28 March—So Joe Biden called the Nashville school shooting “sick” and “heartbreaking.” Ya think? And he probably didn’t even plagiarize to get it.

Coming back stupid legislation, then, among the multitude of noisome bills being seriously considered by the whores of Hartford this year is Governor’s Bill 6663, An Act Establishing the English Learners’ Bill of Rights, perhaps not all that objectionable on the surface. Being a governor’s bill, the stated purpose is, of course, “to implement the Governor’s budget [politically expedient, irresponsible spendthrift] recommendations.”

In addition to its implicit intent of pandering to current and future voters legal and otherwise, however, the bill’s purpose, as stated in its first section, is to be “a written bill of rights for parents or guardians of students who are English learners to guarantee that the rights of such parents and students are adequately safeguarded and protected.”

No problem with that compassionate, thoroughly feel-good concept, to be sure. But is yet another narrowly targeted bill of rights really necessary? As always, the devil is in the details. “The right of an English learner student to attend a public school in the state regardless of such student’s immigration status or the immigration status of such student’s parent or guardian” and “the right of a parent or guardian of an English learner student to enroll such student in a public school without being required to submit immigration documentation, including, but not limited to, a Social Security number, visa documentation or proof of citizenship” are disturbing, to say the least.

But that’s not all. “The right of an English learner student to have a certified translator present during critical interactions with teachers and administrators, including, but not limited to, parent-teacher conferences, meetings with administrators of the school in [sic] which such child is attending and meetings of or with members of the board of education responsible for educating such child” makes sense.

Except that the people who devised and drafted the bill didn’t know the difference between translators and interpreters. Translators work with written material, while interpreters work orally and on the fly. But getting past that, you know full well who’s implicitly expected to pay for the interpreters. So why, in all fairness, should taxpayers have to foot the bill for certified interpreters, who don’t come cheap?

In the good old days of a less obtrusive welfare state, a nice albeit uncertified neighbor or perhaps an uncertified bilingual teacher or administrator would have volunteered to interpret or even translate for a parent or pupil not yet proficient or competent in conversational English. And it worked out fine.

“The right of an English learner student and the parent or guardian of such student to receive a high quality [sic] orientation session, in the dominant language of such student and parent or guardian, from the local or regional board of education that provides information relating to state standards, tests and expectations at the school for English

learner students . . .” again makes perfect sense—but again, why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill? Another unfunded mandate on towns and cities?

Silly question? Not at all, because Ned Lamont and his cronies are dependent on the votes of people who can’t afford to hire interpreters (even though they can afford five-foot televisions, the latest smart phones, and other luxuries). They’re often fairly recent immigrants, to be sure, but almost as often just lazy longer-term ignorants who just haven’t bothered to learn our language because they haven’t had to, thanks to politicians like Ned Lamont and his profligate fellow vote buyers.

Further comment on the manifold abuses 6663 invites is unnecessary. But doesn’t it make you feel good?