| |
| ▲ | mrighele 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Asking 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. | |
| ▲ | FabCH 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I 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. | | |
| ▲ | mongol an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You 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 | |
| ▲ | vanviegen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | FabCH 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I believe you are mixing permanent presidentship with citizenship. That's why I've clarified that PR != citizenship. |
|
|
|
|
