Another UK Supreme Court hearing on English tests

[ThaiVisaExpress]

There is apparently another Supreme Court hearing, on 25^th February, about whether the requirement for pre-entry language tests ( the English language A1 tests) violate the ECHR Article 8 ( the right to a private and family life). The proceedings originally started as a judicial review challenge.

More detail can be found on the Free Movement website - https://asadakhan.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/pre-entry-english-tests-for-spouses-benign-reform-or-social-engineering/#more-5315

Tony M

[Jay Sata]

The language rules are there to promote integration.

In this case I cannot see how that appellants can prove they satisfy the requirements to integrate.

The background to this case is a change in the law put before parliament to address the problem of partners entering the UK who could not assimilate.

On 1 October 2010, the Secretary of State laid before Parliament important amendments to the Immigration Rules. Their purpose was to require a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or person settled in the United Kingdom to produce a test certificate of knowledge of the English language to a prescribed standard prior to entering the United Kingdom.

The crux of the appeal is here;

"2. The Home Secretary contends that [the amended Rule 281] is a lawful way of promoting the integration of foreign spouses and partners into the community and protecting public services.

3. Broadly speaking, it is submitted on behalf of the claimants that the new rule interferes with their rights under Articles 8 and 12 to marry and live together in this country. This, it is argued, is because significant numbers of applicants for spouse visas will find it difficult or impossible in practice to satisfy the new rule. There are, it is stated, a number of reasons for this difficulty. They include living in places where English tuition and testing facilities are not available, having little or no education, being of limited intellectual ability, and being of an age when learning a new language will be very difficult.

Now let us turn to the appellants.

The cases concern married couples. In each case the wife is a British citizen and the husband is a foreign national who does not speak English. Mr Ali is a national of Yemen and lives in that country. He had no formal education and is illiterate. He would find it very difficult to learn English. It is said that there is no approved test centre in Yemen which provides tuition in English to the required level. Moreover, the test can only be taken online and Mr Ali has no computer skills. He cannot afford the fees involved.

Mrs Bibi's husband is a citizen and resident of Pakistan. They have a young child. The husband was educated up to matriculation level in Urdu. He lives in Kolti where there is no approved test centre. The nearest ones are 115 and 141 kilometres away. Daily commuting would not be practicable and he cannot afford to relocate to Rawalpindi for six months. He, too, would need to learn computer skills.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0266.html

Other EU countries is as Holland and Germany impose language requirements so I cannot see how the appeal will succeed.

Neither of these people are capable of integrating in to UK society.

In terms of their human rights there is no reason why their wives cannot return to their home countries to enjoy family life together.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Jay Sata

[Tony M]

The language rules are there to promote integration.

In this case I cannot see how that appellants can prove they satisfy the requirements to integrate.

The background to this case is a change in the law put before parliament to address the problem of partners entering the UK who could not assimilate.

On 1 October 2010, the Secretary of State laid before Parliament important amendments to the Immigration Rules. Their purpose was to require a foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or person settled in the United Kingdom to produce a test certificate of knowledge of the English language to a prescribed standard prior to entering the United Kingdom.

The crux of the appeal is here;

"2. The Home Secretary contends that [the amended Rule 281] is a lawful way of promoting the integration of foreign spouses and partners into the community and protecting public services.

3. Broadly speaking, it is submitted on behalf of the claimants that the new rule interferes with their rights under Articles 8 and 12 to marry and live together in this country. This, it is argued, is because significant numbers of applicants for spouse visas will find it difficult or impossible in practice to satisfy the new rule. There are, it is stated, a number of reasons for this difficulty. They include living in places where English tuition and testing facilities are not available, having little or no education, being of limited intellectual ability, and being of an age when learning a new language will be very difficult.

Now let us turn to the appellants.

The cases concern married couples. In each case the wife is a British citizen and the husband is a foreign national who does not speak English. Mr Ali is a national of Yemen and lives in that country. He had no formal education and is illiterate. He would find it very difficult to learn English. It is said that there is no approved test centre in Yemen which provides tuition in English to the required level. Moreover, the test can only be taken online and Mr Ali has no computer skills. He cannot afford the fees involved.

Mrs Bibi's husband is a citizen and resident of Pakistan. They have a young child. The husband was educated up to matriculation level in Urdu. He lives in Kolti where there is no approved test centre. The nearest ones are 115 and 141 kilometres away. Daily commuting would not be practicable and he cannot afford to relocate to Rawalpindi for six months. He, too, would need to learn computer skills.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0266.html

Other EU countries is as Holland and Germany impose language requirements so I cannot see how the appeal will succeed.

Neither of these people are capable of integrating in to UK society.

In terms of their human rights there is no reason why their wives cannot return to their home countries to enjoy family life together.

Yet again, you speak without thinking first.

You don't see how they can prove that they meet the requirement ? The challenge is not whether they can meet the requirement or not. The challenge is that there shouldn't be a language requirement in the first place.

Your arguments are simplistic - "other countries impose language requirements". Your point is what ? Because other countries impose language requirements, we must follow suit ? Because other countries do something, that makes it right ? Because the law says something, it cannot be challenged ?

[Jay Sata]

Please explain to me what sort of contribution the two,spouses concerned will make to British society?

If they get sick or need legal or other help they will need interpreters.

They can never work or take part in the society they wish to join.

The resident spouse has the option of returning home.

Have you bothered to read a British newspaper lately and and digested the public opinion?

The rise of UKIP has been brought about by the unfettered migration Blair imposed on the nation.

What is wrong with having the ability to speak english as a condition to live in the UK.

[Tony M]

Please explain to me what sort of contribution the two,spouses concerned will make to British society?

If they get sick or need legal or other help they will need interpreters.

They can never work or take part in the society they wish to join.

The resident spouse has the option of returning home.

Have you bothered to read a British newspaper lately and and digested the public opinion?

The rise of UKIP has been brought about by the unfettered migration Blair imposed on the nation.

What is wrong with having the ability to speak english as a condition to live in the UK.

I'm not even going to lower myself to respond to that. I think others will do it better than I could.

[Jay Sata]

Can I just remind you that there are thousands of foreign partners unable to speak English in the UK and avail themselves of help,if they are being abused in marriage.

Maybe you think in a modern society that is OK but I don't.

[Tony M]

Can I just remind you that there are thousands of foreign partners unable to speak English in the UK and avail themselves of help,if they are being abused in marriage.

Maybe you think in a modern society that is OK but I don't.

?

[Baerboxer]

Can I just remind you that there are thousands of foreign partners unable to speak English in the UK and avail themselves of help,if they are being abused in marriage.

Maybe you think in a modern society that is OK but I don't.

Encouraging, facilitating, and making learning the language skills as easy and enjoyable for a partner, male or female, of a British citizen is to be applauded.

Imposing a standard, and using that standard as a restriction to partners is blatantly unfair. The rules are designed as a restriction not as a integration facilitator. Or does that same standard apply to every and all EU citizens entering the UK?

[Jay Sata]

Please read the appeal details.

Both partners are incapable of learning English or indeed ever integrating.

If granted access to the UK you and I will fund them through old age and they will be a burden on society.

Looking at their backgrounds they stand out as would be economic migrants.

We have enough old and infirm of our own without opening the floodgates to those from alien cultures and backgrounds.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Jay Sata

[Trevor1809]

.

We have enough old and infirm of our own .

Wow, could you have made that any more offensive than you actually did.

[7by7]

Please read the appeal details.

Both partners are incapable of learning English or indeed ever integrating.

No; both partners are currently unable to learn English due to their current circumstances. This could easily change once in the UK.

If they were incapable of learning English due to mental or physical disability then they would be exempt from the requirement. As are those aged 65 or over.

If granted access to the UK you and I will fund them through old age and they will be a burden on society.[

No. They have British partners and the financial requirement needs to be met. Therefore it is reasonable to assume their British partners are paying tax and will continue to do so.

Why should a prudent person who has worked all their life be forced to sell the family home to fund care when others who have never set foot in the UK can avail themselves of the system having never paid a penny in contributions?

No. As said, their British partners will have been paying tax, NICs etc. Also, once in the UK they and their British partners would be subject to the same rules regarding care in their old age as everyone else.

I am broadly in favour of an English language requirement; certainly for ILR and usually for the initial visa.

I see no reason why those in the circumstances of these two men, i.e. no facility where they currently live to learn English, should not be granted some flexibility; provided they can and do meet the A1 requirement, which is only very basic speaking and listening, by the FLR stage. Which even someone who is illiterate and has no current English ability should be able to do in the 2.5 years they would have.

[Trevor1809]

When I referred to what you wrote as being offensive it was with respect to enough of our own old and infirm as if they were some sort of a burden rather than older people have actually earnt their entitlement.

In 2 years times I will be considered a "burden on society" as I will no longer contribute but I suppose there are plenty out there who think that we should work until we drop dead rather than claim what we are entitled to.

[Jay Sata]

When I referred to what you wrote as being offensive it was with respect to enough of our own old and infirm as if they were some sort of a burden rather than older people have actually earnt their entitlement.

In 2 years times I will be considered a "burden on society" as I will no longer contribute but I suppose there are plenty out there who think that we should work until we drop dead rather than claim what we are entitled to.

I am the same age as you Trevor.

This High Court Case is funded by lawyers using the legal aid system. The UK public is paying.

If the appeal is allowed it will open the floodgates to thousands of family members from in the main India and Pakistan. With little or no ability to speak English they will never assimilate.

In contrast Thai migrants to the UK do integrate and learn English.

The current system is fair to everyone and applies in other European countries.

The case is listed for one day and judgement will no doubt be reserved so no likelihood of a quick decision.

As an aside to this is the unfairness of those UK pensioners who paid in to the system having their pension frozen in countries such as Thailand.

[bobrussell]

A1 is so basic that it should be perfectly straight forward for anyone to pass. I don't see why exceptions should be made except in the most extreme circumstances. There are already medical exemptions and for asylum seekers.

With the right to live in the UK there come responsibilities. The arguments in the case seem more legal than moral.

The cases revolve around passing A1 being 'feasible'. These people are coming to live in the UK, they should have at least the most basic English skills.

The money being thrown at these cases would have paid for a full time English tutor for a lot of people. A waste of money IMO.

The burden on society card is nonsense. There will be no right to public funds and who says the partners will not work and pay taxes.

[Jay Sata]

I agree with your first three paragraphs.

To remind others who cannot be bothered to trawl through all the documentation the basis of the appeal is as follows.

The circumstances of these appellants

The cases concern married couples. In each case the wife is a British citizen and the husband is a foreign national who does not speak English. Mr Ali is a national of Yemen and lives in that country. He had no formal education and is illiterate. He would find it very difficult to learn English. It is said that there is no approved test centre in Yemen which provides tuition in English to the required level. Moreover, the test can only be taken online and Mr Ali has no computer skills. He cannot afford the fees involved.

Mrs Bibi's husband is a citizen and resident of Pakistan. They have a young child. The husband was educated up to matriculation level in Urdu. He lives in Kolti where there is no approved test centre. The nearest ones are 115 and 141 kilometres away. Daily commuting would not be practicable and he cannot afford to relocate to Rawalpindi for six months. He, too, would need to learn computer skills.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0270.html

As for them not being a burden they are free to access the NHS and other facilities from the moment they arrive.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Jay Sata

[PeeJay1959]

A1 should not be required until the FLR stage. My wife lives in a small village in Issan and is the only one in that village with any English knowledge, there are no facilities anywhere near her to learn or practice. She passed Bulats, but we were unable to get her here before that was withdrawn, She has now failed KET twice despite having the 2 week course from Vantage Siam. We have now decided to get her over here for 3 months so she can practice by immersion her English and plan for her to take the Trinity test whilst she is here, they only test speaking and listening. This whole process is costing us a fortune and keeping us apart unnecessarily. She has 2 Thai friends who moved to the UK before 2010, they are now virtually fluent in English and fully integrated. This getting an A1 prior to entry is another cynically dressed up way of putting people off/keeping them out to try and cut immigration and uses integration as a cover for that.

[durhamboy]

The principle of people speaking English to live in the UK is a reasonable government objective. However, HMG needs to invest in a proper testing and training system instead of piggy-backing on existing tests which were never designed for immigration purposes. HMG seem to have done this for LITUK so why not English?

Some of you seem to think that a mentally deficient amoeba could pass A1. Actually for many practical reasons on which I have posted at length in other threads it is not that easy to pass. One reason being that despite only having to pass Speaking & Listening sometimes the applicants have to READ the questions in order to answer them. So people from countries that don't use Romanised script are at a distinct disadvantage.

Also we should remember that whilst people from outside the EU have to satisfy the English requirement hundreds of millions of people can come here without any English requirement whatsoever. This includes various East European countries where the level of English is poor to non-existent.

Finally, whilst we preach to the world that they must speak English to come here we conveniently forget our colonial past where we moved millions of people around the world without any thought for indiginous cultures let alone a local language requirement! E.g. Malaya as then was. And yes Jay while you want everyone from the subcontinent to speak English we colonised that continent and we hardly spoke one word of the local language - save from importing a few words such as verandah (for our G&Ts!) and putties (for our polo!) into our own language.

How many of you could pass A1 Thai if they had such an exam to live in Thailand?

[7by7]

As already said, I am in favour of a language requirement for settlement in the UK, though not necessarily at the initial stage.

However, I am always amused by posts like the above complaining about foreigners who come to the UK and wont integrate from people who themselves live in Thailand but wont learn Thai and so can't integrate fully into Thai society.

Can these people not see the double standard?

The old excuse "I'm not an immigrant because I'm here on a non immigrant visa" is feeble indeed. You live there; the least you can do is learn the language.

[7by7]

<snip>

This High Court Case is funded by lawyers using the legal aid system. The UK public is paying.

Are you saying that only the rich should have access to the courts and therefore justice?

As an aside to this is the unfairness of those UK pensioners who paid in to the system having their pension frozen in countries such as Thailand.

An unjust situation indeed. But one that existed long before any language requirement was introduced for UK settlement and nothing to with UKVI or the Home Office or this topic.

[theoldgit]

OK, enough is enough.

Can we please try and have a debate than doesn't end up with insults being traded, just for once.

A number of off topic posts and flames removed.

[bobrussell]

I would argue that it is appropriate for an applicant to demonstrate very basic English skills. The one thing I am more than a little surprised at is the choice of test applicants need to complete.

An examination that tests a range of language skills that are not required (such as writing ability) seems a pretty daft requirement. A straightforward interview type session would be far more appropriate than the test on offer.

I believe the language requirement is appropriate but far from convinced the tests available are fit for the purpose the Home Office expects. Correct idea but wrong exam!

[PeeJay1959]

I believe the language requirement is appropriate but far from convinced the tests available are fit for the purpose the Home Office expects. Correct idea but wrong exam!

Yes the KET test is certainly not appropriate. The Trinity test, which is not available in LOS is much more suitable, it is a simple 6 minute face to face, testing only speaking and listening. There's an opportunity being missed for someone here. It's making for a very expensive test for Tia having to come here in order to take a test she stands a chance of passing, not to mention the delay in getting a settlement visa and getting on with our lives. We've already waited 2 years for me to get over £18,600 and as I mentioned in an earlier post she had passed Bulats.... But what choice do we have?? None except to come here for a test as she can't pass KET as it stands.

[Jay Sata]

The case that is before the Supreme Court is not about the fine tuning of the language tests.

The two appellants are illiterate and semi illiterate and unable to speak the very basic English required by the regulation.

They claim it breaches their human rights under article 8 to have to pass the test to qualify to enter the UK.

Their legally aided lawyers claim they should not have to pass a test.

In other words they want to drive a coach and horses through an Act of Parliament.

Of course it can be argued the minimum income requirement also breaches article 8 but a case citing that was dismissed last year.

Unlike a Thai spouse who once in the UK will have to use their English ability on a daily basis the appellants come from a background and lack of basic education where it is highly unlikely they will integrate.

For anyone trying to help a partner pass the test can I suggest daily Skype calls which are free.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Jay Sata

[alantheembalmer]

Learning English is a political goal for the UK government, and assimilation, if by chance it happens, is never tested nor accurately appraised. Indeed, it could be argued that it is only the subsequent generations that are able and/or willing to integrate into society because they are already a part of that society.

[Jay Sata]

Learning English is a political goal for the UK government, and assimilation, if by chance it happens, is never tested nor accurately appraised. Indeed, it could be argued that it is only the subsequent generations that are able and/or willing to integrate into society because they are already a part of that society.

Agreed.

But speaking the language is a start for newcomers.

[Seekingasylum]

So, a wife who can communicate with her children and husband, and with her chosen social circle, but cannot pass a test is not integrated? To achieve permanent residence in order to reside with her family it is incumbent upon her to pass a test, otherwise she is compelled to apply for a further two years extension. Presumably, she is not therefore integrated whereas a person in precisely the same circumstances but who has passed a test is integrated? Well, there we have it then - an arbitrary measure of syntactical awareness and basic vocabulary determines integration. That the immigrant who is a loving mother to her children and husband, who works part time in whatever job requires a modicum of skills other than the linguistic, who pays taxes, and who abides by our laws is not integrated in her society ( there is no such thing as "our" society ), is neither here nor there and it is only when she obtains some piffling certificate will she be accepted as "integrated". And once she obtains that certificate how will"society" be enriched? Will the buses run better? Will the Daily Mail stop preaching its cant? Will the balance of payments strike an equilibrium, etc.,etc. Or will her life change immeasurably by the achievement? Will she by dint of passing that test become more of a loving mother? Will she get promoted from her cleaning job and become a Citizen"s Advice counsellor? Will she now suddenly morph into something else other than what she was previously, a simple woman whose life revolved around her family, meeting her chums from the same ethnicity and doing a little shopping.

Only an idiot could possibly say that the current rules are an aid to integration and not simply an obstacle. Its a sop to cheap politicking, a revenue earner and little else

[Jay Sata]

Let me put it another way.

Blair and his cronies opened the door to all and everybody in his great social experiment which has failed.

We now have some simple language and financial hurdles in which to gain access to the UK.

The Bradfords, Lutons and Rotherhams with their closed societies have created social ghettoes in the UK.

In terms of the fees levied I believe they are reasonable.

Perhaps my critics would like to suggest what would be reasonable for a language entry test.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Jay Sata

[Seekingasylum]

Err, the Immigration Act 1971 remained in force throughout Blair's reign as it did the previous 24 years and until this day.

How did he" open the door" to "all and everyone"?

Do you live in a ghetto town?

Edited February 6, 2015 by Seekingasylum

[7by7]

As I said before:

I see no reason why those in the circumstances of these two men, i.e. no facility where they currently live to learn English, should not be granted some flexibility; provided they can and do meet the A1 requirement, which is only very basic speaking and listening, by the FLR stage. Which even someone who is illiterate and has no current English ability should be able to do in the 2.5 years they would have.

I, too, am wondering how "Blair and his cronies opened the door to all and everybody in his great social experiment which has failed."

It was Blair's government which, for example, introduced above inflation increases to settlement visa fees; introduced fees for LTR applications, the cost of which was previously included in the initial visa fee; increased the qualifying period for ILR from 12 months to 24; introduced the LitUK test.

In other words, Blair's government made family settlement harder and more costly!

Edited February 6, 2015 by 7by7

[dragonfly94]

Err, the Immigration Act 1971 remained in force throughout Blair's reign as it did the previous 24 years and until this day.

How did he" open the door" to "all and everyone"?

Do you live in a ghetto town?

Just to mention some friends- Nigerian woman working as a civil servant when arrested as an illegal over stayer- claimed 'asylum' with a bag of lies, allowed to stay. She had good inside info though as her job was processing asylum claims!!

Thai family in Derby, girl gets over first on a student visa, hardly ever goes to College and never finishes. Gets married to local guy in order to stay. Next one over her aunt married in Thailand to a headmaster, gets married (illegally) in the UK, another one in. Bit a a problem with the mother, it costs them 4k via a dodgy Indian lawyer to get her over on permanent basis, pulled a fast one on health grounds- others need to look after her, all BS. Several others I could mention, once over on any grounds at all it seemed almost impossible to be sent back, x about a million or three and there you have the problem.

I don't know how anyone has the cheek to ask how the multi cultural experiment failed, is Rotheram forgotten so soon?

Edited February 6, 2015 by dragonfly94