[zerr]

Permanent residency is a business deal between two entities: an individual and a state. It has nothing to do with linguistics. There are many Germans permanently living in Vietnam, Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries, who never bothered to even learn how to say Hello, not to mention any certificate or exam...

[consensus1]

Permanent residency is a deal (not necessarily business related) between two entities: an individual and a state. It has everything to do with whatever requirements that the two parties have, and if there is no agreement on them there is no deal. In this case the state cares about language proficiency and requires it for a deal, so if you are not proficient in German there is no deal.

[jyounker]

I can't imagine any Germans I know describing permanent residency as a business relationship.

[xdennis]

A country is not a contract, it's a culture.

It's quite audacious to want to be part of a country, but also to be so quarantined from them as to not even want to learn their language.

[mr_toad]

> Permanent residency is a business deal between two entities: an individual and a state.

I doubt that Germans see it that way.

[mongol]

No, permanent residency is more than a business deal. It is a deal about all aspects of life, business or not.

[FabCH]

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]

Business deal means the requirements should be rational, pragmatic.

[FabCH]

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]

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]

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]

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]

> 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.

[ablob]

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.

[FabCH]

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]

I believe you are mixing permanent presidentship with citizenship. That's why I've clarified that PR != citizenship.

[freehorse]

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.

[mrighele]

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.

[baranul]

Exactly! Though it often seems that people conveniently forget the reverse scenario. Them in other countries is fine and relax about requirements, others in their country, not so much.

[consensus1]

One country is not in any way obligated or expected to have the same entry requirements as another. It is based on priorities of the state and those differ greatly between states.