Age, health and language

A couple of days ago I was listening to a programme which ran a piece on immune systems and subliminally made note of the fact that our immune systems cope well with various attacks until we get towards being eighty. It seems that passing seventy is the benchmark that leads us into the reappearance of chickenpox, in the form of shingles, and other ailments that until then have been effectively repressed. Subliminally, somewhere deep inside what passes for a mind, I thought to myself, "Wow, that's the three score and ten bit then. Perhaps after that we're potentially out of warranty!"

Now, looking at my system, the many hundreds of funerals I have conducted yield an average age of 87 and so it seems that the machine is so well designed that, like the old washing machines (some of which I still see in homes running as well as they did thirty years ago) we can just keep on going even though some of the lights no longer work and we leak a bit!

A new item this morning regarding Rashida Chapti, a British citizen, and her husband, Vali. Rashida wants her husband to come and join her but he cannot do sio unless he learns some basic English (an immigration rules requirement). Now this move is being branded 'racist' and Rashida says that her husband, being 57, is too old to learn a new language. Not only that, but (according to the Councillor who is supporting this case, whilst, "There's nothing wrong with speaking English," apparently it isn't necessary.

Now I can understand that perhaps culturally the learning of English is difficult but the reason cited, being 57, seems a bit hollow. Rashida also points to the fact that living in a rural community the forty to fifty hours of teaching required is cost prohibitive (perhaps a better reason than age). Apparently Vali doesn't need to speak English for he could have a job working in the same factory as his wife, but that doesn't resolve the immigration law requirements does it? This is not about age but the cultural, geographic (rural) and societal stuff and to to focus it on age as this morning's piece did is likely to win little support amongs many (especially those in their late fifties).

This is a mixed reaction issue for me, for having living in non-English speaking places (i.e. Southall) I am aware that people do come and settle here and live adequately within their own communities without a word of English (and they weren't just the older folk). I am also aware that across the world you will find Americans who never learn the language of the place in which they now live (including many missionaries who never spoke a word of the local or national languages even though they'd been there for twenty plus years - Brits on the whole at least appear to try).

The problem is that in Hounslow and Southall, it was very much a them and us situation because of the cultural and language barriers. Many of the locals resented the street signs in multiple languages and the fact that the community was one people divided into many because of the language and cultural issues.

Basically I think the immigration law might be correct but it, like all laws and policies, looks harsh and uncaring when it is personalised. There is of course a very simple resolution to getting them reunited, but it won't be popular, in that Rashida could of course just decide that it's time to return home and settle down with her family there. Throughout the discussion this was never offered as a solution - think I might be under-rated!

I see this as a story of desire rather than age and can see many making capital out of this for all the right and wrong reasons. Interestingly, before the new law came in Vali wouldn't have been eligible under the old laws either - so just moved the focus onto something that is 'racist' from something that would most likely also have been labelled such anyway.

Hey ho - life is always difficult when it becomes focussed on individuals!

Pax