Anti-Americanization.

AT THE beginning of the twentieth century, large numbers of immigrants from ethnic groups relatively new to the American melting pot entered the United States. American Presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed on two basic goals: teach the newcomers English and make them Americans. The clear aim was to strengthen our national identity -- to reinforce the unum in E pluribus unum -- by assimilating the new arrivals into American civilization.

As the twentieth century nears its end, large numbers of immigrants from ethnic groups relatively new to the American melting pot are, once again, entering the United States. Today, however, the American President, William Jefferson Clinton, promotes policies that are directly opposed to the strategies advocated by Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Instead of promoting Americanization and emphasizing the learning of English, the current occupant of the White House favors policies to weaken our national identity -- de facto anti-assimilation measures, anti-English-language initiatives, and an indifference to substantive citizenship training.

President Clinton and Education Secretary Riley tell us that their goal in supporting bi-lingual education is "transitional." Schools should teach basic subjects in the children's "primary language," so that they do not fall behind in math, science, history, and the like while they are learning English. Education professionals, however -- the people who actually run the schools -- strongly emphasize "cultural preservation." Thus the Los Angeles Unified School District advises teachers "not to encourage language-minority" parents to speak English at home, but instead "to encourage them to strongly promote development of the primary (non-English) language" in their children. Current law buttresses the bi-lingual establishment by requiring that 75 per cent of all programs for newcomers be taught in the student's native language. This is at odds with proven principles of learning a second language, which is best done by writing and speaking it as much as possible, not simply by attending a one-hour class five days a week.

Even measured by its own criteria, bi-lingual education is a failure. It neither teaches English well, nor keeps students from falling behind in other subjects. A recent and comprehensive evaluation reported in the major research journal sponsored by the National Council of Teachers of English found that "there is no body of research evidence to support the notion that non-English-speaking children will read, write, and do academic work in English better if they learn to read, write, and do academic work in their home language first."

The dismal failure of bi-lingual education to teach children English has led to open revolts by Hispanic parents in New York, California, New Jersey, and Nebraska. In the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, 150 Latino parents organized to fight for English instruction for their children. Sister Kathy Maire, a Roman Catholic nun working with the parents, stated: "The bottom line is these kids are being robbed of their futures." In Los Angeles some 100 Hispanic parents pulled their children out of a local school to protest bi-lingual education. Indeed, a U.S. Department of Education survey of Mexican- and Cuban-American parents revealed that four-fifths opposed teaching their children in Spanish, if this meant that less time would be devoted to English. Unfortunately, the education bureaucracy has a vested interest in keeping children in bi-lingual programs, because as the students "transition out" of native-language instruction, the schools lose government funds.

In this fight the Clinton Administration has from the beginning stood on the side of the bi-lingual establishment. Even before he was elected President, Bill Clinton, in an article in Phi Delta Kappan (October 1992), blasted the Bush Administration for not spending enough money on bi-lingual education. Once in power the Clintonites have not simply advocated more money for existing bi-lingual programs; they have expanded multi-lingual education. For example, the Administration's major education bill, the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, authorized federal funds to develop written grammars for previously oral American Indian and Native Alaskan languages. Thus instead of merely "preserving" primary languages, bi-lingual education under Clinton may include inventing what are essentially new written languages.

For the first time, the congressionally mandated National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), the "Nation's Report Card," will be given in Spanish as well as in English. Deputy Education Secretary Madelein Kunin sent a memorandum to the civil servant in charge of the tests stating that "excluding" children whose English is limited violated the Civil Rights Act and ordering that these students be accommodated by providing them with Spanish versions of the math and science tests. The irony in giving the tests for the "Nation's Report Card" to American students in a language other than English appears to have gone unnoticed by either the Clinton Administration or the Republican Congress, which has remained mute on this issue. As Jorge Amselle of the Center for Equal Opportunity put it, "If [the students] ace a history test in Spanish and flunk it in English, it's not going to do them any good when they go to get a job."

Although Bill Clinton signed an official-English bill when he was governor of Arkansas, the Clinton Administration has opposed efforts by Republicans and by moderate and conservative Democrats in the 104th Congress to declare English the official language of the United States. The Administration also opposes congressional efforts to stop requiring states to provide ballots in other languages as discrimination against Americans who don't speak English.

Syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer, in a brilliant new book, Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship (to be published by Atlantic Monthly Press next month), chronicles in painful detail the steady diminution of naturalization -- the once meaningful process of immigrants' becoming American citizens. While the "dumbing down" of citizenship did not begin on January 20, 1993, it has clearly accelerated under the Clinton Administration. In December 1995 the Administration expanded the use of foreign languages on citizenship tests; four hundred new centers give the test in Spanish. Plans are under way to offer tests in Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog.

THE attitude toward the importance of English for American citizenship is reflected in the comments of Jess Nieto, a director of one of the "community organizations" authorized by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to give citizenship tests. Nieto declared, "Many of these people [resident aliens applying for citizenship] have been here a million years. Why should they have to take the test in English?"

The citizenship tests themselves have been stripped of much of the rich historical, civic, and patriotic content that once made studying for and passing the test a truly gratifying experience in the life of a new American citizen. Even the dignified and moving court ceremony for swearing in new immigrants is no longer mandatory. Besides the INS, over eight hundred organizations are now eligible to give citizenship tests. Leftist advocacy groups such as the Asylum and Refugee Rights Project, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights under the Law, and the Mexican -American Legal Defense and Educational Fund are working closely with the INS. Ironically, activist lawyers who spend their working hours litigating against any legal distinctions between citizens and non-citizens are often running the official process that makes resident aliens American citizens. Even the Heritage of Aztlan Educational and Cultural Foundation -- a group which romanticizes irredentist Mexican claims to the "lost territories" of the Southwestern United States -- is busy giving tests in American history and civics to candidates for American citizenship.

MEANWHILE, the Clinton Administration has begun a project of instant mass naturalization, Citizenship USA. Hundreds of federal workers from other agencies have been detailed to the INS to process citizenship applications. In one case in California, special personnel worked from dawn to dusk for two months and naturalized sixty thousand resident aliens. According to an article by Ruth Larson in the Washington Times, a career INS official stated that a White House staffer admitted to him, "Quite frankly, it's 250,000 registered voters who are likely to vote Democratic."

Attitudes about citizenship and American identity are revealed in the words and actions of Clinton appointees. For example, Eugene Garcia, Clinton's bi-lingual-education chief from 1993 to 1995, told a conference of bi-lingual educators, "The border for many is nonexistent. For me, for intellectual reasons, that border shall be nonexistent." INS Commissioner Doris Meissner has suggested that the inspiring Oath of Allegiance, in which new citizens promise to "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, . . . support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; . . . bear arms on behalf of the United States; . . . take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: so help me God," is "anachronistic" and should be changed.

One of Mrs. Meissner's top political appointees, Executive Associate Commissioner Robert Bach, was the principal author of a Ford Foundation report on immigrant communities in 1993. Bach recommended that non-citizens be permitted, indeed "encouraged," to vote in city and school-board elections. In fact, the terms "citizen" and "citizenship" are rarely mentioned in the report; instead Bach uses the term "established resident." He is critical of assimilation, suggests that too much "homogeneity" may be "the problem in America," and emphasizes that long-established residents should "accommodate" the newcomers with multi-lingualism instead of assimilating them into mainstream society. Another of Mrs. Meissner's chief lieutenants, Alexander Alienikoff, has, according to Georgie Anne Geyer, "argued constantly that it was time no longer to distinguish or differentiate between citizens and legal aliens."

The Clinton Administration has unleashed the coercive power of federal agencies against opponents of its anti-assimilation and multi-lingual policies. Thus on February 24, 1995, after the city council of Allentown, Pennsylvania, voted 6 to 1 to declare English the official language of their city, the city clerk received a call from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) warning him that Allentown could lose federal funds if the city council did not repeal the ordinance. A Clinton appointee, Assistant Secretary Roberta Achtenberg, launched an investigation and suggested that the city's ordinance might violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Twenty-three Congressmen sent a letter to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros demanding an explanation. Finally, after the city government promised not to implement the ordinance, the inquiry was canceled.

IN August 1995, the chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Clinton appointee Mary Frances Berry, subpoenaed members of the Florida-187 Committee to appear before a Commission hearing on "racism." Mrs. Berry demanded that the group -- which supports a Florida initiative patterned after California's attempt to deny most public benefits to illegal aliens -- turn over all its computer printouts, reports, policy studies, memoranda, and internal documents. JoAnn Peart, a housewife from Delray Beach, one of the individuals subpoenaed, contacted Republican Congressman Mark Foley, who asked the Subcommittee on the Constitution to hold oversight hearings on the Civil Rights Commission's action. A group of Republican congressmen sent a letter to President Clinton stating that the Commission's action was a "clear violation" of citizens' "right to engage in political activities without being intimidated or harassed by a government entity." Shortly after this uproar Mary Frances Berry withdrew the subpoenas.

For the past several decades Americans have had a continuing argument over two visions of the future, an argument that will determine the fate of our national identity. Do we promote English or multi-lingualism? Do we strengthen American citizenship or do we diminish it? Should we be a multi-ethnic nation or a multi-cultural one? A multi-ethnic nation means an America composed of individual citizens belonging to racial and ethnic groups from all over the world. On the other hand, a multi-cultural nation emphasizes group identity, not individual citizenship. It establishes different legal and language "rights" for different racial and ethnic groups, rejects assimilation, and erases distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.

There is no doubt that the Clinton Administration has joined the battle on the side of multi-lingualism and multiculturalism. The words and deeds of Clintonites Achtenberg, Aleinikoff, Bach, Berry, Cisneros, Garcia, Kunin, and Meissner are clear and consistent: expand official multi-lingualism wherever possible; water down the substantive meaning of citizenship; blur distinctions between citizens and non-citizens; advocate voting by non-citizens; and use Federal Government power to harass opponents of these policies.

Recently, Congress has started to challenge the Administration. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston (R., La.) succeeded in cutting bi-lingual education. Congressmen Toby Roth (R., Wisc.), Randy Cunningham (R., Calif.), and John Porter (R., Ill.) and Senator Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) have introduced legislation strengthening the use of English. On August 1, a bill making English the official language of the U.S. and allowing states to eliminate multilingual ballots passed the House. Despite these efforts, the multi-lingual/multi-cultural infrastructure will remain intact. For example, Congressman Roth's initiative to eliminate bi-lingual education is stalled in the House, and the Senate will almost certainly restore multi-lingual ballots when it votes on "official English" in September. If the bill passes, a veto is expected. Most importantly, a serious and sustained intellectual and moral argument against the continuing assault on American national identity has not yet been heard. In the final analysis, the struggle between multi-ethnic America and multi-cultural America will be won by the side that is able to articulate an intellectual and moral argument that resonates with the American people.

The Clinton Administration and their multi-lingualist allies have not made a compelling case for their radical new vision of America, but they have largely succeeded in scaring off and intimidating potential opposition. Their strategy is name calling -- denounce opponents of official multi-lingualism as "mean-spirited," "racists," and "bigots." Thus the American Civil Liberties Union characterizes opposition to official multi-lingualism in terms of "hate mongering" and "fostering bigotry and intolerance."

No wonder opponents of official multi-lingualism have been hesitant to make this a major issue, knowing they will be vilified as "racists" and "bigots." My guess, however, is that the great silent majority of Americans from all ethnic and racial backgrounds is waiting -- indeed hungering -- to hear the voice of multi-ethnic America challenge the multi-lingual/multi-cultural forces and dislodge them from the moral high ground.

This voice of multi-ethnic America would tell us: We the People of the United States, a self-governing and free people, have a moral right to transmit our way of life and our national heritage to future generations of Americans. Fluency in English is essential for full participation in our society. To tell newcomers to America otherwise is to lie to them. To be an American citizen is a privilege, not a right. To cheapen citizenship and blur the boundaries between citizens and non-citizens is to mock the sacrifices that have sustained our nation for more than two hundred years. If we don't take citizenship seriously we don't take our constitutional democracy seriously.

Therefore, we should establish English as our official language, eliminate bi-lingual education and multi-lingual ballots, and end the corruption of our naturalization process. Moreover, as people on both sides of the immigration debate -- including Linda Chavez, John Miller, Dan Stein, and the late Barbara Jordan -- have suggested, it is time to launch a new civic integration effort, similar to the Americanization initiatives earlier this century. Nothing could be more welcoming and inclusive than fostering English and teaching the responsibilities of citizenship to newcomers. Those of us whose parents or grandparents came through Ellis Island at the turn of the century are particularly grateful that Presidents Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson advocated Americanization, instead of multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism.

Opposition to official multi-lingualism does not mean that Americans should not learn foreign languages, or that we are not free to speak whatever language we want, or that languages other than English cannot be used in places such as courts and hospitals. It does not mean "English only." It means that English should be the official language of public business in our liberal democracy.

Yes, as with people everywhere, there is bigotry among us. However, the genius of America is that we have worked to overcome unfair discrimination and irrational prejudice. To make the learning of English a priority and to strengthen the substance of citizenship does not mean we are "racists" and "bigots" -- it means that we take our national heritage and our democracy seriously.

It is the advocates of bi-lingual education who have prevented Latino kids from advancing. It is a patronizing establishment that is stealing their keys to the American dream.

The position advanced by the multicultural establishment amounts to a bluff. It is at odds with the feelings and instincts both of the American majority and of the minorities that these policies are allegedly designed to help. What is needed is an open discussion of the facts and values in question. Once that happens, the bluff will be called and the great American public will demand that we end official multi-lingualism, eliminate bi-lingual education and foreign language ballots, take naturalization seriously, and, in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, launch a new campaign for Americanization and civic integration.