[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: (Arizona Did It Again!) Arizona Passes Law Banning Multilingual Requirement for Businesses Arizona Passes Law Banning Multilingual Requirement for Businesses May 18, 2010 Author: Fenig: American Thinker Arizona did it again! Fresh from signing a law that reinforces a federal law giving police the right to ask a person stopped by police for an unrelated matter to produce papers proving the right to be legally in the US, followed by a law banning schools from teaching minority/ethnic studies courses advocating separatism, group superiority and subversion of this country, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide "trained and competent" interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English. Assistant Attorney General Michael Walker said that has probably always been the law.
If it was always the law, why the need for this law? Because of a lawsuit of course. A unilingual Spanish speaking woman in Arizona was treated by a unilingual English speaking optometrist in his Arizona office. The woman's underage 12 year old daughter offered to be the interpreter; fearing legal, insurance and medical problems if the child misunderstood the optometrist refused, asking the mother and child to return with an English speaker over 18 or alternatively, visit some Spanish speaking optometrists. Instead, the Spanish speaker, whether legally in this country or not, understood enough of this country to file a discrimination suit against the English speaking optometrist. Refusing to settle, the optometrist finally won after the Arizona Attorney General took a year to decide no laws had been broken. But the lawsuit and the trouble it caused the optometrist, Dr. Schrolucke, pushed him to reach out to Sen. John Huppenthal, R-Chandler, who agreed to sponsor what he called "clarifying language" to the state's civil rights law. "Nobody should be treated like this," Huppenthal said. "It's a nightmare to go through this. He was drug through the mud by us." Learning other languages, studying other cultures can be valuable, can be interesting but should not be a legal requirement for a person's business. Learning the language, studying the culture of the country of residence for an immigrant should be legally required for such public activities as voting and obtaining such government documents as a driver's license. If the immigrant cannot or will not adapt and prefers to live in an ethnic ghetto that is the immigrant's right. But imposing the alien culture onto this country, expecting the host culture--the US's--to adapt to the immigrant's culture by rule of law and suing to bring it about should be illegal. Step by step Arizona is proving to be the little state that can! Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6. Fresh from signing a law that reinforces a federal law giving police the right to ask a person stopped by police for an unrelated matter to produce papers proving the right to be legally in the US Cite the federal law which gives the police that power, please. And explain why Arizona had to pass a law that already exists. Thanks...
#3. To: war (#2) Cite the federal law which gives the police that power, please. States Rights!!
#4. To: Murron (#3) Immigration is the purview of the Federal Government. The States have no "rights" [actually "powers" as only people have rights] to encroach on Federal powers.
#6. To: war (#4) Immigration is the purview of the Federal Government. The States have no "rights" [actually "powers" as only people have rights] to encroach on Federal powers. Arizona will do away with sanctuary policy at the state level and at the city level. We want to let law enforcement officers to do their jobs. States have the inherent right to enforce the laws of our country. Arizona will set the pace. We will lead the charge in Arizona to defend the U.S. Constitution. Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. Illegal was already illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and have failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373) yet we have them all over the United States. What part do you not understand? OTOH; ask someone else who may not be as weary of either your Socialist views, or just plain inbred ignorance! I'm done with you!
Replies to Comment # 6. (chuckle)
#8. To: Murron (#6) States have the inherent right to enforce the laws of our country. State governments are bound by oath to support the constitution. The constittuion makes immigration enforcement the purview of the US government.
#9. To: Murron (#6) (Edited) Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373) The law that you cite simply requires the Federal government to provide information to state and local governments what the immigration status of a person is. It does not empower a police officer to stop someone and ask.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|