Judge throws out evidence because of bad google translations

[spartaman64]

Quote

The case in question involved a Mexican man named Omar Cruz-Zamora, who was pulled over by cops in Kansas. When they searched his car, with his consent, they found quite a stash of meth and cocaine, which naturally led to his arrest.

But there’s a catch: Cruz-Zamora doesn’t speak English well, so the consent to search the car was obtained via an exchange facilitated by Google  Translate — an exchange that the court found was insufficiently accurate to constitute consent given “freely and intelligently.”

Quote

The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and lacking a warrant or probable cause, the officers required Cruz-Zamora to understand that he could refuse to let them search the car. That understanding is not evident from the exchange, during which both sides repeatedly fail to comprehend what the other is saying.

Not only that, but the actual translations provided by the app weren’t good enough to accurately communicate the question. For example, the officer asked “¿Puedo buscar el auto?” — the literal meaning of which is closer to “can I find the car,” not “can I search the car.” There’s no evidence that Cruz-Zamora made the connection between this “literal but nonsensical” translation and the real question of whether he consented to a search, let alone whether he understood that he had a choice at all.

1

Quote

It doesn’t mean that consent is impossible via Google Translate or any other app — for example, if Cruz-Zamora had himself opened his trunk or doors to allow the search, that likely would have constituted consent. But it’s clear that app-based interactions are not a sure thing. This will be a case to consider not just for cops on the beat looking to help or investigate people who don’t speak English, but in courts as well.

 

Sidenote someone in the comment section disputed the article's translation of “¿Puedo buscar el auto?” Mat Newton says 

Quote

The article and Tim B (commenter) are *both* incorrect, which just goes to show how correct the decision of the judge is. ‘Buscar el auto’ Means, literally ‘To look for the car’. The question ‘Puedo buscar el auto’ means ‘can I look for the car.’ As an English speaker you might see that it’s possible to understand this as ‘search the car’. Wrong. In Spanish, if you ask this question… … (and this is key) … … the car *cannot* be present. You can only use the word buscar in the context that you are looking for something that is *not currently present.* If you are to engage in the activity of ‘buscar’, you do not know where it is. If you are to ‘buscar el auto’, it means a) There is a car that is familiar to you b) It is somewhere, but you don’t know where it is. The article’s use of ‘find’ was close but it missed the mark. ‘Look for’ is the most accurate translation. A Spanish speaker at this point would have NO idea what the policeman is trying to say. (‘What is this car you’re talking about? Why are you asking me if you can look for a car?’) A Spanish speaker with no understanding of how English works would simply not make the link from ‘buscar’ to ‘registrar’ (which is the word the policeman SHOULD have used) even despite the policeman being present and car searches being a normal thing. The two words are just too far off.

 

I agree with the judge's decision. Some people might not like that we are letting the person off when he was in possession of drugs but making a decision otherwise might set a dangerous precedent about how these scenarios should be handled and be damaging to the 4th amendment. That could prompt police officers to purposely use confusing translations to get permission for searches and seriously disrupt the ability of non/poor English speakers to exercise their rights.

 

https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/15/judge-says-literal-but-nonsensical-google-translation-isnt-consent-for-police-search/

[ScratchCat]

Next time on State vs Omar Cruz-Zamora: Do they find the missing car?

 

 

[Misanthrope]

I also happen to agree with the decision: it's a stupidly done search using tech stupidly in order to enforce a stupid law. It's too bad that Jerry Orbach passed away this would be a perfect case for Green and Briscoe to bring in only to have McCoy loose the motion to dismiss but yet somehow find another way to allege inevitable discovery.

 

And before you bring up whataboutism yes: Mexico has worst laws and protections for citizens when it comes to questionable search and seizure and drug enforcement, no it doesn't means that I can't have an opinion on the topic at hand.

[Trik'Stari]

I have some questions.

 

Was he here legally? Was he just visiting as a "tourist" or what?

If he was here as a legally documented immigrant, why were English language classes not provided for him if not in fact mandatory?

 

 

While this outcome was honestly a correct one. This shouldn't have happened. If I was going to go to somewhere, even just to visit, let's say Japan, I would likely try and learn some rudimentary Japanese. At least enough to be able to interact with their police in an emergency. I wouldn't automatically expect them to understand my language. This is why we need a set unified language. This is why most countries have one.

 

 

At least the court system got it right this time.

[Egg-Roll]

One would assume cops have access to translators...

 

If they used one this wouldn't be a issue. But nope they used master Google instead...

[TimeOmnivore]

30 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

If he was here as a legally documented immigrant, why were English language classes not provided for him if not in fact mandatory?

To be fair, Spanish is the second most used language in the US, being used by about 1 in 8 people. Also, there isn't an official language in the US, so requiring English courses wouldn't make much sense unless that changed (which is unlikely).

 

While learning some rudimentary English seems like a reasonable thing to do when visiting a country that predominantly uses English - it shouldn't really be a legal requirement, at least in my opinion - especially when there are better ways for police forces to communicate aside from Google Translate, which is unreliable at best and outright wrong at worst.

[ScratchCat]

47 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

no sé quién eres
no sé que es lo que quieres
pero lo que tengo es un conjunto muy particular de habilidades
Habilidades que he adquirido a lo largo de una carrera muy larga
Habilidades que me hacen una pesadilla para personas como tú
Si dejas ir a mi hija ahora, ese será el final
No te buscaré
No te perseguiré
Sin embargo, si no la dejas ir
Te buscaré
te encontraré
y te mataré

 

Lo siento por usar un traductor google

Usted no me recuerda? Hablamos por teléfono ... Te dije que te encontraría.
Aparentemente, Google piensa que '...' en inglés es '...' en español y agrega comas después de "Aparentemente".

[Trik'Stari]

44 minutes ago, TimeOmnivore said:

To be fair, Spanish is the second most used language in the US, being used by about 1 in 8 people. Also, there isn't an official language in the US, so requiring English courses wouldn't make much sense unless that changed (which is unlikely).

 

While learning some rudimentary English seems like a reasonable thing to do when visiting a country that predominantly uses English - it shouldn't really be a legal requirement, at least in my opinion - especially when there are better ways for police forces to communicate aside from Google Translate, which is unreliable at best and outright wrong at worst.

I'm only saying it should be a legal requirement if you wish to become a citizen. I also see nothing wrong with having an official language like most other countries. Hell France has a government agency devoted to protecting the French language. It seems more important considering we have more immigrants than any other county AFAIK.

 

They'd be provided by the government. I'd rather pay for that than a lot of things we pay for. Explicitly for these kinds of situations where a person is at a severe disadvantage when dealing with law enforcement or in other cases where maybe they're being abused by someone and don't know how to contact law enforcement for help.

 

Visiting is one thing. But if this person was a citizen or trying to become a citizen (both of which I am somewhat skeptical of since he was running drugs. Remember, assumption of innocence applies to the courts. Not to someone on the internet simply espousing an opinion) then he should be trying to learn the language.

 

At least until technology make translation perfect and seemless. Which...might not be far off?

 

 

(I'd just like to point out I have no problems with immigration. I just want people who come here to be well functioning members of society who integrate within that society and pay their taxes like the rest of us)

[Misanthrope]

On 6/16/2018 at 6:29 AM, Trik'Stari said:

I have some questions.

 

Was he here legally? Was he just visiting as a "tourist" or what?

Do you think those answers matter to whenever or not the Police is entitled to illegal search and seizure? If they cannot establish probable cause do you want them to completely ignore it based on who's a citizen, a tourist, an illegal immigrant?

 

How do you make those judgements during a situation like a traffic stop?

 

<removed>

Edited June 20, 2018 by SansVarnic

[dalekphalm]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I have some questions.

 

Was he here legally? Was he just visiting as a "tourist" or what?

If he was here as a legally documented immigrant, why were English language classes not provided for him if not in fact mandatory?

 

 

While this outcome was honestly a correct one. This shouldn't have happened. If I was going to go to somewhere, even just to visit, let's say Japan, I would likely try and learn some rudimentary Japanese. At least enough to be able to interact with their police in an emergency. I wouldn't automatically expect them to understand my language. This is why we need a set unified language. This is why most countries have one.

 

 

At least the court system got it right this time.

I think the most likely scenario is that this man was a legal visiting tourist.

 

And because of that, there's really no obligation for him to learn the language.

 

If I spend a week in Italy or Spain on Vacation, I can guarantee you I'm not going to bother to learn Italian or Spanish.

 

Second, while it might be fine for the US to adopt an official language, until they do so, it would be unethical to force English Language lessons on people entering the country.

 

So, if you want that? I suggest you start by lobbying your congressman and senator to introduce English as the official language into law.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, after about 30 episodes of screaming Goku finally used instant transmission after locking on to a squirrel he met as a child.

Only took 30 episodes because he forgot he could do instant transmission.

[Teddy07]

I find it really amazing that everyone in the world has to learn English as a second language and yet it seems not as important in English speaking countries to learn another language.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

He didn't forget, Toriyama did.

[Ryujin2003]

Maybe they should've done a Google Reverse Image Search to accurately confirm the presence of drugs.....

 

This is really quite stupid. Our legal system is so totally broken. You can break the law and get away with it through ignorance.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Maybe they should've done a Google Reverse Image Search to accurately confirm the presence of drugs.....

 

This is really quite stupid. Our legal system is so totally broken. You can break the law and get away with it through ignorance.

No (well kind of, it depends on what you mean by ignorance).

 

They got away with it, because the Police didn't respect his 4th Amendment rights - rights which aren't limited to citizens, but all people inside the country.

 

The legal system works, assuming the cops follow the law. All they had to do was detain the man on the side of the road, until a Spanish translator could arrive on-site. Then this man would be in jail, and not free to run more drugs.

[Tech_Dreamer]

i'm kinda conflicted by the outcome , it's a about putting faith in a certain subject that is very complex , right now if that guy wasn't stopped & searched those drugs are guaranteed making its way into a community feeding to those peoples kids & elders who will be addicted to the substance in the long run , But at the same time attaining consent is a confusing part , it happened ,  but it's holding onto a weak point,  especially the later evidence showing it was tied to a serious criminal activity, it's not used to shield an innocent man , doesn't mean it should be .

 

Lets be real , he knew he was carrying it & was intending to deliver the substance , he was acting confused , there's no reason to throw away a serious damaging evidence based on false presumption that he couldn't understand it , But at the same time the cop could've taken some extra measures to secure the case the right way ,  He did ask  , he didn't just directly waltz in & search like he owned it , he did it to the best of his abilities . think the fault lies in everyone involved including the judge to see an actual incriminating evidence & mark it as non existent.

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

i'm kinda conflicted by the outcome , it's a about putting faith in a certain subject that is very complex , right now if that guy wasn't stopped & searched those drugs are guaranteed making its way into a community feeding to those peoples kids & elders who will be addicted to the substance in the long run , But at the same time attaining consent is a confusing part , it happened ,  but it's holding onto a weak point,  especially the later evidence showing it was tied to a serious criminal activity, it's not used to shield an innocent man , doesn't mean it should be .

 

Lets be real , he knew he was carrying it & was intending to deliver the substance , he was acting confused , there's no reason to throw away a serious damaging evidence based on false presumption that he couldn't understand it , But at the same time the cop could've taken some extra measures to secure the case the right way ,  He did ask  , he didn't just directly waltz in & search like he owned it , he did it to the best of his abilities . think the fault lies in everyone involved including the judge to see an actual incriminating evidence & mark it as non existent.

Rights must be protected. Whether he was innocent or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant.

 

They didn't search his car until after he "gave consent" (I use quotations, because he likely had no idea what the fuck they were asking him, with their broken ass, straight up incomprehensible google translated Spanish).

 

So, the cops didn't know for sure that there were drugs in the car until after they violated his rights. Therefore, at the time his rights were violated, he could have been either innocent or guilty.

 

This is so incredibly important to the justice system.

 

The fact that he was carrying drugs, and those drugs are harmful to communities does not matter. I know that's hard to believe, and hard to handle, because these are hard drugs that can seriously harm people, but that's all just a backdrop.

 

This could have easily been avoided, and he could be in jail, facing the punishment he deserves, if his rights had been respected.

[ScratchCat]

37 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, after about 30 episodes of screaming Goku finally used instant transmission after locking on to a squirrel he met as a child.

Mr President, we have locked onto the target. In precisely 30 seconds we will launch the Stinger at the squirrel you met as a child. _{I have no idea what that was referencing.}

[Tech_Dreamer]

29 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Rights must be protected. Whether he was innocent or not is, quite frankly, irrelevant.

 

They didn't search his car until after he "gave consent" (I use quotations, because he likely had no idea what the fuck they were asking him, with their broken ass, straight up incomprehensible google translated Spanish).

 

So, the cops didn't know for sure that there were drugs in the car until after they violated his rights. Therefore, at the time his rights were violated, he could have been either innocent or guilty.

 

This is so incredibly important to the justice system.

 

The fact that he was carrying drugs, and those drugs are harmful to communities does not matter. I know that's hard to believe, and hard to handle, because these are hard drugs that can seriously harm people, but that's all just a backdrop.

 

This could have easily been avoided, and he could be in jail, facing the punishment he deserves, if his rights had been respected.

 

I'm pretty sure the case would've been different if it was a different judge or if it was a proper jury  , This is about something too obvious & arguing whether it was conflicting to do a real reasonable judgment . remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' tag ,  Then you find someone guilty & then deciding he's innocent in the presence of solid evidence is heavily incriminating to the system .

 

Cops 'violated his rights' after it was obviously provided by the suspect to do a search at that time, he could've stayed silent , but he responded to question provided , at the present moment it was all it mattered , i could've agreed & said he violated someones rights if he just marched in & yanked him off the seat & did a search that's a legit violation of someones right compared to this , this is after all those steps taken to ensure he had the rights & willingness to comply , then complaining he couldn't understand it,  this is just another loophole to the argument how a criminal should've been let out , He is a good cop doing his job to the best at that time . Turning a blind eye deliberately on a subject like this is an obvious subject matter to everyone .

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

does lady on the left open her eyes like Betty Bop or does it unlid like the jaws of an upright shark o_o

First of all lets address the most important question, have you not watched Dragon Ball (the original series)?

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

 

I'm pretty sure the case would've been different if it was a different judge or if it was a proper jury  , This is about something too obvious & arguing whether it was conflicting to do a real reasonable judgment . remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' tag ,  Then you find someone guilty & then deciding he's innocent in the presence of solid evidence is heavily incriminating to the system .

But he wasn't found innocent. You're confusing outcomes. In fact, I'm not even sure that the case is settled, based on the Court document linked above.

 

The defendant issued a motion to dismiss the evidence that was illegally acquired by an illegal search and seizure. This was granted, on the basis that the police had no legal right to search his car, did not properly convey their request (which was not an order, nor mandatory) for the defendant to give them access to the car, nor did they properly convey that he could refuse, or ask them to stop.

 

Whether he actually knew what they were doing or not is quite frankly irrelevant. Had the police followed the law, and respected his rights, they could have made this an open and shut case.

 

Want to be mad that a drug mule got away? Awesome. Be mad. At the cops. For violating the constitution.

3 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Cops 'violated his rights' after it was obviously provided by the suspect to do a search at that time, he could've stayed silent , but he responded to question provided , at the present moment it was all it mattered , i could've agreed & said he violated someones rights if he just marched in & yanked him off the seat & did a search that's a legit violation of someones right compared to this , this is after all those steps taken to ensure he had the rights & willingness to comply , then complaining he couldn't understand it,  this is just another loophole to the argument how a criminal should've been let out , He is a good cop doing his job to the best at that time . Turning a blind eye deliberately on a subject like this is an obvious subject matter to everyone .

This isn't a loophole. This is cops not following their job or the law.

 

Even if he was innocent, and we ignore the fact that they found drugs, if everything else transpired the same except they found nothing? This would still be horribly wrong.

 

If someone can't speak english, how can they even properly give consent. He might have been scared, nervous (well no shit lol), or confused, and him "consenting" (saying "Yes", or "Si"), might just be him acknowledging that he has no idea what the fuck is going on.

 

It's actually frightening that some people disagree with this outcome. Especially since it's rather easy for the cops to avoid.

[Jtalk4456]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'm only saying it should be a legal requirement if you wish to become a citizen. I also see nothing wrong with having an official language like most other countries. Hell France has a government agency devoted to protecting the French language. It seems more important considering we have more immigrants than any other county AFAIK.

I don't quite agree. Given our country being nearly the definition of diversity coming from all over the world, it would be silly to have a national language. Having as many immigrants as we have is the reason we don't have a national language.

Quote

They'd be provided by the government. I'd rather pay for that than a lot of things we pay for. Explicitly for these kinds of situations where a person is at a severe disadvantage when dealing with law enforcement or in other cases where maybe they're being abused by someone and don't know how to contact law enforcement for help.

This however is a great idea. I would love to see the government provide free ESL classes for any immigrants wanting to be citizens, because it DOES provide an advantage to speak what most of the country speaks, even though I don't think it should be required or be an official language of the country

Quote

Visiting is one thing. But if this person was a citizen or trying to become a citizen (both of which I am somewhat skeptical of since he was running drugs. 

So wait, are you saying citizens do not use drugs? I'm missing something here

Quote

At least until technology make translation perfect and seemless. Which...might not be far off?

We can wish...

Quote

(I'd just like to point out I have no problems with immigration. I just want people who come here to be well functioning members of society who integrate within that society and pay their taxes like the rest of us)

By that and your previous logic, remember we should be learning to speak indian languages  

[Tech_Dreamer]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

But he wasn't found innocent. You're confusing outcomes. In fact, I'm not even sure that the case is settled, based on the Court document linked above.

 

The defendant issued a motion to dismiss the evidence that was illegally acquired by an illegal search and seizure. This was granted, on the basis that the police had no legal right to search his car, did not properly convey their request (which was not an order, nor mandatory) for the defendant to give them access to the car, nor did they properly convey that he could refuse, or ask them to stop.

 

Whether he actually knew what they were doing or not is quite frankly irrelevant. Had the police followed the law, and respected his rights, they could have made this an open and shut case.

 

Want to be mad that a drug mule got away? Awesome. Be mad. At the cops. For violating the constitution.

This isn't a loophole. This is cops not following their job or the law.

 

Even if he was innocent, and we ignore the fact that they found drugs, if everything else transpired the same except they found nothing? This would still be horribly wrong.

 

If someone can't speak english, how can they even properly give consent. He might have been scared, nervous (well no shit lol), or confused, and him "consenting" (saying "Yes", or "Si"), might just be him acknowledging that he has no idea what the fuck is going on.

 

It's actually frightening that some people disagree with this outcome. Especially since it's rather easy for the cops to avoid.

i get your point on how it is 'supposed to be' on the matter , but this works only in that plain right grey area , nowhere else, when it comes to the details , especially on the subject his right being violated , cop did not directly violate his right , proper steps were taken to ensure he got a yes or a no as an answer , everybody else goes through this,  it 's argued that  it's a subject could not understand later on when got caught , but this whole thing being being unconstitutional is an extreme over-assumption to an obvious subject.

 

solely relying on a grey area that he couldn't understand , we can go forward on the subject on how he's buying food or asking for directions and all with the same matter , but that would be judged properly on a higher court, this is just about exploiting a loophole , not conflicting with a person rights. just as we can 'assume' he doesn't speak English , we can also assume he understands it it quite fluently.

 

With that standard nobody should stand in front of a court for any traffic stop related matter because they couldn't understand the cop properly because of some random mental issues , But doesn't happen often as this,  people don't get the luxury on it when the whole subject changes , i guarantee tomorrow the same thing could happen to another local personnel & pretending to not understand anything  there would be a very different outcome .

 

But i welcome both outcomes if it were to happen the other way around. but it's too obvious who's bad here . The cop did his job , could've done it better , The case should be pushed on to a higher court for proper discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

[dalekphalm]

40 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

i get your point on how it is 'supposed to be' on the matter , but this works only in that plain right grey area , nowhere else, when it comes to the details , especially on the subject his right being violated , cop did not directly violate his right , proper steps were taken to ensure he got a yes or a no as an answer , everybody else goes through this,  it 's argued that  it's a subject could not understand later on when got caught , but this whole thing being being unconstitutional is an extreme over-assumption to an obvious subject.

Yes. The cop did directly violate his rights, by not properly attaining consent to a non-mandatory search of his vehicle.

 

Proper steps were not taken. The guy used Google Translate. I applaud his quick thinking in the field, but the translation was gibberish. That by itself invalidates any consent.

 

If I stop you in your car, and start saying "Can find you help me find the car?" in broken English, and you say "yes?", does that give me the right to search your vehicle without a warrant? No. It does not. I, as the authority in this situation, cannot guarantee that your "Yes" was any kind of consent on the matter, and not you just being like "WTF is this dude talking about?"

 

It's quite clear actually. Despite the fact that the guy is obviously guilty - which is actually irrelevant. Constitutional rights are the most important foundation of any free and just country - which is something Americans claim to very dearly.

40 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

solely relying on a grey area that he couldn't understand , we can go forward on the subject on how he's buying food or asking for directions and all with the same matter , but that would be judged properly on a higher court, this is just about exploiting a loophole , not conflicting with a person rights. just as we can 'assume' he doesn't speak English , we can also assume he understands it it quite fluently.

What are you even talking about here? Him asking for directions or buying food? What does that have to do with your constitutional right not to have your vehicle searched without a warrant, or clear and uncoerced consent?

 

We can assume he understands English all we want. But unless it can be proven in the court that he is fluent, that means jack all. Nothing. So far, he's played the card that he doesn't understand English, and as long as he's consistent about that, there's no reason or cause to just "assume" without evidence that he speaks English.

 

They should have had a translator meet them on-site, and verified consent, and if he didn't provide consent, go through the process of acquiring a Warrant, as is the law.

40 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

With that standard nobody should stand in front of a court for any traffic stop related matter because they couldn't understand the cop properly because of some random mental issues , But doesn't happen often as this,  people don't get the luxury on it when the whole subject changes , i guarantee tomorrow the same thing could happen to another local personnel & pretending to not understand anything  there would be a very different outcome .

We're not talking about some random mental issue. Please stop moving the goal post. Furthermore, if someone breaks a law due to a mental condition, do you just think they get a "get out of jail free" card? No. They get a mental evaluation, and if they fail said evaluation? They get sent to a secure mental health facility - crazy person jail, for the lay person.

 

40 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

But i welcome both outcomes if it were to happen the other way around. but it's too obvious who's bad here . The cop did his job , could've done it better , The case should be pushed on to a higher court for proper discussion.

Yes it is obvious that this man is guilty.

 

That's why it's such a shame that the police violated his constitutional rights, and ruined the case.

 

Don't want that to happen? Hold police to higher standards.

 

This was easily avoidable.

[Trik'Stari]

7 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

I don't quite agree. Given our country being nearly the definition of diversity coming from all over the world, it would be silly to have a national language. Having as many immigrants as we have is the reason we don't have a national language.

This however is a great idea. I would love to see the government provide free ESL classes for any immigrants wanting to be citizens, because it DOES provide an advantage to speak what most of the country speaks, even though I don't think it should be required or be an official language of the country

So wait, are you saying citizens do not use drugs? I'm missing something here

We can wish...

By that and your previous logic, remember we should be learning to speak indian languages  

We need to have a basic national language to ensure everyone is able to communicate with everyone else. Not doing so is foolishness and only leads to division between the different segments of society.

 

Having to learn a new national language doesn't result in you somehow losing your cultural heritage. Nor is it racist. Nor is it oppressive. It is ensuring that everyone has the basic communication skills in order to effectively communicate in times of crisis.

 

Now I know someone will bring up sign language for the deaf. The difference there being that they possibly are not physically capable of speech. Or at least speech that others can understand and communicate back. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between a physical disability and just not wanting to dedicate the time to learning a new language.

 

 

The only remaining argument I see is either ad-hominems ("you're just racist against non english speakers!" which is a shit argument on many levels.) and "well why don't you learn their language?" Which is easily answered.

 

A. I already live here. I don't come to your house and or country and demand you adopt my rules. So don't expect me to adopt yours. (and please stop with the not-native "native americans" argument. Natural selection is what it is. No nation or ethnicity has clean hands if your going to take it to this childish level of argument that cannot let go of history. You have to remember history, but to some extent you have to let it go)

 

B. The majority of America speaks english. It is more cost effective and less time consuming on the whole, to require people who immigrate legally, to learn to speak english.

 

 

The only real reason some of you might be against this is because Party A is for it and you might be part of Party B or Party C. Stop being bipartisan and start actually thinking for yourselves. There is no good reason for not having a national language, and not requiring new immigrants to learn that language, whilst providing the means to learn that language for free.