Senate Backs Role of English

English would be declared the “national language” of the United States under a measure the Senate approved Thursday, a largely symbolic move that supporters said would promote unity and encourage assimilation by immigrants.

The measure would not reverse government practices of providing some materials and services -- including voting ballots and emergency advisories -- in other languages. But it would establish that people have no right or entitlement to ask government officials to provide services or materials in other languages, unless authorized by law.

Minutes after adding the provision to the immigration bill it is debating, the Senate passed a second amendment with less pointed phrasing. Declaring English the country’s “common and unifying” language, it specified that the “existing rights” under which the government provides bilingual services and assistance would not be diminished.

Lawmakers said negotiations with the House would determine which of the two measures remains in a final bill overhauling the nation’s immigration laws.

The debate over the English language issue dominated Thursday’s Senate proceedings and frequently grew heated. Proponents of the tougher amendment argued that it was needed to unite the country, while opponents insisted it would cause greater division.

The dispute echoed similar debates that have occurred for more than a decade not only in Congress but at state and local levels.

Twenty-seven states have passed statutes declaring English their official language.

The Senate’s debate reflected growing concerns among many lawmakers about the need to reinforce common ties among citizens. An estimated 47 million people in the U.S. speak a language other than English at home.

“We are not a nation based on race,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said in support of the “national language” amendment. “We are a fragile idea based on a few common principles and our national common language.”

But some interpreted the amendment as an attack on Latinos. And in a chamber that prides itself on civility, that concern prompted unusually harsh language.

“I believe this amendment is racist,” Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the measure’s sponsor. “I think it’s directed basically to people who speak Spanish.”

Inhofe, who speaks Spanish, strongly denied the charge, calling it “ridiculous.”

The extended debate came on a day when senators who back a broad approach to revamping immigration laws gained the momentum.

The senators, many of whom meet every morning to discuss strategy, have successfully defended the core provisions of the bill. Their collective strength was on display Thursday.

The bipartisan group killed a measure, on a 58-35 vote, that would have radically altered the bill. That proposal sought to eliminate a provision allowing future guest workers to apply for permanent legal status. It also called for scaling back legalization measures for undocumented immigrants.

Additionally, the coalition supporting the overall bill derailed an amendment that would have kept newly legalized immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits based on taxes they paid while working illegally in the U.S.

On a less contentious matter, senators approved by a voice vote a provision that would allow Filipino veterans of World War II who reside in the U.S. to bypass visa caps that often separate families for more than a decade. Instead, these veterans would be allowed to bring their children to the U.S. immediately.

The Senate aims to take a final vote on the immigration bill by the end of next week.

The legislation would bolster border security and enforcement of immigration laws at work sites, create a guest worker program and offer legalization to most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

The legislation embodies the multifaceted changes in immigration law that President Bush endorsed Monday in a nationally televised speech.

Bush’s address was meant to help his party find common ground on an issue that has fractured it.

Many Republican conservatives, particularly in the House, insist that enforcement measures must come before any legalization or temporary worker programs are put in place. That approach is reflected in a tough House bill, passed in December, which would make illegal presence in the country a felony and increase penalties for illegal entry.

So far, GOP House members have shown little inclination to follow Bush’s suggestions, making it uncertain whether Congress can agree on a final bill.

Inhofe’s “national language” amendment and enforcement measures added to the Senate bill this week -- most prominently approval of at least 370 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border -- could make the legislation more attractive to House members.

Inhofe’s amendment would require that foreigners applying for residency in the U.S. pass an English proficiency test. Currently, that test is required for those seeking citizenship.

The amendment also would raise slightly the standards of the English test for those seeking citizenship, Senate aides said. Currently, those taking the test must be able to read and write simple English words.

Approved by a 63-34 margin, the measure also offers guidelines for the Department of Homeland Security to revise the test for prospective citizens.

California’s two senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, voted against the amendment.

They backed the “common and unifying” language amendment, sponsored by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). That measure passed 58-39.

Salazar said he believed Inhofe’s amendment would “create division in the country. Our amendment would unify America.”

In the debate on Inhofe’s amendment, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) argued there was no need for an official endorsement of English because economic success for immigrants is difficult to come by without it.

“If you speak only Spanish, your horizons are very limited,” he said.

He also said the amendment could be viewed as an affront by some Latinos.

“The Spanish language has become an important symbol for so many people in this country,” Durbin said. “It’s a source of heritage and pride.”

Other lawmakers countered that the amendment was needed to stress the importance of cultural commonality, especially in light of controversies sparked by some of the recent pro-immigrant marches.

“As we debate how to assimilate [illegal immigrants], we need to make clear that it is the policy of our government to enhance our common language -- English,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “That is a good thing to say because when the demonstrators are in the streets and waving the Mexican flag, some of us have to respond to that.”

In other action on the bill, the Senate voted to require illegal immigrants who apply for citizenship to pay a $750 fee. The amendment’s sponsor, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said the money would help reimburse state and local governments, hospitals and institutions that provide health, education and services to illegal immigrants.