Will free Slovak language courses for foreigners be abolished or only co-financed?
The proposed amendment to Slovenia's foreigners' law includes changes to the funding of language courses for non-native speakers. Under the new plan, the state would co-finance these courses by 60%, effectively ending free participation. Additionally, the first free proficiency test in Slovenian would also be abolished. The proposal has sparked debate, with critics arguing that this could limit access to language education for vulnerable groups who might struggle financially. Supporters suggest that requiring participants to contribute a small fee could increase their commitment to learning the language. Organizations such as the Slovenian Philanthropy Foundation and the Confederation of Trade Unions 90 Slovenia have expressed strong opposition, warning that reduced accessibility could hinder integration efforts for newcomers.
The Slovenian government has announced plans to end free language courses and exams for foreigners under proposed amendments to the law on foreigners. According to preliminary drafts prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the state will no longer fully fund these programs. Instead, foreigners would be required to cover 30% of the costs themselves, with the government contributing 70%. The move also includes the elimination of the option for one-time free language proficiency tests, which have previously been funded entirely by public funds. The changes, still in draft form, aim to shift responsibility for language learning from the state to individual migrants. While officials say they are still finalizing the details, the outline has already sparked controversy among activists and representatives from non-governmental organizations. The proposed reforms mark a departure from previous policies that allowed full access to language education without direct financial burden on foreign residents. Left-wing activists argue that the policy could hinder integration efforts. Franci Zlatar, director of the Slovenian Philanthropy Foundation, warned that the change would make it harder for immigrants to become fully integrated into society. He pointed out that many migrant workers currently earn low wages and are often exploited. “If we want to have immigrants who are well-integrated and know the language, this measure is definitely not helpful,” he stated. Zlatar emphasized that the economy relies on workers with language skills and that the new rule would not reduce the number of immigrants coming to Slovenia. Similarly, Miha Blažič from the Ambasade Rog organization described the situation as absurd. He noted that while the country actively seeks to attract foreign labor, it simultaneously makes language acquisition more difficult. “The state tries to bring in foreign workers, yet imposes conditions on language knowledge for permanent residency, and now makes language learning even harder,” Blažič said. He argued that the government should provide adequate language training rather than making it more expensive for migrants. Language proficiency is a key requirement for employment and residence in Slovenia, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, long-term care, hospitality, and tourism, where many foreign workers are employed. As a result, the government’s decision to limit its financial support for language programs is seen by some as a logical step. However, critics argue that the policy risks alienating potential migrants who may lack the means to pay for additional training. According to data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, over 4,000 individuals participated in language and cultural orientation programs in 2025, compared to around 3,000 in 2024. The total cost of these programs reached nearly 2.86 million euros. Of this, approximately 380,000 euros was spent on the first free language proficiency tests at different levels, while another 1.3 million euros covered basic language instruction and exams. Officials explained that future funding will be redirected toward maintaining language programs, with the goal of encouraging more responsible participation from migrants. In addition to altering the financial structure of language programs, the proposed law also extends the period during which a foreigner can claim family reunification rights from one year to three years. This change aims to ensure that migrants secure sufficient resources before bringing their families to Slovenia, thus reducing the risk of them becoming a burden on the social system. The ministry also outlined measures to protect foreign workers, including provisions that prevent employers from requiring reimbursement of certain administrative fees related to work permits. Further adjustments include modifications to the rules governing job changes. Under the new proposal, foreign workers may switch employers or jobs more easily, provided they meet specific criteria. These changes are intended to align with broader reforms in labor laws aimed at improving the working conditions of foreign nationals. The process for obtaining necessary approvals will be streamlined, with decisions made directly by the Slovenian Employment Agency and communicated to both the employer and relevant authorities. The proposed reforms reflect a growing emphasis on self-responsibility among migrant communities. Advocates suggest that requiring migrants to contribute financially to their own integration is fair, especially given the increasing demands placed on public finances. They argue that this approach encourages a more proactive attitude toward personal development and better prepares newcomers to participate meaningfully in Slovenian society. However, opponents caution that without proper support structures, some migrants may struggle to afford the necessary training, potentially limiting their ability to integrate effectively.
The proposed amendment to Slovenia's foreigners' law includes changes to the funding of language courses for non-native speakers. Under the new plan, the state would co-finance these courses by 60%, effectively ending free participation. Additionally, the first free proficiency test in Slovenian would also be abolished. The proposal has sparked debate, with critics arguing that this could limit access to language education for vulnerable groups who might struggle financially. Supporters suggest that requiring participants to contribute a small fee could increase their commitment to learning the language. Organizations such as the Slovenian Philanthropy Foundation and the Confederation of Trade Unions 90 Slovenia have expressed strong opposition, warning that reduced accessibility could hinder integration efforts for newcomers.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the debate regarding the proposed changes to language course financing for immigrants. It includes perspectives from supporters and critics, providing balanced views without overtly favoring one side. The language used remains neutral, focusing on presenting the st
Why factuality (94): The article accurately reports the proposed changes to the law regarding free language courses for foreigners, citing the Ministry of Internal Affairs as the source. It includes quotes from Mojca Vovk of Ljudska univerza Ptuj and Tina Velišček from Slovenska filantropija, providing balanced perspect
Why objectivity (88): The article presents both sides of the issue fairly, quoting experts who support and oppose the proposed changes. However, the headline slightly emphasizes the potential removal of free courses, which may introduce a subtle bias toward the opposition viewpoint.
An article discusses a proposed law amendment regarding foreigners in Slovenia, which includes extending the family reunification period from one to three years and introducing cost-sharing for Slovene language courses. The changes aim to ensure stability for sponsors and reduce the burden on the social system. Non-governmental organizations criticize the measures as discriminatory and harmful to attracting foreign workers, particularly from former Yugoslav countries. They argue that the reforms increase barriers to integration and place undue financial responsibility on immigrants. Trade unions emphasize the importance of language skills for workplace safety and rights, suggesting employers should cover costs instead. The proposal is currently under public debate until August 19.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the proposed law amendments as necessary measures to protect the social system and promote responsible immigration, aligning with conservative policies that prioritize national interests over immigrant integration. It emphasizes the burden on public resources and suggests that the
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the proposed changes to the law regarding family unification and the removal of free Slovenian language courses for foreigners. It cites non-governmental organizations' concerns and provides context from previous amendments over the past five years. The information ali
Why objectivity (75): The article presents both government explanations and NGO criticisms but uses phrases like 'dodatno oteževanje integracije tujcev' (additional difficulty in integrating foreigners) which carry a slightly critical tone. While generally balanced, it leans toward highlighting the negative implications
The article discusses proposed legislative changes aimed at stricter regulations for immigrants in Slovenia. These include requiring three years of residency before family reunification and making language courses partially paid, with the state covering 60% and individuals 40%. Experts argue these measures could discourage certain groups, particularly male workers from South Asia, while affecting vulnerable families. The changes are seen as potentially reverting to past labor migration patterns ('gastarbeiterstva'). Critics highlight the financial burden on socially disadvantaged migrants and the potential impact on family integration.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the proposed legislation as necessary to deter 'unwanted' immigration, emphasizing economic concerns and national identity. It highlights the potential negative effects on specific immigrant groups but does not provide balanced perspectives on the benefits or alternative solutions
Why factuality (85): The article reports on proposed legislative changes regarding immigrants' voting rights and integration measures in Slovenia. It cites statements from officials and experts, aligning with the cross-source consensus that these changes aim to restrict voting rights and impose financial burdens on immi
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the perspectives of officials and experts but frames the policy changes as potentially discriminatory, using terms like 'odvračalni učinek' and referencing historical systems like 'gastarbeiterstva.' While informative, it carries a somewhat critical tone toward the policies, sug
The article discusses proposed amendments to Slovenia's Foreigners Act, which include ending free language courses and stricter conditions for family reunification. The changes aim to promote more responsible integration by requiring foreign residents to contribute 40% financially to language programs and to demonstrate sufficient funds for survival during periods of unemployment. The reforms also simplify administrative procedures for changing jobs and reduce bureaucratic burdens. Additionally, the proposal eliminates free language proficiency tests funded by the state due to rising costs, citing increased participation and expenses over recent years.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the proposed legislative changes as a balanced effort to improve integration while reducing financial burden on the state. It reports on the rationale behind the reforms without overtly criticizing or praising either side, focusing on the stated goals and implications ratherthan
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the proposed changes to the law regarding foreigners, including the end of free language courses and stricter family reunification conditions. It aligns with the cross-source consensus from other articles. The details about the extended period for family reunification
Why objectivity (70): The tone is somewhat biased towards the government's stance, using phrases like 'odgovornejšemu pristopu tujcev k integraciji,' which implies a judgment on the necessity of such measures. There is some editorializing in the interpretation of the policy implications.
The Slovenian government continues to restrict the rights of foreign workers who perform the most difficult and lowest-paid jobs in Slovenia. Recent measures include limiting their ability to reunite with family and requiring them to pay for language courses and exams in Slovenian, which were previously partially subsidized. These policies target primarily citizens from former Yugoslav countries and Southeast Asian nations. The government has already revoked voting rights for non-EU nationals at local elections, and now further limits their integration into society by extending the waiting period for family reunification from one year to three years. Critics argue these actions hinder the inclusion of foreign workers and send a message that they are not fully integrated members of Slovenian society.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the government’s restrictions on foreign workers’ rights as part of a broader effort to limit their integration into Slovenian society. It criticizes the policies as hindering inclusion and implies that the government is sending a message that non-EU nationals are not equal parts,
Why factuality (75): The article reports on government actions against foreign workers, citing the coalition's decision to revoke voting rights and subsequent measures like limiting family reunification and replacing free courses with paid ones. It references a law passed by the National Council on June 15, 2026, which
Why objectivity (60): The tone is critical of the government's policies toward foreign workers, using phrases like 'najtežja in najslabše plačana dela' (most difficult and worst-paid work) and implying negative consequences for foreign workers. The article frames the policy as an ongoing effort to 'obračun s tujci' (reck
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Slovenia
![[VIDEO] Dušan Smodej breaks the silence: I sympathize with the Left, Luka Mesec uses cocaine](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.dnevnik.si%2Fmedia%2F2026%2F09%2F18%2F864571%2FWide-2-20260728_01561162-1200.webp&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
