"People who are in every other way within their right to get a driver's license are prevented from doing so."
________
Funny, I always thought driving was a privilege, not a constitutional right.
How many Mark-80 nukes would it take to convert Mexico into a giant sheet of glass?
So, every piece of government information has to be provided in 1,500 different languages? Screw it; get rid of government.
It's racist to be able to read and write English?
Do they want every traffic sign to be posted in 20 languages to go along with the variety of languages in which the tests have been given? There are hundreds of languages spoken in the U.S. How about 300 versions of each sign at every street corner? That would be fair to everyone, wouldn't it?
OK, this re-enforces my argument that state RINOs are going to cause reverse coattails this fall at the fed level and in '08 anointing Her Cankleness.
If this is what the 'R' is going to do, hello dems.
Not that it really matters here. One obeys traffic laws here at their peril.
Sorry, but it's been done. In the Sandoval case, the US Supreme Court ruled that citizens could not to sue to force an interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which permits effects-testing of possibly discriminatory policy), that Alabama's official-English policy of no foreign-language drivers tests was not covered by Title VI (which bans intentional discrimination), and the majority opinion even suggested that language could not serve as a proxy for national-origins discrimination outside of the very narrow interest of childhood education.
>> But his opponents argue that in the Sandoval case the court ruled on a legal technicality that does not insulate the state from a lawsuit.
"On the merits, this bill violates Title VI," said Stephen Fotopulos, policy director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. <<
Some technicality! The court found that people cannot sue under Title VI!!!
Obviously, none of you dingbats have ever lived in a foreign country. Should our soldiers (and dependents) in Germany and Korea etc. have to spend a couple of years learning the language before they are allowed to drive there?
"It comes down to discrimination," said Janice Snow Rodriguez, executive director of the Tennessee Foreign Language Institute. "People who are in every other way within their right to get a driver's license are prevented from doing so."
It's not about discrimination, it's about what's right. How is someone supposed to read road signs properly if they can't speak English. How would they talk to a police officer if they were pulled over? What if they were to get a ticket?
It's a simple concept, to be able to drive properly, you NEED to be able to speak English. I don't care if they speak Spanish as a first language, as long as they can speak English, too.
But of course, when someone tries to make a sensible and necessary law, liberals have to use their secret (and pretty much only) weapon: crying "racism!" It's the democRATic equivalent of "la la la...I'm not listening!" Just because we don't make unfair laws in minorities' favor, doesn't mean we're racist, it just means that we believe in EQUALITY.
U.S. immigration law requires that proficiency in English be demonstrated.
If Tennessee can be sued for not offering the test in Spanish, how about Portuguese? Why not French?
Or Swahili? Or Tagalog?
Could someone demand that it be offered in Finnish? Russian? Mandarin Chinese?
Where does it stop?