Wow… I have to remind myself of all the the people who have spent time in the military defending your right to post this stuff. There are plenty of people who can’t pass standardized tests, that doesn’t make then no longer American.
There already is a perfectly suitable qualification. The fact that the person is American citizen.
I don’t have figures for literacy rates among minority groups, but that aside, your proposal paints with a very large brush and would disenfranchise a lot of people. I knew a lot of guys in the military (mostly white) who were largely illiterate, and to whom “civics” likely meant a parking lot full of Hondas. They weren’t stupid, just uneducated. A large number were unable to pass the required exams for advancement and spent their entire first hitch at the E-3 level. Should their votes be denied them? What would probably happen with folks like that is that they likely wouldn’t bother to attempt to go through the process at all. Why unnecessarily expose yourself to embarrassment?
Who would examine these tests for bias? The state? Do you really think that wouldn’t be subject to manipulation by local pols? The fed? Congress can’t get the simplest legislation passed; can you imagine the war over something like this and the blow-back at the state level? I would think this would be immediately challenged and rise to SCOTUS level, where it would rightly be shot down as a violation of constitutional rights.
If you choose to live here, I would think that learning English is critically important–much as I would assume that if I chose to live in Russia, learning Russian would be critically important, and a major priority.
You are, as many other posters here, ludicrously wrong about your assumptions about me. I recently spent three years (2009-11) working 20 hrs/week teaching English to immigrant Asian students. They all, with no exceptions, realized how important it was to learn English if they wished to be able to function here. and they all became highly competent in English. Of course, Asian cultures do place a very high value on education and work ethic.
I do agree parenthetically with your point that learning English may not seem important to some immigrants, especially given the existence of major urban enclaves where English is barely spoken at all.
My father-in-law is a Chinese immigrant who reads several Chinese-language newspapers every day (that are published in America). He also owned three Chinese restaurants before he retired, earning enough money to put five children through college (including my wife). He is now 80 years old and retired. He is extremely well-informed. Although his English is not very good, there is no way you can tell me he is either lazy or stupid, or that he is not deserving of the vote.
It really doesn’t matter what you think. Immigrants’ lives are hard enough. They don’t need some armchair philosopher setting their priorities for them.
Speaking as a member of an Asian culture, I’ll thank you to keep the model minority crap. And as for your breadth of experience, it obviously isn’t broad enough.
And this is where you fail. There are no significant “enclaves” where learning English isn’t important to the people who live there. They are all just struggling to get along however they can. To the extent that they are able to fit in learning English to the best of their abilities, they do so. They fit in learning English to the extent that they are able to. There are not large numbers of people who are not learning English because they are insufficiently motivated to learn English. Your proposal to disenfranchise them will do nothing but disenfranchise them.
A free education to well beyond the eighth-grade level is readily available to not only all Americans, but all residents. I don’t know the military’s criteria for admission, but I doubt they would accept anyone without at least a grade-school education.
(Let me ask you this: would you let a high-school freshman vote? No? Presumably, he has at least an eighth-grade education. Then you are excluding him on the arbitrary basis of his chronological (not mental or emotional) age.)
I would submit that if you were “not stupid, just uneducated,” and there was a voting qualification test that you presently couldn’t pass, and that you did wish to be able to vote, you would make whatever effort was necessary to obtain enough education to pass the test. Certainly, if you were in the military, you would be facing much greater challenges than that on a daily basis.
I repeat that I am perfectly comfortable with disfranchising anyone without at least eighth-grade reading comprehension skills. I know that’s mean.
Is a free education available to someone who comes to the United States as an adult? I think you’ll find that many of the people in the United States who have poor English skills are ones who came here as adults. Children of immigrants who are in school show few problems in learning English.
And even if it’s free, what about if that adult has to work full time (or more) to pay his or her bills?
Yes, 15-year-olds are somewhat arbitrarily excluded from voting based on their chronological (not mental or emotional) age. It’s not because of what level of school they have completed.
It’s not a bad idea because it is mean, it is a bad idea because it is dangerous. Once you give the goverment the power to exclude voters based on a test, do you think it will not be abused for political ends?
And this is where you fail. I never said that learning English wasn’t important to those who live in such enclaves; I said that it may not seem to be important and–I’ll spell it out for you–the ability to go about one’s everyday life without having to speak English (by staying within those enclaves) may serve to dampen any drive/imperative to learn English.
This is obvious. Languages are learned fastest in an immersion environment. Conversely, the less daily exposure to the new language, the slower the learning.
While you may dislike my characterization of Asian cultures as valuing education and having a strong work ethic (
), it’s the truth. The diligence of my students and the outcomes they achieved pretty much demonstrates that it is quite possible to become competent, if not fluent, in English in a short period of time, if you want to.
Well, there really isn’t written grammar, per se. Grammar is a function of speech. Writing is a method of recording speech. So when we write down what we say, we’re writing down the grammar we use when we say it. But without writing, we would still have grammar.
Punctuation, on the other hand, is purely an artifact of writing. We don’t “speak” punctuation, although some punctuation is used to indicate pacing or tone of voice. But pacing and tone of voice are self-evidently not parts of grammar. If someone speaks too fast, we don’t say he’s being ungrammatical. If you wanted to teach someone how to speak (not read) a language, you could do so successfully without ever mentioning punctuation.
You’ve missed my point entirely. You say that one typo in your post doesn’t demonstrate inability to read and write at an eighth grade level. Now, in the real world, I agree entirely. But my point was that, if I’m in charge of deciding who does and does not get to vote, and I decide that making one typo is grounds to bar you from voting, you have no recourse against my decision, because I’ve already disenfranchised you. It’s an example (and not particularly facetious: if you look at the history of similar laws, you’ll find they’re full of similarly egregious manipulations) of why your idea is a very, very bad idea. While I’m happy to take you at your word that you personally have no intent to exclude specific groups of voters with this proposal, you would be handing people who do have that intent a very powerful tool to enact their prejudices into law. Which I find to be a much more dangerous proposition than letting dumb people vote.
Virtually any government power can be abused, and often is. I don’t see how that extends to “we shouldn’t give the government this power.”
The government qualifies voters all the time–it’s called voter registration, along with certain qualifications such as being a citizen, not being a convicted felon, etc. So you could definitely say that the government already has the power to exclude certain people from voting.
Do I think a test such as the one I am proposing would be abused for political ends? No, in fact, because I am sure it would be examined under a microscope for any hint of bias. Certainly, other kinds of widely-administered tests (such as the SAT, written driver’s license tests, etc.) already are subjected to such scrutiny.
Nor are all accounts of them in English-language media vetted for accuracy. Plenty of people are roughly fluent in English (or at least know it as their native and only tongue) but woefully misinformed.
I know plenty of Asian immigrants who, although extremely intelligent and hardworking, never did learn more than rudimentary English. Because of connections through my in-laws. Just go to Chinatown in any large city and you can meet some too.
I get what you’re saying, which is that anyone deprived of the vote, they feel, unfairly is stripped of recourse by having been disfranchised. That would only be true if there were no courts and no legal system. In point of fact, one need not be a registered voter to sue for one’s civil rights. One need not even be a citizen.
So I don’t see how voter qualification would automatically lead to abuse, discrimination, and exclusion of minority groups. Given that saying who can or can’t vote is a function of the executive branch of government, the judicial branch exists precisely to address the fears you’ve stated.
I certainly acknowledge that similar proposals in the past have been tools of disfranchisement and discrimination. I also don’t see how that’s relevant. Our society takes a much dimmer view of such things than it did in the past. I think we can be and are much fairer than we used to be.
By the way, if a potential voter failed the voter qualification test, he should be afforded the opportunity to take community classes on the relevant subject(s) at no cost.
I think we should just eliminate birthright citizenship, and solve all our problems about uninformed voters in this manner: Any legal resident of the United States, upon reaching his 18th birthday, is given the opportunity to go to the local municipal building, pass a civics test, take an oath of allegiance, and thereby become a certified citizen and voter for the rest of his life.
I’ve met many as well. But if they were extremely intelligent and hardworking, I didn’t see what would have prevented them from learning English. In fact, I’ve puzzled over this on occasion. One possible explanation is a combination of factors: a) the existence of insular, native-language-speaking communities (“Chinatowns”) and b) the next generation(s) being fluent in English and handling for their elders some of the thornier problems that arise from lack of English skills.
The history of Asian immigration does provide another clue. Until quite recently, Asian immigrants were, unlike European immigrants, never expected to become members of American society. In fact, they were explicitly told in a number of ways that they were and were expected to remain foreigners. So there would have been much less opportunity or incentive for Asian immigrants to learn English, and this would have persisted until just a couple of generations ago.
I’m sorry, but I have to abide by the test guidelines, and “disfranchise” is not an approved spelling. For full credit you’d have had to use “disenfranchise.” I am aware that often you people find these sorts of tests to be unfair, but the grading guidelines are made freely available on our website, and honestly, the test really isn’t that difficult. You’re more than welcome to try again next time, but this year’s test is officially a fail, I’m afraid. No, I’m sorry, I simply don’t have time to have an argument with you about spelling. If you have a problem, please take it up with the state board of elections. They respond to all inquiries by mail or email within 7 business days.
Next, please.
Why do you want to restrict voting anyway? Are you afraid they won’t vote the right way? What is the big threat from voters who can’t speak english?
I wouldn’t call it mean. I’d call it asinine. English reading skills are not necessary for being informed enough to vote intelligently. Immigrants aside, there are native speakers of English who can’t pass a written test. That doesn’t mean they can’t gather knowledge and make reasonable judgments so as to vote in a responsible manner. Hell, I would be quite comfortable with disenfranchising anyone who needs to have that pointed out to them – it suggests to me they haven’t given the matter careful thought.