Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public office?

[twofbyc]

Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public office?

I'm pretty sure I know how this poll will shake out, but I'm still curious; the only question I have is who decides "proficiency".
There was a woman in AZ who ran for office and was elected, then removed, at least in part because she couldn't understand questions being asked at a news conference. Also she was tested by a "socio-linguistics" expert and was deemed not proficient in English.
Now, if they can just test some of these elementary and middle school teachers (and maybe HS, as well).....

 

[Giant Squid]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

CNN story about this is here. It points out that this woman wasn't elected and then impeached for her lack of English skills, she was disqualified from being on the ballot after the current mayor (Juan Carlos Escamilla, who is clearly worried about preserving his English language heritage and not at all politically motivated) filed a lawsuit. She was found in violation of an Arizona state law that was passed by our Founding Fathers in the year 2006.

I thought the woman made an interesting point: Given that she lives in a city where 87% of residents don't speak English at home and 98.7% of them are of Hispanic origin, maybe she's right when she says "My English is good enough to hold office in San Luis, Arizona." Her situation actually makes her more representative of the people in the town than someone who, for example, speaks perfect English and halting Spanish.

I say let her on the ballot and allow the voters to decide. Previous felony convictions are a good reason to disqualify someone from running for office, language proficiency isn't.

 

[gmart74]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

why is there a city where 87% dont speak english at home?

 

[twofbyc]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

CNN story about this is here. It points out that this woman wasn't elected and then impeached for her lack of English skills, she was disqualified from being on the ballot after the current mayor (Juan Carlos Escamilla, who is clearly worried about preserving his English language heritage and not at all politically motivated) filed a lawsuit. She was found in violation of an Arizona state law that was passed by our Founding Fathers in the year 2006.

I thought the woman made an interesting point: Given that she lives in a city where 87% of residents don't speak English at home and 98.7% of them are of Hispanic origin, maybe she's right when she says "My English is good enough to hold office in San Luis, Arizona." Her situation actually makes her more representative of the people in the town than someone who, for example, speaks perfect English and halting Spanish.

I say let her on the ballot and allow the voters to decide. Previous felony convictions are a good reason to disqualify someone from running for office, language proficiency isn't.

I disagree, inasmuch as all laws in this country are written in English, and if you can't understand them because you don't completely understand the language, how can you participate in making new laws that are written in English?
That's the only issue I have. When she gets asked questions at a news conference in English, that she can't understand, that's a problem; English is still (at least for now) the language of this country.

 

[twofbyc]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

why is there a city where 87% dont speak english at home?

Because we tolerate it; I think I want to move to Costa Rica and make everyone there (who can't already) speak in English only, so I can understand them.

 

[uafan4life]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Allowed to run? Absolutely.

Get elected? I would hope not!

 

[Bamaro]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Yes but I doubt that I would vote for them.

 

[RVTIDER]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Agree kinda with uafan but its a tough question. I think if you are a citizen then English should be spoken well. I just dont know how you survive in a country and not speak the language.

 

[twofbyc]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Agree kinda with uafan but its a tough question. I think if you are a citizen then English should be spoken well. I just dont know how you survive in a country and not speak the language.

here's a hint....elect officials who can't speak it, so you can eventually add your language as the language of the land...:wink:

 

[RVTIDER]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

here's a hint....elect officials who can't speak it, so you can eventually add your language as the language of the land...:wink:

Or put another language on every dang thing you buy. I hate that. Instruction booklets are the worst.

 

[uafan4life]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Agree kinda with uafan but its a tough question. I think if you are a citizen then English should be spoken well. I just dont know how you survive in a country and not speak the language.

Of course, the phrases "spoken well" and "proficient in" can be somewhat subjective.

After all, I would likely not classify a majority of the posters on this board as "proficient" in the English language, at least not based upon what I read on this board! :biggrin2:

 

[twofbyc]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Or put another language on every dang thing you buy. I hate that. Instruction booklets are the worst.

In all fairness, a lot of those items (non-perishables, and especially electronics) can be sold in any country, so it only makes sense to make one set on instructions in many languages.
However, I draw the line at street signs and billboards....

 

[RVTIDER]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

In all fairness, a lot of those items (non-perishables, and especially electronics) can be sold in any country, so it only makes sense to make one set on instructions in many languages.
However, I draw the line at street signs and billboards....

I know what you are saying and agree. But when you are trying to put something together and had a beer or two I am easily confused.

 

[RVTIDER]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Of course, the phrases "spoken well" and "proficient in" can be somewhat subjective.

After all, I would likely not classify a majority of the posters on this board as "proficient" in the English language, at least not based upon what I read on this board! :biggrin2:

I speak and read Alabama redneck quite well. That is all I claim

 

[uafan4life]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Or put another language on every dang thing you buy. I hate that. Instruction booklets are the worst.

I agree and disagree here. I get, and mostly agree with, the sentiment as far as domestic issues are concerned. If you can't read the driver's license test and/or forms well enough to properly understand them in English, then you probably shouldn't be able to get a driver's license. Same thing for pretty much anything related to government or social services, or even public notifications.

However, using multiple languages on products or in manuals is usually an entirely different thing altogether. It is much cheaper to buy one batch of 3 million labels with three languages on it than it is to buy three batches of 1 million labels (and other packaging supplies) each with a different language. Likewise it's much cheaper to have one batch of 5 million 20-page manuals printed than 5 batches of 1 million 4-page manuals. If you're selling and/or shipping products to multiple countries then using multi-language labels and packaging is just basic business sense.

 

[twofbyc]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Of course, the phrases "spoken well" and "proficient in" can be somewhat subjective.

After all, I would likely not classify a majority of the posters on this board as "proficient" in the English language, at least not based upon what I read on this board! :biggrin2:

"Proficient", to me, means read, write, speak and understand (grammar, sentence structure required to some extent, with allowances). But "spoken well", I guess, if you can't understand it, you couldn't speak it well. I dunno.
The judge did have an "expert" test her, and at least, according to them, she failed.
I have a bad experience with this from my son's 8th grade English teacher, so it kinda hit a nerve, I guess.

 

[twofbyc]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

I agree and disagree here. I get, and mostly agree with, the sentiment as far as domestic issues are concerned. If you can't read the driver's license test and/or forms well enough to properly understand them in English, then you probably shouldn't be able to get a driver's license. Same thing for pretty much anything related to government or social services, or even public notifications.

However, using multiple languages on products or in manuals is usually an entirely different thing altogether. It is much cheaper to buy one batch of 3 million labels with three languages on it than it is to buy three batches of 1 million labels (and other packaging supplies) each with a different language. Likewise it's much cheaper to have one batch of 5 million 20-page manuals printed than 5 batches of 1 million 4-page manuals. If you're selling and/or shipping products to multiple countries then using multi-language labels and packaging is just basic business sense.

Yep.

 

[twofbyc]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

I know what you are saying and agree. But when you are trying to put something together and had a beer or two I am easily confused.

I have no idea how hard it is to put together a blow-up doll....:tongue:
JK, in all honesty, most instructions are written by people who couldn't follow them....

 

[uafan4life]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

"Proficient", to me, means read, write, speak and understand (grammar, sentence structure required to some extent, with allowances). But "spoken well", I guess, if you can't understand it, you couldn't speak it well. I dunno.
The judge did have an "expert" test her, and at least, according to them, she failed.
I have a bad experience with this from my son's 8th grade English teacher, so it kinda hit a nerve, I guess.

Not to be too much of an arse, here, but I'm pretty sure that my 12th Grade English teacher would have some sort of an emotional breakdown from the comma usage in this post. :biggrin:

She did once explain the difference between speaking "good" English versus "proper" English. You are speaking - or writing, as the case may be - "good" English as long as the message you are attempting to convey is adequately understood by those to whom you are speaking. "Proper" English, on the other hand, requires the correct use of grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.

 

[uafan4life]

Re: Should anyone who is not "proficient" in English be allowed to run for public off

Like Ambrose Monk, Adrian's brother? :biggrin2: