Tennessee judge forcing immigrant mothers to learn English!

[Asmodean]

This is crazy. If people don't want to integrate...to assimilate, then why bother to resettle to a new country.

to the judge.

to anyone who thinks they are helping people by not forcing them to learn the language.

Asmodean

[GePap]

This is a poor ruling:

What people miss here is the notion that to be a fit mother she must learn english- that is wrong, because what language she speaks has no bearing on her fitness as a mother.

A judge could very well demand that "fit parents" not carry out home schooling, or be banned from drinking or smoking even in moderate amounts..hell, the judge could even state that a parent found taking thier kids to fast food places was unfit using this notion of unfit.

Imran is correct, this is unconstitutional- an adult's fitness as parent has **** to do with the language they speak.

As for the child's learning- if the kid goes to a good school system, they will pick up english rapidly. Teaching languages is NOT a responsibiliuty of a parent, not one they can be held legally liable for. Hence, a piss poor ruling.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asmodean
This is crazy. If people don't want to integrate...to assimilate, then why bother to resettle to a new country.

in some cases to get away from people who want to kill them. In others to give their CHILDREN a chance to assimilate.

[Dis]

P.S. In areas such as Las Vegas where I live, it doesn't bother me that they don't speak English. This land belongs to them, and was stolen through aggression. But they can't make that claim about Tennessee. Though you could make the argument that the land belongs to the Southern Paiute (but they never occupied the entire valley anyways) and we should be learning their language . And before them it belonged to the anasazi.

[Spiffor]

Many of the students in my cursus are Franco-German. They have often learned the second language at school, while learning the first language at home (parents speaking French while living in Germany, or vice-versa), and they are perfectly fluent in both.

I support the idea that the State should fund language courses for immigrants, because language is an essential skill for whomever is not in a tight-knit community. But I don't think that "good parenting" is an argument for that. If the kids go to school or kindergarten, they'll catch up with the language without any problems.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
This is a poor ruling:

What people miss here is the notion that to be a fit mother she must learn english- that is wrong, because what language she speaks has no bearing on her fitness as a mother.

A judge could very well demand that "fit parents" not carry out home schooling, or be banned from drinking or smoking even in moderate amounts..hell, the judge could even state that a parent found taking thier kids to fast food places was unfit using this notion of unfit.

Imran is correct, this is unconstitutional- an adult's fitness as parent has **** to do with the language they speak.

As for the child's learning- if the kid goes to a good school system, they will pick up english rapidly. Teaching languages is NOT a responsibiliuty of a parent, not one they can be held legally liable for. Hence, a piss poor ruling.

Once again everyone jumps the gun as I reiterate the pertinent sections of the so called 'ruling'

a) The judge in question could not recall if the 'ruling' was advisory (and good advice at that) or if it carried the weight of an offical court ruling namely

Tatum said the written order in the case hadn't been filed yet and he couldn't recall whether his direction that the mother learn English was merely a suggestion or carried the legal weight of an official court order.

b) Even if it was an offical court order the implications to her being stripped of her offspring were not in jeopardy
namely

He said the mother's ability to learn English in this week's case would not directly influence her custody over the toddler.

''There are no repercussions in terms of termination of parental rights,'' Tatum said.

c) Finally the specious arguement that says this is an infringement on her free speach is laughable as she is fully capable and in no way restrained from speaking in whatever language she prefers even after learning English.

In summary:

So at worst we have an offical court order where the women is required to take English classes but in no way will have any negative repurcussions born against her if she doesn't learn English to a degree of proficiency. In point of fact, no compunction is required for her to speak English on an ongoing basis.

More likely we have a court ruling giving suggestions to take English courses and use birth control.

Ohhh the horror of it all.

[Az]

Originally posted by Asmodean
This is crazy. If people don't want to integrate...to assimilate, then why bother to resettle to a new country.

to the judge.

to anyone who thinks they are helping people by not forcing them to learn the language.

Asmodean

[Imran Siddiqui]

Finally the specious arguement that says this is an infringement on her free speach is laughable as she is fully capable and in no way restrained from speaking in whatever language she prefers even after learning English.

Forced learning of a language, by the government, is a violation of her free speech rights. That is also the reason that an 'official' government language would probably have to be enshrined in a Constitutional Amendment.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Finally the specious arguement that says this is an infringement on her free speach is laughable as she is fully capable and in no way restrained from speaking in whatever language she prefers even after learning English.

Forced learning of a language, by the government, is a violation of her free speech rights. That is also the reason that an 'official' government language would probably have to be enshrined in a Constitutional Amendment.

By that arguement, forced learning of the history of the US in preparation for citizenship would then likewise be an infringement, no?

Would this likewise apply to mandatory DUI classes, mandatory therapy, and other mandates of the courts that god forbid would actually help someones situation by forcing a new set of learnings upon them (gasp!)?

Again the point is simply this. Teaching someone something new is not an infringement, requiring they implement and use said teachings is.

Finally this is a whole lot of sepculation (tempest in a tea pot) considering it is unknown if the order was advisory or not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

By that arguement, forced learning of the history of the US in preparation for citizenship would then likewise be an infringement, no?

Would this likewise apply to mandatory DUI classes, mandatory therapy, and other mandates of the courts that god forbid would actually help someones situation by forcing a new set of learnings upon them (gasp!)?

Again the point is simply this. Teaching someone something new is not an infringement, requiring they implement and use said teachings is.

What are all these classes supposed to infringe upon? We are talking about the Freedom of Speech here. How can the government mandate that you take an English class and not infringe upon your right? You don't have to learn English if you don't want to.

DUI classes deal with a privilege, driving. Therapy as well doesn't infringe upon any constitutional right. And you are not forced to be a citizen, therefore saying you have to know American history to be a citizen isn't a violation (besides, you don't have to know American history to be a citizen these days anyway).

Think about this... if the government mandates you go to English classes, there must be a punishment for not going. You will punish the person for not learning the language (you can't just go and hang out, you have to pass).

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Think about this... if the government mandates you go to English classes, there must be a punishment for not going. You will punish the person for not learning the language (you can't just go and hang out, you have to pass).

Agreed which is even further the reason that this is a tempest in a tea pot considering the judge said there were essentially no consequences.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Frankly, I think that was said to cover his own ass. Because now he claims he doesn't remember if he made it binding! Heheh

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Actually I think it was simply a matter of the reporter and ACLU attempting to make an issue out of something they had no basis for. Until the written order is filed this is much ado about nothing.