All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Structural Equation Model of Support for English-only Policies and Social Limitation of Immigrants and Minorities
Unformatted Document Text:  Social Limitation Structural Equation Model 5 In this regard, analyses of 2000 Census data indicate that approximately 60% of U.S. language minorities speak Spanish at home. And half of all Latinos live in two States: California and Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Latinos of Mexican origin are most numerous (58.5%) with the majority of those living in the South and West. California is the State with the highest Hispanic population in the U.S. (11 million -- 31.1% of the total Hispanic population), one third of California’s population are Latino, and one quarter being of Mexican ancestry. While California is the most linguistically diverse state in the U.S., with more than 200 languages in evidence (Ferrell & Hotz, 2000), English remains the official language of the state. As a case study of English-only and social limitation policies, California may provide some insight for other states with high Latino populations. California possesses a telling history of state initiatives affecting language minorities with regard to government services and education. In 1986, Proposition 63 introduced official English, Proposition 187 (1994) attempted to stop public benefits for illegal immigrants, Proposition 209 (1997) ended affirmative action and, most recently, Proposition 227 (1998) banned bilingual education in elementary schools. The preponderance of such initiatives suggests that perceptions of Spanish language groups’ vitality are fueling uncertainty about Anglo-American group vitality, and their economic, and political status. These concerns about language, demographic, or socio-economic changes overlap; thus, proponents of English-only policies such as U.S. English and English First, for example, are closely associated with anti-immigration organizations (Acuna & Rodriguez, 1998; Novick, 1995; Padilla, Lindholm., Chen, Duran, Hakuta, Lambert et al., 1991; Stefancic & Delgado, 1996; Zentella, 1997). With regard to this overlap, the

Authors: Barker, Valerie. and Giles, Howard.
first   previous   Page 5 of 34   next   last



background image
Social Limitation Structural Equation Model 5
In this regard, analyses of 2000 Census data indicate that approximately 60% of
U.S. language minorities speak Spanish at home. And half of all Latinos live in two
States: California and Texas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Latinos of Mexican origin are
most numerous (58.5%) with the majority of those living in the South and West.
California is the State with the highest Hispanic population in the U.S. (11 million --
31.1% of the total Hispanic population), one third of California’s population are Latino,
and one quarter being of Mexican ancestry. While California is the most linguistically
diverse state in the U.S., with more than 200 languages in evidence (Ferrell & Hotz,
2000), English remains the official language of the state.
As a case study of English-only and social limitation policies, California may
provide some insight for other states with high Latino populations. California possesses
a telling history of state initiatives affecting language minorities with regard to
government services and education. In 1986, Proposition 63 introduced official English,
Proposition 187 (1994) attempted to stop public benefits for illegal immigrants,
Proposition 209 (1997) ended affirmative action and, most recently, Proposition 227
(1998) banned bilingual education in elementary schools. The preponderance of such
initiatives suggests that perceptions of Spanish language groups’ vitality are fueling
uncertainty about Anglo-American group vitality, and their economic, and political
status. These concerns about language, demographic, or socio-economic changes
overlap; thus, proponents of English-only policies such as U.S. English and English
First, for example, are closely associated with anti-immigration organizations (Acuna &
Rodriguez, 1998; Novick, 1995; Padilla, Lindholm., Chen, Duran, Hakuta, Lambert et
al., 1991; Stefancic & Delgado, 1996; Zentella, 1997). With regard to this overlap, the


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 5 of 34   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.