Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Their ancestors also were not accommodated in their native language in court and in every other way, but were forced to assimilate and join mainstream society.
And as I stated earlier New York isn't just full of immigrants that don't know the language. Times Square is full of tourists and long been an area of Asians to snap pictures. Miami, Orlando (due to the Disney Parks), Los Angeles and San Francisco are also common travel destinations for foreign travelers and potential witnesses and litigants that need interpretatiors. Just goes to show ignorance of people.
No, as I said they can bring someone with them that speaks their language. Why do you have a problem with that?
And why do you have a problem with people getting court interpretation services if the law and the courts provide for themselves, other than your individual prejudices about culture and language? It's none of your business and what they do doesn't affect you personallly.
And why do you have a problem with people getting court interpretation services if the law and the courts provide for themselves, other than your individual prejudices about culture and language? It's none of your business and what they do doesn't affect you personallly.
The question isn't whether having interpreters is good; of course it is. The question is if it's the best use of finite dollars.
The person that is acting as an interpreter may not be qualified to do so. Being an interpreter is far more than just knowing a language.
And seriously, bring someone with them?
Why not bring someone with them that knows both English and that person's native language? I don't see that it requires special skills. Roll your eyes all you want but the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for it. So yes, it does effect me personally since I'm a taxpayer.
We really have no option other than to have interpreters in court, and I'm fine with it for many reasons, but it is far from perfect and in many cases, in my experience, delays the system further. Interpreters may not be available when you need one, because they may be in other courtrooms. In my county, interpreters need to be requested ahead of time, but because court is often delayed and runs behind schedule even on good days, the interpreter schedule is messed up as well. I have seen attorneys and defendants in criminal court wait 3+ hours for an interpreter to arrive/be available for one case, which affects other cases and the attorneys' general work day. Sitting around in court waiting for an interpreter for one case just because a party doesn't speak English. We have a lot of Spanish interpreters because there are a lot of Spanish speakers in my county but it's often not enough.
In some cases, it may be difficult to find an interpreter to speak a certain language. In one case I was involved in, both parties needed interpreters for different languages. One was rather common but the other was really uncommon and they even struggled to find an interpreter to come across the river from NYC because the language is so rarely used around here. I don't want to get too specific at all about anything but it really affected the case and how the attorneys handled it. The parties needed interpreters to communicate with one another and they ran into issues even when they finally found an interpreter for the rare language.
Having an interpreter can also be distracting to the jury, judge, attorneys, and defendants/clients. Some interpreters are quite good and use a microphone they speak into quietly while the person needing an interpreter wears a headset to listen to, but others speak as quietly as they can standing beside them, and sometimes it isn't so quiet. I have seen attorneys and even judges falter and get distracted by interpreters multiple times, because someone is speaking at the exact same time they are and it can be confusing and distracting. It also doesn't run nearly as smoothly as when everyone speaks English, it takes some more time.
So, we obviously need interpreters in courts especially in more diverse areas but it would certainly be a hell of a lot easier if people spoke English. But of course, this cannot be forced on anyone. Having interpreters itself though does cause some more aggravation.
Why not bring someone with them that knows both English and that person's native language? I don't see that it requires special skills. Roll your eyes all you want but the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for it. So yes, it does effect me personally since I'm a taxpayer.
Again, bring someone with you, and now the person must be fluent in English? Goodness, you ever travel? Probably not, lol. Not even going to reply anymore to such absurdity. You seem not to even comprehend the laws of the US and the US Constitution.
Again, bring someone with you, and now the person must be fluent in English? Goodness, you ever travel? Probably not, lol. Not even going to reply anymore to such absurdity. You seem not to even comprehend the laws of the US and the US Constitution.
Most people who have lived here for some time are fluent in English so what are you talking about? Where in our Constitution does it say we have to provide interpreters to foreigners who don't speak English at the taxpayer's expense?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
