School gives out form in English? LAWYER UP!!!

[Greed and Death]

You have no idea how much I would love to see the US turn out if it spoke French.

OMG... but then the US would have had to adopt a blue-white-red flag! And welcome French troops on their land! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

And after WWII we would have the special relationship with France not with the UK.
Might have the entire eurozone in a special relationship via the French.

[United Dependencies]

I assume North Carolina is, in fact, in America, and its public schools are, in fact, covered under the federal laws concerning public education?

Yes

§ 145‑12. State language.
(a) Purpose. English is the common language of the people of the United States of America and the State of North Carolina. This section is intended to preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of North Carolina.
(b) English as the Official Language of North Carolina. English is the official language of the State of North Carolina.
(c) Expired. (1987, c. 480, c. 877, s. 1.1.)

And guess what the State supreme court has ruled?

all children residing in North Carolina - have a fundamental state constitutional right to the "equal opportunity to receive a sound basic education."

http://www.law.duke.edu/childedlaw/scho ... ndrovstate

Even if you can successfully say that non-english documents don't count under this ruling, that still ignores that the county has officially said that they are reviewing their standard practices and are trying to work with the civil rights office to correct this issue.

[Greed and Death]

By the time the mother managed to appeal her son's suspension, he had been out of school for more than three weeks because the mother had missed the deadline because of her limited English, the groups said.

Hmmm, all that really needs to be done is waive the deadline for the appeal.
If the school district screwed up in delivering forms it is there fault, student should not miss the right of appeal.

I do question what fault the kids may have played. For instance claiming their parents spoke English in the hopes they would not find out about the suspension.

[Katganistan]

OMG... but then the US would have had to adopt a blue-white-red flag! And welcome French troops on their land! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

Didn't France help them win the Revolution?

Indeed, and bankrupted themselves.

[Greed and Death]

Didn't France help them win the Revolution?

Indeed, and bankrupted themselves.

The war of Spanish succession and their regressive tax code ( real regressive not bitching about flat tax regressive), bankrupted them. The War in support of the Americas was just a side show.

[North California]

MORE proof of white genocide.
Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for Everybody

It is said that there is this RACE problem. They say this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Da fuq?

Dude, the best way to solve the race issue is to just ignore race to begin with. Pretend race is like eye or hair color. No one cares about what eye or hair color you are. I certainly don't care about what race you are. Abolish those segregation laws and affirmative actions laws as they still classify people based on their race, which is inherently racist. The melting pot is a great idea. Much better than whatever the fuck you just posted.

[North California]

Indeed, and bankrupted themselves.

The war of Spanish succession and their regressive tax code ( real regressive not bitching about flat tax regressive), bankrupted them. The War in support of the Americas was just a side show.

Hey, be thankful the French supported us though. Without them, we would still be part of crown. I don't know what some of the Brits and other people here think of that, but I for one, would HATE that with a burning passion.

[Katganistan]

The war of Spanish succession and their regressive tax code ( real regressive not bitching about flat tax regressive), bankrupted them. The War in support of the Americas was just a side show.

Hey, be thankful the French supported us though. Without them, we would still be part of crown. I don't know what some of the Brits and other people here think of that, but I for one, would HATE that with a burning passion.

Why?

[North California]

Hey, be thankful the French supported us though. Without them, we would still be part of crown. I don't know what some of the Brits and other people here think of that, but I for one, would HATE that with a burning passion.

Why?

Well, let's see. How would you like it if the US controlled Britain? British people would hate that. It's nothing against British people, but personally, I would rather live in my own nation, and not in a colony of Britain. Also, I don't like monarchism that much.

[AiliailiA]

I don't think a school (or any other government agency) should be required to provide notices in every possible language the person might prefer.

I think there should be a reasonable delay in communications. Two days each way for written communication, another two days for the government authority to render their communication into the parent's preferred language. A five day delay in written communication isn't so bad. Written communication is inherently slow, it's one of the virtues of doing business by mail.

If there is some standard time for the parent to appeal the decision, that should be extended to allow the time for them to be engaged in their preferred language. Five days, plus however more than two days it took the government authority to reply in the preferred language.

Oh. So should they, I don't know, simply take kids away from parents and then wait a week or two to explain they haven't been kidnapped, they're with child services?

Or should you be slung in a cell for days on end without knowing why?

Because those are pretty much the same thing you're saying is just fine for people who don't speak English -- that they don't have a right to know what legal actions are being taken against them, or to have it explained in a timely manner so they can take care of the matter.

It was a kind of worst-case: I'm saying that if the parent insisted on doing all business by writing (as is their right I guess) then it shouldn't take the school more than five days to get back to them in their preferred language. Most of that time being for worst-case mail delivery.

And you seem to have me quite wrong even so. That last paragraph seems quite clear to me that the school shouldn't take any action and should extend the time available for the parent to appeal, by however long it takes the school to provide the notice in the parents' preferred language. How you got kidnapping out of that I'll be fucked if I know.

I agree with the OP that a reasonable parent would phone up right away (or go to the school in person) if they didn't understand the English written on a Spanish form which says their child is to be suspended. And the school absolutely should have a Spanish speaker on the staff to take their call, since apparently 7% of that school's parents speak ONLY Spanish at home.

[AiliailiA]

Why?

Well, let's see. How would you like it if the US controlled Britain? British people would hate that. It's nothing against British people, but personally, I would rather live in my own nation, and not in a colony of Britain. Also, I don't like monarchism that much.

Britain now would no more "control" the US than they control the 54 nations of the Commonwealth. A minority of them even recognize the UK monarch as their own.

Canada for instance. There is some republican sentiment there, but it's mainly directed at disconnecting the monarchy. Being in the Commonwealth has more benefits than costs ... as far as I know, no country has ever left it and there is a queue to join.

[Forsher]

Well, let's see. How would you like it if the US controlled Britain? British people would hate that. It's nothing against British people, but personally, I would rather live in my own nation, and not in a colony of Britain. Also, I don't like monarchism that much.

Britain now would no more "control" the US than they control the 54 nations of the Commonwealth. A minority of them even recognize the UK monarch as their own.

Canada for instance. There is some republican sentiment there, but it's mainly directed at disconnecting the monarchy. Being in the Commonwealth has more benefits than costs ... as far as I know, no country has ever left it and there is a queue to join.

Republicanism is a belief that relies on convictions more than any other in certain areas of the world.

To return to the point, the US's formation actually affected British policy with regard to certain areas of the Empire. The only way I could ever see the relationship between the US and Britain remaining to the present day as the same prior to its independence is with many many changes in other areas of the world. Often with no direct connection to Britain. The countries that are today part of the Commonwealth have always been very fluid.

In terms of the thread, the reaction of the parents is unreasonable. However, the whole thing seems to be an administrative disaster.

[North California]

Well, let's see. How would you like it if the US controlled Britain? British people would hate that. It's nothing against British people, but personally, I would rather live in my own nation, and not in a colony of Britain. Also, I don't like monarchism that much.

Britain now would no more "control" the US than they control the 54 nations of the Commonwealth. A minority of them even recognize the UK monarch as their own.

Canada for instance. There is some republican sentiment there, but it's mainly directed at disconnecting the monarchy. Being in the Commonwealth has more benefits than costs ... as far as I know, no country has ever left it and there is a queue to join.

Still, I want to live in the United States of America, not the Dominion of America, the Colony of America, or the Commonwealth of America. And, all the work the Founder's did to get us to gain independence would be lost. Also, American and British culture and politics are too different to be brought back together again. I'm sure living under British rule wouldn't be that bad, but it is the principle of the matter. National sovereignty, independence, and self-determination are important to me politically (and too an extent, in my daily life).

Much like be British, being American has an attitude to it. That frontier lifestyle, baseball, apple pie, muscle cars, vast, wide open space, Hollywood stars, grandiosity, and the American Dream (even if it is harder to catch now-a-days). America is too different from Britain to be part of it. We separated from you guys for a reason, you know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Britain has its own attitude that comes with being British. But the British attitude is very different than the American attitude.

[Forsher]

Britain now would no more "control" the US than they control the 54 nations of the Commonwealth. A minority of them even recognize the UK monarch as their own.

Canada for instance. There is some republican sentiment there, but it's mainly directed at disconnecting the monarchy. Being in the Commonwealth has more benefits than costs ... as far as I know, no country has ever left it and there is a queue to join.

Still, I want to live in the United States of America, not the Dominion of America, the Colony of America, or the Commonwealth of America. And, all the work the Founder's did to get us to gain independence would be lost. Also, American and British culture and politics are too different to be brought back together again. I'm sure living under British rule wouldn't be that bad, but it is the principle of the matter. National sovereignty, independence, and self-determination are important to me politically (and too an extent, in my daily life).

Much like be British, being American has an attitude to it. That frontier lifestyle, baseball, apple pie, muscle cars, vast, wide open space, Hollywood stars, grandiosity, and the American Dream (even if it is harder to catch now-a-days). America is too different from Britain to be part of it. We separated from you guys for a reason, you know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Britain has its own attitude that comes with being British. But the British attitude is very different than the American attitude.

To stop this in its tracks. You have made a critical error. The world that you know is not the same as the world where rebels won the American Revolution. Quite simply the experiences that contribute to a national identity would be different. Possibly it may have remained essentially the same as it was at the time, no expansion beyond the orginal thirteen.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Britain now would no more "control" the US than they control the 54 nations of the Commonwealth. A minority of them even recognize the UK monarch as their own.

Canada for instance. There is some republican sentiment there, but it's mainly directed at disconnecting the monarchy. Being in the Commonwealth has more benefits than costs ... as far as I know, no country has ever left it and there is a queue to join.

Still, I want to live in the United States of America, not the Dominion of America, the Colony of America, or the Commonwealth of America. And, all the work the Founder's did to get us to gain independence would be lost. Also, American and British culture and politics are too different to be brought back together again. I'm sure living under British rule wouldn't be that bad, but it is the principle of the matter. National sovereignty, independence, and self-determination are important to me politically (and too an extent, in my daily life).

Much like be British, being American has an attitude to it. That frontier lifestyle, baseball, apple pie, muscle cars, vast, wide open space, Hollywood stars, grandiosity, and the American Dream (even if it is harder to catch now-a-days). America is too different from Britain to be part of it. We separated from you guys for a reason, you know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Britain has its own attitude that comes with being British. But the British attitude is very different than the American attitude.

The Commonwealth doesn't dictate your laws, so far as I am aware.
It's merely a sort of alliance united by allegiance to the Queen.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Didn't France help them win the Revolution?

Hence the link to the Marquis de Lafayette link. He's a pretty big national hero here, despite being a Frenchman.

So why does America hate France?

[Serrland]

Hence the link to the Marquis de Lafayette link. He's a pretty big national hero here, despite being a Frenchman.

So why does America hate France?

It doesn't. Our relationship with France has been quite strong for quite some time, and is growing ever stronger. Their failure to participate in the invasion of Iraq was little more than a minor temporary hiccup. Much of the anti-French sentiment is led by talking heads who are frankly on the fringe and not by the government (nor past governments, for that matter).

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Just that hating on France seems to be a particularly strong stereotyped sentiment of Americans.
Coming from a resident of neither nation.

[Serrland]

Just that hating on France seems to be a particularly strong stereotyped sentiment of Americans.
Coming from a resident of neither nation.

I think a great deal of that is less-than-serious, with the Groundskeeper Willy type "cheese-eating surrender monkeys' type stuff. As to actual anti-French sentiment, it seems to be limited to the fringe right and their stooges (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc)

[Individual Impersonators]

As a tax payer, I would like to sue all people who do not learn English. The costs required in translation, the extra time taken to communicate with people who speak poor English, the dividing nature of segregation from the majority of the community increasing the chance of crimes, the effects on the financial system of higher unemployment and lower skilled employment as well as the dangers posed by the inability to follow directions all create problems.

Somehow I doubt any of those things are grounds for a lawsuit, even if they are true and attributable to people who don't speak English.

Causing a dangerous situation out of recklesness or indifference is no grounds for a law suit? Imposing a financial burden on others without the person effecteds consent when it is no fault of their own is not grounds for seeking associated costs? There is plenty that a lawyer could target

If you move to a country that has English as its native language,

This doesn't describe the USA, incidentally.

English is the standard language if nothing else. It is the language all legal documents have to be written in.

No there shouldn't, on both counts.

Love the reasons why. It is nice to know that you support segregated communities and requirements on everyone else but not the individual whom faces a problem.

[AiliailiA]

Still, I want to live in the United States of America, not the Dominion of America, the Colony of America, or the Commonwealth of America. And, all the work the Founder's did to get us to gain independence would be lost. Also, American and British culture and politics are too different to be brought back together again. I'm sure living under British rule wouldn't be that bad, but it is the principle of the matter. National sovereignty, independence, and self-determination are important to me politically (and too an extent, in my daily life).

Much like be British, being American has an attitude to it. That frontier lifestyle, baseball, apple pie, muscle cars, vast, wide open space, Hollywood stars, grandiosity, and the American Dream (even if it is harder to catch now-a-days). America is too different from Britain to be part of it. We separated from you guys for a reason, you know.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Britain has its own attitude that comes with being British. But the British attitude is very different than the American attitude.

The Commonwealth doesn't dictate your laws, so far as I am aware.
It's merely a sort of alliance united by allegiance to the Queen.

It's not even that. The Queen is chief officer of the Commonwealth but has no power over countries which don't accept her as their individual Queen.

There is a subset of the Commonwealth: Commonwealth Dominions. These countries have the Queen recognized in their constitution (as their monarch) and there the Queen has nominal powers as she does in the UK. However, Dominions are only about one in three of Commonwealth nations ... it absolutely is not necessary for any country to have a role for the Queen in their government, for that country to be a member of the Commonwealth.

But Forsher makes a good point. The American war of Independence surely changed the history of the British Empire and it's likely that the later, more peaceful secession of so many ex-colonies would have gone differently without it. Possibly in a series of smaller wars of independence, but possibly also peacefully but more slowly.

I'm still pretty sure that the US would not be a colony nor possession of Britain now, had the War of Independence never happened.

[Forsher]

The Commonwealth doesn't dictate your laws, so far as I am aware.
It's merely a sort of alliance united by allegiance to the Queen.

It's not even that. The Queen is chief officer of the Commonwealth but has no power over countries which don't accept her as their individual Queen.

There is a subset of the Commonwealth: Commonwealth Dominions. These countries have the Queen recognized in their constitution (as their monarch) and there the Queen has nominal powers as she does in the UK. However, Dominions are only about one in three of Commonwealth nations ... it absolutely is not necessary for any country to have a role for the Queen in their government, for that country to be a member of the Commonwealth.

But Forsher makes a good point. The American war of Independence surely changed the history of the British Empire and it's likely that the later, more peaceful secession of so many ex-colonies would have gone differently without it. Possibly in a series of smaller wars of independence, but possibly also peacefully but more slowly.

I'm still pretty sure that the US would not be a colony nor possession of Britain now, had the War of Independence never happened.

Its never happening would pose an interesting scenario. Does Britain follow the same route as before or does it follow a different track and expand into the rest of the North American continent? Is it reasonable to assume both happen? I think not, there's a reason why it was able to be won. Very possibly things happen later.

Somehow I doubt any of those things are grounds for a lawsuit, even if they are true and attributable to people who don't speak English.

Causing a dangerous situation out of recklesness or indifference is no grounds for a law suit? Imposing a financial burden on others without the person effecteds consent when it is no fault of their own is not grounds for seeking associated costs? There is plenty that a lawyer could target

This doesn't describe the USA, incidentally.

English is the standard language if nothing else. It is the language all legal documents have to be written in.

Love the reasons why. It is nice to know that you support segregated communities and requirements on everyone else but not the individual whom faces a problem.

Is it reasonable to expect immigrants in the US to learn English? Yes, it most certainly is. Is it right, therefore, to not make assimilation easier? No, it isn't.

The desire to lump immigrant groups into one area is not a healthy one. The natural pressure to learn the main language is eased and as a result mistrust of the immigrant groups increases as they are seen as not belonging properly. However, the opposite (not allowing such groupings) tends to result in language loss.

The solution is to form small, much smaller, groupings. A country achieves the best of both worlds.

[AiliailiA]

It's not even that. The Queen is chief officer of the Commonwealth but has no power over countries which don't accept her as their individual Queen.

There is a subset of the Commonwealth: Commonwealth Dominions. These countries have the Queen recognized in their constitution (as their monarch) and there the Queen has nominal powers as she does in the UK. However, Dominions are only about one in three of Commonwealth nations ... it absolutely is not necessary for any country to have a role for the Queen in their government, for that country to be a member of the Commonwealth.

But Forsher makes a good point. The American war of Independence surely changed the history of the British Empire and it's likely that the later, more peaceful secession of so many ex-colonies would have gone differently without it. Possibly in a series of smaller wars of independence, but possibly also peacefully but more slowly.

I'm still pretty sure that the US would not be a colony nor possession of Britain now, had the War of Independence never happened.

Its never happening would pose an interesting scenario. Does Britain follow the same route as before or does it follow a different track and expand into the rest of the North American continent? Is it reasonable to assume both happen? I think not, there's a reason why it was able to be won. Very possibly things happen later.

Indeed. Colonialism was in bad trouble after WW1, due to the Colonial powers being significantly weakened, and WW2 finished it. But would either war have even happened if such a significant part of history had been changed centuries before? Absolutely impossible to know. Perhaps a huge European war would have happened much sooner.

I don't see us disagreeing much here, so let's unhijack ...