In order to understand what these theories defend, we need to comprehend their views on what a nation is. The nation is meant to describe a political identity built around shared citizenship. In this sense, a nation does not need to be unified by a common language or culture. From this definition, we understand the nation as a group of people that merely share the same citizenship. Some civic nationalists claim in the importance of a shared culture on grounds for a unitary model of citizenship where everybody enjoys equal rights. To achieve this, immigrants and other linguistic minorities must assimilate the national language. The majority language, of the country in which they have settled. It is crucial for a state that its citizens share one language. Since it is the base upon which politics are built, which will grant them the opportunity to participate in the economic and political affairs of the nation. This argument supports the imposition of linguistic and cultural requirements upon citizens to promote assimilation through the provision of services and incentives from the government. Sometimes, this imposition is disguised as ethnocultural-neutrality. However, the idea of the government being neutral is false, as something like deciding the language of instruction in schools is one of the most influential forms of societal support. There exists a more accepted neutral justification for assimilation purposes that is called formal neutrality. This justification alludes to the governments concern of making assimi
lation accessible, in order to guarantee at least two basics rights, as aforementioned the right to economic opportunity and the right to democratic participation. Moreover, sharing a national language will save the state resources on translating documents, providing interpreter and educating schoolteachers. It is worth noting that none of these reasons to promote a common language mentions the superiority of one language over another; they solely bring up the importance of securing the interests of the state.
Nonetheless, this policy does not seem to be enough for some to show that the state, as a civic nation, does not endorse a particular culture. The government may not be harbouring any discriminatory intentions. However, its policies are indistinguishable from those of a liberal culturalist government, which would implement the same agenda in order to favour the majority national culture, which would clash with the values expressed by a civic state. Due to the lack of regulations for formal neutrality, the state sends the message that the majority nation owns the state and that minorities are second-class citizens. The author Anna Stilz came up with the more tailored approach of the least-cost model, which consists in the promotion for the citizens fundamental interest by imposing rationalization policies at the least cost to individuals invested in other languages. Following this model for linguistic diversity, the state should allow for the public promotion of minority languages alongside the majority language.