Uk High Court Ruling On English Requirements

[roamer]

The High Court has just dismissed a challenge to the new English Language requirements.

My Link

[Thongkorn]

At last some one with common sense about Human rights. Britain is getting full, there has to be some cut off point, there are many fake Marriages, tourist Visas, student Visas that cause problems for the genuine people who want to come here legitimately.

[paully]

There'll probably be an appeal, though. Personally, I'm with the judge on this one.

[roamer]

There'll probably be an appeal, though. Personally, I'm with the judge on this one.

I doubt they will be granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. This was a reserved judgement and one of their main grounds for appeal was also something that has now been dealt with by the Supreme Court in another judgement. Pre-entry requirements are now becoming the norm in many EU member states.

The full judgement is here..

[AngryParent]

There'll probably be an appeal, though. Personally, I'm with the judge on this one.

I doubt they will be granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. This was a reserved judgement and one of their main grounds for appeal was also something that has now been dealt with by the Supreme Court in another judgement. Pre-entry requirements are now becoming the norm in many EU member states.

The full judgement is here..

I read the judgement and the case of the claimant is quite logical and valid esp. as English is not the main language of MANY a spouse!

A sad day for many who find themselves in similar positions.

They have done the UK bit now, as required by HR law, now I hope they take it to the European Court of Human Rights!

Ultra-conservative policies (almost an echo of the BNP) are entering mainstream British politics.

From the judgement:

"85. The breadth of the aims expressly identified in Article 8(2) mean that many more

specific aims will fall within them and be capable of justifying an interference with a

person’s Article 8 rights. In Quila the aim of deterring forced marriages fell into the

last of the Article 8(2) categories, “the protection of the rights and freedoms of

others”. In the present case the categories of protection of “economic wellbeing” (in

view of the evidence about the impact on job prospects), “health” (in view of the

evidence about accessing health services), and possibly “public safety” or the

“protection of the rights and freedoms of others” (in view of the evidence about the

protection of women from domestic violence) mean that the new requirement does

pursue a legitimate public aim."

I find this at odds with the system. Here the claim is made that by denying those who cannot speak English, THEIR 'economic wellbeing' and 'health' is protected. This is an invalid assumption. And is just that - an assumption. An assumption that breaks up families.

For those who may not understand, before, language was used after staying a few years and as a requirment for PR - now, it is used as a barrier to entry and against a right to live together.

As I said, a sad day!

Edited December 17, 2011 by AngryParent

[AngryParent]

At last some one with common sense about Human rights. Britain is getting full, there has to be some cut off point, there are many fake Marriages, tourist Visas, student Visas that cause problems for the genuine people who want to come here legitimately.

Having been around the block, I now have a lot more sympathy for those who seem to be castrated by xenophobic propaganda i.e. visa applicants.

The UK is not full, the number of family settlement visas issued for the UK (worldwide each year) is so small that it is a shame that so many people seem to think boat loads of foreigners are turning up. http://www.homeoffic...abs?view=Binary I would state that the number of customers, a Mc Donalds branch on any street in the UK (within reason), has more than the number of those applying for a UK family settlement visa.

Even more applicable to your UK is full idea - there were almost 500,000 deaths in the UK last year - leaving space for others. The number of UK family settlement visas (i.e. those sho should come to the UK and have UK family) issues is a FRACTION of this. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/death-reg-sum-tables/2010/births-and-deaths-summary-tables-stats-bulletin---2010.pdf

Edited December 17, 2011 by AngryParent

[tricolor]

At first glance it seems as if these applicants had other reasons which would have prevented them being granted the settlement visa in addition to not wanting to comply with the new language requirement.

Also, it seems as if they hadn't actually submittted a proper spouse settlement application.

Perhaps it would have been better to use as a 'test' case one where an application was submitted and then got refused, only on the grounds of not meeting the language requirement, so that the judgement was not clouded by other factors.

Also surprising is how they decided on the language testing requirements in the first place.

You have to wonder how widely they canvass for comments from those who will be affected before taking these decisions.

Part of the reasoning seems to be to save money on having translations available in the NHS etc, but this seems irrelevant for Thailand as I've yet to see any UK government publications in available in Thai.

I also fail to see how a test at A1 level or passing KOL test proves they will then understand everything if going for hospital treatment etc.

Edited December 17, 2011 by tricolor

[AngryParent]

At first glance it seems as if these applicants had other reasons which would have prevented them being granted the settlement visa in addition to not wanting to comply with the new language requirement.

Also, it seems as if they hadn't actually submittted a proper spouse settlement application.

Perhaps it would have been better to use as a 'test' case one where an application was submitted and then got refused, only on the grounds of not meeting the language requirement, so that the judgement was not clouded by other factors.

You are indeed correct!

"

Accordingly, since (see below) the facts in the cases of Mrs Ali and Mrs Bibi have not

yet been established, the defendant maintained that at this stage it cannot be said that

Article 8 is engaged in either of them. In the case of the claim by Mr and Mrs Chapti,

the defendant maintained that judicial review is inappropriate because of an

alternative remedy, a pending appeal from a decision of the First Tier Tribunal

(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) concerning an application under paragraph 281

before the amendment introducing the new rule. If that appeal succeeds their

challenge in these proceedings would be moot. If that appeal is unsuccessful, these

proceedings are said to be premature because Mr Chapti has not made an application

under the new rule and the facts in relation to its applicability to him have not yet

been determined.

8. To the extent that Article 8"

However, this is the issue, if one cannot pass the A1 English etc test, then making an application is a waste as it will be rejected on this. Thus, it is a bit of the dog chasing the tail. So, in the broader picture, the claimants did what was logical. You have indeed pointed out the dichotomy between the UK version and the ECHR version. Under the latter, the claimants have satisfied all criteria, under the former, the claimants have still to jump up and down.

Under the traditional idea, one must suffer to come to the legal table - mainly for compensation. However, this case is different, they have approched it from the HR side and as such it must be viewed differently.

Edited December 17, 2011 by AngryParent

[RAZZELL]

The UK is not full

AP - you really do live in a parellel universe!

Over 3m immigrants have arrived in the UK since 1997.

24.6% of babies are children of foreign born mothers.

We're pretty near the top of Europe's population density table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries

The present govt are simply attempting to shut the stable door after the (EU) horse has bolted! And personally I see nothing wrong with having an English requirement

RAZZ

Edited December 17, 2011 by RAZZELL

[AngryParent]

The UK is not full

AP - you really do live in a parellel universe!

Over 3m immigrants have arrived in the UK since 1997.

24.6% of babies are children of foreign born mothers.

We're pretty near the top of Europe's population density table.

http://en.wikipedia....opean_countries

The present govt are simply attempting to shut the stable door after the (EU) horse has bolted! And personally I see nothing wrong with having an English requirement

RAZZ

I am so happy to see an intelligent person who can research and provide evidence!!! Thank you sir!

3 million since 1997 is less than the death rate in the UK.

24.6% of foreign born mothers who are on tourist visas or who have a connection to the UK? That should answer the question.

Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density that should broaden your outlook.

Now look at it as an image and not a number: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/jun/30/uk-population-mapped - the UK is EMPTY!

[VisasPlus]

The UK is not full

AP - you really do live in a parellel universe!

Over 3m immigrants have arrived in the UK since 1997.

24.6% of babies are children of foreign born mothers.

We're pretty near the top of Europe's population density table.

http://en.wikipedia....opean_countries

The present govt are simply attempting to shut the stable door after the (EU) horse has bolted! And personally I see nothing wrong with having an English requirement

RAZZ

I am so happy to see an intelligent person who can research and provide evidence!!! Thank you sir!

3 million since 1997 is less than the death rate in the UK.

24.6% of foreign born mothers who are on tourist visas or who have a connection to the UK? That should answer the question.

Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia....ulation_density that should broaden your outlook.

Now look at it as an image and not a number: http://www.guardian....pulation-mapped - the UK is EMPTY!

With respect to you, whoever you are, you are a troll. Your posts and your comments are deliberately provocative. You quote figures as if they are always fact, and this is not so. I also have to say that I don't actually understand a lot of what you write. Is English your first language ? For instance, this sentence of yours makes no sense whatsoever to me :

24.6% of foreign born mothers who are on tourist visas or who have a connection to the UK? That should answer the question.

[AngryParent]

The UK is not full

AP - you really do live in a parellel universe!

Over 3m immigrants have arrived in the UK since 1997.

24.6% of babies are children of foreign born mothers.

We're pretty near the top of Europe's population density table.

http://en.wikipedia....opean_countries

The present govt are simply attempting to shut the stable door after the (EU) horse has bolted! And personally I see nothing wrong with having an English requirement

RAZZ

I am so happy to see an intelligent person who can research and provide evidence!!! Thank you sir!

3 million since 1997 is less than the death rate in the UK.

24.6% of foreign born mothers who are on tourist visas or who have a connection to the UK? That should answer the question.

Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia....ulation_density that should broaden your outlook.

Now look at it as an image and not a number: http://www.guardian....pulation-mapped - the UK is EMPTY!

With respect to you, whoever you are, you are a troll. Your posts and your comments are deliberately provocative. You quote figures as if they are always fact, and this is not so. I also have to say that I don't actually understand a lot of what you write. Is English your first language ? For instance, this sentence of yours makes no sense whatsoever to me :

24.6% of foreign born mothers who are on tourist visas or who have a connection to the UK? That should answer the question.

My sentence follows on from RAZZELL's "24.6% of babies are children of foreign born mothers." Thus, it does make sense.

Have a good evening.

[7by7]

For instance, this sentence of yours makes no sense whatsoever to me :

24.6% of foreign born mothers who are on tourist visas or who have a connection to the UK? That should answer the question.

My sentence follows on from RAZZELL's "24.6% of babies are children of foreign born mothers." Thus, it does make sense.

Regardless of whether it is grammatically correct or not; the sentence does not make any sense at all.

Visitors to the UK cannot access any NHS treatment, except basic initial emergency care in an A&E department. Are you seriously suggesting that most these women came to the UK as visitors to give birth in private hospitals?

Your population density point is spurious. Yes, there are many areas where the UK population density is low, sometimes so low it cannot be measured. For example the Lake District, North Yorkshire Moors, Scottish Highlands. Are you seriously suggesting that these areas should be concreted over to provide more room for immigrants?

As for the court ruling; other European countries have had similar requirements for years; Denmark being one, I believe. I haven't time to check, but I am sure someone wishing to immigrate into one of these countries would have already challenged the rule up to the European court; without success.

I really cannot understand why anyone would wish to bring their wife 6000 miles from home and have her isolated in the house unable to communicate with neighbours, go shopping, find a job etc. Maybe the requirement at the initial visa stage is not necessary and the KOL requirement for ILR is sufficient; but without any language requirement many spousal immigrants, usually women, were so isolated or at best confined to ghettos.

Is that really what you want?

[AngryParent]

For instance, this sentence of yours makes no sense whatsoever to me :

24.6% of foreign born mothers who are on tourist visas or who have a connection to the UK? That should answer the question.

My sentence follows on from RAZZELL's "24.6% of babies are children of foreign born mothers." Thus, it does make sense.

Regardless of whether it is grammatically correct or not; the sentence does not make any sense at all.

Visitors to the UK cannot access any NHS treatment, except basic initial emergency care in an A&E department. Are you seriously suggesting that most these women came to the UK as visitors to give birth in private hospitals?

Your population density point is spurious. Yes, there are many areas where the UK population density is low, sometimes so low it cannot be measured. For example the Lake District, North Yorkshire Moors, Scottish Highlands. Are you seriously suggesting that these areas should be concreted over to provide more room for immigrants?

As for the court ruling; other European countries have had similar requirements for years; Denmark being one, I believe. I haven't time to check, but I am sure someone wishing to immigrate into one of these countries would have already challenged the rule up to the European court; without success.

I really cannot understand why anyone would wish to bring their wife 6000 miles from home and have her isolated in the house unable to communicate with neighbours, go shopping, find a job etc. Maybe the requirement at the initial visa stage is not necessary and the KOL requirement for ILR is sufficient; but without any language requirement many spousal immigrants, usually women, were so isolated or at best confined to ghettos.

Is that really what you want?

I was about to go to sleep. I only read the first few paras: "Visitors to the UK cannot access any NHS treatment, except basic initial emergency care in an A&E department. Are you seriously suggesting that most these women came to the UK as visitors to give birth in private hospitals?"

Umm, something for you to think about whilst I am sleeping, my comment was based on an understanding that RAZZELS's comment is: 24.6% of the kid's mothers are non-UK. To which my reply was, do they have a link to the UK - to which the unaswered question's answer is probably YES! So, before you shoot me in the foot, please read the thread from the start, and in my absence please feel free to post as many questions as you want! I will try to answer them soon!

[7by7]

I was about to go to sleep. I only read the first few paras: "Visitors to the UK cannot access any NHS treatment, except basic initial emergency care in an A&E department. Are you seriously suggesting that most these women came to the UK as visitors to give birth in private hospitals?"

Umm, something for you to think about whilst I am sleeping, my comment was based on an understanding that RAZZELS's comment is: 24.6% of the kid's mothers are non-UK. To which my reply was, do they have a link to the UK - to which the unaswered question's answer is probably YES! So, before you shoot me in the foot, please read the thread from the start, and in my absence please feel free to post as many questions as you want! I will try to answer them soon!

The point Razz was making is obvious to all, except someone who wishes to try and impress with knowledge he doesn't have or someone who does not speak English as a first language.

Your question about whether they were visitors or 'have a link to the UK' is redundant. Anyone with the knowledge of UK immigration which you claim knows the answer. Of course they do, they are settled or otherwise resident in the UK, visitors cannot give birth in an NHS hospital; unless they do so as a private patient.

Having been corrected on that, you are yet again attempting to persuade people that you actually said something different!

I have no wish nor need to shoot you in the foot; you do so yourself so often!

BTW, what is your first language? The more you post the more obvious it becomes that it isn't English.

[AngryParent]

I was about to go to sleep. I only read the first few paras: "Visitors to the UK cannot access any NHS treatment, except basic initial emergency care in an A&E department. Are you seriously suggesting that most these women came to the UK as visitors to give birth in private hospitals?"

Umm, something for you to think about whilst I am sleeping, my comment was based on an understanding that RAZZELS's comment is: 24.6% of the kid's mothers are non-UK. To which my reply was, do they have a link to the UK - to which the unaswered question's answer is probably YES! So, before you shoot me in the foot, please read the thread from the start, and in my absence please feel free to post as many questions as you want! I will try to answer them soon!

The point Razz was making is obvious to all, except someone who wishes to try and impress with knowledge he doesn't have or someone who does not speak English as a first language.

Your question about whether they were visitors or 'have a link to the UK' is redundant. Anyone with the knowledge of UK immigration which you claim knows the answer. Of course they do, they are settled or otherwise resident in the UK, visitors cannot give birth in an NHS hospital; unless they do so as a private patient.

Having been corrected on that, you are yet again attempting to persuade people that you actually said something different!

I have no wish nor need to shoot you in the foot; you do so yourself so often!

BTW, what is your first language? The more you post the more obvious it becomes that it isn't English.

You obviously have a problem with basic English comprehension skills.

My post has nothing to do with the NHS or any other medical matter. Quite simply, Razz tried to show that too many foreign babies are being born in the UK. My point was that these are children that have links to the UK and thus have a right to be born in the UK. Thus, 24.6% should not be viewed in a negative light e.g. alien babies etc.

Next!

[samran]

My point was that these are children that have links to the UK and thus have a right to be born in the UK.

That is a new one. I didn't know a child needed permission or a right to be born in any country. What are we talking here? Visa's for unborn children?

[7by7]

I wouldn't bother Samran; the man is obviously oblivious to the self contradictory nature of his posts. Maybe he should have a native English speaker check them for him before he hits the 'Post' button

For example

My post has nothing to do with the NHS or any other medical matter

No one has mentioned any 'medical matter!' We're talking about immigration here and I was correcting his erroneous belief that visitors could receive NHS treatment. Obvious to all; except him!

Anyway; we are again wandering well off topic.

Will members kindly restrict future posts in this topic to the effects, if any, of this judgment and other relevant matters.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

The English test is a pain as we had until recently had to wait for the final certificate from Cambridge however the embassy have confirmed they will except the bulats generated test results. This has now saved us a lot of time as the final certificate takes 2/4 weeks to arrive.

[7by7]

Will members kindly restrict future posts in this topic to the effects, if any, of this judgment and other relevant matters.

An off topic post has been deleted.

[AngryParent]

The English test is a pain as we had until recently had to wait for the final certificate from Cambridge however the embassy have confirmed they will except the bulats generated test results. This has now saved us a lot of time as the final certificate takes 2/4 weeks to arrive.

Thanks for that.

In your professional capacity, would you view such delays and hurdles esp. the language barrier to entry as an obstruction to founding a family (considering the fact that many spouses may not qualify for even the A1 level)? I have copied the claimants argument on this point below.

"

62. The claimants (skeleton argument, paragraph 27) submitted that the pre-entry English

language requirement unreasonably delays, hinders and tends to prevent the exercise

of the right in Article 12 "to marry and to found a family". The JCWI's submission

(paragraph 36) referred to the fact that the right in Article 12 is also protected by

Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"). It

also referred to the 1990 statement by the UN Human Rights Committee that the right

to found a family "implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate and live together"

and that this implies the adoption of appropriate measures to ensure the unity or

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Chapti and ors) v SSHD (Liberty and JCWI intervening)

reunification of families. It also relied on the statements in Artico v Italy (1981) 3

EHRR 1 and F v Switzerland (1987) 10 EHRR 411 at [32] that there is a right to

"practical and effective" enjoyment of the right to marry so that enforced separation

will engage Article 12, and the analysis of the Strasbourg jurisprudence in Baiai

[2009] 1 AC 297 and the court's conclusion in that case that the right to marry may

not be subjected to conditions "which impair the essence of the right": see [14] and

[20]. See also Hamer v United Kingdom (1979) 4 EHRR 139 at [49]; B v United

Kingdom (2004) 39 EHRR 30; and O'Donaghue v United Kingdom app. 34848/07 21

December 2010 at [82].

"

Would it not be better to impose compulsary English classes for such family members of UK citizens from day 1 after arrival and thus have a fair immigration gate?

[ThaiVisaExpress]

The English test is a pain as we had until recently had to wait for the final certificate from Cambridge however the embassy have confirmed they will except the bulats generated test results. This has now saved us a lot of time as the final certificate takes 2/4 weeks to arrive.

Thanks for that.

In your professional capacity, would you view such delays and hurdles esp. the language barrier to entry as an obstruction to founding a family (considering the fact that many spouses may not qualify for even the A1 level)? I have copied the claimants argument on this point below.

"

62. The claimants (skeleton argument, paragraph 27) submitted that the pre-entry English

language requirement unreasonably delays, hinders and tends to prevent the exercise

of the right in Article 12 "to marry and to found a family". The JCWI's submission

(paragraph 36) referred to the fact that the right in Article 12 is also protected by

Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"). It

also referred to the 1990 statement by the UN Human Rights Committee that the right

to found a family "implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate and live together"

and that this implies the adoption of appropriate measures to ensure the unity or

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R (Chapti and ors) v SSHD (Liberty and JCWI intervening)

reunification of families. It also relied on the statements in Artico v Italy (1981) 3

EHRR 1 and F v Switzerland (1987) 10 EHRR 411 at [32] that there is a right to

"practical and effective" enjoyment of the right to marry so that enforced separation

will engage Article 12, and the analysis of the Strasbourg jurisprudence in Baiai

[2009] 1 AC 297 and the court's conclusion in that case that the right to marry may

not be subjected to conditions "which impair the essence of the right": see [14] and

[20]. See also Hamer v United Kingdom (1979) 4 EHRR 139 at [49]; B v United

Kingdom (2004) 39 EHRR 30; and O'Donaghue v United Kingdom app. 34848/07 21

December 2010 at [82].

"

Would it not be better to impose compulsary English classes for such family members of UK citizens from day 1 after arrival and thus have a fair immigration gate?

I would prefer applicants to have a two year window upon arrival to meet a higher standard without any extensions, they must meet the requirement.

I know of one person who is on her third extension of stay she speaks little English at all its just pure laziness.

[RAZZELL]

I know of one person who is on her third extension of stay she speaks little English at all its just pure laziness.

Exactly.

The money wasted on numerous translation services in national and local government, NHS etc would be far better spent on compulsory English language lessons.

RAZZ

[7by7]

Whilst I can see the reason for an initial English test, the standard is so low I do have to wonder if it has any real benefit to the applicant.

The current KOL requirement for ILR does mean that an applicant for ILR has some English ability; but as TVE says there are people who don't take this, they simply apply again and again for FLR. Given the cost of making an FLR application every two years I have to wonder why.

Also, KOL can be satisfied by improving one level on an ESOL with citizenship course; this could be from no English to entry level 1; not a particularly high standard.

Better, I think, to make everyone pass an English test at a reasonable level, say entry level 3, before applying for ILR or FLR*. If this means they have to spend two years on an English course, so be it.

*I should add that those applying for FLR after entering as a fiance or prospective civil partner would be exempt from this for their first FLR application after the marriage or civil partnership.

[7by7]

A nonsense post has been deleted.

Sensible, on topic posts only, please.

[VisasPlus]

I'm not sure that it is necessarily racist, but I think it is discriminatrory. The judge says at 138 :

138. For these reasons, I have concluded that the exemptions based on nationality, like those based on academic qualifications from specified countries, are not direct discrimination based on nationality, because those who are exempt are not in a "relevantly similar situation" to those who are not exempt.

I think that is, in fact, discrimination. Unless all visa applicants have to take the test, the requirements are discriminatory. To require an applicant from Thailand to pass the test, but not a Mexican who speaks only Spanish but living in the USA, for instance, is discrimination. I think the judge says somewhere, in effect, that not many applicants from "English speaking countries" will be in that situation, but the fact that it might only be one person surely discriminates against all those in non-English speaking countries ?

My opinion only, of course.

Edited December 18, 2011 by 7by7
Quote of deleted post removed.

[roamer]

I know of one person who is on her third extension of stay she speaks little English at all its just pure laziness.

Exactly.

The money wasted on numerous translation services in national and local government, NHS etc would be far better spent on compulsory English language lessons.

RAZZ

Hmmmm, sometimes you have to educate the English speakers as well. Was in a hospital reception the other day and the clerk called out a patients name, elderly Asian and younger Asian came to the desk, clerk said to them the interpreter had arrived, younger guy piped up in perfect English ( of the "innit tho bro type" however) that his granddad didn't need an interpreter as he was there to do it. Exasperated clerk turns to interpreter and says here we go again, I'll sign your chit. Afterwards she turns to the younger guy and points out that they still have to pay for the interpreter as he was booked and this was the second time this has happened, he shrugs his shoulders and puts his headphones back in.

[VisasPlus]

As a point of interest only, the bottom line on this at the moment is that the appellant's ( Chanti's) husband will have to learn enough English to enable him to pass the A1 level test. But, assuming the proposed new changes to Family Migration are introduced shortly, then he may well find that he will be required to pass the test at A2 level ! Even more worrying is that, if the minimum income level proposal ( discussed in a different thread) is also introduced, then I doubt if he will ever get a visa. I don't know for sure, but I doubt if his wife, and sponsor, is earning the required ( if introduced ) minimum of 18,500 GBP a year. It does seem as if the government is somehow punishing spouses and partners in the grand scheme of family migration to the UK.

[garrfeild]

There'll probably be an appeal, though. Personally, I'm with the judge on this one.

I doubt they will be granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. This was a reserved judgement and one of their main grounds for appeal was also something that has now been dealt with by the Supreme Court in another judgement. Pre-entry requirements are now becoming the norm in many EU member states.

The full judgement is here..

I read the judgement and the case of the claimant is quite logical and valid esp. as English is not the main language of MANY a spouse!

A sad day for many who find themselves in similar positions.

They have done the UK bit now, as required by HR law, now I hope they take it to the European Court of Human Rights!

Ultra-conservative policies (almost an echo of the BNP) are entering mainstream British politics.

From the judgement:

"85. The breadth of the aims expressly identified in Article 8(2) mean that many more

specific aims will fall within them and be capable of justifying an interference with a

person’s Article 8 rights. In Quila the aim of deterring forced marriages fell into the

last of the Article 8(2) categories, “the protection of the rights and freedoms of

others”. In the present case the categories of protection of “economic wellbeing” (in

view of the evidence about the impact on job prospects), “health” (in view of the

evidence about accessing health services), and possibly “public safety” or the

“protection of the rights and freedoms of others” (in view of the evidence about the

protection of women from domestic violence) mean that the new requirement does

pursue a legitimate public aim."

I find this at odds with the system. Here the claim is made that by denying those who cannot speak English, THEIR 'economic wellbeing' and 'health' is protected. This is an invalid assumption. And is just that - an assumption. An assumption that breaks up families.

For those who may not understand, before, language was used after staying a few years and as a requirement for PR - now, it is used as a barrier to entry and against a right to live together.

As I said, a sad day!

While I would agree that it isn't helpful for married couples where one speaks little English. I think this covers more than marriage to a foreigner. i.e. slave labour, human trafficking! forced marriage's and more.

Besides dare I say, Why shouldn't you other half be able to speak English to a certain lavel before being granted a settlement visa. Surely this is natural for moving to another country where you hope to be a citizen, issued with a UK passport.

I have seen on other threads, people coming up with alternative routes to bringing a thai wife back to the UK,. trying to use the Shengen treaty or what ever it is called. In stead of wasting energy on that, wouldn't it be better to actually help your other half improve her English skills so she will find it easier to settle in the UK rather than all that BS of skirting around the rules etc.

[KKvampire]

what a pathetic rant by "angry umm.. Parent" pity the kid. . So when there is a death in the Uk replace the person with an immigrant? We know where that leads. We British folk who were outraged with the policies of 13 years of a Labour admin, hopefully never to see the like of again, are looking to a new government to deal with many issues, Immigration,being one, and to tell the EUropean authorities , as the PM did last week , to go to H**l.