American Multiculturalism During a Majority Republican Congress and a Unified Republican Government (1995–2007): Unprotected Policies and the Actions of Critical Veto Players

  • Arjun Tremblay
Part of the Palgrave Politics of Identity and Citizenship Series book series ( CAL)


This chapter takes the final step in developing the book’s hypothesis. It brings to light multicultural policy developments in the United States that took place from the late 1960s to the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century. It points out the paradox that, with one notable exception, American multiculturalism (i.e. language accommodation for immigrants) persisted from the late 1990s and during the first decade of the twenty-first century, a period of time during which the Republican Party first gained majority control of Congress and subsequently of both the legislative and executive branches of government. In brief, the American case brings to light the importance of critical veto players in determining multicultural outcomes. It also offers preliminary insight into the possible motivations of veto players who may decide to intercede on behalf of multiculturalism.


  1. Aka, Philip C., and Lucinda M. Deason. 2011. Culturally and Linguistically Competent Public Services in an Era of English-Only Laws. International Journal of Public Administration 34 (5): 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).Google Scholar
  3. Barron, Dennis. 1990. The English-Only Question: An Official Language for Americans? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barron, Dennis. 1992 (1987). Federal English. In Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy, ed. James Crawford. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Buckley, William F., Jr. 1995. Yes, a National Language. Buffalo News, September 11.Google Scholar
  6. Caldas, Stephen J. 2006. Raising Bilingual-Biliterate Children in Monolingual Cultures. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, Jimmy. 1980. President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped Remarks at the Annual Meeting of the Committee. May 1. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
  8. Carter, Jimmy. 1981. Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws: Statement on Signing Executive Order 12250, November 2, 1980. In Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States.Google Scholar
  9. Clemans-Cope, Lisa, and Genevieve Kenney. 2007. Low Income Parent’s Reports of Communication Problems with Health Care Providers: Effects of Language and Insurance. Public Health Reports 122 (2): 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clinton, William J. 1995. Remarks to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. September 27. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
  11. Congressional Record 104th Congress, House of Representatives, August 1, 1996, pp. H9738–H9767.Google Scholar
  12. Corpus Christi Caller. 2008. Texas Legislators Eye Tough Immigration Laws Some Would Like to Follow Oklahoma and Arizona with Punitive Enforcement Measures. Corpus Christi Caller, April 29.Google Scholar
  13. Democratic Party Platforms: “2008 Democratic Party Platform,” August 25. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.
  14. Department of Justice. Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons. 67 Federal Register 117 (June 18, 2002), 41457.Google Scholar
  15. Draper, Jamie B., and Martha Jimenez. 1992 (1990). A Chronology of the Official English. In Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy, ed. James Crawford. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gamache, Shawna. 2007. Bilingual Legislator Defends Vote for English-Language Bill. McClatchy-Tribune Business News, March 21.Google Scholar
  17. Govtrack. 2015a. Vote to Pass H.R. 1 (107th Congress) in the House.
  18. Govtrack. 2015b. Vote to Pass H.R. 1 (107th Congress) in the Senate.
  19. Govtrack. 2015c. Cosponsors H.R. 969—To Provide That Executive Order 13166 Shall Have No Force or Effect, and to Prohibit the Use of Funds for Certain Purposes.Google Scholar
  20. Govtrack. 2015d. On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4064 to S. 2611 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006).
  21. Gribbin, Hil Anderson. 2002. Iowa Makes English Official August. Insight on the News: Washington 18 (12) (April 1–8): 29.Google Scholar
  22. Hatch, Orrin. 1992. S. Rep. No. 315, 102nd Congress, 2d Session, 1992 at 134.Google Scholar
  23. Kovac, Marc. 2008. Bill Would Require Public Agencies to Issue Records, Policies, Actions in English. Daily Record, Wooster 108 (321) (April 27).Google Scholar
  24. Lee, Sunghee, Hoang Anh Nguyen, May Jawad, and John Kurata. 2008. Linguistic Minorities in a Health Survey. The Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (3): 470–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch, Sarah. 2006. Propositions 100, 102, 103, & 300: Limits on Immigration Reflect Voter Dismay. The Tribune, November. Mesa, AZ.Google Scholar
  26. May, Heather. 2000. English Only: Divisive or Efficient? The Salt Lake Tribune, October 4. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  27. New York Times. 1995. Montana Law on English. New York Times, April 3 (Late Edition [East Coast]).Google Scholar
  28. Obama, Barack H. 2011. State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011.Google Scholar
  29. Office of the Assistant Attorney General (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division), January 11, 2002. Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors Regarding Executive Order 13166 (Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency). Washington, DC, Ralph Boyd Jr.Google Scholar
  30. Office of the Assistant Attorney General (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division). August 16, 2010. Language Access Guidance Letter to State Courts. Washington, DC, Thomas E. Perez.Google Scholar
  31. Office of the Assistant Attorney General (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division). October 26, 2001. Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors regarding Executive Order 13166. Washington, DC, Ralph Boyd Jr.Google Scholar
  32. Office of the Attorney General. February 17, 2011. Memorandum to Federal Agencies from Attorney General Eric Holder Reaffirming the Mandates of Executive Order 13166. Washington, DC, Eric Holder.Google Scholar
  33. Palmer, Howard. 1976. Mosaic Versus Melting Pot? Immigration and Ethnicity in Canada and the United States. International Journal 31 (3): 488–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peladino Porter, Rosalie. 2001. Educating English Language Learners in U.S. Schools: Agenda for a New Millennium. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1999: Language in Our Time, ed. James E. Atlas and Ai-Hui Tan, 128–138. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Persily, Nathan. 2007. The Promise and the Pitfalls of the New Voting Rights Act. Yale Law Journal 117: 174–253.Google Scholar
  36. Ray, Saumyajit. 2007. English Politics over Official Language in the United States: Aspects of Constitutional Silence on the Status of English. International Studies 44 (3): 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosen, Yereth. 1998. In Many Tongues, Alaskans Debate English as Official Language Ballot Measure to Require Government Use of English Stirs Concern That Native Languages Could Be Harmed. The Christian Science Monitor, September 15.Google Scholar
  38. Rossell, Christine H. 2000. The Federal Bilingual Education Program. In Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2000, ed. Diane Ravitch, 215–264. Washington, DC. Brookings Institution Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandoval v. Hagan. 1998.Google Scholar
  40. Shields, Thomas F. 1999. Official Language Best for the State. Bangor Daily News, March 12.Google Scholar
  41. Spencer, Mark. 2006. Should English Be an Official Language? Hartford Courant, December 15.Google Scholar
  42. St. John, Sarah. 2007. English Would Be Official with Bill. McClatchy-Tribune Business News, January 18.Google Scholar
  43. Tatalovich, Raymond. 1995. Nativism Reborn? The Official English Language Movement and the American States. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  44. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88–352.Google Scholar
  45. Tucker, James Thomas. 2006a. Enfranchising Language Minority Citizens: The Bilingual Elections Provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Legislation and Public Policy 10: 195–260.Google Scholar
  46. Tucker, James Thomas. 2006b. The Politics of Persuasion: Passage of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 2006. Journal of Legislation 33 (2): 205–267.Google Scholar
  47. United States Department of Education. 2010. A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.Google Scholar
  48. US Federal News Service. 2007. State Rep. Swanger Bill to Make English Pennsylvania’s Official Language. US Federal News Service, September 13.Google Scholar
  49. U.S. Senate 106th Congress S.RES.106. A Resolution to Express the Sense of the Senate Regarding English Plus Other Languages (Introduced May 24, 1999).Google Scholar
  50. Webster, Noah. 1992 (1789). Declaration of Linguistic Independence. In Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy, ed. James Crawford. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wiley, Terence G. 1998. The Imposition of World War I Era English-Only Policies and the Fate of Germans in North America. In Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities, ed. Thomas Ricento and Barbara Burnaby, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  52. Wilkerson, Crystal Goodson. 2004. Patriotism or Prejudice: Alabama’s Official English Amendment. Cumberland Law Review 34 (2): 253–288.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, Rhonda Y. 2011. To Challenge the Status Quo by Any Means: Community Action and Representation Politics in 1960s Baltimore. In The War on Poverty: A New Grassroots History, 1964–1980, ed. Annelise Orleck and Lisa Hazirjian. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  54. Zavodny, Madeleine. 2000. The Effects of Official English Laws on Limited-English-Proficient Workers. Journal of Labor Economics 18 (3): 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arjun Tremblay
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations