Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 55–81 | Cite as

Linguistic Integration—Valuable but Voluntary

Why Permanent Resident Status Must Not Depend on Language Skills
  • Anna GoppelEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Ethics of immigration Linguistic integration Permanent residency Language requirements Integration requirements 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I have presented versions of this article in several contexts: Society for Applied Philosophy Annual Conference 2013; Working Group on Normative Theory of Migration; Research Colloquium at the Ethics Research Institute Zurich; Konstanz-Zurich Research Colloquium. I thank all the participants for their valuable comments and criticism. In particular I would like to thank two anonymous referees, David Archard, Jan Brezger, Andreas Cassee, Terry Classen, Luara Ferracioli, Kieran Oberman, Tiziana Torresi, and Peter Schaber.

References

  1. Abizadeh, Arash. 2002. Does liberal democracy presuppose a cultural nation? Four arguments. American Political Science Review 96(3): 495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldashev, Alisher, Gernandt, Johannes, and Thomsen, Stephan L. 2008. Language usage, participation, employment and earnings. Evidence for foreigners in West Germany with multiple sources of selection. ZEW Discussion Paper, No. 08-090.Google Scholar
  3. Blake, Michael. 2001. Distributive justice, state coercion, and autonomy. Philosophy & Public Affairs 30(3): 257–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böcker, Anita, and Tineke Strik. 2011. Language and knowledge test for permanent residence rights: Help or hindrance for integration? European Journal of Migration and Law 13: 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents; quoted as: 2003/109/EC.Google Scholar
  6. Carens, Joseph H. 1987. Aliens and citizens: The case for open borders. The Review of Politics 49(2): 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carens, Joseph H. 2005. The integration of immigrants. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2(1): 2–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carens, Joseph H. 2013. The ethics of immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. De Schutter, Helder. 2007. Language policy and political philosophy: On the emerging linguistic justice debate. Language Problems and Language Planning 31(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Schutter, Helder. 2008. The linguistic territoriality principle—A critique. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25(2): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dustman, Christian, and Fabbri, Francesca. 2003. Language proficiency and labour market performance of immigrants in the UK. The Economic Journal 113(489): 695–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esser, Hartmut. 2006. Migration, sprache und integration. AKI-Forschungsbilanz 4, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
  13. (German) Act on the residence, economic activity and integration of foreigners in the federal territory residence act of 30 July 2004; quoted as: Residence Act.Google Scholar
  14. Gazzola, Michele, Grin, François, and Wickström, Bengt-Arne. 2015. A concise bibliography of language economics. CESifo Working Paper, No. 5530.Google Scholar
  15. Hampshire, James. 2010. Becoming citizens: Naturalization in the liberal state. In Citizenship acquisition and national belonging, ed. Gideon Calder, Phillip Cole, and Jonathan Seglow, 74–90. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Honohan, Iseult. 2010. Republican requirements for access to citizenship. In Citizenship acquisition and national belonging, ed. Gideon Calder, Phillip Cole, and Jonathan Seglow, 91–104. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IOM. 2009. Laws for legal immigration in the 27 EU member states. International Migration Law Nr16.Google Scholar
  18. Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kymlicka, Will, and Alan Patten. 2003. Language rights and political theory. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Margalit, Avishai, and Joseph Raz. 1990. National self-determination. The Journal of Philosophy 87(9): 439–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mason, Andrew. 1999. Political community, liberal-nationalism, and the ethics of assimilation. Ethics 109(2): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Migration und Integration. Aufenthaltsrecht, Migrations- und Integrationspolitik, (German) Bundesministerium des Innern, October 2011; quoted as: Migration und Integration 2011.Google Scholar
  23. Miller, David. 1997. On nationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, David. 2008. Immigrants, nations, and citizenship. The Journal of Political Philosophy 16(4): 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, David. 2009. Justice and boundaries. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8: 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oberman, Kieran. 2017. Immigration, citizenship, and consent: What is wrong with permanent alienage? The Journal of Political Philosophy 25(1): 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patten, Alan. 2001. Political theory and language policy. Political Theory 29(5): 691–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patten, Alan. 2006. Who should have official language rights? Supreme Court Law Review 31: 101–115.Google Scholar
  29. Patten, Alan. 2014. Equal recognition. The moral foundations of minority rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pevnick, Ryan. 2011. Immigration and the constraints of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seveker, Marina, and Anne Walter. 2010. Country report Germany, The INTEC Project: Integration and naturalisation tests: the new way to European citizenship. Nijmegen: Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  32. Shorten, Andrew. 2010. Linguistic competence and citizenship acquisition. In Citizenship acquisition and national belonging, ed. Gideon Calder, Phillip Cole, and Jonathan Seglow, 105–122. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Song, Sarah. 2010. Multiculturalism [online]. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/multiculturalism/. Accessed 19 April 2013.
  34. Strik, Tineke, Böcker Anita, Maaike Luiten, and Ricky van Oers. 2010. The INTEC project: Synthesis report. Integration and naturalisation tests: the new way to eEuropean citizenship. Nijmegen: Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  35. (Swiss) Federal Act on Foreign Nationals of 16 December 2005; quoted as FNA.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, Charles. 1990. Irreducibly social goods. In Rationality, individualism and public policy, ed. Geoffrey Brennan and Cliff Walsh, 45–63. Canberra: Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, ANU.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, Charles. 1994. The politics of recognition. In Multiculturalism. Examining the politics of recognition, ed. Amy Gutmann, 25–73. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1991. Self-defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs 20(4): 283–310.Google Scholar
  39. Van Parijs, Philippe. 2000. Must Europe be Belgian? On democratic citizenship in multilingual polities. In The demands of citizenship, ed. Catriona McKinnon and Iain Hampsher-Monk, 235–253. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  40. Van Parijs, Philippe. 2011. Linguistic justice for Europe and for the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of justice. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  42. Yao, Yuxin, and Van Ours. 2015. Language skills and labor market performance of immigrants in the Netherlands, 2015. No: CentER Discussion Paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for PhilosophyUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations