Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Dangerous Consequences of Declaring English the Official Language

Opinion

The Dangerous Consequences of Declaring English the Official Language
American flag
Photo by Ben Mater on Unsplash

en español

The latest presidential executive order designating English as the official language of the United States while simultaneously rescinding Executive Order 13166 is a shameful and unconstitutional attack on the rights of millions of Americans.


Our modern legal system is a direct descendant of Europe’s, which in turn was influenced by the courts of ancient Rome, where Latin was the predominant language. By eliminating federal language access protections, this administration has chosen to disrupt domestic tranquility by ignoring the very principles of equality and justice upon which our nation was founded.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on national origin. By dismantling language access protections, the federal government is effectively discriminating against millions of limited English proficient (LEP) individuals, barring them from accessing essential services. This order does not promote unity; it further marginalizes and disenfranchises communities that have long contributed to the fabric of this nation.

The highest court in the land has already ruled against policies that suppress linguistic diversity. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that “the protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue.” The Court affirmed that prohibiting the use of other languages is not only unconstitutional but also unjustifiable, stating: “No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed.”

This landmark decision should serve as a stark warning to those who seek to erase linguistic diversity in America. The forced linguistic assimilation imposed by this executive order contradicts a fundamental constitutional principle: that all people—regardless of language—are entitled to the same rights and protections under the law.

The Constitution State Must Lead the Way

With federal protections stripped away, states must step in to ensure that all residents can access public services, regardless of their English proficiency. Connecticut has a moral and legal duty to pass SB 955, An Act Requiring State and Local Government and State Contractors to Ensure Individuals with Limited English Proficiency Are Able to Access Public Services. This legislation is not only necessary—it is urgent. It affirms that the state of Connecticut will not participate in this egregious violation of civil rights and will continue to uphold the values of accessibility, fairness, and inclusion.

We the People “—these words do not belong solely to those who speak English. They belong to all Americans, no matter their language, heritage, or background. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Lady Liberty’s message announces the American experiment as one of inclusivity, not exclusion.

This executive order is an affront to that promise, and we must resist it with every tool at our disposal. Connecticut, and every state that values democracy, must take a stand. The future of our nation as a Just and Inclusive society depends on it.

Doris Maldonado Mendez is a Connecticut Mirror’s Community Editorial Board member.


Read More

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less