PROVIDENCE — Governor Carcieri’s statements on talk radio — that he doesn’t know “why in God’s name” the state should provide English-language interpreters, at taxpayer expense, “for people who want benefits from us” — sparked angry calls for a retraction and an apology yesterday.

State Democratic Party chairman Bill Lynch called for “a retraction and an apology,” saying: “It’s hard to imagine a governor saying anything more insensitive, or frankly, un-American.”

Echoing the call for a retraction, Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, labeled the comments “mean-spirited’ and said: “It’s shocking that the state’s chief executive would make comments that feed into the fear and hatred that’s out there…the fear and hatred of people who differ from you and me, people who are not white…who have come from another country.”

Ellen Gallagher, the outreach coordinator for the International Institute of Rhode Island, simply called the governor’s comments “upsetting.”

With 400 people on the Institute’s waiting list, she said English classes are not available for everyone who wants to learn the language and having relatives — especially children — as interpreters in legally complicated or potentially “upsetting” conversations about financial or medical conditions is “unacceptable.”

The governor’s office had no response.

But state Republican Party chairman Giovanni Cicione, responding at the request of Carcieri’s communications director Steve Kass, accused the governor’s critics — and Lynch especially — of “purposely misinterpreting the governor’s comments” and drawing unfounded conclusions.

“He didn’t say anything about limiting access to benefits or not providing due process rights in the courts,” Cicione said. And, “You are hearing this from [Democrats] whose primary base of support is unions…the last vestige of institutional racism in this country.”

The Carcieri comments that sparked the controversy played out Wednesday on WHJJ’s Helen Glover radio call-in show.

On Monday, Carcieri announced his intention to lay off 414 state workers and remove another 115 “contract employees” from the state’s temporary rolls as the first steps in an effort to avert projected $200-million deficit next year. But he refused to provide any details about which state jobs he had targeted for elimination, and how many he intended to strip from each agency. He said details would come after the employees are notified next month.

Before he went on the radio, the governor would only say that his staff-reduction plans would target “back office” workers, like those who work in “finance, accounting and a few lawyers.”

He loosened up two days later, however, when talking to a radio audience.

Asked by a caller why the state needs interpreters in the courts and other state agencies, Carcieri said: “Amen to you buddy.”

In the hunt for expendable jobs, Carcieri said he found, for example, one department with eight Spanish-speaking interpreters, and “I said why are we, at taxpayer expense, providing interpreters for people who want benefits from us? It seems completely illogical to me because you’re right,” he told the caller. “My grandparents immigrated from Italy. My grandmother didn’t speak English. She learned it…”

“But the point is if they needed somebody…they got somebody, a friend or relative who spoke English, right? So why in God’s name [are] we providing, at taxpayer expense, staff whose sole job is to interpret English for people who apparently have no friend and no relative that can speak English. I don’t think we should be doing that.”

As of mid-September, there were 25 individuals on the state payroll with the title “interpreter.” The break down: 20 Spanish, 2 Portuguese, 1 Hmong and 2 Cambodian. In addition, there were 12 contract employees who routinely perform similar services: 3 are at the Department of Human Services, 9 in the courts, according to the Department of Administration. At any given time, the state calls in additional interpreters on an as-needed basis through interpreting service companies.

Cicione yesterday echoed the governor’s question: “Why should we be providing something as a state that people are willing to provide themselves… just the way my grandparents did 50 years ago. They brought their son, or their cousin or their brother and it worked fine.” He also suggested more reliance on private companies that supply interpreters as needed, which he suggested, might be more efficient having a translator on staff that only speaks one or two languages.”

The response from the ACLU’s Brown to these GOP arguments: “Why is the state paying money for interpreters? Well, because we hold certain values such as the fact that a person who doesn’t speak English should [not] be sent off to jail because there was nobody there to interpret the court proceedings for them.” And why “single-out” the English-impaired? “Following that logic, why should we have interpreters for hearing-impaired who may apply for benefits?” He asked.

Brown said he was drafting a letter to the governor — along with the International Institute’s Gallagher — “expressing concern about [his] comments and asking him to retract them.”

The governor’s questions about the need for interpreters came weeks after he vowed — on another radio talk show — to promote legislation this year banning the payment of workers’ compensation benefits to illegal immigrants.

Asked earlier this week to explain the philosophy behind these two positions, Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal said the governor “respects the important role that legal immigrants play in Rhode Island and in America as a whole. The governor and his wife are both descended from immigrants. As a result, they have tremendous admiration and respect for America’s status as a nation founded on immigration.”

But that said, “the governor believes that we should strictly limit taxpayer funded benefits or services for illegal immigrants in Rhode Island. He does not believe it is wise to provide illegal immigrants with an incentive to locate or to stay in Rhode Island.”

With regard to banning workers’ compensation for illegal immigrants,” Neal said: “He does not feel it is appropriate to provide these types of payments to individuals who are in the country and employed illegally.”

In his on-air comments about interpreters, Carcieri made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

kgregg@projo.com