Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

a view of the capitol building

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

In November, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in history, with little to show for the 43-day closure.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was not one of the eight, told discouraged Democrats, “We need to remember the battle we’re in….[We need to continue the fight] to defend our country from Trump and MAGA. Two things coming up that are really important,” Whitehouse said, “1) In December, there will be a vote on extending the Affordable Care credits we fought for. That gives us…weeks to hammer the Republicans so hard that we actually get a good Affordable Care credits bill.

Keep ReadingShow less
The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

a view of the capitol building

The baking isn’t done only by elected officials. It’s done by citizens​

In November, eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in history, with little to show for the 43-day closure.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who was not one of the eight, told discouraged Democrats, “We need to remember the battle we’re in….[We need to continue the fight] to defend our country from Trump and MAGA. Two things coming up that are really important,” Whitehouse said, “1) In December, there will be a vote on extending the Affordable Care credits we fought for. That gives us…weeks to hammer the Republicans so hard that we actually get a good Affordable Care credits bill.

Keep ReadingShow less
Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?
Image generated by IVN staff.

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?

Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”

Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South
person using black laptop computer
Photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash

Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South

When Colm Kelleher, chairman of UBS, sat down with Scott Bessent in recent months to discuss uprooting the bank's headquarters from Zurich to New York, it was more than corporate maneuvering. It was a signal flare for the financial world under Donald Trump's second term. Bessent promised a regulatory bonfire that could slash compliance costs and open the floodgates for American finance. The reported talks underscore a broader shift: the United States is apparently positioning itself as the unassailable hub of global capital, drawing in institutions like UBS with tax breaks and lighter oversight. Yet this allure comes at a steep price for emerging markets, where wage growth is already fragile. What looks like a boom for American workers masks a quiet trap, one that could deepen the divide between rich nations and the rest.

Bessent's vision, laid out in private conversations and public hints, paints a picture of American exceptionalism reborn. He has warned of a "perfect storm" of inherited inflation and supply disruptions from the Biden years, now to be tamed by aggressive deregulation and targeted tariffs. In one recent interview, he blamed soaring beef prices on a mix of migrant-driven cattle issues and lingering policy failures, framing Trump's agenda as the corrective force. The rhetoric is folksy, but the policy is sharp: roll back rules that hobble banks, lure foreign firms stateside, and shield domestic industries with import duties. UBS's flirtation with relocation fits neatly here. Across the Atlantic, Trump offers relief: no more endless stress tests, faster mergers, and a friendlier tax code. If UBS moves, it could save hundreds of millions annually in regulatory overhead, funneling those gains into higher bonuses for its New York traders.

Keep ReadingShow less