I see no problem...
in reaching out to people whose native language is other than English, if Alex and others want to put the time and effort into doing so. It's a free-market campaign.
I am an American whose ancestors came here from Britain over 300 years ago (that's right, in the 1660s), and helped to found this Republic. I do agree that anyone who wishes to become part of this country's experiment in self-governance (i.e. a Citizen, with voting privileges) should learn English -- not because of any identification of this country with British ethnicity, but because that's the language our founding documents were written in, and it is the ideas and ideals in those documents on which this country was founded, rather than any particular ethnicity, religion, race or even language. This may seem a fine point, but it is important.
Thus, while I firmly oppose granting citizenship to anyone not reasonably fluent in English (an ability to read and understand the Declaration and Constitution should be the test -- though admittedly many native-born Anglos would fail that), or printing ballots or other government documents in any other language (a practice which is certainly divisive, and deliberately so, I believe), I also oppose "nativist" types who try to identify "Americanism" with their ("white" Anglo) language, culture, ethnicity or race.
This is why, for instance, I can't support the Constitution Party, who, despite their name (too bad they're squatting on it), seem to have as their first goal the establishment of Christianity (their version, of course) as the State Religion of the United States. Talk about picking-and-choosing which parts of the Constitution you're going to "uphold and defend"!
The truth is, we are all immigrants here -- except perhaps the indigenous tribes, who were also immigrants but were the first humans to occupy this continent. We "white" Europeans have no moral right to claim this land as our own, unless it is to create something new in the world, a nation founded not on ethnicity but on ideals of liberty and equality, where anyone and everyone who is willing to join the covenant is welcome.
When Ron Paul was invited to speak to an Arab American group in Michigan, someone asked him if he had a special message for them. No, he replied, just the same speech he gives to everyone. I like that. But I also like that he was happy to speak to them as a group. And I believe they (and other "minorities") really like being addressed as equals by an "old white guy" who doesn't pander to their supposed "special needs". And I really like seeing people of different religions, races, ethnicities involved in the rEVOLution.
And I've liked seeing deaf interpreters at some of the good Doctor's speeches. That isn't "kissing [anybody's] butt", it's just having the courtesy -- and the wisdom -- to reach out to everyone. So long as the message remains the same to everyone, I see no harm in translating the introduction, if someone wants to do it. It doesn't hurt, and it may help. Those who are liable to become interested will make the effort to learn more; those who are not, won't.