George Will wrote a misleading and misinformed column today
"A Vote for English" arguing against translated ballots (i.e. "bilingual ballots"). In making his case, he misstated US Naturalization Law, and then audaciously suggested that AG Alberto Gonzales needed a "refresher course." He then went on to insult US Citizens who use translated ballots saying that they "cannot understand the nation's political conversation."
I'm hoping this is enough to make him Atrios' Wanker of the Day.
(more after the flip)
Will starts out by referring to AG Alberto Gonzales's statement on ABC's This Week that he opposes prohibiting bilingual ballots and that "This is not something about which decent people differ". I never though I would utter these words but I couldn't agree more with AG Gonzales.
But George Will seems to think that Gonzales is out of step with what the nation's conservatives think and furthermore that this shows that Gonzales doesn't understand US naturalization laws.
To understand why millions of conservatives do not trust Washington to think clearly or act reasonably about immigration, consider bilingual ballots. These conservatives, already worried that both the rule of law and national identity are becoming attenuated because of illegal immigration, now have another worry: The federal government's chief law enforcement official may need a refresher course on federal law pertaining to legal immigrants.
You see, Will explains:
In 1906, the year before a rabbi in a Passover sermon coined the phrase "melting pot" during torrential immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, Congress passed, and President Theodore Roosevelt signed, legislation requiring people seeking to become naturalized citizens to demonstrate oral English fluency. In 1950 the requirement was strengthened to require people to "demonstrate an understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write, and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language."
Hence, if someone needs a ballot written in a language other than English, that need proves the person obtained citizenship only because the law was not enforced when he or she sought citizenship. So one reason for ending ballots in languages other than English is that continuing them makes a mockery of the rule of law, including even the prospective McCain-Kennedy law that pro-immigration groups favor.
Do you have that? Since a naturalized citizen is required to demonstrate an understanding of the English language, translated ballots are an affront to the nation's naturalization laws.
It's a nice story. Too bad that it isn't true. If Will had bothered to check the US Naturalization and Immigration Service website, he would have found
Language
Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:
* have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 15 years or more and are over 55 years of age;
* have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 20 years or more and are over 50 years of age; or
* have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant's ability to learn English.
http://www.uscis.gov/...
Isn't it funny how those exemptions never made it into the column? So, no Mr. Will, translated ballots don't make a mockery of naturalization law, since the law allows for circumstances where people can become citizens without taking an English-proficiency test.
I say this with a certain degree of familiarity because I live in San Francisco, a city with a large Asian population (30%) and a smaller Latino population (14%). San Francisco provides ballots in English, Chinese, and Spanish. You don't really realize how many US citizens who are registered to vote have limited English-proficiency until you do precinct walking in San Francisco. This is particularly true of the city's big Chinese community where there are many elderly people with limited English-proficiency.
George Will wants you to believe that these people can't participate in the nation's political discourse. I have a little trouble believing that. There is demand for Chinese and Spanish language ballots here because there are voters with limited English-language proficiency who want to vote. I don't know a better way of showing your engagement in the political process than voting. It's also offensive for Will to suggest that these people are poorly informed about civic affairs. They have access to Spanish and Chinese language media of equal or better quality than the English-language media. And don't worry, George, they can still tell that Bush is lying when he's dubbed into Spanish or Cantonese. Now admittedly, they probably can't read Will's columns, but that's probably a good thing for their general political acumen. Whenever people make claims about non-English speakers being disengaged from the political discourse, I think back to late October 2004, when I was doing Voter ID, calling people in SE Missouri. I called one woman and asked "Do you know who you are voting for in the upcoming Presidential election?" She responded by asking me who was running. I didn't notice any humor in her voice so I think she honestly had no idea who was running for election. If Will wants to get people involved in the "political conversation", that's great, but don't do it by disfranchising people who are already doing that.
One further thing needs to be mentioned. Whenever you talk about translated ballots, someone always makes the point "What about all the languages that ballots aren't translated into?" and then they sometimes go on to make the point that "If we can't have translated ballots in every language, then we should only have them in English." That's totally illogical. How does it benefit a Swahili speaker with limited English-proficiency if Chinese and Spanish speakers are deprived of ballots in a language that they can easily understand? We should provide translated ballots for the most commonly requested languages, and provide translation services for speakers of less-common languages. Many voters here take a bilingual person with them into the polling place to assist with voting.
Finally, someone always mentions that they are a Spanish-speaker who prefers to use an English-language ballot. That's fine. No one is making anyone use a translated ballot. But the fact that you are comfortable using an English ballot doesn't mean that everyone is.