# data[].attributes.headline
Style as Voice: Fashion and Cultural Visibility

# data[].attributes.subject
Style as Voice: Fashion and Cultural Visibility

# data[].attributes.body
Fashion becomes a form of cultural self-expression for many young Mexican Americans. In this Vogue piece from July 8, 2025, we see that whether it's plaids referencing Chicano roots, bold hoop earrings, or ribbons in braids. It is described as “resistance” against pressures to assimilate. Just as Chicano English blends bilingual structure and heritage, these fashion choices foreground identity, reclaim visibility, and connect linguistic and cultural expression in modern life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To be a Mexican American living in the United States has always meant a deep-rooted fight to be seen. There's a constant conflict: "We gotta prove to the Mexicans how Mexican we are, and we gotta prove to the Americans how American we are," Abraham Quintanilla Jr.'s character famously put it in the movie . Then there's the harmful rhetoric fueled by politicians that paints us as criminals, gang members, and worse.

Growing up the daughter of Mexican immigrants who came here in pursuit of a better life, I always felt pressure to assimilate, to be American, to live the "dream" of the country I was privileged enough to be born in. So I tried. I swapped braids for flat irons, and replaced the bold brown liner and fiery red lipstick my aunts wore with light pink gloss. I wanted to be American in the way that felt the most palpable. It wasn't until college that I began to circle back to my roots-not with some grand cultural awakening, but through small, instinctive moments that felt like returning home. I found myself reaching for that same brown lip liner I once rolled my eyes at; I slipped into plaid flannels I'd sneaked from my brother's closet, and found armor in the form of chunky gold hoops that made me feel my most comfortable and confident.

In today's political and cultural climate, with ICE raids sweeping through neighborhoods and rampant anti-immigrant discourse, it's clear that no amount of fitting in can protect us. The act of blending in, of shrinking ourselves, has never guaranteed safety-It has only cost us connection. So now, many Mexicans and Mexican Americans are choosing to be seen in the loudest, most unmistakable way: by wearing their culture on their sleeves-literally. I've noticed this among peers, and I've noticed it on TikTok, where other children of Mexican immigrants are documenting this intentional sartorial shift.

"Being in a corporate environment that is predominantly white, I wanted to take space-and use style-to start a conversation about my culture and where I come from, especially because it's often overlooked," Michael Anthony N. Gonzalez, a 24-year-old working in fashion merchandising in , tells me of his viral video, in which he wears a blue and white plaid shirt reminiscent of the 1960s Chicano Movement. "Ironically, many of the people who say fashion isn't political are the same ones who get uncomfortable when I dress in a way that reflects my identity. That alone proves how political fashion really is."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Young Mexican Americans Are Reclaiming Style as Resistance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The act of blending in, of shrinking ourselves, has never guaranteed safety," writes Daisy Maldonado. "So now, many Mexicans and Mexican Americans are choosing to be seen in the loudest, most unmistakable way: by wearing their culture on their sleeves-literally."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
@ernscern

♬ original sound - Ernesto

# data[].attributes.body
This map highlights the areas of the United States with the largest Mexican-American populations, especially in the Southwest. These communities are where Chicano English was developed as a native, stable dialect shaped by generations of Spanish-English contact, cultural identity, and shared history.

# data[].attributes.body
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848. It ended the U.S. Mexico War and transferred large parts of the Southwest to the United States. Spanish-speaking communities in these newly acquired territories became U.S. citizens overnight. This historical moment laid the foundation for the development of Chicano English in the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transcript
TREATY OF PEACE, FRIENDSHIP, LIMITS, AND SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES CONCLUDED AT GUADALUPE HIDALGO, FEBRUARY 2, 1848; RATIFICATION ADVISED BY SENATE, WITH AMENDMENTS, MARCH 10, 1848; RATIFIED BY PRESIDENT, MARCH 16, 1848; RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT QUERETARO, MAY 30, 1848; PROCLAIMED, JULY 4, 1848.
IN THE NAME OF ALMIGHTY GOD

The United States of America and the United Mexican States animated by a sincere desire to put an end to the calamities of the war which unhappily exists between the two Republics and to establish Upon a solid basis relations of peace and friendship, which shall confer reciprocal benefits upon the citizens of both, and assure the concord, harmony, and mutual confidence wherein the two people should live, as good neighbors have for that purpose appointed their respective plenipotentiaries, that is to say: The President of the United States has appointed Nicholas P. Trist, a citizen of the United States, and the President of the Mexican Republic has appointed Don Luis Gonzaga Cuevas, Don Bernardo Couto, and Don Miguel Atristain, citizens of the said Republic; Who, after a reciprocal communication of their respective full powers, have, under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace, arranged, agreed upon, and signed the following: Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic.

ARTICLE I

There shall be firm and universal peace between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, without exception of places or persons.

ARTICLE II

Immediately upon the signature of this treaty, a convention shall be entered into between a commissioner or commissioners appointed by the General-in-chief of the forces of the United States, and such as may be appointed by the Mexican Government, to the end that a provisional suspension of hostilities shall take place, and that, in the places occupied by the said forces, constitutional order may be re-established, as regards the political, administrative, and judicial branches, so far as this shall be permitted by the circumstances of military occupation.

ARTICLE III

Immediately upon the ratification of the present treaty by the Government of the United States, orders shall be transmitted to the commanders of their land and naval forces, requiring the latter (provided this treaty shall then have been ratified by the Government of the Mexican Republic, and the ratifications exchanged) immediately to desist from blockading any Mexican ports and requiring the former (under the same condition) to commence, at the earliest moment practicable, withdrawing all troops of the United States then in the interior of the Mexican Republic, to points that shall be selected by common agreement, at a distance from the seaports not exceeding thirty leagues; and such evacuation of the interior of the Republic shall be completed with the least possible delay; the Mexican Government hereby binding itself to afford every facility in its power for rendering the same convenient to the troops, on their march and in their new positions, and for promoting a good understanding between them and the inhabitants. In like manner orders shall be despatched to the persons in charge of the custom houses at all ports occupied by the forces of the United States, requiring them (under the same condition) immediately to deliver possession of the same to the persons authorized by the Mexican Government to receive it, together with all bonds and evidence of debt for duties on importations and on exportations, not yet fallen due. Moreover, a faithful and exact account shall be made out, showing the entire amount of all duties on imports and on exports, collected at such custom-houses, or elsewhere in Mexico, by authority of the United States, from and after the day of the ratification of this treaty by the Government of the Mexican Republic; and also an account of the cost of collection; and such entire amount, deducting only the cost of collection, shall be delivered to the Mexican Government, at the city of Mexico, within three months after the exchange of ratifications.

The evacuation of the capital of the Mexican Republic by the troops of the United States, in virtue of the above stipulation, shall be completed in one month after the orders there stipulated for shall have been received by the commander of said troops, or sooner if possible.

ARTICLE IV

Immediately after the exchange of ratifications of the present treaty all castles, forts, territories, places, and possessions, which have been taken or occupied by the forces of the United States during the present war, within the limits of the Mexican Republic, as about to be established by the following article, shall be definitely restored to the said Republic, together with all the artillery, arms, apparatus of war, munitions, and other public property, which were in the said castles and forts when captured, and which shall remain there at the time when this treaty shall be duly ratified by the Government of the Mexican Republic. To this end, immediately upon the signature of this treaty, orders shall be despatched to the American officers commanding such castles and forts, securing against the removal or destruction of any such artillery, arms, apparatus of war, munitions, or other public property. The city of Mexico, within the inner line of entrenchments surrounding the said city, is comprehended in the above stipulation, as regards the restoration of artillery, apparatus of war, & c.

The final evacuation of the territory of the Mexican Republic, by the forces of the United States, shall be completed in three months from the said exchange of ratifications, or sooner if possible; the Mexican Government hereby engaging, as in the foregoing article to use all means in its power for facilitating such evacuation, and rendering it convenient to the troops, and for promoting a good understanding between them and the inhabitants.

If, however, the ratification of this treaty by both parties should not take place in time to allow the embarkation of the troops of the United States to be completed before the commencement of the sickly season, at the Mexican ports on the Gulf of Mexico, in such case a friendly arrangement shall be entered into between the General-in-Chief of the said troops and the Mexican Government, whereby healthy and otherwise suitable places, at a distance from the ports not exceeding thirty leagues, shall be designated for the residence of such troops as may not yet have embarked, until the return of the healthy season. And the space of time here referred to as, comprehending the sickly season shall be understood to extend from the first day of May to the first day of November.

All prisoners of war taken on either side, on land or sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable after the exchange of ratifications of this treaty. It is also agreed that if any Mexicans should now be held as captives by any savage tribe within the limits of the United States, as about to be established by the following article, the Government of the said United States will exact the release of such captives and cause them to be restored to their country.

ARTICLE V

The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.

The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled "Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published in New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell," of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.

In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations, and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.

The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution.

ARTICLE VI

The vessels and citizens of the United States shall, in all times, have a free and uninterrupted passage by the Gulf of California, and by the river, Colorado below its confluence with the Gila, to and from their possessions situated north of the boundary line defined in the preceding article; it being understood that this passage is to be by navigating the Gulf of California and the river Colorado and not by land, without the express consent of the Mexican Government.

If by the examinations which may be made, it should be ascertained to be practicable and advantageous to construct a road, canal, or railway, which should in whole or in part run upon the river Gila, or upon its right or its left bank, within the space of one marine league from either margin of the river, the Governments of both republics will form an agreement regarding its construction, in order that it may serve equally for the use and advantage of both countries.

ARTICLE VII

The river Gila and the part of the Rio Bravo del Norte lying below the southern boundary of New Mexico, being, agreeably to the fifth article, divided in the middle between the two republics, the navigation of the Gila and the Bravo below said boundary shall be free and common to the vessels and citizens of both countries; and neither shall, without the consent of the other, construct any work that may impede or interrupt, in whole or in part, the exercise of this right; not even for the purpose of favoring new methods of navigation. Nor shall any tax or contribution, under any denomination or title, be levied upon vessels or persons navigating the same or upon merchandise or effects transported thereon, except in the case of landing upon one of their shores. If for the purpose of making the said rivers navigable, or for maintaining them in such state, it should be necessary or advantageous to establish any tax or contribution, this shall not be done without the consent of both Governments.

The stipulations contained in the present article shall not impair the territorial rights of either republic within its established limits.

ARTICLE VIII

Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.

Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.

In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.

ARTICLE IX

The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States. and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the meantime, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.

ARTICLE X

[Stricken out]

ARTICLE XI

Considering that a great part of the territories, which, by the present treaty, are to be comprehended for the future within the limits of the United States, is now occupied by savage tribes, who will hereafter be under the exclusive control of the Government of the United States, and whose incursions within the territory of Mexico would be prejudicial in the extreme, it is solemnly agreed that all such incursions shall be forcibly restrained by the Government of the United States whensoever this may be necessary; and that when they cannot be prevented, they shall be punished by the said Government, and satisfaction for the same shall be exacted all in the same way, and with equal diligence and energy, as if the same incursions were meditated or committed within its own territory, against its own citizens.

It shall not be lawful, under any pretext whatever, for any inhabitant of the United States to purchase or acquire any Mexican, or any foreigner residing in Mexico, who may have been captured by Indians inhabiting the territory of either of the two republics; nor to purchase or acquire horses, mules, cattle, or property of any kind, stolen within Mexican territory by such Indians.

And in the event of any person or persons, captured within Mexican territory by Indians, being carried into the territory of the United States, the Government of the latter engages and binds itself, in the most solemn manner, so soon as it shall know of such captives being within its territory, and shall be able so to do, through the faithful exercise of its influence and power, to rescue them and return them to their country. or deliver them to the agent or representative of the Mexican Government. The Mexican authorities will, as far as practicable, give to the Government of the United States notice of such captures; and its agents shall pay the expenses incurred in the maintenance and transmission of the rescued captives; who, in the meantime, shall be treated with the utmost hospitality by the American authorities at the place where they may be. But if the Government of the United States, before receiving such notice from Mexico, should obtain intelligence, through any other channel, of the existence of Mexican captives within its territory, it will proceed forthwith to effect their release and delivery to the Mexican agent, as above stipulated.

For the purpose of giving to these stipulations the fullest possible efficacy, thereby affording the security and redress demanded by their true spirit and intent, the Government of the United States will now and hereafter pass, without unnecessary delay, and always vigilantly enforce, such laws as the nature of the subject may require. And, finally, the sacredness of this obligation shall never be lost sight of by the said Government, when providing for the removal of the Indians from any portion of the said territories, or for its being settled by citizens of the United States; but, on the contrary, special care shall then be taken not to place its Indian occupants under the necessity of seeking new homes, by committing those invasions which the United States have solemnly obliged themselves to restrain.

ARTICLE XII

In consideration of the extension acquired by the boundaries of the United States, as defined in the fifth article of the present treaty, the Government of the United States engages to pay to that of the Mexican Republic the sum of fifteen million of dollars.

Immediately after the treaty shall have been duly ratified by the Government of the Mexican Republic, the sum of three million of dollars shall be paid to the said Government by that of the United States, at the city of Mexico, in the gold or silver coin of Mexico. The remaining twelve million of dollars shall be paid at the same place, and in the same coin, in annual installments of three million of dollars each, together with interest on the same at the rate of six per centum per annum. This interest shall begin to run upon the whole sum of twelve million from the day of the ratification of the present treaty by--the Mexican Government, and the first of the installments shall be paid at the expiration of one year from the same day. Together with each annual installment, as it falls due, the whole interest accruing on such installment from the beginning shall also be paid.

ARTICLE XIII

The United States engage, moreover, to assume and pay to the claimants all the amounts now due them, and that hereafter to become due, by reason of the claims already liquidated and decided against the Mexican Republic, under the conventions between the two republics severally concluded on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and thirty-nine, and on the thirtieth day of January, eighteen hundred and forty-three; so that the Mexican Republic shall be absolutely exempt, for the future, from all expense whatever on account of the said claims.

ARTICLE XIV

The United States does furthermore discharge the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United States, not heretofore decided against the Mexican Government, which may have arisen previously to the date of the signature of this treaty; which discharge shall be final and perpetual, whether the said claims be rejected or be allowed by the board of commissioners provided for in the following article, and whatever shall be the total amount of those allowed.

ARTICLE XV

The United States, exonerating Mexico from all demands on account of the claims of their citizens mentioned in the preceding article and considering them entirely and forever canceled, whatever their amount may be, undertake to make satisfaction for the same, to an amount not exceeding three and one-quarter millions of dollars. To ascertain the validity and amount of those claims, a board of commissioners shall be established by the Government of the United States, whose awards shall be final and conclusive; provided that, in deciding upon the validity of each claim, the boa shall be guided and governed by the principles and rules of decision prescribed by the first and fifth articles of the unratified convention, concluded at the city of Mexico on the twentieth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and forty-three; and in no case shall an award be made in favor of any claim not embraced by these principles and rules.

If, in the opinion of the said board of commissioners or of the claimants, any books, records, or documents, in the possession or power of the Government of the Mexican Republic, shall be deemed necessary to the just decision of any claim, the commissioners, or the claimants through them, shall, within such period as Congress may designate, make an application in writing for the same, addressed to the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs, to be transmitted by the Secretary of State of the United States; and the Mexican Government engages, at the earliest possible moment after the receipt of such demand, to cause any of the books, records, or documents so specified, which shall be in their possession or power (or authenticated copies or extracts of the same), to be transmitted to the said Secretary of State, who shall immediately deliver them over to the said board of commissioners; provided that no such application shall be made by or at the instance of any claimant, until the facts which it is expected to prove by such books, records, or documents, shall have been stated under oath or affirmation.

ARTICLE XVI

Each of the contracting parties reserves to itself the entire right to fortify whatever point within its territory it may judge proper so to fortify for its security.

ARTICLE XVII

The treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, concluded at the city of Mexico, on the fifth day of April, A. D. 1831, between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, except the additional article, and except so far as the stipulations of the said treaty may be incompatible with any stipulation contained in the present treaty, is hereby revived for the period of eight years from the day of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, with the same force and virtue as if incorporated therein; it being understood that each of the contracting parties reserves to itself the right, at any time after the said period of eight years shall have expired, to terminate the same by giving one year's notice of such intention to the other party.

ARTICLE XVIII

All supplies whatever for troops of the United States in Mexico, arriving at ports in the occupation of such troops previous to the final evacuation thereof, although subsequently to the restoration of the custom-houses at such ports, shall be entirely exempt from duties and charges of any kind; the Government of the United States hereby engaging and pledging its faith to establish and vigilantly to enforce, all possible guards for securing the revenue of Mexico, by preventing the importation, under cover of this stipulation, of any articles other than such, both in kind and in quantity, as shall really be wanted for the use and consumption of the forces of the United States during the time they may remain in Mexico. To this end it shall be the duty of all officers and agents of the United States to denounce to the Mexican authorities at the respective ports any attempts at a fraudulent abuse of this stipulation, which they may know of, or may have reason to suspect, and to give to such authorities all the aid in their power with regard thereto; and every such attempt, when duly proved and established by sentence of a competent tribunal, They shall be punished by the confiscation of the property so attempted to be fraudulently introduced.

ARTICLE XIX

With respect to all merchandise, effects, and property whatsoever, imported into ports of Mexico, whilst in the occupation of the forces of the United States, whether by citizens of either republic, or by citizens or subjects of any neutral nation, the following rules shall be observed:

(1) All such merchandise, effects, and property, if imported previously to the restoration of the custom-houses to the Mexican authorities, as stipulated for in the third article of this treaty, shall be exempt from confiscation, although the importation of the same be prohibited by the Mexican tariff.

(2) The same perfect exemption shall be enjoyed by all such merchandise, effects, and property, imported subsequently to the restoration of the custom-houses, and previously to the sixty days fixed in the following article for the coming into force of the Mexican tariff at such ports respectively; the said merchandise, effects, and property being, however, at the time of their importation, subject to the payment of duties, as provided for in the said following article.

(3) All merchandise, effects, and property described in the two rules foregoing shall, during their continuance at the place of importation, and upon their leaving such place for the interior, be exempt from all duty, tax, or imposts of every kind, under whatsoever title or denomination. Nor shall they be there subject to any charge whatsoever upon the sale thereof.

(4) All merchandise, effects, and property, described in the first and second rules, which shall have been removed to any place in the interior, whilst such place was in the occupation of the forces of the United States, shall, during their continuance therein, be exempt from all tax upon the sale or consumption thereof, and from every kind of impost or contribution, under whatsoever title or denomination.

(5) But if any merchandise, effects, or property, described in the first and second rules, shall be removed to any place not occupied at the time by the forces of the United States, they shall, upon their introduction into such place, or upon their sale or consumption there, be subject to the same duties which, under the Mexican laws, they would be required to pay in such cases if they had been imported in time of peace, through the maritime custom-houses, and had there paid the duties conformably with the Mexican tariff.

(6) The owners of all merchandise, effects, or property, described in the first and second rules, and existing in any port of Mexico, shall have the right to reship the same, exempt from all tax, impost, or contribution whatever.

With respect to the metals, or other property, exported from any Mexican port whilst in the occupation of the forces of the United States, and previously to the restoration of the custom-house at such port, no person shall be required by the Mexican authorities, whether general or state, to pay any tax, duty, or contribution upon any such exportation, or in any manner to account for the same to the said authorities.

ARTICLE XX

Through consideration for the interests of commerce generally, it is agreed, that if less than sixty days should elapse between the date of the signature of this treaty and the restoration of the custom houses, conformably with the stipulation in the third article, in such case all merchandise, effects and property whatsoever, arriving at the Mexican ports after the restoration of the said custom-houses, and previously to the expiration of sixty days after the day of signature of this treaty, shall be admitted to entry; and no other duties shall be levied thereon than the duties established by the tariff found in force at such custom-houses at the time of the restoration of the same. And to all such merchandise, effects, and property, the rules established by the preceding article shall apply.

ARTICLE XXI

If unhappily any disagreement should hereafter arise between the Governments of the two republics, whether with respect to the interpretation of any stipulation in this treaty, or with respect to any other particular concerning the political or commercial relations of the two nations, the said Governments, in the name of those nations, do promise to each other that they will endeavour, in the most sincere and earnest manner, to settle the differences so arising, and to preserve the state of peace and friendship in which the two countries are now placing themselves, using, for this end, mutual representations and pacific negotiations. And if, by these means, they should not be enabled to come to an agreement, a resort shall not, on this account, be had to reprisals, aggression, or hostility of any kind, by the one republic against the other, until the Government of that which deems itself aggrieved shall have maturely considered, in the spirit of peace and good neighbourship, whether it would not be better that such difference should be settled by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course be proposed by either party, it shall be acceded to by the other, unless deemed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of the difference, or the circumstances of the case.
ARTICLE XXII
If (which is not to be expected, and which God forbid) war should unhappily break out between the two republics, they do now, with a view to such calamity, solemnly pledge themselves to each other and to the world to observe the following rules; absolutely where the nature of the subject permits, and as closely as possible in all cases where such absolute observance shall be impossible:

(1) The merchants of either republic then residing in the other shall be allowed to remain twelve months (for those dwelling in the interior), and six months (for those dwelling at the seaports) to collect their debts and settle their affairs; during which periods they shall enjoy the same protection, and be on the same footing, in all respects, as the citizens or subjects of the most friendly nations; and, at the expiration thereof, or at any time before, they shall have full liberty to depart, carrying off all their effects without molestation or hindrance, conforming therein to the same laws which the citizens or subjects of the most friendly nations are required to conform to. Upon the entrance of the armies of either nation into the territories of the other, women and children, ecclesiastics, scholars of every faculty, cultivators of the earth, merchants, artisans, manufacturers, and fishermen, unarmed and inhabiting unfortified towns, villages, or places, and in general all persons whose occupations are for the common subsistence and benefit of mankind, shall be allowed to continue their respective employments, unmolested in their persons. Nor shall their houses or goods be burnt or otherwise destroyed, nor their cattle taken, nor their fields wasted, by the armed force into whose power, by the events of war, they may happen to fall; but if the necessity arise to take anything from them for the use of such armed force, the same shall be paid for at an equitable price. All churches, hospitals, schools, colleges, libraries, and other establishments for charitable and beneficent purposes, shall be respected, and all persons connected with the same protected in the discharge of their duties, and the pursuit of their vocations.

(2). In order that the fate of prisoners of war may be alleviated all such practices as those of sending them into distant, inclement or unwholesome districts, or crowding them into close and noxious places, shall be studiously avoided. They shall not be confined in dungeons, prison ships, or prisons; nor be put in irons, or bound or otherwise restrained in the use of their limbs. The officers shall enjoy liberty on their paroles, within convenient districts, and have comfortable quarters; and the common soldiers shall be dispose( in cantonments, open and extensive enough for air and exercise and lodged in barracks as roomy and good as are provided by the party in whose power they are for its own troops. But if any office shall break his parole by leaving the district so assigned him, or any other prisoner shall escape from the limits of his cantonment after they shall have been designated to him, such individual, officer, or other prisoner, shall forfeit so much of the benefit of this article as provides for his liberty on parole or in cantonment. And if any officer so breaking his parole or any common soldier so escaping from the limits assigned him, shall afterwards be found in arms previously to his being regularly exchanged, the person so offending shall be dealt with according to the established laws of war. The officers shall be daily furnished, by the party in whose power they are, with as many rations, and of the same articles, as are allowed either in kind or by commutation, to officers of equal rank in its own army; and all others shall be daily furnished with such ration as is allowed to a common soldier in its own service; the value of all which supplies shall, at the close of the war, or at periods to be agreed upon between the respective commanders, be paid by the other party, on a mutual adjustment of accounts for the subsistence of prisoners; and such accounts shall not be mingled with or set off against any others, nor the balance due on them withheld, as a compensation or reprisal for any cause whatever, real or pretended Each party shall be allowed to keep a commissary of prisoners, appointed by itself, with every cantonment of prisoners, in possession of the other; which commissary shall see the prisoners as often as he pleases; shall be allowed to receive, exempt from all duties a taxes, and to distribute, whatever comforts may be sent to them by their friends; and shall be free to transmit his reports in open letters to the party by whom he is employed. And it is declared that neither the pretense that war dissolves all treaties, nor any other whatever, shall be considered as annulling or suspending the solemn covenant contained in this article. On the contrary, the state of war is precisely that for which it is provided; and, during which, its stipulations are to be as sacredly observed as the most acknowledged obligations under the law of nature or nations.

ARTICLE XXIII

This treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and by the President of the Mexican Republic, with the previous approbation of its general Congress; and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the City of Washington, or at the seat of Government of Mexico, in four months from the date of the signature hereof, or sooner if practicable. In faith whereof we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this treaty of peace, friendship, limits, and settlement, and have hereunto affixed our seals respectively. Done in quintuplicate, at the city of Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the second day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight.

N. P. TRIST
LUIS P. CUEVAS
BERNARDO COUTO
MIGL. ATRISTAIN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo [Exchange copy]; 2/2/1848; Perfected Treaties, 1778 - 1945; General Records of the United States Government, Record Group 11; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. This is the exchange copy of the treaty, written in both Spanish and English.

# data[].attributes.headline
Chicano Park Murals: Cultural Heritage in Public Art

# data[].attributes.subject
Chicano Park Murals: Cultural Heritage in Public Art

# data[].attributes.body
These murals at the Chicano Park in San Diego, shows decades of cultural expression and community resilience. Developed during the Chicano Movement, the art in this park reflects collective identity, pride, and political voice in regions where Chicano English has deep roots.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Chicano Park Museum - Logan Heights Archival Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Alberto Pulido and his students and co-workers at the University of San Diego, in consultation with the Chicano Park Steering Committee, worked to update documentation of Chicano Park, including this 2023 update of the Chicano Park Murals map. A huge thank you to all! Below you can flip through the 2015 edition of the

# data[].attributes.headline
Sociopolitical & Historical Context of Chicano English (Audio)

# data[].attributes.subject
Sociopolitical & Historical Context of Chicano English (Audio)

# data[].attributes.body
Sources:

Fought, C. (2013). Chicano English in context. Palgrave Macmillan.

Guerrero Jr., A. (2014). “You speak good English for being Mexican”: Ideological assumptions in linguistic judgments. Journal of Language and Discrimination, 1(1), 25–48.

Otheguy, R., & Stern, S. (2010). Chicano English: A new dialect of American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 38(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424210367493

Silva-Corvalán, C. (1994). Language contact and change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Bilingual Review/La Revista Bilingüe, 19(2), 214–223.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ideological Resistance to Bilingual Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Ideological Resistance to Bilingual Education

# data[].attributes.body
This statement from 1965 reflects assimilationist attitudes that discouraged bilingualism and pressured Mexican-American children to abandon their linguistic heritage. These ideologies contributed to the stigmatization of Chicano English. Framing it as inferior to the “standard” rather than recognizing it as a legitimate, native dialect shaped by history and culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The greatest barrier to the Mexican-American child's scholastic achievement...is that the schools, reflecting the dominant culture, want the child to grow up as another Anglo. This he cannot do except by denying himself and his family and his forebears, a form of masochism which no society should demand of its children." -A. Bruce Gaarder, specialist in foreign languages with the U.S. Office of Education, El Paso, Texas, November 13, 1965¹
ONE OF the most urgent-and misunderstood-issues facing U.S. public education today is meeting the needs of students who are not yet proficient in the English language. The quote above comes from The Invisible Minority, a 1966 report by the National Education Association task force on education in the Southwest. This study intersected with the struggle for Chicano civil rights that would lead to the passage of the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968. The BEA represented one of the most significant advances in the education of "emergent bilingual" ² students in two ways. It consolidated the gains in bilingual and bicultural programs that were fought for, often school-by-school, in the Southwest and West. Additionally, as part of official federal educational policy, the BEA legitimized what educators and activists had known for some time, namely that students learning English had specific educational rights, including the right to be educated in their home language. Hardly had the ink dried on the BEA, however, when attacks on the legitimacy of bilingual education began. That the quote above still applies to the vast majority of schools highlights how far the clock has been turned back on the gains made in bilingual-bicultural education in the late sixties and early seventies.

To be sure, plenty of educational and linguistic research has deepened our understanding of how children learn languages and which classroom practices aid that process. Likewise, much is known about which educational policies support language learning and which policies thwart it. However, the education of emergent bilingual students remains misunderstood in large part because so little attention is paid to how past movements against racism and for immigrant rights have improved the education of all children, but especially of emergent bilingual students. This article reviews the history of this connection. My main argument is that advances (and setbacks) in antiracist and pro-immigrant struggles have had the most significant impact on the academic and linguistic welfare of emergent bilingual students in public schools. While this argument may seem self-evident, the reality today is that those most dedicated to improving the education of emergent bilinguals too often miss the forest for the trees: while effective classroom practices and sympathetic policies matter, they wilt in the face of segregation, racism, and attacks on immigrant rights.

This article presents an overview of the historical connection between struggles against segregation and anti-immigrant racism, and the education of emergent bilingual students. It begins by reviewing the current situation facing emergent bilinguals in schools today. The article continues with a defense of bilingual education based on forty years' worth of applied linguistic research and on Marxist theories of national oppression and resisting that oppression. It then looks at three historical periods-Americanization at the turn of the twentieth century, the Chicano rights movement of the sixties and seventies, and the rise of the English-only movement from the 1980s onward-in terms of gains and setbacks for language rights at school. The article closes with the potential for turning these setbacks around represented by the new fight for immigrant rights.

Emergent bilinguals and their educational experiences today
While language diversity has always been a feature of public schools in this country, the population of emergent bilinguals has changed dramatically in the last two decades. The most recent analysis of enrollments from pre-school through grade twelve (P-12) reported that in the 2004-05 school year, approximately 5.12 million students were emergent bilinguals, about 10.5 percent of the total P-12 population. ³ Moreover, the emergent bilingual population has increased by over 110 percent in the last fifteen years-seven times more rapidly than general P-12 enrollments. ⁴ These averages, of course, mask huge disparities in distribution. Just five states-California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois-were home to 68 percent of all emergent bilinguals, according to the 2000 Census. ⁵ Second, the rate of growth between 1990 and 2000 exceeded 200 percent in six states: Nevada, Nebraska, South Dakota, Georgia, Arkansas, and Oregon. ⁶ This remarkable growth is not simply tied to immigration: the majority of emergent bilinguals at both primary and secondary levels are born in the United States, 77 percent and 56 percent respectively. Finally, the overwhelming majority, between 75 and 80 percent, speak Spanish as the primary language.

Beyond enrollments, however, is the devastating reality of segregation and poverty. The Urban Institute reported in 2005 that 70 percent of emergent bilinguals are concentrated in just 10 percent of schools, usually in urban and poor areas. ⁷ This "super-segregation" meant that in schools with an emergent bilingual population of 25 percent or more (known as "high ELL schools"), 77 percent of students are students of color and more than half are Latino. Moreover, upwards of three-quarters received free and reduced-price lunches, the federal measure of poverty in schools. ⁸ In fact, 75 percent of emergent bilinguals are poor. ⁹

Not only are these super-segregated schools financially poor, but they also have the most poorly trained staff. The Urban Institute report found that only 53 percent of teachers in "high ELL schools" were fully certified, compared to 76 percent in other schools. ¹⁰ Another study of the 1.2 million teachers (about 43 percent of all teachers) with emergent bilinguals in their classroom found that: only 11 percent were certified in bilingual education, with another 18 percent certified in English as a second language; only 15 percent were fluent in another language; and on average, these teachers received four hours of in-service training for working with emergent bilinguals over the previous five years. ¹¹ To be clear: the point here is not to lay the deplorable education of emergent bilinguals at teachers' feet-although racist attitudes among some teachers exist and matter-but rather to expose an education system that cares so little about the educational and linguistic needs of emergent bilinguals that it doesn't bother to prepare teachers to work with them.

This crisis is seen still more clearly in the structure and funding of academic programs for emergent bilinguals. A recent American Federation of Teachers report found that fully 60 percent of emergent bilinguals are educated in English-only programs. Of that portion, 12 percent receive no additional support whatsoever in learning English-in most cases in violation of federal law. ¹² Many policymakers evade this issue by citing the difficulty in comparing programs state-by-state. There may be differences in terminology from one area to the other, but the reality remains that far too many emergent bilinguals are subjected to the most notorious model of all: sink-or-swim. And not surprisingly, too many sink. The 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, more commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), mandates that all high stakes testing be done in English. Obviously, if you don't understand academic English you're not going to pass. And far too many emergent bilinguals are allowed to give up and drop out of school altogether. Even a quick glance at funding for language education shows why programs are so lacking. While NCLB increased overall federal support for emergent bilingual education from $200 to $700 million dollars, its testing requirements have resulted in a massive shift toward English-only approaches. ¹³ In addition to federal money, thirty-three states officially provide additional funding for language programs. However, twenty-four of those states do not require these extra funds to be spent on emergent bilinguals specifically. Finally, ten states spend the generous amount of $0 on emergent bilingual education. ¹⁴

One Arizona court case best captures the criminal neglect of English learners. In 1992, the Flores v. Arizona lawsuit was bought against the school district in the border town of Nogales. The plaintiffs accused the district of allotting too little money and too few qualified staff for emergent bilingual programs. That case has endured an epic odyssey through the state and federal courts ever since. A series of rulings has ordered the state legislature to increase state funding for language education. The Republican-controlled State House and Arizona Department of Education (ADE) have resisted at every step. In response to the most recent ruling, ADE and the legislature promised $40 million more in funding-a mere $250 per student-if schools implemented a new model called Structured English Immersion. Under this model, all emergent bilinguals are segregated from the mainstream population for four hours a day-two-thirds of the typical school day-and "submersed" in English-only, grammar-based instruction in reading, writing, and oral skills. The latest court challenge was successful in declaring the funding for this reactionary model insufficient. But ADE appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case but returned it last June to the lower courts, leaving the central issues in legal limbo.

Bilingualism and bilingual education
This shift back to English-only approaches to educating emergent bilinguals flies in the face of over forty years' worth of applied linguistic research on the benefits of bilingualism and bilingual education. Certainly, some English-only proponents, such as Kevin Clark, attempt to dress up their arguments with "science." ¹⁵ However, as renowned applied linguists Stephen Krashen, Kellie Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan have shown, such arguments are based on turning the research on its head, if not also by telling outright lies. ¹⁶ To be sure, there are important debates in applied linguistics about how best to foster multilingualism: at what age, what sort of models and materials, etc. Nevertheless, the balance of research is irrefutable in terms of the benefits of bilingualism and bilingual education.

Not only do bilinguals have access to the various cultures associated with the languages they speak, but also their language skills tend to lead to greater appreciation of human diversity. This is related to the ability for communicative sensitivity. By understanding that there are multiple ways to say similar things, bilinguals have been shown to be more sensitive to the needs of the person(s) interacting with them. Moreover, bilinguals have been shown to be more flexible in their thinking and more adept at thinking about how they use language to get their point across. Additionally, bilinguals have been shown to be more effective at creative and divergent thinking. Finally, the research is unequivocal that literacy in the first language makes learning a second language-and becoming literate in that language-much easier. In fact, once a second language is learned, bilinguals often are able to learn additional languages more easily. Taken together, these findings in the research are often boiled down to claiming that bilinguals are "smarter." This is not really provable, but is tied to the fact that bilinguals tend to outperform monolinguals on standardized testing, whatever the faults of such testing may be. ¹⁷

Even if we accept that bilingualism is beneficial, bilingual education is much more controversial. In fact, there are many models of bilingual education. ¹⁸ The predominant model in the U.S. since the 1960s has been transitional bilingual education. This model is based on the finding just discussed, that children learn a second language more effectively when they are literate in their first language. Therefore, transitional models often target students in the early grades, generally K-3, and use the home language to learn English more effectively. Typically, the home language is used in the early grades 90 percent of the time and English for 10 percent of the time. By grade three, those ratios are reversed, and students then progress to English-only classrooms thereafter. This approach to English language learning has as its goal English language acquisition, not developing the home language. In practice, these models are meant only for language minority students. As such, they are predicated on a deficit model, that is, that non-English proficiency is a problem to remediate through temporary bilingual education.

By contrast, maintenance or developmental models, as their names suggest, are based on maintaining proficiency (and developing literacy) in the home language while developing proficiency and literacy in a second language. Such models are often known as dual language or two-way language classrooms. Not only are the goals of these programs different from transitional models in terms of maintaining and expanding the home language, but these classrooms integrate English monolingual students learning a second language with language minority students learning English, each group learning from the other.

Of course, there are long-standing elite programs in bilingual education as well. Such programs are often set up in private schools, or as magnet programs within public systems, and target English monolinguals as their main audience. These programs speak to the schizophrenic nature of language education in the United States. "Foreign language" education, i.e. English monolinguals learning additional languages at school whether through bilingual models or not, has existed for over 100 years as a gatekeeping project to get into university. From its first days in an expanding secondary school system at the turn of the twentieth century through today, successful "foreign language" education is often a function of middle- or ruling-class status and considered an elite project for the college-bound. ¹⁹ Students who enter school, however, already fluent in a non-English language, are construed as a problem, at times even an outright threat. The balance of the twelve years of schooling functions to rob students of their language and replace it with academic English.

Objections to bilingual education take on several forms and express many myths-sometimes argued by parents of emergent bilinguals themselves. For example, exposing children to too many languages at once will confuse them; learning more than one language means that no language is learned well; children will only learn the minority language, and not English, and thus lead to social isolation or thwart upward mobility, etc. Some of these myths are based on genuine confusion about language learning. More of them are based on political arguments against the speakers of non-English languages. I'll address the second point later. For now, however, it is important to underscore that no recent research comparing English-only versus bilingual models has found English-only approaches to be more effective at teaching English. In fact, most program model comparisons have shown bilingual models to be more effective for acquisition of English. Moreover, no accepted body of research recognizes the validity of teaching language by reducing the language to specific aspects of grammar, which is the model in Arizona discussed in the previous section. ²⁰

The Marxist case for language rights
The central argument of this article is that applied linguistic and educational research has been unable to explain or turn around the attacks on bilingual education since the 1960s. Meeting the linguistic and educational needs of emergent bilinguals is a political question that requires political clarity on the issues. Marxist theories of national oppression and strategies to fight that oppression not only best explain the attacks on bilingual education, but also offer the most effective way forward. The starting point of these theories is a central contradiction that Lenin identified in 1913:

Developing capitalism knows two historical tendencies in the national question. The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of national states. The second is the development and growing frequency of international intercourse in every form, the breakdown of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc.

Both tendencies are a universal law of capitalism. The former predominates in the beginning of its development, the latter characterizes a mature capitalism.... The Marxists' national program takes both tendencies into account, and advocates, firstly, the equality of all nations and languages and the impermissibility of all privileges in this respect...; secondly, the principle of internationalism and uncompromising struggle against contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism even of the most refined kind. ²¹

How this contradiction expresses itself varies over time and context-the First World War broke out, for example, shortly after Lenin made the argument. But this contradiction flows from the modern nation-state and its need to unify markets through development of a material and social infrastructure. In material terms, the state has served to pool resources to ensure successful capitalist development at the national level. In social terms, one consequence of the modern nation-state has been the invention and imposition of standardized national languages. In fact, the expectation that people are-or should be-monolingual is a completely modern phenomenon.

Under capitalism there exists a formula that runs something like: one nation equals one state equals one people equals one language and one culture. Despite this formula, monolingualism not only fails to accurately describe past societies, but it also bears no resemblance to most societies on Earth today. In fact, it is more likely the case that the majority of the world's population grows up and lives as multilinguals, adept at navigating home languages, community languages, school languages, and official languages used in government, the media, and business with varying levels of fluency. In other words, monolinguals are in the minority.

Nevertheless, the French Revolution of 1789 is often raised as the primary example of how this formula was first put into practice. At the time of the revolution, a scant 4-5 percent of the population spoke the language that today we know as French. ²² That language, based on a Parisian dialect, was imposed-primarily through schooling-on populations that spoke languages nothing like French, and who lived in regions from Brittany to the Pyrenees. Historian Eric Hobsbawm suggests the importance of the newly invented French language for the revolution: "There is little doubt that for most Jacobins a Frenchman who did not speak French was suspect." ²³ At issue was not whether the new French citizen spoke "French" natively, but rather if the citizen was willing to learn it as an active member of this new society.

Particularly for European nation-states that emerged later in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, defining the nation in terms of language required reaching far back into the past to cobble together a standardized, homogenized, and modernized language for contemporary use. This construction often came after the formation of the state, as was the case in Italy. Hobsbawm quotes Italian nationalist Massimo d'Azeglio to make the case: "We have made Italy, now it is time to make Italians." ²⁴ An essential part of making Italians was to create Italian, which the Italian ruling class did out of the Tuscan dialect.

The second development in the national question that Lenin argued in the quote above related to imperialism. As capitalism outgrew the narrow boundaries of the nation-state, competition among wealthy nations over the spoils of the rest of the world led to economic, political, cultural, and ultimately military conflict. There were two specific consequences of imperialism in linguistic terms. First, the languages of the aggressor nations were imposed on oppressed nationalities. Second, Western colonizers with limited proficiency in the indigenous languages they encountered described and codified those languages to invent ostensibly timeless divisions between indigenous societies-divisions that those societies had in fact not recognized in the past. ²⁵ That legacy persists to this day insofar as language policy in most postcolonial societies considers the language of the former imperial power as official. Beyond prestige, this status generally means that entrance to higher education or government jobs requires advanced proficiency in the colonial language. Even when indigenous languages are deemed official and used as the medium for schooling or in the government, the languages used are the standardized varieties invented through colonization and bear little resemblance to language use in the daily lives of ordinary people. ²⁶

In fact, the quote above by Lenin was written in a context in which the many oppressed nationalities in the Russian Empire attempted to resist that oppression. That is, nationalism is not just a weapon of the oppressor but also of the oppressed. The question facing Lenin and the socialist movement generally was how best to fight national oppression as a means to build the greatest multinational unity between workers and oppressed peoples of different nations. The first step in the strategy was to fight for the right for self-determination for oppressed nations. The demand for this right might seem contradictory to the "principle of internationalism" Lenin wrote about. To the contrary, however, internationalism was not possible unless workers of various nations were freely able to unite on an equal basis. Within aggressor nations, challenging nationalism required workers to break with any sort of allegiance to "their" nation and its ruling class. Within oppressed nations, this fight meant supporting the oppressed nation's fight for independence and freedom.

Lenin's application of the principle of self-determination to language and schooling is instructive. He rejected the Austrian Marxists' solution to national oppression, which called in part for the creation of separate schools along national and religious lines in which instruction would be given in the respective national languages. Instead, Lenin insisted on the right for all children to be educated in their home language, but to receive that education in integrated schools. Only in that way could the privileges of one language over another be challenged while at the same time challenging national divisions among the oppressed.

Even as Lenin called for the right to self-determination for oppressed nations, he was equally clear that nationalism mixed different and competing class interests together. He recognized that even bourgeois nationalism in opposition to oppression had a democratic content to it. But the freedom that bourgeois nationalists aspire to is different from, and in fact limits, the freedom that workers of the oppressed nation fight for. "Combat all national oppression?" Lenin asked. "Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for 'national culture' in general?-Of course not." ²⁷ Lenin's policy was about breaking down national division by demanding full equality, not elevating any nationalism over another. Only by maintaining this distinction could socialists challenge national or linguistic oppression while contributing to the creation of an international culture.

Because Lenin's approach to fighting national oppression and bourgeois nationalism is based on the contradiction identified at the opening of this section, this meant that each point of conflict has to be assessed on its own terms. Within the Russian Empire's "prison house of nations," the fight for self-determination meant a fight for language rights for the various oppressed nationalities. Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, writing twenty years later, used the same theoretical basis to arrive at a different conclusion. As mentioned above, after "making Italy" in 1871, the Italian ruling class consolidated its power by "making Italians." Part of that project was the creation of a standardized Italian language created in the image and service of the Italian ruling class. In his prison notebooks, Gramsci did not challenge the imposition of a standardized language by defending the multiple dialects spoken across the country. To do so, he argued, would only further isolate and fragment ordinary Italians. Instead, he called for the creation of a popular standardized language, created out of mutual struggle of working class and peasant Italians against their rulers. ²⁸ In other words the same theoretical underpinning led to two very different political programs in two distinct historical contexts. This article now turns to review how the issues of nationalism, imperialism, and language rights have applied in the United States at three key historical moments.

The Americanization movement
The last historical period in which schools were as culturally and linguistically diverse as they are today was around the turn of the twentieth century. Although some thirty-five million immigrants entered the country between 1815 and 1915, there was a significant shift in immigration after 1885 as more people migrated from Southern and Eastern Europe. Immigration to the western United States increased at this time as well, as people from Mexico and East Asia relocated in significant numbers. ²⁹ Public schools were looked to as institutions that could contribute to the solution of social problems. Supporters of Americanization relied on public schools not only to produce workers equipped with the skills required by an industrial, urban economy, but also to provide a common experience to counter the ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity of immigrant children and turn them into "responsible" citizens. ³⁰

There is one myth in particular about this era that is pervasive in contemporary debates about emergent bilingual education. It rests on two points. First, immigrants from this era were all too happy to abandon their home language and culture in the "unfair exchange" for opportunity. ³¹ Second, Latinos today who insist on speaking Spanish are an aberration and thus represent a threat. The reality is that then, just as now, immigrants and their descendents followed the general pattern in which: 1) the immigrant generation learns little English; 2) their children are bilingual; and 3) the third generation is English-dominant. ³² When we consider the level of anti-immigrant racism and hostility toward non-English languages in schools at the turn of the twentieth century, it is no wonder that second and third generation students adopted English.

In the West and Southwest, nativist racism led to the establishment of a dual system of segregated schools that prepared some white students for their future role as leaders and owners, while training most Mexican and Asian students for life as workers. One plan to Americanize Mexican Americans in California dates to 1928. The plan identifies "the Mexican element as "the greatest problem confronting Southern California today." To solve that "problem" the plan calls for segregated schools to educate Mexican American children by teaching English "to replace the Spanish [language] as the medium of use." ³³ In addition, boys were to receive instruction in the industrial arts and girls training as "domestic servants." ³⁴ In another revealing example, the San Francisco school board in 1905 reaffirmed its commitment to exclude Japanese and Chinese students from school. Part of the resolution read, "It is the sense of the members of the Board of Education that the admission of children of Japanese or Mongolian descent as pupils to our common schools is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the law and that the co-mingling of such pupils with Caucasian children is baneful and demoralizing in the extreme." ³⁵ An editorial from the November 6, 1906 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle supported the Board's position, arguing:

[t]here is also the objection to taking the time of the teachers to teach the English language to pupils.... It is a reasonable requirement that all pupils entering the schools shall be familiar with the language in which instruction is conducted. We deny either the legal or moral obligation to teach any foreigner to read or speak the English language. And if we choose to do that for one nationality, as a matter of grace, and not to do the same for another nationality, that is our privilege. ³⁶

It is little wonder that a court case against San Francisco schools some sixty-five years later, Lau v. Nichols, would lead to the Supreme Court decision that provided the strongest legal basis to date for bilingual education.

A similar fate greeted Native American children. In the latter half of the nineteenth century the federal government began to establish boarding schools for the education of Native American children. The first of these opened in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in 1879. Children from various Native nations were purposely schooled together to make communication in their own languages and the maintenance of their cultures more difficult. Children at these schools were physically punished for speaking their native language. Of course, the forcible removal of the children's language and culture was portrayed as a civilizing mission for the federal government. J. D. C. Atkins, who was the federal commissioner of Indian affairs under the first Grover Cleveland administration, described this project in an 1887 report:

In the difference of language to-day lies two-thirds of our trouble...Schools should be established, which [Native] children should be required to attend; their barbarous dialects should be blotted out and the English language substituted.... The object of greatest solicitude should be to break down the prejudices of tribe among the Indians; to blot out the boundary lines which divide them into distinct nations, and fuse them into one homogenous mass. Uniformity of language will do this-nothing else will. ³⁷

As Atkins' report makes clear, an important goal of Americanization was not just that students acquire English, but that English should replace the home language. As one example, Julia Richman, a New York City school district administrator, was particularly stringent in imposing English at school. Although Richman herself was a German Jew, she forbade Yiddish from the schools she administered and assigned teachers to monitor the lunch hall and playground to enforce the rule, even during breaks. ³⁸ In fact, with the outbreak of the First World War, the political dynamics of Americanization shifted to equate learning English not just with adopting English and Anglo-Saxon standards, but instead with loyalty. By contrast, diversity was taught as unpatriotic. Such attitudes culminated in the criminalization of non-English languages across the country. Even before the U.S. entered that war, thousands of parochial English-German bilingual schools were closed, German was stripped from the curriculum in public schools, and in at least two cases, in Nebraska and Iowa, laws were passed making instruction of German illegal. ³⁹ Remember, at this time Germans and their descendents were the largest non-Anglo group in the country. In fact, some 600,000 children received at least a portion of their education in German. ⁴⁰ To get a sense of the impact of this anti-immigrant hysteria: not until 1994 did the percentage of children (42.2 percent) studying non-English languages reach the same level as in 1928. ⁴¹

The Chicano civil rights movement
The Chicano civil rights movement in the 1960s forced a radical shift in the education of emergent bilingual students. A full discussion of the Chicano movement is beyond the scope of this article, but three points of background are necessary. First, the Chicano movement developed in many ways as a rejection of the liberal agenda of assimilation that dominated Mexican-American political groups after the Second World War. ⁴² To be sure, important reforms had already been won and reflected the aims of the assimilationist project: segregation of Mexican-American students was outlawed in 1946 and again in 1948; Mexican-Americans were identified as a protected group in the Fourteenth Amendment; the worst racism in the media had been challenged; and Mexican-Americans began to win more local and state offices. However, persistent segregation, poverty, and racism against Mexican-Americans exposed the limits of these changes, as well as divergent strategies between middle- and working-class Mexican-Americans. ⁴³ As Ignacio García describes it: "In their [Chicano activists'] eyes, American institutions, such as the government, schools, churches, and social agencies, had failed. American institutions, as far as activists were concerned, were inherently racist." ⁴⁴ Earlier goals of cultural and social assimilation, then, were rejected as a political strategy. Rediscovering and renewing Chicano history-including the Spanish language-became a central point of struggle. It is important to recognize that this movement was as much one of Mexican-Americans indigenous to the territories that the U.S. took by conquest in the nineteenth century, as of immigrants and migrant Mexican workers.

Second, the Chicano movement did not take place in isolation. Not only were civil rights struggles in the South and North a major influence on its radicalization, but also the anti-Vietnam War movement, the Cuban Revolution, and other anticolonial struggles in Africa, as well as the impact of student and worker movements in Mexico. Moreover, the gains codified in civil rights, voting rights, and anti-poverty legislation in 1964 and 1965 increased confidence among activists that struggle would bring change and led to higher expectations of what was possible. ⁴⁵ In terms of our knowledge about language learning, U.S. entrance into the Second World War and the post-Sputnik panic of the Cold War led to a dramatic increase in federal support for applied linguistic study of language learning and education. However specious the goals behind that funding were, one important outcome was better understanding of the benefits of bilingualism. ⁴⁶

Third, Chicano struggles over schooling were central to the movement. ⁴⁷ Considering the schooling conditions Mexican-American children faced, it is no wonder why. Although segregation of Mexican-American students was outlawed de jure-eight years before Brown v. Board of Education-it was de facto the norm. In 1960, only 13 percent of Mexican-American students held a high school diploma and only 6 percent attended college. ⁴⁸ The average Mexican-American student had a seventh-grade education, and in Texas the dropout rate was 89 percent. ⁴⁹ Mexican-Americans were often pushed into remedial, vocational, and ROTC tracks-or pushed out of school altogether. Speaking Spanish was outlawed almost universally, punishable by paddling, soap in the mouth, and other forms of corporal punishment. Quotas were common for the number of Mexican-Americans athletes or cheerleaders-even in schools where Mexican-American students were the majority. ⁵⁰

In response to these conditions, bilingual and bicultural education reforms became central demands of the movement. The most important point is that these demands were tied to local school struggles for change from the bottom up. The first bilingual program was started at the Coral Way Elementary School in Miami in 1963. Of course, the context for this program-designed for elite exiles from the Cuban Revolution-was entirely different from what Chicanos in the Southwest faced. Nevertheless, the success of Coral Way inspired bilingual programs elsewhere, expanding by ones and twos till 1968 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

Winning these programs, however, required struggle. Three school-based struggles in Texas and California are the best known from this era, and also the high point of the impact of the Chicano movement on public schooling. The best known, and earliest of the three, took place in East Los Angeles in 1968. Carlos Muñoz argues that, "prior to 1968 there had been no large scale effort to radically restructure the educational system and make it more meaningful to the Chicano experience." ⁵¹ That all changed in March 1968 when students walked out of five high schools in East Los Angeles. Dramatized in Edward James Olmos's 2006 movie Walkout!, these actions brought students together with other community activists to present school authorities with a series of demands, including a citizens review board, the hiring of Chicano personnel in schools with majority Chicano enrollment, and authorizing the citizen board to develop bilingual and bicultural programs based on school-community partnership. An article in the March 17, 1968, edition of the Los Angeles Times described the protests as "a week and a half of walkouts, speeches, sporadic lawbreaking, arrests, demands, picketing, sympathy demonstrations, sit-ins, police tactical alerts, and emergency sessions of the school board." ⁵² In fact, the school board reacted more sympathetically than in other Chicano struggles over schooling, but ultimately used "lack of funding" as an excuse to take no action.

The walkouts gradually subsided until twelve students and one teacher were arrested in May 1968. Not surprisingly, those targeted were members of the most radical and active section of the struggle, including the United Mexican-American Students (now known as MEChA), the Mexican-American Political Association (MAPA), the Brown Berets, and La Raza newspaper. Their arrests reenergized the movement and fostered widespread support from other groups in the city. The groundswell of support for the arrested activists ultimately led to the enactment of many of the original demands, including the oversight board, and the implementation of bilingual-bicultural programs. Not only did dropout rates decline dramatically, but the East Los Angeles walkouts became a model that Chicano activists across the Southwest emulated. ⁵³

Less widely known but better documented are the struggles in Crystal City in South Texas in the 1960s. In 1967, the Mexican American Youth Organization (MAYO) was formed in San Antonio and became one of the key organizations in the Chicano movement in Texas. ⁵⁴ MAYO regularly led student walkouts and boycotts of schools in San Antonio and made bilingual-bicultural education a primary demand. In Crystal City, MAYO had presented a series of student petitions throughout 1969, which had been entirely ignored by the all-Anglo school board. In November 1969, MAYO and other organizations turned out some 450 people to the monthly board meeting. MAYO activists presented another petition signed by 350 high school students. Its fourteen demands included a call for students, not the racist teachers, to choose band, "twirler," and cheerleader members. Students demanded smaller class sizes, and that teachers be required to learn Spanish. They called for greater student input into the curriculum, the creation of bilingual-bicultural programs, a free speech zone, and keeping schools open around the clock for community use. Finally, students wanted September 16 (the Mexican holiday commemorating independence from Spain) to be a school holiday, and called for improvements to school facilities.

The board took no action then, or at the December 1969 meeting. MAYO responded by leading a three-week boycott of the junior and senior high schools. The boycott began with repeated demonstrations of hundreds of students in front of the high school, but spread to target Anglo-owned businesses that were known for their racist practices against Chicano employees and customers. MAYO worked with Texans for the Educational Advancement of Mexican Americans to set up what were known as liberation schools during the Christmas break to ensure students did not fall behind in their studies. These liberation schools became the testing ground for a Chicano-centered, bilingual curriculum. After school hours, students would conduct voter registration drives in the region around Crystal City. The schools included political education for parents, as well. In the course of the two-week Christmas break, more than 500 students attended these liberation schools.

The boycott led to the intervention of the federal Office of Civil Rights, forcing the school board to recognize students' and parents' demands. Moreover, no students were punished for participation in the boycott. One principal reason for the boycott's success was that students were organized. MAYO drew lessons from previous walkouts and applied them in Crystal City. And they took the time to politically train students and parents involved in the struggle. Armando Navarro writes: "The Crystal City school walkout became a high point in MAYO's struggle for educational change. It was the culmination of numerous MAYO-induced school boycotts. This walkout, in conjunction with the Edcouch-Elsa and Kingville boycotts, helped to spread a contagion of activism among Chicanos in Texas." ⁵⁵

Parents, organized through Ciudadanos Unidos (Citizens United), and MAYO activists worked with Office of Education officials and researchers and teachers from Chicago State University and San Diego State University to train bilingual teachers and develop a new curriculum that incorporated Chicano history, literature, arts, and bilingual programs. The full curriculum was completed and made official by the board on February 1, 1973. By then, Ciudadanos Unidos and MAYO had merged to form La Raza Unida Party. They had run candidates for the school board several times and by the early 1970s, Chicanos made up a majority of the board.

A similar story played out in Houston. ⁵⁶ In 1968, MAYO organized a conference in Houston that brought various Chicano youth organizations together. What emerged was the group Advocating Rights for Mexican American Students (ARMAS) of junior and high school students, and Las Familias Unidas, comprised of neighborhood activists. ARMAS first targeted Houston Independent School District (HISD) in March 1969 over proposed cuts to the free lunch program. The school board eventually reversed those cuts, giving ARMAS and other student activists more confidence. The following September, ARMAS presented the board with a list of student demands and planned a walkout to begin on September 16. That morning, 100 students walked out of Jefferson Davis Senior High School, protested in front of the building, and presented the administration with a list of five demands, including calls for bilingual and bicultural programs, more Chicano school staff, and an end to the "pregnancy list" that Davis administrators posted with names of young women who were forced out of school during pregnancy. Hundreds of additional students walked out of junior and senior high schools across the city. While student demands went unmet, the walkouts provided ARMAS with widespread support that aided the next stage of struggle.

In 1969, a court case involving school integration was decided in Texas that forced districts to draw up integration plans. HISD officials made the fateful decision to classify Mexican-American students as white for the purposes of their plan. This meant that schools with predominantly African-American and Mexican-American students were now "integrated" in the eyes of HISD officials. Community outrage at this decision led several organizations to join together to form the Mexican American Education Council (MEAC) in the summer of 1970. MEAC pressured the HISD board to reverse its decision, but those calls went unheeded. MEAC responded by calling for a school boycott to begin on the first day of the 1970-71 school year. The boycott lasted from August 31 till September 16, 1970, and inspired the participation of over 60 percent of Houston's students. As with the Crystal City walkouts, MEAC set up Huelga Enrichment Centers in community centers and churches across the city. These "huelga schools" (huelga means "strike" in Spanish) taught nearly 3,000 students during the course of the boycott.

A central demand in this struggle was for recognition of Mexican-Americans as a distinct ethnic group. To be sure, some of the reaction to HISD's "integration" plan drew on racist attitudes among some Mexican-Americans in Houston toward African Americans and their children. Still, the three-week boycott and the huelga schools led to a major victory. Not only were Mexican-Americans recognized as a distinct group in the eyes of HISD, but the boycott also led to the implementation of bilingual-bicultural programs, the hiring of Mexican-American school staff, and greater respect of Mexican-American students in school.

These popular school-based struggles formed the foundation on which educators' efforts to address the academic and linguistic needs of Mexican-American students could make a difference. In 1965, the National Education Association conducted a study to assess the needs of Mexican-American students in the Southwest. They held a conference in Tucson October 30-31, 1966, to present and publicize the results. Earlier that year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, held a conference in Albuquerque on discrimination against Mexican-Americans. Chicano delegates walked out of the conference to protest the lack of Mexican American representation on the EEOC board. ⁵⁷ In the context of growing resistance across the Southwest to racism and segregation, these two events pressured bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, D.C., to heed the demands Mexican-Americans were making of schools, and of new anti-poverty and civil rights legislation. In January 1967, Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas introduced the Bilingual Education Act into Congress. The bill received "lukewarm" support from Democrats and from President Johnson. ⁵⁸ Nevertheless, Yarborough tied the bill to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, rather than have it stand for a separate vote. In 1968, the act was passed as Title VII of ESEA.

Many histories of the Bilingual Education Act have documented the deficiencies of its original version, which neither required school authorities to provide for bilingual education nor defined what bilingual education should look like. Reauthorization of the act in 1974 finally provided a definition of what bilingual education is, but that definition, discussed earlier, focused on transition from the home language to English, not on the addition of English to the home language. More important was the fallout of the Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court case that same year. A group of Chinese-American parents had sued San Francisco schools citing inadequate education provided to their children. The Lau verdict was remarkable for two reasons: 1) it found English-only education to be a violation of the equal education clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and 2) it ruled that schools were required to provide special assistance to students to learn English, not just give them equal access to schools, textbooks, etc. In 1979, the Office of Education ⁵⁹ drafted the Lau Remedies, specific directives requiring districts to implement bilingual education in elementary schools where there were sufficient numbers of emergent bilinguals. ⁶⁰

Without such local struggles as those discussed above, it is unlikely that the Bilingual Education Act ever would have been passed. Even had it come to light, it never would have been expanded and deepened as it was in the early 1970s-both in intent and funding. That is, militant local struggles from California to Texas and beyond added to the general atmosphere that transformed anti-poverty and educational policy from the mid-1960s from mere words on the page into programs that began to make a real impact. Ultimately, such on-the-ground activism faded over the course of the 1970s. As with other social movements from that era, the primary arena for organizing shifted to campaigning for Democratic candidates and away from direct action and mass organizing. Coupled with the beginnings of a ruling-class offensive to push back the movements of that era, all the gains of the sixties and early seventies, including bilingual and bicultural education, came under attack. Case in point: Reagan's first Secretary of Education prevented the 1979 Lau Remedies from being issued, and the Bilingual Education Act was left to wither on the vine. ⁶¹

Anti-immigrant backlash and the English-only movement
Bilingual education-and the broader societal goal of maintaining non-English languages-has been under attack ever since. These attacks culminated at the turn of this century with the passage of three state ballot initiatives effectively outlawing bilingual education. The first, Proposition 227, was passed by large margins in California in 1998. Bankrolled by Silicon Valley millionaire Ron Unz, the initiative-subtly entitled "English for the Children"-outlawed home language use for instruction and mandated English-only "sheltered" programs for a period "not normally intended to exceed one year." ⁶² The measure passed with 61 percent of the vote, although Latinos voted against it by a two-to-one margin. While media coverage at the time was obsessed with the "failure" of bilingual education, they often ignored two facts: 1) only 30 percent of emergent bilinguals at that time were actually enrolled in bilingual programs (most of them transitional programs); and 2) within those programs, only 20 percent of teachers were certified bilingual educators. ⁶³ A year later, Unz took his show on the road to Arizona, where he bankrolled Proposition 203. Sixty-three percent of Arizona voters approved the proposition in 2000. Proposition 203 is even more restrictive than its California cousin, as evidenced by the Structured English Immersion model discussed above. A particularly outrageous consequence of Proposition 203 is that the only way public schools in the Arizona portion of the Navajo Nation have been allowed to continue with their bilingual programs is to formally label Navajo a foreign language. Two years later, Massachusetts voters approved Question 2, an initiative to replace transitional bilingual programs with English-only ones. The measure passed by 68 percent. That same year, Colorado voters narrowly turned down the most restrictive initiative of all, an amendment to the state constitution that actually would have made bilingual education illegal.

What accounts for this dramatic turnaround from the early 1970s? In addition to the general trends mentioned above, anti-immigrant forces-and the racist ideas they espouse-gradually moved from the far-right fringe to the mainstream of U.S. politics. For example, the federal government responded to a series of economic downturns in the seventies and early eighties by stepping up attacks on immigrant workers and their rights. In 1982, with unemployment at around 12 percent, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS, now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE) initiated "Project Jobs" to conduct workplace raids and round up undocumented workers. ⁶⁴ Four years later, Congress passed the Immigration and Refugee Control Act, which increased funds significantly for border control and detainment centers. In 1989, the border was further militarized when border guards were issued M-15 rifles. The next year, the Immigration Act authorized the INS to make arrests for suspected violations of any federal law, not just immigration-related issues. The bill further increased police and military presence on the border and in border areas. ⁶⁵ Of course, these measures did little to actually prevent immigration; they merely criminalized immigration further and added a terrifying level of violence.

This era of anti-immigrant backlash culminated in the passage of Proposition 187 in California in 1994. The measure was approved by 59 percent of the vote and declared undocumented immigrants ineligible for any public service-including public school, in defiance of the Plyler v. Doe case mentioned above. In essence, the initiative would turn teachers, nurses, and other public employees into border patrol agents, requiring them to identify and report undocumented residents who tried to use public services. ⁶⁶ The pro-187 campaign director, Ron Prince, said of the measure: "You are the posse and [Proposition 187] is the rope." ⁶⁷

Not surprisingly, bilingual education was included as a target for these "posses." In 1981, Senator Samuel Hayakawa (R-CA) introduced the first constitutional amendment to declare English the official language of the United States. Two years later, he joined with Michigan ophthalmologist John Tanton to form U.S. English, an organization that exists to this day and pushes for laws supporting English as the official language. The connection between these English-only activists and anti-immigration groups is clear: U.S. English at one time shared not only the office space with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the reactionary anti-immigration organization, but Tanton was executive director of both organizations. ⁶⁸ In fact, U.S. English served as an avenue to provide greater credibility to racist ant-immigrant attitudes: its board included long-term CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite and Bush Sr.'s first nominee for secretary of labor, Linda Chávez. ⁶⁹ Supporters of U.S. English could deny being racist while supporting an organization that aimed to undo some of the most important gains in immigrant rights of the sixties and seventies, such as bilingual education. U.S. English suffered setbacks in the late 1980s: an internal memo penned by Tanton was leaked that construed the "threats" that Latinos presented, complaining of their "culture of bribery," Catholicism, "low educability," and high birthrates. ⁷⁰ Moreover, reports emerged documenting $1 million in donations to U.S. English from the Pioneer Fund, a white supremacist organization. ⁷¹ These minor hiccups, however, did not stem the tide of state laws declaring English the official language. As of this writing, thirty states have adopted such laws, all but one passed between 1978-2007.

To lay this trend solely at the feet of anti-immigrant bigots would be to tell only one half of the story, however. The other half includes the tepid, accommodating responses to such attacks by liberal organizations as the terrain shifted ever rightward under their feet. For example (and perhaps foreshadowing the disastrous No on 8 campaign against the anti-same-sex marriage initiative in 2008, Prop 8), the No on 227 campaign in California in 1998 refused to mount a defense of bilingual education. The leadership claimed the issue was too complicated to explain. This posture reflected their conservative and profoundly condescending attitudes toward ordinary voters, and flew in the face of the history of bilingual education that was fought for and won in the U.S. from the ground up. Instead, they focused their efforts on swaying the opinion of "swing voters," Republican women over the age of fifty. ⁷²

Most notorious, though, was the response in Colorado to the Unz-financed amendment in 2002 to criminalize bilingual education. As mentioned above, that initiative failed, with 56 percent of the vote going against it. But the victory was a bitter pill: the main organizers against the initiative appealed to the vilest racism to drum up support against it. One TV commercial proclaimed that the measure would "force children who can barely speak English into regular classrooms, creating chaos and disrupting learning." James Crawford aptly summarized this approach as, "If you can't beat racism, then try to exploit it." ⁷³

This combination of overt anti-immigrant backlash and panics around non-English languages had its most profound effect in NCLB. Title VII, the Bilingual Education Act, was abolished in that reauthorization. Any mention of bilingual approaches to education for students learning English have been silenced, replaced by variations on the phrase "English language acquisition." ⁷⁴ As mentioned earlier, funding for English instruction has increased, but it has been tied to English-only approaches to language education. Even where local initiatives may in fact still support bilingual education, ⁷⁵ NCLB mandates for high-stakes testing in English have produced a blowback, effectively forcing local authorities to adopt English-only approaches and hoping against hope that their students pass the test. ⁷⁶ Not only have many mainstream Latino rights organizations, such as the National Council of La Raza, supported NCLB in the hope that accountability would lead to exposure of how poorly schools educate Latino (and other) children and thus to reforms, but erstwhile supporters of bilingual education in Congress such as the Congressional Hispanic Caucus were silent on the abolition of Title VII and voted for NCLB. ⁷⁷

Conclusion
As grim as the situation has become for bilingual education, and more importantly for the academic and linguistic needs of emergent bilingual students in U.S. schools, the potential exists today as at no other time since the Chicano civil rights movement to turn things around. The remarkable May Day rallies for immigration rights in 2006, and the ongoing struggles against workplace raids and militarization of the border, have laid the groundwork for a new mass movement against racism and for immigration rights. Such a movement has the potential to create precisely the kind of pressure from the ground up and the kind of generalized political atmosphere that can lead to renewed support for bilingual education and respect for multilingualism in the United States. ⁷⁸ The mass participation of students in the May Day rallies two years ago suggests one base for turning this idea into reality.

In addition, educators and others dedicated to improving the education of emergent bilingual students must broaden the scope of their work and be clear on what it is we are fighting for. First, in a country formed by conquest, slavery, and mass immigration, the linguistic rights of ordinary people must be a central feature of the fight against oppression. These rights must apply equally to immigrants and their children to be educated in the home language; to Native nations and their efforts to revitalize their languages; as well as to speakers of non-mainstream varieties of English, such as African-American English, to academic and linguistic support for learning standard, academic English. Second, and recalling the flexibility in the Marxist approach to language rights argued above, the fight for these rights cannot lead to a single model for education in every school. Whether maintenance of bilingual, dual language, or more individualized language support models are the most appropriate is an issue to be resolved locally. The central argument, however, is that basing the fight for language rights on a broader fight against racism and for immigrant rights is the most effective strategy for challenging the monolingualist ideologies and practices that are dominant in the United States. The Chicano struggles of the sixties and seventies made this clear. It is only in this context that linguistic divisions in the U.S. can be overcome on a basis of equality, not on a basis of imposed English monolingualism.

It is impossible to predict what may spark the next round of struggle for the movement-perhaps fights against workplace raids, fights around NCLB reauthorization, or the Flores case in Arizona described earlier. No matter what that spark may be, absent mass movements fighting for change from the ground up, the crisis facing emergent bilingual students will continue. Legendary language researcher Joshua Fishman recognized in exasperation fifteen years ago: "When it comes to bilingual education, why do the facts seem to matter so little?"79 Answering that question means recognizing that without the strength of broad social forces, such as dynamic mass movements against racism and in support of immigration rights, efforts to effect change at the classroom or policy levels by definition will be limited. By learning the lessons of past victories and defeats concerning language and education, and connecting them to current struggles, we can transform the hope engendered over the last two years represented in the slogan "Sí se puede" into "Sí se pudo" (Yes we did).

1. Quoted in The Invisible Minority: Report of the NEA-Tucson Survey on the Teaching of Spanish to the Spanish-Speaking (Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association, 1966), 8.

2. Most often, such students are labeled "English language learners" or "limited English proficient students." Emergent bilingual is more accurate because it recognizes that students can, should, and do maintain their home language while learning English.

3. Ofelia García, Jo Anne Kleifgen, and Lorraine Falchi, Equity Matters Research Report #1: From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals (New York: Campaign for Education Equity), 8-17, Institute for Language and Education Policy, www.elladvocates.org (January 24, 2009).

4. James Crawford, "An equity agenda for English language learners: Beyond Proposition 227 and NCLB," keynote presentation at the Proposition 227 and Beyond: Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice conference, San Marcos, CA, November 7-8, 2008, Institute for Language and Education Policy.

5. R. Capps, M. Fix, J. Murray, J. Ost, J. S. Passel, and S. Herwantoro, The New Demography of America's Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2005).

6. Ibid.

7. Quoted in Crawford, "An equity agenda."

8. The rate is likely higher as parents often do not have the language skills necessary to complete the paperwork to qualify for the program.

9. See García et al., From English Language Learner, Kindler, Survey of States', and Capps et al, The New Demography for more demographic analysis.

10. Crawford, "An equity agenda."

11. Ibid.

12. Claude Goldenberg, "Teaching English language learners: What the research does-and does not-say," American Educator, Summer 2008, 10.

13. Kate Menken, English Learners Left Behind: Standardized Testing as Language Policy (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2008).

14. Michele McNeil, "Funding disparities squeeze ELL efforts," Education Week, January 8, 2009.

15. Kevin Clark, "The case for structured English immersion," Educational Leadership, vol. 66, April 2009, 42-46.

16. Stephen Krashen, Kellie Rolstad, and Jeff MacSwan, "Review of 'Research summary and bibliography for structured English immersion programs' of the Arizona English Language Learners Task Force," Institute for Language and Education Policy.

17. For overviews of this research see Ofelia García, Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008); Ofelia García & Colin Baker (Eds.), Bilingual Education: An Introductory Reader (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2007).

18. See García, Bilingual Education, for further discussion.

19. John Watzke, Lasting Change in Foreign Language Education: A Historical Case for Change in National Policy (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003).

20. Krashen, et al., "Review of 'Research summary and bibliography for structured English immersion programs.'"

21. V. I. Lenin, "Critical remarks on the national question," Questions of National Policy and Proletarian Internationalism (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), 20.

22. Sue Wright, Language Policy and Language Planning: From Nationalism to Globalization (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

23. Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 21.

24. Ibid., 44.

25. Sinfree Makoni and Alistair Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2006).

26. Ibid.; Jeffrey Bale, "International comparative perspectives on heritage language education policy research," Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, in press.

27. He continues: "The proletariat, ...far from undertaking to uphold the national development of every nation, on the contrary, warns the masses against such illusions, stands for the fullest freedom of capitalist intercourse and welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations, except that which is founded on force or privilege." [Author's emphasis] Lenin, "Critical remarks," 28.

28. Peter Ives, Gramsci's Politics of Language (Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2004), Chapter 2.

29. Tony Johnson, Historical Documents in American Education (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2002).

30. Bernard J. Weiss (Ed.), American Education and the European Immigrant: 1840-1940 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1982).

31. R. A. Carlson, The Americanization Syndrome: A Quest for Conformity (London: Croom Helm, 1987), 60.

32. Joshua Fishman, The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1985); Calvin Veltman, Language Shift in the United States (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1983).

33. Saul Cohen, Education in the United States: A Documentary History, Vols. 4-5 (New York: Random House, 1974), 2,931.

34. Ibid., 2,933

35. Ibid., 2,971.

36. Ibid., 2,972.

37. James Crawford, Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 48.

38. Cohen, Education in the United States, 3,012.

39. Carlson, The Americanization Syndrome; Terrency Wiley, "The imposition of World War I era English-only policies and the fate of German in North America," in T. Ricento & B. Burnaby (Eds.), Language Policies in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1998).

40. Heinz Kloss, The American Bilingual Tradition (Washington, D.C. and McHenry, Il: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, 1998). [Reprint of Heinz Kloss, The American Bilingual Tradition (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1977)]

41. Thomas Ricento, "Problems with the 'language-as-resource' discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A," Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 9, 2005, 348-68.

42. Ignacio M. García, Chicanismo: The Forging of a Militant Ethos Among Mexican Americans (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1997), 8-13; Guadalupe San Miguel, Jr., Brown, Not White: School Integration and the Chicano Movement in Houston (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2001), 46-47.

43. Ibid., 28; Justin Akers Chacón, "Fighting for justice in the 'factories of the fields,'" ISR 34, March-April 2004.

44. Ibid,. 10.

45. García, Chicanismo, 6; Ofelia García, Bilingual Education, 168; Guadalupe San Miguel, Jr., Contested Policy: The Rise and Fall of Federal Bilingual Education in the United States 1960-2001 (Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 2004), 6.

46. Jeffrey Bale, When Arabic is the "Target" Language: National Security, Title VI and Arabic Language Programs 1958-1991 (unpublished dissertation, 2008), Chapter 5; García, Bilingual Education, 168; Carlos J. Ovando, "Bilingual education in the United States: Historical developments and current issues," Bilingual Research Journal, Vol. 71, Spring 2003, 1-24.

47. Mario Barrera, "The politics of educational change: Introduction," in Alfredo Castañeda, Manuel Ramírez, III, Carlos E. Cortés, and Mario Barrera (Eds.), Mexican Americans and Educational Change (New York: Arno Press, 1974), 76; García, Chicanismo, 7; San Miguel, Jr., Contested Policy, 6.

48. García, Chicanismo, 26.

49. García, Bilingual Education, 169.

50. García, Chicanismo, 27.

51. Carlos Muñoz, Jr. "The Politics of Educational Change in East Los Angeles," 85.

52. Dial Torgerson, Los Angeles Times, March 17, 1968, quoted in Ibid, 85.

53. Ibid., 86-96.

54. See Armando Navarro, Mexican American Youth Organization: Avant-Garde of the Chicano Movement in Texas (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1995), especially Chapter 4; Armando L. Trujillo, Chicano Empowerment and Bilingual Education: Movimiento Politics in Crystal City, Texas (New York: Garland Publishing, 1998), especially Chapter 3.

55. Navarro, Mexican American Youth Organization, 148.

56. This discussion of Houston is based on San Miguel, Jr., Brown, Not White, Chapters 4-6.

57. Robert A. Reveles, "Biculturalism and the United States Congress: The Dynamics of Political Change" in Alfredo Castañeda et al, Mexican Americans and Educational Change, 205-15.

58. Ibid., 211.

59. The Department of Education was not created until 1980. Until then federal programs were administered by the Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

60. García, Bilingual Education, 170.

61. Ibid., 171.

62. Quoted in Ibid., 182.

63. James Crawford, Advocating for English Learners: Selected Essays (Clevedon, UK: Multlingual Matters, 1998), 43; García, Bilingual Education, 183.

64. Lance Selfa and Helen Scott, No Scapegoats! Immigrants Are Not to Blame (Chicago: Bookmarks, 1995), 15.

65. Ibid., 18.

66. Ibid., 2.

67. Quoted in Ibid.

68. James Crawford, At War with Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety (Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2000), 23; García, Bilingual Education, 172.

69. Chávez was forced to withdraw from contention when it was learned she employed undocumented house staff.

70. Quoted in García, Bilingual Education, 172.

71. Crawford, At War, 23.

72. Crawford, Advocating, 38-39.

73. Quoted in García, Bilingual Education, 183.

74. Ibid., 185.

75. For example, New York still offers the Regents high school exit exams in five additional languages besides English, and Texas still officially uses transitional bilingual education models.

76. Menken, 2008.

77. Crawford, Advocating, 124.

78. See ongoing coverage of the development of this movement in issues of the ISR, including: 48 (July-Aug., 2006); 50 (Nov.-Dec., 2006); 52 (Mar.-Apr., 2007); 53 (May-June, 2007); 54 (July-Aug., 2007); 58 (Mar.-Apr., 2008); 61 (Sept.-Oct., 2008).

79. Joshua Fishman, "The displaced anxieties of Anglo-Americans," in J. Crawford (Ed.), Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 165-70).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The greatest barrier to the Mexican-American child's scholastic achievement...is that the schools, reflecting the dominant culture, want the child to grow up as another Anglo. This he cannot do except by denying himself and his family and his forebears, a form of masochism which no society should demand of its children."

# data[].attributes.headline
Language Based Discrimination Against Mexican Americans

# data[].attributes.subject
Language Based Discrimination Against Mexican Americans

# data[].attributes.body
In 2020 a study was done and found that 54% of Mexican Americans reported discrimination based on language use, and 39% were judged for their accent in educational or workplace settings. Such bias often targets Chicano English, reinforcing stereotypes and limiting opportunities for speakers.

Source:
Godinez, R., & Maddox, K. B. (2020). Mexican American linguistic identity and discrimination. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20905152

# data[].attributes.body
Selena Quintanilla-Pérez, known as the “Queen of Tejano Music,” she had cultural impact as a Mexican-American artist who bridged English and Spanish-speaking worlds. In her interviews, public appearances, and the film Selena (1997), her speech often reflected features of Chicano English. Vowel patterns and intonation influenced by Spanish are a few we can identify. These linguistic traits were a part of her authentic voice and identity, which connected deeply with Mexican-American audiences who saw their own way of speaking represented in mainstream media. Selena’s success helped normalize the presence of Chicano English in public life, showing that it could coexist with professionalism, artistry, and global influence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Perceptions and Prejudice: How Ideologies Shape Views of Chicano English (Audio) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Perceptions and Prejudice: How Ideologies Shape Views of Chicano English (Audio) 

# data[].attributes.body
Sources:

Fought, C. (2013). Chicano English in context. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gaarder, A. B. (1965), as cited in The Fight for Bilingual Education. (n.d.). International Socialist Review, Issue 69. Retrieved from https://isreview.org/issue/69/fight-bilingual-education/index.html

Godinez, R., & Maddox, K. B. (2020). Mexican American linguistic identity and discrimination. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39(3), 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20905152

Nava, G. (Director). (1997). Selena [Film]. Warner Bros.

Otheguy, R., & Stern, S. (2010). Chicano English: A new dialect of American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 38(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424210367493

# data[].attributes.headline
Distinctive Vowel Patterns in Chicano English

# data[].attributes.subject
Distinctive Vowel Patterns in Chicano English

# data[].attributes.body
This is an IPA vowel chart and it shows where English vowel sounds are produced in the mouth, organized by tongue height (high, mid, low) and position (front, central, back). It is a reference point to highlight how Chicano English speakers often display unique vowel patterns, such as merging the “cot” and “caught” vowels and fronting the vowel in “goose.” These speech features distinguish it from Standard American English and reflect regional and community influences.

Sources:

Adapted from Fought, C. (2003). Chicano English in Context. Palgrave Macmillan.

# data[].attributes.body
This summary from Bayley & Santa Ana (2004) outlines grammatically consistent features of Chicano English. Such as auxiliary omission, use of negative concord (double negatives), and variable subject pronoun usage. Which is systematically different from Standard American English norms.

Source:
Bayley, R., & Santa Ana, O. (2004). Chicano English: morphology and syntax. In B. Kortmann & E. Schneider (Eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English: A Multimedia Reference Tool (Vol. 2, pp. 1566–1582). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197181-100

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chicano English: morphology and syntax was published in A Handbook of Varieties of English on page 1566.

# data[].attributes.headline
Spanish Influence on Chicano English Vocabulary

# data[].attributes.subject
Spanish Influence on Chicano English Vocabulary

# data[].attributes.body
Chicano English incorporates numerous Spanish loanwords. Such as barrio (“neighborhood”), mijo/mija (“my son/daughter”), and huero (“fair-skinned person”). These borrowings are not just linguistic artifacts, they also serve as cultural markers and preserves heritage while adapting to the realities of life in the United States. The continued use reflects the strong ties between language, identity, and community within Chicano culture.

Source:
De Katzew, L. (n.d.). Interlingualism: The Language of Chicanos/as. San José State University ScholarWorks. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=naccs

# data[].attributes.headline
Distinctive Features of Chicano English: Phonology, Grammar, and Vocabulary (Audio)

# data[].attributes.subject
Distinctive Features of Chicano English: Phonology, Grammar, and Vocabulary (Audio)

# data[].attributes.body
Sources:

Fought, C. (2003). Chicano English in Context. Palgrave Macmillan.

Mendoza-Denton, N. (2008). Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice Among Latina Youth Gangs. Wiley-Blackwell.

Thomas, E. (2019). “Sociophonetic variation in Chicano English.” Annual Review of Linguistics, 5, 361–379.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bilingual Voices in Tejano Media: Selena and Chicano English

# data[].attributes.subject
Bilingual Voices in Tejano Media: Selena and Chicano English

# data[].attributes.body
This Tejano USA interview features Selena speaking in English with likely elements of Chicano English, reflecting her Mexican-American heritage and connection to her audience. The interviewer alternates between English and Spanish, demonstrating bilingual fluidity common in Mexican-American communities. His speech also shows features that have been influenced by Chicano English. Together, the interaction highlights the cultural and linguistic richness of bilingual media in the 1990s.

Source: Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (2021). Long-lost Selena interview discovered in archived Univision footage. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVN5akAeL08

# data[].attributes.body
This 2025 article from Mitú directly challenges the common misconception that Chicano English is just “broken English” or “Spanglish.” It positions the dialect as a legitimate, rule-governed variety of American English spoken by native speakers. By publicly affirming its cultural and linguistic legitimacy, the article contributes to a wider shift in perceptions and highlights how Chicano English shapes identity, preserves heritage, and demands recognition in mainstream discourse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not Spanglish, Not a Phase—Chicano English Is a Legit Dialect, and One Word Is the Ultimate Test

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chicano English is the third Latino-influenced U.S. English dialect that are coming from specific regions around the country.

# data[].attributes.body
Spoken word artist Yosimar Reyes performs with linguistic rhythm and cultural authenticity rooted in Chicano English. His work shows how the dialect functions as both a storytelling tool and a marker of identity, connecting generations within the Mexican-American community. By blending English, Spanish, and cultural references, Reyes brings Chicano English into contemporary literary and performance spaces, demonstrating its continued relevance and cultural impact in modern art, activism, and community dialogue.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Cultural Power of Chicano English (Audio) 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Cultural Power of Chicano English (Audio) 

# data[].attributes.body
Sources:

Flores, L. A. (2000). Chicana feminism and media representation: An analysis of Selena. Communication Studies, 51(2), 125–141.

Silva-Corvalán, C. (2001). Sociolinguistics and bilingualism in Hispanic America. Georgetown University Press.

Reyes, Y. (2017). For colored boys who speak softly. Yosimar Reyes Poetry.

# data[].attributes.body
This video showcases authentic examples of Chicano English. It's highlighting how its features differ from Standard American English. By breaking down these elements: pronunciation, structure, and vocabulary. The video makes it clear that Chicano English is a fully developed, rule-governed variety, not “broken” English. These linguistic traits stem from historical, social, and bilingual influences and serve as markers of cultural identity.

Phonological characteristics (pronunciation):
Many speakers in the video demonstrate a distinct intonation pattern, with syllable timing that is more even compared to Standard American English’s stress-timed rhythm. Certain vowel sounds are monophthongized (“ride” pronounced closer to rahd).

The pronunciation of /ɪ/ and /i/ can be less distinct, so “ship” and “sheep” may sound more similar. Consonant pronunciation can also shift, such as reduced aspiration on /p/, /t/, and /k/.

Grammar and structure:
Chicano English often retains Standard English syntax but can reflect influence from Spanish in verb aspect and preposition use.

For example, the video notes the use of “barely” to indicate “just recently,” as in “I barely ate” meaning “I just finished eating,” which differs in meaning from Standard American English usage.

Lexical characteristics (vocabulary):
The vocabulary reflects cultural context and semantic shifts. Words like “barely” are reinterpreted.

Specific Spanish loanwords appear in English sentences without translation, such as “carnal” (close friend or brother) or “chancla” (sandal), maintaining cultural identity while communicating in English.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why so many Americans speak Chicano English

# data[].attributes.body
In this PBS feature, linguist Carmen Fought discusses Chicano English as a distinctive U.S. English dialect rooted in bilingual contact and cultural history. Her explanation, aimed at general audiences, helps challenge misconceptions and frames Chicano English as a legitimate, rule-governed variety shaped by community identity and linguistic resilience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do You Speak American . Sea to Shining Sea . American
Varieties . Chicano | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Distinctive Dialect of Chicano English It’s
not “beginner English,” it’s not Spanglish and it’s not watered-down
Spanish. Chicano English is a distinctive U.S. English dialect. Carmen
Fought discusses the dialect common to the Southwestern United
States and its roots in a bilingual culture. (The research cited in
this essay was first published in 2001.)

# data[].attributes.headline
Chicano Accent Among America’s Most Attractive

# data[].attributes.subject
Chicano Accent Among America’s Most Attractive

# data[].attributes.body
A 2024 article in the San Antonio Express‑News reports that, according to a Preply survey, the Chicano accent ranked 12th among America’s most attractive accents. This social trend reveals a growing appreciation for the dialect’s rhythmic flow and expressive intonation, underscoring how mainstream perceptions can shift toward recognizing Chicano English as appealing rather than stigmatized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No manches: Chicano accent ranks among most attractive in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Preply ranked American accents. See where they stacked up, and learn a bit about the Chicano accent, which you know well if you live in San Antonio.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hispanic News Consumption: English, Spanish, and Bilingual Trends

# data[].attributes.subject
Hispanic News Consumption: English, Spanish, and Bilingual Trends

# data[].attributes.body
Approximately 54% of U.S. Hispanic adults get their news mostly in English, 21% mostly in Spanish, and 23% consume news in both languages equally. This linguistic media landscape provides key context for understanding the prevalence and evolution of Chicano English positioning it as both a cultural product and communicative tool in a bilingual society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S.-born Latinos overwhelmingly prefer to get their news in English; about half of immigrant Latinos prefer it in Spanish

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Hispanic Americans' habits around news and information, including the languages in which they consume news and their engagement with Hispanic media outlets.

Most of the questions in this report are from Pew Research Center's 2023 National Survey of Latinos, a survey of 5,078 U.S. Hispanic adults conducted Nov. 6-19, 2023. This includes 1,524 Hispanic adults on the Center's American Trends Panel (ATP) and 3,554 Hispanic adults on Ipsos' KnowledgePanel. Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. Recruiting panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population, or in this case the whole U.S. Hispanic population. (For more information, watch our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling.)

To further ensure the survey reflects a balanced cross-section of the nation's Hispanic adults, the data is weighted to match the U.S. Hispanic adult population by age, gender, education, nativity, Hispanic origin group and other categories. Read more about the ATP's methodology. Refer to the topline for the questions used for our National Survey of Latinos, along with responses, and to methodology for more details.

The questions about how often people get news from various platforms, which platforms they prefer for getting news, and which social media sites people get news from are from an ATP survey of 8,842 U.S. adults, including 1,193 Hispanic adults, conducted Sept. 25-Oct. 1, 2023. Refer to the topline for t he questions used for this survey, along with responses, and to the methodology for more details.

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This is the latest report in Pew Research Center's ongoing investigation of the state of news, information and journalism in the digital age, a research program funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

The terms Hispanic and Latino are used interchangeably in this report.

Hispanic/Latino Americans, Hispanic/Latino adults, and Hispanics/Latinos are used interchangeably in this report to refer to survey respondents who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino in the United States. They include those who say their race is White, Black, Asian or some other race and those who identify as multiracial. Hispanic/Latino Americans live in the U.S. but are not necessarily U.S. citizens.

U.S. born refers to people born in the 50 states or the District of Columbia.

Immigrant refers to people born outside the 50 states or D.C. For the purposes of this report, immigrants include those born in Puerto Rico or another U.S. territory. Although individuals born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens by birth, they are grouped with immigrant respondents because they were born into a Spanish-dominant culture and because on many points their attitudes, views and beliefs more closely resemble those of Hispanics born outside the U.S. than Hispanics born in the 50 states or D.C., and even U.S.-born Hispanics who identify as being of Puerto Rican origin.

Second generation refers to people born in the 50 states or D.C. who have at least one parent born in a different country, Puerto Rico or another U.S. territory.

Third generation or higher refers to people born in the 50 states or D.C. who have two parents born in the 50 states or D.C.

Language dominance is a composite measure based on self-described assessments of speaking and reading abilities. Spanish-dominant people are more proficient in Spanish than in English (i.e., they speak and read Spanish "very well" or "pretty well" but rate their English ability lower). Bilingual refers to people who are proficient in both English and Spanish. English-dominant people are more proficient in English than in Spanish.

"Middle income" is defined here as two-thirds to double the median annual family income for panelists on the American Trends Panel. "Lower income" falls below that range; "upper income" falls above it. Refer to the methodology for more details.

Hispanic news outlets are those outlets that focus on providing news and information specifically to Hispanic audiences. These can include newspapers, radio or TV stations, podcasts, or social media accounts created for and by Hispanic people. Their content could be in Spanish, English, both languages or another language.

Country of origin refers to the country that survey respondents, their parents or their Hispanic ancestors came from.

Just over half of U.S. Hispanic adults (54%) get their news mostly in English - far higher than the share who get their news mostly in Spanish (21%). About a quarter of Hispanic Americans (23%) say they consume news in both languages about equally.

There is an almost identical pattern on the question of preferred language for news: 51% prefer to get their news in English, 24% prefer Spanish and 23% say they do not have a preference.

But a new Pew Research Center survey of adults who identify as Hispanic or Latino finds major differences in news consumption habits between U.S.-born Hispanics and those who immigrated from other countries.

While U.S.-born Latinos overwhelmingly get their news in English, and prefer it in English, those born outside the United States have much more varied habits: 41% get their news mostly in Spanish, 26% get it primarily in English and 31% do both about equally. Similarly, 47% of Latino immigrants prefer to get their news in Spanish, while 22% prefer English and 31% do not express a preference.

Among Latino immigrants, those who have spent more years in the U.S. are less inclined than more recent arrivals to get news in Spanish, and more inclined to get it in English. There is little difference in the shares who get news in both languages about equally.
Jump to more information on the languages in which U.S. Latinos consume news.
We asked these questions to better understand how a group that makes up nearly one-in-five Americans stays informed, especially as its demographics and use of Spanish continue to change. Immigrants are declining as a share of all U.S. Hispanics, and the share of Hispanics who speak Spanish at home has also dropped - even though the number of Hispanics who speak Spanish at home has increased due to overall growth in the Hispanic population.

Other key findings about Hispanics' news consumption include:

Most Latino adults prefer digital devices for news

Latinos get their news from a variety of sources, but most say they prefer to use digital devices over other platforms. Nearly nine-in-ten (87%) say they get news from digital devices at least sometimes, and 65% say they prefer this form of news over TV, radio or print. Digital devices have become an increasingly common source for news among Latinos - and among Americans overall - in recent decades, a shift driven by the rise of the internet.

Latinos are more likely than White Americans (55%) and Black Americans (50%) to prefer getting news from digital devices. Latinos also are more likely than White and Black adults to get news from social media, at least in part because Latino adults tend to be younger than other groups, and young adults are more inclined to use social media for news.

Nearly three-quarters of Latino adults under 50 (73%) prefer to get their news on digital devices, including 27% who prefer social media specifically.
Jump to more information on the platforms where U.S. Latinos get news.
Attention to news is declining among U.S. Latinos

About one-in-five Latino adults (22%) say they follow the news all or most of the time, while an additional 36% follow the news some of the time. The share of Latinos who follow the news all or most of the time has fluctuated in recent years but has dropped by 9 percentage points between 2020 (31%) and 2023 (22%), similar to a pattern seen across the general U.S. public.

In recent years, Hispanic Americans have followed the news less closely than Black and White Americans. Again, the high share of young adults within the Hispanic population plays a role, because young people are less likely to follow the news closely. Among Hispanic adults ages 18 to 29, just 10% say they follow the news all or most of the time - far below the share of Hispanics ages 65 and older who do so (44%).
Jump to more information on U.S. Hispanics' news consumption habits.
Half of Hispanic adults get news from Hispanic news outlets

Half of U.S. Hispanic adults say they at least sometimes get news from Hispanic news outlets - those that specifically cater to Hispanic audiences. This includes 21% who say they do this extremely or very often. Just over half of Hispanics (54%) get news about their or their family's country of origin at least sometimes, including 24% who do this often.

Hispanic immigrants are much more likely than U.S.-born Hispanics to get news from Hispanic outlets and about their origin country. In both cases, about seven-in-ten immigrants say they at least sometimes get these types of news: 69% get news from Hispanic outlets and 72% get news about their country of origin. Among Hispanic adults who were born in the U.S., 33% at least sometimes get news from Hispanic outlets, and 38% get news about their family's country of origin.

There are further differences among U.S.-born Hispanics: Those whose parents were also born in the U.S. are even less likely than those with one or more immigrant parent to get these types of news.
Jump to more information on Hispanic news outlets and news about Hispanic Americans' origin countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Sarah Naseer, Christopher St. Aubin and Michael Lipka

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S.-born Latinos mostly get their news in English and prefer it in English, while immigrant Latinos have much more varied habits.

# data[].attributes.body
Fought, C. (2003). Chicano English in context. Palgrave Macmillan.

Godinez, M., & Maddock, B. (2021). Chicano English revisited: Social meaning and linguistic variation in the 21st century. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 25(4), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12465

Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Mendoza-Denton, N. (2008). Homegirls: Language and cultural practice among Latina youth gangs. Wiley-Blackwell.

Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000562

Silva-Corvalán, C. (2001). Sociolingüística y pragmática del español. Georgetown University Press.