Many state and local courts don't provide interpreters

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds like noöne should ever visit under any circumstances a country whose “language of the land”—however it is defined—they don’t know, in case they’re arrested, fairly or not. Tourism would suffer worldwide, though, ironically, the ones most affected would be English speakers travelling to countries with much less widespread languages they don’t feel the need to learn. Also, many people living close to a border would be cut off from speakers of the same language on the other side, when their language, spoken natively there, is not “the language of the land” because most of the country’s territory doesn’t speak it.

I very much know about how a defendant can make matters worst due to a language barrier. That doesn't change my opinion that it's their fault if they have no disability, and they didn't factor this in when they were in a country that uses a different language. A benevolent society will provide some form of interpretation, but it's not on them to do such.

If you're a citizen, you have zero excuse to not understand the primary language of a nation (unless some form of disability precludes you from learning such).

I also very much know how hard it is to learn a language. I'm autistic after all; nonverbal, and an inability to read and write English as a child. I had to put in the effort. I daresay far more effort than a normal adult learning another.

I agree that interpreters should be supplied for Native Americans, however.

My comment sailed right over your head. Your situation as a child--originally unable to speak any language--and the situation of an adult learning a second language--when that adult already speaks one language fluently--are not at all comparable. I'll have you know that having already fully learned your first language is itself a handicap when learning a second language, in addition to other factors that adults have which are not shared by children.

It is not realistic to expect people who don't speak English as a native language to obtain such a full command of the language so as to function in a dangerous situation. Sure, there are exceptions, but exceptions don't make the rule. Any linguist knows this. If you continue to pretend that these factors don't exist then you're really no different than a creationist.

And this is yet another Trumper trait, spouting off on subjects they know little to nothing about and then expecting to be taken as seriously as someone in the know.

Seriously, if you think asking for you sixth and fourteenth amendment rights is "special treatment" you don't understand the basis of American law or the United States as a nation.

It's not "stuff," it's the words and concepts that create the idea of the nation and give meaning to citizenship.

It may or may not be surprising to you to know the intellectual heritage of the ideas you are espousing, but it is interesting...
English First Founder Linked to White Supremacists (1996)
White supremacist John Tanton and his English Only hate groups

Sources then?

Such as, the difficulty of a nonverbal autistic leaning language compared to a normal control as an adult learning a second.

How hard it is to learn a second language as an adult (compared to something else than an adult can learn, like math)?

And so on.

I recall in high school, the students had no problem learning Japanese and French. This was in a 6 month basic course. Of course, they didn't learn the language enough to be fluent, but they grasped what was taught. A friend continue with French, and he could speak it fine.

"Trumper" means little here. I'm not in the US. I prefer individualism, with it being on such rather than the state, for benefits.

I'm not American. I don't care about laws here, or any appeal to such. Rather, the principle of the matter.

And exactly, it's words and concepts [which are understood by words] which bring universal understanding. If there's a breakdown in such, then the concepts also break down.

I'd say the same if I was Japanese or French. It has nothing to do with supremacy, rather what you said; how to get concepts across that everyone can understand. A single language does that. 2 also can if that's the norm of the land.

The principle of the thing? What the heck is principle is that? Your right to impose monoculture on nations and individuals? I don't think that is a principle, just a controlling impulse.

It isn't so much about learning a second language, per se. Anyone with normal intelligence can learn about a language. I'm talking about being accustomed to and skilled in listening to people in that language while focusing on the message--and not the form the message takes--and being able to do the same when you speak while moving your mouth in a way often very different from how you speak your native language. To do this, you must know the sounds and grammar of the language implicitly, like what you need to be able to ride a bike, the linguistic equivalent of muscle memory basically. You must have a large enough vocabulary that you can summon to mind quickly and on the spot to formulate your message and decode the speech of others. This isn't stuff you can get from just book-learning and scripted practice.

(Also, I'd say that learning how to formulate a complex but coherent argument, a necessary skill in court, is probably one of the harder to master.)

There is a lot to mastering a second language, and just taking classes isn't enough--this isn't like buckling down to study algebra or something. If you can already use one language, you will tend to lean on that, because it's more useful--after all, you can use it a lot better than your second--and you will often be drawn to situations where you can use your first language, meaning your ability in your second language will not develop. There are exceptions, but mastering a second language to fluency takes a lot, and for many who immigrated as adults it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to do so to the point where they can actually use it in court.

Last edited by beneficii on 20 Aug 2016, 12:12 am, edited 3 times in total.

So basically you're just mouthing off in ignorance, and don't even care to rectify it. You just wanna mouth off about something. I'd say, GTFO.

You're' just making stuff up as you go along, aren't you?

Whenever one definition runs into trouble, you just promptly choose another...

The principle that one shouldn't ask for special treatment from the state if they themselves don't deserve it.

That's not "controlling". It's common courtesy.

I'm not going to go to Japan, break the law, and then complain that I don't have adequate interpreters if I'm not given one.

Language of the land and language of the court means to same thing to me.

I'm not being ignorant.

If it's too hard to learn a language as an adult, then don't go to a place that speaks a different one by law. Expecting special privilege if you do go to one is self-entitlement.

That's my point entirely in this whole thread.

Sure, if you're a social liberal/socialist, you won't agree with this. But that doesn't mean you're "right". It just means you want to take the burden off the individual and put it on the state.

What if you didn't break the law and they mistakenly charge you with a crime?

No, it doesn't...

This is what you wrote:


As there is no "voted upon language" in the United States of America, then - by your definition - there can obviously be no language of the court, either...

I saw one of these people get in an accident, on my street -- in a brand new luxury car.

A family member reported that the same kind of person, in the same make of car, was later repossessed, on the main drag, during rush hour.

They buy up houses at any price, as they do not comprehend the conditions of the loan. For Sale signs line the block, when the customary grace period ends.

I think it's unfair, without question.

But, they are taking an uncalculated risk, particularly from a philosophy of entitlement.

I mean, where is this stuff supposed to come from.

Would you try it?