That's another issue. In the text that I published, I didn't consider the issue from a constitutional rights perspective. In the current situation, as a result of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in 1986, there's no constitutional right to be heard by a judge without the help of an interpreter. The decision was controversial at the time. However, at this point, it hasn't been overturned. That's why I'm presenting the argument mainly from a public policy perspective, rather than a constitutional rights perspective.
On March 7th, 2017. See this statement in context.