Iceland can choose to make its citizenship requirements stricter. That is a legitimate subject for democratic debate. But anyone proposing a higher language requirement must also answer a practical question: how are people supposed to acquire the proficiency the state intends to demand?
The question arises from a parliamentary resolution proposed by Snorri Másson of Miðflokkurinn. Among the changes outlined in the party’s presentation is a requirement that applicants for Icelandic citizenship pass a language examination at B2 or C1 level.
For readers unfamiliar with these labels, they belong to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, or CEFR. This framework describes language proficiency on a scale from A1, the most elementary level, to C2, the highest. B2 and C1 represent substantial competence. At B2, learners can understand complex texts, discuss abstract subjects and communicate with considerable fluency. C1 involves understanding demanding material, recognising implicit meanings and using language flexibly for social, academic and professional purposes.
These are demanding thresholds for citizenship and, before adopting them, Iceland needs to consider whether its educational and assessment systems can support everyone expected to meet them.
The University of Iceland is central to the provision of advanced Icelandic teaching. Yet, from my experience working within its Faculty of Icelandic and Comparative Cultural Studies, the department responsible for this work is already struggling with inadequate funding and insecure staffing.
When permanent staff are assigned to develop assessments, their teaching still has to be covered. In the department, that has involved hourly teaching and temporary appointments, including positions at 49 percent of full-time employment. Such arrangements leave specialists facing uncertainty and make it harder to retain the expertise needed to build the system politicians now wish to rely on. Fewer people than needed are working at the faculty, and those who do work under less-than-ideal conditions.
Developing reliable language examinations requires specialist knowledge, research and time. The university has recently established a language assessment centre and introduced B2 assessments, an important step towards a more dependable system of proficiency certification. But that development also creates responsibilities: extending the examinations to other proficiency levels and organising the actual tests, and continuing validation, trained assessors and sustainable funding.
Level C1 presents a further difficulty. Its general meaning is established in the European framework. The challenge is translating those broad descriptors into sufficiently researched, reliable standards for Icelandic: what learners must demonstrate, which tasks can measure that ability, and how assessors can judge performance consistently. That work cannot be completed simply by putting “C1” into a parliamentary proposal. It requires sustained investment in research and assessment development.
Access to teaching is equally important. The prospect of tuition fees for some international students raises an obvious concern. The University of Iceland currently states that the government has authorised fees for students from outside the European Economic Area, EFTA and Switzerland from autumn 2027, while exempting existing students and those beginning in autumn 2026. The precise arrangements matter, but so does the broader question of affordability.
Consider a person from the Philippines working in Iceland’s healthcare system. If citizenship requires advanced Icelandic, where can that person study? No one has so far explained what arrangements are made to allow people to improve their Icelandic to the desired level. Will all these non-European workers who are often keeping key areas of the economy running (healthcare and tourism, to cite just two) be able to afford the courses at university level? The University of Iceland currently has a very productive cooperation with the national hospital, and several healthcare workers attend courses in Icelandic as a second language that bring them to proficiency much faster than any alternative could possibly do. There is a possibility that these people will no longer be able to access these courses if tuition fees are extended to all non-European citizens regardless of whether they work here or not.
These questions concern people already contributing to Icelandic society. A demanding requirement without an accessible educational pathway risks making it impossible for workers to access language instruction at a high level and would make citizenship depend on income, free time and access to university study.
Many of the Icelanders who express themselves on the matter tend to dismiss all these concerns, citing their positive experience in acquiring a Scandinavian language as students or young workers in Scandinavia. These people forget that an Icelander who has perhaps even studied Danish most of his school life and is suddenly catapulted in Norway does not really offer a good comparison for the experience of a French, a Filipino or an American suddenly having to learn Icelandic from scratch.
And here comes a question of proportionality: What language competence should be required for citizenship and for work?
B1 describes an independent user who can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. and can deal with most situations likely to arise while travelling in an area where the language is spoken. It offers a more realistic starting point for a worker or for a citizenship requirement centred on everyday participation.
A B2 level involves the ability to understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in one’s field of specialisation and to produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options. These are highly refined skills that even many native speakers fail to acquire. Immigrants should not be expected to become academic language users to qualify as members of the society in which they live and work.
If Iceland wants stronger Icelandic proficiency, it must fund teaching, retain specialists, develop trustworthy assessments and make learning accessible. Raising the threshold while leaving those foundations underfunded would create an unnecessary obstacle that the state itself has failed to help people overcome.