Wednesday, June 29th | 30 Sivan 5782

October 1, 2014 10:53 am

Welcome to Multicultural America

avatar by Daniel Pipes

Capitol Hill. Photo: Wiki Commons.

The Center for Immigration Studies finds that the foreign-born population of the United States numbers 41.3 million, or one out of six adults, more than twice the number it was in 1980.

There are many ways to gauge the impact of this huge increase; here’s one small but telling way:

I just received paperwork from Independence Blue Cross (IBX) about medical insurance options for 2015. To my surprise, this hyper-routine mailing includes a two-sided sheet, “Multi-language Interpreter Services,” that offers “free interpreter services to answer any questions you may have about our health or drug plan.” (Click the above links to see them.)

Not only does IBX make this service available in 17 languages, from French Creole to Tagalog to Chinese Cantonese, but it counts English as one of them, as though it’s just another language! More than that, it even mangles the name of the language spoken by the overwhelming majority of its users. Read it for yourself: “Someone who speaks English/Language can help you.”

Related coverage

September 7, 2016 6:28 am

Petty Orthodoxy is a website that analyzes the weekly reading of the Torah for people who do not take every word in the Torah...

Making English just another language to be interpreted points to multiculturalism gone haywire, while subsidizing these translation services silently increases the insurance premiums for IBX’s English speakers.

And why just those 16 foreign languages? Limiting myself just to the Middle East, Hebrew, Persian, and Turkish are missing, not to speak of Armenian, Berber, and Kurdish. And if Chinese rates two dialects, so should Arabic and Kurdish, some of whose dialects are mutually incomprehensible. Logic requires not 16 languages but, say, 160 or even 1,600.

If mundane insurance matters deserve “free” interpretation, surely the far more important conversations between medical personnel on the one side and patients on the other deserve “free” interpretation too. Where does this end?

This article was originally published by National Review Online.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.