to the region than immigrants. This finding has interpretive implications, in comparing English skill premium results; one can anticipate the relatively higher location preference of native Mexican Americans may yield differences in the English-deficiency earnings penalties similar to that of non-border workers. Additionally, these Mexican immigrants earn less, and fewer hold "white collar" jobs than U.S.-born Mexican Americans, who have a higher proficiency of the English language. If immigrants are being denied opportunity and put under financial strain by being unable to speak English, the same can be said of our government. The economic strain of maintaining public services in other languages cannot currently be estimated. The wide expanse of documents and services spanning the social system, from driver’s license examinations and voter ballots to health care services and ESL programs are only a trivial portion of this cost. The enormity of the cost is likely however with interpreters affiliated with the nation's more than 3,000 interpreting-translating firms charging $35 and up per hour and working many hours. The Supreme Court has interpreted Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars "discrimination, under any program or activity receiving federal assistance, against any person because of his race, color or national origin," to guarantee that services not be denied someone who speaks a foreign language. Political scientist James Gimpel, a University of Maryland specialist on immigration and public policy: “Sure providing interpreting and translating services is costly. That makes it a public policy problem. So does the fact that our information-based economy demands knowledge of English and so many more people than before don't speak it.” What is more than the financial strain is maintaining certain documents in other languages without regulation poses serious questions. Are drivers going to b...
