[Kevin]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Your point about candidates being "forced" to run dual-language campaigns is not compelling to me. First of all, I don't think it can be considered "force" if a candidate tries to appeal to voters by speaking their language. Do it or not -- of course not doing it will have consequences, but that doesn't amount to force in my opinion.

To vote in an American election, you must be an American citizen, correct? To become an American citizen, you have to meet certain requirements. Unless you are above a certain age, you must actually be able to show a minimum level of competence in using the english language as shown at this random website I googled:

http://www.dar.org/natsociety/Citize...?TP=Show&ID=77

This raises 2 possibilities in my mind for a "citizen" to be catered to in a language other than english -- either they qualify under the exemption because of their age (which probably isn't a highly significant portion of the immigrant population) or they committed fraud on their applications to become citizens. It seems that either of those two must be true if they feel that a candidate must campaign in spanish.

I'm not really sure that as a matter of public policy we should be turning a blind eye to those who defraud the INS... But of course, there are certain 1st amendment rights that we must be conscious of here, and I think (I hope) that those win out. So valkyrie, I grudgingly accept that on this point, you're probably right -- I just don't like it

Finally, I don't think the issue of employees who can't speak English is an issue for the government/law/national policy. If you go to a store where the employees can't speak English and that bothers you, don't shop there. The government can't regulate that.

Actually, I see some huge potential benefits. Often, communication is critical in ensuring safety for employees and ensuring that employers are doing all they can to avoid liability. I would think that the payoff for employees all being able to read the same safety manuals or to heed the same warnings from their supervisors could be huge.

The cost-benefit analysis may prove to be more complex than you propose.

LOL am I wrong, or am I arguing for less governmental intervention here, while some I'd consider conservative are arguing for more?

Upholding the law we currently have versus maintaining the status quo which involves ignoring the law we currently have... Nah.. you're fine -- liberals love to ignore the law