I was thinking more along the lines of a bank of 1000 possible questions that the computer randomly picks from when the form is generated. Enough that there is no reasonable way to have memorized a response for each.
Not sure if anyone brought this up yet, but there already is a proficiency test-- you take it when you become a citizen. I assume the person in question is a naturalized citizen, not a citizen by birth.
If people want to argue that there should be an additional requirement, then that’s a different story, and I think we’re treading on dangerous waters. I’m not going to read thru the Arizona constitution, but I would surprised if you could pass such a law and not violate it.
I’m not sure I see the problem here. It seems silly to want to elect someone who is supposed to represent you being unable to fulfill that duty due language problems, but it’s their vote. If someone will less-than-optimal English skills can represent them better than the alternative, then that’s a compromise they should be allowed to make.
It amazes me that we have a huge proportion of foreigners who only want to live and work, educate themselves, and represent themselves and we put a thousand roadblocks in their way over and over. I get a sort of generic embarrassment when I read this kind of stuff.
Exactly.
I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that.
Yes. They voted NDP, which was obviously more important to them than having an MP who speaks fluent French.
I have the same opinion on this Arizona kerfluffle. If the voters choose to elect as their representative someone who has a difficult time communicating in Arizona’s official language of government, that is entirely up to them.
You don’t see any reason to think that a person with limited English was not born a US citizen? Not any reason at all? Pick two random people, one who is fluent and one who isn’t, and it’s 50/50 that their both of the same citizen status?
Nonsense.
And while we’re on the subject, what about having elected officials pass a rudimentary science test, it’s clear to me many think the scientific method is a nefarious plot.
So, do you think that deaf people should not be allowed to hold office? They don’t speak English.
Good idea. The next Republican administration will set one up.
bolding mine
Or perhaps they could learn the native language?
On to point:
If she loses her case, then she needs to learn English to qualify as the laws says.
If she wins, then the state needs to define the law: Maybe a high school English equivalency test, like a G.E.D. test?
On the other hand, I agree with a few posters, let the voters decide and live and let live, as it were.
If she is old enough the lanugage portion of the citizenship test is waived. But my guess is that people are being a little bit racist. If she was European I doubt people would be as frustrated with her lack of language skill. I think it takes a whole lot of justification before you overturn a democratic election based on somethign taht is as easily remediable as langauge skill.
Arizona’s English-as-official language amendments have been tossed out by its Supreme Court several times before because they keep requiring state officials to converse in English. I doubt the current version is different enough to stand up.
Let’s leave racism out of this until there is actual evidence for it, as opposed to imagined evidence.
I agree on the first part, but not on the second. For some people, it’s easy. For others it is not.
I wasn’t really thinking of anyone in particular, other than the general refrain of “but he/she doesn’t speak French!” that I kept hearing. If those complaints turned out to have been unfounded, that’s a good thing. I was just presenting the situation as a general comparison to the one in Arizona and trying to see what the differences are.
What bothers me is the thought that voters end up with (e.g.) 4 years of useless representation because they weren’t presented with the facts in the first place, but I do agree with this overall statement.
Please don’t get me started on Pauline Marois… it would be much too much of a hijack to this thread. Suffice it to say that I think that anyone who wants to speak as my premier should be bilingual. She isn’t. She will never speak for me.
The argument of “she can always equip herself with a team of interpreters” annoys me because of who has to pay for that interpreter - is it acceptable that politicians should go out and hire other people to do basic parts of their jobs for them at taxpayer expense?
Up here in the Great White North the TOEFL is the general standard for English-language proficiency and the TEF or TEFaQfor French language proficiency for admittance to universities and for several jobs.
In some cases, proficiency is also - theoretically - established by showing that the job candidate has fulfilled certain general-education requirements, such as Grade 11 French or English classes or the Cégep course requirements (HJ - am I right in thinking that there is no Exit Exam from the francophone colleges?).
So, either a proficiency test or proof of having completed certain language courses within the province’s school system are, generally, deemed to be proof of proficiency.
This could, perhaps, limit political candidates who arrived in the country after their schooling was complete, or those who did not complete a sufficient level of education (drop-outs, etc.).
It appears that there is no language minimum in either language for being a provincial member of parliament in Québec… does anyone know where to look for more information? I think the manner in which this issue may be resolved here might be a starting point for how Arizona might want to handle this situation (which is why, of course, I keep posting about this province!) Bills are published in both English and French, though, so proficiency in at least one language is probably assumed.
It’s an excellent goal. But they deserve adequate representation in the meantime.
No, I don’t think that. I realize that sign language is it’s own language, but the fact that people in different countries - with different spoken languages - use different sign language kind of means that ASL, for example, is “still English.” There’s also the ability to read and write and understand/be understood via those methods that comes into play, and a deaf person would be able to do their job in that situation.
It’s kind of a slippery-slope argument, isn’t it? A deaf person has a handicap that can and should be accommodated assuming they are otherwise qualified for the job. I don’t consider being a unilingual language speaker of a language different than the job’s to be a handicap. You can learn to speak a second language. A deaf person cannot learn to hear.
We’re not dealing with a random sampling of people across the entire United States. We already know she lives in a part of Arizona in which the majority of people speak Spanish. No, I see no reason to assume that she’s not a citizen by birth and that’s not nonsense.
What, no one’s going to say it?
We elected George W. Bush as President twice! (Allegedly.) Surely we aren’t going to start requiring English proficiency NOW?
In all seriousness, this seems to be a politically motivated attempt by other Spanish speakers to disqualify someone they don’t want to win the office from the ballot, through the sort of rigged game that is typical of everything that goes on in Arizona politics (the man they hired to conduct her proficiency test is Australian and doesn’t speak standard American English any more than she does). The articles indicate that the language of daily use in the community being represented here is Spanish. It’s confusing why the Council conducts its business in English at all, given that they and everyone else in town purportedly are Spanish speakers at all other times, so I don’t see what the problem would be.
I would be surprised if someone who only speaks Spanish could possibly win election in a place where that presents an issue; this seems to be a problem that would solve itself.
No, ASL is not English, it’s a distinct language according to anyone with authority to speak on the situation (linguists and ASL instructors, for example). An ASL user would obviously fail the test for English proficiency that this woman was given, which is to talk for several minutes with a person whose only language is spoken Australian English. So, unless they do in fact give the same test to deaf candidates and fail them on the same criteria, she has a good case that this is targeting Spanish speakers exclusively in a discriminatory fashion. Of course, in Arizona, discriminating against Spanish speakers is not only legal but legally required, though the federal courts may take a dimmer view.
I understand that, but what I’m saying is that the signs and grammar of ASL are different than the signs and grammar of LSF and the person signing the former was also likely taught to read and write (and perhaps speak some words) in English while the latter person was taught these things in French. The sign language does, to some extent, reflect the written language used by the signer.
In that manner, an ASL-signing person is still communicating “in English” while the LSF signer is communicating 'in French". I’m putting quotes there for a reason - as I said, I understand that sign languages are languages and dialects in their own right, but there is still a fundamental connection to the written language of the signer.
I agree that this is a bad test - a deaf person cannot be expected to converse in the spoken form. However if an English-ASL signer was used as an interpreter, the hypothetical deaf person would have no trouble, while if the interpreter were Spanish-LSE, there might be trouble.
And this is a poor test on many fronts; the accent, relying simply on the spoken word, etc. Ms. Cabrera does have a case that this test seems to be designed to fail her, however the larger question of what is acceptable proficiency - and should it be required - still stands.