{"id":67575,"date":"2006-05-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-05-20T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/05\/20\/gw-est-il-pour-ou-contre-le-english-national-language\/"},"modified":"2006-05-20T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2006-05-20T00:00:00","slug":"gw-est-il-pour-ou-contre-le-english-national-language","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2006\/05\/20\/gw-est-il-pour-ou-contre-le-english-national-language\/","title":{"rendered":"GW est-il pour ou contre le \u201c<em>English, national language<\/em>\u201d?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>Si les amendements sur <em>English, national language<\/em> ont \u00e9t\u00e9 vot\u00e9s par le S\u00e9nat <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=2723\" class=\"gen\">dans l&rsquo;\u00e9motion<\/a> et un certain d\u00e9sarroi, ce n&rsquo;est pas vraiment mieux du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de la Maison-Blanche. Comme l&rsquo;observe <a href=\"http:\/\/thinkprogress.org\/2006\/05\/19\/snow-contradicts-gonzales\/\" class=\"gen\">le site ThinkProgress<\/a>, il y a eu dans la journ\u00e9e du 19 mai une contradiction flagrante dans l&rsquo;administration GW \u00e0 propos de la position du Pr\u00e9sident vis-\u00e0-vis de l&rsquo;amendement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t&bull; D&rsquo;un c\u00f4t\u00e9, le porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche Tony Snow <a href=\"http:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/news\/releases\/2006\/05\/20060519.html\" class=\"gen\">d\u00e9clarait<\/a> que le Pr\u00e9sident soutient les deux amendements: \u00ab <em>As you know, there were actually a couple of amendments that came up yesterday, an Inhofe amendment and also a Salazar amendment. And what has come out of that is a description of English as the national language. And I think  and we have supported both of these.  And I think both of these amendments are consistent with that stated presidential desire.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t&bull; D&rsquo;un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, le secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la Justice Alberto Gonzales, en d\u00e9placement dans le Sud du pays (au Texas) pour examiner les questions des lois anti-immigration, a nettement affirm\u00e9 que GW Bush est <a href=\"http:\/\/rawstory.com\/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftoday.reuters.com%2Fmisc%2FPrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D2006-05-19T193620Z_01_N19233580_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-IMMIGRATION-GONZALES.xml\" class=\"gen\">oppos\u00e9<\/a> \u00e0 cette appr\u00e9ciation de l&rsquo;anglais comme <em>national language<\/em> : \u00ab <em>The president has never supported making English the national language, Gonzales said after meeting with state and local officials in Texas to discuss cooperation on enforcement of immigration laws. He said Bush has instead long supported a concept called English-Plus, believing that it was good to be proficient in more than one language.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00bb <em>English represents freedom in our country and anybody who wants to be successful in our country has a much better chance of doing so if they speak English, Gonzales said. It is of course a common language.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tCette contradiction et le d\u00e9sarroi qu&rsquo;elle implique marquent le caract\u00e8re tr\u00e8s d\u00e9licat du sujet, et l&rsquo;incertitude de l&rsquo;administration face \u00e0 cette question. L&rsquo;administration est coinc\u00e9e entre son soutien \u00e0 une politique lib\u00e9rale de l&rsquo;immigration, qui lui a notamment valu un soutien de l&rsquo;\u00e9lectorat <em>latino<\/em> en 2004, et un durcissement consid\u00e9rable du noyau dur de son \u00e9lectorat conservateur (et d&rsquo;une partie importante du parti r\u00e9publicain), qui consid\u00e8re que l&rsquo;identit\u00e9 nationale US est mise en danger par l&rsquo;immigration massive des <em>latinos<\/em> (trois millions de clandestins par an).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tIl n&rsquo;est pas indiff\u00e9rent que ce soit Gonzalez, d&rsquo;origine mexicaine, qui affirme que Bush est contre l&rsquo;action du S\u00e9nat. Le concept d&rsquo;<em>English Plus<\/em>, cit\u00e9 par Gonzales comme \u00e9tant l&rsquo;option de GW, repr\u00e9sente un pataqu\u00e8s refl\u00e9tant parfaitement la position du Pr\u00e9sident. C&rsquo;est une option typique qui ne signifie rien et tente de se concilier les deux parties dans cette querelle qui ne va plus cesser de se radicaliser. Il semble \u00e9vident que GW a lui-m\u00eame affirm\u00e9 des positions diff\u00e9rentes au sein de son administration selon l&rsquo;interlocuteur. Le d\u00e9sordre constat\u00e9 le 19 mai avec les deux d\u00e9clarations contradictoires est donc un constat fid\u00e8le de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de la direction US.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 20 mai 2006 \u00e0 16H26<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Si les amendements sur English, national language ont \u00e9t\u00e9 vot\u00e9s par le S\u00e9nat dans l&rsquo;\u00e9motion et un certain d\u00e9sarroi, ce n&rsquo;est pas vraiment mieux du c\u00f4t\u00e9 de la Maison-Blanche. Comme l&rsquo;observe le site ThinkProgress, il y a eu dans la journ\u00e9e du 19 mai une contradiction flagrante dans l&rsquo;administration GW \u00e0 propos de la position&hellip;&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[5409,5142,3330,2648,3890,5410],"class_list":["post-67575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-english","tag-gonzales","tag-immigration","tag-langage","tag-national","tag-snow"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}