Human rights lawyers condemn English tests for spouses coming to UK

[Suffragette1]

I dont. Think of all the money wed save on translators and think how much easier things will be if the dont have the old chestnut of 'no speaky english' to hide behind.

 

However, if there was more pressure to learn the language once in situ, that would help alleviate some of the financial burden on services to provide interpreters and translation services. It will not happen overnight as there are already residents here who do not speak English, so it needs to be a long term goal.

 

If it's a pre-requisite then it is discriminatory by definition as not every spouse entering the country will have had the opportunity to learn English and entry requirements will, therefore, be elitist.

[Suffragette1]

I can demonstrate a willingness to bark like a dog if it gets me something i want.

It doesnt mean i have to actually do it.

Or am even willing to actualy do it.

 

Then perhaps they should sit a test after a year. I'm not sure what the criteria are to get full residency, however, if you have to sit a Citizenship test, that requires a high level of English as well as knowledge.

[js2012]

However, if there was more pressure to learn the language once in situ,

 

How would you apply this pressure?

[js2012]

Then perhaps they should sit a test after a year. I'm not sure what the criteria are to get full residency, however, if you have to sit a Citizenship test, that requires a high level of English as well as knowledge.

 

The probl;em is that after a year it wont matter if they speak the ling. Theyll have gone into hiding and wont be seen afgain. Dnt forget, the dodgy ones wont be bothered about learning in situ. They just want to get into the country.

[js2012]

 

If it's a pre-requisite then it is discriminatory by definition as not every spouse entering the country will have had the opportunity to learn English and entry requirements will, therefore, be elitist.

 

And thats where the problem is. Its not discriminatory, its good sense. If you cant speak English then how on earth are you going to integrate?

[Gary Davis]

Some Sheffielders have been accused of not speaking proper English either

 

Wot Da talkin abart?

[Bassman62]

message deleted.

[hard2miss]

Human rights lawyers condemn English tests for spouses coming to UK

Well I condemn Human rights lawyers and quite a few people condemn immigration here as a whole so its swings and roundabouts.

[Rupert_Baehr]

However, if there was more pressure to learn the language once in situ, that would help alleviate some of the financial burden on services to provide interpreters and translation services. It will not happen overnight as there are already residents here who do not speak English, so it needs to be a long term goal.

 

1. Why should the receiving country (in your case, the UK) be paying for interpreters for financial migrants? As I mentioned in a previous post, if you want an interpreter here you are welcome to hire one. The aid provided by the state is limited to giving you the names addresses and phone numbers of those interpreters they are aware of.

 

I've seen nothing in the proposed changes to suggest that asylum seekers are going to be denied protection because they don't speak English. - The law appears to be aimed at financial migrants.

 

After all, if you and your family are asylum seekers, then surely (if you care a damn for your family) you will remove them from the danger in which you all find yourselves when you leave? How would you justify saving yourself and sending for them later? - Were you really in danger?

 

2. Germany has a large immigrant population from Turkey. Historically (since the 1st World War when the Turks were on the side of the Germans) Turks have enjoyed a 'special immigrant relationship' in Germany. There are an estimated 1.5 million Muslims in Germany, 1.3 million of whom are Turks (the religion isn't an issue, the language is.)

 

Most of the first-generation males (males tended to be the wage-earners amongst Turkish immigrants here) learnt German. - They had to, to get a job.

 

Many of the wives did not learn German and a significant number of their children (who grew up speaking Turkish to Mum at home) arrived at school unable to speak German.

 

They didn't do very well in Primary school and that under-achievement continued at secondary school. In some areas (particularly the multi-culti areas in large cities) the second-generation immigrants, many of whom were educated in schools where most of the pupils were of Turkish ethnicity, are poorly-educated and poorly equipped to get a decent job. The German move to require spouses to speak German was aimed at improving the lot of second-generation children.

 

If it's a pre-requisite then it is discriminatory by definition as not every spouse entering the country will have had the opportunity to learn English and entry requirements will, therefore, be elitist.

 

It is indeed discriminatory, but there's nothing wrong with discrimination per se. Denying would-be financial immigrants who are not needed and who are unlikely to find jobs is also discriminatory, but it is permitted at Law.

 

Denying illegal immigrants the right to remain is also discriminatory - You're discriminating against them solely on the grounds that they have no legal right to be there - but that too is lawful (and appropriate) discrimination.

 

Obliging your current population (and that population includes all legal immigrants) to pay additional taxes so that they can fund the costs of interpreters and language lessons for people who moved to your country to improve their financial situation is also discriminatory ... but we hear little about that.

 

I'm an immigrant. I started being an immigrant in 1968, when I moved to your country. I've visited my own frequently since then, but I haven't lived there. (And I wouldn't want to do so either - it's been colonised by Englishmen.)

 

They went there because they thought it was unspoilt, had a relaxed attitude to life and was so much better than the place in which they used to live.

 

Fair enough. But after a year or two, many of them decided to enter local government and then they changed the laws. (If the relaxed society was what brought you there; if it was really so good, why do you want to change it?')

 

They did. And they introduced 'jobs for the boys'. And the prices and cost of living went through the roof! And they didn't even bother to try to learn our language.

 

(I come from an early example of failed multi-culti. The first immigrants we got were immigrants. - They settled and they joined us. We goit on well together (a bit of friction initially, perhaps, but the local society got over that and was enriched by the new members. The second tranche were colonists. They set up their own culture ('separate but equal' [apartheid]).

 

Few of the problems I've read about which affect the UK are new. I've seen them before (some of them 30 years before.) It's deja-vu all over again.

 

I'm certainly not against immigration, but I am vehemently opposed to colonisation (which is what multi-culturalism involves.)

 

I would far rather live in a single culture society; one which incorporates immigrants from a number of cultures (and is bound to change as a result) than live in a multi-culti environment in which there is no societal cohesion, but rather a fragile truce between competing cultures.

 

Each to his own, I supose.

[Suffragette1]

1. Why should the receiving country (in your case, the UK) be paying for interpreters for financial migrants? As I mentioned in a previous post, if you want an interpreter here you are welcome to hire one. The aid provided by the state is limited to giving you the names addresses and phone numbers of those interpreters they are aware of.

 

I've seen nothing in the proposed changes to suggest that asylum seekers are going to be denied protection because they don't speak English. - The law appears to be aimed at financial migrants.

 

After all, if you and your family are asylum seekers, then surely (if you care a damn for your family) you will remove them from the danger in which you all find yourselves when you leave? How would you justify saving yourself and sending for them later? - Were you really in danger?

 

2. Germany has a large immigrant population from Turkey. Historically (since the 1st World War when the Turks were on the side of the Germans) Turks have enjoyed a 'special immigrant relationship' in Germany. There are an estimated 1.5 million Muslims in Germany, 1.3 million of whom are Turks (the religion isn't an issue, the language is.)

 

Most of the first-generation males (males tended to be the wage-earners amongst Turkish immigrants here) learnt German. - They had to, to get a job.

 

Many of the wives did not learn German and a significant number of their children (who grew up speaking Turkish to Mum at home) arrived at school unable to speak German.

 

They didn't do very well in Primary school and that under-achievement continued at secondary school. In some areas (particularly the multi-culti areas in large cities) the second-generation immigrants, many of whom were educated in schools where most of the pupils were of Turkish ethnicity, are poorly-educated and poorly equipped to get a decent job. The German move to require spouses to speak German was aimed at improving the lot of second-generation children.

 

 

 

It is indeed discriminatory, but there's nothing wrong with discrimination per se. Denying would-be financial immigrants who are not needed and who are unlikely to find jobs is also discriminatory, but it is permitted at Law.

 

Denying illegal immigrants the right to remain is also discriminatory - You're discriminating against them solely on the grounds that they have no legal right to be there - but that too is lawful (and appropriate) discrimination.

 

Obliging your current population (and that population includes all legal immigrants) to pay additional taxes so that they can fund the costs of interpreters and language lessons for people who moved to your country to improve their financial situation is also discriminatory ... but we hear little about that.

 

I'm an immigrant. I started being an immigrant in 1968, when I moved to your country. I've visited my own frequently since then, but I haven't lived there. (And I wouldn't want to do so either - it's been colonised by Englishmen.)

 

They went there because they thought it was unspoilt, had a relaxed attitude to life and was so much better than the place in which they used to live.

 

Fair enough. But after a year or two, many of them decided to enter local government and then they changed the laws. (If the relaxed society was what brought you there; if it was really so good, why do you want to change it?')

 

They did. And they introduced 'jobs for the boys'. And the prices and cost of living went through the roof! And they didn't even bother to try to learn our language.

 

(I come from an early example of failed multi-culti. The first immigrants we got were immigrants. - They settled and they joined us. We goit on well together (a bit of friction initially, perhaps, but the local society got over that and was enriched by the new members. The second tranche were colonists. They set up their own culture ('separate but equal' [apartheid]).

 

Few of the problems I've read about which affect the UK are new. I've seen them before (some of them 30 years before.) It's deja-vu all over again.

 

I'm certainly not against immigration, but I am vehemently opposed to colonisation (which is what multi-culturalism involves.)

 

I would far rather live in a single culture society; one which incorporates immigrants from a number of cultures (and is bound to change as a result) than live in a multi-culti environment in which there is no societal cohesion, but rather a fragile truce between competing cultures.

 

Each to his own, I supose.

 

I agree with most of what you've written and not knowing or speaking the language in the country of residence is a huge barrier, both culturally and towards integration. I also think, as you have stated, that children growing up in a single non-English speaking household can be disadvantaged to the extent that they arrive at school unable to speak English.

 

I don't know about economic migrants, but one assumes that if they're coming over to work then they will require a certain level of English language competency otherwise how will they get employment?

 

However, in the context of this thread and this discussion about the policies of spouses, I believe it to be unfair.

 

The change will mean that partners will need to show basic English at A1 level which is at the same level as required for skilled workers under the Tier 2 visa scheme. You will also in future have to pass an English language test by an approved test provider. UKBA also confirmed in their news report that you will still need to show that your relationship is genuine and that you can support yourselves financially to come under a "partner" visa. At the end of two years on the basis of one of these "partner" based visas you can apply for indefinite leave to remain; This is also known as settlement. You will need to pass the 'knowledge of language and life in the UK' test and meet the new English language requirements.

 

Hina Majid of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants had the following to say, "Forcing husbands and wives to take language tests before they even arrive in the U.K. will rip families apart." Ms Majid went onto say, "These new rules are likely to hit people from South Asia and Africa, where English is not the main language. It may also hit women harder and discriminate most against the poorest."

 

The tougher English Language requirements will mean a reduction in the number of people who qualify for entry on a spouse or partner visa which help the new UK Government to reduce immigration to the UK. This is just one of a number of steps that the new UK Coalition Government will be taking to cut immigration into the UK. Yet again, it has to be said that if you wish to come under the the current more liberal immigration laws you should apply sooner rather than later.

 

My bold.

 

The following seems fair enough, however:

 

At the end of two years on the basis of one of these "partner" based visas you can apply for indefinite leave to remain; This is also known as settlement. You will need to pass the 'knowledge of language and life in the UK' test and meet the new English language requirements.