Foreigners Who Want To Marriage In Uk Must Speak English

[potter09]

So now UK has one-upped Arizona and proves that it is as racist as any place in the world. The question is not about the value of learning English, it's about the right of a government to demand it, and then proceed to enforce it at its own whim and discretion. Why don't they require Brits to learn at least one foreign language? Or better yet, require everyone in Wales be able to speak Welsh, ditto Scotland and North Ireland. Do that first, then bash the foreigners...

I think you're making a valid point when you say "The question is not about the value of learning English, it's about the right of a government to demand it, and then proceed to enforce it at its own whim and discretion". This is where the issues of 'proportionality' and 'legitimate aim' comes into play. More so, as KoL and ESOL (for ILR) already exist to ensure the legitimate aims & objectives of the Govt, what is the evidence- based legal justification for imposing further language restrictions on non-EU applicants? As I indicated earlier, any legal challenge is likely to fall under Article 8 & 14 ECHR/HRA 1998. I believe,proving the 'proportionality' of this new move would be the more difficult task for the Govt rather than satisfying the 'legitimate aim' requirement. Potential breach of Article 14(discrimination), as clearly this is a race-specific measure, would be another hurdle the Govt may have to cross at the appropriate time. Of course, legitimately, one could enter the UK from an EU country without any English-competency requirement, and albeit, lawful, this may well be a sound comparison-argument to show the dual standards applied here.

[ExpatArchie]

So now UK has one-upped Arizona and proves that it is as racist as any place in the world. The question is not about the value of learning English, it's about the right of a government to demand it, and then proceed to enforce it at its own whim and discretion. Why don't they require Brits to learn at least one foreign language? Or better yet, require everyone in Wales be able to speak Welsh, ditto Scotland and North Ireland. Do that first, then bash the foreigners...

I think you're making a valid point when you say "The question is not about the value of learning English, it's about the right of a government to demand it, and then proceed to enforce it at its own whim and discretion". This is where the issues of 'proportionality' and 'legitimate aim' comes into play. More so, as KoL and ESOL (for ILR) already exist to ensure the legitimate aims & objectives of the Govt, what is the evidence- based legal justification for imposing further language restrictions on non-EU applicants? As I indicated earlier, any legal challenge is likely to fall under Article 8 & 14 ECHR/HRA 1998. I believe,proving the 'proportionality' of this new move would be the more difficult task for the Govt rather than satisfying the 'legitimate aim' requirement. Potential breach of Article 14(discrimination), as clearly this is a race-specific measure, would be another hurdle the Govt may have to cross at the appropriate time. Of course, legitimately, one could enter the UK from an EU country without any English-competency requirement, and albeit, lawful, this may well be a sound comparison-argument to show the dual standards applied here.

Quite right. Like I said, open to judiical review. But best not to test quasi legal argument in this forum.

Edited June 13, 2010 by 7by7
See below

[7by7]

Some posts deleted and another edited.

Keep it civil, Gentlemen.

[7by7]

clearly this is a race-specific measure

As this measure would apply to all applicants from outside the EEA, except those applying for EEA family permits, please explain how this is 'race-specific'.

[potter09]

clearly this is a race-specific measure

As this measure would apply to all applicants from outside the EEA, except those applying for EEA family permits, please explain how this is 'race-specific'.

Per Race Relations Act 1976 " "racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person's racial group refer to any racial group into which he falls."--as the new measures specifically targets non-EU racial groups, this is clearly race-specific and thus, could be an infringement of Article 14 ECHR/HRA.

[LaoPo]

clearly this is a race-specific measure

As this measure would apply to all applicants from outside the EEA, except those applying for EEA family permits, please explain how this is 'race-specific'.

Per Race Relations Act 1976 " "racial group" means a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins, and references to a person's racial group refer to any racial group into which he falls."--as the new measures specifically targets non-EU racial groups, this is clearly race-specific and thus, could be an infringement of Article 14 ECHR/HRA.

I fail to see why it would be race-specific if a government implements certain rules for immigrating individuals, where ever they come from, outside the EU and/or UK.

Every single country in the world, from Russia, to Thailand, via the USA, Spain and Saudi Arabia has it's own rules for immigrants and immigrants have to follow those rules.

The same rules Thailand has implemented for foreigners and foreigners aren't just Farang people; foreigners could mean anybody from outside Thailand and/or the ASEAN countries.

What do you wish for....should the UK/EU throw the doors wide open and let everybody in who wishes to enter a certain country?

Would it be enough for you if a deadly poor immigrant paid enough cash for just his ticket, enter the country and start knocking doors for aid, help, food, money and a job ?

And, if you agree..who's going to pay for that ? The local taxpayer ? Ask him/her if he want to pay for that....

Do you have any idea what it would mean?

To implement now the -extra- rule that immigrants who have a partner in the UK/EU should learn the language is not such a bad rule I think.

It has only positive benefits, no restrictions and it can only benefit the country as well.

To call the language rule as being "clearly race-specific" doesn't hold. The time that all western countries were the destination of Milk-and-Honey-Country for people of the third world countries is over, long ago.

European and other western countries like North America are in deep, deep trouble and we simply can't afford to comfort those who seek comfort in the laps of the western people.

That's why the rules have to be tightened; but implementing the rule of language is not even a bad one.

There are countries who have a lot more stricter rules. Try Australia.....

LaoPo

[7by7]

The new measures do not specifically target non EU racial groups; they apply to everyone who applies under the immigration rules for settlement in the UK as the partner of a UK citizen or resident.

The same treaty rights which guarantee free movement within the EEA that UK citizens enjoy make the same guarantee to other EEA nationals and their families, who may not be EEA nationals. These treaty rights mean applications from this group are not made under the immigration rules, so the new measures wont apply.

No discrimination; just treaty rights which some nationalities enjoy but others don't.

BTW, Potter09, do you consider the ability of British (and other) citizens to enter Thailand for 30 days without a visa when other nationalities cannot do so to be discrimination?

[Richard W]

RichardW says "Actually, there have been quite a few mixed couples in the UK who primarily communicate in Thai."

Fair enough, but I'm sure that they are a very small minority, and the Thai partner being able to speak some English can only help them live a fulfilling life in the UK.

What are the practicalities of village women learning enough English in Thailand? We hear horror stories of the school system's performance.

He goes on to say "There are reportedly some cases of husbands who do not want their wives to learn English" This is a good thing? I cannot see any reason for this other than a desire to keep their partner under their control and dominance. If all this measure does is put a brake on such people, then it's worth it.

I was quite horrified when I heard of such cases.

[7by7]

RichardW says "Actually, there have been quite a few mixed couples in the UK who primarily communicate in Thai."

Fair enough, but I'm sure that they are a very small minority, and the Thai partner being able to speak some English can only help them live a fulfilling life in the UK.

What are the practicalities of village women learning enough English in Thailand? We hear horror stories of the school system's performance.

What are the chances of such a woman meeting a Brit, unless it is through her work or an introduction agency? In which case she would, I'm sure, already have picked up some English and can learn more. Remember, it's not a very high standard of English which we are talking about here.

Whatever measures any country brings in to control immigration, there are always going to be some people who will struggle to meet the requirement. For example, the income requirement and 90 day reporting means that it is a lot simpler and easier for a Thai to settle in the UK with their British spouse than it is for a Brit to settle in Thailand with their Thai spouse!

[potter09]

The new measures do not specifically target non EU racial groups; they apply to everyone who applies under the immigration rules for settlement in the UK as the partner of a UK citizen or resident.

The same treaty rights which guarantee free movement within the EEA that UK citizens enjoy make the same guarantee to other EEA nationals and their families, who may not be EEA nationals. These treaty rights mean applications from this group are not made under the immigration rules, so the new measures wont apply.

No discrimination; just treaty rights which some nationalities enjoy but others don't.

BTW, Potter09, do you consider the ability of British (and other) citizens to enter Thailand for 30 days without a visa when other nationalities cannot do so to be discrimination?

You're entitled to believe there's no discrimination. The real test is whether such measures are a " proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim" and that's a one for the Court to determine ultimately. This becomes harder to cross because of existing safeguards (KoL & ESOL) have not been proven in a court of law as ineffective or inadequate upto now. Since ECHR/HRA is not applicable in Thai jurisdiction I will not answer your side question which is in any event irrelevant to any possible legal challenge here. Of course,there could also be Article 8 arguments based on individual cases.

[7by7]

And you are entitled to your opinion, too. Though it's a shame you wont share your opinion on whether Thai immigration rules are discriminatory; but that is your choice.

However, you seem to be missing the point.

All applicants for a settlement visa in the categories previously listed will have to meet this new requirement; regardless of the applicant's nationality or where they are applying.

Treaty rights mean that EEA nationals, and their non EEA national family members, do not have to apply for settlement visas. Although they can do so if they wish, and if they did then the same rules and requirements, including this one when/if implemented, would apply to them.

So, where is the discrimination?

[potter09]

And you are entitled to your opinion, too. Though it's a shame you wont share your opinion on whether Thai immigration rules are discriminatory; but that is your choice.

However, you seem to be missing the point.

All applicants for a settlement visa in the categories previously listed will have to meet this new requirement; regardless of the applicant's nationality or where they are applying.

Treaty rights mean that EEA nationals, and their non EEA national family members, do not have to apply for settlement visas. Although they can do so if they wish, and if they did then the same rules and requirements, including this one when/if implemented, would apply to them.

So, where is the discrimination?

Sorry that you don't seem to understand the argument but I cannot help you any further.Perhaps,once a proper legal challenge is initiated, arguments may become clearer to you. In the meantime, you may do some research on 'proportionality' and 'legitimate aim' arguments which I mentioned earlier. Thai immigration rules are not the point raised by the OP and not relevant to this UK immigration issue.

[yeesipha]

Its discriminatory against people who come from countries whose first language is not english.Its OK for Aussies.Canadians,South africans,Nigerians,West Indians etc etc but NOT for those from the Indo subcontinent at whom this is primarily aimed at.

IS it not a waste of time for people from the above countries to take the test,surely they will know enough english to pass this test,OR WILL they name CERTAIN countries where people will be required to pass this test.Just like they do the TB TEST.

If that's the case then to me its DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!

I Just dont know why this TWO BOB of a government have the guts and balls to come out and say we dont want anymore asians.because that's what they really want to do.

Edited June 14, 2010 by yeesipha

[LaoPo]

Its discriminatory against people who come from countries whose first language is not english.Its OK for Aussies.Canadians,South africans,Nigerians,West Indians etc etc but NOT for those from the Indo subcontinent at whom this is primarily aimed at.

IS it not a waste of time for people from the above countries to take the test,surely they will know enough english to pass this test,OR WILL they name CERTAIN countries where people will be required to pass this test.Just like they do the TB TEST.

If that's the case then to me its DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!

I Just dont know why this TWO BOB of a government have the guts and balls to come out and say we dont want anymore asians.because that's what they really want to do.

Now, saying it's only about Asians is discriminatory since it's not exclusively about Asians.

There are more parts in the world apart from Asia.

What's wrong with implementing a new rule for immigrants which will be positive for everyone, including their loved one, family, chances for jobs and the country where they want to go, in this case the UK?

Surely, every single country in the world has it's own rules for immigrants and every newcomer has to follow those rules, whether the newcomers like it or not.

Some here are trying to drag this topic into discrimination whilst it's not.

If someone wants to call it that way, every single rule would be discriminatory.

LaoPo

[7by7]

From Dictionary.com

dis·crim·i·na·tion

treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination

To be discrimination it would have to be applied to certain applicants only, with no valid reason for so doing. I have repeatedly explained that it will apply to all applicants in these categories, regardless of their nationality, ethnic group or any other consideration!

To say that it is discrimination because some nationalities are native English speakers and others not is, in my opinion, ridiculous; as ridiculous as saying I am being discriminated against because I wasn't picked for the English team because I'm useless at football!

The TB rest applies to applicants in some countries and not others is because those countries have a high incidence of TB.

[yeesipha]

Its discriminatory against people who come from countries whose first language is not english.Its OK for Aussies.Canadians,South africans,Nigerians,West Indians etc etc but NOT for those from the Indian subcontinent at whom this is primarily aimed at.

IS it not a waste of time for people from the above countries to take the test,surely they will know enough english to pass this test,OR WILL they name CERTAIN countries where people will be required to pass this test.Just like they do the TB TEST.

If that's the case then to me its DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!

I Just dont know why this TWO BOB of a government have the guts and balls to come out and say we dont want anymore asians.because that's what they really want to do.

Now, saying it's only about Asians is discriminatory since it's not exclusively about Asians.

There are more parts in the world apart from Asia.

What's wrong with implementing a new rule for immigrants which will be positive for everyone, including their loved one, family, chances for jobs and the country where they want to go, in this case the UK?

Surely, every single country in the world has it's own rules for immigrants and every newcomer has to follow those rules, whether the newcomers like it or not.

Some here are trying to drag this topic into discrimination whilst it's not.

If someone wants to call it that way, every single rule would be discriminatory.

LaoPo

Whats next,you trying to convince me that legalizing smoking cannabis in a designated area,or prostitution is ok,because that's the law in the netherlands,so we should have that law in the uk.

Edited June 14, 2010 by yeesipha

[ExpatArchie]

Agree 100%. Where I live there is a large ethnic Pakistani community. Most are by now second and third generation, but their parents and grand parents could not speak English when they first arrived. Most of the men learned, they had to to find work, but some who didn't were exploited by their fellow language speakers; working for long hours and low pay. Most of the women didn't have the opportunity to learn English and so were trapped within their community, unable to communicate with anyone from outside.

Is such ghettoisation what people really want?

So what, thats is in the past? How many female immigrants of our generation who have entered UK without a knolwedge of English have not subsequently learnt it? Factual answers only please

[buffcoat]

As far as I can see this measure does not change the situation in regard to the UK system being different to the Thai system for permanent settlement.

The presumption for marriage immigrants is that they will make a permanent home in the UK and achieve ILR and then citizenship (probably). If so the immigrant is expected to learn English to enable integration.

The fact that a very basic level will be required before entry should not be a barrier to many and frankly if you wish the 'privilege' of living permanently in the UK you should demonstrate the will and commitment to do so.

I fail to see how this is discrimination in any legally objectionable sense since the requirement applies equally to any racial group, the requirement is based on the immigrants existing citizenship.

The vast majority of foreigners in Thailand do not have a permanent right of abode and are therefore not required to have Thai language skills. It is only those few who obtain Thai citizenship who must demonstrate a command of Thai.

If the Thai authorities do ever introduce a permanent visa for foreigners without citizenship that cannot be revoked by a change in status on the same terms as UK ILR I would expect it would carry a basic language requirement.

I am sure any factual mistakes I have made in regard to visa status and language requirement will be quickly pointed out!

[7by7]

So what, thats is in the past?

But nevertheless relevant to my argument.

How many female immigrants of our generation who have entered UK without a knowledge of English have not subsequently learnt it? Factual answers only please

I don't know the factual answer; do you?

I wonder, though, how many who have entered in the recent past would have learned English were doing so not a requirement for their ILR and so, having not learned it, would be in the position of their predecessors which I described and you dismissed.

[7by7]

I've already deleted some posts that came close to flaming, however some others are coming very close again.

A reminder of the forum rules

4) Not to flame fellow members.

Flaming will not be tolerated. 'Flaming' is defined as posting or responding to a message in a way clearly intended to incite useless arguments, to launch personal attacks, to insult, or to be hateful towards other members. This includes useless criticism, name-calling, swearing and any other comments meant to incite anger.

If you can't keep it civil, then don't post. Any further posts which even bend this, or any other, rule will be removed and the offender dealt with.

[ExpatArchie]

So what, thats is in the past?

But nevertheless relevant to my argument.

How many female immigrants of our generation who have entered UK without a knowledge of English have not subsequently learnt it? Factual answers only please

I don't know the factual answer; do you?

I wonder, though, how many who have entered in the recent past would have learned English were doing so not a requirement for their ILR and so, having not learned it, would be in the position of their predecessors which I described and you dismissed.

My first point wa rhetorical.

Older generations did not have learn English. New immigrants do to gain ILR. That is my point. Why not leave things as they are?

[7by7]

Probably because some people never apply for ILR, they simply apply for FLR every two years.

About 18 months ago, if memory serves, the last government were looking at limiting the number of times someone could apply for FLR; but that idea seems to have been long ago abandoned.

[LaoPo]

Its discriminatory against people who come from countries whose first language is not english.Its OK for Aussies.Canadians,South africans,Nigerians,West Indians etc etc but NOT for those from the Indian subcontinent at whom this is primarily aimed at.

IS it not a waste of time for people from the above countries to take the test,surely they will know enough english to pass this test,OR WILL they name CERTAIN countries where people will be required to pass this test.Just like they do the TB TEST.

If that's the case then to me its DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!

I Just dont know why this TWO BOB of a government have the guts and balls to come out and say we dont want anymore asians.because that's what they really want to do.

Now, saying it's only about Asians is discriminatory since it's not exclusively about Asians.

There are more parts in the world apart from Asia.

What's wrong with implementing a new rule for immigrants which will be positive for everyone, including their loved one, family, chances for jobs and the country where they want to go, in this case the UK?

Surely, every single country in the world has it's own rules for immigrants and every newcomer has to follow those rules, whether the newcomers like it or not.

Some here are trying to drag this topic into discrimination whilst it's not.

If someone wants to call it that way, every single rule would be discriminatory.

LaoPo

Whats next,you trying to convince me that legalizing smoking cannabis in a designated area,or prostitution is ok,because that's the law in the netherlands,so we should have that law in the uk.

Your answer doesn't make sense and I'm not trying to convince anyone, just giving my opinion and experience.

It's not about The Netherlands here but the plans for a law in the UK.

I simply explained that, at first, there was a lot of opposition against the laws for a language test in Holland also.

Now..........now, everybody takes the test and a very high percentage succeeds (more than 90% for the first time) and passes the test. Learning Dutch is even more complicated than English.

It's not such a big deal.

LaoPo

[7by7]

Two posts deleted, one where a quote was altered in red and another complaining about it.

30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

This is a final warning and reminder of the rules; any more infringements will be dealt with severely.

[Richard W]

What are the practicalities of village women learning enough English in Thailand?

What are the chances of such a woman meeting a Brit, unless it is through her work or an introduction agency?

Neither of these guarantees any English worth mentioning. Hotel receptionist, yes. Noodle vendor, no. Working with tourists doesn't guarantee any ability in English - a sweet smile can go a long way!

[the scouser]

An equally valid argument would be that the immigration rules have served only to line the pockets of immigration advisers!...

Quite simply, there is no legal requirement for someone making an immigration application to use an adviser, whereas there is a legal requirement for a foreigner to have attained a certain amount of knowledge in either English, Welsh, or Gaelic, combined with a citizenship element.

Having said that, the UKBA is currently the best referer of immigration work, as even their own website states that if you want advice don't ask us, see an OISC-registered adviser.

Scouse.

[the scouser]

..presumably we only want the children of feckless fathers in the UK!...

By "feckless", do you mean those who don't give a <deleted>?

Scouse.

[the scouser]

As one can only take the test in Welsh or Scottish Gaelic in Wales or Scotland, I don't see the point of this comment. If that is where they will be living, then what's wrong with the new requirement testing them in one of those languages? A non-English speaking French person, for example, entering the UK under the EEA rules would have the same difficulties in London!

The point being that, hypothetically, a Thai living in Guildford, for example, could pass the test in Welsh, yet not be able to pass the time of day with those immediately around. But s/he would still meet the requirements of the law; i.e. can speak an indigenous tongue, even if the rest of the adjacent populace can't understand a blind word.

For one to meet the Welsh- or Gaelic-speaking rules does not require that one lives in Wales or Scotland.

Scouse.

[7by7]

True, but one would have to travel to Wales or Scotland in order to take the test in Welsh or Scottish Gaelic.

With all respect to the Welsh and Scots, I doubt many Thais (for example) moving to Guildford who could speak either of these languages would not also be able to speak a few simple phrases of English as well.

[bobrussell]

Going back to basics! Is there any information coming out about how this examination is to be taken? Who monitors the quality of the 'marking'? The government have not left a lot of time for a new system to be set up unless they link it to the existing UK basic skills level ESOL courses in the UK.

People coming to the UK without basic English language skills are potentially going to be at a disadvantage. My main concerns relate to how the thing is going to work (or not work)!