| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | ablob a day ago | parent | next [-] | | There 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. | |
| ▲ | mongol a day ago | parent | prev | 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 | | |
| ▲ | zerr 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | One 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 :) |
| |
| ▲ | vanviegen a day 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 a day 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 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I believe you are mixing permanent presidentship with citizenship. That's why I've clarified that PR != citizenship. | | |
| ▲ | FabCH 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not 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 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because 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 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are (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. | | |
| ▲ | FabCH 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | First of all, _basic_ rights should be afforded to _all_ humans. That's not what the discussion here is. The discussion here are non-basic rights, like the right to enter a geographic area without restriction or the right to state welfare. You saying "job/role" is where the argument falls apart, because job and role are not the same. Yes, I absolutely agree that people who fulfill roles in society should be afforded protection of that society. There are roles in society that have nothing to do with your job: neighbor, volunteer, person you ask for direction on the street, parent, parent of your child's friend... Those are also the roles that typically have some form of emotional, spiritual and cultural work associated with them. Refusing to fill those roles and filling only the role of "high-income immigrant" isn't necessarily a net positive to the society and should not on that fact alone be provided permanent residence. I will say however, I think parents of children that attend public school in a country should have almost automatic PR. Not fully automatic, but 99.99% of such cases are net positive, much more than high-income immigrants. |
|
|
|
