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
    More: Followup, Arizona Supreme Court, Chief Justice of the United States, trial court, South Park, same-sex marriages, Alejandrina Cabrera, sex scandals, iReports  
•       •       •

6546 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:53 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-02-09 01:04:58 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: someonelse: Duke_leto_Atredes: The law says you MUST speak english to hold office.
no english no election
dont like dont live here

She does speak English. A judge ruled that she doesn't speak it well enough, based on undefined standards that could certainly never be abused or even interpreted with absurd flexibility from case to case.

Again, she answered the question "Where did you go to high school?" with the answers "1987, 1983," and "Yes."

That's not well enough to pass second grade, let alone serve in a capacity in which you will be expected to read and understand the complex legal documents in front of you.


Which raises the question: how did she graduate?

/how would the city council interpret a response of "1987" for a yes/no vote?
 
Al!
2012-02-09 01:05:19 PM  
A language barrier isn't a disability, so this wouldn't be the same as a deaf or mute person running, and federal law requires state officials in Arizona and New Mexico to be able to communicated fluently in English. This means that any reasonably high level of office (I would consider City Council member a "reasonably high level") needs to also communicate fluently in English, and Arizona has a law on the books making English the official language, anyway. She can cry discrimination, but it isn't that at all. She needs to work on her English for a year or two and come back able to communicate in the language with which the council will be communicating. It's a non-issue. I wouldn't want my representatives unable to communicate with the rest of the council. How does she expect to perform her duties if she can't read a children's book written in the language the council will conduct business in? I can guarantee that the communications used to conduct business on the city council are of a far higher proficiency level than the Curious George book that was used in the courtroom to disqualify her. If she cannot perform the duties of the office, she is unable to run for that office. Plain and simple. I wouldn't ask a one legged man to kick field goals for my football team.
 
2012-02-09 01:05:49 PM  

NkThrasher: Unless the law requires elected officials to speak english specifically it's a non-issue.


It does in Arizona.
 
2012-02-09 01:06:50 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: give me doughnuts: Would we prohibit a blind or deaf person from running on the same basis?

So you think not speaking English well enough to conduct the day-to-day business of the position she was seeking is a matter for the ADA?

The question isn't about the ADA, the question is about double standards.

As any deaf American would tell you, ASL is not English. It has a completely different syntax than English. A deaf councilperson would, more likely than not, need to have an interpreter to conduct council business, and no seems to have any problem with that.

So... why can't a Spanish speaking councilperson also use an interpreter? What is the salient difference between being unable to directly communicate in English when you're deaf and when you're Spanish? If the only difference is that one person is protected by the ADA, then is that an argument for striking down those provisions in the ADA using the same logic that a councilperson should be able to speak proficient English.

For what it's worth, I think that she should be making every effort to learn English, but I think that this is ultimately up to her constituents to decide whether or not she's qualified for the job. If, as some argue, she wouldn't do a good job performing her duties then, I would counter, that's just another factor that her constituents should weigh for themselves when it came time to re-elect her.


The question IS about the ADA, and the double standard is your projection. A deaf person is physically incapable of hearing. It is a physical handicap. Aside from a learning disability, I am not aware of any handicaps that render a person physically incapable of learning a second language. This woman could, with time and effort, learn to speak English. A deaf person could not learn to hear, regardless of the amount of effort put into it.

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.
 
2012-02-09 01:10:13 PM  

Fade2black: What does it feel like to be a white guilt liberal that feeds off of their emotions? Would you rather have someone in this country that speaks the language and integrates and contributes to society...or would you rather have them stay politically correct, so we can keep them from succeeding and continue the chain of sucking from the governmental teat while voting Liberal?


Having been on both sides in my life I can assure you it's far better than being an ignorant conservative with a victim complex who needs to view our complex nuanced world as series of easy black and white decisions.
 
2012-02-09 01:10:35 PM  
I wonder if she had a court appointed translator at the hearing?
 
2012-02-09 01:11:03 PM  

Lsherm: but unless her entire district is 100% Spanish speaking, it doesn't make sense...


87% according to the article

/should the other candidates be required to speak Spanish?
 
2012-02-09 01:11:07 PM  

Lsherm:

And it's not racism, despite what the idiots want you to believe. If I move to Germany and can't get a job because I don't speak German, I'm not suffering from oppression because I'm white. I'm suffering oppression because I didn't bother learning the language.


I don't know why you wrote that. I'm pretty sure Germans are also white.
 
2012-02-09 01:12:29 PM  

Pincy: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Pincy: 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. The city council conducts its business in English.

Shouldn't the voters be allowed to decide what makes sense to them? What if a candidate is deaf or mute under 35 years of age? Are deaf mutes younger people allowed to run for city council President of the United States?

This just in. Governments set rules and regulations about who can and cannot seek public office.

Ya, the age limit thing is in the Constitution. I don't see anything about being able to speak fluent English in there. I guess we should just institute an IQ test while we are at it.


oh, could we? please?
 
2012-02-09 01:12:42 PM  

cptjeff: NkThrasher: Unless the law requires elected officials to speak english specifically it's a non-issue.

It does in Arizona.


At which point the issue becomes a question of if the law as enacted is necessary and clear in the objective requirements for office or if the election process can handle it.
 
2012-02-09 01:13:27 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: someonelse: Duke_leto_Atredes: The law says you MUST speak english to hold office.
no english no election
dont like dont live here

She does speak English. A judge ruled that she doesn't speak it well enough, based on undefined standards that could certainly never be abused or even interpreted with absurd flexibility from case to case.

Again, she answered the question "Where did you go to high school?" with the answers "1987, 1983," and "Yes."

That's not well enough to pass second grade, let alone serve in a capacity in which you will be expected to read and understand the complex legal documents in front of you.


OK. You're arguing what you see as a common sense assertion, and I was looking at interpreting the actual law. I have questions about why this law that seems to deal with state office was applied to a city council candidate. And I have questions about what standards are being used to determine proficiency, and whether those standards are quantified or publicly available, and whether the same standards (ability to read, write, AND speak English without help) are being used for everyone. But OK, let's just deal with your assertion that a minimum level of comprehension should be required to run for office. Hypothetically, should someone who claims that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation be allowed on the ballot?
 
2012-02-09 01:13:29 PM  

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?
 
2012-02-09 01:13:51 PM  

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.
 
2012-02-09 01:14:29 PM  
Look, we can't fault her for going to a high school with an odd name. 1983 1987 Yes High might not have the same ring to it as James Madison Preparatory Academy, but that's not her fault..
 
2012-02-09 01:14:56 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Lsherm: but unless her entire district is 100% Spanish speaking, it doesn't make sense...

87% according to the article

/should the other candidates be required to speak Spanish?


Does the city council conduct it's business in Spanish? No. Then No.
 
2012-02-09 01:15:57 PM  

FarFarAway: For what it's worth, I think that she should be making every effort to learn English, but I think that this is ultimately up to her constituents to decide whether or not she's qualified for the job. If, as some argue, she wouldn't do a good job performing her duties then, I would counter, that's just another factor that her constituents should weigh for themselves when it came time to re-elect her.

The question IS about the ADA, and the double standard is your projection. A deaf person is physically incapable of hearing. It is a physical handicap. Aside from a learning disability, I am not aware of any handicaps that render a person physically incapable of learning a second language. This woman could, with time and effort, learn to speak English. A deaf person could not learn to hear, regardless of the amount of effort put into it.


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?
 
2012-02-09 01:16:19 PM  

Pincy: Ya, the age limit thing is in the Constitution. I don't see anything about being able to speak fluent English in there. I guess we should just institute an IQ test while we are at it.


Every state has its own constitution too. Try checking the Arizona one.
http://www.azleg.gov/Constitution.asp?Article=28
 
2012-02-09 01:18:12 PM  

MoeSzyslak: Voiceofreason01: Lsherm: but unless her entire district is 100% Spanish speaking, it doesn't make sense...

87% according to the article

/should the other candidates be required to speak Spanish?

Does the city council conduct it's business in Spanish? No. Then No.


Judge sez no ballot 4 u
 
2012-02-09 01:18:27 PM  
"When he took my right to be on the ballot, he took away the right of the people who want to vote for me," Cabrera said after the judge's initial ruling.

No you dumb biatch... It is not a right to be on a ballot, it is a privilege that has to be earned... Learning the language of the land you want to help govern is a very basic demand that makes complete sense...

"I am a very honest so I can tell you I'm not fluid in English, but I do understand it. I can read a letter. I can read a book," Cabrera said. "Right now I have a private tutor helping me improve my English."

Good, you can try again when you get better, but learning a language is a life-long endeavor...


But Cabrera's attorneys argued in court that her disqualification was unfair and may be unconstitutional, saying there is no standard for a specific level of proficiency for a City Council candidate.


Because proficiency in a language can only be determined by the judgement of a fluent speaker. Almost all of our legal framework is intentionally vague specifically so it can be interpreted by someone using common sense and good judgement (hopefully)...

"Unbelievable," John Minore, one of Cabrera's attorneys told the Yuma Sun after the high court ruling. "This is a fine example of judicial activism. Arizona now has a English standard to be on a ballot but doesn't tell you what that standard is. It's amazing that people in government who are in power can spend taxpayer money to keep people off the ballot. This is Hispanics keeping Hispanics off the ballot, compliments of the San Luis City Council."

You are just pissed that you cant play the race card in this case... Does this guy really think that there is a conspiracy among American Hispanics that also speak Spanish to keep a Spanish speaking Hispanic out of government? Quit grasping at straws, it only makes you look stupid.

The court battle is part of a growing discussion about English in a country where people come from a variety of backgrounds

This fact makes it even more important to have some solid standards, so this melting pot doesn't devolve into a cluster-fark...

But Vargas argues a candidate doesn't necessarily need to have full English proficiency to run for office.

"I think it should be up to the voters to decide what kind of representative they want," he said. "I don't think it's necessarily fair to not be able, to not allow someone to present themselves to the voters as a candidate because of their language abilities."


She is applying for the privilege of being a public servant... The public is the priority, and it is not right that the public has to hope that the translator got it right during the cluster-fark of a meeting that would ensue with constituents. It is also not right that she cannot communicate effectively with other bureaucracies, a basic part of the job... also legal documents can be quite complex, often requiring a lawyers mind to parse stuff out. I don't trust someone with a loose grasp of the English language to understand the complicated legal jargon that she would have to deal with constantly.

Nevertheless, Cabrera's battle will surely advance the debate about language in America and politics.

The only people who got any new info out of this are the mentally challenged, such as this lady, who still cant seem to get it through her head.
 
2012-02-09 01:19:16 PM  

MoeSzyslak: Does the city council conduct it's business in Spanish? No. Then No.


How can you represent the interests of your constituents if you can't understand what they say?

Again though, that should be handled by the election process, where voters vote for someone who will represent them as they wish to be represented. If they elect someone who is useless in the office as a result of their inability to conduct business in the official required language then that's their prerogative, just as it's the prerogative of voters who elect officials who do absolutely nothing in office even though they can conduct business in the proper language.
 
2012-02-09 01:20:14 PM  

someonelse: give me doughnuts: someonelse: Thank goodness the voters will not be allowed to decide this issue for themselves.

I know, right? I was gonna run a 19 year-old immigrant from Nepal for President, but those fascists on the Federal Election Commission wouldn't even let me file his paperwork!

Does a judge get to decide the language proficiency (without any set standards) of would-be presidential candidates? This apple tastes like an orange.


Is there a statement in the Constitution about language proficienly like there is about age and jus solis citizenship?

You apple must taste more like a strawman, now.
 
2012-02-09 01:20:42 PM  

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. The city council conducts its business in English.

In court they tried to let her explain that she knew English well enough to do the job, except she couldn't understand any question except "Where were you born?" in English. That's not a minor handicap.


No, she can't understand the language the coucil will be communicating in. But according to TFA, "87% of residents speak a language other than English in their homes". So no, it isn't out and out racism, but it is evidence that the 'english as official language' laws need to be looked at again. It's not a minor handicap that the government bodies don't speak the same language as the vast majority of it's constitutients.
 
2012-02-09 01:21:18 PM  

Haplo127x: I don't understand why this is a problem. Isn't English your official language?


I don't believe the US has an official language, which is always what leads to these arguments.
 
2012-02-09 01:21:31 PM  
 
2012-02-09 01:22:59 PM  

JesseL: robbiex0r: oh, "In 2006, Arizona passed a law that made English the official language of the state",
How very xenophobic of them.

Just like Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii (along with Hawaiian), Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia?


Is there any reason to define an official language?
 
2012-02-09 01:23:17 PM  

Maul555: Because proficiency in a language can only be determined by the judgement of a fluent speaker. Almost all of our legal framework is intentionally vague specifically so it can be interpreted by someone using common sense and good judgement (hopefully)...


I find it odd that anyone would support minimum linguistic proficiency standards but then oppose any set standard of linguistic proficiency. Why would you want to keep it vague and undefined? What purpose does that serve?
 
2012-02-09 01:23:29 PM  

someonelse: She does speak English. A judge ruled that she doesn't speak it well enough, based on undefined standards that could certainly never be abused or even interpreted with absurd flexibility from case to case.


based on a law that obviously was not racially motivated
 
2012-02-09 01:24:24 PM  
If she can't do the job, she shouldn't be on the ballot.

...Obama?, crap, nevermind.

//lude
 
2012-02-09 01:25:01 PM  

robbiex0r: JesseL: robbiex0r: oh, "In 2006, Arizona passed a law that made English the official language of the state",
How very xenophobic of them.

Just like Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii (along with Hawaiian), Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia?

Is there any reason to define an official language?



BECAUSE BROWN PEOPLE! GRRRRRRR!
 
2012-02-09 01:25:25 PM  

someonelse: She does speak English. A judge ruled that she doesn't speak it well enough, based on undefined standards that could certainly never be abused or even interpreted with absurd flexibility from case to case.


There are a number of tests that can be applied to determining a person's language proficiency. She was tested by a linguistics professor and found to have "basic survival level" English skills. Depending on the scale used, this is the first step beyond "No Proficiency" or "Complete unfamiliarity". A person that has memorized a few phrases falls into this category. The inability to distinguish variations on phrases-- "when" she when to high school instead of "where"-- supports this classification.
 
2012-02-09 01:25:57 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: someonelse: I have questions about why this law that seems to deal with state office was applied to a city council candidate.

"The legal basis for the challenge against her derives from an Arizona law providing that a "person who is unable to speak, write and read the English language is not eligible to hold a state, county, city, town or precinct office in the state." This law, which appears to have been passed in the 1950s, echoes a provision of the Arizona constitution (adopted in 1910, at the time of statehood) that says, for state-level officials, that "the ability to read, write, speak, and understand the English language sufficiently well to conduct the duties of the office without the aid of an interpreter, shall be a necessary qualification for all state officers and members of the state legislature."


Thank you, that answers that question for me.
 
2012-02-09 01:27:43 PM  

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.
 
2012-02-09 01:28:47 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: That coward David Lopan: If she is qualifeid in every other way, and can leagally run, then I say leave it up to the voters. You're going to deny a canidate the ability to run because her English is not perfect? Would you not hire someone with a thick accent? If not, that could be seen as discriminatory.

/I won't go out and say this is race related, seeing as how others of the same race hold the same position.

Not perfect? She answered "Where did you go to high school?" with "1987."

That's not just "not perfect." That's downright unable to understand.


I went to that same high school, only about nine years earlier...
 
2012-02-09 01:29:52 PM  
she can alway run as a write in.
 
2012-02-09 01:31:44 PM  

give me doughnuts: someonelse: give me doughnuts: someonelse: Thank goodness the voters will not be allowed to decide this issue for themselves.

I know, right? I was gonna run a 19 year-old immigrant from Nepal for President, but those fascists on the Federal Election Commission wouldn't even let me file his paperwork!

Does a judge get to decide the language proficiency (without any set standards) of would-be presidential candidates? This apple tastes like an orange.

Is there a statement in the Constitution about language proficienly like there is about age and jus solis citizenship?


That was kind of my point. The rules for eligibility for the presidency are fairly unambiguous, birthers notwithstanding. Those were the rules that you compared to the Arizona law that says "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" are required by officeholders.
 
2012-02-09 01:32:45 PM  

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.
 
2012-02-09 01:32:47 PM  

someonelse: The_Six_Fingered_Man: someonelse: Duke_leto_Atredes: The law says you MUST speak english to hold office.
no english no election
dont like dont live here

She does speak English. A judge ruled that she doesn't speak it well enough, based on undefined standards that could certainly never be abused or even interpreted with absurd flexibility from case to case.

Again, she answered the question "Where did you go to high school?" with the answers "1987, 1983," and "Yes."

That's not well enough to pass second grade, let alone serve in a capacity in which you will be expected to read and understand the complex legal documents in front of you.

OK. You're arguing what you see as a common sense assertion, and I was looking at interpreting the actual law. I have questions about why this law that seems to deal with state office was applied to a city council candidate. And I have questions about what standards are being used to determine proficiency, and whether those standards are quantified or publicly available, and whether the same standards (ability to read, write, AND speak English without help) are being used for everyone. But OK, let's just deal with your assertion that a minimum level of comprehension should be required to run for office. Hypothetically, should someone who claims that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation be allowed on the ballot?


No, they shouldn't.
 
2012-02-09 01:32:52 PM  

capt.hollister: Haplo127x: I don't understand why this is a problem. Isn't English your official language?

Nope, the US of A does not have an official language

/Not USian


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...
 
2012-02-09 01:33:53 PM  

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?
 
2012-02-09 01:33:57 PM  

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.
 
2012-02-09 01:34:19 PM  

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?


If someone is deaf and cannot understand English, I don't really know why they would be trying to run for public office in the US. But the same thing that applies to the woman in this case applies to them as well. They don't have a physical disability preventing them from learning English. They could learn and then they could potentially qualify for public office.
 
2012-02-09 01:35:04 PM  

JesseL: 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.


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

Again, it seems that the rationale is based mostly on the moral indignation that she hasn't learned English rather than on the practical question of whether or not she could perform her duties.

And, once more, I'm still not seeing a good argument for not leaving this question up to her constituents. I will grant you that it seems like a spectacularly bad idea to put someone in office who can't speak the language of official conduct but, once again, I have to say that I don't see why that shouldn't be up to them, particularly since they're the ones who will bear the consequences of their decision.

If I'm going to start getting upset about people who really shouldn't be allowed near the reigns of power, the list is going to be a lot longer than just those who can't speak English.
 
2012-02-09 01:35:18 PM  

Teknowaffle: NkThrasher: 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. This covers reading, writing, and speaking the language. From what I have gathered the three other times this story has been on Fark, she can't even answer the most basic questions posed to her in English. I believe her response to the question "Where did you go to high school?" was "1987."

I see nothing in their 2006 Prop 103 requiring proficiency, just that business be conducted in English.

All for the new law requiring business to not dump horse testicles into preschool playgrounds

[profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 200x281]
No...


More testicles means more iron
 
2012-02-09 01:35:49 PM  

give me doughnuts: JesseL: Are public officials in Quebec required to speak fluent French?

Yes. Well, not exactly "French", but rather what the Qubecois call "French."


Idiot.
 
2012-02-09 01:35:56 PM  

Pincy: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Pincy: 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. The city council conducts its business in English.

Shouldn't the voters be allowed to decide what makes sense to them? What if a candidate is deaf or mute under 35 years of age? Are deaf mutes younger people allowed to run for city council President of the United States?

This just in. Governments set rules and regulations about who can and cannot seek public office.

Ya, the age limit thing is in the Constitution. I don't see anything about being able to speak fluent English in there. I guess we should just institute an IQ test while we are at it.


If we did that in congress, where would we find 535 people of average intelligence to replace them?
 
2012-02-09 01:36:01 PM  
How lilly white and racist do you have to be to consider this a "brown person"??

chzdailywhat.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2012-02-09 01:36:46 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?


Farking how does Switzerland do it?
 
2012-02-09 01:37:12 PM  

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.
 
2012-02-09 01:40:17 PM  

someonelse: give me doughnuts: someonelse: give me doughnuts: someonelse: Thank goodness the voters will not be allowed to decide this issue for themselves.

I know, right? I was gonna run a 19 year-old immigrant from Nepal for President, but those fascists on the Federal Election Commission wouldn't even let me file his paperwork!

Does a judge get to decide the language proficiency (without any set standards) of would-be presidential candidates? This apple tastes like an orange.

Is there a statement in the Constitution about language proficienly like there is about age and jus solis citizenship?

That was kind of my point. The rules for eligibility for the presidency are fairly unambiguous, birthers notwithstanding. Those were the rules that you compared to the Arizona law that says "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" are required by officeholders.


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.
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 411 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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