Migrants to UK will be required to pass A Level standard of English - WTF?

[muriel_volestrangler]

Migrants will be required to pass tough new English language requirements under a law introduced in Parliament today (14 October), as the government continues to replace Britain’s failed immigration system with one that is controlled, selective and fair.

Immigrants applying through certain legal routes must meet an A level equivalent standard in speaking, listening, reading and writing.

The Secure English Language Test must be conducted with a Home Office-approved provider, and the results will then be verified as part of the visa application process.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/migrants-will-be-required-to-pass-a-level-standard-of-english

Yeah, that "Britain’s failed immigration system" is not the spin of a right wing media - it's what a Labour government is saying.

To be clear to US readers, well under half of the native British are at A level English standard - I think the US equivalent would be taking AP English. Getting a decent grade in English at GCSE - the exams normally taken in the year you turn 16 - is widely seen as needed for a "proper" education. But this is explicitly demanding the equivalent of specialising in essay writing from 16 to 18 - a higher standard than you'd need to get a university degree in a science subject.

This is just what this article was about:

What is a reactionary centrist, and does the UK have them?

These are people who—while not exactly supportive of the political right—tend to view it as without agency, as if the radicalisation of US conservatism is the result of people responding to the excesses of social justice, incivility from the left or cultural disrespect. So-called reactionary centrists both blamed the victims of the populist right, and spent a lot of time humanising the perpetrators. If only liberals could understand what drove Maga voters. Reactionary centrists admonished liberals to be very careful in their language, to not call very obvious fascists fascist, lest they be further provoked. The solution was to give ground; if democrats made appeals to the centre, particularly if they moved right on immigration and trans rights, they could regain votes lost to Trump.

If this is all sounding discomfitingly familiar from a British perspective, that is essentially my point. Every day in the UK we see a similar push to normalise and centre discrimination. Newspaper headlines scream about an “invasion” or “swarm” of refugees. In 2012, 60 trans-related articles were published by Britain’s media. By 2022, it was more than 7,500, according to figures from Trans Media Watch. The media is not responding to public rage against vulnerable minorities; it is helping to create it. Polling shows that opinion on immigration tracks tabloid coverage much more closely than actual immigration levels. People become more concerned not when the number of immigrants rises, but when the press fearmongers about it more. Research has also shown that media coverage of dramatic but unrepresentative cases (such as small boat crossings) is shaping opinion of immigrants–including those who are in the UK legally—more broadly.

But our reactionary centrists—for yes, the UK has them too—reliably invert the agency, and hence moral responsibility, in this story. Politicians and the press are not to blame for stoking hatred. Those gathering outside asylum hotels have “legitimate concerns” and must be listened to and empathised with.
...
You would never know it from their writing, but UK public opinion is actually softening on immigration, particularly among young people (voters that Labour needs and is losing to the Greens and Lib Dems). But these voters are functionally invisible to reactionary centrists. The only people who matter seem to be those further to the right. In the UK context, the voters who count are Reform supporters and the Reform-curious. It is imagined that they cannot be persuaded to change their minds on anything, they can only be appeased.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/70966/what-is-a-reactionary-centrist-does-uk-have-them

[yardwork]

1. I have two immediate thoughts.

1. No MAGA will be able to migrate to Britain. Most of them can't manage basic English, much less anything advanced.

2. That definition of reactionary centrism is an excellent take on what's happened in the U.S. for the past 40 years or so. Retreat, get bullied more, retreat more and whine, get bullied more, retreat much further in effort to placate, get bullied more...

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Yes, the test would be beyond most MAGA - especially Trump

He is obviously bad at comprehension, and lazy about reading. He'd struggle to achieve GCSE standard (which is what is currently required).

I read the 'reactionary centrism' article today from a link at Balloon Juice

...
Emphasis mine: it’s a form of Murc’s Law, i.e., only Democrats have agency, in action. The article’s author, Toby Buckle, borrows the U.S. term “reactionary centrist” to describe what’s happened to Labour in the UK under PM Kier Starmer:

The only thing I know about Labour is what I read about it here from Tony Jay and Rose, but we see the same impulse described above in U.S. politics. The phrase “meeting voters where they are” isn’t inherently bad, IMO — you have to show up were voters can hear your message.

But tacitly validating existing prejudices is fatal; it inexorably moves the framing to the right and throws vulnerable people under the bus. It also doesn’t work to take issues off the table for voters.

Ten years ago, there wasn’t widespread hysteria about trans people in the U.S. Remember in 2016 when Trump said Caitlyn Jenner could use any bathroom she chose? The right deliberately manufactured anti-trans hysteria, which implies that it can be dismantled too. The same goes for immigration and reproductive rights and other issues Dems are urged to “moderate” on to win elections.

And the Prospect author, Toby Buckle, links to an interesting piece he wrote earlier this year:

The Politics of Humiliation

The politics of humiliation has moved to the center of the reactionary project under Trump II.
...
It's often opined that Trump would be more effective if he were capable of some restraint. That a truly dangerous autocrat would mask his designs better. This not only misses a huge part of his appeal, but what one of the central aims of this movement is.

Many millions of Americans love Trump because he routinely humiliates people. It validates their own actions. They live vicariously though him, imagining the humiliation they could inflict if they were given greater power. He also normalizes the behaviour. The symbolic power of having someone of his open sadism in the Oval Office is massive. It is changing our society, making humiliation much more acceptable, and corroding the norms that partially restrain humiliators.
...
And this cultural shift is coming from the top down. Again, humiliation is an act that moves down social hierarchies. When we talk about the normalization of racism, I think many liberals still imagine working class white supremacist thugs with shaved heads and tattoos. Those people are real enough, but shouldn't be our mental image of MAGA. This is a movement of businessmen, bankers, landlords, car dealership owners, tech bros, cops, those who live in idleness of an inheritance, doctors, pilots, plastic surgeons, religious leaders, farm owners, tradesmen, and news media personalities. Those who, in their interactions with employees, service workers, and staff, could, and did, humiliate, but wanted to go further. And who self-consciously joined a project to change the norms of the American elite so they could.

And they have been remarkably successful. The torture at Abu Ghraib was, in large part, about humiliation. That coming to light was a leak, and people were shocked. Now similar degradation in 'deportations' is being intentionally broadcast for the entertainment of half the country.

https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-politi/

[progressoid]

3. Having met a few hundred MAGAs as a poll worker, I can confirm that many wouldn't pass such a test.

I watched functionally illiterate people vote in 2020. Unsurprisingly, they voted for Trump.

[yardwork]

4. This paragraph is right on target:

...many liberals still imagine working class white supremacist thugs with shaved heads and tattoos. Those people are real enough, but shouldn't be our mental image of MAGA. This is a movement of businessmen, bankers, landlords, car dealership owners, tech bros, cops, those who live in idleness of an inheritance, doctors, pilots, plastic surgeons, religious leaders, farm owners, tradesmen, and news media personalities. Those who, in their interactions with employees, service workers, and staff, could, and did, humiliate, but wanted to go further. And who self-consciously joined a project to change the norms of the American elite so they could.

[tanyev]

5. Points off if you spell words without the extraneous "u"?

[Emrys]

6. Has the A-level English curriculum changed since I took it in the 1970s?

I recall it as being overly obsessed with making us read dated works, many of which held little or no interest, drawn from a very restrictive canon, and playing at being amateur critics. Ugh.

My standard of English language had been very good since an early age (I was reading at age 4, and was judged by a secondary school teacher who saw one of my short stories to have been up to O-level standard in composition by the age of 9), but at A-level it felt like I stagnated because there was no focus on truly creative writing, which was my love. I came out of the course with a lot less enthusiasm for the language than I had when I started it, and I can't say my command of it improved meaningfully.

So what do they mean by "A level equivalent standard in speaking, listening, reading and writing"? And why set that arbitrary bar if not to throw up unnecessarily daunting barriers, and no doubt enrich whoever the government engages to run the courses?

Most indigenous people in the UK get by just fine with some sort of O-level English standard, arbitrary as its hoops are. And some of the technically skilled people I've known at work and in everyday life would have struggled and likely failed to pass even O-level, but they've certainly had their uses.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I think you're right in calling it an "arbitrary bar"

In the 80s, I did separate English Language and English Literature O levels, and didn't take A level English, but it was basically a continuation of the Literature course. Someone writing many essays would probably develop a more fluent style in them. Whether that is easily testable in "speaking, listening, reading and writing" I'm not so sure.

I think this is saying "we're increasing the level again, because we need to be seen to be demanding more, rather than there being an actual need for better communication from immigrants than the general public achieve".

[Emrys]

8. I'm sure I recall also taking an AS-level exam in English language

(our teacher sold it to us as "You won't need to revise for this, you're taking A-level anyway, but there'll be no harm in doing it" ), and that was in the mid-1970s, but all I've found online says AS-level was introduced in 1989. Maybe it was a trial or pilot? I think we all sailed through it anyway.

I think this move is a solution seeking a problem. I do think it's important to encourage people whose first language isn't English to have sufficient familiarity to interact more easily with the country's everyday life and function within it, and I know more practical-based courses exist to cover that without being a condition of remaining. What I've managed to read about the new measures seems rather vague and geared to immigrants who are seen as likely high-flyers with advanced skills or expertise in some fields.

So it's setting up an extra obstacle for people the country needs to fill posts that are not being taken up for whatever reason by those already resident here.

I guess the headlines may make it appear as if the government's doing something to cut immigration levels.

But I find myself saying repeatedly nowadays to the main UK parties, "You can't out-Reform Reform," just as you could never out-UKIP UKIP. The futile efforts to do so are dragging the whole country to places I certainly don't want to go.

[LeftishBrit]

9. This would rule out many native British people!

For Americans reading this: English A level is not compulsory and only a minority take it (though this is often because people chose to take other subjects, rather than because they couldn't manage it). But GCSE English Language is compulsory, and close to 40% get below a grade 4, regarded as the minimum passing grade. Usually students must obtain more than that - GCSE grade 5 or 6- to be even considered eligible to take A level English.

So are we going to deport nearly half of the British????