So your complaint is you wanted permanent residence in Germany but did not want to learn to speak German?
Citizenship? Absolutely, you must speak the language. Residency? Not nearly as common.
Hmm, is that really the case? Or perhaps you're confusing work visas with permanent residency? Most attractive destinations for immigrants usually require a language test for PR. Ignoring the United States and its dysfunctional immigration system, a language test is required or practically required almost anywhere there is a points-based system to obtain PR. The UK requires a language exam to be granted leave to remain. Canadian federal programs for PR require a language test result to even be considered for the Express Entry program. In Europe, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Italy also require it, and I'm sure there are more I'm not aware of.
Also, B1 is honestly a very basic level of proficiency with the language. It is really hard to be a productive member of society and interact with locals if you cannot speak at a B1 level.
United States issues the highest absolute number of permanent residency permits in the world. It grants approximately 1 to 1.4 million lawful permanent resident (LPR) cards (Green Cards) annually
Historically, this can originally be blamed on the desire of the US to import as many European immigrants as quickly as it could after the slaves were freed (post-"1877 Compromise"), because ex-slave votes were changing the composition of government. In 1910, only 60% of white Americans were native born (as opposed to about 98.5% of black Americans.) This period is also referred to as the "nadir of American race relations."
For example: 1) Low birth rates and high ageing population percentage, this can be offset with immigration. Then PR status can be granted, as a kind of carrot and better tax revenue generation "filter". 2) Labor market manipulation and facilitating international business, where immigration is used to fill holes in various industries.
Why a country would want to grant PR, usually has different purposes from citizenship. There is overlap, but they aren't the same.
This statement is clearly false, off the top of my head only USA and Spain come to mind. There are some countries like Japan where there it isn't a hard requirement, but you'd need a very good reason to justify why
________________________
Footnotes:
[1]: As long as at least one parent is a permanent resident and has in Germany for at least 5 years (the same duration that's usually required to become a permanent resident anyway)
That’s how deals work, both sides state their position and either they find a middle ground or they don’t.
Seems rational to me. Want to live in country X permanently? Learn language X.
Also, you can live permanently without PR. PR unlocks some additional perks, which again, have nothing to do with linguistics.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, the discussion was about the conditions of staying, not entering.
> the right to state welfare
If one pays the same taxes for several years why shouldn't they have access to the same state welfare?
> Refusing to fill those roles
Even assuming it is meaningful to set rules about stuff like that that are basic life stuff and most people do to some degree, how do you know or check for these? For once, language is def not a good proxy, esp in a place with a very big international community and where most speak english anyway. How do you imagine this? I have never seen a check like this that makes any sense. It is worse than even the economic checks where people move money from an account to another and screenshot them to show they are not too poor so that their applications are not rejected. If anything, immigrant communities ime are much higher in solidarity because they need to. And in any case, it is not either fair to punish a person for just being introvert or not having many friends or sth.
> high-income immigrant
No I did not mention high income, and imo it has nothing to do with this discussion. Maybe it was a misunderstanding with OP who mentioned "net positive". I interpreted "net positive" as working consistently rather than high income necessarily. I do not think people with high income should have more rights to PR than people with low income, though this is sadly the case in many ways.
2) The actual non-exhaustive list of ways to prove you are integrated in Switzerland, Kt. ZH is: do your children go to the public school? Are you a member of a local sports, arts or similar club? Do you have regular social contact with Swiss citizens? Can you speak the local language? Do you volunteer in the local fire department? Did you volunteer for the Civil Defense Service?
To be fair, for permanent residence the bar on any of these questions is quite low. But that is how you sensibly check that.
3) The GP thinks their 200k salary is relevant.
> criteria for getting welfare must be something else, for example are you a permanent member of the society in question
But the discussion is about exactly who should be legally recognised as "permanent member of the society". I am saying that a long term resident in a country, who participates in the economic and social life should have the same access to welfare. A person who lives somewhere long term (several years, whatever threshold we want to set there) is de facto "a permanent member of the society". The discussion is about when one can be considered such a "permanent member of the society" so that they can be included to the welfare etc intended for "permanent members of the society".
And in any case, nothing is really really permanent, and native-born people may leave a country to live abroad any time (eg many central and north europeans move to the south when they retire), upon which, typically, they lose access to the aspects of the welfare system in their native country as they stop being residents there.
1b)
> You do not buy welfare, it’s not an insurance
It is still an exchange/contract, though indeed more like a social contract than a "business relationship" as others here state. In most places I know some form of economic sustainance/stability (as like working full time for a certain period of time) is the primary requirement for permanent residence. I do not think the value of a human should depend on job and money either, as there are many ways to contribute to a society, and some are def more meaningful than certain jobs, but working and paying taxes is in general part of that social contract.
2) I do not see anything wrong with that list, my problem is when one is expected to work continuously full time, have kids, study the language at a high level and volunteer around in order to get permanent residence, all at the same time, which is not very easy esp for people who work relatively demanding jobs.
3) I am not sure why they mention it, they apologise for mentioning it but do not seem to explain where it is relevant. However I do not think that their (or any such) argument actually needs a high salary to stand.
Which makes it almost trivial for parents for example because you just need to send your kids to a normal school instead of an expat only private school.
Being a good citizen is not the same as (or even all that much related to) receiving an above average salary.
Residency while employed is rational. If you want to stay longer, learn the language
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.
I doubt that Germans see it that way.
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.