Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Arizona court forces potential candidate off of city council ballot because her English isn't good enough, setting a dangerous precedent that may leave the entirety of the south ungoverned   (news.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 412
    More: Followup, Arizona Supreme Court, Chief Justice of the United States, trial court, South Park, same-sex marriages, Alejandrina Cabrera, sex scandals, iReports  
•       •       •

6535 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:53 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



412 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-09 01:43:00 PM  
What is probabaly scaring people is the sense of history.

Back in the 1800's, Americans immagrated into Mexico. They grew strong enough and eventually they got tired of being Mexicans and revolted, breaking away what became known as Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, California (and whatever others that I may have missed).

If this lady can get elected regardless of her ability to speak English, it would signal that the Spanish speaking populace has grown strong enough to worry about history repeating itself
 
2012-02-09 01:44:00 PM  

JesseL: robbiex0r: Is there any reason to define an official language?

Maybe to avoid confusion, reduce paperwork and overhead, promote solidarity, and eliminate the mechanisms that tend to leave minority ethnic groups marginalized and insular?


I'm fine with that rationale. I would prefer that there be one language for legal documents in order to avoid ambiguities of interpretation. I would also have no problem with the official language for the minutes of government be a single language.

I don't see why it would violate the spirit of this standard, however, to allow her to conduct her business through a qualified translator. So long as we're not writing laws in Spanish or conducting council business in Spanish, I just don't see the harm.

At worst, she's ineffective at her job. That's fine: we have a lot of ineffective politicians in this land. I think that it ought to be up to her constituents to decide whether or not they want her in office, regardless of whether she's be any good at what she's supposed to do.

As a general rule, I prefer to minimize the restrictions that we put on office-holders since I don't think that the government should be invested in the business of filtering out who the people should be allowed to vote for. As I said before, if you want to run a goat, then run a goat!
 
2012-02-09 01:44:09 PM  

Teen Wolf Blitzer: How lilly white and racist do you have to be to consider this a "brown person"??

[chzdailywhat.files.wordpress.com image 500x361]


I think Arizona adheres to the one-drop rule.
 
2012-02-09 01:44:34 PM  

Pincy: oren0: This isn't a matter of English that "isn't perfect". The last link about this had a video of her testimony. When asked "where did you go to high school" three times, her answers were yes, 1983, and 1987. Seriously, go watch the video. I suspect that her level of spoken English is about equal to a 5-year-old native speaker, and she also failed a written proficiency test. This is someone who needs to read, write, and understand complicated legal language in English. This one is a no-brainer.

There are plenty of English-speaking people who can answer the question about high school but can't understand "complicated legal language". That's what the city's attorney is for. So unless you are going to make every elected official prove that they can understand "complicated legal language" then this argument doesn't really hold water.


Is the city attorney required to speak Spanish? If not, now there are two barriers between her and the law rather than one for an English speaker. Legal matters are complicated enough without adding a language barrier. If she needs a translator between her and the attorney, should the city pay for it?
 
2012-02-09 01:44:53 PM  
Wha tha hail yoo tawkin' bout, Subby boah? Down hyar in tha South we talk right fine Amurcan. You mus be one them farkn' yankees what comes down hyar tellin' us all bout how thangs is better whar you once lived but don wanna go back to fer sum reason.
 
2012-02-09 01:45:16 PM  

NkThrasher: Bookycrisp: Those arguing about votes choosing not the government: There are rules set up, by the government, about who can run for different offices (president must be natural citizen, 35 years old minimum, etc..). Arizona has the law set up back in 1910 that government officials must be able to speak English.

And we're contending that the law from 1910 is producing a filter towards those seeking public office that doesn't need to exist and can potentially serve as an arbitrary method for removing people from ballots, giving it no true advantage and a potentially really bad disadvantage. Requiring public business to be done in English is fine, but doesn't need to be a barrier to getting on a ballot. If someone is on a ballot and can't speak enough of the language to perform the duties of the office, then they either won't get elected, or they will and won't be any worse off than many other elected officials that do nothing of import.


Do you think any performance requirement is capricious and arbitrary, or just language?

What are your thoughts on felons being prohibited from holding office? People not from the state? The deceased? All of those laws are on the books in various states (and usually for a reason). Are they likewise unethical?

As to Arizona, if they don't like the law, there's a mechanism to change it. State constitutions can be modified as well.
 
2012-02-09 01:45:29 PM  
I pity the next mute that attempt to run for office. Well, I mean, I pity the next non white mute anyway, because whitey is fine. We just can't have no n_ggers in office or none of them farkin fence jumpers amirite?
 
2012-02-09 01:47:42 PM  

Pincy: JesseL: robbiex0r: Is there any reason to define an official language?

Maybe to avoid confusion, reduce paperwork and overhead, promote solidarity, and eliminate the mechanisms that tend to leave minority ethnic groups marginalized and insular?

Farking how does Switzerland do it?


By having four national languages, and by passing a law that recognizes three of them to be the official languages of the national government.

Plus, everybody speaks English, as well.
 
2012-02-09 01:48:05 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do:

Again, what difference does that make? In both cases, the person requires the use of an interpreter. If having an interpreter on hand is sufficient to allow a deaf person to conduct council business, why is it insufficient to provide an interpreter for someone who doesn't speak English?

The fact that one is disabled and the other is not seems like a logical red herring. Either the council can conduct business through interpreters, or it can't. If it can, then what is the harm in allowing her a seat? Other than the moral indignation of the fact that she hasn't learned English, of course.

You're also ignoring the fact that some deaf people can read lips, and speak clearly enough to be understood.

And some can't. I'm not interested in comparing her to the best possible deaf candidate that you can postulate.

They can also read the language of documents put in front of them, and fully comprehend what they are voting on, signing, and/or agreeing to without an interpreter.

Finally, a reasonable rebuttal. Does Arizona have a literacy requirement in place for candidates? Likewise, would you have any objection to a candidate that still can't speak English, but who can demonstrate sufficient proficiency in written English?


It's the difference between someone possibly needing an interpreter because of a physical handicap, a physical disability that they cannot overcome, versus someone who has failed to put sufficient effort into learning a language and shedding the need for an interpreter. The deaf person is not capable of hearing, no matter what they do. This woman is capable of learning English, but evidently has not applied herself to it. That is a huge difference.

No, the difference between a disabled person and this woman is not a "logical red herring". You chose to equate her with a deaf person due to the common need for interpreters. It's an invalid comparison. The council would be obliged, by law, to make concessions for a deaf person because of their disability. The council is not obliged to make concessions for this woman because she is disinterested in learning to speak English. It isn't about the interpreters themselves, it's about why they're needed.

You're not interested in discussing an entirely reasonable scenario, i.e. a deaf person who can read lips and speak? Shocking.

I don't know what Arizona's laws state about literacy requirements. I would find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that literacy isn't necessary to hold a public office, and I think that's likely covered by the requirements that the candidate be capable of performing the duties of their office. If there was a hypothetical person running who could read English on the level needed to perform the office, but could not speak it (which seems unlikely, frankly) then I could see where an argument could possibly be made to allow them to run. That has no bearing on this case, however, since this lady apparently also failed a written exam.
 
2012-02-09 01:48:36 PM  

give me doughnuts: Which, to anyone not obviously belaboring the point, are fairly unambiguous. She required a translator to tell CNN that her English skills were sufficient to hold office. The collective face-palm of everyone witnessing this should have registered on the Richter scale.


Would I vote for her if I were in her district?

Hell no. I'd be actively campaigning against her because I would agree that she's an awful candidate.

I would prefer, however, to leave that decision up to the voters. If they want an idiot, then can have an idiot. As a politician, she shouldn't have a dearth of companionship on that bench.
 
2012-02-09 01:48:50 PM  

give me doughnuts: 7of7: I don't understand the problem people have with her running. If she gets elected then obviously her constituents think she speaks the correct language.

How is she going to do an adequate job of representing them in the city council, which conducts ts business in English? How is she going to work with the state government, if she can't speak the language?


Why does the city council need to conduct business in English?
 
2012-02-09 01:49:18 PM  
Begging subby's pardon, but Arizona is NOT part of the South.
 
2012-02-09 01:49:34 PM  

Pincy: Oh, so they are capable of providing translators, just not for people who speak Spanish. But don't you dare call them racists.


Some 'Splainin' To Do: Which, again, raises the question of why those same accommodations can't be made in other circumstances.


Those responses would be a lot less stupid if there were some kind of physical disability that would stop a Spanish speaker from learning English.

Translators don't work for free. Should we provide rascal scooters for all the city council members that just don't feel like walking to the council chambers too?
 
2012-02-09 01:50:22 PM  

TigerStar: give me doughnuts: 7of7: I don't understand the problem people have with her running. If she gets elected then obviously her constituents think she speaks the correct language.

How is she going to do an adequate job of representing them in the city council, which conducts ts business in English? How is she going to work with the state government, if she can't speak the language?

Why does the city council need to conduct business in English?


State constitution.
 
2012-02-09 01:51:28 PM  

maliklockett: What is probabaly scaring people is the sense of history.

Back in the 1800's, Americans immagrated into Mexico. They grew strong enough and eventually they got tired of being Mexicans and revolted, breaking away what became known as Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, California (and whatever others that I may have missed).

If this lady can get elected regardless of her ability to speak English, it would signal that the Spanish speaking populace has grown strong enough to worry about history repeating itself


That may not be the only historical precedent that worries people. (new window)

Nothing like that could happen in Arizona, though.
 
2012-02-09 01:51:34 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: Lsherm: Look, you don't have to be an English scholar to represent your community, but unless her entire district is 100% Spanish speaking, it doesn't make sense for her to hold office if she's unable to communicate in English.

Just to play devil's advocate -- if half of the district speaks English and the other half speaks Spanish, then shouldn't the representative be bilingual? (notwithstanding the fact that city council meetings are held in English)


How do they do it in Quebec?
 
2012-02-09 01:53:15 PM  

Pincy: JesseL: Pincy: FarFarAway: You're also ignoring the fact that some deaf people can read lips, and speak clearly enough to be understood. They can also read the language of documents put in front of them, and fully comprehend what they are voting on, signing, and/or agreeing to without an interpreter.

And some of them can't read lips or speak English. So for those who can't they would have to provide an interpreter, or maybe in Arizona they just couldn't hold office?

Or you could read the actual laws and state constitution and realize that they do make specific accommodations for genuine disabilities.

Oh, so they are capable of providing translators, just not for people who speak Spanish. But don't you dare call them racists.


Everyone who speaks Spanish is the same race? That's... Wow.
 
2012-02-09 01:53:17 PM  

Guuberre: Begging subby's pardon, but Arizona is NOT part of the South.


I don't think Subby was saying that Arizona is part of the south, just that if this ruling were applied all across America, the south would be most likely to have no candidates qualify to run for office.
 
2012-02-09 01:56:41 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Teen Wolf Blitzer: How lilly white and racist do you have to be to consider this a "brown person"??

[chzdailywhat.files.wordpress.com image 500x361]

I think Arizona adheres to the one-drop rule.


You're the one who initially mentioned "brown people" so apparently you do as well.
 
2012-02-09 01:56:51 PM  

cman: inb4 people claiming that the court is racist


I wonder is his name is Miguel Steele.
 
2012-02-09 01:59:03 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-02-09 01:59:56 PM  

Teen Wolf Blitzer: FirstNationalBastard: Teen Wolf Blitzer: How lilly white and racist do you have to be to consider this a "brown person"??

[chzdailywhat.files.wordpress.com image 500x361]

I think Arizona adheres to the one-drop rule.

You're the one who initially mentioned "brown people" so apparently you do as well.


Seriously?

You don't think that the whole "ENGLISH IS OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE! AMERICA FOR AMERICANS!" thing is racially motivated and pushed through by a bunch of scared old white guys and their scared old white constituents?

Or are you just misreading things, looking for a reason for ZOMGOUTRAGE!, and lashing out at anyone who says key words that set you off?
 
2012-02-09 01:59:59 PM  

FarFarAway: It's the difference between someone possibly needing an interpreter because of a physical handicap, a physical disability that they cannot overcome, versus someone who has failed to put sufficient effort into learning a language and shedding the need for an interpreter.


You also mentioned the "entirely reasonable scenario" of a deaf person who can read lips and speak. Wouldn't this mean that a deaf person who doesn't read lips or speak has not put "sufficient effort" into learning to do that? Because those things can be learned.
 
2012-02-09 02:00:15 PM  
NkThrasher
Are you multi-lingual? Have you ever attempted to become multi-lingual to the point of proficiency where native speakers would accept your use of language?
Used to be conversational in German/french/spanish
after I got blowed up I lost a bunch of it
Still can find a bathroom, give a greeting or get a beer in Russian, Italian, Norge.
My turkish is down to simple greetings.
This has nothing to do with what I said, but I thought I would out you fer being a 10 year old on yer moms computer.

She can't speak the language the state has said she needs.
Somehow she made it through school there also
Just because you are willing to take ignorance as an acceptable trait for a person in office
doesn't mean that stupid should be the standard.
Damn shame I gotta drive into DC everyday knowing people like you do, in fact, elect idiots.
 
2012-02-09 02:02:22 PM  

This text is now purple: Do you think any performance requirement is capricious and arbitrary, or just language?


Any. If you're elected, you're elected, it's the fault of the voters if you can't perform.

What are your thoughts on felons being prohibited from holding office?

I see no purpose to it, they served the sentence for their crime, why make them a sub-citizen following that? The only exception I might be convinced of is those convicted of treason, and even then I'd probably disagree after sentence has been served.

People not from the state?

If your voters elect you, you represent their desire for an elected official, no issue with it.

The deceased?

Nope, you can't do anything at all unless they install a heater into your ass so you can at least warm the bench.

All of those laws are on the books in various states (and usually for a reason). Are they likewise unethical?

The only non-silly (I classify "living" to be silly) restrictions I see as being logical and justified are age and a citizenship requirement. Note that I don't disagree with the requirement for business to be conducted in English, I disagree with being barred from the ballot based on a subjective decision based on inexact criteria.


As to Arizona, if they don't like the law, there's a mechanism to change it. State constitutions can be modified as well.

Which is what I think should happen for the ballot and office holding requirement. If the voters vote you in, you get the office. If you are incapable of performing the duties of that office then they shouldn't have voted you in.
 
2012-02-09 02:02:29 PM  

Teen Wolf Blitzer: How lilly white and racist do you have to be to consider this a "brown person"??

[chzdailywhat.files.wordpress.com image 500x361]


Well, you see, because Sharpies.
 
2012-02-09 02:04:12 PM  

JesseL: Pincy: Oh, so they are capable of providing translators, just not for people who speak Spanish. But don't you dare call them racists.

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Which, again, raises the question of why those same accommodations can't be made in other circumstances.

Those responses would be a lot less stupid if there were some kind of physical disability that would stop a Spanish speaker from learning English.

Translators don't work for free. Should we provide rascal scooters for all the city council members that just don't feel like walking to the council chambers too?


So your concern is that the government shouldn't pay for her translator?

Okay, how about a compromise? Let's have her pay for the translation service.

Would that satisfy you?
 
2012-02-09 02:05:13 PM  

TigerStar: How do they do it in Quebec?


Saw it on the Discovery Channel once. Looked kinda like this:

www.uri.edu
 
2012-02-09 02:07:25 PM  
She was born in the United States. She was able to graduate HS without having a command of the language. This is a far more serious problem than this twat running for office and (comically) defending her English speaking abilities in Spanish.

National language. We needs one. This shiat is so far out of hand it was funny, then not funny, now it's funny again. It's really sad at this point that nobody has had the fortitude to push through something so plain and logical. Think of how many jobs will be created through government subsidized English language courses. A lot.
 
2012-02-09 02:07:27 PM  

NkThrasher: All of those laws are on the books in various states (and usually for a reason). Are they likewise unethical?

The only non-silly (I classify "living" to be silly) restrictions I see as being logical and justified are age and a citizenship requirement. Note that I don't disagree with the requirement for business to be conducted in English, I disagree with being barred from the ballot based on a subjective decision based on inexact criteria.


How is citizenship different from requiring a state official to be from that state? It's an identical requirement.

Similarly, how is age any less capricious than the others? It's just another capacity requirement.
 
2012-02-09 02:08:33 PM  

someonelse: The First Four Katy Perry Albums: someonelse: The_Six_Fingered_Man: AZ's official language is English. They do have a law that says that you have to have a certain proficiency in English.

To do what? Be a resident?

FTFA: In 2006, Arizona passed a law that made English the official language of the state. Nearly a century before, in 1910, Congress passed the Enabling Act, which allowed Arizona to become a state with certain requirements. Among them was one that addressed the English language.

"The ability to read, write, speak, and understand the English language sufficiently well to conduct the duties of the office without aid of an interpreter shall be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the state legislature," a section of the act reads.

Well first of all, the would-be candidate wanted to run for city council, not a state office. But assuming this standard is for some reason applied to local elected office as well, it does raise another issue. Because if you apply as strict an interpretation of the act to a deaf candidate as was applied to Ms. Cabrera, the deaf candidate might also be kept off the ballot.


A deaf candidate can still READ proposed legislation, and understand it. She can do NOTHING without an interpreter. What if her interpreter "changed" a few key words when translating a document? What if the council wanted to use their own appointed interpreter instead of hers (a Republican instead of a Democrat or vice versa)? Imagine what kinds of bias she could open herself up to? Sorry, but she could not reasonably be expected to represent her constituents with almost zero English abilities.
 
2012-02-09 02:09:11 PM  

natas6.0: Used to be conversational in German/french/spanish
after I got blowed up I lost a bunch of it
Still can find a bathroom, give a greeting or get a beer in Russian, Italian, Norge.
My turkish is down to simple greetings.
This has nothing to do with what I said, but I thought I would out you fer being a 10 year old on yer moms computer.


Then you should understand that some people are unable to advance their linguistic capability in a given language beyond a certain point easily if at all. Making it a non-temporary situation. Making it equatable to being mute, deaf, blind etc.

Just because you are willing to take ignorance as an acceptable trait for a person in office
doesn't mean that stupid should be the standard.
Damn shame I gotta drive into DC everyday knowing people like you do, in fact, elect idiots.


Actually, I'm not willing to, nor would I vote for them. That doesn't mean I think that they shouldn't be able to be voted for.
 
2012-02-09 02:10:49 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: You don't think that the whole "ENGLISH IS OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE! AMERICA FOR AMERICANS!" thing is racially motivated and pushed through by a bunch of scared old white guys and their scared old white constituents?


You don't think there could be perfectly sensible and non-racist reasons for adopting a single official language?
 
2012-02-09 02:11:38 PM  

maliklockett: What is probabaly scaring people is the sense of history.

Back in the 1800's, Americans immagrated into Mexico. They grew strong enough and eventually they got tired of being Mexicans and revolted, breaking away what became known as Texas, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, California (and whatever others that I may have missed).

If this lady can get elected regardless of her ability to speak English, it would signal that the Spanish speaking populace has grown strong enough to worry about history repeating itself


Yep, this whole English as the official language thing is just a reaction by White people to the growing influence of non-Whites. You live in freakin Arizona. You border Mexico. It's only a matter of time before you become

AmazinTim: National language. We needs one.


You do realize that there are countries that have more than one official language, right?
 
2012-02-09 02:11:48 PM  

NkThrasher: 7of7: I don't understand the problem people have with her running. If she gets elected then obviously her constituents think she speaks the correct language.

Bears repeating.

Unless the law requires elected officials to speak english specifically it's a non-issue. Let the voters elect who they want to elect, if it turns out to be a poor decision as a result of language barrier problems then that's a reason to not elect that person again.


agreed.
it's not like AZ politics are a well oil machine as it is.
 
2012-02-09 02:11:53 PM  

someonelse: FarFarAway: It's the difference between someone possibly needing an interpreter because of a physical handicap, a physical disability that they cannot overcome, versus someone who has failed to put sufficient effort into learning a language and shedding the need for an interpreter.

You also mentioned the "entirely reasonable scenario" of a deaf person who can read lips and speak. Wouldn't this mean that a deaf person who doesn't read lips or speak has not put "sufficient effort" into learning to do that? Because those things can be learned.


They can be learned, but they're not 100% reliable, even for experienced lip readers. Some words just look the same, no matter what. It also doesn't touch on what I said about a deaf person's ability to read and fully comprehend documents and written communication that is presented to them. But ultimately, it wouldn't matter, because that person would still have a physical disability and would still be covered under the ADA, and concessions would have to be made. You can twist and bend this all you want, but you can't equate the two. Unless you can come up with a physical disability that prevents a person from learning to speak English.

Put it this way. It would be unreasonable, and illegal, to inform a person who is confined to a wheelchair that they must climb a flight of stairs to reach a public building. It would not be unreasonable, or illegal, to inform an able bodied person that they have to climb a flight of stairs to reach the same building, no matter how little interest they have in doing so.
 
2012-02-09 02:12:19 PM  
Here is the video of her English proficiency hearing (new window).

Here is a transcript for those who can't be bothered to watch:

Q: "Where did you go to high school?"

A: "Uh, 1986."

Q: "Where at?"

A: "Uh, mmm, 1983."

Q: "Excuse me. I asked you when, where did you go to high school?"

A: "Yes."

Q: "What school."

A: "After, uh, high school, um, I went to college."

That's FOUR TIMES she was asked a simple question and was unable to understand and answer. Yeah, yeah, most of the people in the community speak Spanish, but the job doesn't just entail communicating with the community. She's not asking for accommodations for a disability, she's asking for special treatment because she never made the effort to learn the official language of the local government.

/submitted this with a funnier headline
//sigh
 
2012-02-09 02:12:54 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Maul555: Its amazing the number of people who either didn't read the article or have poor reading comprehension. They must have missed the part about English being the official language of Arizona...

it's amazing how so many people miss the point that the law is racist and the ruling(while legal) doesn't make sense in this specific circumstance since it's a local election in a district where the vast majority of people speak Spanish.


The trouble is that she would be serving on a council where all official business is conducted in english, and a higher body of elected officials decided that, as a matter of public policy, they would require canidates for elected office to be capible of conducting business in the state's official language.

I'm pretty liberal, but seriously. This is a perfectly reasonable measure. I'm monolingual, though not for a lack of trying. I just don't have the knack, though perhaps I could try a different method like those rosetta stone things. But guess what? I don't expect to hired for a job where all business is conducted in spanish. I wouldn't qualify. This is the same situation- fluency in a certain language is required. She does not meet the qualifications. She doesn't come remotely close. The requirement that she be able to actually do the job in order to apply is not in any way unreasonable. Just like I can't apply for a job as an arabic document analyst for the CIA, she doesn't meet the requirements to do this job.

Sorry, but what's your problem with this again?
 
2012-02-09 02:13:41 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: JesseL: Pincy: Oh, so they are capable of providing translators, just not for people who speak Spanish. But don't you dare call them racists.

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Which, again, raises the question of why those same accommodations can't be made in other circumstances.

Those responses would be a lot less stupid if there were some kind of physical disability that would stop a Spanish speaker from learning English.

Translators don't work for free. Should we provide rascal scooters for all the city council members that just don't feel like walking to the council chambers too?

So your concern is that the government shouldn't pay for her translator?

Okay, how about a compromise? Let's have her pay for the translation service.

Would that satisfy you?


Assuming that issues of confidentiality, adequate checks against mistranslations, and things like that would be taken care of, yes.
 
2012-02-09 02:14:30 PM  

The Onion is prophetic: Lsherm: Look, you don't have to be an English scholar to represent your community, but unless her entire district is 100% Spanish speaking, it doesn't make sense for her to hold office if she's unable to communicate in English.

Just to play devil's advocate -- if half of the district speaks English and the other half speaks Spanish, then shouldn't the representative be bilingual? (notwithstanding the fact that city council meetings are held in English)


My thoughts exactly. In a town where 87% of constituents speak a language other than english (from tfa), using this line or reasoning wouldn't it make more sense for someone representing the people to speak their language?

With that said I also have no problem with people voting her out next election if they come to find out she is unable to do the job. The bigger implication here is mandatory language screening of candidates. That is some scary stuff
 
2012-02-09 02:14:34 PM  

Pincy: Yep, this whole English as the official language thing is just a reaction by White people to the growing influence of non-Whites. You live in freakin Arizona. You border Mexico. It's only a matter of time before you becomeAmazinTim: National language. We needs one.


Most of the English-as-official-language laws come from the turn of the century, where they were used to root out German-speakers. You know, some of the whitest people on Earth.
 
2012-02-09 02:14:42 PM  
We don't want a bunch of loosers in are goverment. They should no how to talk english gooder then anybody.
 
2012-02-09 02:15:50 PM  

This text is now purple: How is citizenship different from requiring a state official to be from that state? It's an identical requirement.

Similarly, how is age any less capricious than the others? It's just another capacity requirement.


Residency != Citizenship, or I suppose more specifically if you choose to apply the term 'citizen' to a state association, national citizenship requirement. I don't care if an American citizen from Utah runs for office in New Mexico without first establishing residency (thus, out of state). I do care if a Mexican citizen runs for office in New Mexico however.

I accept age as a limitation because it is temporary and based on average expected physical, mental, and emotional development. Once you pass the age requirement I don't see any reason other than not being a citizen of the United States to bar you from running or holding office. I could potentially be convinced that age is also unnecessary, but it is not as troubling to me as the others.
 
2012-02-09 02:16:30 PM  

AmazinTim: Think of how many jobs will be created through government subsidized English language courses. A lot.


I imagine that would be divided heavily along partisan lines. And - stopping short of saying whether govt subsidized English courses are right or wrong - by and large, AZ ain't havin' it.
 
2012-02-09 02:16:30 PM  

Pincy: MoveZig: Pincy: MoveZig: 1.) She was able to attend High School in the US, and graduate while not having a command of the English language. Does anyone else see that as a problem?

Yes, that is a problem but we've elected idiots before. Isn't it up to the voters to decide whether they want to elect someone who can't answer that question?

Just because she can not command the English language doesn't make her an "idiot". She may, in fact, be very intelligent. I can't speak to that because I do not know for sure. It is up to the voters to choose someone who they believe is capable, and have the ability to read, write, and speak English. That requirement is clearly outlined in the laws of the State, passed by other elected officials.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that she was an idiot. My point was that the voters should be deciding who is capable of representing them. Can a state constitution mandate an IQ test for anyone holding office? Can a state constitution require that you score at least 75 on it?

That was my point. I've known tons of idiots who graduated high school and can speak English well enough to get by but are total morons. And as you said, this woman could well be very intelligent but just needs a translator for the time being. I'd much rather have her than the English-speaking idiots. That was my point.


I get what you're saying. I've come across many magooshes myself, so I feel you there too. I'm not sure if they can mandate an IQ score or not. I do know that they have mandated an official language as English.

I do not know her policies or views, nor do I live in Arizona so I don't have a "personal" vested interest or can say that I would want her to represent me. I don't know her views, and don't have a great command of Spanish so I wouldn't know without a translator.

My point is she tried to bypass the rules and laws by litigation. That's what's wrong with our system. This isn't a question of racism, equal opportunity or anything else other than a person unable to speak the language of state business wanting to dabble in state business. Even then, it didn't seem she was challenging the constitutionality of the law, rather she was trying to get herself around it. TFA said that she is working with a tutor. I hope that she can learn English, and if her constituents like what she does, be elected for whatever office. Serve as an example of the correct way to go about things.
 
2012-02-09 02:16:32 PM  

JesseL: FirstNationalBastard: You don't think that the whole "ENGLISH IS OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGE! AMERICA FOR AMERICANS!" thing is racially motivated and pushed through by a bunch of scared old white guys and their scared old white constituents?

You don't think there could be perfectly sensible and non-racist reasons for adopting a single official language?


Could there be?

Yes.

Are there in the states listed as having an official language? Nope.
 
2012-02-09 02:16:57 PM  

NkThrasher: Any. If you're elected, you're elected, it's the fault of the voters if you can't perform.


The voters elected people to higher offices who decided that, as a matter of public policy in their state, it was appropriate to make a rule that official government langauge has to be conducted in english.
 
2012-02-09 02:18:10 PM  

cptjeff: NkThrasher: Any. If you're elected, you're elected, it's the fault of the voters if you can't perform.

The voters elected people to higher offices who decided that, as a matter of public policy in their state, it was appropriate to make a rule that official government businesslangauge has to be conducted in english.


FTFM

\Me speeky inglish goodo.
 
2012-02-09 02:18:59 PM  
1. Can we get an Arizona tag?

2. Would it be possible for 49 states to force 1 state to secede from the Union?
 
2012-02-09 02:19:04 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: A deaf candidate can still READ proposed legislation, and understand it. She can do NOTHING without an interpreter. What if her interpreter "changed" a few key words when translating a document? What if the council wanted to use their own appointed interpreter instead of hers (a Republican instead of a Democrat or vice versa)? Imagine what kinds of bias she could open herself up to? Sorry, but she could not reasonably be expected to represent her constituents with almost zero English abilities.


So now deaf people need to take a reading comprehension test in order to make sure they understand the written language well enough? And you do realize that there are a lot of people who can speak English but are illiterate? So why not make everyone take a reading comprehension test? Because if they can't read then they are going to have to have someone else read for them and that will open them up to bias.

Sorry, not buying your argument. Unless you are going to make every one prove that they can read English at a level that would allow them to understand legal documents and such then your argument falls apart.
 
Displayed 50 of 412 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report