It's reasonable to expect someone who wants to become a citizen of a country to have a reasonable facility in at least one of its official languages.

I don't think it's a prerequisite for good citizenship or other participation.

D'A

Some countries don't have an official language. See parent claim.

I'd like to clarify that I voted on this claim as though it were interesting, even though the repetition of "reasonable" kind of tries to subvert that. One could say that the claim is true by definition, which wouldn't make for a very interesting argument.

D'A

Reasonable is a weasel word. It would be just as reasonable to insist that all prospective citizens assent to wave all the protections outlined in the bill of rights. Somebody wants to be a part of our crowd, it's reasonable to push them around, but still immoral.

Also, in terms of this particular train of thought, please see the sister claim.

It's reasonable...unless the country in question takes pride in being a country built on the foundation of immigration and diversity.

I disagree with all these condemnations of 'reasonable'. In particular, I think that if people on either side of the abortion and many other debates acknowledged the reasonableness of the other side, we'd make a lot more progress. You're right though, this claim isn't really about getting people to see the other side as reasonable, it's about finding out what people think about the citizenship/language thing, so I should have left the first reasonable out.

The second reasonable is important, it's an acknowledgement that there are many different levels of language usage, and even for people who natively speak a language, it would be possible to set the bar too high for them to become citizens. If someone says that you have to be able to speak English to be a USAian, they might mean that you have to be able to get by in a conversation with your doctor or they might mean that you have to be able to construct beautiful poetry at a world class level. So in discussing it, it's important to acknowledge that there isn't a standard level of "being able to speak" a language.

I like the sister claim Zeb. I think there may be other reasons to institute a national group of languages however.

And, even if I worded this claim badly, would anyone like to comment on the idea that without a mimimal ability to interact with other citizens and the apparatus of state (and this minimal ability likely includes some language ability), a citizen would be unable to fulfil their responsibilities.

I've lived in countries where I didn't understand any of the national languages, and although I could function as a worker, I definitely did not have the capacity to function as a citizen.

I agree *if* the language is the official language, which is part of why i am opposed to making english the official language of the U.S.

No. First of all, how many countries have some form of signed language as an official language? Are we saying it's unreasonable to want to change citizenship if you're deaf? Oh sure, a deaf person could learn the written form of the language, but still...

Second, I have considered changing citizenship to a country whose language I cannot and probably never would be able to speak even if I worked at it and were immersed in it. This is because I cannot learn languages, and if I needed to leave the country, I wouldn't have many options. But I could marry my partner and go to a country that would accept him.

In fact, I know someone who had a marriage in her family recent where the wife immigrated to the US, but does not speak much English.

There are a lot of reasons to become a citizen of a country, and many of them can exist despite not knowing the language of that country. And I think it's an incredibly unreasonable expectation that someone should learn a new language as an adult.

Or even as a child. You've seen the basic rules that govern English - learning those as a child probably warps the mind forever concerning the mechanics of a good language.

Erm, with respect to.

OK. Vince, good point. I'm switching.

Rachel: "reasonable to expect" is different from "morally accepatable to leaglly require", and of course exceptions happen, such as those who are incapable of learning the language because they are blind, deaf, both, etc.

I just don't consider it reasonable to expect until you know the details of the situation.

I refer the honorable lady to this sad truth

Yes. but there's a difference between holding an expectation when you know you know nothing about the situation and holding an expectation after you've discussed a few issues with the person in question. A general expectation is an expectation you have about people you do not have details on. All you know is they want to be citizens, and that is way below my threshhold for amount of info needed.

Its reasonable to expect them to try learning the language - but to expect them to learn the language before entering the country is not reasonable.