My gut instinct (and a chat with Elizabeth, who has dual nationality and emigrated here from Switzerland) makes me think that it is bad. Here are some reasons:
1. Freedom of movement is a basic human right. Stopping people from moving where they wish is intrinsically bad.
2. Law of unintended consequences: make it harder to immigrate to a non-oppressive, non-illiberal, non-intolerant (well, we like to think so) and fewer people will do it. That means that more people will be still living in the oppressive, etc state, and so will their children, who will be brought up under the same strictures and perpetuate the cycle. Similarly, you may get more illegal immigrants who avoid the system entirely
( ... )
Exactly. all that wol really do is make it harder for the families of people who've escaped said oppressive etc regimes to get out. The idea that there's some huge problem of immigrants coming here and not learning English is bollocks: almost every immigrant wants to learn English, there is no conspiracy like the Daily Mail seems to think of turning us all into Arabic speakers. And the solution to the (limited) problems caused by non-fluent English speakers (who, incidentally, include English-born people who left school and things just as much as they include immigrants, but mysteriously this is never brought up because omfg those people are white, not like those darkies) is better learning opportunities and better support systems in place, both for new immigrants and for the longer-term poor.
I'd agree that referencing the Daily Mail has been used to dismiss concerns which would be better addressed in a more productive and less insulting manner, and that's a bad thing, but the vast majority of people who get in a stress about immigration and want to impose these kind of restrictions don't have anything of substance behind it other than "these people are foreign and they're coming here and I don't like that". Which, sure, they have a right to feel that way, but other people also then have a right to say that yes, that attitude is racist and shouldn't be enshrined in law. Those people might not be planning to beat up anyone who talks funny or whatever, most of them are probably perfectly nice people, but putting their views into practice would be discriminatory against people who already have it really fucking rough. And all because of... what? The percentage of immigrants, legal and otherwise, is very low. 5 percent, last I heard. These poor sods are outnumbered 95 to 1, are coming from some of the worst situations this
( ... )
I agree that a lot of anti-immigration types are being overly hysterical in their panic that Britain is going to collapse, but not being able to communicate with the natives is a very real problem that directly causes segregation by nature. I'm not saying forget your home language (despite the fact that I think language is only a means of communication and nothing to get worked up about losing anyway), I'm not saying stop wearing turbans or head scarfs or sandles or bermuda shirts or to stop praying to whatever fairy your parents taught you, I'm asking for them to learn to communicate to a reasonable level with the natives before moving in.
I get that - in order to participate much here they will need English skills. I agree. I don't see, though, why they can't get those skills here. Why should we shove that burden on to other countries (lots of which are not in a state to provide English lessons or anything else, for that matter, and that's before we get to situations where the immigrants concerned are running for their lives) when we can do it? Why make it harder to get here, when we can more easily and more effectively ensure immigrant participation by helping them out once they get here?
I guess I think it comes down to this: if we say, 'you must be this good at English to be allowed in', we won't magically get a load of more articulate immigrants. We'll get a whole load less immigrants, and that's all. All the countries which are willing and able to provide good English education already do, for the most part, and immigrants from those countries already tend to have very good English. We would effectively be putting a financial tag on immigration: You Must Be This
( ... )
Regarding point 4, clearly I'm oversimplifying because there are deaf and dumb people. Those people can, though, typically use sign language or some other form of recognised communication over here. Such laws would also have to recognise that and account.
We currently live in a state in which English is the minority language by far: Europe. Any European can come to the UK without bothering to speak English perfectly legally, and we can go there without having to learn their language perfectly legally. If you are worried about divisiveness and a "them and us" mentality, I submit that we could do with having as many non-English speakers coming here as possible to shock us into learning a bit of their languages.
Actually, I'd wager that English can be spoken by more people in the EU than any other language. Being in the EU offers certain advantages like freedom of movement in exchange for a degree of loss of control of our own state.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
1. Freedom of movement is a basic human right. Stopping people from moving where they wish is intrinsically bad.
2. Law of unintended consequences: make it harder to immigrate to a non-oppressive, non-illiberal, non-intolerant (well, we like to think so) and fewer people will do it. That means that more people will be still living in the oppressive, etc state, and so will their children, who will be brought up under the same strictures and perpetuate the cycle. Similarly, you may get more illegal immigrants who avoid the system entirely ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I guess I think it comes down to this: if we say, 'you must be this good at English to be allowed in', we won't magically get a load of more articulate immigrants. We'll get a whole load less immigrants, and that's all. All the countries which are willing and able to provide good English education already do, for the most part, and immigrants from those countries already tend to have very good English. We would effectively be putting a financial tag on immigration: You Must Be This ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment