9 ms·

I feel more and more ashamed as a swiss citizen - seeing xenophobia on the rise across the country. it is disheartening to see the growing populism among our p

by jcfrei 14y ago

I feel more and more ashamed as a swiss citizen - seeing xenophobia on the rise across the country. it is disheartening to see the growing populism among our politicians, mindlessly fueling the fears in the swiss population and focusing the political deliberations on topics such as immigration, asylum-seekers and highway taxes instead of the real issues in this country. the swiss citizen need to wake up and realize which century they are in. in the 21st century few swiss people understand the implications of globalization and that immigration for better or worse is inevitable. as a matter of fact the economy of this country would not stand as strong without the constant influx of immigrants. it is time we acknowledge this fact and leave our resentments towards europe behind. for those who are interested, you'll find more extensive remarks in my blog: http://jcfrei.com http://jcfrei.com

schoper 14y ago
Even if it were true that "the economy of this country would not stand as strong without the constant influx of immigrants" -- and it's not true, it's foolish -- you would still want to consider before selling your birthright for the bowl of red.
- Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
  Some people seem to think that whatever is good for the stock market is good for the country, because the country IS the stock market.
- phaet0n 14y ago
  What exactly is jcfrei's birthright? Or yours, or mine for that matter? I'm going to get out my raclette and chillout for a bit...
  - Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
    If you do not know what your birthright is, then it is unlikely that you will manage to keep it for very long.
hugh4life 14y ago
Do you want free migration or do you want a swiss people to actually exist?
- __--__ 14y ago
  I feel this message always gets lost in the sea of "but diversification is doubleplusgood!" You can't have a culturally diverse population and still have a singular national identity. Have you read about the Lombard invasion of northern Italy in the 6th century? It was essentially a massive, unopposed migration, but the effect was the same as an invasion - the Lomards ruled northern Italy for centuries.
SeoxyS 14y ago
I'm a Swiss citizen living in San Francisco, and while I don't necessarily agree with restrictive immigration policies (I'm in the process on getting a US green card – don't get me started on how stressful that is), I also don't see anything particularly wrong with it either. Immigration in Switzerland is a big issue. Switzerland is tiny and is getting a little over-crowded. We don't have mega-cities, real estate prices are through the roof, and new building permits are very restricted due to regulation meant to preserve Switzerland's beautiful old cities. When I grew up, Switzerland's population was 7 million. Now it's 8. That almost 9% growth. The country hasn't gotten any bigger, though. While there benefits to diversifying our culture, and bringing in skilled workers to contribute to the economy; the average immigrant is probably a net detriment to the country, because an influx of people puts a strain on Switzerland's public services and its real estate market (Y'all think San Francisco rents are bad? Try renting an apartment in Zurich!). If you believe in the principle behind countries (a group of people coming together to form a society that, like Capitalism, does what is in its best interest), then you should understand the decision. If not, well, that's an entirely different argument. Personally, I'd like immigration to be merit based. Ie., immigrants would have to demonstrate that they'd be a net asset to the country, in some fashion.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- guelo 14y ago
  Sounds like you agree with immigration only when it benefits you personally.
  - SeoxyS 14y ago
    I agree with immigration when it benefits the country. It's like when you hire an employee for your company: you're only going to go through with it if the transaction is mutually beneficial (keeping in mind the associated costs), which from your vantage point means that it must benefit your company. Immigration is the same thing, at a larger scale.
    - 14y ago
PommeDeTerre 14y ago
Have you ever considered that immigration to Switzerland may also be harming the countries where these people are coming from? Many countries, especially third-world countries, are in desperate need of well-educated, talented people. We're talking about doctors, engineers, and even educators. These are the kind of people who are essential to providing or creating the infrastructure of a modern society. As long as these people keep leaving their native countries, and as long as more prosperous western nations keep accepting them, it will become more and more difficult for the situation to improve in the countries they emigrated from.
- jcfrei 14y ago
  You are right, but there's nothing we can or should do about that. I only know of a few countries which forcefully try to keep emigration down, most notably north korea. In an ideal world every individual would be free to pursue happiness in whatever country it desires to, regardless of nationality (I believe that idea has been mentioned before in the constitution of some rather prosperous nation...)
  - Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
    1) The words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" appear nowhere in the Constitution. 2) In any event, the above phrase has nothing to do with immigration. 3) Even though Bluto asks in "Animal House" if it was over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, the Germans actually did not bomb Pearl Harbor.
- Gormo 14y ago
  What are you saying here? That people should be forcibly confined in places they don't want to live in order to fulfill someone else's desire to create a "modern society"? I hope you recognize the frightening implications of your point.
  - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
    I clearly did not suggest that people should be "forcibly confined in places they don't want to live". I have no idea how you could've even come up with such an obviously-mistaken interpretation in the first place. The top 20 or so countries (of approximately 200 countries in total) not accepting any more immigrants or refugees would in no way prevent these migrants from moving to one of the other 180 or so countries. However, when the options are staying where they are, or moving to a country with only a marginally better standard of living, there may not be enough incentive for these people to move. This at least raises the possibility of enough of them helping to improve the situation in their homelands, rather than that not being possible at all if they've left for a western nation. And I'd like to think that having widespread access to at least a minimal level of modern health care, education, agricultural techniques, water and sewage treatment, and other technology is something that most people would desire. This doesn't happen spontaneously, though. It requires people with education, training and experience directly living and participating in the society desiring such things.

by jcfrei 14y ago

schoper 14y ago

Even if it were true that "the economy of this country would not stand as strong without the constant influx of immigrants" -- and it's not true, it's foolish -- you would still want to consider before selling your birthright for the bowl of red.

Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
Some people seem to think that whatever is good for the stock market is good for the country, because the country IS the stock market.
phaet0n 14y ago
What exactly is jcfrei's birthright? Or yours, or mine for that matter? I'm going to get out my raclette and chillout for a bit...
- Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
  If you do not know what your birthright is, then it is unlikely that you will manage to keep it for very long.

hugh4life 14y ago

Do you want free migration or do you want a swiss people to actually exist?

__--__ 14y ago
I feel this message always gets lost in the sea of "but diversification is doubleplusgood!" You can't have a culturally diverse population and still have a singular national identity. Have you read about the Lombard invasion of northern Italy in the 6th century? It was essentially a massive, unopposed migration, but the effect was the same as an invasion - the Lomards ruled northern Italy for centuries.

SeoxyS 14y ago

I'm a Swiss citizen living in San Francisco, and while I don't necessarily agree with restrictive immigration policies (I'm in the process on getting a US green card – don't get me started on how stressful that is), I also don't see anything particularly wrong with it either. Immigration in Switzerland is a big issue. Switzerland is tiny and is getting a little over-crowded. We don't have mega-cities, real estate prices are through the roof, and new building permits are very restricted due to regulation meant to preserve Switzerland's beautiful old cities. When I grew up, Switzerland's population was 7 million. Now it's 8. That almost 9% growth. The country hasn't gotten any bigger, though. While there benefits to diversifying our culture, and bringing in skilled workers to contribute to the economy; the average immigrant is probably a net detriment to the country, because an influx of people puts a strain on Switzerland's public services and its real estate market (Y'all think San Francisco rents are bad? Try renting an apartment in Zurich!). If you believe in the principle behind countries (a group of people coming together to form a society that, like Capitalism, does what is in its best interest), then you should understand the decision. If not, well, that's an entirely different argument. Personally, I'd like immigration to be merit based. Ie., immigrants would have to demonstrate that they'd be a net asset to the country, in some fashion.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
guelo 14y ago
Sounds like you agree with immigration only when it benefits you personally.
- SeoxyS 14y ago
  I agree with immigration when it benefits the country. It's like when you hire an employee for your company: you're only going to go through with it if the transaction is mutually beneficial (keeping in mind the associated costs), which from your vantage point means that it must benefit your company. Immigration is the same thing, at a larger scale.
  - 14y ago

PommeDeTerre 14y ago

Have you ever considered that immigration to Switzerland may also be harming the countries where these people are coming from? Many countries, especially third-world countries, are in desperate need of well-educated, talented people. We're talking about doctors, engineers, and even educators. These are the kind of people who are essential to providing or creating the infrastructure of a modern society. As long as these people keep leaving their native countries, and as long as more prosperous western nations keep accepting them, it will become more and more difficult for the situation to improve in the countries they emigrated from.

jcfrei 14y ago
You are right, but there's nothing we can or should do about that. I only know of a few countries which forcefully try to keep emigration down, most notably north korea. In an ideal world every individual would be free to pursue happiness in whatever country it desires to, regardless of nationality (I believe that idea has been mentioned before in the constitution of some rather prosperous nation...)
- Kudzu_Bob 14y ago
  1) The words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" appear nowhere in the Constitution. 2) In any event, the above phrase has nothing to do with immigration. 3) Even though Bluto asks in "Animal House" if it was over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, the Germans actually did not bomb Pearl Harbor.
Gormo 14y ago
What are you saying here? That people should be forcibly confined in places they don't want to live in order to fulfill someone else's desire to create a "modern society"? I hope you recognize the frightening implications of your point.
- PommeDeTerre 14y ago
  I clearly did not suggest that people should be "forcibly confined in places they don't want to live". I have no idea how you could've even come up with such an obviously-mistaken interpretation in the first place. The top 20 or so countries (of approximately 200 countries in total) not accepting any more immigrants or refugees would in no way prevent these migrants from moving to one of the other 180 or so countries. However, when the options are staying where they are, or moving to a country with only a marginally better standard of living, there may not be enough incentive for these people to move. This at least raises the possibility of enough of them helping to improve the situation in their homelands, rather than that not being possible at all if they've left for a western nation. And I'd like to think that having widespread access to at least a minimal level of modern health care, education, agricultural techniques, water and sewage treatment, and other technology is something that most people would desire. This doesn't happen spontaneously, though. It requires people with education, training and experience directly living and participating in the society desiring such things.