Glass City Jungle

Testimony on Amended H.B. 477

Rep. Peter Ujvagi

May 28, 2008

Chairman Cates, ranking member Fedor, and members of the Senate State, Local Government, and Veterans Affairs Committee. Usually, when I begin any testimony in this great Chamber or in the House, I start by saying, “Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill.” However, today I stand before you not with thanks, but with a great deal of trepidation and sadness that we are actually giving serious consideration to passing HB 477 into law.

I mean no disrespect to either the members of the House or Senate, but a careful review of this legislation suggests that this is not good public policy as it purports to be. Its “intent” to encourage immigrants to more quickly learn the English language, to “unify” our nation, and to avert the imminent danger of Ohio becoming an “English optional” state as presented in testimony in the House by Rep. Mecklenborg, is disingenuous at best and calculated to divide the citizens of Ohio at its worst.

Since last week’s precipitous action by the House of Representatives, I have done some additional research into the purported crisis facing Ohio due to the lack of a law requiring the use of only the English language for “official proceedings and records.” I’ve also done research into how other states that have passed this type of legislation addressed the issues, as well as research into the genesis of this type of legislation around the country.

First:

The crisis in Ohio caused by the use of other languages besides English for “official records, actions, and proceedings of state agencies and political subdivisions.”

As I am sure you know, there are in Ohio:

252 Cities
688 Villages
1,308 Townships
696 County Offices
1 County Council
115 State Agencies

For a total of 3,781 units of government and agencies.

Over the last week I have not been able to find even one government or agency that maintains its “official record, actions or proceedings” in any other language than English.

Can the sponsors and proponents of this legislation please answer this:

If there is an imminent language crisis in Ohio, where is it?

How many governmental entities or agencies maintain their official records in any language other than English? One, ten, a hundred, five hundred or…None!.

How many complaints have been filed because of the use of a language other than English in any official proceedings in Ohio?

Is it just possible that there IS no crisis, that the pressure for Ohio to become an “English optional” state as Rep. Mecklenborg suggests, really DOESN’T exist, and that the language used in this legislation is really used in a calculating, Orwellian way to divide, not unite, the citizens of our state… particularly on the eve of a critical election season.

Second:

How have other states who have passed similar legislation addressed some of the most gratuitous sections of the “model” bill that we seem to be hell bent on passing?

While many of the similarities between HB 477 and legislation in other states are striking, and I will address that in a moment, there are also striking differences.

How does the Mecklenborg bill encourage the promotion of the English language by non-native speakers? It does not. There is not one word of how we as a state and as a community will work to integrate new immigrants into our society. Nor is there one word of how to assist them in more quickly becoming a part of the American Dream. Not one word.

In contrast, let me cite a section of law in the legislation passed by the state of Kansas:

Kansas – Stat. Ann. §73-28 (2801-2807)
KANSAS (2007)
Kan. Stat. Ann. §73-28 (2801-2807)

73-2806. Promotion of English language; assistance for non-native speakers. The state of Kansas recognizes the importance of establishing and actively promoting English language classes, English language training or citizenship classes for non-native speakers. The local entity designated by the state board of regents to offer such services shall seek the assistance of local political subdivisions, community-based agencies and organizations, migrant worker groups, refugee resettlement programs, schools, churches and others in making non-native speakers aware of the availability of such classes and training and ensuring their continuation and expansion.

Please tell me where in our bill, I say “our” because as a representative, I also have to take responsibility for the legislatures actions, are we taking similar action?

Are any members of this committee prepared today to propose an amendment that would actually serve the needs of Ohioans?

The Mecklenborg bill also gives any Ohio resident, standing to commence mandamus, action to obtain a judgment against a public body for the use of a language other than English. The bill is sufficiently vague in its definitions and provides so many exceptions that if a governmental entity does use another language, even if for valid reasons, they are in danger of being sued.

The bill gives one individual standing. For the attorneys in this room, how many laws are on the books that enable a single individual to sue the state? Is there anything in the bill that first tries to cure what may be perceived as a violation in a reasonable manner?

No, there is not. This section of the bill alone will have a chilling effect on any effort by an agency to assist Ohio residents with potentially critical problems. Even with all of the exceptions included in the bill, which administrator or beurocrat will take the risk or go the extra mile to assist?

In fact, this prohibition will make it more, not less, difficult for some of us immigrants to integrate into society.

In contrast to Ohio, similar legislation in Arizona includes the following section:

Arizona Const. Art. 28 § 1-6
ARIZONA (2006)
Proposition 103 (November 2006 Election)
Ariz. Const. Art. 28 § 1-6

A person shall not file an action under this section unless the person has notified the attorney general of the alleged violation and the attorney general or other appropriate representative of government has not provided appropriate relief within a reasonable time under the circumstances. An action filed under this section may be in addition to or in lieu of any action by officers of this state, including the attorney general.

The Mecklenborg bill makes no effort to cost effectively and reasonably deal with potential legal action.

In other words, other states have at least looked at these issues and used some reason and deliberation in their legislation.

May I suggest that, at the least, more work needs to be done on this bill before it is voted on.

Third:

Where was the genesis of this legislation? Did it rise from a true public policy need in our state? Is it such a critical issue for Ohioans that we need to set aside valuable time from the serious deliberations on the state budget, the condition of our economy, of education funding, of health care, or the needs of the least of our citizens, and the retention in our state of the best of our citizens?

The proposed legislation is eerily similar to legislation proposed by a lobbyist group called U.S. English. Inc. Rep. Mecklenborg said on the floor of the House that he would never propose legislation to make English our official language. Well that is exactly what this lobbying groups’ goal is, only they propose to do it indirectly.

There is no problem with proposing legislation promoted by a particular interest group, but let’s be clear about it. The problem arises when it is done pall mall with little or no deliberation and any effort to tailor it to our states particular needs.

Why are we doing this in the waning days of this session…before the summer break and before the fall elections?

For public policy reasons?

For political reasons?

To truly serve the needs of Ohio?

Or…to create another wedge issue for the elections?

Each of us, each of you, has to answer that question in your hearts and by your votes.

This weekend I read an article written by Ruben Navarette, of San Diago, that best exemplifies these issues.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) — On the question of whether recent immigrants assimilate as quickly as previous waves, many Americans exhibit short fuses — and even shorter memories.

They have convinced themselves that, instead of adapting to the customs of this country, new arrivals — most of whom come from Asia or Latin America — expect the rest of us to accommodate them. They go ballistic over little things — Mexican flags, taco trucks, libraries that offer bilingual story time, or having to “press one for English.”

Yet, even as they look down on new immigrants, many Americans look back fondly upon their immigrant ancestors. Legend has it that when grandpa arrived from Ireland, Germany, Italy or Poland, he jumped off the boat, immediately draped himself in the American flag, ripped out his native tongue, and abandoned his culture — all while singing “Yankee Doodle Dandy.” Germans did not move to Milwaukee and make beer and cheese. The Irish did not settle in Boston and join organizations like the Hibernian Society to preserve their heritage and culture.

And even while Americans complain about how the current crop of immigrants isn’t like their predecessors, they miss the irony: At the time, there were people who said the same thing about their ancestors; the Germans were thought to not be like the English, the Irish weren’t like the Germans, the Italians weren’t like the Irish etc. And the Chinese weren’t like anyone who had come before them, and so they were labeled “inassimilable,”

Is it possible that this latest effort at nativism, is at least to some extant driven by the fact that the new wave of immigrants, documented and undocumented, are even less like “us.” That this wave of immigrants might be yellow, brown, or black: Asian, Arab, Central and South American, or Somalians.

Is it possible that this legislation will have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult, not less for us to build one America?

This past Monday, Memorial Day, my children and I had a long conversation about these issues. (By the way, over 700 recipients of the Medal of Honor were immigrants to this country. Perhaps they did not read military regulations and rules in English to the level expected by the sponsors of this legislation, but they surely spoke enough and loved this country enough to fight and to die defending America.)

At the end of the discussion with my family, I said again that this bill from my perspective is Anti-Immigrant.

My daughter said, “No, Dad, this is not Anti Immigrant, it is Anti American!”

I am here today, as an immigrant, as a naturalized citizen, as a business person and as an elected official. (And where else but in America can that be said by anyone?) I am here to ask you to suspend the potential for political maneuvering around this issue, to call a halt to “wedge politics,” and to not move forward with this legislation.

If you truly believe some form of legislation is necessary, then work at it, consider and debate options, and propose amendments that might meet the real needs of Ohioans before you enact this law.

I may not agree with you on all the issues even then, but at least an honest effort will be made to pass good public policy; not a seemingly blatant political maneuver to drive a wedge between the residents of our great state for political gain.

Do not pass this bill out of committee after less than 48 hours of consideration.

Thank you.