Gingrich favored Puerto Rican statehood when he was Speaker as part of his blossoming hispander self, and that [...]]]> Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both spoke at the Hispanic Leadership Network in Miami on Friday morning. Puerto Rican statehood was an important issue to some in the audience and it was brought for the speakers to opine.

Gingrich favored Puerto Rican statehood when he was Speaker as part of his blossoming hispander self, and that position has not changed.

On this day, Mitt Romney revealed that he also welcomes a Spanish-speaking island (over 95 percent) as a state in our union.

Following is a snip of the pertinent remarks:

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich Pressed on Puerto Rico Statehood in South Florida, ABC News, January 27, 2012

An hour later, Romney addressed the issue in his remarks at the conference, receiving a warmer response from the crowd, including from Cuevas-Neunder, who stood and applauded the former Massachusetts governor.

“I’m looking forward to the time when the people of Puerto Rico make their decision about becoming a state,” he said as the audience cheered. “Wow, we’ve got some friends here.

“I think it’s in November you’re having a referendum and I expect the people of Puerto Rico will decide that they want to become a state and I can tell you that I will work with [Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno] to make sure that if that vote comes out in favor of statehood, that we will go through the process in Washington to provide statehood to Puerto Rico.”

That’s further than he went with Univision’s Jorge Ramos Wednesday, when he said “my choice is to let them make their choice.”

What about the choice of the American people? Why don’t we get a referendum on whether we want a Spanish-speaking non-American state in the union? Culturally they are as distant as Haiti or Mexico. What if Haiti begs to become a state?

Puerto Rican statehood would be a dangerous doorway to universal Spanish bilingualism in America and cannot be allowed.

The English language is one of the few remaining connectors of national identity we have left. We shouldn’t weaken it further.

You can watch the event on C-SPAN.

We already pay for translations of official documents into various languages for the [...]]]> Add “bilingual” preference on the part of business to the increasing ways that Americans face unfair treatment in our own nation. More and more, citizens are expected to know the language of the invader while Spanish speakers do not need to speak English.

We already pay for translations of official documents into various languages for the convenience of immigrants, as the city of Oakland has been doing for a decade.

Last year the federal government made the standards more stringent for the already required services of translators for medical treatment. The dubious “right” to medical interpretation came about through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has also brought us expensive multilingual ballots, despite the legal requirement that immigrants must speak English to be naturalized.

Of course, such “rights” add enormously to Americans’ tax burden and to the skyrocketing cost of healthcare.

Furthermore, polls show Americans still expect newbies to learn English and don’t appreciate language diversity when immigrants disrespect the country by not learning English. Nobody asked them to come, and their attitude of entitlement and non-assimilation is an insult to all of us.

Today’s example of diminishing American rights in our own country comes from a letter to the Odessa American, illustrating that jobless citizens in hispanic areas have yet another obstacle to employment — the requirement to be “bilingual,” more accurately described as “Spanish speaking.”

LETTER: ‘Bilingual preferred’ means discrimination, Odessa American, September 25, 2011

Bilingual preferred, what does that really mean? As I look in the Odessa American for a job this is all I come across. Does this mean if I’m not bilingual I don’t qualify for the job?

Shouldn’t they already have employees there who can speak English and Spanish?

If I can’t speak Spanish, why does that disqualify me from a job? Can I help that I wasn’t born to speak another language? Should I be penalized or discriminated against because of this? Why should I have to learn another language because there are so many people who don’t know or want to learn English? Is this fair?

They offer free classes at Odessa College to learn English but they charge to learn Spanish or another language. I was born a U.S. citizen in the United States of America where English is our first language. Why should I have to learn another language just to “fit in” when this is the first and only language I know.

I know I have a lot of questions and I need answers, the thing is I don’t know who to ask. I feel “bilingual preferred” is a form of discrimination for the people who can’t speak or read Spanish. Does job performance even count anymore? I guess as long as your “bilingual” you can get the job. What about the rest of the people who don’t? How are we supposed to provide for our family, get a job just because we don’t talk the right language. I thought I was.

– Cathy Kelly

Actually, he should oppose multilingual ballots, because here in uber-diverse California, some counties are forced by Washington to produce election materials in several languages. Federal law required Los Angeles County to provide ballots and materials in six languages as of 2005.

Furthermore, language [...]]]> Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) says he wants to end the federal bilingual ballot requirement.

Actually, he should oppose multilingual ballots, because here in uber-diverse California, some counties are forced by Washington to produce election materials in several languages. Federal law required Los Angeles County to provide ballots and materials in six languages as of 2005.

Furthermore, language diversity does not come cheap: For the November 2004 general election in LA County, the cost of providing written translations and bilingual poll workers amounted to $2.1 million out of the total cost of $16.3 million.

That’s all very twisted, since voting requires American citizenship, and American citizenship requires the ability to speak and understand English.

Aside from cost and legal prerequisites, polling shows a large majority of the American people continue to believe that immigrants should adopt America’s culture, language and heritage.

Those basic facts make Rep. Coffman’s legislative proposal sound like common sense.

Colorado congressman wants ballots printed only in English, Denver Post, August 18, 2011

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman announced plans Wednesday to introduce legislation that would repeal a section of the 1973 Voting Rights Act that requires jurisdictions with large populations of nonproficient English speakers to print ballots in more than one language.

Coffman, R-Colo., asserts that Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act is an unnecessary and unfunded federal mandate that can be a financial hardship for some jurisdictions because of the increased cost of translating and printing election materials and mailing larger ballots.

“Since proficiency in English is already a requirement for U.S. citizenship, forcing cash-strapped local governments to provide ballots in a language other than English makes no sense at all,” Coffman said.

Applicants for naturalization must demonstrate an ability to read, write, speak and understand a limited amount of basic English.

Immigrant-rights advocates see Coffman’s proposal as an attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters and an attack on one of the most important rights of citizens.

“We are talking about U.S. citizens, whether they were born here or not,” said Elena Nunez, program director with Colorado Common Cause.

“For us, this is a serious concern to our community because any effort to create barriers marginalizes our community,” said Olivia Mendoza, director with the Colorado Latino Forum.

Coffman, a former Colorado secretary of state, was prompted to craft the legislation by the situation facing county clerks across Colorado. Eight counties already must provide ballots in Spanish as well as English. Two counties must provide interpreters for Ute tribal members in southwest Colorado.

Sixteen more Colorado counties are expected to receive federal orders this month that they will need to provide Spanish ballots. Costs for those could run as high as $350,000 if they were required in a large county such as Arapahoe.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler was neutral on Coffman’s proposal.

“We are focused on complying with the law,” said Andrew Cole, a spokesman for Gessler. “Congressman Coffman obviously is a lawmaker, and if he wants to change the law, we will comply with the new law.”

Language diversity in elections does not come cheap because of translation and printing costs. For example, Los Angeles County spent $3.3 million to produce ballots in seven languages and hire diverse poll workers [...]]]> It’s disappointing that only 58 percent of Americans believe that ballots should be English-only, a decrease of 10 points from five years ago.

Language diversity in elections does not come cheap because of translation and printing costs. For example, Los Angeles County spent $3.3 million to produce ballots in seven languages and hire diverse poll workers in the 2002 primary.

Plus there’s the tiny detail that becoming a naturalized citizen requires the ability to speak and understand English. So no legal voter should need a Spanish or Mandarin or Tagalog ballot, by definition.

58% Want English-Only Ballots, Rasmussen Reports, June 13, 2011

When voters goes to the polls, most still want to see their ballots in English only.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters think election ballots should be printed only in English.  Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree and feel ballots should be printed in both English and Spanish. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Republicans and 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party support ballots only in English. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats prefer bilingual ballots.

Americans overwhelmingly believe that English should be the official language of the United States and reject by sizable margins the idea that such a move is racist or a violation of free speech. Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters also continue to feel that when people move to America from other countries, they should adopt this nation’s culture. [. . .]

The new numbers are identical to findings from last August but mark a 10-point drop in support for English-only ballots from June 2006.

A majority of white voters (64%) favor English-only ballots, while a majority of black voters (71%) want ballots printed in both English and Spanish. Voters of other ethnicities are evenly divided.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of the Political Class think ballots should be bilingual, but 67% of Mainstream voters feel they should be in English only.

Seventy-five percent (74%) of all voters believe voters should be required to show photo identification before being allowed to cast their ballot. By a 48% to 29% margin, voters think ineligible people voting is a more common problem than legitimate voters being denied their right to vote.

In 2008, then-presidential nominee Barack Obama said that “instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English,” Americans “need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” But voters strongly disagreed and also did not feel it was important for Americans to be bilingual or trilingual. Most also felt that government documents should be printed in English only.

We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages [...]]]> In former Governor Richard Lamm’s ironic opinion piece, “I have a plan to destroy America”, item #1 on his list of sabotage actions is to make the country bilingual:

We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon – all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

Below is a kindergarten class in Mesquite, Texas, which is described as “bilingual.” However, a close look at the alphabet on the wall reveals that it is Spanish, not English.

America is afflicted with a multitude of diversity hustlers, who think that national sovereignty and culture are what’s wrong, rather than the protectors of all we value. Perhaps the diversity blowhards haven’t heard of Czech President Vaclav Klaus’ declaration that “you cannot have democratic accountability in anything bigger than a nation state.”

One of America’s many domestic antagonists is the Catholic church, which benefits greatly from this country’s laws that protect religion, and the government doesn’t even tax the churches. Nevertheless, the Vaticrats promote open borders just like a political party (against nonprofit tax laws) and promote Mexican separatism among its immigrant and illegal alien parishioners.

In behaving this way, church elites insult their American members, a majority of whom want immigration laws enforced, according to a 2009 Zogby poll.

Even so, the Catholic church in Los Angeles is promoting bilingualism rather than immigrant assimilation in its densely hispanic diocese. The diocese recently got a real Mexican as a bishop to replace Roger Mahony, a friend of pedophile priests and illegal aliens.

L.A. diocese opens bilingual schools, Sacramento Bee, Jun. 5, 2011

LOS ANGELES – The Valencia-Fragas household is a mix of cultures and languages embodied in 3-year-old Adan Fragas.

“How do you say blue in Spanish?” Adan’s mother, Edith Valencia, asks him, pointing to a bright blue train in a picture book.

“Azul,” he answers quickly. Then, he looks around the room, waves and says, “Hi.”

Adan speaks English with his father, who is of Hawaiian descent, and Spanish with his mother, whose heritage is Mexican.

That ease with both languages pleases Valencia. When Adan is ready for kindergarten, she wants him to attend one of the first dual language immersion campuses in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles – St. Joan of Arc Dual Language Academy in West Los Angeles. There, he will learn to read, speak and write in English and Spanish.

St. Joan of Arc and All Souls in Alhambra, both closed due to declining enrollment, will reopen this fall as the first dual language schools in the archdiocese. Though not new in public education, such programs are rare in Catholic schools. If they are successful, they could become a model.

“It’s part of who we are, our culture,” Valencia said of the Spanish her parents spoke to her after they had migrated as teenagers to Los Angeles from Mexico.

“I’m close to my roots even though I didn’t grow up in Mexico. I know where my parents came from. … It’s something you can easily overlook and forget. But it’s part of who we are and who he is,” she added.

Both schools will offer English and Spanish in kindergarten. All Souls also will offer an English/Mandarin program. The diocese will add new grade levels each year.

“We’ve got to be sure to have kids who are truly bilingual and biliterate,” said Kevin Baxter, superintendent of elementary schools in the archdiocese.

The region’s demographics drove the decision, he said.

“Spanish is obviously a natural for us here in Los Angeles,” Baxter added.

Los Angeles isn’t the only archdiocese making the move to dual language education. The Archdiocese of Baltimore opened its first dual-language elementary school last fall, and Catholic scholars have made such programs a goal.

Dual language learning helps Catholic schools with recruiting and retaining Latino students – a challenge as schools became more tuition-driven and programs did not respond culturally and linguistically to diversity, said Martin Scanlan, assistant professor of education at Marquette University in Milwaukee.

Scanlan said the new programs may be bellwethers of what is to come in Catholic education. “It’s a strong move by the diocese,” he said.

Dual language programs require diligence, experts said.

A balance of speakers of each language is essential to avoid domination by one group, said Rosalie Pedalino Porter, a former bilingual teacher on the board of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. In addition, parents must realize that some students initially may not read at grade level.

“In the long term, they will be ahead of their classmates because they will be competent in two languages,” she said.

Meanwhile, dual language education in public schools is growing, said Julie Sugarman, research associate at the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, D.C. The center’s database lists 386 two-way immersion programs, but there are more, Sugarman said.

For St. Joan of Arc, the transition will change the parish school to a language academy under the guidance of the archdiocese with a citywide reach, said Janina Brzechwa-White, chairwoman of St. Joan of Arc’s board.

“We are going very far beyond our parish boundaries in terms of recruitment,” Brzechwa-White said.

She said families seeking out the school include some with a Spanish-speaking heritage and others who see the business value of learning Spanish.

To help with the transition, school officials have been working with Olga Moraga, assistant director of bilingual education at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Moraga said finding bilingual teachers who can communicate with children who initially do not understand one of the languages is critical.

“They have to make that content comprehensible to the students,” Moraga said. “They have to use pictures or motion or any kind of strategies to make sure the student is understanding what they’re saying. It’s a lot more work.”

Learning Mandarin or Spanish will not come at the expense of mastering English, said Thomas Delgado, All Souls’ board member and a retired principal for the Los Angeles Unified School District.

“The students need to have the strongest English language skills,” Delgado said.

Valencia, an accounting specialist, said a dual language school will suit her son Adan because she knows becoming bilingual early is helpful in life. She often has been the only bilingual person at work.

“It’s been extremely beneficial to me in my career,” she said. “It’s a very important aspect of living in L.A.”

Every non-English-speaker is already entitled to a skilled interpreter as a right, piled on the already explosive [...]]]> At a time when astronomical budget deficits have made fiscally responsible leaders warn citizens of necessary belt-tightening ahead, immigrants are about to receive improvements to a little discussed entitlement on the backs of American taxpayers and health insurance purchasers.

Every non-English-speaker is already entitled to a skilled interpreter as a right, piled on the already explosive medical costs. What’s new for 2011 is more stringent competency requirements.

The entitlement started out in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and has expanded since then. Every hospital and medical practice that receives federal funding (like Medicare) are required to provide interpreters to any patient who needs one. Last year California passed a law requiring all insurers to provide interpreters at no cost to patients.

That little service wouldn’t add much to the overall cost of healthcare for everyone, would it? Naah.

Naturally, there is no suggestion that foreigners who choose to live in an English-speaking nation might learn that language. An alienating hospital experience might encourage some to get with the program, but liberal do-gooders want the expensive training wheels to prevent foreigners from learning English to remain in place.

Medical interpreters are a patient’s right, Los Angeles Times, December 27, 2010

Federal and state law requires assistance for patients with limited English. New national competency standards begin in 2011.

Even people who speak English fluently often find that conversations with healthcare professionals sound like Greek to them. So imagine if you speak only Greek or Spanish or Farsi and want to have, say, an in-depth conversation with an oncologist about the risks and benefits of an aggressive form of chemotherapy.

Until recently, the most likely interpreter in such an encounter would be a family member, often a poor choice because he or she might be reluctant to share bad news or be unfamiliar with medical terminology. But new developments are helping patients with limited English communicate better with their healthcare providers — including a 2-year-old California law that requires health insurers to provide interpreting (oral) and translating (written) services to patients with limited English proficiency, draft standards on how medical interpreting should be conducted in hospitals, two new certification bodies for medical interpreters and the rapidly increasing use of remote interpretation service by phone or video conference.

“Getting competent interpreting services to everyone who needs them is not all the way there, but we’ve come a long way,” says Mara Youdelman, managing attorney of the Washington, D.C. office of the National Health Law Program, an advocacy group for the underserved that has studied the need and effect of medical interpretation services.

The need is certainly there. According to the federal Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of Minority Health, at least 25 million Americans speak English less than “very well.” Census data show that at least 40% of California residents speak a language other than English at home. (In Los Angeles, that number rises to more than 50%.)

And a 2002 report from the Institute of Medicine on health disparities found that language barriers between patients and the professionals who care for them can result in poor, shortened or wrong communication, poor decision-making and below-optimal outcomes for members of minorities.

Kathy English, now the director of healthcare marketing solutions for Internet networking firm Cisco Systems, which develops technology for remote video medical interpretation, says she got a firsthand lesson a few years back on the need for medical interpreting. She worked as a hospital floor nurse and was caring for a patient just out of surgery who spoke only Spanish. Soon after the operation, the patient began moaning in pain and pointing to his stomach. Unable to speak Spanish, English says she couldn’t ask about the source of the pain, so she gave an approved dose of pain relief drugs but didn’t call the doctor.

When, an hour later, the patient was still moaning and clearly in excruciating pain, English says she did call the doctor, who, on arrival, took the patient back to surgery. “If I had been able to understand the precise pain location, I would have called the doctor sooner, and speeded up his second surgery, pain relief and recovery,” English says.

The right to medical interpreting falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That right was further emphasized by a 2000 presidential executive order stating that healthcare organizations receiving federal funds must make medical interpretation available to patients with limited English proficiency.

According to a 2009 report by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, California has the most comprehensive medical interpretation laws of any state. Two years ago, a law took effect in the state requiring commercial health plans to provide medical interpretation to plan members during doctor and hospital visits. The provisions also included translation of key documents, such as a plan’s explanation of benefits, into very commonly used languages. And new efforts at improving the quality of medical interpretation across the country should refine the services patients can expect.

One of these changes is voluntary certification for interpreters. To be certified, interpreters must show competency in the language they will be interpreting, including medical terminology, as well as an understanding of ethics issues such as maintaining a patient’s privacy. That level of competency has been long awaited. A 2002 study funded by the Commonwealth Fund found, on average, 31 mistakes in each encounter of medical interpreting in 13 sessions reviewed. Mistakes were most likely to occur when an ad hoc interpreter was used, such as a family member or hospital employee with limited medical background.

For now, healthcare organizations vary in how they test the competency of their interpreters; some groups have even developed their own courses and exams. Competency tests will be even more important next year when new national standards kick in. The standards include putting patients’ language of choice into their medical records and determining that interpreters are doing a competent job. In 2012, the standards become one of the factors in a hospital’s accreditation evaluation.

The two certifying organizations call for interpreters to be recertified every four or five years. This is crucial, says Hala Fam, head of the interpreter program at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. Fam, who started her career as a hospital interpreter speaking Farsi, says keeping up with drug names, new technology and changing terminology is challenging — but it’s a skill she expects of the interpreters she works with.

Next month, Fam will add quite a few interpreters to her five-person team when UCLA joins the Health Care Interpreter Network, a cooperative of at least 17 California hospitals that share trained healthcare interpreters though a video/voice call center. The network requires its interpreters to take a 40-hour course and pass a competency test. When a patient requests an interpreter, hospital staff can access the network if no hospital-based interpreter is available via video- or telephone-conferencing. “Even a hospital which has a dozen full-time interpreters could often find it impossible to be available for every patient who needs interpreting,” says Frank Puglisi, the network’s executive director.

The network also includes clinics and health plans that serve Medi-Cal patients, and languages include Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, Thai, Russian, Farsi, Tongan and Hindi as well as American Sign Language.

Puglisi says many patients prefer the phone or video conferencing system to an in-person interpreter because they feel it affords them greater privacy — though respecting the patient’s privacy and modesty is part of the training all interpreters seeking certification are taught. (Hospitals in the network include Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center and Riverside County Regional Medical Center.)

Numbers show the service is needed. Melinda Paras, of Paras and Associates in Emeryville, which manages the video network, estimates that Los Angeles County USC Healthcare Network, which became part of the network three years ago, now averages 30 to 50 calls/video conferences each day.

Youdelman of the National Health Law Program says patients should not hesitate to ask for translation services out of cost concerns. “Hospitals are not allowed to charge patients for the service,” she says.

In addition, Nashville has had a problem with violent Kurdish gangs, as I wrote in 2007: [...]]]> This story is a reminder that every state is a border state now. In Nashville, the traditional home of country music, 22 percent of the city’s K-12 students are English learners. Overwhelmed California has only slightly more, at 24 percent.

In addition, Nashville has had a problem with violent Kurdish gangs, as I wrote in 2007: What The New York Times Didn’t Tell You About Nashville’s Kurdish Gangs, another product of diverse immigration.

But today’s topic is how many kids require English language acquisition in the schools. Interestingly, the reporter noted the hiring of seven translators and the creation of a multicultural outreach department, but no dollar figure is given for what all this diversity is costing local taxpayers.

The Bible considered language diversity a curse from God, as told in the story about the Tower of Babel, shown below.

Nashville schools expand help for English Learners, The Tennessean, December 15, 2010

Nearly a third of Tennessee students whose native languages are something other than English are sitting in Metro Nashville Public School classrooms.

English Learners are the district’s quickest growing student population, now about 22 percent of Metro’s 78,000 students.

Spanish speakers make up more than 10,000 of the 17,000 English Learner population. But students who speak Arabic to Amharic, a language in Ethiopia, also are served in the district.

The uptick has Metro hiring seven more translators, starting a multicultural outreach department modeled after one used in Denver schools and sending English Learning students to their zoned schools, which starting next school year will all offer programs to meet their needs. Before, the students were sent to the school with the program best tailored to help them, often too far for their parents to ever be involved.

Some of the changes were made based on recommendations from George Washington University, which studied Metro’s program for English Language Learners a year ago.

“There are 38,000 Limited English Proficient students (in the state), and of those we have 29 percent in Metro Nashville Public Schools,” said Nicole Chaput Guizani, the district’s executive director for the office of English Learners. “The way we’re moving now, we’re including English Learners across the board … they no longer belong to just the English Learner office. They belong to every teacher and every administrator.”

Memphis City schools, followed by Rutherford County schools have the next-highest English Learner populations, she said.

Metro Director of Schools Jesse Register has made improving the department one of nine focuses for reform in the district.

Another reason for the push to improve services is that the school district is accountable under the federal No Child Left Behind law to ensure English Learners meet reading and math goals on state exams, just like the overall student population, and low-income, minority and students with disability populations.

That is challenging for Metro, which had achievement gaps in 2008 on graduation rates, with 57 percent of English Learners graduating compared with 73 percent for all Metro students. [. . .]

And on high school state exams, 67 percent of students limited in English proficiency scored proficient or advanced in reading, compared with the state average of 76 percent for that same population.

Most Americans don’t like language diversity, such as [...]]]> In order to become a naturalized American citizen, a foreigner must demonstrate the ability to understand and use English. Nevertheless, liberals managed to poison the Voting Rights Act with a requirement to provide translations of ballots when the foreign language group in a jurisdiction reaches a certain level.

Most Americans don’t like language diversity, such as pressing One for English in their own country. The infiltration of Spanish is everywhere on signs from my local hardware store to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. It’s not a lot to ask that newbies learn the language of the country to which they moved voluntarily as the sine qua non of assimilation — unless you are a fervent member of the America-hating Raza tribe which demands “bilingualism” (i.e. Spanish everywhere) as part of their cultural and political invasion.

58% Favor English-Only Election Ballots, Rasmussen Reports, August 17, 2010

The U.S. Justice Department has told a major Ohio county to print bilingual ballots for the November election or it will be sued by the government. But most voters believe that election ballots in this country should be printed only in English.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely Voters favor English-only ballots. But this is down 10 points from June 2006. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree and say election ballots should be printed in both English and Spanish.

The Political Class is more emphatic. While 68% of Mainstream voters believe ballots should only be in English, 78% of those in the Political Class think they should be available in English and Spanish.

Still, 84% of all voters think English should be the nation’s official language. Just 13% disagree.

This finding has remained constant in surveys for over four years. [. . .]

Three-out-of four voters (75%) also continue to believe that companies should be allowed to require their employees to speak English on the job. Only 16% oppose such a requirement.

Just 12% of voters believe that requiring employees to speak English is a form of racism or bigotry. Seventy-nine percent (79%) reject that notion and believe the requirement is not racist or bigoted.

Both these findings, too, are virtually unchanged from when the questions were first asked in November 2007.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party say election ballots should be printed only in English. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats believe they should be printed in English and Spanish.

But most Democrats agree with Republicans and unaffiliateds that English should be the official language of the United States. There is little disagreement on this question across all demographic categories.

There is also majority agreement across all groups about requiring English on the job and a common belief that such a requirement is not bigotry or racism.

In the mist of the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama said it is more important for American children to learn to speak Spanish than it is for new immigrants into this country to learn to speak English. Voters strongly disagreed, with 83% saying a higher priority should be placed on encouraging immigrants to speak English as their primary language.

In a separate survey at the time, 42% of voters said most government officials encourage immigrants to retain the culture of their home country rather than to fully embrace American culture and society. Thirty-two percent (32%) disagreed. But 83% expressed more anger at the government for the way it handles immigration than anger at the immigrants themselves who are looking for jobs.

With midterm elections less than three months away, nearly two-out-of-three voters (65%) remain at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government in all areas, including 40% who are Very Angry.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters oppose the Justice Department’s decision to challenge Arizona’s new immigration law in court. Fifty-four percent (54%) think the Justice Department instead should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. Even more think the federal government should cut off funds to these “sanctuary cities.”

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state. Most voters (53%) now say it’s better for individual states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws rather than relying on the federal government for enforcement.

Fifty six percent (56%), in fact, believe the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.

Most Americans still oppose granting U.S. citizenship automatically to children born in America to illegal immigrants.