Speaking English in America

Great Debates
81

Sorry, featherlou I misread your original post. My apologies. :o

However, two points in reply. First, if you separate the signs from the roads, then I would argue that bilingualism had zero effect on the cost of building the road, which supports my argument that you can’t assume that bilingualism doubles the cost of all federal programs. Its effect on costs will depend very much on the nature of the particular program.

Second, I would disagree that the federal policy of bilingualism requires bilingual road signs across Canada, since the vast majority of highways (including the Trans-Canada) are under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The federal government only has jurisdiction over roads in federal parks, military bases, the territories, and so on. New Brunswick is the only province that is officially bilingual, so there bilingual signs would be the result of a provincial decision, not federal.

Now, it may well be that the provincial highways departments prefer signage that can be understood regardless of language, but that seems to me more a safety concern than anything else - you want your road signs to be as easily understood as possible, by as many people as possible, to reduce the chance of accidents.

82

So my client, the translator and I arrived for my client to be examined for discovery by a fellow who is notorious for taking a great deal of time to establish very simple points. Well, he finally meet his match in my client.

She was a nice little old lady and respected elder who only spoke Cree. She had only been outside of her village once in her life, when she was flown south to visit a doctor. On the way to the doctor, she fell while on a public bus, causing the injury that led to the lawsuit.

The examination went something like this.

Lawyer: “What is your name?”

Translator: “Charlie XXXXXX”

Lawyer: “No, I want to know what her name is?”

The translator chats for a couple of minutes with my client.

Translator: “Oh, her name is XXXXX XXXXXXXX.”

Lawyer: “But that is not the name on her hospital records.”

The translator and the client have a five minute conversation.

Translator: “No. It’s not.”

Lawyer: “Then what is it?”

Translator: “What is what?”

Translator: “What is her name?”

Me: “Asked and answered.”

Lawyer: “Why is her name different from the name on the hospital records?”

Translator: “Because that is the name she was given for the nurses.”

Lawyer: “Who gave her that name?”

The translator and the client have another lengthy conversation, about ten minutes long. The lawyer is beginning to fume, and interrupts, demanding to know what they are talking about.

Translator: “She was telling me about her family and how they were given names by the government so that nurses could visit.”

Lawyer: “Why does it take so much talk to get an answer?”

Translator: “She has a big family.”

Lawyer: “Is the name on the hospital records the name the government gave her?”

For the first time, the conversation between the translator and my client is brief. The lawyer shows signs of hope that he might actually get my client to admit that her name is her name.

Translator: “She does not know. No one translated any papers for her.”

Things continue on in this vein for two hours, at which point we break for lunch.

After lunch, the lawyer comes in, sits down, and says that he would like to move on to what happened in the bus.

Lawyer: “What time was it when you got on the bus?”

The translator and my client start having another chat. The clearly frustrated lawyer interrupts after a couple of minutes.

Lawyer: “Don’t have a conversation. Just ask her what time she got on the bus, and tell me what she replies.”

The translation is made.

Translator: “She wants to know what a bus is.”

Lawyer: “Tell her.”

Translator: “I was, but you interrupted me, and demanded that I not talk with her.”

Lawyer: “I’m sorry. Please tell her what a bus is.”

Translator: “No, you tell her what a bus is, and I will translate.”

The lawyer then tries to describe a bus. It does not go well, for the lawyer keeps defining a bus in terms of things which are meaningless to my client. After two hours of trying to establish if my client was on the bus, the lawyer runs out of time.

Lawyer: “We will have to continue this another day.”

Me: “No. All your questions have been honestly answered to the best of my client’s ability. She can’t help it if you took four hours on two simple points.”

The lawyer storms out.

Fast forward a couple of months to a different examination for discovery in a different case with a different client, but being examined by the same lawyer. We enter, sit down, and I introduce everyone.

Me: “Are you aware that my client does not speak English? . . .”

83

Your reasoning is basically a slippery slope argument, and your conclusion- that if we allow driver’s license exams to be given in other languages, we will have to provide 100% of everything in every language- is scaremongering and does not follow logically from the court’s ruling. Driving a car and getting licensed to practice as an attorney are a world apart.

The court’s ruling that it was discrimination based on national origin was derived from the fact that the majority of the people adversely affected by the English-only law were in fact of extranational origin. According to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, laws without discriminatory intent that have discriminatory effects in practice are discriminatory. Stated intent doesn’t matter. Law with certain classifications, stated explicitly or occuring in practice, including national origin, are automatically subject to greater scrutiny by the courts.

No, it matters tremendously. The judiciary should and probably do recognize that perfect equality of the kind you refer to is near-impossible in practice (think of the varying degree of difficulty in driving instructors, for example). As long as, say, the Alabama DMV is making a reasonable effort to accomodate everyone equally, they have not violated the spirit of a law it is impossible to follow to the letter.

Passing a law requiring government services only be available in English, however, is most definitely inherently discriminatory in a nation with no official language and sizeable groups of citizens that speak languages other than English.

If you want to hear the reasoning the judges used, have a look at this. Some interesting points made in the ruling:

Non-English speaking drivers pose a threat to road safety because they can’t understand road signs.

-Alabama makes accomodations for illiterate English-speakers who want to get a driver’s license by administering the exam orally (oh my!). Obviously they cannot read the signs either, yet they are licensed.

It is too expensive to accomodate non-English speakers.

-Here I quote the ruling: “Trial evidence also established that the Department, prior to the English-only policy, had been able to use volunteer translators, and obtain exam translations at no cost.”

Alabama’s appeal did not challenge the ruling by the court on the invalidity of their defenses of road safety, increased administrative burden or burdensome expense; they challenged the ruling because they claim it violates the 11th Amendment and that the plaintiff has no right to sue.

-Alabama accepts Federal funding for their DMV. The Supreme Court has upheld Congress’ ability to attach conditions to acceptance of Federal funds, including, say, adherence to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I’m paraphrasing the ruling again here.

-fh

84

Re: foreign drivers, I am not proposing that they take a full drivers test before they can drive in the U.S.A., but some kind of exam to make sure they know the important universal stuff and that they can figure out the meaning of a wide variety of signs. It shouldn’t take more than an hour, which is a fair amount of time to spend for the right to drive in a foreign country.

I live in Texas too, and have a few Hispanic friends. A lot of non-English speakers use landmarks for directions, which I can imagine gets very confusing for some trips.

85

Reply to Badtz Maru:

So you plan a European Vacation, and all countries have reacted to the USA requirement to do a simple test of driving in English. You plan a circular route covering about the size of Texas. You take an exam of about an hour in England, luckily in English. All you face now are an exam in Holland in Dutch, and exam in Germany in German, an exam in France in French, and exam in Luxembourg in Luxembourgish, an exam in Italy in Italian, and an exam in Spain in Spanish. And you’ve covered an area smaller than Texas.

Seems simple to me. Enjoy your vacation.

86

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hazel-rah *

That handles the written test, now how about the driving test? The one where a guy/girl from the DMV goes for a drive with you to see if you can parallel park and what not.

Personally, regardless of cost, I would rather my tax dollars be spent on free english classes to all legal immigrants than to offer goverment services in the multitude of lanquages that are out there.

So if the law is overturned, we could offer those services in english only, as long as there is no law that says we must offer them in other lanquages, or that we must offer them in english only? Sounds like a plan.

I really don’t see how expecting immigrants to learn english is asking so much.

87

So who is advocating the contrary? Seems to me that the positions are:

  1. No tax-payer paid accomodations should be made for anyone who doesn’t speak/read English at a certain grade level, in any aspect of American life (be it ballots, driving tests, court proceedings, provision of health services etc.)

I don’t believe that anyone is seriously advocating this. Since: a. That would mean that English speaking American citizens who have a visual or hearing disability would not be allowed accomodations. b. Persons who have a reading disability or are illiterate would not be able to take driving tests etc.

  1. Anyone physically residing in the United States should have the right to tax payer paid transalations into their own language for any and all services/ tests etc.

I don’t believe that anyone here is seriously advocating this position, either.

Which leaves:

  1. Some accomodations should be made for the provision of **some ** tests/ services. The differences seem to be where to draw the line.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between being able to speak a language sufficiently to maneuver, and being able to read the same language sufficiently to take a test. Your average 2 year old can certainly answer questions (and ask a whole lot more), but cannot read at all (in most cases). For the record, in many areas, there are charitable organizations that specifically deal with helping immigrants acclimate. And, they are expected to learn English. In my town, a group called “Refugee Services” helps with various things. They have lists of interpreters for the more esoteric languages.

I have yet to see where the problem would lie in either allowing for an intrepreter (client paid) for esoteric languages, or having some alternate language formats for frequently requested languages. sheesh. When I call my credit card company for information I’m offered the information in Spanish or English.

As for “why should my tax dollars go for…” We certainly all have areas and issues where we believe our tax dollars could be better spent than currently are. But, before you dismiss the concept of offering a drivers’ license exam to be available in a different language, consider the fact that having a driver’s license greatly enhances the person’s ability to get a good job, and therefore not be on public services. So, even if the cost for having an interpreter there is $300 (and the individual cost per test for having a test available in another language would certainly be less than that), that’s probably very cost effective, if it gets the person and their family off of other public services.

88

Wring,

I don’t think anyone here is advocating that position, but some of us believe (or are afraid that) if it’s decided that Ms Sandoval’s civil rights were violated by the English only test, the above will be the result (or at least it would be the logical one).If its discrimination based on national origin not to offer the test in Spanish, then it has to also be discrimination not to offer it in Bantu. I suspect there are other ways to achieve the same result (say, making it a condition of receiving federal funds that accomodations be made} without making it a civil rights violation.

89

Watashi wa, Eigoo hanashi masen!!

I’m joking of course.

I think that it would be OK to give the tests in their native language but the driver should have to take a seperate test identifying each and every sign. They should be required to get the sign test 100% correct.

As well as completing a drivers test where they are required to abide by all of the signs and do all of the standard things too.

If someone could pass this then they would be a pretty safe driver. No worse than the average driver in America that is for sure.

90

Even though my last name is Martinez, I do not speak spanish, although i know a few words and phrases.

We get mail that is sometimes in spanish: credit card offers, phone cards, CD clubs, and charitable solicitations. We will also get people calling us speaking spanish, but they all seem to understand the magic words:
“can i take a message?”.

For no reason, some people apparently thinks that since my dad has been in Indiana for 30+ years, that he does not know much english. Sometimes people are surprised to find out that I am Mexican, since i have a fair complexion. Sometimes somebody will assume that I am the adopted one, since there is not that much resemblance betweeen Jilliana and me.

I have gotten the opportunity to rip this guy a new one when he started babbling about spics and wetbacks, he will not ever try that again!