You are in a courtroom as a jury member and the judge has found a mother guilty of child abuse. Do you think the mother should be punished? What if the conviction is for simply speaking to the child in Spanish? That was the situation is in Amarillo, Texas 1995 where Judge Samuel Kiser decided the law could govern what language is spoken at one's home. He told the mother, Marta Laureano that she, under court order, was to speak English to her daughter. The judge overstepped his jurisdiction and tread upon our personal rights. Kiser's judgment would have been fine as an opinion, but it is not acceptable as a ruling. Language should not be denied by the power of law.
If language could be denied in one's home it would further press open doors to shut out immigrant rights not only as Americans, but as human beings. If the law denied language, basic rights would be denied.
Without the laws already in place language discrimination is bad enough in the court system, as can be told with the Laureano case. It would make it harder on children when bilingual education is taken away. It would also make things more difficult for people already on the job who would face more discrimination than ever. Right now there are two major groups, U.S. English and English Only, who are pursuing the assimilation of immigrants by proposing "English-Only laws," when in fact there are many benefits of being bilingual. These groups are often two-faced arguing that their laws would "unite America" when these laws are just leaving other Americans out.
One example how language discrimination is abused by the law is another event in 1995. A violation was given to truck driver, Felix Zamora on the account of being a "no-english...