[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.

[FabCH]

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.

[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.

[FabCH]

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.

[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.