4 ms·

Have you ever considered that immigration to Switzerland may also be harming the countries where these people are coming from? Many countries, especially third

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.

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.