The language test should not be prerequisite toward immigrants because it is discriminatory toward certain people. First, It can be a discrimination toward people who are in different social classes. lower classes have a hard time learning foreign language. Even before talking about the citizenship and the language test, they even have a hard time earning the money to feed their family and themselves. However, the higher classes can learn foreign languages because they have more time then the lower classes who have to work all day. They can learn the foreign language in a more easy way. The cost of the test that is in Canada is $285. It is a huge money compared to a test like TOEFL which needs 125$. The lower classes are less privileged so they have difficulty passing. So the language test is like leading to allow families that are over middle class to immigrate but the lower classes cannot. Thus, because it brings discriminatory to some certain people, the language test should not be prerequisite to the immigrants. Second, it can be discrimination toward some ethnic groups. Prosperous countries like some countries in EU nations can get education of foreign languages such as English. However, countries like Asia and Africa, they aren't as prosperous to give every student in the nation the education of foreign language. Also, some countries like UK and US are a English speaking country so it is easier to pass the language test. Sara Landreth and her husband who are UK citizens have learned English literature by the education from government. They have an advantage when passing the language test than other countries citizen. Thus, since it is a discrimination toward some people, the language test should not be taken toward the immigrants.
Second, learning a new language for adults take a lot of time. Learning a foreign language is learned by increasing slowly, slowly, and slowly. So people who are very young, such as age 5 to 7, is easy to learn a new foreign language because they can learn and memorize things best at such an age. Also, what they have to do is only "study." However, adults have harder time when learning foreign language. As an example, Mr. Raab from India said in the Radio 4's Today programme that the rules were unfair because they took no account of an applicant's age, arguing it was while India's educated youth could be expected to learn or pick up English, it was unrealistic to expect an Indian villager of 58 to do so. Also the adults have to work over 8 hours to feed their family, or themselves. They have earn money to learn the foreign language. Then in what time can they study for the foreign language? Then adults have realistic difficulty to meet the level for proficiency in the foreign language. Ladies and gentleman, what are we going to do with the elders? This shows that the language test is unfair for adults and also hard to take and pass. Thus, the language test should not be the prerequisite when immigrating to another country.
Last but not least, the language test can split family and that is against human right. As I have mentioned on the second argument, the elderly people have a lower percentage of passing the language test. If the younger people pass the language test and become another country's citizen then the family have to live seperately. Do you want this to happen in the family? In a country like Korea, when the grandmothers have to get education, they have to earn independence so they couldn't have learned the foreign language so they cannot pass the language test. Then should we leave the elderly people alone? That's against human right! According to Article 8 of the European convention on Human rights, it says that we have to protect the right to a private and family life. Also, some of the head of the households have to work to feed their family and also, in order to take the language test they have to get a lesson which is 10 Euro per lesson and they should take 50 lesson in order to meet the proficiency of the foreign language. Thus, the language test should not be prerequisite when immigrating because they will separate precious family members. Thank you for your time and attention!
Because French helped American revolution and eventually that war cost a lot of money, poor peasants were forced to pay high taxes they could not afford. Also, except for tax, there were other reasons that the French peasants got angry at. For example, Madame Tallien, the friend of the King, bathed in crushed strawberries while peasants were finding food. I Versailles palace, while peasants were searching for single well of water, and lived together in tiny cottages, it had 1000fountain with 100miles of pipe and was 580meters wide. As it is easy to expect, the French peasants revolted to the nobles. The first and the most significant event was the storming of Bastille. In the Bastille prison, there were many political prisoners who opposed to the king. In the midnight the mobs, attacked the Bastille prison. In 1791, the French king Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette was caught while running away and had to accept new French flag ( Monarch in between Paris). I think the king should thank the revolutionist because if I caught him, I would've killed him at once. (Even though he is killed a few months after)
