[cogman10]

> You're also focusing on the low hanging fruit

Right, because that's the strongest position for why we should have, at a minimum, translation services for someone facing imprisonment.

Why instead of addressing this case are you pivoting to an argument I did not and am not making? You are straw manning me.

> What about voting materials or passport applications?

Nice to have, not a need to have. With perhaps the exception accommodations made for someone that's blind. But that can literally just be a poll worker that helps someone fill out a ballot. No need to print out braille ballots.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

I'm looking at another use-case further down the spectrum. I don't believe you're making an argument for/against those things. On the contrary, I am expanding the argument to what I believe is a more reasonable scenario to analyze this new fed gov policy.

Unfortunately our government does not engage in nuance well, so if I have to sacrifice translation services for criminal defendants in order to secure against ballots, passports, and other citizen-specific materials in foreign languages I am willing to make that tradeoff.

[cogman10]

> Unfortunately our government does not engage in nuance well

It certainly does and it's certainly not hard to put in exclusive language. There's no slippery slope here. A simple bill of "Anyone being prosecuted has the right to access translation services" would do (and we already have provisions like that in the criminal code). It can be amended right into our criminal justice legal code.

You are now creating a false dichotomy.