English tests for immigrant spouses fair, court rules

The High Court has dismissed a challenge to laws that require immigrant spouses to be able to speak English in order to live in the UK. Three couples had challenged the rules which were introduced in November 2010. Earlier this year the High Court was told the tougher language tests were racist and discriminated against British-Indian families. The Home Office now requires anyone entering the UK to join their spouse to speak a minimum level of English. Last year, when she unveiled the new rules, Home Secretary Theresa May said spouses should have a basic command of English to help them settle and integrate in the UK. Raising the bar\' It is a privilege to come to the UK, and that is why I am committed to raising the bar for migrants and ensuring that those who benefit from being in Britain contribute to our society,\" said Mrs May. One of those who had challenged the decision was Rashida Chapti, a British citizen, who has been married for almost 40 years to her husband, Vali. The couple have six children and have divided their time for 15 years between Leicester and India. His wife wants him to move permanently to the UK but Mr Chapti does not speak, read or write English. The new immigration rules require Mr Chapti to show a basic knowledge of English before he can be given permission to stay. Earlier this year Manjit Gill QC, for the Chaptis, told the High Court the rules breached their rights to a family life and constituted racial discrimination because they prevented a British citizen living with her husband purely because he was a foreign citizen who did not speak English. \"\'The rule is designed, putting it crudely, to keep out persons who tend to marry within their communities, who tend to have arranged marriages, who tend to be from the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East in particular,\" said Mr Gill. In an assessment of the policy, government officials accepted that it could have a \"disproportionate impact on certain nationalities or racial groups\" but argued that any indirect discrimination would be justified because the policy would improve integration.