Dear Labour government,
If the immigrants have long-term needs why are you giving the free lessons to those on benefits, whose needs include nothing more than surviving in a more economically-developed country than their homeland? Surely the lessons, paid for by the taxpayer, should be given to those with skills, training and job prospects who can impact our economy in a positive way?
Regards,
--Tom
The list of those expected to receive the free lessons is completely FLAWED:
- legal residents expected to stay in the country long-term
- excluded women, particularly those with children under 16
- parents or carers in families with multiple problems
- those identified as raising particular issues for community cohesion
- people with low levels of literacy in their own language
- those with no secondary education
- refugees
- asylum seekers still in the country beyond six months awaiting a decision on their status or who cannot return home
If I was a taxpayer, I wouldn't mind funding (albeit only in part) English lessons to NEW immigrants with long-term employment desires who are not work-shy - for the benefit of our economy. Not for refugees, asylum seekers, women(??) and those "expected" (AKA everyone--how are you going to determine their intentions??) to stay in the country.
If these people are so serious about their long-term goals in the country, what has stopped them learning the language in the first place? That would be the first thing to do. We should send back those who are going to leech off the economy, receive these free lessons and do nothing with them.
