Uk Government Immigration Review.

[KhunG]

I think being able to speak/understand english isnt an unreasonable rquirement - after all seems a bit odd that someone would marry a thai and not be able to have any meaningfull conversation with them.

That's right and I think they have been carefully thought before announcing. It's reasonable. I wouldn't marry to someone I can't or able to have convo with.

I was able to speak Thai fluently before I ever met my wife. English is not the only way to have a meaningful conversation with a Thai

In any case, now that she is in the US, she is learning the language much more quickly and in depth through total emersion. Which, BTW, is how I learned Thai. In the US you don't have to prove your English competency to immigrate, but you do if you want to become a citizen.

Edited December 7, 2007 by KhunG

[endure]

In any case, now that she is US, she is learning the language much more quickly and in depth through total emersion. Which, BTW, is how I learned Thai. In the US you don't have to prove your English competency to immigrate, but you do if you want to become a citizen.

That's the way it should be in the UK IMO.

[bina]

think being able to speak/understand english isnt an unreasonable rquirement - after all seems a bit odd that someone would marry a thai and not be able to have any meaningfull conversation with them.

however, in israel that is already a requirement (english or hebrew at converstational level)... my husband was not able to be interviewed w/o me translating for him as i speak thai... so.....he failed the interview.

he was given another work visa and we were told to come back in six months or a year, depending on when he could have a basic conversation with the interviewer... to get his temporary residence visa which entitles him to things he cant get with just a work visa....

but in this case, when we were asked how we communicate, they watched me to see that i spoke thai for a lenghth of time to ensure that we really were 'real' i.e real couple.

bina

[the scouser]

OK, I understand that, but I can not see how the government could claim that reducing the inflow of non-english speaking spouses from outside the EU would be in the national interest, where as allowing un-checked the flow of all non-english speakers from with in the EU is OK.

Because European law allows citizens of member countries, and their families, to go unchecked to other EEA countries, whilst a British citizen, resident in the UK, is subject to UK law rather than European law.

Scouse.

[david96]

One could understand a reasonable level of English to apply for permanent resident status and British citizenship.

To learn English at a reasonable spoken level before entry into the UK would be very difficult in many foreign countries.

One should be able to converse after 2 years, and be able to learn English at Educational Institutions within the UK.

The best way to learn English is to live among native English speakers.

The real problem is that the UK has to cap all immigration classes to a supply and demand requirement and set up quotas from all countries icluding the EU. Levels checked every year. Make it easier to deport those persons who are in the UK illegally.

Remember every country has the right to decide who lives within their borders. Even in Australia immigration is starting to get out of hand.

[Richard W]

I think the following articles explain the situation a little better than this forum does as the policy is not specifically directed at men who marry foreign women and bring them home.

This particular policy will only affect UK citizens and non-EU residents who wish to bring a foreign partner to the UK. Your claim is only true in that its effect is not limited according to sex.

I don't think, as some posters suggest, the government wishes to limit your right to choose a spouse. It's more to bring under control the rampant immigration and social benefits payouts that are going to many Eastern European immigrants on top of the old Asian standbys that a lot of Brits in Thailand fume about. I found the Daily Mail article the most informative.

It will have no effect on this issue. Anyone who claims it will is a despicable liar.

[keekwai]

oh to have a good talk with a Thai girl.

"When in Rome ..... " .. learn Thai ya lazy git!

[MaiChai]

This response from the UK gov is rather naive and popularist. Everyone knows the real problem is people coming over from poor, recently added countries to the EU. Polish, Romanians, etc. The number of foreign women marrying British must be a drop in the ocean compared to the real problem.

Unfortunately the EU rules on migration dont cater for people from poor EU countries coming to rich EU countries where they can earn more money or milk the social welfare system in the rich country. My view is that those born in the UK or who have been paying into the system for a long time should get priority over those who have just come over. Those coming over should only be able to claim benefits, etc, when they have paid into the system or have been here long enough to be deemed a long term resident who is integrated into society, etc. We are way too soft and should differentiate between those who are genuine British and those who have become British for a short period of time. Life isnt fair and we should not waste good tax payers money on them!

[Dave the Dude]

This response from the UK gov is rather naive and popularist. Everyone knows the real problem is people coming over from poor, recently added countries to the EU. Polish, Romanians, etc. The number of foreign women marrying British must be a drop in the ocean compared to the real problem.

Unfortunately the EU rules on migration dont cater for people from poor EU countries coming to rich EU countries where they can earn more money or milk the social welfare system in the rich country. My view is that those born in the UK or who have been paying into the system for a long time should get priority over those who have just come over. Those coming over should only be able to claim benefits, etc, when they have paid into the system or have been here long enough to be deemed a long term resident who is integrated into society, etc. We are way too soft and should differentiate between those who are genuine British and those who have become British for a short period of time. Life isnt fair and we should not waste good tax payers money on them!

Good post Maichai

I agree completely with your 'common sense' approach but all the 'do-gooder' UK Council/Government Officials will jump on the 'Racist' bandwagon at every opportunity and nothing meaningful will improve IMO.

There is no need for race to come into this equation:- ITS SIMPLE, You can't get a large % of the population of the EU into a very small country - England is FULL,Try Elsewhere and if they still want to be British,fine, suggest relocation to a nice quiet British Island called the Falklands

p.s. Currently 1 Taxpayer is paying for 3 non-Taxpayers in the UK, how can this continue ?

Edited December 8, 2007 by Dave the Dude

[marshbags]

This response from the UK gov is rather naive and popularist. Everyone knows the real problem is people coming over from poor, recently added countries to the EU. Polish, Romanians, etc. The number of foreign women marrying British must be a drop in the ocean compared to the real problem.

Unfortunately the EU rules on migration dont cater for people from poor EU countries coming to rich EU countries where they can earn more money or milk the social welfare system in the rich country. My view is that those born in the UK or who have been paying into the system for a long time should get priority over those who have just come over. Those coming over should only be able to claim benefits, etc, when they have paid into the system or have been here long enough to be deemed a long term resident who is integrated into society, etc. We are way too soft and should differentiate between those who are genuine British and those who have become British for a short period of time. Life isnt fair and we should not waste good tax payers money on them!

Good post Maichai

I agree completely with your 'common sense' approach but all the 'do-gooder' UK Council/Government Officials will jump on the 'Racist' bandwagon at every opportunity and nothing meaningful will improve IMO.

There is no need for race to come into this equation:- ITS SIMPLE, You can't get a large % of the population of the EU into a very small country - England is FULL,Try Elsewhere and if they still want to be British,fine, suggest relocation to a nice quiet British Island called the Falklands

p.s. Currently 1 Taxpayer is paying for 3 non-Taxpayers in the UK, how can this continue ?

All the above observations have been ongoing for years.

It started way back and really took hold in the sixties.

The majority of U.K. citizens are well and truly fed up with being treated as second class in relation to rights and needs.

WE have for many years been subscribing to the " welfare state ' and our ancestors before us with the objective of providing for the less well off within our families, and eventual retirement.

At the same time it was respected and accepted that certain unfortunates living in the U.K. would also benefit from these deductions from our hard earned pay which was on a weekly / monthly basis.

It was not for the use and exploitation of people who just turn up here and have emptied the coffers of our subscriptions and well deserved / intended benefits.

At the end of the day, irrespective of what those who wish to question our rights to re legistate and put in place a charter to at least enable standards that are complementary with our U.K. culture.

This is the wish of most U.K. citizens and contrary to some comments within this thread, this is what counts and rightly so.

You will also find if anyone wishes to visit the areas most effected by immigration that the charter does NOT go anywhere near far enough in relation to what is needed and desired.

marshbags

P.S.

The recent publicity on U.K. citizens wanting to leave the country, should a survey be done is due in the main to the influx of outsiders and the dismantling of our rights /society in favour of other ethnical groups, who instead of accepting ours, have been allowed to bring in their own and consequently dictate how we live.

This is not a racist rant as i am not against other societies and groups, what i am against is their refusal to respect existing born and bred citizens, our laws, culture and establishment.

Pay into the kitty and earn your dues over several years before expecting to take out of it.

Accept our culture and be content, consider OUR RIGHTS otherwise if this is considered unfair, either don,t bother to come or go back to the one that has your culture and that you are all trying to enforce on our citizens.

Expats the world over have to and willingly accept the laws of the country they live in, or have a right to the same choices as you should consider, who wish to live within our country, before hand.

Can,t say fairer than that IMH and PO

Edited December 8, 2007 by marshbags

[samran]

This response from the UK gov is rather naive and popularist. Everyone knows the real problem is people coming over from poor, recently added countries to the EU. Polish, Romanians, etc. The number of foreign women marrying British must be a drop in the ocean compared to the real problem.

Unfortunately the EU rules on migration dont cater for people from poor EU countries coming to rich EU countries where they can earn more money or milk the social welfare system in the rich country. My view is that those born in the UK or who have been paying into the system for a long time should get priority over those who have just come over. Those coming over should only be able to claim benefits, etc, when they have paid into the system or have been here long enough to be deemed a long term resident who is integrated into society, etc. We are way too soft and should differentiate between those who are genuine British and those who have become British for a short period of time. Life isnt fair and we should not waste good tax payers money on them!

Good post Maichai

I agree completely with your 'common sense' approach but all the 'do-gooder' UK Council/Government Officials will jump on the 'Racist' bandwagon at every opportunity and nothing meaningful will improve IMO.

There is no need for race to come into this equation:- ITS SIMPLE, You can't get a large % of the population of the EU into a very small country - England is FULL,Try Elsewhere and if they still want to be British,fine, suggest relocation to a nice quiet British Island called the Falklands

p.s. Currently 1 Taxpayer is paying for 3 non-Taxpayers in the UK, how can this continue ?

check out my post 170 here.

666K eastern EU migrants in the UK. Their net contribution using back of the envelope maths suggests they contribute at least GBP 2 billion to the country (more than they take out).

The simple economics of it is that without migrants to the UK, while the economy might not quite fall to bits, inflation would sky rocket, getting things accomplished/work done would be even harder (hence the economy slows), and there would be insufficient tax revenue to pay for all the government benefits and services that people think that foreigners are taking off them.

[Bruce1]

I'm going to take an extreme position and say I think all immigration restrictions worldwide should be abolished and everyone should be entitled at birth to a World Passport showing their country of birth and able to move freely to any country in the world any time they like (except for convicted criminals).

We accept free market competition in other parts of our lives, such as retailing, for instance. Would anyone really accept a system where we were only allowed to shop at certain shops abnd could not go elsewhere for a better deal? Of course not. The same rules should be applied to immigration.

The benefits of applying totally free market competition rules to immigration would far outweigh any disadvantages. For instance, people would be able to escape repressive governments simply by moving to another country, which would put the brakes on those repressive govts, since losing their people would weaken their nations, as people are a nation's greatest resource. Another benefit would be to even out world incomes and reduce poverty, since poorer people could freely move to areas where they could make better incomes. Why should governments have to power to curry favour with the rich by protecting their rights and privileges, while denying poor people a chance for a better life.? That's just selfish. Wars would also become largely impossible for governments to mount, since if their people didn't agree they could just buggar off somewhere else, rather than be forced to fight for their government's cause. Classic cases would include Saddam Hussein's Iraq. If Iraquis could have left to avoid his repression, the invasion at Iraq, at huge cost, could have been avoided. The level of government operations should improve, since they would have to do a good job to keep their people from moving elsewhere. Ridiculous nationalistic rhetoric about national security and preserving the state, which is really about duping the citizens to keep the privileged minority in power, would become meaningless. The massive bureaucracies devoted to managing immigation could be abolished, at great savings to taxpayers. This whole thread would be redundant.

The world would be a much better place if free market competition rules were applied to population movements, which were deregulated. Governments would have to serve the people rather than people serve govermnments, which would be a big improvement.

So that's my little rave for the day. Whattayourekon?

[marshbags]

This response from the UK gov is rather naive and popularist. Everyone knows the real problem is people coming over from poor, recently added countries to the EU. Polish, Romanians, etc. The number of foreign women marrying British must be a drop in the ocean compared to the real problem.

Unfortunately the EU rules on migration dont cater for people from poor EU countries coming to rich EU countries where they can earn more money or milk the social welfare system in the rich country. My view is that those born in the UK or who have been paying into the system for a long time should get priority over those who have just come over. Those coming over should only be able to claim benefits, etc, when they have paid into the system or have been here long enough to be deemed a long term resident who is integrated into society, etc. We are way too soft and should differentiate between those who are genuine British and those who have become British for a short period of time. Life isnt fair and we should not waste good tax payers money on them!

Good post Maichai

I agree completely with your 'common sense' approach but all the 'do-gooder' UK Council/Government Officials will jump on the 'Racist' bandwagon at every opportunity and nothing meaningful will improve IMO.

There is no need for race to come into this equation:- ITS SIMPLE, You can't get a large % of the population of the EU into a very small country - England is FULL,Try Elsewhere and if they still want to be British,fine, suggest relocation to a nice quiet British Island called the Falklands

p.s. Currently 1 Taxpayer is paying for 3 non-Taxpayers in the UK, how can this continue ?

check out my post 170 here.

666K eastern EU migrants in the UK. Their net contribution using back of the envelope maths suggests they contribute at least GBP 2 billion to the country (more than they take out).

The simple economics of it is that without migrants to the UK, while the economy might not quite fall to bits, inflation would sky rocket, getting things accomplished/work done would be even harder (hence the economy slows), and there would be insufficient tax revenue to pay for all the government benefits and services that people think that foreigners are taking off them.

This may appear good in print, Samran.

As i,m out here at present for the coming family seasons.

I,ve just emailed this to my brother who is a contract master builder and has work all over the region.

In his words " They must live in cuckoo land, it,s a load of crap "

There is no need to take all of the U.K. into the equation either, just South Yorkshire and Humberside.

They do not account for all the unofficial labour forces within the U.K.

No doubt Scouses area Liverpool can also provide you with a good few examples.

If that,s not enough try the South and in particular the London area.

Go visit the first two areas i quote you and in particular the building sites and all the relative disciplines for the men.

Then the hotels, factories ect ect. for the ladies, not forgetting of course the ones providing favours of a sensitive nature.

The facts on the ground are that We loose more tax than we make for one, when also putting into the equation...

The other fact, this being of course many of these are claiming benefits on the side to top up what they earn.

For myself all i can add to my brothers observations is that you need to see the amount of anonymous individuals working cash in hand and not registering as employed.

They are now being hired and many of his contractors are being laid off.

Reporting them is one thing, getting the authorities to pin them down is an almost impossible task, that,s what thet tell us at local level anyway.

Sorry if this is going off the O.P. but this post doesn,t add up in the eyes of not only myself but many others and needs a response as it,s misleading.

As for being good for the economy, try telling that to all those who are being made redundant who have families to feed and bills to pay.

The unscrupulous employers can then hire cheaper labour to replce them, knowing full well that due to the welfare state benefits to top it up and the difficulty of linking the two issues together, they are more than willing to get paid these reduced rates of pay.

Don,t believe me......................again your welcome to go take a look.

By the way this sort of issue is another reason the government are updating legislation pertaining to immigration.

Of course because of the EU, the do gooders and the P.C. brigade they will not come out and say it.

marshbags

Edited December 8, 2007 by marshbags

[Ollie]

To continue off-thread

Two mates, one a plumber (CORGI), another electrician, both grateful that most of the current influx of EU immigrants don't have sufficient English languauge skills to pass the strict tests needed to qualify as the above. When they do, they expect to be undercut and probably lose their jobs.

Crazy state of affairs and just about every Brit I know, including those that would be classed as 2nd generation migrants themsleves, are fed up with it.

Its the one debate that no poilitical party in the UK will enter into, because they know the reality of the views of the majority of the British people, but won't face it, because they don't know how to deal with it. This latest tinkering is just more evidence of that.

The bottom line is that no politician or Govt, dept. knows just how many from europe are here, nor the number of illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers or anyone else that shouldn't be here. They have had to admit that there recent guesstimates were wildly inaccurate - the best test is the effect on local services, such as housing, schools and the rest, for which you will all get a hefty rise in your Council Tax bills next year, to pay for.

I will now sit back and wait to be accussed of being racist by all the dumb asses out there who think its acceptable to allow their own bigoted views to appear mightier than thou.

[marshbags]

To continue off-thread

Two mates, one a plumber (CORGI), another electrician, both grateful that most of the current influx of EU immigrants don't have sufficient English languauge skills to pass the strict tests needed to qualify as the above. When they do, they expect to be undercut and probably lose their jobs.

Crazy state of affairs and just about every Brit I know, including those that would be classed as 2nd generation migrants themsleves, are fed up with it.

Its the one debate that no poilitical party in the UK will enter into, because they know the reality of the views of the majority of the British people, but won't face it, because they don't know how to deal with it. This latest tinkering is just more evidence of that.

The bottom line is that no politician or Govt, dept. knows just how many from europe are here, nor the number of illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers or anyone else that shouldn't be here. They have had to admit that there recent guesstimates were wildly inaccurate - the best test is the effect on local services, such as housing, schools and the rest, for which you will all get a hefty rise in your Council Tax bills next year, to pay for.

I will now sit back and wait to be accussed of being racist by all the dumb asses out there who think its acceptable to allow their own bigoted views to appear mightier than thou.

Ditto and support you all the way.

As a said in a previous post, this is the main reason all those who were born in the U.K. and are effected by it want out.

Not because of other flimsy and convenient mis truths that have been put in the press ect.

Boy does this sort of thing make you angry and sad after all we,ve done done over the years to support our heritage.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Take the fuffing blinkers off you politicians, listen to your constituants and do what we elected you all for and fuff the

" Oh that isn,t fair on the ethnic minorities, racist ect. ect. "

What a load of shit and bollows !!!

Still don,t feel any better posting this stuff as were pissing in the wind to get a justifiable solution for the born and bread who seemingly do not count anymore and are a lesser priority.

As the old saying goes " last one out close the door " but don,t lock it as all the non speaking immigrants are coming in and taking over.

marshbags

P.S.

As this is one of the reasons for the consequenses of the o.p. and why it should be related to the topic / why it,s come about, should mean it,s within the discussion. I Hope ????????????????????????

Edited December 8, 2007 by marshbags

[MaiChai]

I dont think racism comes into it. I have alot of British friends who maintain the parents (or grandparents) culture, but are British. The rule should be if you turn up in the UK as a foreigner, dont expect money from our welfare/state/health systems until you have been here a reasonable period (5 years?) and have contributed into the tax system (proof of paying tax/sufficient tax). The EU does not have legal control over the rules in the welfare, tax or benefits system so we can change this? EU citizens from poor countries may need to show sufficient funds at point of entry to support themselves on their 'visit'? Fortress Britain in terms of Europe would be unworkable and illegal in EU law.

The wife thing is a just politics to pacify joe public and is rather pointless.

[Chris Bussell]

Imagine if British men had to learn Thai before moving to Thailand, there wouldnt be any here!

Imagine if British men could speak English rather than just grunting?

[yaketyak]

Doubt very much this applies to people coming in from the european union though, thats the BIG issue we have right now!

Mark

It doesn't , and this is at the root of the problem . The Home Office are no doubt consumed with fury that they can't stop the low life from the EU coming here , so they are instead taking it out on those they can victimise. Thais are thus ideal candidates.

[JimsKnight]

This response from the UK gov is rather naive and popularist. Everyone knows the real problem is people coming over from poor, recently added countries to the EU. Polish, Romanians, etc. The number of foreign women marrying British must be a drop in the ocean compared to the real problem.

Unfortunately the EU rules on migration dont cater for people from poor EU countries coming to rich EU countries where they can earn more money or milk the social welfare system in the rich country. My view is that those born in the UK or who have been paying into the system for a long time should get priority over those who have just come over. Those coming over should only be able to claim benefits, etc, when they have paid into the system or have been here long enough to be deemed a long term resident who is integrated into society, etc. We are way too soft and should differentiate between those who are genuine British and those who have become British for a short period of time. Life isnt fair and we should not waste good tax payers money on them!

Good post Maichai

I agree completely with your 'common sense' approach but all the 'do-gooder' UK Council/Government Officials will jump on the 'Racist' bandwagon at every opportunity and nothing meaningful will improve IMO.

There is no need for race to come into this equation:- ITS SIMPLE, You can't get a large % of the population of the EU into a very small country - England is FULL,Try Elsewhere and if they still want to be British,fine, suggest relocation to a nice quiet British Island called the Falklands

p.s. Currently 1 Taxpayer is paying for 3 non-Taxpayers in the UK, how can this continue ?

check out my post 170 here.

666K eastern EU migrants in the UK. Their net contribution using back of the envelope maths suggests they contribute at least GBP 2 billion to the country (more than they take out).

The simple economics of it is that without migrants to the UK, while the economy might not quite fall to bits, inflation would sky rocket, getting things accomplished/work done would be even harder (hence the economy slows), and there would be insufficient tax revenue to pay for all the government benefits and services that people think that foreigners are taking off them.

Samran your mathematics are Samranomics no doubt, they look the part but fall about under examination.

First off you have no solid factual base apart from lofty assumption.

Secondly you've taken a wild figure of £25,000 in salary per foreigner. Sorry mate but thats pie in the sky. No way is that even a vague average. Unless every foreigner worked in London, you'll find that the figure is at least half that and at least half of them are in low paid jobs (think minimum wage for the most part).

Thirdly 2/3s of the the money most foreigners make is sent out of the country hence the local economy is out of pocket. No great problem apart from with MASS immigration when every tom dick and harry is on this trend.

Fourthly, unemployment figures. They are the biggest statistical con job going. Those figures only include people who are more than 6 months unemployed on the dole. Hence they don't count people between jobs (foreigners included).

Fifthly, indeed immigration does 'help' keep inflation down but not MASS immigration, keeping inflation down isn't entirely a good thing as it can be used by shrewd companies/organisations to keep wages down while prices go up.

So really samrans stupidly simple theory is in fact just plain misguided I'm afraid.

Immigration in numbers is a hallmark of the left-wing warcry.

All well and good when you need immigrants in such numbers (which the UK doesn't) not so good when you don't.

Immigration is a good thing I agree, but not on the scale we have now/will have.

Combine that with mass immigration and the country starts going to bits.

[genghis15]

Typical UK reaction of hitting the soft targets but let face it, the whole country is a dinosaur and that is why most of us indigenous people left.

As the ethnic minority group population of the UK stands at about 7% (according to the 2001 census) precisely who is this group of 'indigenous people' most of whom have left the UK?

Hyperbole is everything to the histrionic!

These guy's whinge on about leaving the UK and point to immigrants as opne reason and do not see the irony in their own position, many of who are living a precarious life of visa runs.

As countries develop and globalization spreads the trend might just be to tighten immigration for those without the skills and experience a country needs and to make it easier for those with the skills a country needs to develop and grow its economy.

Who knows - Thailand might have a clear out in the future!

I live a happy life in Thailand I have not left the place in 5 years, it’s pure magic I am happy, my kids are safe, no big brother, reasonable life, better health care a dentist on every street, nice beer and the women, yes forget the UK

However, I read somewhere that the Welsh are the eldest living indigenous people in the UK; maybe the new immigration rules should be revised that all new applicants should speak Welsh and not English.

Now that would reduce the numbers applying

[Bagwan]

One third of UK retirees go to live abroad. I suspect that one factor is that the nature of the UK is changing and is not to their liking. I accept that a measure of immigration is beneficial - think of the contribution made by Jewish folk fleeing Hitler's Germany in the 30's, but what I see isn't immigration. It's colonisation. The battle was lost when Sikhs were allowed to ride motorbikes without wearing a crash hat.

[mitrapaap]

The UK governement has today unveiled it's new Australian-style points system for those wishing to migrate to the UK for work purposes. They have also announced a consultation process to discuss the merits of requiring spouses who wish to settle in the UK to be able to speak English before even travelling to the UK.

A separate consultation, also published today seeks views on the introduction of an English language test before entry for people applying for a spouse visa to help to encourage successful integration.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the government is consulting on this, the likelihood is it will come to pass. If so, expect some crony of the government to be given the contract to run recognised English language courses abroad, and also expect a marked downturn in the number of Thai spouse settlement visa applications.

Full Home Office press release.

Scouse.

I think being able to speak/understand english isnt an unreasonable rquirement - after all seems a bit odd that someone would marry a thai and not be able to have any meaningfull conversation with them.

Be careful what you say! What if every farang needs to be able to speak Thai before even coming to Thailand? Don't think it is easier for Thais to learn English than it is for a farang to learn Thai.

[peterjohn]

are we not lucky that we dont have to sit a exam to speak thai before we are allowed to live in thailand

my wife can not speak english and I cant speak thai but we are happly married and have been for a long time and live in a situation where we are together twenty four hours a day

I am a truck driver and she travel with me all over australia

no it is just more gov. bull shit

[wilko]

In my home town of Dewsbury. Children are starting school unable to speak English at an acceptable level. You see young adults at hospitals with their elderly relatives having to translate. All this because despite years spent living in the country, they can't or won't try to learn the language of their adopted country. These people are all from the India sub continent.

Racist claptrap - mods! Do your job!

Sorry Wilko, you're wrong. I was fortunate enough to go to Hospital a couple of months ago and that is exactly the same as i saw. And believe me, i am not racist.

For example English is far more engrained and widely spoken in Malaysia than it is Thailand, a consequence of which is that an average Joe Malaysian is far more likely to speak passable English than a Thai.

That would have been true 15 years ago, but the Malaysian government's policy to promote the local

language has wiped out the advantage.

They are ruing the day and trying to improve English skills across the board.

Speaking Thai IS a requirement if you want PR in Thailand!!

What language the husband and wife speak in the house or bed is irrelevant.

Rubbish - standards of English in Malaysia are far higher than in Thailand.

Thailand lags behind almost every S.E. Asian Country

This is a thread that is fast gathering a lot of crap...a load of assertions that are based on nothing more than racial prejudice

Jeezus, from those posts how on earth can you suggest racial prejudice.

the saddest thing about racists is they simply don't realise they are......how can anyone make a judgment by looking round a waiting room in a hospital...there are 70 million people in UK and that is a sample of what a hundred or so.

It is trgic that people look around and make up stats based on colour...most of the people you are looking at are Britishb citizens and so don'y need a language test......

Give over with the "racist" card will you. Can people not have a debate without someone spouting "racist". The government are the one's reviewing the situation, are you going to call them racists as well.

All Mosha said was from what he had seen at schools and at a Hospital. And unfortunately, i have to concur with the same observation. There was a Bangladeshi woman on the news this morning. 20 years living in the UK and couldn't speak a word except hello. Although i don't agree with her as she could have got off her backside and learnt, even she was saying that the system has let her down because every time she goes to the Hospital or wherever, a translator is provided, thus (her words) depriving her of the chance to learn !!!

It IS racism and if you don't recognise it, I really do feel sorry for you.

As I said earlier, the main problem with racism is people can't recognise it in others, let alone themselves. It's like alcoholism...unless you realise and admit you are an alcoholic you can't do anything about it.

If you want to do a quick test replace every reference to a country with Australia and nationality with Aussie - these are regarded (inaccurately) as white words....you will then see that most of the comments are directed at obvious physical differences such as skin colour....this is racism.

Edited December 10, 2007 by wilko

[the scouser]

As I said earlier, the main problem with racism is people can't recognise it in others, let alone themselves. It's like alcoholism...unless you realise and admit you are an alcoholic you can't do anything about it.

....And conversely, you have some folk who are so blinded by it, they perceive racism where none exists.

Please keep on topic.

Scouse.

[Sturbuc]

Well, i agree with the suggestion that someone has to have some language skills if him/her want to live in the country. But before as the industrial needs brought many immigrants into the country, nobody mins to much.

BtW: What about a wife, married in Thailand and want to move to GB? Will she be rejected because of a lack in her language-skills? Then I'll be waiting for the first case for the European Court of Justice....

[marshbags]

As I said earlier, the main problem with racism is people can't recognise it in others, let alone themselves. It's like alcoholism...unless you realise and admit you are an alcoholic you can't do anything about it.

....And conversely, you have some folk who are so blinded by it, they perceive racism where none exists.

Please keep on topic.

Scouse.

I am sensitive to being off topic but i would offer the following :-

Wilko is a typical PRO supporter of alledged racism.

You mention colour then go on to say white as in skin. ???????

Like many of your colleagues and i,ll put P.C and DO GOODERS in this group, you are hyprocritically bias and contradictory when references are made and use it as an excuse to down any sort of comments that relate to reality

This is exactly why the question of immigration is now sensitive, heated and unfavourable in most places

Talk about putting the cart before the horse when it comes to considering citizens.

This in turn causes the sort of issues that this thread is about, both directly and indirectly.

You in turn do yourselves no favours on gleening support and sympathy for your cause with this tunnel vision.

Scouse, if he will allow me to quote it, hits the nail on the head with his observation:-

And conversely, you have some folk who are so blinded by it, they perceive racism where none exists.

At this time there is a lot of comments being made in the U.S. about the word black and yet these same individuals repeatedly use the word white.

I noted a reference referring to the big fight on Sunday ( Your still a star Ricky. ) when certain people mentioned white as in the colour of Ricky,s skin, had people mention the word black in the same context your colleagues would have been all over it with condemnation.

I would hope that when potential Thai spouses are veted they are given fair treatment and assessment and it is based on each individual application.

As for the test, i feel confident that those who are genuine will be well prepared by their other halves and consequently fly thru it.

As a final note, i personally know several that already live overseas and all are positive assets in their respective places of abode.

As for the U.K., locally they are either in or seeking employment and doing a good job within the community.

This has nothing to do with racism, just a plain common sense observation of the facts as i,ve seen of them outside your tunnel vision and on the ground.

marshbags

Edited December 10, 2007 by marshbags

[mrbojangles]

As I said earlier, the main problem with racism is people can't recognise it in others, let alone themselves. It's like alcoholism...unless you realise and admit you are an alcoholic you can't do anything about it.

....And conversely, you have some folk who are so blinded by it, they perceive racism where none exists.

Please keep on topic.

Scouse.

This has nothing to do with racism, just a plain common sense observation of the facts as i,ve seen of them outside your tunnel vision and on the ground.

marshbags

Couldn't have put it better myself Scouse and Marshbag's

BtW: What about a wife, married in Thailand and want to move to GB? Will she be rejected because of a lack in her language-skills? Then I'll be waiting for the first case for the European Court of Justice....

I don't think (maybe someone can confirm) the European Court of Justice would have any duristiction over this ruling of Immigration rules.

[Eff1n2ret]

I think it is significant that alongside the document proposing the extension to the English Language requirement, the Home Office also published another consultation document "Marriage to partners from Overseas", and the two papers may be considered together. The latter is very much concerned with the problem of forced marriages, and is therefore of less relevance to applicants from Thailand, but it looks as if they want to raise the minimum age for a spouse visa to 21 (for both partners). There is also a recognition that sponsors whose spouses have left them should be given more of a hearing, and more information about the outcome of the spouse's case, which may come as good news to some who have posted on Thaivisa.

But the thrust behind the two papers seems to be a determination to reduce as far as possible the perpetuation of separate communities in the UK, where fundamentalism can breed, or brides (or grooms) can be imported here and kept in a form of subjugation for most of their lives.

That said, making people pass an English test before they get here seems a step too far, and illogical, because when there's already a requirement to show proficiency before being granted ILR, it looks as if the Home Office has no confidence in the system they only recently put in place. I would share Scouse's reservations about how and by whom the teaching and tests will be administered. The document also suggests that applicants who fail the test might be granted visa to come here and retake it, which looks like a very messy compromise, and again looks as if they haven't got the courage of their convictions.

[the scouser]

BtW: What about a wife, married in Thailand and want to move to GB? Will she be rejected because of a lack in her language-skills? Then I'll be waiting for the first case for the European Court of Justice....

I don't think (maybe someone can confirm) the European Court of Justice would have any duristiction over this ruling of Immigration rules.

Not initially. An individual may claim that the new rules infringe his human rights, but the first legal port of call would be a court in the UK. Only if he remains unsatisfied could the matter then be taken to the ECJ. That's when it starts getting super-expensive.

Scouse.