just read this http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/su...-a3117176.html
Today the Supreme Court of the UK are going to say whether having to pass an English Language Test as a prerequisite before being allowed a spouse visa is lawful or not. If they say it is unlawful then presumably HM Government will launch an appeal against the decision? ( If they can appeal a UK Supreme court judgement?)
The Supreme Court has decided that the English Language test requirement is lawful. The full details of the Supreme Court's judgement have now been published on the Supreme Court web site.
"I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men" Sir Isaac Newton
My view probably won't be a popular one, but this ruling makes complete sense and would have been a complete travesty if overturned. Just take note of some of the recent 'slavery/entrapment' cases, where people were being brought to the UK for one reason that turned into something very different. A lot of domestic issues with wives joining spouses, especially with those from the sub-continent, have also been recorded and I have had some personal experience of that, including seeing pregnant young women thrown out of family homes, completely frightened and bewildered and not knowing who to turn to or where to go.
A fairly liberal Court .
3 QC's all with juniors an intervener... How legal aid funded this boggles my mind.
" Saiqa Bibi is a British Citizen who was born in Coventry and lives with herfamily in the West Midlands. In April 2009, she married Mohammed Jehangir, acitizen of Pakistan. They have one child, a son born in 2010, who lives with hismother. The couple keep in touch with one another by telephone and occasional visits to Pakistan. They would like to live here together as a family. Mr Jehangir waseducated to matriculation level in Pakistan but in Urdu. He neither speaks nor writesany English. There is no English tuition of the level required available locally towhere he lives and to obtain it he would have to make a round trip of some fourhours, to Mirpur or Islamabad. This is not practicable on a daily basis, so he wouldhave to relocate for several months to Rawalpindi, which is not affordable. 24. Mrs Saffana Ali is also a British citizen. She spent approximately two and ahalf years, from 2006 to 2008, visiting the Yemen, where she met and formed arelationship with her husband Mr Ali. When she returned to this country in 2008 they kept in touch over the telephone and decided to get married. She returned to theYemen in May 2010 and they married there in July 2010. Mr Ali does not speak anyEnglish. He has not had any formal education and is illiterate and unfamiliar withthe Roman alphabet. There is no test centre in the Yemen. Because her husband isunable to come and live with her here, Mrs Ali has remained with him in the Yemen,but she would like them to be able to live together here, where she has lived since achild and has family and friends.
"62. In para 33 of her judgment Lady Hale summarises the six reasons which theGovernment have advanced for the introduction of a pre-entry English languagerequirement. They are: (i) to assist the partners’ integration into United Kingdomsociety at an early stage; (ii) to improve their employment chances as they haveaccess to the labour market as soon as they arrive; (iii) to raise awareness of theimportance of language and to prepare for the tests they will need to pass forsettlement in this country; (iv) to save translation costs; (v) to benefit any childrenthe couple may have; and (vi) to reduce the vulnerability of newly arrived spouses,especially women. 63. The appellants led evidence which sought to call into question the extent towhich the proposed English language test could achieve those benign aims. Becausethe IELTS English language test is at a basic A1 level, the appellants argued withsome force that its contribution to several of the listed aims may be modest. Thatmay well be so. But like the majority of the Court of Appeal (Maurice Kay LJ (atpara 30) and Toulson LJ (at para 52)) I consider that this court’s role does not extendto overruling the predictive judgment of the executive branch of government on anissue of social policy at a stage when empirical evidence of the consequences of thepolicy is unobtainable. In my view the law gives the executive branch a wide marginof appreciation in its assessment of the consequences of its social policy in thissphere. "
Well that was a fairly predictable result and the Legal aid costs could have sent a team of teachers to both appellants or sent a radio so they can listen to the World Service.
In my opinion there are a lot of things wrong with our immigration policy including frankly disgraceful and illegal removals and Govt lawyers lying in Court as a matter of routine.
Given the little boy is too little and Ms Wife is very happy that I am happy but not getting my happiness as it was a technical loss I just want to say I was before The Honourable Mr Justice Blake this morning . No legal aid . £250. I lasted about an hour maybe a bit less and we had some laughs ( or at least I did and the wing Judge did as Blake before he boxed me in but gave me an out)
"1. On 29 November 2010 the Immigration Rules were amended so as to requirea foreign spouse or partner of a British citizen or a person settled in this country topass a test of competence in the English language before coming to live here (“theRule”). Clearly, for a variety of reasons, some people would find this much harderto do than others. These included many people from India, Pakistan, andBangladesh, three of the four countries from which the greatest numbers of foreignspouses and partners are drawn (the fourth is the USA). Hence the proposed Rulecaused particular concern among those communities in this country where marriageto partners from those countries is most common. They saw it as a discriminatorymeasure which aimed to limit spousal migration from those and similar countries.These proceedings were launched in November 2010, before the Rule came intoforce, in order to challenge the validity of the rule itsefe
So basically learning some basic English is not discriminatory and bears do poopoo in the woods .
It takes courage to grow up and turn out to be who you really are
In many cases this applies to a fair few Thai spouses who have little formal education and have only a little English.Mr Ali does not speak anyEnglish. He has not had any formal education and is illiterate and unfamiliar withthe Roman alphabet. There is no test centre in the Yemen.
As the english test does not apply to visit visas they do have the option of visiting the UK prior to settlement and paying for an english course. If as claimed this is unaffordable then almost certainly so is the visa
Human beings are seventy percent water, and with some the rest is collagen
"bears do poopoo in the woods"
Polar Bears are innocent of this and so are teddy bears.
Solicitors should not generalise
Huge problems face Pakistani and Bangladeshi women in particular coming to the UK with no English. Some female colleagues give up their lunch hours to help Bangladeshi women learn English. (Males are not allowed to help women.) Male and female colleagues give time to help Bangladeshi children with English because English is not spoken in their homes.
If Mr Ali came to the UK, with no English, the taxpayer would have to fund interpreters and provide translations at every turn. Apart from the cost to the taxpayer, the family might end up living in a ghetto of Pakistanis and Mr Ali might never learn English. What job could he hope to do? That has consequences for their kids.
This is not analogous to British people living in Thailand where the government, local authorities and health service do not spend millions providing leaflets and interpreters to help foreigners claim free/heavily subsidized housing, benefits and free health treatment.
The test is really basic. It is a very low minimum standard.
It takes courage to grow up and turn out to be who you really are
Saw this on the BBC News last night and made me think of this thread:- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lly-paralyzed/
Apparently the officer has had 2 trials since the incident, the grandfather is recovering, but still poorly and is still in the USA with his wife now joined him, could have been completely different circumstances if he'd spoken more than "No English" and could have understood and complied with the officer :-( Sad story for all concerned.
As Richard says, the test here is very basic, but far better than nothing :-)