5 ms·
I mean, even if you insist on viewing it as a business deal, what exactly prevents one side to put language requirements in the business deal? That’s how deals
by FabCH 3mo ago
I mean, even if you insist on viewing it as a business deal, what exactly prevents one side to put language requirements in the business deal?
That’s how deals work, both sides state their position and either they find a middle ground or they don’t.
- zerr 3mo agoBusiness deal means the requirements should be rational, pragmatic.
- FabCH 3mo agoWell, why is „learn the language“ not a rational and pragmatic requirement? Seems rational to me. Want to live in country X permanently? Learn language X.
- zerr 3mo agoI mean, when you have already proven that you are net positive for the state, and continue doing so, requiring you to pass some exams is not rational. PR != citizenship. Will I have a bit difficulty buying some groceries in a local market? Maybe, but that shouldn't bother the state. Also, you can live permanently without PR. PR unlocks some additional perks, which again, have nothing to do with linguistics.
- FabCH 3mo agoAre you a net positive? Just because somebody pays taxes, it doesn’t necessarily make them a net positive. For example, do you contribute culturally? That can be quite hard to do without speaking the language. What about defense. Would you fight for the country? Hard to do if you don’t understand the orders. What about spiritually? Emotionally?
- zerr 3mo agoI believe you are mixing permanent presidentship with citizenship. That's why I've clarified that PR != citizenship.
- FabCH 3mo agoNot at all. Citizenship allows you the final participation: political. The right to be chosen and the right to choose. Everything else applies to anyone who lives permanently in a given place. A permanent resident. FWIW: I personally politically support PRs being given the political right to be voted into office as well.
- account42 3mo ago> FWIW: I personally politically support PRs being given the political right to be voted into office as well. Why? I'd go the other way and only allow political office for natural citizens. After all why would you welcome someone into your country when their goal is to change it - then maybe they would fit better into another country that already works like they want.
- FabCH 3mo agoBecause if the will of the people is for person A to serve in office X, then the will of the people should be absolute. I'd even allow election of minors and other currently non-eligible persons. The only requirement should be that you are politically member of the given area, which typically means you actually physically live in the city/state/country. Note, in Switzerland, you can already be voted into office _against your will_. And then you MUST serve. And this has actually happened in recent past, in remote villages to be fair.
- freehorse 3mo agoAre (native) citizens a net positive? Do you ask each one of them how they contribute culturally? What does "spiritually" and "emotionally" even mean in this context? People should be afforded basic rights because they are people. People who live long term in a place, do the same (or different for that matter but analogous) work etc should have the same basic rights. In this context I interpret "net positive" as basically fulfilling jobs/roles in the society. This alone should (in the long term) afford basic rights, not cultural and other tests. edit: Regardless that, cultural contribution does not really require a specific language. You can paint, you can play music from your own culture/home country etc. You can even write things in english anyway that many will understand.
- vanviegen 3mo ago> net positive for the state Being a good citizen is not the same as (or even all that much related to) receiving an above average salary.
- mongol 3mo agoYou can be a net positive one day, next day you lose your job and are not. On the other hand, permanent is supposed to be without end. An unemployed worker with no language skills in the local language quickly becomes a burden Residency while employed is rational. If you want to stay longer, learn the language
- zerr 3mo agoOne would say, unemployed with a good local language skills will be able to easier navigate bureaucracy and claim more benefits - more loss for the state :)
- ablob 3mo agoThere are implications by linguistics. If you learn a language you also passively obtain insight into cultural norms and expectations. Moreover, Learning a language is much easier if you're friends with natives and converse with them on a semi-regular basis. Being able to speak the language also means that there doesn't need to be a separate support structure for you, as you will be able to use the ones provided to everyone else. I'd wager the sum of these things is something one may expect from a permanent resident (i.e.: cultural knowledge, some amount of integration, ability to function without specialized support structures). And it turns out, that language proficiency is a pretty good proxy for measuring that. Just because you don't accept the rationale behind the requirement it does not mean that there is none. The requirements are not there to verify that you can live somewhere permanently, but if you _may_ live there permanently. Money is not the only dimension your so called "net positive" may be measured in.
- mrighele 3mo agoAsking you to learn German in in Germany is both rational and pragmatic, as it is a good way to be a functioning member of the society.