Because wouldn’t the arguments and reasoning be different for each?
My position is that I don’t make an assumption and you want me to make a bet on one or the other outcome? Besides the fact that I don’t bet on anything, I won’t take that. As for the “loser doesn’t post” thing, it seems a rather obnoxious kind of one-upmanship.
:smack:
but you got a point 
That does add a bit to the discussion.
Your position, such as it is, is contrary to fact. Why you cling to it is puzzling.
As I understand it, the USA actually has no official language.
It’s only contrary to fact if you already know she wasn’t born in the United States. Do you have as source that tells you definitively that the number of American-born citizens who speak English poorly is actually zero?
At the federal level, no. But 28 states do, and it’s English. The only state that has another official language is Hawai’i (with Hawai’ian being that languge, of course). Arizona is one of those states.
Discrimination is alive and well in Yuma, where 90% of the population speaks Spanish, yet it cannot be required that the City Attorney Glenn Gimbut be required to learn Spanish. The law requiring officeholders to speak English is from the 1910 Arizona statehood grant, but many Mexican and Mexican American people learn history from a different perspective than the anglos. And ENGLISH ONLY is a hotly disputed issue all over the land that was once Mexico and is now part of the U.S.
This reminded me of the CDL requirement, which was rescinded in 2007:
§391.11 of the FMCSR outlines the general qualifications for CMV drivers, including a
requirement that they be proficient in English:
…a person is qualified to drive a motor vehicle if he can read and speak the
English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand
highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official
inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records … §391.11(b)(2)
The ACLU argued it may violate Title 7 (discrimination due to race) and there was a Due Process and Equal Protection concern.
From wikipedia:
That cite doesn’t at all refute the claim that 90% of the population of Yuma speaks Spanish, John.
Is everyone else in the city government required to be proficient in Spanish? If not, that hardly seems fair.
So wait, are you saying that it is a fallacious argument to guess that the Jim Crow laws are racist unless I can find you proof that leggislators conspired to pass those laws for the sake of disenfranchising the black vote (for example) and therefore have no place in debate?
I can be convinced that its not racist and the recent revalation seems to indicate that it is not but I am pretty confortable including racism as a possible explanation for anything with a racist impact that happens in a Jim Crow state. You really can’t be taking the position that I can’t call something racism unless I have some sort of incontrovertible evidence that racism is present are you? Its as if you are simply tired of habving to defend the racists on your side and have decided to shift the burden of proof to make it appear that there are no racists on your side.
After 400 years of slavery, 100 years of Jim Crow and all the racist shit we’ve seen since then, I don’t think you can flatly rule out racism absent evidence.
The situation is occurring in San Luis, Arizona.
Alejandrina Cabrera hasn’t been elected to the City Council, the challenge is to her being on the ballot for the March election.
Candidate confirms she will appeal decision removing her from ballot
If the point is simply that the voters should be able to pick whoever they want, regardless of legislation presumptively to the contrary, no. Bricker didn’t limit his comment to language qualifications, though he may have meant to.
The other Quebec NDP MP whose French skills I heard being possibly insufficent is Tyrone Benskin. But as I’ve said, I haven’t heard about him in some time, and I don’t know if he decided to brush up on his French. That’s certainly possible.
And now I see that he actually has a relatively long CV. He doesn’t seem to be a random guy they pulled up from the street. He was actually somewhat notable even before being elected.
Funny note: some journalists appear to agree with me, since the journal article linked to at the bottom of this Wikipedia page is titled “Layton compte sur des candidats ministrables”. But I at first read this as “Layton compte sur des candidats misérables”.
Er, okay. But the point is that you probably wouldn’t forbid her from seeking the premiership of Quebec based on her insufficient English skills. You just wouldn’t vote for her. That’s how it should be, really. And of course, I’m quite sure that you wouldn’t vote for Marois even if her English skills were better than yours. Which I’m not expecting to happen, ever, but she may very well have improved since the last time this issue came up. Next election it will be an important issue at least for a segment of the electorate.
Now does this apply to unilingual anglophone Supreme Court justices as well? 
There is an Épreuve uniforme de français in French-language colleges, and from your link the English equivalent in English-language colleges.
A deaf American who learned American Sign Language probably did learn to read English at some point, but this will not help them understand spoken English. (Unless they also learned lip-reading, but as I understand it that’s not 100% effective anyway.) Now of course deafness is actually a disability, which may guarantee the right to some tools (sign language interpreter, written transcription, etc.) while not knowing the official language isn’t one.
As a matter of fact, I’d assume a citizen of the United States who doesn’t speak English to be a native-born citizen, ironically for John Mace’s reason: a naturalized citizen will be expected to demonstrate knowledge of English at some point during the process.
And which according to CNN stipulated that the officeholders be able to conduct public business in English without the use of interpreters.
And though the New Mexico constitution provides a special status for Spanish in a number of official actions or documents (e.g. proposed constitutional amendments must be published in both languages) it is not required to be used in everything official nor is it indistinctly usable in lieu of English, which is the sole legal language-of-record.
Then the voters have the right to vote accordingly.
Qualification for office should be determined by the voters, providing the candidate’s a citizen and of age.
FWIW, I think you’ll find that Spanish is co-official with English in New Mexico, and has been for many years.
ETA: I see thast JRDelirious addressed this,
I scanned the thread and didn’t see one issue addressed, though I may have missed it. America is supposed to be a melting pot, and no, I’m not being quaint here. The fact that this nation is such a draw for immigrants from so many different countries means that we have people speaking over 200 hundred languages. If we really want to keep the idea that these people are welcome and can become part of the fabric of America, we need to have a common denominator. If a city, town, or state embraces Langauge X (any language other than English), we really make that place inhospitable to people who don’t come from Country X. So, let’s say we allow official business in San Luis to be done in Spanish. Not only do mono-lingual native Americans now have to learn another language, but how about immigrants who come from Nigeria, Sweden, China, Thailand, Germany, do they now have to learn yet another language? Yes, they would. This is one of the reasons that a country should have an official language—and just about every one does save the U.S.
I think it is good that this issue reared its head in this fashion. Maybe it’ll get people to wake up and see the practical benefits to having both an official state language and national language.