The Swiss People’s Party (SVP), which centered its campaign on anti-immigrant rhetoric, is projected to win 29 percent of the vote, up from 25.6 percent four years ago and higher than pre-election polls. It has been the country’s largest party since 2003.
Removed by mod
A country with beautiful geography and a hideously ugly economic foundation.
Removed by mod
The only reason the Swiss make chocolate is so we don’t associate them with blood diamonds and nazi gold.
- Sean Lock
deleted by creator
As with any issue balance is the key. Being anti immigration is wrong, but also letting in anyone without strong stipulations is wrong as well.
As a lefty, the problem with the left, and the reason they are losing this issue, is because they want to be so PC that they won’t even allow discussion on the issue for fear of not looking ultra progressive to their friends.
If you want to immigrate into a country, you must 100% be aligned with the values of your new country. You can’t come in and demand that people respect your religious views if they are anti women or anti homosexuals or anti trans.
To many of my progressive brothers and sisters seem to be ok tolerating intolerance. If your religion demands that your wife walks behind you pushing the stroller with a burka on in 40 degree weather, while you get to walk around in shorts and flip-flops we’re going to have a problem.
It doesn’t even make sense, logically speaking. They do not tolerate intolerance, unless the intolerant person has a dark skin, then it’s fine. I just don’t get it.
You can take in refugees and immigrants, and expect them to adhere to the law. It’s not hard.
If you want to immigrate into a country, you must 100% be aligned with the values of your new country.
It’s just hard to say that when a lot of European Colonialism took place in these countries, some gaining independence within the last 100 years (referring to the middle east as alluded to in your last paragraph)
I don’t really know where to stand and I don’t think you can be in a position that is correct given the effects of colonialism from Europe. The fact that some effects of this colonialism (especially in Africa) have destroyed some countries/cultures, when the natural population didn’t “100%” align with the colonizers makes it hard to not sympathise with these people. A lot of these immigrants are leaving their home countries (not all), due to the rippling effects of colonialism.
I should say while I agree with your statement, I don’t know how to account for the effects of external influence that may be causing said immigration.
this is going to be an unpopular take but you’ve said a bunch of vaguely-sounding popular things but have missed the main issues with immigration.
Anyone who says they want to limit immigration for cultural reasons (e.g. I may wear a hat you don’t like, or speak a different language, or comb my hair in a different way) is lying.
“but so-and-so said…”
they were lying.
It boils down to this: if you can meet a (surprisingly low) wage in your new host country, you are a net benefit to that country and will be welcomed.
All that about burqas, treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights is irrelevant. All that stuff about assimilating, or values, or tough restrictions is nonsense. Politicians say that stuff all the time. But it’s a lie. The truth is in the policy and the policy says: if you earn roughly USD$20k or local equivalent a year: welcome home!
Now people may think it should be different - but that I’d not the reality.
So, what are you suggesting? I mean, you sound like you’re just going with the same old “let everyone in, worry about it later…” rhetoric that many on the Left like to spew…
I’m saying that the real immigration question is “how much money do you want to lose?”
immigrants are incredibly valuable, long term, to a country. You get someone who - even if they end up earning minimum wage - didn’t cost you anything to birth, nurse, and raise, doesnt qualify for benefits but starts paying tax. Even just the savings on the cost of school itself probably makes an immigrant worth it monetarily.
Not only that but the marginal cost it does take, that would eat into those “profits”, is then paid for by the fees an immigrant pays to emigrate.
That’s why the only check is a fairly low income checkmark, so that the process remains profitable.
you must 100% be aligned with the values of your new country.
Uh… no.
So what then? You go to a new country as a hardcore Muslim, and are allowed to treat women like shit? Is that fair to the citizens of that country? I mean, I remember that story in the US about that man who "honor killed’ his daughters, is that okay?
Woah, is it only 100% or 0% in your mind?
“We’re really just interested in more of that Nazi gold…”
Can you stop electing fascists please? It’s ruining my day.
“If you’re not Liberal, you’re a Fascist” Sincerely, Liberals.
I think we need to bring back the global “it’s ok to punch Nazis” rule
deleted by creator
Gross. The Swiss have a responsibility to pay the world reparations for all time for laundering nazi gold. They should use some of that wealth to take in refugees.
I work for a family from Sweden. They’re great people, very humble, very proud to be American and very proud of their Swedish roots. However, they recently went back to Sweden and were appalled by some of the stuff they experienced. They said they saw more “street gangs” roaming around, something you’d see like in Los Angeles. It’s something they’ve seen before, but it looks like it’s getting worse. This is something new to many Swedens…street gangs were almost unheard of a decade ago. My point is that a country has a right to implement strict immigration rules/laws if it means keeping their own people safe first.
You do realize that this article is about Switzerland and not Sweden right?
Yes, of course. I’m just giving an example of what could happen if a country isn’t careful…
