the financial and
legal help of their left–wing allies, and enjoy a
serious chance of preventing the vast majority of
Americans, through the operation of such laws, from
enforcing the prevalence of their own native language in
their own country.
decision could therefore have been worse; it didn`t
close off the possibility of such massive linguistic and
cultural subversion, but at least it didn`t immediately
open the gates to it.
But don`t imagine that the stalwarts of the left
will stop trying.
If and when they
do, it won`t be merely Mrs. Sandoval`s Spanish in which
driver`s license tests must be administered but every
other language that has now been imported into the
multiracial, multicultural, multilingual
Tower of Babel we are becoming.
Nor will driver`s license tests be the only
official documents that will have to transcend the
parochial tongues of those who write them.
Road signs, instruction manuals, administrative
procedures and law books themselves would have to be
published in whatever languages are required to avoid
"the provision of governmental services in a manner
that discriminates against non–English
result, of course, will be not only linguistic and
cultural, but even political, anarchy—dare
one say "Balkanization."
of course, have no idea how close the Court last week
actually came to pulling the plug on whatever remains of
unity, nor do they have any notion of what still
lies before them once the professional left exploits the
loopholes in the Court`s ruling.
They really ought to have an idea, because the
anarchy in their future will be the logical consequence
of the combination of mass immigration and a left–wing ruling class that
controls both the press and the courts.
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS