Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
MC Prussian

The Swiss vote on Mass Immigration

Recommended Posts

Posted

I can see some having a field day with this. :ph34r:

 

As you may have noticed following the events on Sunday, the Swiss voting population has very narrowly passed a new law that intends to regulate the influx of foreign workers (and asylum seekers) according to the country's needs. We already had such a clause in effect for decades, before we joined the Schengen union.

 

Our government now has the responsibility to re-negotiate all the dozens of separate bilateral treaties - about 120 - that we have with the EU (since we're not a member of the club) within the next three years.

 

Just to give you a little context with regards to the situation in Switzerland:

Switzerland currently boasts 25% of foreigners, three to four times the EU average. In the last ten to twelve years, we've seen an increase in the total population by 10% (from roughly 7 million inhabitants to now slightly over 8 million) or a yearly influx of 80'000 new people.

Putting that into context, it would mean 800'000 new official immigrants in Germany each year (or 630'000 in the UK respectively).

Also, keeping in mind that the country's total landmass consists of about 60% mountainous area, the remaining 40% see eight million people more crammed by the year. This effective population density of about 480 people per square kilometer is about twice as high as Germany's or the UK's. Rental prices are rising, living costs are rising, the original landscape has to make more way for housing and other infrastructure to feed the need of the increasing population, public transportation is about to hit its limits and traffic congestion a big issue (during rush hour, mainly).

 

What right(s) do we have to decide for ourselves as a sovereign state how many people we're accepting into our society?

And does putting a cap on immigration make the people in favor of such a move racist or xenophobic by nature?

What do we call countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the US then?

 

What do you think about it? Is it desirable for any state to be in charge of its immigration policy or is free labor transfer (as one of the four main pillars of the European Union) the way forward?

 

Personally, I am torn. Yet I cannot see unlimited or continuing growth of such scale lasting any longer and/or being healthy for both the country, the earth or the economy on the whole.

I see foreign workforce (in particular from the EU) as a mere patsy in the grand scheme of things. Multinational companies seemingly only hire what's best for them (e.g. the cheapest, but also the most suitable or skilled workforce), disjointing people from their homeland and their roots, forcing them to move. But also domestic workforce suffers, with Swiss workers being forced out of their jobs by "EU imports" (apologies for the populist analogy). This issue is particularly visible in the South, where the Canton of Ticino (with 70% of yeasayers last weekend) suffers from many locals being out of work whilst companies make decent to good profits by hiring Italians and others instead.

 

I don't consider myself nationalist, I see myself as an open-minded, liberal person with a slight hunch for leftist policies. Yet none of the existing party appeals to me and I tend to decide pragmatically. What's wrong with me? :P

 

From what I've heard, the current UK government has an attitude similar to ours, albeit still being a member of the European Union. Can you see the UK following the Swiss example? And what would that mean for the union with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Posted

I read today that Michael Lang, Fabian Schär, Reto Ziegler and Steve von Bergen are the only four members of the current Swiss football team who would have been sure of being eligible if the proposed new laws had been in place previously.

Posted

Where do the majority of immigrants to Switzerland come from?

Here's a complete list:

 

01. Italy: 291'800

02. Germany: 284'200

03. Portugal: 237'900

04. Asia: 117'200

05. France: 104'000

06. Serbia: 98'700

07. Africa: 78'200

08. America: 77'700

09. Turkey: 70'800

10. Spain: 69'400

11. Austria: 38'800

12. Oceania: 12'100

13. Stateless or unknown: 1'100

 

Source: Swiss Confederation

Posted

I read today that Michael Lang, Fabian Schär, Reto Ziegler and Steve von Bergen are the only four members of the current Swiss football team who would have been sure of being eligible if the proposed new laws had been in place previously.

That picture's been passed around for a while and I've seen it, too.

 

But I can't see the connection to the initial initiative - we're talking a cap on immigration, not a complete halt.

So, in essence, it's debatable whether the other seven players would or wouldn't have been allowed to enter the country - e.g. in hindsight, completely hypothetical.

Posted

That picture's been passed around for a while and I've seen it, too.

 

But I can't see the connection to the initial initiative - we're talking a cap on immigration, not a complete halt.

So, in essence, it's debatable whether the other seven players would or wouldn't have been allowed to enter the country - e.g. in hindsight, completely hypothetical.

 

I haven't seen the picture, just read it in a football email I get. I guess, as regards the latter point, that's why the email phrased it as "sure of being eligible".

Posted

Surely any country should be in control of it's borders. That's not racist or xenophobic. Are you a racist for not wanting anybody to walk into your private home for example?

 

I think it will become more normal and can see it happening in the UK, although my problem is that the parties that are more likely to toughen up immigration controls (UKIP BNP Conservatives) are all right wing parties. If labour (or liberals) backed immigration controls on the grounds of making the country better for everyone including valued immigrants then it would lend more credibility.

Posted

Here's a complete list:

01. Italy: 291'800

02. Germany: 284'200

03. Portugal: 237'900

04. Asia: 117'200

05. France: 104'000

06. Serbia: 98'700

07. Africa: 78'200

08. America: 77'700

09. Turkey: 70'800

10. Spain: 69'400

11. Austria: 38'800

12. Oceania: 12'100

13. Stateless or unknown: 1'100

Source: Swiss Confederation

Are these 'undesirables' according to the media?
Posted

I haven't seen the picture, just read it in a football email I get. I guess, as regards the latter point, that's why the email phrased it as "sure of being eligible".

Well, the irony here is that all the players omitted from the picture (apart from Tranquillo Barnetta) come from Non-EU countries - Albania, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Kosovo or Macedonia.

However, the original spoof stems from a German satire show, so I'd take it with a pinch of salt. :thumbup:

Posted

Are these 'undesirables' according to the media?

Nope. The foreigners currently living/residing in Switzerland are not affected, anyway.

The initiative mainly aims at letting (a lot) less than the current 80'000 people into Switzerland per year as workforce.

 

See, the initial plan by the government was to allow in between 8'000 to 10'000 people into the country per annum.

They did not foresee such a rapid development and for many Swiss citizens -  spreading from the right all the way to the left - the government is to blame for being too lenient and for being solely a servant to the economy.

Posted

Any country should be able to manage its borders in its own interest. Excessive immigration is usually a symptom of success that others want to benefit from. But it is those living in the country who are responsible for that success, so they should be the priority when it comes to feeling the benefit.

Posted
This effective population density of about 480 people per square kilometer is about twice as high as Germany's or the UK's. Rental prices are rising, living costs are rising, the original landscape has to make more way for housing and other infrastructure to feed the need of the increasing population, public transportation is about to hit its limits and traffic congestion a big issue (during rush hour, mainly).

 

 

That can easily be sorted, have you tried any of the following?

  • Halving the size of a road to put a bus lane in it, for a road that has 1 bus per hour
  • Knocking down traffic infrastructure that carries tens of thousands of vehicles a day
  • Putting roadworks on the busiest roundabout in the area for 9 months
  • Changing major town centre road from 3 lanes to 2 because it 'increases flow', in the same way that people with extremely narrow veins have the best blood circulation, or a pipette is the quickest way to fill a 2 litre bottle of water

All of these will 'ease congestion'. Feel free to borrow our mayoral dream team to help you out, anytime. Please?

peter_soulsby_deputy_mayor_350.jpg

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...