Tim James "Language" Ad

[Uncayimmy]

Language is not a racial marker.

Cool. So, you're saying that it would be legal for apartments to deny leases to anyone who speaks Spanish?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Like you yourself have said, you've had to make accommodations. They may not have been severe, but they were accommodations. Like you yourself said, some employers specify that you need a driver's license. You're impeding on an individual's ability to get around. I've been through Alabama - there are parts where it's not much different than my state, in which having a car is a significant advantage for anyone who has a job. Some people cannot afford to take taxis, or have their groceries delivered to their house.

Driving is a privilege and a convenience - don't forget that. About 51% of Americans have a one-way commute of 10 miles or less. That's well within easy biking range. Public transportation is widely available. That it is more convenient to drive is not in dispute, but you're acting like not having a car is some horrible thing for everyone. It's not.

I live in a neighboring state where I frequently encounter people who only speak Spanish. Should they not move to his state if they so choose?

Here's another option.

Also - when I think about it, if this were proposed through some other sort of legislation, I wouldn't be so angry. It's the fact that this man is campaigning on the concept of English-speaking Americans being a privileged class. He's clearly appealing to the idea that English is the only language we should speak in this country. Such closed-minded thinking irks me, as both of my grandparents were legal immigrants who served in the war, one of whom had a fairly poor grasp of advanced English and would most likely fail a driver's test if given to him in English.

Well, I don't disagree that he's playing into resentment of non-English speaking people, but you misrepresent the situation. Nobody is saying that English is the "only language we should speak." People can speak multiple languages. When I was in school, it was mandatory to learn another language.

What he's arguing is that the government should only spend resources to operate in one language, and I don't have a fundamental problem with that. It's by far the more efficient way to run the government. It puts everyone on equal footing. Catering to just some languages still brings up all the arguments you brought up. In other words, if you speak Hungarian, you're screwed (according to you). But, hey, if you can get enough Hungarians to come here, then maybe you'll get your own test, too. Until then, better learn English. Or Spanish. Or French.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Some people cannot afford to take taxis, or have their groceries delivered to their house.

I missed that the first time round - just as you must have missed, before that, my pointing out that I can afford taxis and delivery charges because I don't pay to fuel, insure and park my own car. I don't pay for oil top-ups, new tyres, spark plugs and wipers, replacing vandalised mirrors, insurance excess, parking fines and speeding fines, anti-freeze, replacement lightbulbs and fanbelts and hubcaps, turtle wax, carwashes, dangly smelly things...and I'm sure car owners can think of some expenses I've missed.

Some people can't afford to drive. Are they 'economic cripples'?

 

[Philosaur]

What do you mean by you only have to have the test translated "once" in each language? Do you think they don't ever change the tests? I would think they would provide study guides and sample questions in these other languages as well.

This might be a valid point. It's not just a matter of translating the test once per language, it's a matter of maintaining all of the translated versions. But I can't see there being *that* much maintenance on driving tests. (Argument from incredulity noted).

Personally, I believe that it's a violation of the 14th amendment to provide services in any other language besides English unless you also provide services in every other language the government encounters. Otherwise you are creating privileged groups.

This is a false dichotomy--all or nothing. Lots of laws include clauses for "reasonable accomodation". Hotels have to include wheelchair ramps at entrances and exits, and put braille on elevator numbers, but why don't they also have to include a hydraulic lift to help the 800 lb. man get around their premises? It's not because the government is discriminating against him, it's because it falls outside the "reasonable accommodation" clause. If the Alabama state government provides translations in Spanish and Vietnamese (two languages prominent in the region), then it might be enough to capture a large portion of the non-English speaking drivers. I'm not necessarily saying they should, just that this particular argument is fallacious.

USA law and court rulings are written in English, and you can't effectively translate them because many words have specific meanings. There's often a little something lost in the translation.

Seriously? You think that in a place and time where people routinely translate technical, scientific, and artistic texts into languages from all over the planet, that we couldn't manage to translate a state driver's test?

That whole thing about something being lost in translation--while true--is overblown thanks to myths like the Eskimos-have-100-words-for-snow crap. I used to do translation and interpreting in the military. Yes, it's sometimes hard, but it's not impossible.

No. As I said, it needs to be either one language or every language the government encounters. Furthermore, English is a requirement to understanding the laws of this nation. Try filing a lawsuit or introducing a law in another language.

For the most part, common sense and cultural osmosis will tell you what's allowed and what's forbidden. I don't know about you, but if I had to file a lawsuit or really delve into the intricacies of law, I'd get a lawyer.

Are you really trying to equate passing a driving test with introducing legislation?

A person who does not learn driving laws is incapable of pasing the exam and driving a car. Same for those who cannot read. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

I can *prove* to you that it's possible to learn the laws of driving in the state of Alabama without understanding English--or knowing how to read.

The simple fact of the matter is that if enough non-English speaking citizens of Alabama make enough noise (and it would be quite a cacophony), the politicians of the state would be forced to deal with it. The government serves the citizens.

I disagree with "severely crippled" but whatever. I'd say somebody who can't speak or write English is more crippled in the mob market than somebody who has to rely on public transportation or foot power. Driving is a convenience.

I agree that not speaking English would make it harder to get a job than not driving would. But I also wonder how many people here live in large urban areas where public transportation is ubiquitous. Rural Alabama (or hell, the city of Mobile, where I live) has crap for public transportation. In places like this, not driving a car is a serious disadvantage.

 

[Philosaur]

Aside from it being two words, no - as I said, and you glossed over, "It never stopped me getting anywhere". So, not 'crippled', 'disabled' or even 'severely impeded'. Just different. I'm sure it's tempting to imagine you're normal, and different = wrong in some way, especially when you're in a majority. But your being unable to imagine a life without a car doesn't make those of us who manage it 'disabled'.

Nobody is making value judgments about people who don't drive cars. You--by equivocating on the use of the word "crippled"--turned the discussion toward physical disability, and then proceeded to defend your "different" way of life--as if you yourself are in a wheelchair. Your hyper-sensitivity is duly noted.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Seriously? You think that in a place and time where people routinely translate technical, scientific, and artistic texts into languages from all over the planet, that we couldn't manage to translate a state driver's test?

That whole thing about something being lost in translation--while true--is overblown thanks to myths like the Eskimos-have-100-words-for-snow crap. I used to do translation and interpreting in the military. Yes, it's sometimes hard, but it's not impossible.

The point about translations is not about the test. It's to establish that you need an understanding of English to understand how the government and its laws work. The government conducts its business in English (laws, court rulings, etc). This establishes the supremacy of English.

This is a false dichotomy--all or nothing. Lots of laws include clauses for "reasonable accomodation". Hotels have to include wheelchair ramps at entrances and exits, and put braille on elevator numbers, but why don't they also have to include a hydraulic lift to help the 800 lb. man get around their premises? It's not because the government is discriminating against him, it's because it falls outside the "reasonable accommodation" clause. If the Alabama state government provides translations in Spanish and Vietnamese (two languages prominent in the region), then it might be enough to capture a large portion of the non-English speaking drivers. I'm not necessarily saying they should, just that this particular argument is fallacious.

It's only a false dichotomy if there is no dichotomy. You are comparing the ADA with the constitution. The ADA, a legislative act, has explicit language regarding reasonable accommodations. The 14th amendment doesn't, so your analogy fails.

For the most part, common sense and cultural osmosis will tell you what's allowed and what's forbidden. I don't know about you, but if I had to file a lawsuit or really delve into the intricacies of law, I'd get a lawyer.

And that lawyer would have to understand and be able to use English, thus furthering my point about the inherent supremacy of English.

Are you really trying to equate passing a driving test with introducing legislation?

Nope.

I can *prove* to you that it's possible to learn the laws of driving in the state of Alabama without understanding English--or knowing how to read.

I'm sure you could. Doesn't matter much if you can't pass the test.

The simple fact of the matter is that if enough non-English speaking citizens of Alabama make enough noise (and it would be quite a cacophony), the politicians of the state would be forced to deal with it. The government serves the citizens.

And the citizens serve the government. It's all done within the framework of the constitution. All the noise in the world won't matter if it's unconstitutional.

I agree that not speaking English would make it harder to get a job than not driving would. But I also wonder how many people here live in large urban areas where public transportation is ubiquitous. Rural Alabama (or hell, the city of Mobile, where I live) has crap for public transportation. In places like this, not driving a car is a serious disadvantage.

So don't live there. Driving is not a right. It's a privilege and a convenience. I'm not arguing that driving has significant advantages. I'm just arguing that it's irrelevant to the argument.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm sure you could. Doesn't matter much if you can't pass the test.

Driving I don't care so much about, but voting, that's where we need a test! Especially in Alabama . . .

By the by, I'm not responding to the moot point of the failed gubernatorial candidate's ad because it is just that, a moot point.

 

[KingMerv00]

I disagree but acknowledge your expertise in this field and look forward to being shown what I am missing.

If you read your link closely, the quote you give is dicta, not standing precedent. Your case was decided on different grounds. Dicta from anyone but the Supreme Court isn't worth much.

Here is a case that deals more directly with the issue:

Language, by itself, does not identify members of a suspect class.

Here is another case.

After a light bit of searching, it seems the issue has never made it to the Supreme Court so there is no absolute standard. Barring evidence, I stand by my opinion that non-English speakers have not been set aside as a protected class...yet.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If you read your link closely, the quote you give is dicta, not standing precedent. Your case was decided on different grounds. Dicta from anyone but the Supreme Court isn't worth much.

Here is a case that deals more directly with the issue:



Here is another case.

After a light bit of searching, it seems the issue has never made it to the Supreme Court so there is no absolute standard. Barring evidence, I stand by my opinion that non-English speakers have not been set aside as a protected class...yet.

Thanks. What do you think would happen if an apartment complex decided they would not rent to anyone who spoke Spanish? I'm not saying incapable of speaking English. Simply being able to speak Spanish. They would lose bi-lingual "non-Hispanic whites" along with a whole bunch of Hispanics. Would that be kosher?

 

[Architect]

What do you mean by you only have to have the test translated "once" in each language? Do you think they don't ever change the tests? I would think they would provide study guides and sample questions in these other languages as well.

Seems to work fine for the Welsh.

 

[Michael Redman]

Personally, I believe that it's a violation of the 14th amendment to provide services in any other language besides English unless you also provide services in every other language the government encounters. Otherwise you are creating privileged groups.

If it is a problem to favor Spanish and Vietnamese over Italian and Farsi, then it is a problem to favor English over Spanish and Vietnamese.

You can certainly make many argument as to why anyone living in this country is going to be better off speaking English, but the fact that it is more difficult to get by speaking only Spanish is not a valid reason not to translate a driving test into Spanish.

 

[KingMerv00]

Thanks. What do you think would happen if an apartment complex decided they would not rent to anyone who spoke Spanish? I'm not saying incapable of speaking English. Simply being able to speak Spanish. They would lose bi-lingual "non-Hispanic whites" along with a whole bunch of Hispanics. Would that be kosher?

There are a few answers to this:

1) Do I PERSONALLY find it kosher? No.

2) Would federal law find it kosher? Probably.

3) Would state law find it kosher? Depends on state law. States are allowed to grant protections in excess of the Constitution if they so wish. For example, a dozen or so states protect homosexuals from housing descrimination but the feds do not.

 

[Uncayimmy]

If it is a problem to favor Spanish and Vietnamese over Italian and Farsi, then it is a problem to favor English over Spanish and Vietnamese.

No, it's not. I went to great pains to address this. Language is necessary to run a government. We have centuries of laws, court decisions, and countless government documents written in English. So, either we choose one or translate into every language we encounter. The problem with the latter is that you simply cannot translate things with 100% accuracy.

Now, that's not a big deal in a novel or an instruction manual. It's a big deal when it comes to contracts. It's a huge deal when it comes to laws and court decisions. Cases make it very high in the courts based solely on what lawyers/judges believe the words mean.

Our system of law depends heavily on legal definitions of terms codified in legislation and/or interpreted by the courts. KingMerv referred to "suspect class" which has a particular meaning for which other languages have no equivalent. You can only understand it if you fully understand countless court decisions written in English.

Many of our terms are based on English (read as England) common law (common law is basically court decisions). Court decisions go back to how England decided their laws because that was the base of knowledge for the constitution. We're talking about literally millions of pages laws and decisions written in English.

It is simply not possible translate all of this in a way that would result in the same legal landscape we have now. It can be interpreted in a way to give somebody a good understanding, but those translations can't be binding for obvious reasons: It's not what the law or courts said.

Therefore, English is the de facto official language of the USA. It is therefore not unequal protection to operate accordingly.

You can certainly make many argument as to why anyone living in this country is going to be better off speaking English, but the fact that it is more difficult to get by speaking only Spanish is not a valid reason not to translate a driving test into Spanish.

That's not my argument. My argument is that it gives preferential treatment to some people at the exclusion of others (there is no Hungarian version of the test). Right now the courts have not officially ruled one way or another. I argue that in practice not offering all languages discriminates against the unsupported languages based on nationality. Really, virtually nobody learns Hungarian unless you're raised in Hungary.

As I pointed out elsewhere, look at it from the other side. You're not allowed to discriminate in housing based on nationality. Could an apartment complex refuse to rent to anyone who spoke Hungarian? I say no because in practice the effect would be to group people by nationality.

Well, if you refuse to give driving tests in Hungarian but give it in Spanish, French and Japanese, how is that not creating different classes? The solution is to make English the common denominator because, as I explained, it's the de facto official language of government.

 

[Philosaur]

The point about translations is not about the test. It's to establish that you need an understanding of English to understand how the government and its laws work.

Not to be annoyingly contradictory, but--NO. You do *not* have to speak or understand English to understand how the government or our laws work. This is just silly.

The government conducts its business in English (laws, court rulings, etc). This establishes the supremacy of English.

Patently false. American courts regularly employ interpreters specifically so that non-English speakers do not have their 14th Amendment rights trampled.

It's only a false dichotomy if there is no dichotomy. You are comparing the ADA with the constitution. The ADA, a legislative act, has explicit language regarding reasonable accommodations. The 14th amendment doesn't, so your analogy fails.

I wasn't making an analogy. The ADA is a direct outgrowth from the 14th Amendment--a way of more clearly defining 14th Amendment principles for the purpose of implementing them.

And that lawyer would have to understand and be able to use English, thus furthering my point about the inherent supremacy of English.

You made no point earlier, so this furthers nothing.

I'm sure you could. Doesn't matter much if you can't pass the test.

But the test is there to disallow those who don't know the technique and laws of driving, not to disallow non-English speakers. Anyway, pointing to the status quo is no defense of the status quo.

And the citizens serve the government.

This is shamefully wrong. American citizens serve the country, not the government.

It's all done within the framework of the constitution. All the noise in the world won't matter if it's unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment only says that the government will not abridge the rights of any citizen. It says nothing about the supremacy of English. In any event, your argument that English is inherently supreme just makes for one giant privileged group of English speakers--and does nothing to support the 14th Amendment.

So don't live there.

Yeah, it'll be great when these non-drivers start trying to pile all their furniture onto the bus so they can move somewhere like Chicago.

Driving is not a right. It's a privilege and a convenience. I'm not arguing that driving has significant advantages. I'm just arguing that it's irrelevant to the argument.

I'm not arguing that the state *should* print all drivers tests in multiple languages. I'm simply pointing out that your arguments supporting a single language test don't work.

 

[Uncayimmy]

There are a few answers to this:

1) Do I PERSONALLY find it kosher? No.

2) Would federal law find it kosher? Probably.

3) Would state law find it kosher? Depends on state law. States are allowed to grant protections in excess of the Constitution if they so wish. For example, a dozen or so states protect homosexuals from housing descrimination but the feds do not.

According to the EEOC:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/national-origin.html#VC

Title VII permits employers to adopt English-only rules under certain circumstances. As with any other workplace policy, an English-only rule must be adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons. An English-only rule would be unlawful if it were adopted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of national origin. Likewise, a policy that prohibits some but not all of the foreign languages spoken in a workplace, such as a no-Navajo rule, would be unlawful.

I'm not arguing that what I'm saying is clear cut or settled. I just believe there's a reasonable case to be made.

 

[Philosaur]

No, it's not. I went to great pains to address this. Language is necessary to run a government. We have centuries of laws, court decisions, and countless government documents written in English. So, either we choose one or translate into every language we encounter. The problem with the latter is that you simply cannot translate things with 100% accuracy.

Now, that's not a big deal in a novel or an instruction manual. It's a big deal when it comes to contracts. It's a huge deal when it comes to laws and court decisions. Cases make it very high in the courts based solely on what lawyers/judges believe the words mean.

Our system of law depends heavily on legal definitions of terms codified in legislation and/or interpreted by the courts. KingMerv referred to "suspect class" which has a particular meaning for which other languages have no equivalent. You can only understand it if you fully understand countless court decisions written in English.

Many of our terms are based on English (read as England) common law (common law is basically court decisions). Court decisions go back to how England decided their laws because that was the base of knowledge for the constitution. We're talking about literally millions of pages laws and decisions written in English.

It is simply not possible translate all of this in a way that would result in the same legal landscape we have now. It can be interpreted in a way to give somebody a good understanding, but those translations can't be binding for obvious reasons: It's not what the law or courts said.

Therefore, English is the de facto official language of the USA. It is therefore not unequal protection to operate accordingly.

Two points:

First, the English we speak today is practically a different language that the English spoken when British common law was codified.

Second, considering how much Latin there is in American law, it's amazing anything ever gets done! I mean, how can *anyone* know what habeas corpus or modus operandi means? It will forever be a mystery because these complex legal terms can't be translated in such a way that our simple English-speaking minds could grasp...

 

[KingMerv00]

According to the EEOC:

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/national-origin.html#VC

I'm not arguing that what I'm saying is clear cut or settled. I just believe there's a reasonable case to be made.

Employment discrimination is based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Housing discrimination is based on the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Are they fully consistent with one another? Of course not, they were both written by Congress.

 

[Philosaur]

By the way, UncaYimmy, I just read the post from your sig--VERY funny (especially the rorylee quote).

 

[Uncayimmy]

Not to be annoyingly contradictory, but--NO. You do *not* have to speak or understand English to understand how the government or our laws work. This is just silly.

Well, you are being annoyingly contradictory because you're not offering anything beyond an assertion.

Patently false. American courts regularly employ interpreters specifically so that non-English speakers do not have their 14th Amendment rights trampled.

Show me binding court decisions in an language other than English. Do you have evidence that not providing translators would be a violation of the 14th Amendment?

I wasn't making an analogy. The ADA is a direct outgrowth from the 14th Amendment--a way of more clearly defining 14th Amendment principles for the purpose of implementing them.

The ADA is not an "outgrowth" of an amendment. What makes you say that? It's a statute, and it can be repealed at will.

But the test is there to disallow those who don't know the technique and laws of driving, not to disallow non-English speakers. Anyway, pointing to the status quo is no defense of the status quo.

Yeh, I have no idea where you're going with this. Your point about teaching the laws of the road in a language other than English is irrelevant anyway.

This is shamefully wrong. American citizens serve the country, not the government.

Do you want to get into a philosophical debate about civics? The point is that people are expected to obey the laws the laws and pay to operate it. This goes from the country down to the smallest municipal districts. It's a two-way street. The government is not Wal Mart.

It's not unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment only says that the government will not abridge the rights of any citizen. It says nothing about the supremacy of English. In any event, your argument that English is inherently supreme just makes for one giant privileged group of English speakers--and does nothing to support the 14th Amendment.

Sounds to me like you don't really understand the 14th Amendment. It binds the government to providing equal protection. Creating preferred classes is unequal protection - this is undeniable.

The only thing we're debating is whether giving tests in some non-English languages but not in others would create preferred classes. I argue that it has the net effect of dividing people up by national origin. The remedies are providing tests in all languages or just English.

Suppose that a jurisdiction in Arizona decides to offer some business license tests in only Spanish. Constitutional?

Yeah, it'll be great when these non-drivers start trying to pile all their furniture onto the bus so they can move somewhere like Chicago.

Just like all those people who speak languages for which there is no test, right? Why aren't you concerned about them?

I'm not arguing that the state *should* print all drivers tests in multiple languages. I'm simply pointing out that your arguments supporting a single language test don't work.

You're actually just asserting with no reasoning.

 

[Michael Redman]

No, it's not. I went to great pains to address this.

I understand. But I don't agree.

That's not my argument. My argument is that it gives preferential treatment to some people at the exclusion of others (there is no Hungarian version of the test). Right now the courts have not officially ruled one way or another. I argue that in practice not offering all languages discriminates against the unsupported languages based on nationality. Really, virtually nobody learns Hungarian unless you're raised in Hungary.

Yes, it does discriminate. In a rational, necessary way.

It is totally reasonable to offer tests in Spanish, if that helps a significant minority of your citizens, and not offer tests in Hungarian, if that would help virtually no one.

It is exactly as reasonable as your argument that treating English preferentially is not unacceptably discriminatory, and for exactly the same reason.