Post by starlight07 on Dec 16, 2011 16:53:21 GMT -5
UK court upholds English-speaking rule for immigrants
link - www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/16/overseas-spouses-speak-english?newsfeed=true
What do you think here? Has the court done right?
The high court has upheld a government rule requiring spouses to prove they can speak English before they can join their partners in Britain.
Mr Justice Beatson dismissed a judicial review challenge brought by three couples to the immigration rule, introduced last November, on the grounds that it was racist and would break up their families.
The couples included Rashida Chapti, a British citizen. She has been married for almost 40 years, has six children and divides her time between Leicester and India. Her husband, Vali, wants to join her permanently in Britain but he does not speak, read or write English.
The high court judge, sitting in Birmingham, said the requirement to have passed a pre-entry English language test did interfere with the couple's article 8 rights to a family life but this was justified in the interests of promoting integration and protecting public services.
Beatson also rejected the argument that the language tests were discriminatory because they required someone with a degree in English from India to sit the test but not Spanish-speakers from California.
The judge said that the decision to distinguish between nationals of countries considered to be "English-speaking" and those from elsewhere was rational.
The ruling is a major victory for the home secretary, Theresa May, in her efforts to persuade the courts to adopt a less rigid approach to article 8 human rights cases.
The immigration minister, Damian Green, said: "We believe it is entirely reasonable that someone intending to live in the UK should understand English, so that they can integrate and participate fully in our society. We are very pleased that the courts agree with us."
But the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which officially intervened in the case, said it was very disappointed by the ruling.
Hina Majid, the JCWI's legal director, said: "No one in their right mind would pretend that learning English is not a good thing for immigrants in the UK to do. This ruling, however, will mean that many British citizens will continue to experience enforced and indefinite separation from loved ones, partners, and in some cases, their children.
"It is already a legal requirement that partners and spouses must demonstrate linguistic skills shortly after arrival in the UK. In countries experiencing conflict, poverty, natural disasters and political instability, it can however be extremely difficult to acquire linguistic skills prior to arrival in the UK. Spouses in parts of Sudan, Yemen and Gaza for example often struggle to find decent tuition."
According to the new rules, spouses will be required to attain a "basic" level of English that can be reached after 40-50 hours of tuition.
But Majid said that a far more effective way of reaching that level would be to charge spouses home tuition rates for English classes immediately on arrival in the UK, instead of the current prohibitive overseas rates.
"This would mean that more could afford to attend high quality classes early on," she said.
"It would not only improve linguistic skills, but would also bolster our struggling education sector, keep families together and ultimately save the taxpayer from forking out millions for the implementation of this scheme."
The proposal to introduce pre-entry English language tests for those coming to Britain to join a spouse or civil partner on a spousal visa was first proposed by Labour ministers three years ago to encourage integration, help newcomers get work and make clear to migrants the importance of learning English. It was introduced by the coalition last November.
The tests apply only to those who come from non-English-speaking countries. The top five nationalities of those coming to marry UK citizens are Pakistan (8,570 people), India (5,110), Bangladesh (2,780), US (2,110) and Thailand (1,776).
Mr Justice Beatson dismissed a judicial review challenge brought by three couples to the immigration rule, introduced last November, on the grounds that it was racist and would break up their families.
The couples included Rashida Chapti, a British citizen. She has been married for almost 40 years, has six children and divides her time between Leicester and India. Her husband, Vali, wants to join her permanently in Britain but he does not speak, read or write English.
The high court judge, sitting in Birmingham, said the requirement to have passed a pre-entry English language test did interfere with the couple's article 8 rights to a family life but this was justified in the interests of promoting integration and protecting public services.
Beatson also rejected the argument that the language tests were discriminatory because they required someone with a degree in English from India to sit the test but not Spanish-speakers from California.
The judge said that the decision to distinguish between nationals of countries considered to be "English-speaking" and those from elsewhere was rational.
The ruling is a major victory for the home secretary, Theresa May, in her efforts to persuade the courts to adopt a less rigid approach to article 8 human rights cases.
The immigration minister, Damian Green, said: "We believe it is entirely reasonable that someone intending to live in the UK should understand English, so that they can integrate and participate fully in our society. We are very pleased that the courts agree with us."
But the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which officially intervened in the case, said it was very disappointed by the ruling.
Hina Majid, the JCWI's legal director, said: "No one in their right mind would pretend that learning English is not a good thing for immigrants in the UK to do. This ruling, however, will mean that many British citizens will continue to experience enforced and indefinite separation from loved ones, partners, and in some cases, their children.
"It is already a legal requirement that partners and spouses must demonstrate linguistic skills shortly after arrival in the UK. In countries experiencing conflict, poverty, natural disasters and political instability, it can however be extremely difficult to acquire linguistic skills prior to arrival in the UK. Spouses in parts of Sudan, Yemen and Gaza for example often struggle to find decent tuition."
According to the new rules, spouses will be required to attain a "basic" level of English that can be reached after 40-50 hours of tuition.
But Majid said that a far more effective way of reaching that level would be to charge spouses home tuition rates for English classes immediately on arrival in the UK, instead of the current prohibitive overseas rates.
"This would mean that more could afford to attend high quality classes early on," she said.
"It would not only improve linguistic skills, but would also bolster our struggling education sector, keep families together and ultimately save the taxpayer from forking out millions for the implementation of this scheme."
The proposal to introduce pre-entry English language tests for those coming to Britain to join a spouse or civil partner on a spousal visa was first proposed by Labour ministers three years ago to encourage integration, help newcomers get work and make clear to migrants the importance of learning English. It was introduced by the coalition last November.
The tests apply only to those who come from non-English-speaking countries. The top five nationalities of those coming to marry UK citizens are Pakistan (8,570 people), India (5,110), Bangladesh (2,780), US (2,110) and Thailand (1,776).
link - www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/16/overseas-spouses-speak-english?newsfeed=true
What do you think here? Has the court done right?
that would now be granparents etc.
© 2011 -- 
Crap, the Name Escapes Me 
