What a great new law!!

[SUMMAYAH]

From April 2007, anyone wishing to come and live in uk for good, has to pass an English test otherwise they will not get their visa's.

Personally I think it's a great idea. It is a law that was long due. If you wish to live in any country it makes sense to learn the language of that land.

I also feel that some pathetic marriage that take place between people of two different countries will achieve better outcomes.

(Even Islamically we are taught to find marriage partners that are at the same wave length as us, but no...some people will only follow the religion of 'culture and tradition'. Which is to get their kid educated to the hightest level possible, then marry them off to a cousin back home that's never even heard of a school!)

Anyway back to the point, I was wondering if anyone thinks differently or what your personal opinion is on this new law that's going to come into force soon?

[Muezzin]

I'll probably get into trouble for saying I think it's a perfectly logical law. I mean, I wouldn't emigrate to Japan without attempting to learn Japanese, for instance.

[SUMMAYAH]

I'll probably get into trouble for saying I think it's a perfectly logical law. I mean, I wouldn't emigrate to Japan without attempting to learn Japanese, for instance.

Exactly!!!

[Al-Zaara]

:sl:

The law I think is already included here in Finland, but even without the law you gotta learn Finnish to survive here. I guess it's the same in most countries.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ZAYD]

Yeah your right it was long due....I also heard that you had to take a british history test or something?

[Muezzin]

Yeah your right it was long due....I also heard that you had to take a british history test or something?

The history test is, I guess, fair enough - but I'd like to see how certain born and bred British people do at it! :p

[SUMMAYAH]

Yeah your right it was long due....I also heard that you had to take a british history test or something?

Someone did mention it to me, but i'm not so sure about that.

[SUMMAYAH]

The history test is, I guess, fair enough - but I'd like to see how certain born and bred British people do at it! :p

It will probably be like the one's we do at school like victorian times, world war1, world war2 etc.......

[umm-sulaim]

nah i'm not likin it.....my gran's meant to becomin insha Allah, dunno bout things now uff i say, but qaddara Allah wa mashaa'a fa3al innit

wassalaam

[Muezzin]

It will probably be like the one's we do at school like victorian times, world war, world war2 etc.......

Bleh, Victorian history is boring but necessary. The world wars were tragic events, but have much more food for thought and are much more engaging to write about.

[FBI]

:sl:

I bet you the bnp are also happy:D Personally I could care less I'll be gone soon as I get a few things in order inshallah.

[SUMMAYAH]

Bleh, Victorian history is boring but necessary. The world wars were tragic events, but have much more food for thought and are much more engaging to write about.

I really enjoyed learning about Victorian times!! It was a time when child labour ended in Britain and children had rights to education.......(otherwise you would of been a chimney sweep!....)

[Muezzin]

:sl:

I bet you the bnp are also happy:D

I bet you the average BNP member didn't get higher than a C at GCSE English. :thumbs_up

[SUMMAYAH]

:sl:

I bet you the bnp are also happy:D .

.......or maybe not, the forigners will be educated, so more chances of good jobs all being taken.......

[baby_muslimah]

Oh.. what a law!

[SUMMAYAH]

nah i'm not likin it.....my gran's meant to becomin insha Allah, dunno bout things now uff i say, but qaddara Allah wa mashaa'a fa3al innit

wassalaam

It's only for those who want to come here for permemant stay.

[SilentObserver]

That is a good law. It should be this way for immigration into any country. If you can't speak the language, then you are not welcome.

[umm-sulaim]

yh, my gran's comin to stay, khayrun Insha Allah, lolz maybe we can give nan some english lessons before she comes innit....
Hows the test d'you know what level it's on?

wassalaam

[Fishman]

:sl:
I hope it's not ridiculous like the 'British Test'. That wasn't about teaching people about British culture, that was just expecting people to know obscure facts about this country! Not that people should have to know more than the basics of British culture before they come here.
I also hope it does not expect people to know fluent English and have an English accent. People do need to know decent English to get an ordinary job in the UK, but expecting people to speak completely fluently is a bit unrealistic. I can quite easily understand plenty of people who do not know fluent English.
:w:

[SUMMAYAH]

yh, my gran's comin to stay, khayrun Insha Allah, lolz maybe we can give nan some english lessons before she comes innit....
Hows the test d'you know what level it's on?

wassalaam

It's english at level 4.
If your gran gets into this country before April, she will be fine, she will only need to pass the test if she wants a British nationality.

[SilentObserver]

yh, my gran's comin to stay, khayrun Insha Allah, lolz maybe we can give nan some english lessons before she comes innit....
Hows the test d'you know what level it's on?

wassalaam

English lessons would be a great idea.

[SUMMAYAH]

:sl:
I hope it's not ridiculous like the 'British Test'. That wasn't about teaching people about British culture, that was just expecting people to know obscure facts about this country! Not that people should have to know more than the basics of British culture before they come here.
I also hope it does not expect people to know fluent English and have an English accent. People do need to know decent English to get an ordinary job in the UK, but expecting people to speak completely fluently is a bit unrealistic. I can quite easily understand plenty of people who do not know fluent English.
:w:

It's a 'written' test. I know lots of people that are really good at writing then speaking, so they will all be fine i guess.

[SUMMAYAH]

English lessons would be a great idea.

The esol classes will be packed out!

[SilentObserver]

The esol classes will be packed out!

Hmm... may be a profitable venture to start teaching these classes.

[SUMMAYAH]

Hmm... may be a profitable venture to start teaching these classes.

Thats what I was thinking. It's easy to qualify and the pay is great!!

[Umar001]

I think some people should be exempt, like elderly because it can be hard for them.

I think equally important is that they should teach people manners, I have noticed people from certain continents and nationalities seem to come across quite rude, they do not mean to, but they just are SO rude, they never say please or thank you and if you help them, for example, you help an elderly lady on the bus, instead of saying 'Oh thanks could you put the bag there for me' some just tend to look at you with a bad face and not even say anything just point and indicate where the bag should go as if your their slave.


Teach people english and people manners!!

*sigh of relief*

[SilentObserver]

I think some people should be exempt, like elderly because it can be hard for them.

I think equally important is that they should teach people manners, I have noticed people from certain continents and nationalities seem to come across quite rude, they do not mean to, but they just are SO rude, they never say please or thank you and if you help them, for example, you help an elderly lady on the bus, instead of saying 'Oh thanks could you put the bag there for me' some just tend to look at you with a bad face and not even say anything just point and indicate where the bag should go as if your their slave.


Teach people english and people manners!!

*sigh of relief*

Thank you for saying this! So true! Manners, and knowing what is rude and what is courteous in the culture of the host country, is extremely important.

[SUMMAYAH]

I think some people should be exempt, like elderly because it can be hard for them.

I think equally important is that they should teach people manners, I have noticed people from certain continents and nationalities seem to come across quite rude, they do not mean to, but they just are SO rude, they never say please or thank you and if you help them, for example, you help an elderly lady on the bus, instead of saying 'Oh thanks could you put the bag there for me' some just tend to look at you with a bad face and not even say anything just point and indicate where the bag should go as if your their slave.


Teach people english and people manners!!

*sigh of relief*

Some good points.
Last year I went on Hajj and I noticed that it was the mojority of people that were from countries that are politically behind that were causing disruption.
There was lots of uncivilisation like pushing into que's, spitting in inappropriate places, littering etc. I believe it was due to lack of education in social manners.

[Woodrow]

Thank you for saying this! So true! Manners, and knowing what is rude and what is courteous in the culture of the host country, is extremely important.

Probably even more important than the language.

[SilentObserver]

Some good points.
Last year I went on Hajj and I noticed that it was the mojority of people that were from countries that are politically behind that were causing disruption.
There was lots of uncivilisation like pushing into que's, spitting in inappropriate places, littering etc. I believe it was due to lack of education in social manners.

I have noticed that many immigrants in my country have no respect for this place. They litter without thinking, and abuse the environment to benefit economically. This at a time when the social conscience of the existing citizens is focussing on protecting the environment and pressuring industry to stop polluting. They need also to be taught social values of the host country. This would help avoid problems with existing citizens. I have confronted litterers on this issue.

[SUMMAYAH]

Probably even more important than the language.

I must mention this. Alhamdolillah If we followed Islam as it was meant to be (a way of life) these problems would never arise in the first place. The prophet (peace be upon him) has set the perfect example of social manners.

[Umar001]

Phew I am glad that I wasn't misunderstood or anything, or thought of as a racist, since some members of my family have the same problem, alhamdulilah, I think though, from personal experience, those of us who are mature enough should not rely on such teachings to work but rather rely on our tolerance, and then hope that people being taught things will make a difference.

It is easy to get fastruated or angry, but sometimes maybe someone appears to be rude because of a speech imparement they have or maybe a disability, so as advice to myself, lnsha'Allah always offer escuses.

[SUMMAYAH]

It is easy to get fastruated or angry, but sometimes maybe someone appears to be rude because of a speech imparement they have or maybe a disability, so as advice to myself, lnsha'Allah always offer escuses.

Those people are usually easy to distinguish from the average joe who just lacks in scocial ettiquets.

[Umar001]

Those people are usually easy to distinguish from the average joe who just lacks in scocial ettiquets.

I doubt it, for example, how do you know someone has not go learning difficulties, or that maybe someone has not just come into the country and is trying to learn, or that maybe that someone has nearly been killed in their home land, their whole family was left behind, they came on their own and are just trying to find their feet and havent had time to learn.

I mean theres millions of things, alot of immigrants have been through stuff some people born in 'developt' contries cant even imagine.

[SUMMAYAH]

ok you have a point.
but I was referring to someone that's just come from abroad, maybe through marrying someone in uk.
You can easily distinguish them.........

[The Ruler]

From April 2007, anyone wishing to come and live in uk for good, has to pass an English test otherwise they will not get their visa's.

Personally I think it's a great idea. It is a law that was long due. If you wish to live in any country it makes sense to learn the language of that land.

:sl:

its cool...its about time i showed them my english skills...but on a serious not, sis, you got any source, i want to show it to my dad, but he probably would think its not authentic enough...he even checked the home office thing today morning, it dosnt say anything like this.

Yeah your right it was long due....I also heard that you had to take a british history test or something?

its a good thing i chose History for my GCSEs.

[lolwatever]

i think its discriminatory. What of people whoa re good assets 2an economy but just don't have the language to back them up, atleast in short term.. or for ppl who simply need help.

nothing wrong with insuring ppl learn the lingo... by putting language regulations n stuff... but to mate it a pre-req for entry. I think goes a bit too far.

:w:

[Malaikah]

:sl:

I don't like it much either. I figure for some people it is a great idea, such as people who have to work, I mean, you can't work with people if you can't communicate with them.

At the same time, I don't see why such a law should be applied to the elderly who are just too old to care about a language and probably only moved to the country to live with their kids or something?

I mean people should really be given the choice, if they do not need to know the language, then why force them to learn it?

[SUMMAYAH]

:sl:

sis, you got any source, i want to show it to my dad, but he probably would think its not authentic enough...he even checked the home office thing today morning, it dosnt say anything like this.

Here's a link: http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/ht...ground_10.html

Background to the test
Why has the test been introduced?
Becoming a British citizen or deciding to settle permanently in this country is an important event in your life. If you are applying for naturalisation as a British citizen or for indefinite leave to remain, you will need to show that you know about life in the UK. If you live in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, you can do this in two ways: by taking the Life in the UK Test or by taking combined English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and citizenship classes.

Who has to take the test?
You should take the test if you are applying for naturalisation as a British citizen and your level of English is ESOL Entry 3 or above. If your level of English is lower than ESOL Entry 3 and you wish to apply for naturalisation, you will need to attend combined English language (ESOL) and citizenship classes instead. Most local further education or community colleges run these courses.

If you are applying for indefinite leave to remain on or after 1 April 2007, you will either need to take the test or attend combined English language and citizenship classes.

If you are unsure about whether you need to take the test, you can contact the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau on 0870 606 7766.

What are ESOL and citizenship classes?
ESOL and citizenship classes help you to improve your English and learn more about life in the UK. You can take these classes at your local further education or community college. To find out more about ESOL and citizenship classes, contact your local college, or call the Life in the UK Test Helpline on 0800 0154245.

How do I know what my level of English is?
If you are not sure what your level of English is, your local further education college or learndirect centre can give you an initial assessment. If you need help finding somewhere near you to take an initial assessment, then call the Life in the UK Test Helpline on 0800 0154245.

Is the test only available in English?
At present, the test is only available in English. If there is a demand, the test may be offered in Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. The test will not be made available in any other languages.

When do I take the test?
You should take the test before you apply for naturalisation as a British citizen, provided you meet all the other requirements for naturalisation. The Home Office website provides more information on how to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen. If you pass the test, you are given a letter which proves you have been successful. This is called your pass notification letter. You will need to attach your pass notification letter to your filled-in citizenship application form and send both to the Home Office. The Home Office will retain the information it gets from test centres for a reasonable period. However, you should submit your application as soon as possible after taking the test.

From 1 April 2007, you will have to take the test before applying for indefinite leave to remain (settlement).

Where can I find out more information about the test?
This 'About the test' section of the website is designed to provide you with all the information you need about taking the test. If after reading this section you still have some questions, you can contact the Life in the UK Test Helpline on 0800 0154245 for more help.

[*noor]

I mean people should really be given the choice, if they do not need to know the language, then why force them to learn it?

that's a really good point.......many people move someplace else so that they could live near or with their children after they retire.....it's not like retired people are going to work anyways.

[Umar001]

Here's a link: http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/ht...ground_10.html

Background to the test
Why has the test been introduced?
Becoming a British citizen or deciding to settle permanently in this country is an important event in your life. If you are applying for naturalisation as a British citizen or for indefinite leave to remain, you will need to show that you know about life in the UK. If you live in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, you can do this in two ways: by taking the Life in the UK Test or by taking combined English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) and citizenship classes.

Who has to take the test?
You should take the test if you are applying for naturalisation as a British citizen and your level of English is ESOL Entry 3 or above. If your level of English is lower than ESOL Entry 3 and you wish to apply for naturalisation, you will need to attend combined English language (ESOL) and citizenship classes instead. Most local further education or community colleges run these courses.

If you are applying for indefinite leave to remain on or after 1 April 2007, you will either need to take the test or attend combined English language and citizenship classes.

If you are unsure about whether you need to take the test, you can contact the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau on 0870 606 7766.

What are ESOL and citizenship classes?
ESOL and citizenship classes help you to improve your English and learn more about life in the UK. You can take these classes at your local further education or community college. To find out more about ESOL and citizenship classes, contact your local college, or call the Life in the UK Test Helpline on 0800 0154245.

How do I know what my level of English is?
If you are not sure what your level of English is, your local further education college or learndirect centre can give you an initial assessment. If you need help finding somewhere near you to take an initial assessment, then call the Life in the UK Test Helpline on 0800 0154245.

Is the test only available in English?
At present, the test is only available in English. If there is a demand, the test may be offered in Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. The test will not be made available in any other languages.

When do I take the test?
You should take the test before you apply for naturalisation as a British citizen, provided you meet all the other requirements for naturalisation. The Home Office website provides more information on how to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen. If you pass the test, you are given a letter which proves you have been successful. This is called your pass notification letter. You will need to attach your pass notification letter to your filled-in citizenship application form and send both to the Home Office. The Home Office will retain the information it gets from test centres for a reasonable period. However, you should submit your application as soon as possible after taking the test.

From 1 April 2007, you will have to take the test before applying for indefinite leave to remain (settlement).

Where can I find out more information about the test?
This 'About the test' section of the website is designed to provide you with all the information you need about taking the test. If after reading this section you still have some questions, you can contact the Life in the UK Test Helpline on 0800 0154245 for more help.

If I were to ask these questions that are in the test to some of the most admant people who want this test put into law as it has, many of them would fail, let alone ordinary people I know.

[SilentObserver]

i think its discriminatory. What of people whoa re good assets 2an economy but just don't have the language to back them up, atleast in short term.. or for ppl who simply need help.

nothing wrong with insuring ppl learn the lingo... by putting language regulations n stuff... but to mate it a pre-req for entry. I think goes a bit too far.

:w:

I disagree. It is often an inconvienience, and at times it is more than an inconvienience when people don't know the language of the host country. Also, if you want to become a citizen, then you must be identified with the identity of the country. Clearly one of the first things that identifies and associates us with our country is language.
How can a person be identified with let us say Britain for example, if they do not speak english? How can they properly learn the customs and interact and integrate into society without communicating properly with the other members of that society?
I think this is a good law, and should be the norm for all countries. Along with social ettiquette, and culture courses and testing. If a person is going to be a burden on the society, then they should not be allowed to stay.

[SilentObserver]

:sl:

I don't like it much either. I figure for some people it is a great idea, such as people who have to work, I mean, you can't work with people if you can't communicate with them.

At the same time, I don't see why such a law should be applied to the elderly who are just too old to care about a language and probably only moved to the country to live with their kids or something?

I mean people should really be given the choice, if they do not need to know the language, then why force them to learn it?

Old people that come to a new country should be wealthy to offset their costs of healthcare. Most people have earned the right to use the healthcare system exstensivly by the time they are old, by paying into it for many years. Moving there after you are already old puts an unfair burden on the people currently paying for the system.
Pay for your own healthcare, or use the system in your current country.

[SilentObserver]

Is the test only available in English?

HA! HA! HA! HUH!!? Can I take that english test in german please?!:haha: :lol:

(NOTE: SUMMAYAH did not ask this, it was in the source she provided.)

[Umar001]

Pay for your own healthcare, or use the system in your current country.

And if you've lived most of your life in a country which pays nuts for factory work (which probably helps the better countries because some of the companies in those better contries rent out factories and get people in the poor countries to work for less then pennies, so effectively by working there you are helping the better countries though some dont look at that), and have just somehow risked your life to get into a safe place where you are not under the shade of fear of rape and being killed, and/or are disabled because of your old age YOU BETTER FORGET COMING OVER UNLESS U CAN PAY YOUR WAY BUDDY!

Hmm, sounds excellent :X


By the way to those who are opposing that the language knowledge should be a something that the people know at the time of entry then my view is that the people once here should be given a time frame, a realistic one, where they can study and learn and then be tested, not that as soon as they touch the ground kabbam, first thing is a 20 minute test on english language, since if a person is fleeing another country because they fear their life then I doubt they'd have time to learn English there or get a 'such and such language to english dictionary'

HA! HA! HA! HUH!!? Can I take that english test in german please?!:haha: :lol:

(NOTE: SUMMAYAH did not ask this, it was in the source she provided.)

The test is not an english test, it is a test which touches upon the system in the Uk, such as parlament, or history.

People should know english, but maybe they feel more comfortable taking a test in their own language, since then they would feel confident and thus make less mistakes.

It is like someone asking may I please do my mathematics test in a different language, since the language does not effect the test, it is therefore not a 'Ha ha ha' matter.

[Woodrow]

Being a son of immigrants I gave this much thought before responding.

It is a poor and unneccessary law.


It only makes life more difficult for the legal immigrants and serves no purpose to curb the illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants already have sufficient incentive to learn the language to the best of their ability and as fast as they can.

A legal immigrant has come into a new country at great expense and risk. He comes with a dream and hope for a better life. He has left his homeland because of economic or political problems. The immigrant is usually well educated, has strong ambition and is a risk taker. For the most part legal immigrants will surpass the natives of the country they move into, because they come with the attitude of trying to change their lives and seek opportunity and not handouts. They will learn the language on their own, because it is a needed tool. A law requiring language proficiency is an insult to all legal immigrants.

[SilentObserver]

And if you've lived most of your life in a country which pays nuts for factory work (which probably helps the better countries because some of the companies in those better contries rent out factories and get people in the poor countries to work for less then pennies, so effectively by working there you are helping the better countries though some dont look at that), and have just somehow risked your life to get into a safe place where you are not under the shade of fear of rape and being killed, and/or are disabled because of your old age YOU BETTER FORGET COMING OVER UNLESS U CAN PAY YOUR WAY BUDDY!

Hmm, sounds excellent :X

Now you are talking about refugees, that is a different matter. The post I responded to talked about people immigrating to be near their kids. But just as a point, how many elderly people do you think suddenly have to make a dash for the border fearing for their lives, after having lived in their home country for so long?

By the way to those who are opposing that the language knowledge should be a something that the people know at the time of entry then my view is that the people once here should be given a time frame, a realistic one, where they can study and learn and then be tested, not that as soon as they touch the ground kabbam, first thing is a 20 minute test on english language, since if a person is fleeing another country because they fear their life then I doubt they'd have time to learn English there or get a 'such and such language to english dictionary'

An interesting view but I disagree. If you give them a time frame but let them stay, once they are rooted in it would be difficult to send them back. No, the best way is to test immediately. Any person planning on moving to another country would be foolish to not find out ahead of time what prerequisites are required to move there. They would have plenty of time to know about the language requirements and prepare for this.
Special provisions for refugees could exist under this system.

[England]

Better than nothing I guess but what should happen are the borders to close. We have too many immigrants here as it is. Another thing, I'm assuming these tests will be at the expense of tax payers...:rollseyes

[SilentObserver]

Being a son of immigrants I gave this much thought before responding.

It is a poor and unneccessary law.


It only makes life more difficult for the legal immigrants and serves no purpose to curb the illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants already have sufficient incentive to learn the language to the best of their ability and as fast as they can.

A legal immigrant has come into a new country at great expense and risk. He comes with a dream and hope for a better life. He has left his homeland because of economic or political problems. The immigrant is usually well educated, has strong ambition and is a risk taker. For the most part legal immigrants will surpass the natives of the country they move into, because they come with the attitude of trying to change their lives and seek opportunity and not handouts. They will learn the language on their own, because it is a needed tool. A law requiring language proficiency is an insult to all legal immigrants.

For the first immigrants of a certain culture this is true. Once a group is firmly establish in the host country in certain areas, this becomes less true. In my country there are huge problems with certain groups of immigrants. If they had been properly taught the culture and language, perhaps these problems would not have been so profound. They can hide in their neighborhoods, and many of the problems seem to stem from lack of communication and understanding.

[Umar001]

Better than nothing I guess but what should happen are the borders to close. We have too many immigrants here as it is. Another thing, I'm assuming these tests will be at the expense of tax payers...:rollseyes

I dont think so, from what I know the Life in the Uk test the person applyin has to pay themselves for each time the test is taken so am thinking the same would be for this.

[Lina]

:sl:

Same here in Holland, people have to take the classes and tests in their homecountries and they have to pay for it themselves; classes; books; tests.

[lolwatever]

I disagree. It is often an inconvienience, and at times it is more than an inconvienience when people don't know the language of the host country. Also, if you want to become a citizen, then you must be identified with the identity of the country. Clearly one of the first things that identifies and associates us with our country is language.

says who?

and since when should people be judged by their language instead of their minds and character?

How can a person be identified with let us say Britain for example, if they do not speak english?

With their passports :rollseyes and in alot of cases the alst thing people care about is being identifeid as a britain or what not, some people come in depserate situations and simply need help. What, we reject them becasue they dont speak our language? Where's the humanity?

Why should language be given precedence over morals and behaviour.

How can they properly learn the customs and interact and integrate into society without communicating properly with the other members of that society?

Erm i'd rather a well behaved person who has no idea about my language be my neighbor rather than someone well spoken in english but with cactus behaviour.

Beign friendly doesn't depend on you knowing english.

I think this is a good law, and should be the norm for all countries. Along with social ettiquette, and culture courses and testing. If a person is going to be a burden on the society, then they should not be allowed to stay.

That's very discriminatory, so what's the difference between that and sahying 'i wont accept people without legs in my country'... 'coz they cant integrate and mix inw tih rest of society properly' :uuh:

[SUMMAYAH]

Better than nothing I guess but what should happen are the borders to close. We have too many immigrants here as it is. Another thing, I'm assuming these tests will be at the expense of tax payers...:rollseyes

I dont think so, from what I know the Life in the Uk test the person applyin has to pay themselves for each time the test is taken so am thinking the same would be for this.

In that case, tax payers money willed be saved because millions of pounds each year is already being used for the wages of bilingual translaters.

[SUMMAYAH]

Being a son of immigrants I gave this much thought before responding.

It is a poor and unneccessary law.


It only makes life more difficult for the legal immigrants and serves no purpose to curb the illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants already have sufficient incentive to learn the language to the best of their ability and as fast as they can.

A legal immigrant has come into a new country at great expense and risk. He comes with a dream and hope for a better life. He has left his homeland because of economic or political problems. The immigrant is usually well educated, has strong ambition and is a risk taker. For the most part legal immigrants will surpass the natives of the country they move into, because they come with the attitude of trying to change their lives and seek opportunity and not handouts. They will learn the language on their own, because it is a needed tool. A law requiring language proficiency is an insult to all legal immigrants.

Dear Woodrow
I believe this logic of thinking applies to our parents/grandparents who migrated in order to create a better future for us. They worked hard and really contributed to the society.

However I wouldn't brand the new generation in the same way. I have come across many young people in forign countries who's only desire to come to uk is so that they could enroll on the benefits system, in order to make easy money.

[Woodrow]

Dear Woodrow
I believe this logic of thinking applies to our parents/grandparents who migrated in order to create a better future for us. They worked hard and really contributed to the society.

However I wouldn't brand the new generation in the same way. I have come across many young people in forign countries who's only desire to come to uk is so that they could enroll on the benefits system, in order to make easy money.

:w:

I will agree that is a desire for many young. However, I doubt if many of them could ever fulfill that desire by legal means. It costs money to travel from any country to the UK. Plus there are time limitations and proof of financial responsability for visas to be granted. A legal immigrant is not likely to become a burdan, he/she will either be a temporary guest or will become a productive citizen.

The law will have no effect on stopping the illegal immigrants, who are the ones most likely to abuse the welfare system.

[SUMMAYAH]

:w:

I will agree that is a desire I doubt if many of them could ever fulfill that desire by legal means. It costs money to travel from any country to the UK. Plus there are time limitations and proof of financial responsability for visas to be granted.

I am guessing we are both referring to different groups of people.

I was basing my opinions upon those people who have come into this country through means of marriage.
I know numberous friends whose family tradition is to marry spouses from their parents homeland. In these very cases the partner from abroad does not need any financial means to immigrate. The sole responsibility is taken by the party in uk. And this is right down to signing of legal documents that agree to providing for this person with aid of their current employment. (here proof of wage slips is shown to the home office)

[Woodrow]

:w:


I tend to forget that immigration laws are probably different in the UK then they are here in the US.

Here we do not have any problems with legal immigrants. But, our trouble with illegal immigrants is a national disaster. Each of out countries probably have different issues of concern with regards to immigrants.

But, I still feel that proof of language proficiency, while desirable, should not be a criteria for citizenship. It is belittling to those who migrate for legitimate reasons.

[SUMMAYAH]

:w:


I tend to forget that immigration laws are probably different in the UK then they are here in the US.

I actually respect people that immigrate to America in search of a better future. I believe they will be probably working quite hard and showing a vast amount of commitment. Mainly because you can't 'get it on a plate' there.

[Woodrow]

I actually respect people that immigrate to America in search of a better future. I believe they will be probably working quite hard and showing a vast amount of commitment. Mainly because you can't 'get it on a plate' there.

Mainly because you can't 'get it on a plate' there.

Legal immigrants can't. But the illegal ones not only get it served on a plate. They get their choice of menu and the rest of us have to do the dishes.

Many people believe the streets in America are paved in gold. When my family got here they found out that the streets were not paved in gold. In fact the streets were not even paved and furthermore my family was expected to pave the streets.

[SUMMAYAH]

Legal immigrants can't. But the illegal ones not only get it served on a plate. They get their choice of menu and the rest of us have to do the dishes.

Many people believe the streets in America are paved in gold. When my family got here they found out that the streets were not paved in gold. In fact the streets were not even paved and furthermore my family was expected to pave the streets.

edit!

[*noor]

Legal immigrants can't. But the illegal ones not only get it served on a plate. They get their choice of menu and the rest of us have to do the dishes.

what do you mean by that?

[Woodrow]

what do you mean by that?

Illegal immigrants are a very expensive tax burdan. The illegal immigrant pays no taxes, reaps the benefits, sends the money out of the country and as soon as the going gets rough they skip back to where they came from.

By illegal immigrants I refer to the ones who come here illegaly. Use forged identities and for a while get by with utilising the system for their personal gain.

Any and all immigration laws have no effect on them as they are not living within the existing laws to begin with.

[*noor]

Illegal immigrants are a very expensive tax burdan. The illegal immigrant pays no taxes, reaps the benefits, sends the money out of the country and as soon as the going gets rough they skip back to where they came from.

By illegal immigrants I refer to the ones who come here illegaly. Use forged identities and for a while get by with utilising the system for their personal gain.

Any and all immigration laws have no effect on them as they are not living within the existing laws to begin with.

ok thank you for the explanation..........so they really do harm our economy!

[Maarya]

:sl:

someone was telling me the other day that they have to have a citizenship test aswell, i didnt know about english

[SUMMAYAH]

Illegal immigrants are a very expensive tax burdan. The illegal immigrant pays no taxes, reaps the benefits, sends the money out of the country and as soon as the going gets rough they skip back to where they came from.

By illegal immigrants I refer to the ones who come here illegaly. Use forged identities and for a while get by with utilising the system for their personal gain.

Any and all immigration laws have no effect on them as they are not living within the existing laws to begin with.

edit!

I believe it's a little different here in uk for illigal immigrants. They don't really have an identity so they can't claim any benefits. This also means they do not have a national insurance number therefore cannot persue any ligit occupations.
The only option left for them is cheap labour. They are willing to do private jobs for locals at below the standard wage.

This results for both of them to be happy ( as the same amount of labour in their own country would only bring a fraction of the wage in uk) and the other guy gets his job done for a fraction of the price he would normally pay.

[SUMMAYAH]

:sl:

someone was telling me the other day that they have to have a citizenship test aswell, i didnt know about english

it's actually citizenship/english

[SilentObserver]

says who?

Says common sense. Also says any person thats done any travelling.

and since when should people be judged by their language instead of their minds and character?

It's not about judging. It's about identifying and associating.

With their passports :rollseyes and in alot of cases the alst thing people care about is being identifeid as a britain or what not, some people come in depserate situations and simply need help. What, we reject them becasue they dont speak our language? Where's the humanity?

Two points. First, it is a little unappreciative for a person to want the help of a foreign country and use their resources, but not want to be associated with that country. I would say "fine, seems you didn't need the help that much after all, ingrate." Second point, one that I already made, and that makes the first a moot point. The discussion, and in particular who I stated earlier that I was refering to, is about regular immigrants. Not refugees, who you have described. As I already stated, there could be special provisions for refugees.

Why should language be given precedence over morals and behaviour.

By all means it should not. If they are poorly behaved, refugee or not, deport them immediately. Troublemakers should never be let in.

How can they properly learn the customs and interact and integrate into society without communicating properly with the other members of that society?

Erm i'd rather a well behaved person who has no idea about my language be my neighbor rather than someone well spoken in english but with cactus behaviour.

That's a nice opinion. But I would rather have the guy that can't speak english learn it first, along with the culture courses I mentioned, so that he does know my language, and no longer has cactus behaviour because he feels more comfortable and can understand the situations he finds himself in.

Beign friendly doesn't depend on you knowing english.

That's for sure. A few in here speak english well ...
I'm more concerned with whether or not they would be a source of problems due to inability to communicate.

That's very discriminatory, so what's the difference between that and sahying 'i wont accept people without legs in my country'... 'coz they cant integrate and mix inw tih rest of society properly' :uuh:

A nice opinion, but just an opinion.

If the guy without legs can get along well on his own, then he will have to prove he can speak english and knows something about my culture.

Unless you are inviting homeless people to live with you in your home, your doing the same thing I mentioned on a small scale anyway.

[lolwatever]

so in short, if i'm in desperate need for help, it's ok for you to ban me from your country because i don't know english?

Even if i'm willing to learn it when i settle :?

Even if i have learning disorders which inhibit me from learning it:?

Even if i'm naturally dumb (i.e. can't speak) :?

[SUMMAYAH]

Legal immigrants can't. But the illegal ones not only get it served on a plate. They get their choice of menu and the rest of us have to do the dishes.

Many people believe the streets in America are paved in gold. When my family got here they found out that the streets were not paved in gold. In fact the streets were not even paved and furthermore my family was expected to pave the streets.

I'm sorry if I offended you earlier with my response to this post. I was only laughing at the metaphors you used and not at the actual content you wrote. To that I deeply symphathise with your family.

[SUMMAYAH]

so in short, if i'm in desperate need for help, it's ok for you to ban me from your country because i don't know english?

Even if i'm willing to learn it when i settle :?

Even if i have learning disorders which inhibit me from learning it:?

Even if i'm naturally dumb (i.e. can't speak) :?

I believe your pulling it out of proportion. I'm sure we all agree for these type of people to be given exceptions.

[lolwatever]

I believe your pulling it out of proportion. I'm sure we all agree for these type of people to be given exceptions.

:sl:
so, don't make sweeping statements like the one you did in the first post.

It's a very sensitive issue. you also made a huge mixup about only marrying ppl who follow ur culture tradition.. where'd you get that one from :offended:

also in islamic country, door is open to everyone. where do you find khulafa saying 'only arab tongues can enter' :offended: :offended:
:w:

[lolwatever]

^ e.g. wat, so the prophet should hav kicked non arabic speakers who came to medina out tillt hey learnt arabic :?


this poitn doesnt apply to silent btw... the first post is what was directed to him.. not this and the one directly abovethis ..

tc salams

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

A logical law,when you enter a land ,to survive you need to learn the language.

And in Singapore we have a white wannabe goverment that keeps impressing on us to talk proper english,,but then we point out to them.,,,even the whites dont talk english anymore ..LOL

Anyway,in every coutnry they will have their own unique language,mixed up and so on,here we call it Singlish.

I have expatriates who now are able to talk Singlish very very well,,they had too,to survive to eat to order..LOL

[SUMMAYAH]

:sl:
so, don't make sweeping statements like the one you did in the first post.

Exactly what were the 'sweeping statements' I made?

:sl:
you also made a huge mixup about only marrying ppl who follow ur culture tradition.. where'd you get that one from :offended:

okay let me tell you this:
My parents live in Bradford. They have around 500 houses in their own and nieghbouring streets. 85% of those households are married to their cousins in their parents homeland. these nieghbours have relatives in other cities like Luton, Birmingham, Warsall etc and the same goes for them. So for me that's enough stats to form an opinion!

Don't pretend this doesn't exist. Even the NHS are so aware of it that every time I go to the hospital, they just tick the option that my partner is my relative without even asking me! ( then I have to correct them.....which i wouldn't have to do if this wasn't as wide-spread as your making it out!)

[lolwatever]

Exactly what were the 'sweeping statements' I made?

"From April 2007, anyone wishing to come and live in uk for good, has to pass an English test otherwise they will not get their visa's.

Personally I think it's a great idea. It is a law that was long due. If you wish to live in any country it makes sense to learn the language of that land.
"

That's a very braod adn general statement. You gave your agreemnt to such a general law which has so many discriminatory inmplications!

okay let me tell you this:
My parents live in Bradford. They have around 500 houses in their own and nieghbouring streets. 85% of those households are married to their cousins in their parents homeland. these nieghbours have relatives in other cities like Luton, Birmingham, Warsall etc and the same goes for them. So for me that's enough stats to form an opinion!

Don't pretend this doesn't exist. Even the NHS are so aware of it that every time I go to the hospital, they just tick the option that my partner is my relative without even asking me! ( then I have to correct them.....which i wouldn't have to do if this wasn't as wide-spread as your making it out!)

^ so what if they're marreid to their homeland... big deal... as far as Islam is concerned here's how ti works

"a woman is married for her beatuy,wealth, status, so choose taht with religion may you be successful", i don't see "choose that with religiona nd tradition" do i :rollsyes:

[Malaikah]

"a woman is married for her beatuy,wealth, status, so choose taht with religion may you be successful", i don't see "choose that with religiona nd tradition" do i :rollsyes:

:sl:

What are you trying to say?:?

p.s. calm down ppl. :hiding:

[Abu Ibraheem]

We have to look deeper, what about people who can speak but cant read or write ...whats their standards? Academia?

[SUMMAYAH]

lolwateva
Those were my opinions that I am entitled to!

Now will you stop twisting every post! Edit!

[lolwatever]

Those were my opinions that I am entitled to!

Now will you stop twisting every post! I'm guessing your not married otherwise you wouldn't be so uptight and awkard!

:sl:
Yes, but whehter they're islamic or not is a dfif story.

Keep your opinions, but don't attribute them to Islam without evidence.

You're making islam seem liek islam discriminates based on language or something using weird islamically baseless marriage theories as 'evidence'.

:w:

[SUMMAYAH]

:sl:
Yes, but whehter they're islamic or not is a dfif story.

Keep your opinions, but don't attribute them to Islam without evidence.

You're making islam seem liek islam discriminates based on language or something using weird islamically baseless marriage theories as 'evidence'.

:w:

This has nothing to do with Islam!!!
I'm talking about an immigration law that's going to come into effect in UK!!!

[Malaikah]

:sl:

sis SUMMAYAH, may I ask why you are against people getting married to people from their own home country rather than from the countries they live in?

[lolwatever]

This has nothing to do with Islam!!!
I'm talking about an immigration law that's going to come into effect in UK!!!

:sl:

yeh.. and i'm saying that law is discriminatory... Islam doesn't support discriminating based on language.

So why where you trying to somehow defend it using islam supporting traditional marraiges or what not.. :rolleyes:

:w:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

i asked my dhadha this question and he said"

"imagine you find a beautiful pious perfect wife back home, you want to bring her to this country, but you cant! Why? Simply because she doesnt know english. Is english necessary? NO"

[SUMMAYAH]

:sl:

sis SUMMAYAH, may I ask why you are against people getting married to people from their own home country rather than from the countries they live in?

Like I said before, I feel that people from two different countries be on different wave lengths when it comes to marrying and moving together.
With the current generation in UK, it's best if we marry within our own country.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Like I said before, I feel that people from two different countries be on different wave lengths when it comes to marrying and moving together.
With the current generation in UK, it's best if we marry within our own country.

sometimes its nice to try understanding the other wavelength...

[Malaikah]

Like I said before, I feel that people from two different countries be on different wave lengths when it comes to marrying and moving together.
With the current generation in UK, it's best if we marry within our own country.

But I do not think we have the right to stop people from marrying from different countries... heaps of my cousins did just that and they are all happily married alhamdullilah.

Just because we wouldn't want to do it, doesn't mean others don't mind. :)

[SUMMAYAH]

sometimes its nice to try understanding the other wavelength...

You have a point brother, but I wouldn't want to risk it in case I didn't understand it. Marriage is a big step.
Then again this is MY opinion and I respect yours.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

But I do not think we have the right to stop people from marrying from different countries... heaps of my cousins did just that and they are all happily married alhamdullilah.

Just because we wouldn't want to do it, doesn't mean others don't mind. :)

this is exactly why i think this law sucks. Some people dont care if their wife/husband cant speak english

[lolwatever]

ok... i thought this was a marriage thread for a moment lol

islam doesn't discriminate on language.... the laws mentioned here are discriminatory.

we judge people based on behaviour and character, not on their linguistic abilities.

Thinking they won't integrate coz of language is a psychological barrier. No more no less.

[SUMMAYAH]

But I do not think we have the right to stop people from marrying from different countries... heaps of my cousins did just that and they are all happily married alhamdullilah.

Just because we wouldn't want to do it, doesn't mean others don't mind. :)

No ones talking about stopping people marrying in other countries. The thread is about this new law where you're required to learn a few things about the country you're migrating to! I'm sure you could do that for the person your going to spend the rest of your life with......find out a bit about where they live.....

[IbnAbdulHakim]

No ones talking about stopping people marrying in other countries. The thread is about this new law where you're required to learn a few things about the country you're migrating to! I'm sure you could do that for the person your going to spend the rest of your life with......find out a bit about where they live.....

thats true aswell... hmm now i think its a good law!!

[Malaikah]

^lol you're easily won over aren't you?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^lol you're easily won over aren't you?

you mean open minded? lol, but its tru tho, its nice if they know about the family etc but i still dont think it shouldnt be forced....

wait law sucks!!! its forcing :eek:

[lolwatever]

you mean open minded? lol, but its tru tho, its nice if they know about the family etc but i still dont think it shouldnt be forced....

wait law sucks!!! its forcing :eek:

wat is islam but laws and applications ... lol

i gues su didnt mean it tht way...

[Malaikah]

you mean open minded? lol, but its tru tho, its nice if they know about the family etc but i still dont think it shouldnt be forced....

But why would they need to learn English to be able to talk to the family? They have the same background, I assume they would all speak the same non-English language?:?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

But why would they need to learn English to be able to talk to the family? They have the same background, I assume they would all speak the same non-English language?:?

i guess its because they know english better and are more adapted to the way of the west then the way of the east..

[SUMMAYAH]

Nearly all the people I know who are born in UK are more fluent in English then their mother-tongue. In fact some of them don't even know it.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ same with my family, looks like mother tongues will be athing of the past soon...

[Malaikah]

Yeh me too......

[Woodrow]

There is a down side of being forced to learn the language of the country a person migrates too. That leaves the children with the impression that their native language is inferior.

I tend to believe that people have an incentive to learn the language of any country they migrate to. It just takes a generation for it to become natural. Typicaly the second generation will be speaking it as well as the natives.

The first generation is aware of the hardships and they will often compensate by excelling in areas where the language is not important.

Stop and think when we were first born we did not speak the language of the country we were born in. we didn't even speak the language of our parents. But somehow we survived and people understood us. Most likely by the time we were 5 years old we were quite fluent. People will adapt to a language. Laws are not needed to impose it.

I can understand the reasoning for having English and culture classes available for new comers to a country. But they need not be a condition for citizenship. Most newcomers will gladly take them.

Of course you all are talking about the UK. My opinions may not be workable there.

.

[SUMMAYAH]

It is not exactly a whole new language this test is asking you to learn. It's a few pointers in the right direction. They probably help you feel more at home anyway.

[Abu Ibraheem]

What a crappy new law!!

i am quite worried now...

you see i got married to my wife who happens to be from Pakistan , we are still having problems 4 years into our marriage with getting a visa here for her.

She can speak English, but you can tell theres no grammar , sometimes she starts a sentence with me, like me going to the shop... no joke!

If the test consists of the written they will see to it that they can destroy a new convert like me. I have seen them and seen what *******s they are first hand. They hate Islam and that is no exageration.

Their freedon and democracy is a lie because when a british muslim (born white into a white family) is felt like he is not allowed to marry a pakistani and have her stay in this country, then its messed up.

This whole visa issue is seriously playing with my head now, i dont think i would be able to keep calm if they deported her.

She can not read or write , and i suspect they are looking for Academia.

[SilentObserver]

so in short, if i'm in desperate need for help, it's ok for you to ban me from your country because i don't know english?

Why are you so slow to pick up what I've already stated at least twice now? I prefer to have a discussion with someone that gets it the first time around, to avoid wasting time. It's more efficient. For your benefit I'll post it again.

Special provisions for refugees could exist under this system.

So in short, the version of the law that I have described, has not been successfully argued against, and is an excellent idea. They should implement this great new law the way that I have described.

[SUMMAYAH]

i dont think i would be able to keep calm if they deported her.

If she is already in this country, she's allowed to take as long as she likes to pass the test. And its only required if she wants to change her Pakistani passport for a British one, thus a British nationality.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

may Allaah make it easy for you brother Abu Ibraheem, i hope your wife settles in ok inshaAllaah.

[lolwatever]

i didn't read your reply to habeshi... lol you could have mentioned something to that effect in your reply to me.

and no need to get emotional, my opinion is based on the first post which is a very general and dangerous statement. Giving support to a law that doesn't take into consideration any of the effects i mentioned.

As i mentioned previously, to think that someone won't be a friendly element in society just becasue they don't speak english is a psychological handicap in the one who thinks that.

It's the community that neesd to be re-habilitated and not the incoming member. Part of a multi-cultural society is that you have people from very different backgrounds with different langauges all living in same society. Just because two people don't share teh same language, doesn't mean one should be rejected.

It only shows that the community has an inferiority complex that needs to be adressed.

Why are you so slow to pick up what I've already stated at least twice now? I prefer to have a discussion with someone that gets it the first time around, to avoid wasting time. It's more efficient. For your benefit I'll post it again.


So in short, the version of the law that I have described, has not been successfully argued against, and is an excellent idea. They should implement this great new law the way that I have described.

[Bittersteel]

funny ,really funny.westerners don't learn Bangla when they come to Bangladesh.they don't speak in Bangla.we on the other hand are forced to learn English as our most important language.Obviously the Europeans are donors....

[SUMMAYAH]

I believe your pulling it out of proportion. I'm sure we all agree for these type of people to be given exceptions.

So basically lolwateva, you had no idea why I wrote this!!!!

[SUMMAYAH]

funny ,really funny.westerners don't learn Bangla when they come to Bangladesh.they don't speak in Bangla.we on the other hand are forced to learn English as our most important language.Obviously the Europeans are donors....

I don't know any bengali's who have gone to live in Bangladesh for good.

[lolwatever]

So basically lolwateva, you had no idea why I wrote this!!!!

I'm sorry but when you're talking about law, you need to be specific. You can't make general statements and expect people to assume you're beign specific.

And as i mentioned, it's still a bad law in my opinion for the reasons i mentioned in my post that directly preceeds this.

chill sis... no need to get emotional over a discussion. :)

:w:

[SUMMAYAH]

I'm sorry

wow, i didn't think you were capable of it. lol, no hard feelings....

[lolwatever]

I don't know any bengali's who have gone to live in Bangladesh for good.

so....? are you like a database that contains ifno about every person's travel destination and period of residence :?

That's your problem... you make general statements like that and expect people to automatically think your wave-length.

:w:

ps: no hardfeelings btw :) just makin a point..

[lolwatever]

wow, i didn't think you were capable of it. lol, no hard feelings....

no probs :) ... ok perhaps atleast change your first post and make it more specific and accurate to reflect your true views :)

tc :w: :D

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I don't know any bengali's who have gone to live in Bangladesh for good.

come to think of it same here, but then again bangladesh is corrupt and getting more corrupt by the day *sigh*

but then there are beautiful pious people there... its just they cant voice themselves and are too humble...

[SUMMAYAH]

so....? are you like a database that contains ifno about every person's travel destination and period of residence :?

That's your problem... you make general statements like that and expect people to automatically think your wave-length.

:w:

:rant: :rant: :rant:

Do you know anyone?

[SUMMAYAH]

come to think of it same here,

You really have to agree to everything:D ....lol

[IbnAbdulHakim]

no but wallahi, i wouldnt mind living with the beautiful pious people i mentioned, if you spend one day with them you feel sooo beautiful inside!! If i had the opportunity to live with them then i would leave london for it!

[lolwatever]

so....? are you like a database that contains ifno about every person's travel destination and period of residence :?

That's your problem... you make general statements like that and expect people to automatically think your wave-length.

:rant: :rant: :rant:

Do you know anyone?

how is answering that going to prove no one's went to bangladesh for good:?.... :giggling:

[SUMMAYAH]

Don't be so stuborn, I really don't think people migrate to Bangladesh at the rate they come to UK. Therefore this type of law is not needed right now in that country.

[lolwatever]

Don't be so stuborn, I really don't think people migrate to Bangladesh at the rate they come to UK. Therefore this type of law is not needed right now in that country.

lol how am i being a stubborn?

You made a claim, you need to prove it.

Now you're falling back on your statement and making claims about who needs what based on absolutely no emperical evidence.

I'm sorry but you seem to have bad communication skills... first its making general statements backed by flimsy "Islamic evidence".

Then you blame people for picking big holes in your statements which you made absolutely no effort whatsoever to fix up or put in context.

now it's attempting to discredit people's comments by making claims about travel based on the very little you've heard from some people.

subhanallah... :mmokay:

:w:

[lolwatever]

ps.. and out of an entire post you decide to choose the first two words "I'm sorry" and make what now seems to have been a sarcarstic remark, and totally ignored the rest of it :uuh:

I'm sorry but when you're talking about law, you need to be specific. You can't make general statements and expect people to assume you're beign specific.

And as i mentioned, it's still a bad law in my opinion for the reasons i mentioned in my post that directly preceeds this.

chill sis... no need to get emotional over a discussion. :)

I was happy to let it be ignored when i thought you to be serious about no hradfeelings... but looks like you still need to face the pionts i made there.

[SUMMAYAH]

lol how am i being a stubborn?

You made a claim, you need to prove it. Now you're falling back on your statement and making claims about who needs what based on absolutely no emperical evidence.

I'm sorry but you seem to have bad communication skills... first its making general statements backed by flimsy "Islamic evidence".

Then you blame people for picking big holes in your statements which you made absolutely no effort whatsoever to fix up or put in context.

now it's attempting to discredit people's comments by making claims about travel based on the very little you've heard from some people.

subhanallah... :mmokay:

:w:

you've made your point. next time i'll break it down for you so you find it easier to understand.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

this law will be abused i tell u this right now, watch they wont let people they dont like in. i can tell, bah fat officers!!

[SUMMAYAH]

this law will be abused i tell u this right now, watch they wont let people they dont like in. i can tell, bah fat officers!!

I believe once people get the hang of it, they will find the loopholes and fit through them.
A bit like when the theory test for driving was introduced, someone else could easily go and take the test for you......

in other words it could be abused both ways

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I believe once people get the hang of it, they will find the loopholes and fit through them.
A bit like when the theory test for driving was introduced, someone else could easily go and take the test for you......

in other words it could be abused both ways

loopholes will eventually get sealed, bah fat officers!!!

[lolwatever]

you've made your point. next time i'll break it down for you so you find it easier to understand.

can you quit the arrogance and face reality. ^o)

Just like you can't say "Killing is good" and assume people to think that you only referring to self defence.

You simply can't say "Allowing english speakers only is good" and assume people to think you're only referring to non-refugees.

I'm sorry but that's reality.

I recommed you fix up your first post and back it up by sound Islamic evidence instead of personal opinion if you want to give it some islamic credentials.

:w:

[IbnAbdulHakim]

islams all about unity and good manners :)

[SUMMAYAH]

islams all about unity and good manners :)

Thankyou for the reminder brother. I'm willing to tone it down.

[SilentObserver]

first post which is a very general and dangerous statement.

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

As i mentioned previously, to think that someone won't be a friendly element in society just becasue they don't speak english is a psychological handicap in the one who thinks that.

Nobody has argued that this was a concern. 'Friendly' isn't the point. The point that has been made repeatedly, is that the inability to communicate effectively, creates many problems, and is a burden on the system.
Coincidently, it is an intellectual handicap to be inable to grasp the meaning of the spoken or written word in conversation, some that speak english well, seem unable to understand it.:rolleyes:

It's the community that neesd to be re-habilitated and not the incoming member.

Rehabilitated? Who said anything about rehabilitating? Although it is completely irrelevent, I'll briefly comment. It depends on which community we are talking about. As for my community, it belongs to us, the people that are here now. If anyone wants to join us, they can adjust for us, not the other way around. They are free not to join if they wish. As for your "incoming member", again, it depends on who the person is. A blanket statement such as you have made, assumes all of these potential 'incoming members' are good people, worthy of being accepted. Some people are just bad people, no matter where they come from. Anyway, this is off on a tangent. The discussion is about language, not rehabilitation.

Just because two people don't share teh same language, doesn't mean one should be rejected.

If they don't speak the national language, then they need to take lessons. When thay can speak at an acceptable level, then they may apply for immigration.

It only shows that the community has an inferiority complex that needs to be adressed.

LOL! This is such an odd statement that it is difficult to decide what should be said and what should not. I 'll keep it brief. The community has an inferiority complex? I'm sorry, but it's just a nonsense statement. I'll humour you enough to ask this, inferior to what or who?
The community has esteem issues? Honestly, that's just a weird statement. There is no connection between the statement and the discussion about language.

[lolwatever]

and no need to get emotional, my opinion is based on the first post which is a very general and dangerous statement. Giving support to a law that doesn't take into consideration any of the effects i mentioned.

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

It's dangerous becasue you're assuming that only english-speaking immigrants are good for the economy, which is absolutely wrong, that doesn't provide any reasonable security measure what so ever.

It doesn't protect the society at all. It simply means you're discriminating and stereo-typing based on language and accepting any english-speaker even if he's a villain.

How is that protecting society :?

As i mentioned previously, to think that someone won't be a friendly element in society just becasue they don't speak english is a psychological handicap in the one who thinks that.

Nobody has argued that this was a concern. 'Friendly' isn't the point. The point that has been made repeatedly, is that the inability to communicate effectively, creates many problems, and is a burden on the system.

You clearly implied that cactus behaviour of non-english speakers is a result of their linguistic problem. Here,

Erm i'd rather a well behaved person who has no idea about my language be my neighbor rather than someone well spoken in english but with cactus behaviour.

That's a nice opinion. But I would rather have the guy that can't speak english learn it first, along with the culture courses I mentioned, so that he does know my language, and no longer has cactus behaviour because he feels more comfortable and can understand the situations he finds himself in.
That's for sure. A few in here speak english well ...

Not only did you totally ignore the point, but you're also associating bad behaviour with inability to speak english, which is something you can not prove. I can assure you that if I moved into indonesia i won't become a bad element just because i don't speak indo :uuh: or just because i didn't undergo a culture transformation.

I have friends who are english speaking and have visited China for example, and even though the lingusitic barriers whre huge, they still made friends and gained reputation even though their communication was a large part sign language.

What, so just because he didn't speak chinese (and didn't have the time to learn it) he should have been kicked out of there?:muddlehea And that, to you, is a "security measure"? :uuh:

Coincidently, it is an intellectual handicap to be inable to grasp the meaning of the spoken or written word in conversation, some that speak english well, seem unable to understand it.:rolleyes:

so? and how is it a form of protection to banish handicapped people from society? :?

It's the community that neesd to be re-habilitated and not the incoming member.

Rehabilitated? Who said anything about rehabilitating? Although it is completely irrelevent, I'll briefly comment. It depends on which community we are talking about. As for my community, it belongs to us, the people that are here now. If anyone wants to join us, they can adjust for us, not the other way around. They are free not to join if they wish. As for your "incoming member", again, it depends on who the person is. A blanket statement such as you have made, assumes all of these potential 'incoming members' are good people, worthy of being accepted. Some people are just bad people, no matter where they come from. Anyway, this is off on a tangent. The discussion is about language, not rehabilitation.

Not only you evaded entire portion of that pargraph, You totally avoided the point, infact you decided to pluck a sentence out of an entire pargraph and go off topic and then blame me for beign irrelevent. Here's what i said:

It's the community that neesd to be re-habilitated and not the incoming member. Part of a multi-cultural society is that you have people from very different backgrounds with different langauges all living in same society. Just because two people don't share teh same language, doesn't mean one should be rejected.

:rolleyes:

If they don't speak the national language, then they need to take lessons. When thay can speak at an acceptable level, then they may apply for immigration.

That's very unpractical and unrealistic, people don't immigrate just to sit around and socialise. People have different motives, some need to immigrate immediatley for business or other valid personal reasons.

Rather than making language an entry criteria, the government should accept them based on their character/reasons and then provide langauge tuition facilities.

That way an economy can encourage immigration of useful members rather than turning them off the idea and diverting thier skills/benefits elsewhere. It also means that even english-speaking immigrants with moral/behaviour issues will be kept far away, since the system is indiscriminate.

The community has an inferiority complex? I'm sorry, but it's just a nonsense statement. I'll humour you enough to ask this, inferior to what or who? The community has esteem issues? Honestly

To believe that banning non-english speaking members is a protective measure is indicative of an inferiority complex.

[SUMMAYAH]

No comments...(although I can think of a few.......)

[SilentObserver]

It's dangerous becasue you're assuming that only english-speaking immigrants are good for the economy, which is absolutely wrong, that doesn't provide any reasonable security measure what so ever.

Continuing with your strawman arguing, it only works when people don't call you on it. I did not base my opinion on economy, read again. And why do you start your rebuttle with 'economy', and back it up with 'security measures'? You're all over the place. Anyway, my opinion was not based on 'security measures' either. Read again.

I'm getting a little tired of our discussion, as it is a waste of time to continue discussion with a person that doesn't seem to know what it is that we are discussing. EXAMPLE: Fred:"Gee Tom, I've really noticed how well your garden is growing this year." Tom: "What do you mean, Fred? My car is running great, why do say that my house needs painting?

It's dangerous becasue you're assuming

Again, who is this dangerous for?

It doesn't protect the society at all. It simply means you're discriminating and stereo-typing based on language

Strawman. No stereo-typing based on language was mentioned. Just learn the language first, then fill out your application for immigration. In english.

accepting any english-speaker even if he's a villain.

I don't agree with letting criminals in. Did I say that?

you're also associating bad behaviour with inability to speak english, which is something you can not prove.

You clearly are having a hard time understanding english in the written form. I actually (in that situation) associated bad behaviour with frustration from the problems stemming from inability to effectively communicate. This is just one of the problems that arise. I originally associated bad behaviour with a person not understanding the culture, and the social values, and ettiquette. This is why they should also be educated on the culture as well.
Before going to Japan, even for a visit, I think it best that I would brush up on Japanese culture and ettiquette. It's common sense. Why argue against common sense?

I have friends who are english speaking and have visited China for example, and even though the lingusitic barriers whre huge, they still made friends and gained reputation even though their communication was a large part sign language.

Visited or moved to?

Either way, it doesn't matter. I am very aware of the problems associated with the inability to effectively communicate for immigrants. These problems could have been minimized or avoided if they had learned the language before arriving.

And that, to you, is a "security measure"? :uuh:

Security measure? What are we talking about now? Please refer back to my comments about getting tired of our discussion, and why.

so? and how is it a form of protection to banish handicapped people from society? :?

LOL! I was referring to you and your inability to grasp the meaning of my words. And true to form, you missed the meaning.:rolleyes: And again, "form of protection", what are we talking about? See earlier comments about our conversation again. I have not said anything about 'protection'.

Not only you evaded entire portion of that pargraph, You totally avoided the point, infact you decided to pluck a sentence out of an entire pargraph and go off topic and then blame me for beign irrelevent. Here's what i said:

Strawman arguement upon a strawman arguement, again. Rehabilitation was not part of the discussion, and completely off-topic. It was correct for me to point this out and steer the conversation back, such as I am doing now.
Remember the conversation. This law about language and immigrants. The discussion we have been having in relation to this was about the problems, and how to overcome them. By learning the language before arriving. Some cultural education would be an asset as well.

That's very unpractical and unrealistic, people don't immigrate just to sit around and socialise. People have different motives, some need to immigrate immediatley for business or other valid personal reasons.

There is nothing impractical about expecting people that desire to come to my country to know the language and something about how we live.

some need to immigrate immediatley for business or other valid personal reasons.

What they need is not the concern of me or my country. Our concern is what we value, and see as best for our country. If that person is accepted (after learning the language), then they will become one of 'us' in my country. Then they become part of our concern, not before.

Rather than making language an entry criteria, the government should accept them based on their character/reasons and then provide langauge tuition facilities.

That's very unpractical and unrealistic, governments don't allow immigration just to waste a bunch of resources on trying to figure out a person's character (how would the government even know?), and to waste OUR resources on tutoring them. If they want to come to my country, they can use their own resources in their home country, learn the language, and THEN apply. In english, of course.

That way an economy can encourage immigration of useful members rather than turning them off the idea and diverting thier skills/benefits elsewhere. It also means that even english-speaking immigrants with moral/behaviour issues will be kept far away, since the system is indiscriminate.

Instead of bringing in people that can't speak the language, and all the problems that brings. It is better to fill any void (if there is one) in skills, by training the people that already live in the country that do not have skills.

You have not stated how a government would keep out people with moral/behavioural problems. I believe most governments already watch for behavioural problems by not allowing people with criminal records in. This is nothing new. And of course fits perfectly well with insisting that people know the language, as well as have a clean criminal record.

To believe that banning non-english speaking members is a protective measure is indicative of an inferiority complex.

Protective measure? *sigh* Please refer to earlier comments about getting tired of discussion. It is that, or another strawman arguement. Nobody said anything about protective measures, or banning anyone. What was said, is that they should learn the language first. Then they are welcome to apply.

You seem to think that people have a right to immigrate to any given country. Make no mistake about it, it is not a right. It's a privilege. A person is asking for the privilege to move to my country. To come to my home. Just because someone knocks on my front door does not mean that I have to let them into my house. Just because they have money to rent a room does not mean I have to allow them to live with me. I may very well decide that there are enough people living in my house already. Or, I may also decide, a person that does not speak english needs to learn it before they are allowed to rent a room. Why? Because it's my house.

[lolwatever]

Continuing with your strawman arguing, it only works when people don't call you on it. I did not base my opinion on economy, read again. And why do you start your rebuttle with 'economy', and back it up with 'security measures'? You're all over the place. Anyway, my opinion was not based on 'security measures' either. Read again.

I'm getting a little tired of our discussion, as it is a waste of time to continue discussion with a person that doesn't seem to know what it is that we are discussing. EXAMPLE: Fred:"Gee Tom, I've really noticed how well your garden is growing this year." Tom: "What do you mean, Fred? My car is running great, why do say that my house needs painting?

Again, who is this dangerous for?

Security measure? What are we talking about now? Please refer back to my comments about getting tired of our discussion, and why.


Protective measure? *sigh* Please refer to earlier comments about getting tired of discussion. It is that, or another strawman arguement. Nobody said anything about protective measures, or banning anyone. What was said, is that they should learn the language first. Then they are welcome to apply.

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

I rest my case.

Before resorting to silly terms and regurgitating them so immaturely, it might help to realise that emotions only make you look foolish.

Next time, read your own comments.

I'm sorry but laws are also designed for the benefit of the economy, a country is an economy... might help to read about how fundamental economics is to legislation before you come and try seperate the two. Just becasue you're illiterate in economics shouldn't mean that others need to ignore the economic effects of such policies. :uuh:

The rest i'll reply to in a moment.

[lolwatever]

also, might help to reply to things in the context they where mentioned in, rather than tryign to pick a sentence and reply to it out of its context :thankyou:

[SilentObserver]

Originally Posted by SilentObserver

Continuing with your strawman arguing, it only works when people don't call you on it. I did not base my opinion on economy, read again. And why do you start your rebuttle with 'economy', and back it up with 'security measures'? You're all over the place. Anyway, my opinion was not based on 'security measures' either. Read again.

I'm getting a little tired of our discussion, as it is a waste of time to continue discussion with a person that doesn't seem to know what it is that we are discussing. EXAMPLE: Fred:"Gee Tom, I've really noticed how well your garden is growing this year." Tom: "What do you mean, Fred? My car is running great, why do say that my house needs painting?

Again, who is this dangerous for?

Security measure? What are we talking about now? Please refer back to my comments about getting tired of our discussion, and why.


Protective measure? *sigh* Please refer to earlier comments about getting tired of discussion. It is that, or another strawman arguement. Nobody said anything about protective measures, or banning anyone. What was said, is that they should learn the language first. Then they are welcome to apply.

Originally Posted by SilentObserver

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

I rest my case.

Why rest your case? On one point, the discussion was about a very specific law, in the other, a statement was made about laws in general. A weak arguement has been made here. This is not a good time for you to rest your case.

Before resorting to silly terms and regurgitating them so immaturely, it might help to realise that emotions only make you look foolish.

As I told you before, strawman arguements only work when people don't realize you are using them, and don't call you on them.
Silly terms? Regurgitating? Immaturely? Very colorful dialogue, but accusations that lack substance. It's ok, I imagine you are only speaking this way because you are upset. All is forgiven.

it might help to realise that emotions only make you look foolish.

Emotions? No. I'm really not that passionate about immigration laws. But you are right, emotions do make you look foolish.

Next time, read your own comments.

I do. There is nothing to refute.

The rest i'll reply to in a moment.

Ok. Please stay on topic this time if you don't mind. Oh, and please refrain from the strawman arguements. They really don't work, and only waste time.

[lolwatever]

^ more verbal dihorrea.

you clearly said it was a security measure, here:

Dangerous for whom? Not for the people that are citizens of the country. Laws are made to protect the citizens of a country, not people wanting to be.

That very vague law metnioned in the first post is not a protective measure. It's a discriminatory law. And the erst of my argumetns where defending that point.

Strawman? How so?

[SilentObserver]

^ more verbal dihorrea.

Actually, it's spelled 'Diarrhea'.

you clearly said it was a security measure, here:

I was actually stating "who" the laws were made for, and only pointed to one of the reasons for laws. But the point was to state the laws were for the existing citizens, not wannabe immigrants. But pardon my unspecific wording. You are right, I can see how that might be misleading. I'll rephrase, in fact I'll expand to the three main reasons for laws: 1)laws exist because they promote the health or safety of everyone in the society.
2)A law exists because a majority of the people in the society agrees with it. (example: public nakedness, excessive noise, etc)
3)A law exists because it helps the society to function more smoothly.

Notice that all three talk about "the society". Not people from "another society", but "the society" and the people "within" it.

That very vague law metnioned in the first post is not a protective measure. It's a discriminatory law. And the erst of my argumetns where defending that point.

Defending a point that is wrong, sorry to say. This type of law falls under reason #3, A law exists because it helps the society to function more smoothly.

Strawman? How so?

LOL! Each and every time you misrepresent my position throughout the posts. Example: suggesting I am saying to keep out refugees, in order to refute this opinion, thus strengthening your own position. Of course I removed the strength behind this tactic by stating my real position, which is of course that refugees need to be dealt with differently.

[lolwatever]

^ where did you get those 3 conditions from, well atleast it seems you've retracted your support for the quote in red which i based my arguments upon (not strawmen, as you claimed).

I've completed the economics component of my commerce degree and i knwo for fact that you're reasons are baseless. They are not the fundamental reasons behidn laws, they're only a consequence of the fundamental reason behind a law.

Laws are created for the benefit of the economy, By the law of opportunity cost. Nothing else.

Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy. It goes against almost every field of economics (welfare, labour, international etc...) economcis

No more no less, if i'm wrong, prove it.

[SilentObserver]

^ where did you get those 3 conditions from, well atleast it seems you've retracted your support for the quote in red which i based my arguments upon (not strawmen, as you claimed).

I've completed the economics component of my commerce degree and i knwo for fact that you're reasons are baseless. They are not the fundamental reasons behidn laws, they're only a consequence of the fundamental reason behind a law.

Laws are created for the benefit of the economy, By the law of opportunity cost. Nothing else.

Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy. It goes against almost every field of economics (welfare, labour, international etc...) economcis

No more no less, if i'm wrong, prove it.

I've heard many definitions of the reason(s) for law, some idealistic, and some very cynical. But I've never heard that one. I would consider that one of the cynical ones. Of course, the reason behind laws depends on who's laws we are speaking of. If we are speaking of current laws for some of the countries today, then unfortunately I partially would have to agree with that definition. The truth is though, most countries have different types of law. Some govern things that have little to do with economics. Corporate law obviously deals with economics. There are varying arguements to what extent administrative law and constitutional law have to do with economics, and it depends which country, many americans will grumble that it has plenty to do with it. Property law also has much to do with economics, but the intent is supposed to protect the individual ownership, in other words, 'what's mine is mine'. The list of types of laws is endless. Some countries have many types, while others have one system only.

Anyway, considering all countries everywhere, to sum up the purpose of law, I would disagee with

"Laws are created for the benefit of the economy, By the law of opportunity cost. Nothing else."

The purpose of law is different from country to country, and is somewhat abstract really. But to define it in the most cynical terms is less beneficial than defining it in the most idealistic terms.
There is some valid arguement that every individual law in every country has it's own individual purpose.

well atleast it seems you've retracted your support for the quote in red which i based my arguments upon

How did you draw this conclusion? I have not retracted this as you have suggested. Please read again what was said. Laws are indeed created (in most countries) to protect citizens in addition to the other to reasons I mentioned.

I've completed the economics component of my commerce degree and i knwo for fact that you're reasons are baseless. They are not the fundamental reasons behidn laws, they're only a consequence of the fundamental reason behind a law.

That's very nice, but only proves the worth of a more rounded education. You have not expanded your thinking past the laws of commerce and economics to realize that there are many other types of law in most countries. Why do you think there are so many types of lawyers? The law that they taught you in your commerce courses was not meant to apply to all fields. Was this not explained to you?
Economics courses does not make you an expert on law. Unless of course you are about to tell me that you also have finished law school as well.:rolleyes: So, you know nothing for fact. You are basing your arguements on a flawed structure. The basis of your arguement is not relevent as economic law does not apply. The house of cards collapses.

Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy.

This depends on the country and what they are trying to acomplish economically. Usually a labour shortage. This is better overcome by training the people that exist already. In other words, increase funding for education, tuition, schools, universities, etc. Bringing people in to fill a labour void is a bandage solution that is doomed to fail, as it only prolongs the situation.

No more no less, if i'm wrong, prove it.

Neither of us can prove anything without a working model. The closest we can come to this is look at countries that do "look out for their own". Typically they do better. If our debate is proof enough, then I already have proven you wrong. You have been defeated long ago. You just have not seemed yet to realize this.
But it's ok, I'm enjoying this.

[lolwatever]

I've heard many definitions of the reason(s) for law, some idealistic, and some very cynical. But I've never heard that one. I would consider that one of the cynical ones. Of course, the reason behind laws depends on who's laws we are speaking of. If we are speaking of current laws for some of the countries today, then unfortunately I partially would have to agree with that definition. The truth is though, most countries have different types of law. Some govern things that have little to do with economics. Corporate law obviously deals with economics. There are varying arguements to what extent administrative law and constitutional law have to do with economics, and it depends which country, many americans will grumble that it has plenty to do with it. Property law also has much to do with economics, but the intent is supposed to protect the individual ownership, in other words, 'what's mine is mine'. The list of types of laws is endless. Some countries have many types, while others have one system only.

Anyway, considering all countries everywhere, to sum up the purpose of law, I would disagee with

i'm sorry but you havn't proven to me that my claim is false.

Regardless of the economy you're talking about, economics is what governs any countries legislations. Whether its a corrupt regime or not, it's economics that governs peoples behaviours.

I think the problem lies with your understanding of what exactly economics is... perhaps you're one of those who think its to do with materialism or money or thing slike that?

Perhaps if you define what economics is we'll be able to clear up a few of your misunderstandings.

The purpose of law is different from country to country, and is somewhat abstract really. But to define it in the most cynical terms is less beneficial than defining it in the most idealistic terms.
There is some valid arguement that every individual law in every country has it's own individual purpose.

I wasn't being cynical, i was being very serious. What is at the core of economic reasoning is "The principle of Opportunity Cost", if you understood the law you'd agree with me that it is what exaclty governs legal systems and societies.

You aren't making any point by labelling what you don't understand as 'cynical'.

How did you draw this conclusion? I have not retracted this as you have suggested. Please read again what was said. Laws are indeed created (in most countries) to protect citizens in addition to the other to reasons I mentioned.

i don't see any 'addition' term in your new definition 2 posts above, nor did i see the protection measure phrase in the 'expanded version' :giggling:

That's very nice, but only proves the worth of a more rounded education. You have not expanded your thinking past the laws of commerce and economics to realize that there are many other types of law in most countries. Why do you think there are so many types of lawyers? The law that they taught you in your commerce courses was not meant to apply to all fields. Was this not explained to you?

i really think the issue is that you don't seem to know what economics is. It extends faaaar far far beyond monetary concepts, at the crux of economics is the principle of opportunity cost which is exactly what governs the behaviour of human beings subconciously.

Economics underlies everything we do. It lurks behind such questions as why recessions take place, why interest rates change, why there was a fuel crisis, and when is the best time to buy a house or take out a loan. But economics is a great deal more than money and jobs. It crosses every aspect of our society – drawing on other disciplines such as politics, psychology, sociology and ethics.

source


This isn't a discussion about economics, but the
reasonableness of that law can be easily deduced via simple economic analysis.

Economics courses does not make you an expert on law. Unless of course you are about to tell me that you also have finished law school as well.:rolleyes:

I'm glad there's a few people here that can witness to my claims. No I'm not a law student, but as other academics would say, economisc is what underlies that discipline as well.

It's unfortunate that people who have no idea about economics want to limit it's applicabiltiy to money and jobs. I hope you're not one of those.

So, you know nothing for fact. You are basing your arguements on a flawed structure. The basis of your arguement is not relevent as economic law does not apply. The house of cards collapses.

lol not so fast... i quoted one of many books out there that are exactly designed to refute your beliefs.

Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy.

This depends on the country and what they are trying to acomplish economically. Usually a labour shortage. This is better overcome by training the people that exist already. In other words, increase funding for education, tuition, schools, universities, etc. Bringing people in to fill a labour void is a bandage solution that is doomed to fail, as it only prolongs the situation.

i'm sorry but you seem to have a very poor understanding of what economics is, why are you all of a sudden trying to limit the economic effects of such a policy to labour shortage, as if economics is the study of labour markets and money or something. :offended:

Please.. before you start designing economic policies, perhaps get a better idea of what economics is in the first place :heated:

Neither of us can prove anything without a working model. The closest we can come to this is look at countries that do "look out for their own". Typically they do better. If our debate is proof enough, then I already have proven you wrong.

more formally, countries "would legislate something if the marginal benefit of that law is greater than the marginal cost". Which is exactly the law of opportunity cost.

The question is, based on whose marginal cost/marginal benefit is this law based upon. To me, this law is being measured against hte opportunity cost of a select few, rather than the society as a whole. which is very unfair.

You have been defeated long ago. You just have not seemed yet to realize this.

reminds me of the adage "when facing defeat, claim victory" :okay:

[Muezzin]

And now for some levity.

Actually, it's spelled 'Diarrhea'.

In Britian, it's spelled diarrhoea.

Sittin in the attic when it came out automatic..

Um.. Yes.

[lolwatever]

^ :lol:

u wanna ban ppl who cant spell propelry from england too? :p

[SilentObserver]

i'm sorry but you havn't proven to me that my claim is false.

I'm not surprised. I don't think either of us is going to prove or accept anything. In fact I lack the desire to even look back to see what your claim was anymore.

Regardless of the economy you're talking about, economics is what governs any countries legislations. Whether its a corrupt regime or not, it's economics that governs peoples behaviours.

I agree with both points. But you missed the important point that there is much law that has little to do with economics, and more to do with governing behaviour and allowing things to run smoothly. But yes, the overall theme revolves around economics. I have never denied this.

I think the problem lies with your understanding of what exactly economics is... perhaps you're one of those who think its to do with materialism or money or thing slike that?

No, I think the problem lies in what you think is my understanding. Fear not, I am aware of the vaste field of economics sciences. The problem we are having may very well stem from the fact that, much like the study of law, economics has a variety of schools of thought. On the surface they seem like things that should be straight forward, but truly are abstract.

Anyway, we are way off course. this is not about economics. I know, it is the basis of your arguement, but I simply disagree. We simply subscribe to different schools of thought (mine just happens to be right :okay:.)

Perhaps if you define what economics is we'll be able to clear up a few of your misunderstandings.

If you truly are a student of economics, then you know what you ask is unreasonable. Clever ploy indeed, had I been in your position I would have been tempted to do the same.
You know as well as I that there is no definitive definition. I might ask which definition would you prefer?
Again, this is not a discussion on economics.

You aren't making any point by labelling what you don't understand as 'cynical'.

This is the equivalent of your "when facing defeat, claim victory" comment. By claiming that I don't understand, then I must have been defeated. LOL! Simple but fun tactics, are they not?

i don't see any 'addition' term in your new definition 2 posts above, nor did i see the protection measure phrase in the 'expanded version' :giggling:

I don't even know what you are getting at in the first part of the sentence. As for the protection part, look at what reason #1 says again. But of course, just like economics, and protection, and the rest of your distractions from the main point, this is not about protection. My original statement that you have been trying to refute all this time, was about reason #3.

i really think the issue is that you don't seem to know what economics is. It extends faaaar far far beyond monetary concepts, at the crux of economics is the principle of opportunity cost which is exactly what governs the behaviour of human beings subconciously.

I am aware of the science and study of economics. By the way, you are attempting again to claim victory by suggesting my defeat in an accusation that I lack knowledge on a subject. A subject, I might add, that is not the discussion and that you brought up to distract focus from the main point. That point I will remind you , is that it is to the benefit of a society to ensure that any new members from other societies speak the language and understand the culture.

source


This isn't a discussion about economics, but the
reasonableness of that law can be easily deduced via simple economic analysis.

Taking nothing away from the brilliance of Jennifer Scott and the thoughts that she puts into this book, but it is one train of thought put forward in a sea of ideas on theses fields. Certainly economics and laws are intertwined, I agree. But her ideas are not a broad brush that explains away all aspects of law. In short, she is not an authority on law, or even all schools of thought of economics. Again though, taking nothing from her, she is an expert in her discipline.

but as other academics would say, economisc is what underlies that discipline as well.

What you should be saying is that some other academics say that economics is an underlying principle in that discipline as well, but is not what drives all law. Depending of course, on which approach and line of thinking we are taking.

It's unfortunate that people who have no idea about economics want to limit it's applicabiltiy to money and jobs. I hope you're not one of those.

No, economics are a social study.

lol not so fast... i quoted one of many books out there that are exactly designed to refute your beliefs.

As I stated, just one person's thoughts. If I subscribed to her thinking than I might be inclined to be more agreeable with some of what you say. You should expand your studies beyond the curriculum of the courses you are taking if they are limiting you to one view.

why are you all of a sudden trying to limit the economic effects of such a policy to labour shortage, as if economics is the study of labour markets and money or something. :offended:

I have done no such thing. This is back to strawman arguements. You created a position that I did not have. It was you that brought up economics when saying "Legislating that only english speakers can immigrate is an economically miserable policy". Before this, my arguements were purely about what was best for the existing citizens first, how to allow immigration without inconveniencing them. It was you that brought up 'economic effect', and I responded to the statement. And I might add, that response was an example, in which I used 'labour shortage'. It is misleading, and an example of strawman when you bring in an arguement and then attribute it to me. But it is ok. I am used to your tactics and disregard these attempts.

Please.. before you start designing economic policies, perhaps get a better idea of what economics is in the first place :heated:

Nice try. I would ask for my tuition back if I were you.
I don't need to design policies. In my country we are already doing this. It is better than what was done in the past. It is a proven policy. Use the resources that you already have before looking to outside sources.

To me, this law is being measured against hte opportunity cost of a select few, rather than the society as a whole. which is very unfair.

Silly opinion really. Everybody within the society benefits if the society as a whole is inconvenienced as little as possible. If things are made to run smoothly and more efficiently. If troubles are avoided, or at least minimized. If costs to integrate are imposed upon the applicant before arriving, rather than on the society when they arrive. All of these things together add up to a greater benefit than cost to the society.

which is very unfair.

Who is it unfair to? Nobody living in the society already. My fellow countrymen and myself benefit more by ensuring those that arrive are prepared for life here. We are burdened less, or not at all when they are prepared.
remember what I said earlier. This sums it all up.

You seem to think that people have a right to immigrate to any given country. Make no mistake about it, it is not a right. It's a privilege. A person is asking for the privilege to move to my country. To come to my home. Just because someone knocks on my front door does not mean that I have to let them into my house. Just because they have money to rent a room does not mean I have to allow them to live with me. I may very well decide that there are enough people living in my house already. Or, I may also decide, a person that does not speak english needs to learn it before they are allowed to rent a room. Why? Because it's my house.