Another UK Supreme Court hearing on English tests

[JockPieandBeans]

1. The papers actually say. For one of them the nearest is over 100kms away and he cannot commute. so dont commute, move there, nothing better to do as your beloved is 1000's of miles away. The other one just cannot afford it. What does that say to you ? It says to me that they really couldn't care less.

2. That is correct, and appeal after appeal, they come to the same decision. The correct decision in IMO.

3.Try researching the " Black Economy " in the UK. There are plenty of non English speakers working in the UK, illegally I might add.

I never said it was a requirement, but it certainly helps. Regardless of what the Spanish woman ( Yes in the UK ) should and could do,are totally different things.

Non speaking Thai residents like myself. Coffee and put your money where your mouth is. If you cannot do that, stop making assumptions about me.

4. Reread my point #1

5. Whats wrong, not understand that description of yourself ?

6. Simple really. You and I and everyone else knows how difficult it is to remove someone from the UK once they are in. So if the UK is going to apply rules, conditions and criteria for entry to the UK, it should be applied and met before they leave their home Countries. Just for the benefit of any doubt, this should apply to everyone regardless of what Country they come from.

7. Yes I understand that you struggled to meet the criteria for bringing your wife to the UK. You want sympathy or something ?

I wasn't the one making assumptions about their thoughts, you were. Why would I speak to them ? I do not care one jot what their thoughts are. They do not meet the requirements for entry to the UK. Nothing stopping them going to live with their husbands.

[7by7]

1) One of them, what about the other?

2) In many cases, particularly on the financial requirement, the government have lost! It is the government which continues to appeal to higher and higher courts.

3) The black economy is irrelevant. We are not talking about illegal immigrants; these men, and all the other appellants, are trying to enter the UK legally.

I have no time for illegal immigrants, nor the many British people who work in the black economy and evade tax; from cash in hand builders through city wide boys to companies like Starbucks.

Your point about road signs is nonsensical. Whatever the cause of the Spanish woman's accident it was not her inability to read British road signs; they are the same as in Spain!

So, can you speak Thai or not?

4) Reread my point 1.

5) You talk about me making assumptions; pot and kettle.

6) This argument could apply to anyone who enters the UK on any type of visa. Surely you are not suggesting that the UK close it's borders to all foreigners; regardless of their reasons for coming?

7) Actually, we didn't struggle to meet the requirements, and I never said we did. Read it again.

Why should a British citizen be forced to leave the UK simply because they have married a foreigner who currently cannot speak English, but can learn once they are here?

How would you feel if Thailand introduced a language requirement and at your next 90 day report/renewal/visa run (whichever) Thai immigration ejected you from Thailand simply because you couldn't speak Thai without first giving you the chance to learn?

As I said before; just because something is the law doesn't mean it is right; there have been plenty of unjust laws overturned by the courts in the past.

8) Unless you have something new to say, I wont be going through all these points again; circular arguments are pointless to us and boring to others.

[Jay Sata]

I will try and answer a couple of the points you raise.

You say "In many cases, particularly on the financial requirement, the government have lost! It is the government which continues to appeal to higher and higher courts."

The government has not lost it. They have legislated and are defending the law.

"We are not talking about illegal immigrants; these men, and all the other appellants, are trying to enter the UK legally."

To do that they need to comply with the basic language test. Frankly if a fraction of the time and money wasted on these cases had been used for tuition then they would have been here years ago.

You appear to want to make exceptions. Immigration law is not a smorgasbord where you can pick or choose.

If these two can avoid the language test then thousands of others will do the same.

You then talk about Thailand which has nothing to do with this case in the Supreme Court however I will answer your point.

"How would you feel if Thailand introduced a language requirement and at your next 90 day report/renewal/visa run (whichever)"

There are no permanent rights to enter Thailand unless you are a Thai citizen.To become one requires fluent Thai.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Jay Sata

[JockPieandBeans]

I will take the time to answer just 1 point that you try and make.

How would you feel if Thailand introduced a language requirement and at your next 90 day report/renewal/visa run (whichever) Thai immigration ejected you from Thailand simply because you couldn't speak Thai without first giving you the chance to learn?

The Thai Authorities could introduce that legislation tomorrow.

It would not affect me in the slightest.

But keep trying to defend the indefensible.

[theoldgit]

Just a gentle reminder to stay nice.

There are clearly differing views on this subject and that's fine, but please refrain from insulting one and other, it really isn't very clever and will not be tolerated.

Any further flames will be removed and the poster may well be given some time away from the forum for some quiet reflection.

[Jay Sata]

It is highly unlikely the case will succeed.

It would have to be on a point of law.

However as France,Germany,Holland and Denmark have the same rules the article 8 route is surely

not an excuse?

[bobrussell]

The government are going to resist allowing people to satisfy the language requirement for one simple reason. It is easier to stop someone coming to the UK than make them leave. In an ideal world someone arriving would make efforts to comply with requirements but in the real world many will not bother. leaving a whopping great problem at FLR stage.

I don't feel the rules are unreasonable and very basic skills are not too much to ask. There may be countries where English tuition is difficult but the realities of life do include the internet. There are few places where the internet does not reach even in Yemen. It may not be easy but why should it be?

Affordability cannot be the issue as the UK partner must be on £18 600 or more for the applicant to qualify.

Generally my sympathies are with applicants but I cannot see why these individuals should be allowed to duck the rules where thousands cannot.

Most ex-pats in Thailand do not have settlement visas so the arguments regarding a westerner speaking Thai is not directly relevant. It is good manners to learn a bit of the local language of course!

[7by7]

Although this discussion was sparked by two particular cases, people should remember that it is the principle at stake here; not just in these two cases but in others, now and in the future; no matter the nationality of the applicants.

As I have tried to make clear, but seems to have been missed by some, I am firmly in favour of language tests for anyone coming to live, work or study in the UK.

I firmly believe that if one chooses to live, work or study in another country then one should be able to communicate in the language of that country; not necessarily fluent, but certainly well enough to get by.

I have firmly in the past defended here the language requirement and LitUK test requirement for ILR.

I have also defended the language requirement for the initial visa.

All I am saying is that some flexibility is needed.

It is possible, as Bob says, that removing the language requirement at the initial visa stage could cause problems when it comes to applying for FLR; but those problems would be of the applicant's own making.

If a family migrant knows that they have 30 months in the UK in which to study and bring their English ability up to what is a very basic level and if they don't then their FLR will be refused and they will have to leave, then they have no one to blame for not doing so than themselves.

[Jay Sata]

If a family migrant knows that they have 30 months in the UK in which to study and bring their English ability up to what is a very basic level and if they don't then their FLR will be refused and they will have to leave, then they have no one to blame for not doing so than themselves.

Better they have 30 months in their own country and if they don't pass they don't get in.

That is how the rules work end of story.

These guys have had over five years while their cases have moved through the courts.

I have travelled pretty extensively and am still visiting remote places. There are very few left on the planet without mobile phones or internet.

Sorry but they are only being asked for very basic English. If they cannot master that what chance integration?

[bobrussell]

Although this discussion was sparked by two particular cases, people should remember that it is the principle at stake here; not just in these two cases but in others, now and in the future; no matter the nationality of the applicants.

As I have tried to make clear, but seems to have been missed by some, I am firmly in favour of language tests for anyone coming to live, work or study in the UK.

I firmly believe that if one chooses to live, work or study in another country then one should be able to communicate in the language of that country; not necessarily fluent, but certainly well enough to get by.

I have firmly in the past defended here the language requirement and LitUK test requirement for ILR.

I have also defended the language requirement for the initial visa.

All I am saying is that some flexibility is needed.

It is possible, as Bob says, that removing the language requirement at the initial visa stage could cause problems when it comes to applying for FLR; but those problems would be of the applicant's own making.

If a family migrant knows that they have 30 months in the UK in which to study and bring their English ability up to what is a very basic level and if they don't then their FLR will be refused and they will have to leave, then they have no one to blame for not doing so than themselves.

I agree that flexibility is desirable and it would be great if everyone were to play ball. The reality would be that someone facing deportation following refusal of FLR is likely to put up a lot of resistance to being made to return to their own country.

For some the birth of a child in the UK would make compulsory return difficult if not impossible. Elderly people could play the health problem game. Others may just drop off the radar and disappear.

Anyone able to connect to the internet can learn basic English. The BBC website has areas devoted to it! The internet can be accessed climbing Mt Everest!

If the applicants have learning difficulties they can be excused the language requirements. If it is just difficult to learn they should not be IMO!

I feel somewhat uncomfortable having my posts 'liked' by Jay Sata - a novel experience!!

[Jay Sata]

Don't feel uncomfortable.

If you look at my posts elsewhere you will find I argue on both sides of the fence.

My wife is Thai American so I appreciate the cultural differences on the great divide.

As I and others have stated if there was a major mitigating circumstance why both parties could not

achieve passing the test then fair enough.

However we jump through many tests and exams as we journey the road of life. To say let me in although I cannot be bothered to make the effort is wrong. This is a very basic exam.

It's a bit like the lazy kid in school who later in life sees the swot with the big house great job and family.

As he sits in his council flat downing a beer and smoking a fag shouting unfair do I feel sorry for him?

You get out what you put in.

[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.

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!

I can see you don't understand the relationship between parliament and the courts.

[durhamboy]

Jay - you say that this is a very basic exam. Have you any experience of it? Have you not read the numerous posts from myself and others about how it is not a very basic exam? Can you please justify your comment that it is a very basic exam?

I hope this appeal is successful although I fear it will not be. Anything that gives HMG a kick up the backside for their utter shambles of an immigration and policy has my good wishes. I realise that the flipside to that is a huge UKIP vote at the next general election but in many ways the current government is acting like UKIP because it is running scared of them.

[Jay Sata]

Jay - you say that this is a very basic exam. Have you any experience of it? Have you not read the numerous posts from myself and others about how it is not a very basic exam? Can you please justify your comment that it is a very basic exam?

I hope this appeal is successful although I fear it will not be. Anything that gives HMG a kick up the backside for their utter shambles of an immigration and policy has my good wishes. I realise that the flipside to that is a huge UKIP vote at the next general election but in many ways the current government is acting like UKIP because it is running scared of them.

I don't really want to discuss UK politics here but the bottom line is that immigration is a major issue for the upcoming elections.

As others have suggested even the most semi illiterate bargirl from the back of beyond seems to manage to pass the test.

I have certainly been faced with many in my lifetime.

It could be argued that life is unfair because those who cannot pass exams often end up with menial work paying low wages.

Sadly that is life.

[7by7]

I can see you (7by7) don't understand the relationship between parliament and the courts.

Au contraire.

You may find Judges and Policy; A delicate balance by Lord Neuberger educational.

[Jay Sata]

I can see you (7by7) don't understand the relationship between parliament and the courts.

Au contraire.

You may find Judges and Policy; A delicate balance by Lord Neuberger educational.

And your point is?

[7by7]

Obvious, I would have thought.

But for the intellectually challenged; my point is that I do understand the relationship between the Parliament and the courts; as will any one else who reads the linked to article.

[Donutz]

The EU court of justice is also reviewing a Dutch case on the pre entry language test (A1, writing, speaking, reading and understanding spoken Dutch).

In my opinion the pre entry test is a waste of time and money for bonafide couples. Integration, including learning the language is best done when you migrated to the country concerned. Good luck trying to learn a language from a book, especially if there are no or little (good) teachers/schools around. My partner had a fulltime (40 hours + OT, clocking 50 or more hours) office job in BKK so no time to attend a language school. It took her a year, learning in the weekend (if she had no overtime) to get her to level A1. Here in NL she could have picked that up a lot faster, in a more natural and joyful way. I'm all for a language requirement after entry so all inhabitants of a country (except those unable to due to handicaps etc.) can understand the language at atleast a basic A2 level. For naturalisation B1 sounds fair enough to me. Ofcourse no " free handouts" either but that isn't the case right now and even if it was an issue, unrelated to language requirements or skills. Besides, if somebody would be out to scam the system, they could succeed with or without pre entry tests on language etc.

It would be great to see these silly populist pre entry language requirements removed, all that matters is that the (UK, Dutch, ...) national and partner can be self sufficient and are not a burden to society. If they can, don't bother them with pre entry tests. Deny access (abuse) the welfare system to prevent overburdening (scamming) the welfare system.

[Jay Sata]

I can see you (7by7) don't understand the relationship between parliament and the courts.

Au contraire.

You may find Judges and Policy; A delicate balance by Lord Neuberger educational.

And your point is?

[Jay Sata]

Obvious, I would have thought.

But for the intellectually challenged; my point is that I do understand the relationship between the Parliament and the courts; as will any one else who reads the linked to article.

The case we are discussing has already been dismissed by the best legal brains in the UK as well as the UK government.

Can you suggest the point of law on which the Supreme Court will overturn the previous rejections .

[Donutz]

Why should a British citizen be forced to leave the UK simply because they have married a foreigner who currently cannot speak English, but can learn once they are here?

How would you feel if Thailand introduced a language requirement and at your next 90 day report/renewal/visa run (whichever) Thai immigration ejected you from Thailand simply because you couldn't speak Thai without first giving you the chance to learn?

As I said before; just because something is the law doesn't mean it is right; there have been plenty of unjust laws overturned by the courts in the past.

I wonder too, surely the " pre entry language test" advocates would support such entry conditions to Thailand?

Imagen Thailand setting pre entry A1 language (speaking and reading, possibly writing and understanding spoken Thai also) requirements for all who wish to stay longer then 90 days per year. Followed by a level A2 language test 2-3 years after arrival or face being deported from Thailand. Would be easy as pie not?

Simply don't be lazy, get schooled in your home country. No sufficient Thai teachers in the UK, Dutchyland, .. ? Well then move to a place with sufficient teachers or come over on holiday to Thailand and enrol in a 3 month class here, hopping back and forth between TH and your home country until you are sufficiently skilled or refused entry as a tourist for being suspected of trying to effectively be an immigrant (settlement).

They could also learn all those lovely stereotypes that are so important to know about Thai society such as not pointing with your feet, that walking around in a T shirt, sandals with socks and tattoos frowned upon, is prostitution being illegal, that the country is a democracy, major historic facts (atleast those who matter in the eyes of the Thai authorities) etc. etc. Jolly good fun. Ofcourse all answers would need to be given in Thai, just as in the Dutch cultural, social and language pre-entry test applicants can only answer in Dutch.

Not fair, because said applicant isn't out to abuse the system? It's too hard to learn from abroad? You aren't some chav scum so why are you getting Q&A directed at low lifes? Not some anti-social person locked away in a part of town amongst fellow countrymen, all speaking English/Dutch/.. together and visiting English/Dutch/.. shops, sticking together, not integrating? Simply wanting to live in Thailand alone or with your family, living of your own (legal) income without bothering anyone? Though t*tt*, the country needs to be protected, don't be lazy and the "handful" of good people who become trapped are simply out of luck as the rotten apples needs to be filtered out pre entry.

Well, I certainly cannot defend such a system as a describe here. If you wish to stop scum and fraud (abuse of the welfare system), then secure better against fraud and abuse, just like they did with the NHS just yesterday.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Donutz

[Jay Sata]

There is a pre entry condition to Thailand.

If you want to be a legal resident and not a foreigner on a visa you need to pass the language test to get a passport and normal citizens rights.

Japan,South Korea etc also impose similar conditions.

The appellants in this case are not even literate by their own countries simple standards.

If you cannot read and write in the language of your mother country what chance passing a basic English test?

Edited February 11, 2015 by Jay Sata

[Donutz]

More precise Thailand has a language test for residency and some additional language, income etc. rules for naturalisation. But going that route, the UK and other EU members could ofcourse open visa categories that would allow for endless visa renewals. Effectively allowing people to live in the EUK/UK indefinitely without any tests except for an income test and a tri-montly border run or run to the immigration bureau. Which would make actual residency a lot less attractive and still would make the argument " those who live here need to adept and thus pass language tests to show they integrate" void.

Sadly, most politicians are following the populist "this is for their own good" route and " being prepared is important, and with ever tougher requirements immigrants will be better prepated" BS. So my last hope is with judges overturning these silly laws that separate families who have no ill intentions at all.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Donutz

[Jay Sata]

If you have been following UK politics over the last year you will be aware public opinion across the board favours a tightening

of immigration control for both EU countries and beyond.

It is one of the key topics in debate during the run up to Election Day.

[Donutz]

Being more strict on immigrants is and has been a popular topic in most (western) EU nations in the last 5-10 years. People yelling about abuse or hoards of EU and non EU immigrants, closing the borders etc. While having little clue on actual immigration numbers, emigration numbers, abuse levels. overestimating the nummer of (east European, Muslims, ..) immigrants, having overall poor knowledge of the statistics and current rules etc. And politicians who simply copy all this ill informed chatter... most unfortunate.

[durhamboy]

Jay - you say that this is a very basic exam. Have you any experience of it? Have you not read the numerous posts from myself and others about how it is not a very basic exam? Can you please justify your comment that it is a very basic exam?

I hope this appeal is successful although I fear it will not be. Anything that gives HMG a kick up the backside for their utter shambles of an immigration and policy has my good wishes. I realise that the flipside to that is a huge UKIP vote at the next general election but in many ways the current government is acting like UKIP because it is running scared of them.

I don't really want to discuss UK politics here but the bottom line is that immigration is a major issue for the upcoming elections.

As others have suggested even the most semi illiterate bargirl from the back of beyond seems to manage to pass the test.

I have certainly been faced with many in my lifetime.

It could be argued that life is unfair because those who cannot pass exams often end up with menial work paying low wages.

Sadly that is life.

So Jay, that is the way you answer a serious question is it? I asked you to justify your comment that the English exam is "a very basic exam" and your response is "the most semi illiterate bargirl from the back of beyond seems to manage to pass the test". Care to give some examples based on your wealth of experience in this area?

Truth is that you have no idea how hard or easy it is to pass the test. I doubt that you even know what it entails or the practical pitfalls that beset the applicants.

However, your response did give everyone a good insight into your views about certain elements of Thai society. Lucky you can express them anonymously in a forum isn't it?

[7by7]

Obvious, I would have thought.

But for the intellectually challenged; my point is that I do understand the relationship between the Parliament and the courts; as will any one else who reads the linked to article.

The case we are discussing has already been dismissed by the best legal brains in the UK as well as the UK government.

Can you suggest the point of law on which the Supreme Court will overturn the previous rejections .

That is for lawyers on both sides to argue and the judges to decide upon.

But it has nothing to do with my response to phrodan about the relationship between Parliament and the courts.

[theoldgit]

Off topic post removed.

[Jay Sata]

Obvious, I would have thought.

But for the intellectually challenged; my point is that I do understand the relationship between the Parliament and the courts; as will any one else who reads the linked to article.

The case we are discussing has already been dismissed by the best legal brains in the UK as well as the UK government.

Can you suggest the point of law on which the Supreme Court will overturn the previous rejections .

That is for lawyers on both sides to argue and the judges to decide upon.

But it has nothing to do with my response to phrodan about the relationship between Parliament and the courts.

Given the fact we no longer have a British Embassy in Yemen and security issues regarding clearing someone to enter the UK where terrorist organisations appear to be in control perhaps you can tell me how one of the appellants will be processed to enter the UK even if he wins the appeal?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/british-embassy-evacuated-in-yemen-after-us-consulate-closes-amid-shia-rebel-takeover-10037655.html

This situation will not be sorted out quickly.

"British diplomatic staff in Yemen have been withdrawn and the embassy closed due to the security situation in the country, the Foreign Office has said.

Embassy staff and its premises are at "increased risk" and all Britons who remain in Yemen should leave immediately, it said.

The US has also shut down its embassy in Yemen and evacuated its staff.

It comes as Shia Houthi rebels have taken over large parts of the country and crisis talks broke down this week."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31400400

Can you explain what your post has to do with this thread ? If you must see your name in print on Houthi rebels and the British Embassy in Yemen, then start another thread in the appropriate forum.

One of the two appellants featured in the appeal is from rural Yemen.

Have you read the details of the appeal? That is what this thread is all about.

The British Embassy and staff were evacuated yesterday and the country does not have a stable government.

[Tony M]

Jay Sata, I do believe that you have lost the plot. You have more than 2,600 posts in this forum, and have contributed absolutely nothing of value to any of the ongoing threads. If you cannot understand that the evacuation of the British Embassy in Yemen has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision on English tests, then you are beyond help.