Another UK Supreme Court hearing on English tests

[Jay Sata]

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!

Perhaps you have never read this...

Blairs favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.

Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats.

The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/83

Edited February 6, 2015 by Jay Sata

[Seekingasylum]

Err, and your point is? Thirty years ago 40% of all those under 21 would vote Labour but now 28% of those polled would vote Tory now.

When does the Asian vote become the British vote?

Do you really care? If so, why? Incidentally, Sata, 85% of Britain is still of white Caucasian ethnicity. Is that not enough for you?

[naboo]

I have a family in Thailand. My wife is Thai, our daughter holds dual nationality, UK and Thai.

The language we speak in the house is Thai, though I make sure my daughter is learning English as well. My wife cannot speak English and currently there is little reason for her to learn.

This situation is fine so long as we are able to live in Thailand.

Should something kick off, however, and living in this country suddenly becomes impossible for me, we may need to move to the UK. I hope this situation doesn't arise. As it stands, my wife would not be able to come and live in the UK as we meet neither the language nor the financial requirements, though we are relatively wealthy in this country, own our own house, new car and could, if we chose, afford holidays in the UK every year.

Is it fair on my daughter, a British national, that her own government would prevent her from living with both parents? This conservative government rightly states that children should be brought up in stable, loving families, yet it simultaneously has immigration policies that in many cases prevent this from happening.

My wish is to never return to the UK, I don't like what it has become and the rise of UKIP reflects a society with clear problems. Its back in the 1970s.

[dragonfly94]

UKIP is the Uk's only hope

[JockPieandBeans]

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.

You make more wide sweeping generalizations. How do you know who reads, writes and speaks Thai and who does not ?

Here is my take on it. Anyone who wishes to work in the UK should be able to read, write and speak English.

A little reminder.

German doctor who killed patient 'avoided English test' A German doctor who gave a patient a fatal overdose of drugs had failed an English test at one NHS health care trust before being accepted to work by another, an inquest heard.

.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7045267/German-doctor-who-killed-patient-avoided-English-test.html

HSE rule # 124. If you cannot speak the lingo you cannot work safely, regardless of what profession you are in.

[Seekingasylum]

Err, communication is not the issue, it is whether or not one can pass a test to a required standard which then defines your level of integration which is under debate. Quite why folk cannot comprehend this is puzzling.

[7by7]

Not if you read many of their posts in the news forum; SA.

Then the agenda and politics of these, mainly, anti immigration immigrants will become crystal clear to you.

[Jay Sata]

Not if you read many of their posts in the news forum; SA.

Then the agenda and politics of these, mainly, anti immigration immigrants will become crystal clear to you.

Syntax problems?

The apologists have disappeared from the World News forum.

[7by7]

You (7by7) make more wide sweeping generalizations. How do you know who reads, writes and speaks Thai and who does not ?

Can you speak, read or write Thai?

Here is my take on it. Anyone who wishes to work in the UK should be able to read, write and speak English.

Before commenting, maybe you should familiarise yourself with the immigration rules.

Non EEA nationals seeking a work permit (Tier 1 visa) need to have at least B1 in speaking, listening, reading and writing or have an academic qualification that was taught in English and is recognised by UK NARIC as being equivalent to a UK bachelors degree; unless they meet the requirement in some other way

EEA nationals don't; just as British nationals seeking work in other EEA countries don't have to learn that country's language.

But obtaining even the most basic work is difficult if one doesn't speak the local language.

Which is one reason why I am in favour of the language requirement for ILR under the family settlement route.

The case of the German Doctor?

As your quote shows, it was not that he was allowed to work despite not speaking English; he somehow managed to obtain employment by one NHS trust despite failing the IELTS tests foreign, even EEA national, doctors require for registration as a doctor in the UK.

You'll find all that information in the article you have linked to; were you to read beyond the headline.

[JockPieandBeans]

Err, communication is not the issue, it is whether or not one can pass a test to a required standard which then defines your level of integration which is under debate. Quite why folk cannot comprehend this is puzzling.

Are English language tests not communication ?

If you cannot communicate, proficiently in English, you cannot work safely in the UK.

Why some folk cannot comprehend this is puzzling.

[JockPieandBeans]

You (7by7) make more wide sweeping generalizations. How do you know who reads, writes and speaks Thai and who does not ?

Can you speak, read or write Thai?

Here is my take on it. Anyone who wishes to work in the UK should be able to read, write and speak English.

Before commenting, maybe you should familiarise yourself with the immigration rules.

Non EEA nationals seeking a work permit (Tier 1 visa) need to have at least B1 in speaking, listening, reading and writing or have an academic qualification that was taught in English and is recognised by UK NARIC as being equivalent to a UK bachelors degree; unless they meet the requirement in some other way

EEA nationals don't; just as British nationals seeking work in other EEA countries don't have to learn that country's language.

But obtaining even the most basic work is difficult if one doesn't speak the local language.

Which is one reason why I am in favour of the language requirement for ILR under the family settlement route.

The case of the German Doctor?

As your quote shows, it was not that he was allowed to work despite not speaking English; he somehow managed to obtain employment by one NHS trust despite failing the IELTS tests foreign, even EEA national, doctors require for registration as a doctor in the UK.

You'll find all that information in the article you have linked to; were you to read beyond the headline.

That would be none of your business. And when you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, we can talk business.

What is legal or otherwise was not mentioned by me. I said that anyone, regardless of Country that they are coming from, who want to work in any capacity. Must be able to comprehend oral and written English. Otherwise it is an unsafe working practice. Nothing difficult in understanding that point.

The German Doctor.

Actually, he was allowed to work. That is how he managed to kill a patient. I will highlight the relevant part for you in your post. Seems that your reading comprehension is rather suspect.

You will find all the relevant information. It is all there in the article linked to. Reading the info and comprehending it are 2 totally different things.

[phrodan]

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 ?

You appear to have a problem with the will of Parliament.

If this gets struck down - and it won't be - then Parliament will return with amended wording.

And the vast majority of British voters will agree.

[Jay Sata]

What 7by7 cannot understand or accept is the rules are designed to keep out the sort of spouses detailed in the appeal.

Illiterate in their own language with little or no chance of passing a basic English exam.

Therefore they will never make a contribution to UK society.

Yemen is one of the most repressive societies on this planet when it comes to women's rights and rural Pakistan is a close second.

The man is always considered the boss.

Fundamentalist religion is also quite common in both countries.

The UK is a modern free open minded society unlike the homeland the appellants come from.

They will certainly feel uneasy about our liberal attitudes.

Politicians from all parties feel the wind of change in majority public opinion that echo's Phrodans view above.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

There is enough Muslim bashing in the news forum.

Can we not keep it out of this one?

The nationality of the appellants is irrelevant; it is the principle of the A1 language requirement that is being tested in the courts; not someone's religion!

[7by7]

You (7by7) make more wide sweeping generalizations. How do you know who reads, writes and speaks Thai and who does not ?

Can you speak, read or write Thai?

Here is my take on it. Anyone who wishes to work in the UK should be able to read, write and speak English.

Before commenting, maybe you should familiarise yourself with the immigration rules.

Non EEA nationals seeking a work permit (Tier 1 visa) need to have at least B1 in speaking, listening, reading and writing or have an academic qualification that was taught in English and is recognised by UK NARIC as being equivalent to a UK bachelors degree; unless they meet the requirement in some other way

EEA nationals don't; just as British nationals seeking work in other EEA countries don't have to learn that country's language.

But obtaining even the most basic work is difficult if one doesn't speak the local language.

Which is one reason why I am in favour of the language requirement for ILR under the family settlement route.

The case of the German Doctor?

As your quote shows, it was not that he was allowed to work despite not speaking English; he somehow managed to obtain employment by one NHS trust despite failing the IELTS tests foreign, even EEA national, doctors require for registration as a doctor in the UK.

You'll find all that information in the article you have linked to; were you to read beyond the headline.

That would be none of your business. And when you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, we can talk business.

What is legal or otherwise was not mentioned by me. I said that anyone, regardless of Country that they are coming from, who want to work in any capacity. Must be able to comprehend oral and written English. Otherwise it is an unsafe working practice. Nothing difficult in understanding that point.

The German Doctor.

Actually, he was allowed to work. That is how he managed to kill a patient. I will highlight the relevant part for you in your post. Seems that your reading comprehension is rather suspect.

You will find all the relevant information. It is all there in the article linked to. Reading the info and comprehending it are 2 totally different things.

I suggest that you read the post of mine you have quoted again; you and if you still fail to comprehend what it means try to find someone to explain it to you in even more simple terms.

Basically, I have not said what you think I have said; in fact the opposite!

To the Visa and migration forum regulars; I apologise that my fan club has followed me here from the news forum.

Hopefully they will soon get bored and return to their other pleasures; leaving this forum to it's intended purpose.

[Jay Sata]

It is not a question of bashing any culture or religion.

More a case of asking the applicant for a basic grasp of our language to appreciate the major implications of our way of life in a free and liberal society.

The appeal is another ploy to try and undermine the immigration act passed by parliament.

Holland and Germany have similar requirements.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

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 ?

You appear to have a problem with the will of Parliament.

If this gets struck down - and it won't be - then Parliament will return with amended wording.

And the vast majority of British voters will agree.

The English language requirement and other changes to the family migration rules were introduced via Statutory Instruments, then incorporated into the Immigration and asylum Act 2002.

One of the principles of UK democracy is that the government and Parliament can be challenged in the courts.

Long may that continue to be so.

No one should be above the law; especially the government!

Edited February 7, 2015 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

The government are elected by the people but the judiciary are not.

Statutory Instruments allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act. They are also referred to as secondary, delegated or subordinate legislation.

Acts of Parliament confer powers on Ministers to make more detailed orders, rules or regulations by means of statutory instruments. An Act will often contain a broad framework and statutory instruments are used to provide the necessary detail that would be too complex to include in the Act itself.

[7by7]

It is not a question of bashing any culture or religion.

More a case of asking the applicant for a basic grasp of our language to appreciate the major implications of our way of life in a free and liberal society.

The appeal is another ploy to try and undermine the immigration act passed by parliament.

Holland and Germany have similar requirements.

If it is not a question of bashing any culture or religion, why do you make such a big deal of the appellants?

The requirement for the initial visa is A1 in speaking and listening; ditto for FLR 30 months later.

There is no requirement for any test of knowledge of the UK way of life at either of these two application stages. That comes five years later when it is needed for ILR.

As I said before, whilst I am broadly in agreement with this requirement, and certainly the harder one for ILR, I do feel that some flexibility is needed.

These two men, and many others in what we call third world countries, are not stupid; they are not incapable of learning English.

Indeed, if they were incapable of learning English they would be exempt from the language requirement and their visa would have been issued!

They are simply uneducated and do not have the opportunity to learn.

What is wrong with allowing them to come to the UK, be with their families, learn English here and be tested at the FLR or ILR stage?

[7by7]

The government are elected by the people but the judiciary are not.

The Judiciary, in cases such as this, act as a check and balance on the power of Parliament and the government.

But don't take my word for it: Judges and parliament

The question is often framed in terms of ‘ what right do these unelected judges have to overturn the laws set out by elected representatives in Parliament? ”. It is right to suggest that judges are able to rule that the acts of public bodies are unlawful and to decide against the Government in a particular case. Indeed, this is a powerful check on the power of the State against the individual.

[Jay Sata]

It is not a question of bashing any culture or religion.

More a case of asking the applicant for a basic grasp of our language to appreciate the major implications of our way of life in a free and liberal society.

The appeal is another ploy to try and undermine the immigration act passed by parliament.

Holland and Germany have similar requirements.

If it is not a question of bashing any culture or religion, why do you make such a big deal of the appellants?

The requirement for the initial visa is A1 in speaking and listening; ditto for FLR 30 months later.

There is no requirement for any test of knowledge of the UK way of life at either of these two application stages. That comes five years later when it is needed for ILR.

As I said before, whilst I am broadly in agreement with this requirement, and certainly the harder one for ILR, I do feel that some flexibility is needed.

These two men, and many others in what we call third world countries, are not stupid; they are not incapable of learning English.

Indeed, if they were incapable of learning English they would be exempt from the language requirement and their visa would have been issued!

They are simply uneducated and do not have the opportunity to learn.

What is wrong with allowing them to come to the UK, be with their families, learn English here and be tested at the FLR or ILR stage?

Because that is not allowed under the Immigration Act and signed of by the Secretary of State.

It has also been endorsed as fair in numerous court challenges.

You ask why do I make such a big deal about the appellants.

The reason is they are central to the case we are discussing.

This matter has been before several courts prior to the upcoming date.

The Court of Appeal said that all immigration law is inherently discriminatory. The majority concurred with Beatson J and held that there was an interference but that it was in accordance with the law.

Judge Beatson had in a previous case dismissed the claimants challenge to the rules introduced in November 2010 which require most foreign spouses to produce a pre-entry test certificate of basic knowledge of the English language

He held that "the rules themselves were not a breach of any rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998."

In summary, he ruled that:

"The rule does not interfere with the article 12 rights of the claimants, since it does not prevent marriage within the UK where both parties are present, or prevent anyone within the UK from travelling abroad to get married.

The rule impacts on the article 8 rights of the claimants, but its aims, to promote integration and to protect public services, are legitimate aims within the meaning of article 8(2).

Taking into account all the material before the court, including the exceptions to the amended rule, it is not a disproportionate interference with family life. The interference is justified because it is proportionate to the aims of improving immigrants job prospects and ability to access health services."

In the case of that last sentence a point. I have made on several occasions.

As I have said before France,Germany,Denmark and Holland imposes similar language requirements on spouse visa procedure.

Cases involving the applicants have dragged on for years before some of the most senior judiciary in the UK without success.

You sir appears to be of the opinion that the Secretary of State and the highest judges in the land are wrong.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Jay Sata

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Insisting on a base level is a good thing.

It is a very low level that is expected anyway

[Jay Sata]

The government are elected by the people but the judiciary are not.

The Judiciary, in cases such as this, act as a check and balance on the power of Parliament and the government.

But don't take my word for it: Judges and parliament

The question is often framed in terms of what right do these unelected judges have to overturn the laws set out by elected representatives in Parliament? . It is right to suggest that judges are able to rule that the acts of public bodies are unlawful and to decide against the Government in a particular case. Indeed, this is a powerful check on the power of the State against the individual.

A recent Supreme Court ruling said " it might become impossible for a government to govern without waiting for judges to judge."

Edited February 8, 2015 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

You (7by7) ask why do I make such a big deal about the appellants.

The reason is they are central to the case we are discussing.

The appellants circumstances are central to the case, yes; but not the culture nor the religion of their home countries.

You have made a big deal of this culture and religion; why?

Would you be making such a big deal were they from a non Anglophone Christian country; Brazil, for example, where approximately 10% of the adult population is illiterate (source)?

You, sir, appears (sic) to be of the opinion that the Secretary of State and the highest judges in the land are wrong.

Yes, I am; which is my democratic right.

Just because something is the law it does not mean it is right and just.

For example, it is within my lifetime that Parliament and the highest judges in the land were of the opinion that gay men should be chemically castrated and many were.

I believe that was wrong, as thankfully the law now does; how about you?

However, I am not arguing against the initial English test; I am arguing that in circumstances which make learning English or taking the test impossible then some form of exception should be made whereby the applicant be allowed into the UK on the condition that they take, and pass, the test by the time they apply for FLR.

Saying that it is not allowed is a facile argument; I know it is not currently allowed and your reply does not answer the question of what is wrong with my suggestion.

[JockPieandBeans]

These two men, and many others in what we call third world countries, are not stupid; they are not incapable of learning English.

Indeed, if they were incapable of learning English they would be exempt from the language requirement and their visa would have been issued!

They are simply uneducated and do not have the opportunity to learn.

What is wrong with allowing them to come to the UK, be with their families, learn English here and be tested at the FLR or ILR stage?

7x7

These 2 men, regardless of where they come from, what religion, colour or creed they are.

To use your words " Are simply uneducated and do not have the opportunity to learn " is the whole crux of my argument.

The have no knowledge of the English language but in all probability wish to come to the UK and work. If you cannot comprehend English, you cannot work safely in the UK. They then become a danger to themselves and others.

The whole point of my post regarding the Doctor from Germany. The fact that he was allowed to work, is a side issue and someone should be charged with Corporate manslaughter, regarding this incident, in my opinion.

How long have these 2 people been trying to get to the UK ? Did their loving partners not think it would be a good idea to pay for English lessons in the Countries that they are currently stuck in ? I would think that most Countries in the world have somewhere that teaches English. Just a thought.

Or could it be that it is actually nothing more than a partnership of convenience ? Perish the thought, that just wouldn't be cricket. Would never happen in the UK.

I would apply that logic to ANYONE that is trying to come to the UK with the intention of finding work. To not apply it costs lives.

As a final thought. Have the respective partners not thought about going to live with them, since they seem to be struggling to get to the UK.

[7by7]

I suggest that you read the link in the OP; you will see that the opportunity for them to learn English where they currently live does not, realistically, exist.

They want to come to the UK to be with their families; they did not apply for a Tier 1 visa, they applied for family settlement.

That this would allow them to work is irrelevant; their spouses must have sufficient income and/or savings to meet the financial requirement or they would be refused on that.

So their spouses are capable of financially supporting them until they have sufficient English to find work.

Like Jay Sata, you have completely ignored the main point of my argument.

I am not saying that these men, or those in similar circumstances, should be exempt from learning English; just that they should be allowed their initial visa on the condition that they have passed the test by the FLR stage.

I am sure that their spouses, not prospective partners, have looked at all the options; including moving to the relevant countries.

[Jay Sata]

7by7 just wants to move the goal posts all the time be it English tests or the financial requirments.

The government and courts plus France,Germany,Holland and Denmark are all wrong in his eyes requesting basic language and funding as a prerequisite to joining a spouse.

I have no doubt the Supreme Court will agree.

[7by7]

The government and courts plus France,Germany,Holland and Denmark are all wrong in his eyes requesting basic language and funding as a prerequisite to joining a spouse.

In order for you to say that you must either

• not have read any of my previous posts here and elsewhere on the matter,
• read them but deliberately be ignoring them or
• read them but be intellectually incapable of understanding them.

Which is it?

[JockPieandBeans]

I suggest that you read the link in the OP; you will see that the opportunity for them to learn English where they currently live does not, realistically, exist.

They want to come to the UK to be with their families; they did not apply for a Tier 1 visa, they applied for family settlement.

That this would allow them to work is irrelevant; their spouses must have sufficient income and/or savings to meet the financial requirement or they would be refused on that.

So their spouses are capable of financially supporting them until they have sufficient English to find work.

Like Jay Sata, you have completely ignored the main point of my argument.

I am not saying that these men, or those in similar circumstances, should be exempt from learning English; just that they should be allowed their initial visa on the condition that they have passed the test by the FLR stage.

I am sure that their spouses, not prospective partners, have looked at all the options; including moving to the relevant countries.

Here we go yet again.

1. Realistically, the opportunity to learn English doesn't exist . So does it or doesn't it ? I am pretty sure if I was being kept apart from the love of my life I would be moving heaven and earth to learn the very basics that I needed. How many years and different appeals has this went through ? They still speak nada. Sure looks like they are busting a gut to get off their @rse and try and help themselves.

2. They want to be with their families. Too bad. there are rules and criteria, they do not meet those rules and criteria, no entry.

3. Working is not irrelevant. try telling me how irrelevant it is when they are out driving and run over and kill your wife because they could not read a road sign. And do not try and tell me it does not happen. I had to rescue a Spanish woman once. Got into a right mess trying to drive a car and could not read road signs.

4. If their spouses are are capable of supporting them, why not sort out English lessons in the Countries that they are currently stuck in ? However it seems that learning English is available, THEY JUST CANNOT AFFORD IT. Kinda says it all for me.

5. Just like you ignore everyone elses point of view. That apple works both ways. But of course, in your rainbow world, nobody works illegally, nobody breaks the law and everyone should do what they want.

6. No they should not. They should stay in whatever Country that they are in until they satisfy all the requirements for whatever visa that they are applying for. That goes for everyone, regardless of what Country the come from.

7. Of course, you have had indepth conversations with the spouses, so are fully up to speed on what they are thinking.

Edited February 8, 2015 by JockPieandBeans

[7by7]

1) If you bothered to actually read the evidence presented to the appeals, you would see that it doesn't.

2) Yes, there are rules and criteria; the courts are deciding in a number of cases whether these rules and criteria are fair and just. That is the courts decision to make, not yours nor mine. I have my opinion; you have yours.

3) As said, the likelihood of a non English speaker obtaining employment in the UK where understanding English was essential, or even advantageous, is zero, zilch, nada.

Being able to speak English is not a requirement to being able to drive in the UK.

Certainly your Spanish woman should have been able to understand the road signs in the UK, if that is where it was, as, like all European countries, both the UK and Spain use the signs from the Vienna Convention!

I'd be more concerned about a driver from a country which does not use Vienna Convention signs; the USA, Canada, Australia, for example.

Maybe you think that non English speaking tourists should not be allowed to drive in the UK?

What about non Thai speaking residents of Thailand, like yourself? Should they be banned from driving in Thailand?

4) If you bothered to read the evidence presented to the appeals you would see it is not so much a question of affordability, it is that English lessons simply aren't available to these men where they currently live.

But they will be once they are in the UK.

5) ???????

6) Why not allow them into the UK on the condition that they have passed the test by the time they come to apply for FLR?

7) Of course not; but I have been in their position and know the thought processes and the weighing of options involved in deciding where to live when one marries a foreigner.

Have you spoken to them? Do you know their thoughts?