Left: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Right: Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), most recently in the headlines after attacking President Obama’s young daughters for going on vacation, introduced the English Language Unity Act in the House earlier this month, along with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) in the Senate. As King notes on his website, the bill would require “all official functions of the United States to be conducted in English.” Federal and state governments print thousands of documents every year, many of which are translated into other languages besides English.

One major impact King’s bill could have is to stop the decades-long practice of printing non-English ballots in areas where there’s a significant non-English language group. Indeed, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 currently requires local jurisdictions with a substantial number of non-English speakers to allow them to vote in other languages.

King’s bill currently enjoys 39 co-sponsors in the House—37 Republicans and two conservative Democrats—though that number will likely increase over time. Inhofe’s Senate bill has five co-sponsors, all Republicans.

English-only bills not only discriminate against immigrants and minorities; they’re also wholly unnecessary. Conservatives fret that immigrants today aren’t learning English like immigrants of yesteryear, but are instead confining themselves to permanent non-English enclaves. That idea is, to put it mildly, nonsense. Though first-generation immigrants often have limited-English proficiency, their children quickly adopt English, just as it’s always been in the proverbial American melting pot. By the second generation, more than 80 percent speak English exclusively or very well, and the figure jumps to nearly everyone in the third generation. In fact, as Professor Tomas Jimenez at Stanford University notes, “immigrants today are learning English faster than the large waves of immigrants who came to the United States during the turn of the last century.”
Read more

Nine Congressmen — all male Republicans — voted Wednesday against a resolution to allow the U.S. House to consider re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The vast majority of House Republicans (214) and all 200 House Democrats voted for rule, which will allow votes Thursday on the watered-down GOP version of the bill and (assuming that fails), the bipartisan Senate plan.

The nine Republicans were Representatives Paul Broun (GA), Scott Garrett (NJ), Louie Gohmert (TX), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Walter Jones (NC), Steve King (IA), Thomas Massie (KY), Tom McClintock (CA), and Matt Salmon (AZ).

Three of the nine — Gohmert, Jones, and King — voted for the watered-down Republican version of the bill last May, making their opposition to even bringing up the bill now a surprise. King said of the 2012 bill, “I supported VAWA in 2005 and am doing so again to see to it that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to the resources and protection when they need it the most.”

While apparently none of the opponents has released a statement on today’s vote, some explained their opposition to last year’s bill. Huelskamp, in a letter to constituents, noted that he does not believe the federal government has a role in funding protection against domestic abuse. “This is a matter that should be left to our states,” he wrote, and Congress “should not be in the business of handing out grants conditioned on how states do or do not prosecute criminals.”

McClintock, in explaining his 2012 vote against VAWA, argued: “This is a feel-good measure that uses ‘Violence Against Women’ as an excuse to vastly expand a dizzying array of government grant programs, hamstring judges who are attempting to resolve and reconcile highly volatile relationships, add $1.8 billion to the nation’s debt and generally insinuate the federal government into matters the Constitution clearly reserves to the states. Federal grants of all kinds (essentially gifts of public money with little or no oversight) are out of control and ought to be abolished — not expanded.”

The landmark 1994 law, authored by then-Senator Joe Biden, expired more than a year ago.

After resoundingly losing the Hispanic vote in 2012, Republicans are making their pitch to Hispanic voters. These new efforts range from pushing for immigration reform to Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) plan to deliver the GOP’s State of the Union response in both Spanish and English. However, the House Republican Conference’s new “GOP en Español” initiative to distribute Spanish translations of Republican State of the Union reactions proved to be the last straw for some factions of the party.

Opposition from Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who has sponsored “English-only” legislation to make English the official language of the US, stalled the launch of GOP en Español. In an interview with the National Journal, King explained:

“There’s a conflicting message that comes out from the Republicans if we want to recognize the unifying power of English, and meanwhile, we send out communications in multiple languages. Official business and documents needs to be in English.” [...] He says that English is “empowering and unifying” and that the GOP en Español program “sends a subliminal message in contradiction.”

The English only movement has gained traction in sixteen states, and even more extreme legislation is being considered by some Republican-dominated legislatures. “English only” laws often prohibit state and local government officials, and sometimes private companies, from conducting any business in Spanish or providing translations of certain documents, cutting off the 25.2 million Americans who speak limited English.

Hispanic voters are the fastest growing minority in the US, and supported Obama by 75 percent in the November election. Though some Republicans are trying to change this by pushing for immigration reform and greater tolerance, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (R) blasted his party for “a dark vein of intolerance” that alienates minorities. Past GOP outreach efforts have fallen flat; during the election, the Republican National Committee’s Hispanic outreach site took flack for using a stock photo of Asian children, while multiple candidates’ Spanish language websites either avoided or altered their stances on immigration.