Should immigrants be required to integrate to receive benefits?

[shootthebandit]

i dont think we should accept any immigrants. im not saying that as a "I hate foreigners they come here and steal our jobs and lady folk". Im actually all for immigration because it adds so much diversity to the community but at the moment we just can support immigration, jobs are scarce and theres a lack of affordable housing. I would love for britain to open the flood gates but we just dont have the infrastructure

 

[Strazdas]

We were comparing two natin economies. the nationality of the person in OP does not matter for this discussion.

No I used the comparison of Turkey because the chap in the original article was Turkish, you also claimed he wasn't happy with own culture and standard of living, see below.

I understand that you chose turkey because of this, however his nationality is irrelevant when comparing two economies.

Really? i remember you posting something like this.

Yes, i posted growth in response to this:

Tell me again what sort of growth European economies have been seeing recently

Or are you going to tell me that standard of living is in no way related to the economic growth of a country?

Related? yes. defining factor? no. There are plenty of factors to standart of living, from acess to drinkable water to ability to express his thoughts without reprecussions. some of them are economical, some are not.

Really does size matter that much? Well please educate me how Britain was the world superpower 100 years ago, its so tiny.

SIze is the reason equating abosulte numbers, like you tried to do, is pointless. because obviuosly a country that is 5 times as large is likely have larger aboslute GDP. you either need to compare the change (growth) or GDP per capita, which is a bit closer to comaprable numbers.
Britian became superpower because it was a warmongering state that took over less avanced nations and turned them into thier slave labour.

Spain was a result of massive foreign investment in housing and property, the bubble burst. Up until the crash in 2008 Spain was one of the best looking Euro zone countries with its GDP to debt ratio falling while all other countries were rising. So please explain to me how it was due to their own stupidity?

Everything was a result of massive invetment in housing/other buildings. What amazes me is how people didnt see its going to burst. back in 2008 i was first year university student of economics. and i called it. noone believed me, and bam couple months laters it burst open. Maybe they were too confident in thier own knowledge and didnt see it coming.
Stupidity was simple - investments in housing and property. ones they knew wont be covered.

Really? How bizzare when i see articles like this all the time
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4772c47c-9310-11e2-b3be-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2gJFONMPu

the link asks me to pay to see the article.
The title seems misleading though.

Really?
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-is-heading-for-the-biggest-economic-train-wreck-in-europe-2013-8
As I said its still tinkering on the edge.

And the prophets of doom called it forth. Every month for a different catastrophe. but it never came.

the article seem heavily biased though.

Yet 2 out of 3 of those countries are 2 of the biggest economies in the EU.

Italy always acted like its a big economony in Europe, but in truth it never really got there. Heck, we should be talking about Poland more as that ones rising like hell now. Spain will survive, they are nowhere close to greece level. and greece are just a drop in the ocean in europe.

I guess the economist fabricated all the figures in this article then and whats worse is I have already posted this article once, and you still proceeded with this claim.

I dont know the source of the sites statistics, but the official statistics mark thier 8% growth as "forecast". which means that half the year in theyprovided these figures beucase they thought its going to be like that (educated guess). they havent updated that. whether its intentionall or somone just didnt do well in thier nationa statistics office i dont know.

Google oxymoron. If an outside power manufactures something, that means that its is not yours. For example Harley Davidson are sold here in England, but are American.

really? so the Harley Davidson in England belong to america? so i guess this keyboard im typing on belongs to China and not me then.
the dictator regime was manufactured. you accepted it and didnt revolt/assasinate/ect. therefore you accepted it as part of your culture.

Do they really? All 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are hardline Islamist? Maybe you could explain to me why Syria has a secular Government, Iran had secular Governments up until the American-British backed coup of the 50's, along with Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and of course Turkey.

Did i say ALL of them want to? no. but enough to raise reactionary actinos in holland for example. They had secualr goverment probably because people were smart enough to have one. American coups however are based on whats best for them, and right now the best thing for them is to have a common enemy they can easily label.
What i said instead is that we should not allow extremist islamists to dictate laws in countries they came to live becuase they had different laws to begin with.

You still seem to think Sharia law is the evil and all Muslims are intent on imposing it wherever they go. In all honesty you haven't got a clue what your talking about have you? You see things in passing and repeat it in a bid to look clever without investigating it.

Do i think Sharia Law is evil? most definatelly so. I do not however think most muslims want to impose it, but a very vocal minority that shouldnt be even allowed into the country to begin with.

 

[TWRule]

I'm not really seeing where the idea of integration becomes a *political* concern here. Half the people in this thread are talking about whether someone has some moral obligation or practical advantage to learning the language of the place they move to which is not the issue. ("The language" assuming there is only one language which the local government uses, which is a big if; if you apply for food stamps in the U.S., they send you papers in about 40 major languages giving you instructions on how to set up specialized translation services if you need them, so there would rarely, if ever, be a need for people to learn English to coordinate with an assistance program.)

Governments have no way of gauging "effort" in learning a language, and if it's not vital to the operations of the assistance program itself that the recipients know the language (which it rarely is - unless that government is too cheap to spend money on the extra ink and translations for forms and possibly telephone translators, which is a hell of a lot less expensive than offering free language courses) then I see no reason someone ought to somehow be expected to 'integrate'.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm not really seeing where the idea of integration becomes a *political* concern here. Half the people in this thread are talking about whether someone has some moral obligation or practical advantage to learning the language of the place they move to which is not the issue. ("The language" assuming there is only one language which the local government uses, which is a big if; if you apply for food stamps in the U.S., they send you papers in about 40 major languages giving you instructions on how to set up specialized translation services if you need them, so there would rarely, if ever, be a need for people to learn English to coordinate with an assistance program.)

Governments have no way of gauging "effort" in learning a language, and if it's not vital to the operations of the assistance program itself that the recipients know the language (which it rarely is - unless that government is too cheap to spend money on the extra ink and translations for forms and possibly telephone translators, which is a hell of a lot less expensive than offering free language courses) then I see no reason someone ought to somehow be expected to 'integrate'.

And that's exactly part of the problem. We don't want immigrants to come here and live off of food stamps in ghettos, we want them to come here and be able to get a decent job that they'll be able to live off of, and there's an extremely miniscule chance that they'll actually be able to get a good job, and not rely on government assistance if they don't learn the language of the country they've immigrated to. So I do think that if someone is physically and mentally capable of working, then they should prove to the government that they are attempting to find work, and doing everything in their power to do so before they receive aid, and proving that they're doing everything in their power should involve proving that they are attempting to learn the language.

 

[TWRule]

And that's exactly part of the problem. We don't want immigrants to come here and live off of food stamps in ghettos, we want them to come here and be able to get a decent job that they'll be able to live off of, and there's an extremely miniscule chance that they'll actually be able to get a good job, and not rely on government assistance if they don't learn the language of the country they've immigrated to. So I do think that if someone is physically and mentally capable of working, then they should prove to the government that they are attempting to find work, and doing everything in their power to do so before they receive aid, and proving that they're doing everything in their power should involve proving that they are attempting to learn the language.

Those values are all well and good, but I don't see how they can be put into practice in a way that wouldn't arbitrarily increase the barrier to entry on receiving benefits to immigrants.

If there was a system where someone was expected to somehow demonstrate that they were looking for work, that applies just as well to native speakers of the local language, so that part is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Hell, language proficiency is far from guaranteed even for native speakers (let alone literacy), and not all fields, even well-paying fields, require any real native language proficiency to work the job (example, maybe someone is a teacher in their native language and conducts their work via internet, but are short on work, etc. - this also applies for many skilled trades, etc.). In all cases I'm aware of, whether employers discriminate based on language proficiency is up to them, not the government, and surely someone does not move to a country expecting to immediately get a job that requires skilled native language proficiency...

Edit: this also completely ignores that there may be immigrant communities which speak the language of the new immigrants, and within which they have hopes of getting a job. If this is the case, a country would have to impose a particular language on immigrants based on what happens to be the dominant language, which is just an arbitrary imposition.

It just seems like an arbitrary at best, discriminatory at worst, policy. I also sincerely hope that no such institution puts into motion a policy that says "Everything in your power" - they need reasonable, well-defined criteria that don't over-generalize like this language requirement would.

TLDR: This kind of requirement creates an arbitrary/discriminatory barrier to entry and assumes every immigrant works from a job that requires them to do their work locally with local customers/coworkers, and they came with the expectations of getting a job specifically in a field that requires proficiency in the local language (Edit: particularly the language in which government is primarily conducted, I might add), which is an unreasonable generalization.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I feel its a respectful thing to do at the least to learn the native language of the country you decide to immigrate to. I wouldn't dream of living in Japan full-time without learning Japanese, for example. Being in the States I find it frustrating sometimes that I have to know Spanish to speak to people in certain parts of my state, even though I actually do speak it. I also find that a lot of the latin people here understand English and play stupid on that part which is just insulting. Now, granted the US doesn't really have an "official" language, but a huge portion of our country speaks english sometimes BAD English, sometimes BASTARD English but its English nonetheless. Yeah for those of you across the pond its not the Queen's English but we stopped bowing to that family 200+ years ago, no offense to ye.
But seriously I have also worked in the service industry and hospitality industry and the amount of Europeans who come here as tourists who speak English tend to play dumb as well. I'm good at reading body language and I know the difference between confusion and contempt, especially when I try to be helpful to our guests and they treat me like shit all the while speaking in a foreign tongue as if they have no clue what I'm saying. I don't HAVE to be nice (unless I wanna keep my job) but at least I'm not being rude.
I do try to learn different languages, not just for communication but to enrich my life.
I find that I'm able to put any prejudices aside in the spirit of respecting the fellow human no matter who they are or where they're from but god dammit it would be nice to see some of that good energy returned. I don't feel I am better than anyone else, but there are times where the thought crosses my mind "Thank God I am above such rude behavior". I can't help it.
TL;DR - Respect for the place you currently are residing/vacationing is paramount and just a sign of class/integrity, and that includes making an effort to communicate in whatever language is native. Doesn't mean you have to lose your identity, and learning something new only enriches your life.

 

[flarty]

We were comparing two natin economies. the nationality of the person in OP does not matter for this discussion.

No I used the comparison of Turkey because the chap in the original article was Turkish, you also claimed he wasn't happy with own culture and standard of living, see below.

I understand that you chose turkey because of this, however his nationality is irrelevant when comparing two economies.

Really? i remember you posting something like this.

Yes, i posted growth in response to this:

Tell me again what sort of growth European economies have been seeing recently

Or are you going to tell me that standard of living is in no way related to the economic growth of a country?

Related? yes. defining factor? no. There are plenty of factors to standart of living, from acess to drinkable water to ability to express his thoughts without reprecussions. some of them are economical, some are not.

Really does size matter that much? Well please educate me how Britain was the world superpower 100 years ago, its so tiny.

SIze is the reason equating abosulte numbers, like you tried to do, is pointless. because obviuosly a country that is 5 times as large is likely have larger aboslute GDP. you either need to compare the change (growth) or GDP per capita, which is a bit closer to comaprable numbers.
Britian became superpower because it was a warmongering state that took over less avanced nations and turned them into thier slave labour.

Spain was a result of massive foreign investment in housing and property, the bubble burst. Up until the crash in 2008 Spain was one of the best looking Euro zone countries with its GDP to debt ratio falling while all other countries were rising. So please explain to me how it was due to their own stupidity?

Everything was a result of massive invetment in housing/other buildings. What amazes me is how people didnt see its going to burst. back in 2008 i was first year university student of economics. and i called it. noone believed me, and bam couple months laters it burst open. Maybe they were too confident in thier own knowledge and didnt see it coming.
Stupidity was simple - investments in housing and property. ones they knew wont be covered.

Really? How bizzare when i see articles like this all the time
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4772c47c-9310-11e2-b3be-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2gJFONMPu

the link asks me to pay to see the article.
The title seems misleading though.

Really?
http://www.businessinsider.com/france-is-heading-for-the-biggest-economic-train-wreck-in-europe-2013-8
As I said its still tinkering on the edge.

And the prophets of doom called it forth. Every month for a different catastrophe. but it never came.

the article seem heavily biased though.

Yet 2 out of 3 of those countries are 2 of the biggest economies in the EU.

Italy always acted like its a big economony in Europe, but in truth it never really got there. Heck, we should be talking about Poland more as that ones rising like hell now. Spain will survive, they are nowhere close to greece level. and greece are just a drop in the ocean in europe.

I guess the economist fabricated all the figures in this article then and whats worse is I have already posted this article once, and you still proceeded with this claim.

I dont know the source of the sites statistics, but the official statistics mark thier 8% growth as "forecast". which means that half the year in theyprovided these figures beucase they thought its going to be like that (educated guess). they havent updated that. whether its intentionall or somone just didnt do well in thier nationa statistics office i dont know.

Google oxymoron. If an outside power manufactures something, that means that its is not yours. For example Harley Davidson are sold here in England, but are American.

really? so the Harley Davidson in England belong to america? so i guess this keyboard im typing on belongs to China and not me then.
the dictator regime was manufactured. you accepted it and didnt revolt/assasinate/ect. therefore you accepted it as part of your culture.

Do they really? All 1.6 billion Muslims in the world are hardline Islamist? Maybe you could explain to me why Syria has a secular Government, Iran had secular Governments up until the American-British backed coup of the 50's, along with Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and of course Turkey.

Did i say ALL of them want to? no. but enough to raise reactionary actinos in holland for example. They had secualr goverment probably because people were smart enough to have one. American coups however are based on whats best for them, and right now the best thing for them is to have a common enemy they can easily label.
What i said instead is that we should not allow extremist islamists to dictate laws in countries they came to live becuase they had different laws to begin with.

You still seem to think Sharia law is the evil and all Muslims are intent on imposing it wherever they go. In all honesty you haven't got a clue what your talking about have you? You see things in passing and repeat it in a bid to look clever without investigating it.

Do i think Sharia Law is evil? most definatelly so. I do not however think most muslims want to impose it, but a very vocal minority that shouldnt be even allowed into the country to begin with.

HDD has died and I'm currently using my phone to post. To be continued........

 

[Fireaxe]

Learn the language of the country you've chosen to live in or go live somewhere else.

 

[Abomination]

Nobody has managed to explain how or why Germany gave him residency when he can't even speak the language in the first place. Surely that's the most major failing here.

If he's a resident then he's entitled to all the same benefits a resident would have... I just think Germany jumped the gun on making him a resident.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

well if this comes down to learning the language; i think for temporary migration, no, learning the main language should not be a requirement.

for permament migration, yes i think there should be a language requirement.

as for this case, in the UK, its called job seekers allowance. if he isnt actively seeking and bettering his chances of employment, then he shouldnt get the benifits. i'd say refusing to learn the native tounge of the country he wishes to work is refusing to increase his chances to find work. cut him off.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Do they have to integrate to pay tax?

No?

Then they don't have to integrate to receive benefits.

That's not to say I don't think integration shouldn't be strongly encouraged, it should.

But you don't get have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Abomination]

Nobody has managed to explain how or why Germany gave him residency when he can't even speak the language in the first place. Surely that's the most major failing here.

If he's a resident then he's entitled to all the same benefits a resident would have... I just think Germany jumped the gun on making him a resident.

This guy gets it. You can't just change the rules for foreigners because you're personally indignant that they haven't decided they want to be just like you. You have to make the rules and then follow the rules you've made.

I wonder, since we have an overwhelming support in this thread for a very simplistic "If you can't integrate go somewhere else!" how many people in this thread have actually immigrated somewhere in their lives. How many people have direct personal experience as an immigrant.

Because I do. And if you think it's easy to just pick up a new language (for anyone older than say, 10), you are dead wrong.

I do believe he should have to display a certain mastery of the language before he can become a resident (and therefore is entitled to job-seeking benefits and assistance) but I think the fact he is entitled to them despite not knowing the language is the issue people have.

Yes, migrating to another nation that speaks a different language is not an easy thing to do. Just because it's hard doesn't mean you should be entitled to that nation's tax spending.

If he was not a resident, as many believe he should not be due to not being able to speak the language, he would be told to learn the language so you can get the benefits. It would be a fairy simple solution to the problem and very reasonable.

Of course, already being a resident throws a massive spanner into the works. Germany made the mistake, they should continue to pay him.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Nobody has managed to explain how or why Germany gave him residency when he can't even speak the language in the first place. Surely that's the most major failing here.

If he's a resident then he's entitled to all the same benefits a resident would have... I just think Germany jumped the gun on making him a resident.

This guy gets it. You can't just change the rules for foreigners because you're personally indignant that they haven't decided they want to be just like you. You have to make the rules and then follow the rules you've made.

I wonder, since we have an overwhelming support in this thread for a very simplistic "If you can't integrate go somewhere else!" how many people in this thread have actually immigrated somewhere in their lives. How many people have direct personal experience as an immigrant.

Because I do. And if you think it's easy to just pick up a new language (for anyone older than say, 10), you are dead wrong.

I am an immigrant to the US. So are my parents, and my grandparents, 3 aunts, 3 cousins, 2 uncles, and the list goes on. Everyone in my family learned how to speak English. It may not be perfect English, it may not be grammatically correct English, but it's good enough to be able to communicate with a native English speaker without too much difficulty in every day life, to be able to go shopping, ask for directions, etc. If you've lived in a country for 30 years and not been able to learn at least that much of the language, you either haven't tried, or you're a complete and utter idiot. Hell, I would say if you've lived in the country for 5 years and can't communicate with native speakers at least on a basic level it's because you really don't want to be there in the first place, and therefore don't belong there.

 

[Abomination]

I do believe he should have to display a certain mastery of the language before he can become a resident (and therefore is entitled to job-seeking benefits and assistance) but I think the fact he is entitled to them despite not knowing the language is the issue people have.

But in principle, I agree with you, in that a certain level of language proficiency should be expected before someone can get permanent residence (though I disagree that that residency status should be tied to job-seeking benefits and assistance. That's a decision that should be decided by economic risk/benefit analysis, which I doubt a single person in this thread is qualified to do for their own country, let alone a worldwide principle.

Given how much of a burden immigrants can become for a nation - especially one with land borders like Germany while it's currently the golden boy of the European economy - providing those benefits when its own citizens could have government spending is something that would be difficult to sell to the voting public.

Just because it's hard doesn't mean you should be entitled to that nation's tax spending.

If that tax spending is legally available to people who live there as opposed to being tied to a certain legal status, yes, you are entitled to it. It's Germany's fault they didn't think through their laws better.

The tax spending is legally available to whoever the German Government declares it legally available to. I believe if you're not a resident you should be entitled to the same rights as a tourist, nothing more. Only a resident should be entitled to developmental spending because they've displayed the desire to be a long-term contributor to the nation.

Immigration policy is a fine line to walk and every nation has a duty to protecting its current citizens' prosperity. While morally we should just have open borders and provide for who we can, resources are not limited and a nation has a duty of care to its voting public and their offspring before all others.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

They should at least try to learn the language. I'm kinda sick of dealing with people at work who can't speak even basic phrases in English.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No.

If they're working, contributing to society and being an all round good citizen without it then why should they have to? They were happy to let them speak their own language when they were contributing to the economy, why should that change because they require some help from social welfare?

There does exist one non-xenophobic reason. Having to deal with a large base of recipients that do not speak the native tongue of the land requires employing people who speak other languages. Functionally, this would generally result in simply having to have a larger staff making any program cost more as a result. In a nation like Germany, surrounded by dozens of languages, the cost could be enormous.

By contrast, in the United States, non-english speaking immigrants are most likely going to speak Spanish and given how widely spoken that language is, no special staffing considerations are truly necessary.