Unequal language recognition reconsidered: voluntary migration, expectation interest, and recent challenges

This paper reassesses two influential arguments for unequal language recognition between long-settled groups and immigrants, namely, Kymlicka’s voluntariness argument and Patten’s situational argument, in light of recent objections. Kymlicka claims that immigrants waive language rights tied to their original national membership by choosing to leave, while Patten argues that long-settled groups’ expectation interests in existing institutions may justify granting immigrants less language recognition. Recent objections by Kollar and De Schutter argue that voluntary migration presupposes adequate knowledge of the host society’s language rights regime and that immigrants’ expectation interests are no less weighty. I argue that neither objection undermines the unequal language recognition thesis. Whether adequate knowledge is required for voluntary migration depends on individuals’ value priorities and cannot be assumed universally; moreover, reframing Kymlicka’s argument in terms of non-coerced rather than voluntary migration could avoid the epistemic requirement. Patten’s situational argument remains defensible with respect to voluntary migrants: migration typically aligns with rather than disrupts their life plans. When disruption does occur, it results from their voluntary decision to migrate; by contrast, long-settled groups face disruptions that are not voluntarily incurred when language recognition practices change. This asymmetry supports stronger claims to language recognition for long-settled groups.