This is why we have an illegal immigration problem.

[hammerhead johnson]

To have English only do you mind waiting longer in line while other citizens and visitors try to make sense out of English forms?

 

Hell no.

 

I frequent two different post offices in the vicinity of the Harlem & Irving Plaza, and both have Polish attendants who assist people with forms while they are waiting in line. There could be 20 people in line, and at least 2/3 of them will not understand English. People will think that I'm exaggerating, but it's the truth.

 

Go to the post office on Oakton and Waukegan road in Niles, and you'll find three Asian clerks. There is a huge Asian population in Morton Grove/Skokie, so it only makes sense.

 

If you're in southern Texas, you damn well better have attendants and clerks that can speak Spanish.

 

Seriously though, welcome to America. English? WTF is that?

[Texsox]

IT IS NOT LESS EFFICIENT!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS MORE EFFICIENT!!!!!!

 

Do you have some goofy definition of efficient? How is having to deal with more than one language more efficient than just one? That makes no sense.

 

I think I just need to give up discussing this topic with you.

 

How is taking ten minutes when it could be done in 5 minutes MORE EFFICIENT!!!!

 

How can transalting a form once be LESS EFFICIENT than having a people standing there in line doing it tens of thousands of times??

 

Why does private business do it?? Efficient means more profits, not less!!

 

Taking more time MAKES NO SENSE. TYPING IN CAPS MAKES NO SENSE

[southsider2k5]

How is taking ten minutes when it could be done in 5 minutes MORE EFFICIENT!!!!

 

How can transalting a form once be LESS EFFICIENT than having a people standing there in line doing it tens of thousands of times??

 

Why does private business do it?? Efficient means more profits, not less!!

 

Taking more time MAKES NO SENSE. TYPING IN CAPS MAKES NO SENSE

 

You seem to be thinking that effeciency just means just moving through a line quicker. Time has a value. If that value is not met in the cost it takes to reduce queing times, you are not being more efficient, even though the line moves twice as fast. If that were the case banks would have a teller for every person who walked in the door. They don't do it that way. As a matter of a fact, they have as few people as the public will tolerate working, because they know at a certian level of service, they will get a certian level of return business. In your scenario you are not only talking about a few more forms, but that means someone needs to write these forms, someone needs to edit these forms, someone needs to decide where to send these forms, someone needs to be able to answer questions about these forms with the general public, someone needs to be able to know that their translation into Spanish, while accurate, might be saying something that they are not trying to portray because something is lost in the subleties of languages, etc. Its not as simple as you make it out to be.

[Texsox]

Hell no.

 

I frequent two different post offices in the vicinity of the Harlem & Irving Plaza, and both have Polish attendants who assist people with forms while they are waiting in line. There could be 20 people in line, and at least 2/3 of them will not understand English. People will think that I'm exaggerating, but it's the truth.

Could you imagine how inefficient it would be if one of those clerks translated the form ONE TIME. OMG, the government would grind to a halt

 

 

Glad to see so much thinking outside the box around here. By golly it's how my grand dad did it and we can't change. Can't even examine it to see if we could do better. How innovative of you.

[Texsox]

You seem to be thinking that effeciency just means just moving through a line quicker. Time has a value. If that value is not met in the cost it takes to reduce queing times, you are not being more efficient, even though the line moves twice as fast. If that were the case banks would have a teller for every person who walked in the door. They don't do it that way. As a matter of a fact, they have as few people as the public will tolerate working, because they know at a certian level of service, they will get a certian level of return business. In your scenario you are not only talking about a few more forms, but that means someone needs to write these forms, someone needs to edit these forms, someone needs to decide where to send these forms, someone needs to be able to answer questions about these forms with the general public, someone needs to be able to know that their translation into Spanish, while accurate, might be saying something that they are not trying to portray because something is lost in the subleties of languages, etc. Its not as simple as you make it out to be.

 

I agree

If that value is not met in the cost it takes to reduce queing times, you are not being more efficient, even though the line moves twice as fast.

 

Likewise, if the value is met, then it is more efficient. WHICH IS WHAT I AM SAYING.

 

First of all, we already have most of the forms. For example our DMV has almost everything already done in Spanish and English. People zip through fairly quickly, I would hate to see what would happen if we went back to one language.

 

Again, if the form is translated once an official version is finished. What you describe gets done thousands and thousands of times, and the exact problem you are trying to avoid, items lost in subtleties, happens more frequently when you have thousands of people doing their own personal translation. Someone is already answering more questions about those forms, there would be less in a speakers native tongue. How is any of this less efficient? Correcting mistakes takes time. To believe there isn't a cross over point where providing these services is cheaper defies logic.

 

There may or may not be a cross over point. I believe there is. Perhaps at 10% of the population, perhaps 25%, obviously at 51%, but it is there. Disagree if you will. And I know you will. Of course if Tex says it, it must be wrong, no matter how long you take to find it, and if it contradicts something you said yourself before.

[southsider2k5]

You don't think you are taking things just a touch personally do you? Geesh. Remind me to quit replying to your messages.

[longshot7]

I would like to say these are some very good points. I would rather wait less than insist on one language. I hate waiting.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would like to say these are some very good points. I would rather wait less than insist on one language. I hate waiting.

You won't wait less - you will wait more, while various forms and rules are translated, or people struggle with it, and there are more forms to sift through, and someone else's language isn't on there, etc. Just like hammerhead said earlier. If you expect people to speak English, then not only do we wait less in line, but we all pay less in taxes.

 

I am waiting now for someone to suggest we have "readers" at all government facilities to tell people what forms say, in case they are illiterate. Because it makes exactly the same sense as what is being suggested here. The majority of people should not have to pay extra money and wait longer in line because the minority refuse to learn English.

 

If they both happen to know Spanish, great, it makes no difference to me. But to put that immense cost on the government is just an incredibly inefficient idea.

 

[Texsox]

And in an ideal world that is what will happen. Everyone will learn enough English in a week to navigate the forms.

 

But in the real world, it takes time to learn a language. Some people will never trust there second language. Would you trust your High School French while filling out a tourist application? Driver's License? You would probably bring a friend to help translate. That is why I appreciate that Mexico has most of their work and temp immigration forms in English as well as Spanish. But hey, they can afford it, they are a rich country.

 

What happens when people wait longer, they need more space. They need more parking spaces, chairs, bathrooms, clerks. They need more time off work. Then double it when they bring a translator. It's easy to demand that an adult learn English well enough to fill out government forms. What grade level are they written at? It's another to understand that language acquisition basically peaks at 10 years old and it gets much tougher after that.

 

Reality check. If you had 1% needing this, it is probably a waste. If you had 99% needing this, it is an obvious benefit. There is a cross over point. Is it 50%? Possibly, my guess it is less. Why did we translate many of these forms to computer based? Because anytime you are repeating the same step over and over again it is more efficient to automate it. Think of this the same way. If tens of thousand of clerks will look at Name and translate nombre to hundreds of thousands of customers, why not do it one time and be done?

 

BTW, you do know that most of this has already been done?

 

I applaud those that believe we can afford to keep people in lines if it will help the immigrant to assimilate. I am all for that. I just think our government should strive for lower costs with better service. Same as private business. Automating processes, like translating forms, is one way. A careful analysis should be done and if the results say translating a form is cheaper, then we should, if it is more expensive, we should not.

 

So that would probably mean it makes sense to do Spanish, but not French or Greek.

[Texsox]

You won't wait less - you will wait more, while various forms and rules are translated, or people struggle with it, and there are more forms to sift through, and someone else's language isn't on there, etc. Just like hammerhead said earlier. If you expect people to speak English, then not only do we wait less in line, but we all pay less in taxes.

 

I am waiting now for someone to suggest we have "readers" at all government facilities to tell people what forms say, in case they are illiterate. Because it makes exactly the same sense as what is being suggested here. The majority of people should not have to pay extra money and wait longer in line because the minority refuse to learn English.

 

If they both happen to know Spanish, great, it makes no difference to me. But to put that immense cost on the government is just an incredibly inefficient idea.

 

Exactly

 

Wait while various forms and rules are translated:or people struggle with it,

Yep, that's what we have now. Let's do it once for the popular languages. Problem solved, or at least made better.

 

I am waiting now for someone to suggest we have "readers" at all government facilities to tell people what forms say, in case they are illiterate. Because it makes exactly the same sense as what is being suggested here.

 

If 20 or 30% of the population needed it, then it might just be the right thing to do. Now, I believe it is too small of a need.

But to put that immense cost on the government is just an incredibly inefficient idea.

 

Exactly. Having people do the same translations, over and over again while others wait, is inefficient. Especially for millions and millions of people. And since most of these are already done, I think keeping them makes more sense than throwing them away with an English only ban. I believe our government should have an open mind and look for efficient ways. If translating to Spanish is cost effective, go for it. Let them assimilate on their own time.

 

If it costs $1,000,00 to translate and saves $3,000,000 go for it. If it costs $1,000,000 and saves $100,000 then don't. Currently with our population it may begin to make economic sense for Spanish, but not for illiterates.

[Balta1701]

Let them assimilate on their own time.

Which, we might add, according to study after study, occurs in a huge majority of immigrant families within usually the first generation.

[Texsox]

Let me try another explanation. I know what is in my brain, isn't that controversial.

 

There is a cost per customer served. Companies figure this out all the time. Costs generally go up the longer you are servicing someone. So lets arrive at a cost per minute to service someone. Do we all agree we can determine the cost per person served?

 

Now let's take the time lost, if any, when someone can't fully grasp the language as effectively as they could in their own language. So even if they can read and write English, they may be quicker in Spanish. Add up those cost savings, multiply it by the number of people being served and see the potential savings. Can we agree that time is money? Paying someone by the hour to spend 30 minutes is more expensive then having them spend 15 minutes.

 

Then look at the price of the technology, translations, eliminating the form, whatever, in solving the problem.

 

The difference determines what should be done.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Given the illiterate example, the cost savings would probably never surpass the cost to solve the problem. Making forms available in braille, might.

[Rex Kickass]

You won't wait less - you will wait more, while various forms and rules are translated, or people struggle with it, and there are more forms to sift through, and someone else's language isn't on there, etc. Just like hammerhead said earlier. If you expect people to speak English, then not only do we wait less in line, but we all pay less in taxes.

 

I am waiting now for someone to suggest we have "readers" at all government facilities to tell people what forms say, in case they are illiterate. Because it makes exactly the same sense as what is being suggested here. The majority of people should not have to pay extra money and wait longer in line because the minority refuse to learn English.

 

If they both happen to know Spanish, great, it makes no difference to me. But to put that immense cost on the government is just an incredibly inefficient idea.

 

You have "readers" available now. I don't see the huge expense in making sure that say 10% or 20% of a government branch office staff is bilingual. You aren't necessarily increasing staff, you're just diversifying the staff you have.

[kapkomet]

Then I could sue my local government office for being discrimatory in hiring because I'm not bilingual.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Which, we might add, according to study after study, occurs in a huge majority of immigrant families within usually the first generation.

 

[Texsox]

Then I could sue my local government office for being discriminatory in hiring because I'm not bilingual.

 

No. It is like any other requirement for the job. If they could not life ten pounds and wanted a job in Streets and Sans, etc. We see a lot of ads down here marked bilingual preferred and depending on their current staffing, that may be more or less of an issue. As long as it can be proven their is a legitimate requirement for the job, there is no case.

[kapkomet]

I know that. But it sounds dramatic and full of legal promise for $$, since I'm a minority in the state of Texas.

 

[Texsox]

I know that. But it sounds dramatic and full of legal promise for $, since I'm a minority in the state of Texas.

 

Tell me about it

[Balta1701]

Hmm, interesting catch that I didn't see earlier this week. During a Senate hearing Wednesday, the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division gave an estimate for how much it would cost simply to deport all 12 to 15 million illegal immigrants currently in the country (not counting any of the costs of finding them, only the costs due to the deportation process). Her answer was $94 billion. That includes only detention costs, travel costs, and personnel fees associated with those parts of the trip.

[Texsox]

And then add the cost to businesses to hire replacements, etc. No wonder no politician wants to tackle this problem.

[southsider2k5]

Hmm, interesting catch that I didn't see earlier this week. During a Senate hearing Wednesday, the head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division gave an estimate for how much it would cost simply to deport all 12 to 15 million illegal immigrants currently in the country (not counting any of the costs of finding them, only the costs due to the deportation process). Her answer was $94 billion. That includes only detention costs, travel costs, and personnel fees associated with those parts of the trip.

 

Wow that is a huge number. You know what else is a huge number? The $1.1 million per person (an estimated $22,849 per household/average # of people in a household) over a 50 year adult life span (in other words not counting childhood years, when zero taxes are paid, and multiple deductions and credits are taken) that the average low income earner citizen uses in government services, over and above the taxes that they pay into the system.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTUyZ...TAxNTZlOWJkNDk=

 

Now take that $1.1 million per person times 12 million for the low estimate of illegals in the US and that ends up giving you 13.2 TRILLION dollars. Even if you take the law of diminishing marginal returns for some costs, and lower it by half to $6.6 trillion that is still only 1.4% of the cost of having them stay here, even without factoring the 20 childhood years into the equation.

[Texsox]

Above is a great example of what happens with all low paying jobs in America, regardless of who is working them.

[Balta1701]

Above is a great example of what happens with all low paying jobs in America, regardless of who is working them.

Therefore, the solution is a $25/hr minimum wage.

[Texsox]

Therefore, the solution is a $25/hr minimum wage.

 

 

By solution, you imply there is a problem. And perhaps there is with the system. Look at all the programs for the "working poor". Pell Grants for education. Child care credits. Food and shelter assistance. Are all examples. We could eliminate those programs and cut the costs that SS mentions. We could further tax the poor to balance this out. But then we would be faced with living in the country that they can afford to build.

 

Instead we have a program where we help support the poor through government involvement. I could be persuaded that this should be private charity work, but I don't see the system working through private donations only.

[StrangeSox]

Wow that is a huge number. You know what else is a huge number? The $1.1 million per person (an estimated $22,849 per household/average # of people in a household) over a 50 year adult life span (in other words not counting childhood years, when zero taxes are paid, and multiple deductions and credits are taken) that the average low income earner citizen uses in government services, over and above the taxes that they pay into the system.

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTUyZ...TAxNTZlOWJkNDk=

 

Now take that $1.1 million per person times 12 million for the low estimate of illegals in the US and that ends up giving you 13.2 TRILLION dollars. Even if you take the law of diminishing marginal returns for some costs, and lower it by half to $6.6 trillion that is still only 1.4% of the cost of having them stay here, even without factoring the 20 childhood years into the equation.

 

Those low-paying jobs exist and need to be filled, regardless of the legal status of the employee.