"MSNBC Tucker" - Transcript

Interview

"MSNBC Tucker "- Transcript

MR. CARLSON: We begin tonight with the English language, immigration, employers, and the fight about all of it in the U.S. Congress.

Joining me now, the Civil Rights Task Force chair of the Hispanic Caucus, Democratic congressman from Texas Charlie Gonzalez.

Congressman, thanks for coming on.

REP. GONZALEZ: Thank you.

MR. CARLSON: So if I'm an employer, why shouldn't I be able to demand that my employees speak English if I want them to? My customers speak English. Isn't that kind of my right? Why is it Congress's business?

REP. GONZALEZ: Sure. Let's figure out what the debate is really about and see if we disagree or we really don't disagree and whether this is just basically political fodder.

The first thing is I think we all agree that English proficiency is of the utmost importance and a goal for anyone that lives in the United States of America. Secondly, we believe, and I think everyone would understand, that an employer should mandate that English be spoken when it comes to job performance, when it's relevant to efficiency, when it's relevant to safety.

But to simply use it as a basis and pretense to discriminate should not be allowed. And that's all that EEOC is saying basically in their guidelines.

MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm confused. Why should you, as a congressman from Texas, be in a position to decide whether a nonprofit in Massachusetts is using that power correctly, whether it's essential for that -- shouldn't the business owner be the one to decide, not you?

REP. GONZALEZ: Tucker, it's called the Constitution of the United States and it's called equal protection under the laws. It's bigger than any one employer. It's bigger than any one state. It's bigger than any one member of Congress. And I think that's what we have to be sensitive about.

The question really comes down to, is it relevant to job performance or simply pretext? Now, what people don't understand is the language that Senator Alexander attached last week to the appropriations bill was language that we defeated way back in July that was introduced by Congressman Cliff Stearns from Florida. We've been over this before. We understand this issue.

The reason that it passed the other night is that it basically was sprung on the Democrats and we didn't have enough time to let members know that this was the same Stearns language that was defeated back in July. We know that this is a subterfuge, and the -

MR. CARLSON: Okay. I'm sorry, Congressman. Before getting into all the procedural matters that our viewers may not be totally familiar with, just back to the basic point here, to first principles -- how does the Constitution give you the power to decide when it's necessary for an employer to have an employee speak English? That's something that only the employer would know. I mean, how would you possibly know that?

REP. GONZALEZ: Well, because EEOC investigates these things, Tucker. And if there's a reasonable basis, which they find in most instances, there is no cause of action. But when it's used as an excuse -- and if you look at the Salvation Army case -- now, I don't know all the facts, and we'll let it go through the judicial process, and people with the most knowledge will be the fact-finders and the judge will apply the law. But to simply make a blanket statement that Congress should not be interested in protecting the civil rights of all Americans is something that I don't think we've arrived at yet.

MR. CARLSON: Wait a second. But you don't have a civil right to speak whatever -- this is not a civil rights question. You don't have any right to speak whatever language you want. There is no protection -- I mean, where does that right come from? I've read the Constitution.

REP. GONZALEZ: Well, let me tell you, it's about discrimination on national origin. And that connection of language and national origin has already been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States. We can get into all the technicalities and all the legalities -

MR. CARLSON: No, no -

REP. GONZALEZ: -- but why don't we just stay on message here -

MR. CARLSON: No, but hold on -

REP. GONZALEZ: -- for both of us?

MR. CARLSON: But that is the message. No, hold on. I understand. And I'm not trying to get far afield. It seems to me that's the core question. Do you have, as an immigrant to this country, even as a native-born American, the right to speak any language you want, and other people just have to deal with it or get sued by the federal government? I mean, I don't see where that right emanates from. REP. GONZALEZ: The right -

MR. CARLSON: I think that's right at the center of this question.

REP. GONZALEZ: Well, you can come at it backwards if you want to, but why don't we start on what is reasonable and legitimate in the way of mandating certain conditions of employees so that employees aren't discriminated against on something that is not relevant to their job performance or the ability to do their jobs?

MR. CARLSON: But why would the employer fire the person otherwise?

REP. GONZALEZ: If you take this to its logical conclusion, it would be ridiculous. And we've been there before. This is nothing new. And the truth is, Lamar Alexander and others are probably putting it in there, and it's no more than a political issue. In the name of assimilation, they are trying to divide this country, which is an outrage.

MR. CARLSON: Wait. They're trying to divide the country? It was Congressman Gutierrez of Illinois, who's a member of the Democratic Party, as you know -

REP. GONZALEZ: Sure -- Luis.

MR. CARLSON: -- who said that this all comes out of, quote, "bigotry and prejudice," to which I would say how dare he say something so divisive, so offensive, so without basis? Ordinary people like me -- I'm not a bigot; I'm not prejudiced. It seems to me like you ought to have the right to speak English; if you're an employer, to ask your employees to do the same thing. Am I a bigot for wanting that? No. Why would he say something like that?

REP. GONZALEZ: Let me ask you, if you're an employer and you've had someone working for you for five years that has been speaking Spanish since they fold clothes, then one day you come in and you say, "You have one year to learn English or you're fired," I don't think, Tucker, that you would do that. And is there a reasonable basis for you to have that kind of a mandate at the workplace?

MR. CARLSON: Well, of course -

REP. GONZALEZ: There may be something else working here. And I think we can't close our eyes to that darker side of human nature which is out there. And that's what the courts are for. That's what the laws are for. Let's just let it work out.

MR. CARLSON: But it's absurd on its face. I mean, it's not as -- I mean, this country is greatly helped by Hispanic immigrants who don't speak English, so it's not as if you have this blanket problem where Americans are preventing people who speak Spanish from getting jobs. That's absurd, as you know. But there are jobs in which you have to speak English. Why not -- again, it just seems to me undue influence and interference by Congress. You don't see that.

REP. GONZALEZ: But I've already stated, the law already protects employers that have a legitimate basis to predicate a rule that English will be the only language spoken on the job -- communication, efficiency, supervision, safety. We're not debating that. This is an entirely different issue. If you want to run with it on an entirely different interpretation, you can do that. But the courts aren't even going to be looking where you're coming from.

MR. CARLSON: Okay. I guess I don't buy the premise and I don't buy -- I especially don't buy the premise that people who disagree with you or your party are bigots or prejudiced. I think that's an unfair thing to say.

REP. GONZALEZ: No, I didn't say that. But you can't have a sound bite.

MR. CARLSON: Mr. Gutierrez said that and you defended it.

REP. GONZALEZ: Everything is not a sound bite in this country, unfortunately for media.

MR. CARLSON: Well, I'm not -- (laughs) -- okay, says a member of Congress.

Okay, thank you, Congressman. I appreciate you coming on. Thank you.

REP. GONZALEZ: My pleasure.

Source