How to reach the parties:
- US Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR): PAO.EOIR@usdoj.gov or through the complaint process: firstname.lastname@example.org or online at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/sibpages/InterpComplaint.htm. On Twitter: @DOJ_EOIR
- Lionbridge: email@example.com. On Twitter: @lionbridge
Sample Tweets (or write your own!):
(1) Proposed simultaneous interpreting agrmnt betw
#Lionbridge/ #EOIR = danger to all. Protect due process. Safeguard interpreters.
(2) Pact w/
#Lionbridge hurts interpreters’ ability to ensure justice, due process. Protect immigrant rights! http://fb.me/15ckt2d0y
(3) No to proposed changes in
#Lionbridge/ #EOIR interpreting contract. A failure for immigrants, a failure for due process.
(4) Immigrant justice under threat. No to simultaneous interpreting in EOIR hearings, no
#Lionbridge/ #EOIR contract. #immigration
Sample Letter/Email (or write your own!):
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my disapproval over and concern regarding the US Executive Office of Immigration Review’s recent move toward simultaneous interpreting in immigration proceedings with only one interpreter present.
The results of ample research over the past fifty years are unequivocal: simultaneous interpreting is an intense mental task that cannot be performed continuously for more than thirty minutes by any one person. For this reason, high-level, experienced interpreters in any court, conference, or international organization work in groups of two or three at all times. Anything less contravenes interpreters’ professional ethics, is damaging to the interpreters’ health and well-being, and seriously affects the quality of his or her work.
As a cost-cutting measure, hiring only one interpreter for “full and complete” interpretation of EOIR hearings is short-sighted and self-defeating. Interpreters working alone while performing simultaneous interpreting cannot be expected to produce accurate work or ensure due process. The long-term costs of unequal access to justice for persons of limited English proficiency and in future appeals far surpass any amount saved by implementing this poorly conceived measure.
I ask that you please re-consider this measure. Instead, work in concert with interpreters’ professional associations and interpreters themselves to resolve this issue.