Continuing The DACA Overload

However they came to the United States, and irrespective of who's to blame, the 800,000 or so individuals now designated as “dreamers” are here illegally. They're called “dreamers” because it's a title that invites sympathy. Their defenders claim that they're honest, hard-working, tax-paying, loyal Americans who deserve our thanks and support, and who should be allowed to stay with a path to citizenship provided. There should be an amnesty, like the one afforded those who fled our country during the Vietnam War.

Whether or not that view is merited, the fact remains that they're here illegally. DACA doesn't change that. In a country that purports to accept the position that no man is above the law, somehow we are sympathetic to a violation of the Constitution by a President sworn to uphold that document. He has stated publicly “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It says so in Article II, but the document does not give him the authority to decide what the law should be, nor that he may decree what he thinks it should be.

Among the reasons we declared our independence, and clearly written as the final justification in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, was that “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these states.” We rejected the idea that all power would reside in one individual, and we placed legislative responsibility elsewhere.

It states, at the beginning of Article I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” All. Among the powers specifically assigned to Congress was to “establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization.” It was Congress's prerogative to decide issues of immigration, and it did so. And when pressed to ease restrictions on minors smuggled into the United States it did not do so. Whether the choice was a wise one or not, it was their choice, and the unilateral declaration of the President was a violation of his oath to defend the Constitution.

But he did it. And he secured the support of a sympathetic group – the “dreamers.” And their supporters. Still, however, notwithstanding the President's actions, they were not “dreamers” but illegal immigrants. However the costs of deportation (if we move in that direction) – politically, economically and in terms of our emotions and our appearance internationally – would be devastating. It would thus be almost impossible, for a variety of reasons, to do so. President Obama has won. Whatever the legality of his action, it will remain in place. Lawsuits to overturn President Trump's suspension of the amnesty, however attractive they may be politically and emotionally, don't alter the Constitution.

There will, however, have to be a clear expression by Congress of the law they favor. (And, perhaps, a reiteration of the Constitution's delineation of the functions and powers of the President and Congress.) It should be made clear that, from that time forward all illegal immigrants, however they reached our country, would be returned to their country of origin. No lengthy procedures will be required if they cannot prove their legal status and the date of their arrival or residence. As for those already here, in an attempt not to break up families, those under a specified age, whose parents are present, should be returned with them to the country of origin unless there is a justifiable fear of harm that might come to them – in which case we should discuss with their homeland's authorities why there is such a risk.

As for the remainder of the group, they should be quickly vetted for illegal activity apart from their immigration status. If such information is found, they should be tried for their alleged crimes and sent home after completion of any sentence if convicted. They should be treated as any suspect would be if he were a citizen. Those who are deemed to be possible criminals should be subject to the laws of the country in which they reside. And those who are simply living at the expense of taxpayers should do that in their countries of birth.

Those left after the initial screening should have a path to citizenship – not because they're entitled to it by law but because existing situations, even if their origin is questionable, are sometimes impossible to reverse. The path should be more difficult than that for those who have followed a legal course, but it should be available. Those who choose not to accept it should remove themselves to a place where they feel they would fit in better.

I offer these thoughts fully cognizant of the fact that I am supporting an action I consider completely illegal. It's my hope, however, that the President and Congress (and the courts for that matter) will revert to the roles set out for them in the document that they swore (or affirmed) they would uphold. Policies based on emotion but not supported by law may make us feel good about ourselves individually, but they weaken us as a nation.

Values And The Law

There was a time when “values” referred to “family values”: contraception, abortion, sexual practices, and “gender” identification. It was an issue that was of greatest concern to conservatives, who were accused of trying to impose their ideas on the rest of us. Specifically it was considered to be an attempt of “conservative Christians” to impose their religious beliefs on us, (much as it was the goal of other religious groups to force us to abide by their views – atheism and other similar issues) notwithstanding their beliefs and those of others, and the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Following Roe v Wade they considered it settled law that abortion was legal and those who argued against it were urging their followers to disregard the law.

The debate has changed. Now the concern over values seems to be that of the supporters of “American values” as they relate to immigration. We were all immigrants and we should welcome all who want to be a part of our great nation. And those who have entered our country with disregard of the legislated procedures should be granted citizenship, or at least allowed to live here without any threat of governmental action. That perspective rests not only with individuals, but with the governments of some cities – “sanctuary cities” – that disregard federal law, but demand that their law enforcement agencies not be penalized by the national government for ignoring its rules. The only people whose voices they hear are the protesters – the squeaky wheels – who consider the law to be wrong and demand that it be ignored.

It's hard to know whether there is support for the concept because it is generally the decision of the city's leaders to adopt the status rather than the choice of voters. But that's not really the point. What is really the question is whether cities have the authority to ignore – violate – our country's laws, with or without the agreement of their citizens. And if they do violate federal mandates, are they entitled to governmental support which, from a practical standpoint, implies agreement with the way they have determined their priorities and with their disagreement with federal law. Do citizens and non-citizens have the right to choose which laws they will follow and which they will ignore? Is that the American way? They may claim “civil disobedience,” but hiding from officials makes that claim absurd.

In 1780, seven years before the writing of our Constitution, and nine years before it was adopted, John Adams included the idea of a “government of laws, not of men” in the Massachusetts Constitution. It was an idea that was held firmly in all of the colonies that formed our country, and it is still approved by most Americans. Is ignoring Federal laws an American value? Or is it an act of men (and women) seeking to gain points from voters?

Yes we were all immigrants – or our predecessors were. Most, however, entered this country according to the rules in place at the time. There was a period when there was no law on the matter and then, like most countries, laws were established regarding who might enter and what procedures had to be followed to do so. A defined process was established. And for citizenship as well. And among the requirements for citizenship was a commitment to follow our laws. Indeed, many of our “entitlements” were limited to citizens or others who were here legally.

There are an estimated eleven million persons in our country who have not followed the rules. There are many others who have been waiting patiently for legal procedures to be followed in regard to their applications for entry. Those who are already here (but not those waiting in line) are often enjoying the benefits of our nation, including jobs and entitlements. Their children go to school here and they use our medical facilities when they need them. It's hard to fault those who come because they are intent on a better life. Our ancestors did the same and there are many who do so now. But it cheapens our traditions to suggest that “American values” require that we grant blanket citizenship to those who have knowingly violated the law. I wonder if those who protest in their support know that they are promoting the selective adherence to our laws and encouraging immigrants to violate the law. They are imposing their values on the rest of us. And it sends the wrong message to others, especially those who have sought legal immigration. However lovingly we may characterize their quest, they have violated the law. However sentimentally and sensitively we may view their plight, it is contrary to Adams's teaching. And it is contrary to our values.

Exiling them all, sending them back to countries that many of them left long ago, isn't the answer, but neither is a blanket amnesty. They should be registered and provided with a path to legitimacy that includes some form of penalty for their disregard of our laws. Many of them are nice people, but they are not above the law. And we must make it clear that those who, in the future, violate our laws will be punished far more severely for their acts.

We are a “government of laws, not of men.” That's an American value.

May 18, 2017

Obeying The Law

If one person kills another, justifiably from his perspective, and perhaps ours, anticipating that he will never be caught, is he in violation of the rules of society?

If a small and honest entrepreneur decides against filing her income tax form one year because her fiscal position is tenuous at that time and it is unlikely that an audit will follow anyhow, should we look the other way?

If someone enters this country because he is unhappy with life where he is, and correctly determines that things will be better here, yet he does so without ever declaring his act to authorities, is he acting illegally?

Is the assault of a drug dealer a crime that justifies punishment? Suppose a close relative died of an overdose. Does that change things?

All four of the people whom I've described are acting illegally. We may be sympathetic with their motives, but they have all violated our laws as surely as those who act with malice and contempt of society's standards – at least with the standards of the United States. In that respect they are no different from those we designate as “common criminals.”

We all are swayed by “extenuating circumstances.” We all wonder what we would do in a difficult circumstance. We all would consider extending the benefit of the doubt in particular cases to the accused as we would want it extended to us were we in the dock. But by doing so we would be doing a disservice to our country and to our neighbors. We would be saying that only those whom we hate or fear, or who threaten us in some other way, should be subject to our laws and the penalties for violating them.

Yet they're all illegal acts, irrespective of the way we react to them. The violation most debated at this time is that of the “illegal immigrant” who may be a hard-working, tax-paying, generous, and helpful individual, but who entered the country contrary to our laws, or who overstays a legal limit. We're especially likely to be forgiving of the person who is law-abiding and a “credit” to the community. And if he or she has children born here we view it as an assault on “American values” to even suggest an impropriety. After all, we're all immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, and the “oppression” of poor immigrants is not “who we are.” In order to legalize their status, however, as is demanded by many, we must either suspend our concept of citizenship or pass legislation making their presence legal from the time they came: the first is an extra-legal ad hoc action while the latter as an attempt at a legal solution to the situation. But both are equally problematic, if not illegal themselves.

How is a protest rally, by well-meaning citizens, designed at forcing the government to look away any different from the decision of a dictator to ignore the corruption of his administration? Both require that we disregard our own laws and their violation by those whose actions we don't wish to punish. And passing legislation that declares that something that was prohibited in the past is now acceptable and a violator has not committed a crime, is an ex post facto law – which is specifically forbidden by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 9). We ordinarily think of such laws as ones that criminalize legal acts retroactively, but, as is noted in the Wikipedia article on the subject, “An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of [any] actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.” And the constitutional prohibition is clear, not a matter of interpretation. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. There's no subtlety there. Some may view any change as a matter of amnesty, pardon, reprieve, or interpretation, but such a construction is simply a way to pardon ourselves from any responsibility for ignoring the law in favor of a current passion.

Favoring a “current passion” rather than the law, however, permits other actions, of equal doubtfulness, should passions change. And it cheapens the value of our laws in the eyes of those we want to follow them. We'd like mercy and justice to have identical paths, but that's not always the case.

The problem is not a simple one. Besides the consequences for individuals, there are also implications for society, the economy, education, and security among numerous others. It affects the way the world sees us and our status as we condemn lawlessness elsewhere. And it affects the perceptions of those who have “played by the rules,” even though veering from them would have been adventagious. A solution will have to be found, and it will be found one way or another. There are too many people involved. The soution will please many and offend many. It will please the “law-abiding” but illegal immigrants by legitimizing them, while offending those who are truly law-abiding and have waited patiently as they have gone through the tedious steps required by law; it will please those who have protested the current administration's stance, while offending those who favor the maxim of “a nation of laws, not of men” (John Adams).

The solution will be outside of the course we like to believe we take, but, at the moment, it is unavoidable. In order to move on without causing too much additional internal discord – some is unavoidable – a compromise position will have to be reached. And it should include mechanisms by which this or similar perceived disparities can be addressed in the future; ways they can be dealt with without having to violate our own laws

For it cannot be denied that, whatever the good will, the “illegal” immigrants are, indeed, here illegally.

The Loyal Opposition

I know I sound like a broken record (actually the record is fine but the changer doesn't work) however I don't see any improvement in the situation so I'll try again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

February (2017) is fast coming to a close. The presidential election occurred in early November, 2016. It's over. It's time to step back and take a deep breath.

Unfortunately there seem to be many – probably more than during the campaign itself – who won't “give up the ship.” Protest marches are rampant. The media continue to publish “revelations” about the new administration and its members. People in the public eye use their own “bully pulpits” to denigrate those responsible for leading the government – those elected according to the tenets of the Constitution.

The same Constitution guarantees all of these people the right to speak their minds as long as they choose, but common sense suggests that the efforts are counterproductive. Actually, that characterization is based on the assumption that the prime loyalty of those protesting is to the United States, and that may not be the case. The “Loyal Opposition” cannot always be assumed to have its country as the prime concern.

The term itself apparently arose in England during the eighteenth century, the same century in which we declared our independence from our mother country. Perhaps this was one of the British precepts that we rejected. Our own history often raises the question and that is certainly the case now. Protesters cannot be faulted for their passion. They have learned from the media, by osmosis if not a stated teaching, that criticism and bad news rule the day and should be encouraged.

What has resulted is a “devoted (or, if you prefer, “dedicated”) opposition,” one devoted and dedicated, however, to opposition itself, rather than to the country in which they live. The group is primarily private citizens, But the media and our politicians play a major role in its development: the media with their quest for Pulitzer Prizes and sales, and our “representatives” in search of party advantage and the defeat of any administration appointments irrespective of qualifications. With those as their primary motives, it is not surprising that private citizens follow suit, decrying all that they perceive as injustices, and marching in order to … I'm not sure what. If their views and voices haven't been heard yet it is likely they never will be. All they're likely to do is increase the determination of those in charge to carry out the plans they've developed. It's a challenge to administration leaders not to change, but to “double down.”

An example of this is immigration policy. The loyal opposition tells us that we are all immigrants and we shouldn't restrict immigration (though we have done so many times in the past) because “that's not who we are;” it's contrary to “American values.” At the same time, those who support proposed changes point out that we are “a nation of laws” and that those laws should be enforced. Those who are following the rules should be given preference over those who bypass them.

And those who favor free immigration believe that the “multiculturalism” associated with immigration will strengthen our country. Not E Pluribus Unum but E Pluribus Plus. Without a common culture though, we're likely to be Balkanized and divided rather than unified. A common culture and a common language are more likely to bring us together. People want to come to America for many reasons – economic and political are the most common – and they'll form the backbone of our future. But those who come from Mexico aren't doing so in the expectation of a “Mexico North,” and those from the Middle East aren't looking for a western version of the society they're fleeing.

Sadly, much of American protests reflect ideology rather than an attempt by the protesters to accomplish their stated goals. The primary aim seems to be the establishment of a record of fighting for “right” and not compromising with “the devil.” They want to divert the administration's attention and resources and be able to say “I told you so” during the next campaign. They want to provide material for negative ads then.

But the reality is that right now they'll lose (although that actually may be their hope) and they'll forfeit the opportunity to tone down what they consider ill-considered legislation. All they can do with an obstructionist outlook is slow the process and, if they succeed in doing so, they'll show, as we've already seen, that the government they tried to obstruct goes on, and does well in the face of legislative gridlock: that less government works well.

As I have said many times before, I did not vote for our current president but he won, and we owe him the chance to implement his policies. In 2020 we'll have the opportunity to indicate the degree to which we think they have been effective – with 20/20 hindsight.

Fear And A Changing Attitude

It's interesting that “the party of the rich,” the Republican Party, is now attracting the poor – not the minorities, but the poor among the “majority” who fear a takeover by the “immigrants.” And interesting as well that the Democrats count among their followers the headliners in the movies and theater – the high-salaried “stars” – and the liberals, opposed to injustice, who believe they speak for the downtrodden, though among them are many of the wealthiest of our citizens – members of the fabled one percent. And they have added more to the campaigns of their favored candidates than the conservatives whom they blame for distorting the First Amendment and the political process with their money – however that's not really the point.

There is no denying the conservative nature of some of the leaders of industry, since free enterprise is one of the primary tools of their success. But now, in addition to private industry, large government and extensive regulation have provided jobs and income for large segments of our population – whether union officials or the executives who employ them; whether middle-class or higher. And the ninety-nine percent, and, even more so, those who claim to speak for them, demand increased taxation of the rich – of the one percent – although they are often of that class whether or not they admit it. In fact whether or not they recognize it.

Around the globe, however, there is a swing toward a conservative mindset that encompasses the lower middle-class and poor of many nations. It has many causes, but nationalism, religion, and economy are its tap roots. The concept of Eurabia, however applicable it may have been a decade ago, has become a more prominent issue as migration from a war-torn Middle East has increased recently. And the populations of many of the affected recipient countries involved have become more and more and more concerned. And more and more conservative.

The recent “Brexit” vote is illustrative of the renaissance of isolationism which is one of the hallmarks of the new attitude. Patriotism and xenophobia accompany it, with increasing fear and rejection of the immigrants. In part this reflects an economic concern – there is fear that the market will be flooded with unemployed “foreigners” who will take jobs from the homeborn. And they'll change the nature of the society. Whether or not the fears reflect reality, they're real. Elections in many of the involved countries demonstrate the “rightward” turn of the public.

There is also worry that among the immigrants are some who actually threaten their new homes. War has raged in the Middle East throughout history, and terrorism is a feature of the last few decades. That terrorism has spilled over into nations around the world, and the perpetrators almost invariably have connections to the Middle East – to (contrary to political correctness) Islamic governments, clerics, and organizations. With very few exceptions they are Muslims.

Those involved in violence are a minute minority of Muslims everywhere, but their impact, physical and political, has been tremendous – causing fear everywhere, and sometimes even retaliation. (Retaliation, when it occurs, is generally irrational and based on ethnicity rather than ethos. It usually has nothing to do with the attitudes and actions of the victims, only with their ancestry.) Anxiety about the risks associated with the immigrants may be overstated, but it is increasing, and probably is an intentional result of the terrorists' efforts. Whatever increases tensions between nations benefits the radicals. Islamophobia may result from terrorism, but it also results from people's fear of terrorism. And since Islamophobia's existence is “proof,” for those already convinced, that the society is evil, the terrorists gain from inducing it.

Small as the risk may be, however, it cannot be ignored. And neither our protectors (military and police) nor our politicians are likely to ignore it. Actions taken by our protectors are usually aimed at the benefit of society, while the words and actions of politicians are generally undertaken in order to obtain personal gain. The populism that xenophobia can arouse is a powerful political tool for them.

Perhaps the elimination of the terrorists, by whatever means is necessary, is a step the world should be taking. Defending them as understandable victims of an unjust West only validates their claims and justifies their acts. Many of our own people insist, however, that we shouldn't stoop to their level. It's not “who we are,” and doing so allows “them” to win. (What we're doing now, though, doesn't constitute a win for us, nor make it likely that there will be one.)

On the other hand, the ideas of survival, self-defense, and a “just” war need to be worked out. There is no virtue in suicide or extending our necks to the sword. That's not who we are either. Turning the other cheek to tyrants is tantamount to approving their actions. We reject the role of “world policeman” viewing it as a pejorative designation, but isolationism isn't the answer. We cannot as easily reject our responsibility to help those who need us – though it sometimes seems to be national policy to do so.

Perhaps finding a middle ground between their ways and ours is the best approach. Perhaps some will view that as a compromise with evil. Whatever we decide, however, that decision should come soon. Whether or not we allow it, they're winning. We're turning to the right largely because of the perceived threats of immigration. The “sympathetic,” if naïve approach of so many of our citizens, needs to be rethought. There is a new alliance of conservatives with many of the poor who fear the changes that are occurring around the world and are beginning to speak out. If, as we claim, we oppose injustice, its time for us to listen to their concerns.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Following the writing of this essay and its publication, a terrorist (“no terrorist connections” but a pattern familiar in Israel) drove a truck into a crowd and then started shooting them. It was apparently a “lone wolf” attack making prevention of similar attacks difficult. But it emphasizes the need to understand both the psychology of the killer and of the theology that promotes such horrors. If it happened in Israel, it's likely to happen elsewhere.

Words To The Wise

I'm in the midst of reading two books right now (I can't pay attention to any single one for a long time – actually I'm reading five or six books, but only two are relevant to what I want to say), “Language Loyalties,” edited by James Crawford, and “Verbal Hygiene” by Deborah Cameron. The first “was conceived at the Conference on Language Rights and Public Policy … [of the] Stanford University Department of Linguistics and Californians United against Proposition 63.ⁱ As its title and sponsorship suggest, the conference brought together “[individuals who] … oppose Official English and seek alternatives.”

According to its editor, “My own bias, and the bias of those who have supported the project, should be stated clearly: Adopting English as the official language [of the United States] would be a backward step for this country. The English Only campaign offers at best a simplistic answer to our language problems, at worst a vehicle for xenophobia.”

The second book, “Verbal Hygiene,” “takes a serious look at popular attitudes towards language and examines the practices by which people attempt to regulate its use.” Professor Cameron, who taught at that time at The Programme [sic] in Literary Linguistics at Strathclyde University [Glasgow], is, according to Wikipedia, “a Scottish feminist linguist, who currently holds the Rupert Murdoch Professorship in Language and Communication at Oxford, ... [and much of her] academic research is focused on the relationship of language to gender and sexuality.” She criticizes “the Right” and “Conservatives” for an attempt to standardize English which, she maintains, “would not be ... condoned … by common-sense wisdom about the goals of standardization.”

I'm especially interested in the subject right now (I'm always interested in the English language, a language I love, but it's especially relevant at this time) because of the current brouhaha over immigration. An important premise of “Language Loyalties” is that one of the main driving forces for Official English or an English Only policy is the goal of limiting or ending citizenship for new immigrants, especially Hispanics. And according to the conference's participants, by requiring education in English and English literacy for citizenship, its supporters hope to discourage immigration.

Various contributors to the volume point out that America has always been a country of immigrants and their languages enrich English. Similarly Professor Cameron point out the benefits of the naturally changing nature of language and the contributions of various “foreign” influences. She points out that change is a normal and important feature of language, and those who try to standardize it, for whatever purpose, are making a mistake.

I wonder, though, if they miss the point. Immigrants of the past came with the understanding that they were joining what they viewed as a society preferable to the one they left, and they joined it fully, often leaving behind the vestiges of their previous lives, including their languages. They wanted to be part of that new society. That was certainly the goal of their children. Acceptance, integration, assimilation. It was what they sought. And what they knew of the language of their parents they did not transmit to their children. They were Americans, and their children would be moreso. Involvement in American culture was their aim, not simply the transfer of their previous lives, unchanged, into a new environment.

And that is the concern of many of those who support Official English.ⁱⁱ They fear that if new immigrants maintain their own languages and have no reason to learn what they view as the nation's language, all they will do is transfer all their past practices to a place where they can earn more and live more freely. There's no reason why they shouldn't keep their language, earn more, and live freely, but learning this nation's language and integrating, at least minimally, into American society, should be encouraged.

James Crawford writes: “The English Only campaign offers at best a simplistic answer to our language problems, at worst a vehicle for xenophobia.” According to the Oxford Dictionary (American English), xenophobia is an “[i]ntense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.” Demonization of those whom you oppose, an ad hominem argument, may be effective as a rhetorical tool, but it does not provide much in terms of enlightenment about the subject at issue. Similarly, the use of pejorative languageⁱⁱⁱ is intended to bias the reader or listener and distract from the merits of the argument. In this instance, the formal acceptance of English as our nation's language, by those already here and by those who choose to come, is as unifying and identifying a feature of who we are as our flag.^iv

Acceptance of English as our national language does not, in any way, mean standardization – that there is any wish to maintain it in its current form without ever altering it – without incorporating any changes from the language of our new citizens, or from anyone or anywhere else.^v Change cannot and should not be stopped. In fact, such change enriches language, and reflects what is happening in our society.

In addition, the transmission of a people's heritage should not be discouraged, and the teaching of children about their people's past should be welcomed.^vi But it should not cut them off from their future. America is a large country and we have chosen to be a single nation rather than a collection of states. Unless we abandon this philosophy, it makes sense to find ways to unify all our citizens. Language can be the unifying factor – because of what it already is, and because of what its diverse population can make of it. If we fear that the idea of a national language will be abused, or that it is a violation of freedom of speech, we should be on guard against such results and take appropriate legal steps to prevent that from happening. The potential for misuse should not prevent the acceptance of what is otherwise desired. It should promote our “eternal vigilance.” But we must not let that fear dissuade us from doing what we think right. Nearly three quarters of California's voters favored Proposition 63. While it is part of our national character that we protect the rights of minorities, we must also consider the wishes of the majority. After all, that's what democracy is all about. And the two are not mutually exclusive. The books I am reading are very informative in English, and they would be similarly so in any other language.

[I thought I'd add the following snippet from Thomas Hardy.  I'm not sure precisely how it fits in, but from my perspective it's on point.

         

          The Stranger within my gate,

                    He may be true or kind,

          But he does not talk my talk –

                    I cannot feel his mind.

          I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,

                    But not the soul behind.]

Next episode: “Thanks For The Memory” -- You remember. Bob Hope and Shirley Ross.

I        An amendment to the California Constitution which made English the official language of the state. It passed overwhelmingly.

ii       And I am among them.

iii      “simplistic” appears to be intended as a put-down. I don't deny that one of the proposed solutions is simple, but that doesn't make it “simplistic.” Sometimes a simple answer is the best answer.

iv      Some will object that a flag is itself an overly patriotic symbol whose use is outdated and counterproductive in a “diverse” and “multicultural” society like ours. I find it difficult to deal with such a mindset except to note that all nations, however diverse and multicultural they are, have flags and treat them with respect.

v       Such an idea does not sanction “language police,” nor does it in any way permit public or private institutions to fail to provide necessary aids to those for whom English is not their primary language.

vi      Just as there are parochial schools which, in addition to secular studies, teach about particular religious texts and practices, there can be schools that teach about national heritages and languages. This would give immigrant groups, and everyone else, the opportunity to instill the concepts of a culture and its history and language in their children. Support for such schools should be handled in the same way as currently existing parochial schools (although it may be wise to rethink this issue for all of them). And there should be no attempt to delegitimize languages which are not designated as our national tongue.