Linguistic Integration—Valuable but Voluntary

Abstract

Over the last decade, states have increasingly emphasised the importance of integration, and translated it into legal regulations that demand integration from immigrants. This paper criticises a specific aspect to this development, namely the tendency to make permanent residency dependent on language skills and, as such, seeks to raise doubts as to the moral acceptability of the requirement of linguistic integration. The paper starts by arguing that immigrants after a relatively short period of time acquire a moral claim to permanent residency in their host country. Accordingly, states may not limit residency at their discretion. Nevertheless, three arguments may seem promising for defending the requirement of linguistic integration: (a) that the immigrants' moral claim conflicts with a stronger moral claim on the part of the larger society, and this makes an infringement of the immigrants' claim proportionate; (b) that language requirements may be legally demanded as a precondition for permanent residency for the immigrants' own sake; and (c) that language requirements are defensible, as far as immigrants may be understood to have consented to such regulation upon entry to the country. This paper argues that all three must be rejected.

Pre‐departure language requirements for family reunification

“…For instance, it helps cultivate compatriot solidarity, which can support a flourishing welfare state (Walzer 1983) and facilitates collective action problem‐solving and addressing concerns of social justice (Miller 2016, 145). Given a society's desire to protect and preserve its cultural identity, linguistic integration becomes a necessary condition for maintaining this identity, leading to a societal claim for linguistic integration (Goppel 2019, 65). This societal claim supports the idea of making naturalization dependent on a civic test that includes such requirements as a working knowledge of the national language (Miller 2008, 385).…”

“…Normatively, it might not provide a substantial ground for (partially) closing borders (Carens 2000; Cole 2011; Baycan Herzog 2021) or for withholding residence status. A lack of solidarity might signal a broader societal problem, for example due to the values that a society holds, independent of the factual language proficiency of individual members (Goppel 2019, 67–69).…”

“…First, demanding linguistic skills to uphold cultural identity‐based solidarity is unduly burdensome. Goppel demonstrates that solidarity considerations are insufficient grounds to require immigrants to relinquish their moral right to permanent residency due to a lack of language proficiency (Goppel 2019, 67). I argue that this holds even more strongly for the case of pre‐departure family reunification, as the linguistic interests of the receiving society do not in general outweigh the basic individual interest in family unity (see section 3.1 below), even if one accepts that language and culture ground solidarity.…”

“…Secondly, the necessity of everyone learning the local language to maintain solidarity founded on a dominant language and culture is questionable, especially when those who do not speak the language are not yet permanent legal members of the society. Ensuring the local language's dominance and public use would suffice (Goppel, 2019, 69). This can exist without demanding pre‐departure linguistic skills, given that these skills can be acquired post arrival.…”

Do Immigrants have a Moral Duty to Learn the Host Society’s Language?

“…Social scientists often take a similar path and either advocate mandatory language requirements based on the expected positive outcomes (Joppke 2017) or reject them as an instrument of domination by the majority (Permoser 2012)-but in neither case do they address the moral duties of immigrants. Only Goppel (2019) touches on several issues that are directly relevant for that question. She argues that immigrants who have lived in the host society for some years acquire a moral claim to stay and that a lack of language skills in no way compromises that moral claim.…”