Thread: The Salvation Army or the Hispanic Caucus?

The Salvation Army or the Hispanic Caucus?
by Jim Boulet, Jr.
Posted: 11/21/2007

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 2007 lawsuit against the Salvation Army's requirement that its employees must speak English has once again split Congress between those who believe immigrants should adapt to American ways and those who don’t. Just before Congress left for its Thanksgiving break, a vote to rein in the EEOC triggered a revolt by the House of Representatives’ Hispanic Caucus.

Senator Lamar Alexander -- during committee consideration of the EEOC’s appropriation -- added a provision that would deny the EEOC any funds to continue its lawsuit against the Salvation Army’s English-only policy. Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) then offered a non-binding motion on the House floor to instruct the House conferees on the Commerce-Justice-State (CJS) Appropriation (H.R. 3093) to support the Alexander language and on November 8th, the House voted 218 to 186 in favor of the Frelinghuysen motion. (Full disclosure: English First strongly supports the Alexander amendment.)

In 2004, the Salvation Army asked Dolores Escobor of the Dominican Republic and Maria del Carmen Perdomo of El Salvador to learn English and gave them a year to comply. They did not do so and were dismissed in 2005.

Salvation Army officials could have just let these women continue merrily along in their little linguistic ghetto. Instead, they tried to encourage these women to better themselves by learning English. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against the Salvation Army's policy in March of 2007.

The EEOC is actually enforcing rules which have been consistently rejected in federal courts. Even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, hardly a wellspring of conservative thought, ruled against the EEOC’s language policy in 1993 (Garcia v. Spun Steak).

The EEOC’s lawsuit also seemed like pure harassment, given that the Salvation Army had defeated one lawsuit against its English-only policy in Cosme v. The Salvation Army (284 F.Supp.2d 229 (D. Mass. 2003).

Yet the EEOC continues to seek ways to enforce its peculiar interpretation of civil rights law upon the nation’s employers. Many of these employers opt to do whatever the EEOC demands, rather than fight out the matter in court.

The Democrats hold just 233 of the 435 seats in Congress. This means that the Republican can prevail on any vote if they remain united and just 16 Democrats defect. Potential defectors are not hard to find.

Of the 233 Democrats in the 110th Congress, reported Reid Wilson in Real Clear Politics (“House of Cards,â€

If the employee were legal citizens, isn't English one of the requirements?
If they are not here legally they should be deported and not able to sue.

Second, when you see a red Salvation Army kettle during this Christmas season, drop in a few extra dollars so that the Salvation Army is not forced to choose between defending its good name in court and helping the needy.

The Salvation Army aides and abets illegal aliens. They helped make this bed and it's time to sleep in it. Find an American that can use a hand and help there. Charities cannot be trusted to avoid criminal actions.

I am sure the Salvation Army does help illegals. I don't think they make a distinction between people when helping.

Now that doesn't mean I don't think the SA is being used and abused by these illegals - because I think they are.

I do know they help people and I don't know what the solution is in this case. Do we withhold monies and thereby hurt needy Americans or do we fund illegals.

You know that is the corner our government has backed us into. Some Americans are going to be hurt if we do somehow get the illegals home. Some businesses are going to either go under or go through a tough time.