Lost in Translation: Legal Accessibility for Newly Arrived Immigrants in the United States

Writer: Diego Arriola

Article Editor: Aidan Cameron

I. Introduction

Access to the law for newly arrived immigrants is an increasingly urgent concern in contemporary society. This issue is especially relevant in the United States, where the interplay between legal frameworks and immigrant experiences continues to shape social dynamics. Recent debates over immigration reform and legal representation underscore the need for accessible resources that empower immigrants to have a voice within the legal landscape. This article will analyze the accessibility frameworks of the law as well as the political effectiveness of these frameworks for all newly arrived immigrants. In reviewing local, state, and federal regulations that seek to expand the overall inclusion of individuals who are limited in their English speaking abilities, this article will primarily identify the fallacies and inconsistencies between the frameworks that the law proposes and its application, as well as consider how these shortcomings are intentionally worsened by executive bodies. Frameworks for legal accessibility that promote language access for immigrants exist at all levels of government. However, systemic shortcomings such as insufficient funding, limited enforcement, and growing political polarization drastically undermine these legal efforts. This leaves non-English speaking immigrants at a severe disadvantage when attempting to equitably participate in civic society.

II. Frameworks for Inclusion and Accessibility

To begin this analysis, it is imperative to address the frameworks at the different levels of government that seek to establish a norm of inclusion. Historically, federal government funding and allocations in court systems have been implemented to ensure that, although local governments will face shortcomings on the part of interpreters and attorneys, the framework for better representation is in place.¹ The focus by the federal government on individuals with limited English proficiency explicitly addresses that citizens or immigrants are entitled to the same level of legal protection as native speakers. Title Six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 incorporates language that states organizations utilizing federal funding must take “reasonable steps” to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency have considerable access to their materials.² This includes translating vital documents and access to oral information services. As part of a major stride for inclusion and integration alongside the Civil Rights Movement, Title Six was enforced effectively for the first decade of its enactment, as the range of inclusion it delineated, such as race, origin, and ethnicity. This directly confronted an era of stark racist nationalism.³

These federal regulations are difficult to enforce without added funding and supplementary laws from the states. States that are aware of their vast non-English speaking minorities create more in-depth laws that foster the norm of inclusion more directly than “vague” federal regulations. The New York State Language Translation Services Law, passed in 2022, plainly states that state agencies providing public services across all counties are obligated to translate vital documents into the twelve non-English languages that are most common, as per the ACS (American Community Survey) of that year.⁴ The state of New York is attempting to focus the efforts of federal accessibility policies on the people it governs. States such as Illinois and Massachusetts have also recently enacted language equity laws in 2024 and 2023, respectively.⁵ The need to enact state level legislation reflects the implied limitations of federal law in being enforced uniformly. As the scope of a law is narrowed from the federal level to the local level, the effectiveness of the bureaus and institutions enforcing it is significantly increased. Local ordinances that further establish these frameworks can be found in their more concise language in cities such as Chicago⁶ and San Francisco,⁷ where ordinances that mandate language access plans that translate digital content and essential public documents can be found. Florida partially covers translation hurdles by requiring courts to provide translators when necessary, but it falls under the category of states that lack universal language access statutes.⁸ 

All of the legislation delineated implies that the United States does place a degree of emphasis on inclusion and accessibility at all three levels of government. On paper, immigrants and non-English speakers must be given the tools necessary for navigating legal proceedings, as well as their day-to-day interactions with society. Despite this, mandating the translations of vital documents and requiring access to oral information services, while helpful, does not explicitly protect immigrants from facing extra challenges that contest these frameworks.

III. Significant Challenges of the Frameworks

To conceptualize the first significant hurdle, in states without language access policies, legal documents and proceedings are almost exclusively written and conducted in English. Many legal materials, including housing agreements, court notices, and even public information about tenants’ rights, are often not translated into languages that reflect the communities they serve.⁹ This lack of translation not only undermines the ability of immigrants to comprehend their legal standing but also develops a deep-rooted culture of exclusion where these populations are rendered invisible in legal discourse. Court proceedings on matters such as foreclosures and community violations fail to holistically account for the likelihood that the unit owner, tenant, or resident was not given the proper documents in a language they can adequately understand. To emphasize a predicament where this invisibility is prevalent, Florida Statutes 718 and 720 outline the manner in which condominiums and homeowners’ associations function, respectively.¹⁰ All associations are required to make their bylaws and declarations publicly accessible. However, these documents are often uploaded in one language, in a format unable to be downloaded, and deep within a public records book. As a result, non-English speakers may violate rules about assessments, approvals, or use restrictions, leading to fines, liens, and litigation, without being aware of the laws to begin with. This is increasingly visible in cities with majority Hispanic populations such as Miami, Florida.¹¹ This demonstrates an exemplary contribution to systemic exclusion. Immigrants attempting to engage in the competitive real estate market will hesitate more frequently if the regulations they must adhere to are illegible. Furthermore, the challenges faced by immigrants are compounded by the urgency often present in their situations. For many, the stakes are high, whether it is securing housing, gaining employment, or achieving legal residency. The limited availability of interpreters and translated materials means that many immigrants may rely on friends or family for assistance.¹² This not only leads to important information being lost in translation, but is a direct cause for misunderstandings and misinformation. In the event that a non-English speaker is engaged in litigation, whether due to these previously mentioned conditions or other reasons, another challenge that newly arrived immigrants encounter is acquiring legal representation. 

The United States legal system is complicated, and the costs associated with hiring a qualified attorney can be discouraging as well as highly prohibitive for many immigrant families.¹³ Legal aid organizations often operate at capacity, unable to meet the overwhelming demand for services. The Justice Gap Measurement survey conducted in 2021 found that organizations funded by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) were unable to provide sufficient legal help for 71% of the 1.9 million civil issues they were approached with.¹⁴ Many immigrants are subsequently forced to navigate the law without professional assistance, leaving them vulnerable to missteps that could have consequences such as deportation. When immigrants feel that the legal system is unapproachable, they may avoid seeking legal assistance altogether, perpetuating their vulnerability.  

IV. Potential Solutions to Shortcomings in Accessibility

There are multiple steps that legislators can take. Enacted laws, enforceable rules, and funding for advocacy groups, would drastically improve the conditions of accessibility for immigrants in the U.S. who do not speak English. One crucial step is the establishment of language access policies that require all legal documents, court notices, and public information to be translated into the primary languages spoken by the immigrant communities they serve. Although certain ordinances, as previously discussed, have already incorporated this model into their local societies, the cities that do not have these policies continue to marginalize the minorities who have limited English proficiency. This policy would ensure that non-English speakers have the information they need to navigate the legal system effectively. This is most plainly observed in audit reports of the New York City Human Resources Administration’s Provision of Language Access Services. Government websites were now generally accessible in over 100 languages, and over 221 language access complaints were able to be resolved as a result of the ordinances. In the satisfaction report, an average of 84.17% satisfaction rate was noted with staff’s ability to communicate specific information in a preferred language.¹⁵ Not only does this explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of language-access policies in creating a more accessible legal landscape for non-English speaking immigrants, but motivates these same immigrants to engage in government procedures with confidence that their needs will be met and addressed just as effectively. 

 To propose another solution, increasing funding for legal aid organizations is essential to alleviate the resource constraints they currently face. Many organizations struggle to meet the overwhelming demand for services due to limited financial resources.¹⁶ By allocating more funds to these organizations, lawmakers can help expand their capacity, enabling them to provide more comprehensive services to immigrants in need. Joint initiatives could be developed to create community outreach programs that educate immigrants about their legal rights. These programs could offer informational resources tailored to the specific needs of various immigrant groups, thereby fostering a sense of community and support.¹⁷

Modern domestic policy enacted under President Trump places underprivileged immigrant communities under intense scrutiny by government officials and public opinion alike. Its recent declaration of English as the official language of the United States directly contradicts precedent set by previous administrations that allow the U.S. to serve as a melting pot for diverse minorities capable of contributing greatly to economic and social endeavors.¹⁸ This presidential action reflects not only a critical move towards a trend of exclusion, but advances this approach by shifting towards exclusionary governance. Where being unable to speak English would once have called for greater accessibility protocols, it now generates the risk of being investigated by the Department of Homeland Security. Advocacy groups such as the Immigrant Defense Project and United We Dream can play a pivotal role in addressing discrimination within the legal system by raising awareness of these unconstitutional proceedings and realigning public policy with the frameworks introduced by previous administrations.¹⁹ This can involve lobbying for policy changes, conducting research on the impact of systemic discrimination, and providing support to individuals who experience bias in legal proceedings.

The accessibility of the law for newly arrived immigrants is a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. By implementing systemic changes, increasing funding for legal aid organizations, and focusing more attention on advocacy groups, a more equitable legal sphere is possible. The contributions of immigrants are invaluable, and fostering a legal system that empowers all residents is essential for promoting inclusivity and catalyzing the advancement of modern society. Ensuring the effective enforcement of the frameworks established for accessibility is not only a matter of legal compliance, but is a direct reflection of the broader commitment to democratic equality in the U.S.

1. Improving Access to Services for Persons With Limited English Proficiency, 65 Fed. Reg. 50121 (2000). ↩︎
2. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (1986). ↩︎
3. Jared P. Cole, Civil Rights at School: Agency Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (Apr. 2019), https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45665. ↩︎
4. N.Y. Exec. L. § 202-a. (2022). ↩︎
5. Language Equity and Access Act, 15 Ill. Comp. Stat. 56 (2024); Mass. Exec. Order No. 615 (2023), https://www.mass.gov/doc/eo-615/download. ↩︎
6. Chi., Ill., Muni. Code ch. 2-40 (2015). ↩︎
7. S.F., Cal., Admin. Code ch. 91 (amended 2024). ↩︎
8. Fla. Stat. § 90.606 (2023). ↩︎
9. Nat’l Hous. L. Project, Language Access, https://www.nhlp.org/initiatives/fair-housing-housing-for-people-with-dis
   abilities/language-access/. ↩︎
10. Fla. Stat. §§ 718.104 (2), 720.303 (1) (2025). ↩︎
11. Sharon Cornelissen & Livesey Pack, Immigrants’ Access to Homeownership in the United States: A Review of the Barriers, Discrimination, and Opportunities, Joint Ctr. Hous. Stud. Harv. Univ. (2023). ↩︎
12. Id. ↩︎
13. Nadia Almasalkhi, Immigrants Lack Access to Legal Representation—and Not Just in Immigration Law, Berkeley Interdisc. Migration Initiative, Pol’y Brief (2019), https://lsc-live.app.box.com/s/xl2v2uraiotbbzrhuwtjlgi0emp3myz1. ↩︎
14. Legal Servs. Corp., The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans (2022). ↩︎
15. Off. N.Y.C. Comptroller, Audit Report on the New York City Human Resource Administration’s Provision of Language Services (2023). ↩︎
16. Deborah L. Rhode et al.,  Access to Justice Through Limited Legal Assistance, 16 Nw. J. Hum. Rts. 1 (2018). ↩︎
17. Id. ↩︎
18. Designating English as the Official Language of the United States, 90 Fed. Reg. 11363 (2025). ↩︎
19. Immigrant Defense Project, Know Your Rights with ICE (2025); United We Dream, https://unitedwedream.org/wh
    o-we-are/ (last visited Nov. 2025). ↩︎