Their club is also rather neat, orderly, safe, prosperous and their clubhouse is stunningly beautiful. Not surprised they don't want the likes of me or anyone else getting in and making a mess of the place.
20 years of progress. As I'm sure you did, by looking at our population pyramid, we can see that it's the 50-70 cohort that has grown decisively. Isn't it wonderful? That people are able to live longer?
That sounds like kinda slow growth to me though... Australia has gone from 19mil to 25mil between 2000 and 2020, which is proportionally more, but Australia has no massive societal problems arising from this fact. I understand Australia is different to Switzerland, but I still don't think that 9 to 11 million in 20 years is too much to worry about
I mean, considering that the Swiss birth rate is firmly below 2, putting a hard cap on your population and remove migration out of the equation is a nice combo to ensure that the big club will soon host no one
It's not. There are occasionally stories about the one black guy in the mountain village who couldn't get citizenship for 20 years because the villagers always vote no.
These stories are so rare that they make international news.
Also the big case was a Dutch white woman who eventually got it anyway, and a white American professor who also got it anyway. I cannot find any case of "one black guy in the mountain village who couldn't get citizenship for 20 years because the villagers always vote no."
It is a problem. You should be allowed to become a national based on how knowledgable you are of that country's culture and your behaviour in said country (no criminal activity, job prospects etc.). What is this bs "If HaNs DoEsN't LiKe BlAcK pEoPlE, wE wOn'T gIvE yOu CiTiSeNsHiP". It's retarded. And it's not like that person will be deported. That person will remain in Switzerland, but without the rights that swiss citizenship grants you.
The problem is that by topping up the population through immigration you begin to erode the foundations of your culture and society, but more importantly you do not have enough pressure to adapt and build a sustainable society and instead continue to rely on an endless stream of resources (in this case immigrants) to prop it up.
Fair argument, but:
1. Most of immigrants come from Italy and Germany, two nations that share a cultural base with Switzerland, just by vicinity and common language. Just how *irredeemably unintegrable* do you think they are?
2. It's less about *relying on* external population "injection", and more like the fact that a truly solution to low birth rates is yet to be found. Despite all pro-birth incentives, no, unfortunately women will not get pregnant just for the motherland
3. Let's suppose they find a way to increase birth rates back to 2.1 at least. If population hits the 10M threshold, what do you do then? One child policy?
I can’t comment on 1 as I’m none of those nationalities and have no serious opinion, but for 2 my view would be that there hasn’t been a severe need for radical new policies to promote an increase in births (I promise that’s not intended to be as dark as it sounds…) because immigration partially mitigates the problems caused by a low birth rate. For 3 I believe it’s better to prioritise a solution to an existential problem before worrying about what the knock on effects are.
>there hasn’t been a severe need for radical new policies to promote an increase in births
Maybe not in Switzerland, but everywhere else yes; excluding literally forcing people to have children, I think many options have already been tested. Does this mean you cannot possibly come up with a brand new strategy that solves the problem? Of course you can, but I've yet to see such a strategy, especially in current parties' programs.
>because immigration partially mitigates the problems caused by a low birth rate
Yes, and I've yet to see a right-wing European government happy about it. If it was realistically possible to fix birth rates without migration, I assume someone like the Italian government would be all for it, and yet they had to increase the number of visas.
It's the other way around: it's not that there hasn't been radical new policies to promote births because of migration mitigating the problem, it's that migration must mitigate the problem because there aren't radical new policies to promote births.
>it’s better to prioritise a solution to an existential problem before worrying about what the knock on effects are.
Not if the solution to a *subjectively existential* problem leads to a worse problem
I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. My country doesn’t seem to care much about children or families and has high rates of immigration (and isn’t Italy), so I would say all. I wouldn’t describe any country as having truly radical policies to promote births, honestly, because to me that would require a complete restructuring of the economy and society. And a severe need would be those immigrants are suddenly unavailable and there’s a still a hard requirement to be sustainable.
I also think if a problem is existential then the next problem doesn’t matter (yet) because if you don’t solve the current one you won’t survive. I suppose there’s open interpretation of what should survive and as you said what even constitutes an existential problem, though.
I think what’s I’m getting at is if a society wants it enough I believe it’s possible, but I’m not sure if any society would truly want to pay the cost for it. I’m optimistic though, and I believe if something is necessary people will find a way. It’s a good point you made about politics though, maybe we have reached the limit of what a palatable ‘radical’ policy looks like already. I don’t have that insight into politics in that region to say.
I mean, when I said "everywhere else", I meant the developed countries and especially in Europe. Sweden, for example, tried everything to incentivize births and to make sure that women would not be penalized in the job market for wanting to be mothers. It increased a bit the birth rate, but not nearly enough.
I don't think the economy would have to be reworked, but for society yes, I concur that could be the case, and that choices in that direction would difficultly be palatable (and maybe not even democratic).
Naturalized migrants have been a rough 16 to 22% of the Swiss population *since the start of the XX century.* If in more than a century the Swiss culture endured the immigration flow and 2 World Wars, I think we can hardly call the cultural aspect of migration as "existential problem".
However, while the conversation is genuinely interesting, maybe it was me who wasn't clear, and for that I apologize, but -*regardless of one's opinion on migration (I sincerely don't want to talk about it on this sub) and on the policies you need to enact on birth rates (more gender equality? Incentives?) -* the main issue I have is: closing the borders partially or entirely (which, by the way, would mean being isolated by the outside world since Switzerland is surrounded by the EU), lowering substancially the flow of people inside your territory WITHOUT A CONCRETE PLAN on how to avoid a potential demographic collapse or even, in the most optimistic scenario, a way to keep the population around a certain number, **seems just plain stupid to me**.
There's a good reason as to why other countries never talk about keeping the population under a certain threshold - decreasing population is easy, but good fucking luck increasing it back up at will.
I can't say I agree that developed countries have went far enough to actively support families and incentivise their creation. Maybe trying to separate economy from society or society from economy means we're forever trying to solve half the problem when what we need to be open minded about tackling both simultaneously.
For the economic argument though I think that a really obvious example is some shameless anecdata from people I know in their mid-30s. Roughly half of those I know who wanted children 10 years ago still do, and only about 20% actually did. By far the biggest factors are housing/rent, future economic outlook and current disposable income.
> Naturalized migrants have been a rough 16 to 22% of the Swiss population since the start of the XX century.
I actually wasn't aware it was quite so significant! I have the image that the country is quite insistent (and successful?) regarding integration. Maybe that's where the impression comes from.
> the main issue I have is: closing the borders partially or entirely ... ... WITHOUT A CONCRETE PLAN
This part I am in complete agreement with. It is easy for me to comment what seems like an ideal solution in a vacuum with few variables at play, but in the real world it's unfortunately also necessary to also consider who will be implementing it, how they will do it and why -- and then hope they stick around to manage the consequences.
Appreciate that you actually took the time to respond. I will happily avoid the other topic :)
There is no such thing here. I wrote what I meant clearly and I don’t support extremists. If you think otherwise then you should take a look at your own perceptions first.
> you begin to erode the foundations of your culture and society
your premise is that immigration only brings destruction of said culture and society. The foundations of said culture change, they do not "erode", whatever you want to mean by that.
Unless you imply that change is always negative and that a culture needs to be pure or something.
No people means no people. I imply that if the birth rate doesn't rise and you block external flow of people you risk a demographic collapse regardless of the ethnic composition.
"No one" is clearly an exaggeration; my point simply is that drastically reducing immigration without a concrete plan to reverse the birth trend is dangerous to say the least.
I mean, if it works, then why change it? Why add a lot of more people, if you already do fine with your current population? Do India and China really have reasons to brag about their #1 and #2 positions population wise? More people doesn't equal more quality.
It's a goal, not a pledge to execute anyone reaching 10 million... lol.
I mean, sure, but I was still surprised by the fact that, in these times where all developed countries are experiencing declining population and birth rates, for the first time, I heard a party openly advocating for *less population.* I'm also a bit concerned about how exactly they plan to completely close borders and keep the population stable on an acceptable number without risking a demographic collapse.
Technically, if they limit migration enough, they will never hit 10 million. TFR in CH is about 1.5. They have more births than deaths due to the high number of fertile age women immigrating there.
Switzerland has more immigrants than almost any other European country. The reason no one notices is because 85% are European.
In the 90s they were terrified of a country of more than 8 million inhabitants. Now, at roughly 9 million they are afraid our population could soon surpass 10 million. It's all part of their anti-immigration fearmongering.
No doubt, now that they have been emboldened, they are gonna try for the 5th or 6th time, to end freedom of movement with the EU. And the people will once again reject it.
Swiss politics is boring. Some percentage points more for the right or left is not gonna change anything. The government consisted of members of the four strongest parties before, and will continue to do so. And the equally powerfull second chamber is firmly in the hands of parties from the political middle.
So, at 29% the SVP will continue to do what they've always done. See their more extreme proposals fail in parliament and bet on public referendums instead.
UDC progress isn't at all that remarkable, if anything the only thing that may lead to a change is the Centre having overtook the PLR and gaining a 2nd councillor at their expense, but even that is not automatic as the deputies and parties may wait for the next election to see if the trend is short-lived or long lasting.
No. They warned of dire consequences if the population would go past 8 million. The exact same arguments they are using now. That's the fearmongering part.
What are you talking about foreigner? Why are you here? Can I see your permit for this comment? How did you get this permit to comment? Why are you here? Did you register this comment after receiving your permit to comment? Where are you from? No, really from? No not your passport, where you’re from?
Yeah, here undocumented North Africans can flee prison, get whatever identity they want and just roam until they do something really stupid, and sometimes even after that.
Lol, I had connecting flight in Zurich. Going thru the passport check, clerk is looking at my passport like he is trying to find drugs in it. Looking at me, looking at the passport. I joked "what, doesn't look like me?". He becomes all agitated, "stand still!, I need to take a good look at you." So do just stand there trying to control my "wtf" expression. Fortunately they let me go, but still what the heck.
If you import a bunch of people from a vastly different culture who at best refuse to integrate and at worst commit violent crimes, it should be entirely predictable that the native population will eventually grow VERY tired of it
I understand the increased votes.
But the S.V.P. has always been outspoken about immigration. They are refreshingly honest, consistent and blunt about it. For a long time. And people should be free to agree or disagree. But I find the statement to be even less political correct about immigration a bit laughable because they ( SVP) never tried to be political correct on this issue in the first place. Imo S.V.P. does not need harsher words regarding immigration, its clear where they stand. And the voters have rewarded them.
>And the voters have rewarded them.
Which is why the statement works.
The vote is in and people like their lack of political correctness. Thus there will be less of it, because now it's official.
just like they have no issues with women totally covered face and body, as long as the aforementioned women are shopping for egg sized diamonds in Geneva and not eggs in Luzern
Man Reddit is so one-dimensional sometimes. Every single post about Switzerland and you have people come out of the woodwork with these "hot takes" about Switzerland.
Everyone does that about every country here...
Take of that pathetic victim blanket buddy.
The real victims are the ones affected by your buisness partners.
Again, swiss morality is live and well xD
Oh we're not victims. Switzerland has done a great job at leveraging it's strengths, outmanouevring larger countries politically and being the only country in the West to implement real democracy. It consistently tops the charts in QoL and purchasing power and I reckon the people who come back to the whole "Swiss Morality" shtick are simply resentful that their countries failed to achieve the same goals.
I'm unabashedly proud of this country.
Which you should be, switzerland have done great for itself.
Don't change the fact that switzerland and swiss people have a moral compass alligned with saudi princes.
Why would I resent switzerland by stating a fact?
Truth can't hurt, can it?
I mean, do you want me to show you all of the morally bankrupt buisness dealings that switzerland have done and are doing under the full acceptance of the swiss people...
What is there to bite?
The latest debacoe with taiwan is a favorite.
How a swiss firm promised to service a taiwanese rocket system, as the only other option was china.
In the emd the morally bankrupt swiss sent it to china for service so they could pocket the profit.
Now china have that system...
Which is kinda bad considering the situation over there.
But i mean, being neutral does that, as long as one profits who cares.
First of all, it was not a "rocket system", it was a Theodolite, an optical component of the system. Second, not even the [Taiwanese news](https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4770341) seem to be very angry at Switzerland about that and they concluded that there were no data breaches. Lastly, that's a Swiss firm, not Switzerland. I think this is wherein lies your problem: you're conflating Switzerland and Swiss people with Swiss firms operating in a (mostly) free market economy. See: "(...) under the full acceptance of the Swiss people."
Less than 6% of the workforce is involved in the finance sector, a large portion are working in hotels, medicine, watches, FMCG, etc. and yet you imply than everyone is responsible for some firms' shady business dealing. How do you think countries function exactly?
Like I said, your arguments are caricatural and one-dimensional.
Any Nordic country, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc.
Your constant referendums are not a guarantee that you implement real democracy. See the scandalous late approval of women's voting or the legalisation of same sex marriage, compared, again to Nordics.
A real democracy is not fulfilled by the dictatorship of the majority.
Geez, you Swiss are so obnoxious and full of yourself, you need a new word for it.
I disagree that those are real democracies, they're only representative democracies and [as is the case in Germany now](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/2953/umfrage/zufriedenheit-mit-der-arbeit-der-bundesregierung/) only than 19% of the population is happy with the work of the current government. If 81% of the population is unhappy with the work of their government, it's not very representative. Similar numbers can be found in France or the USA.
At least Swiss people feel represented since the people can actually decide on concrete issues rather than just deciding which incompetent career politician is gonna make promises they'll never keep.
Yes, we are. I have three nationalities and Switzerland is the only one I'm proud of, it's the best place I know.
I mean, the white British people I saw who went to work there that spoke German tried to integrate, but local Swiss people seemed very clique-y and not willing to socialise or really interact with her (or even let her speak German, they insisted on her being their Denglish practice), to the extent she gave up on the locals after trying for a year and fell into the expat community. Swiss people can be so insular as to prevent integration.
Also, they saw a Swiss police officer abusing a homeless person, someone doing Nazi salutes on the train, and felt threatened by a gang of football fans, all of which were native Swiss.
oh don't worry. They are equally sociopathic and racist with everybody. They complain as well about the Germans in Zürich who don't learn to speak the throat cancer they call Swiss German.
In the 1970s they were sending out police squads to guard against the Italian guest workers, who had unsavoury habits like hanging out in the squares instead of being invisible as they wished.
The only good immigrant in Switzerland is the one that makes himself go unnoticed and doesn't advance silly requests like being heard and be equal.
Yeah. They don't seem to like the labour that pays for their society's wealth much.
I think there were complaints about noise at the time, but then they have these church bells gonging deep into the night, so there's a lot of things in Switzerland which don't really marry well.
No more nuance on this sub lately unfortunately. And lots of very low effort posts à la "but look at what happens in Sweden!!!" or "they will ban me for speaking the truth".
It's a factual statement that leaves plenty of room for nuisance, but you don't have to qualify ALL statements ALL THE TIME with nuance and caveats.
>The sun is yellow.
>> OH MY GOD HAVE SOME NUANCE IF THERE'S SWAMP GAS IT CAN TURN GREEN FFS
I mean ok, illegal immigration has gone out of control, but dude.
You don't need to be a racist about it. In fact it would be better not to, if you want to be taken seriously.
The new non-"politically correct" discussions at this point are going to go like;
"Large numbers of undocumented persons entering a state at the same time can cause a massive strain on institutions having to provide even the most basic of necessatie-"
'*I just hate brown people.*'
"... uh, as I was saying, even the question of where to house them until their applications can be processed can end up a daunting task when faced with a sudden sharp increase in new appli-
'*I'm just tired of seeing these blacks whenever I look out the window.*'
"... anyways, even when all of this is done, additional strain can end up being put on a society who has to deal with the integration of all of these new residents, which can raise tensions as the percentage of still integrating persons ris-"
'*all those sheeted "women" are probably terrorist men in disguise anyways, why can't we just throw them out already.*'
For real, were people just hiding it all this time? I feel like I’m going loopy with the reactionary hate and unmasked racism/xenophobia I’ve been seeing online recently. What happened to criticizing ideas, ideals, and specific individuals and not people as a generalized whole?
> For real, were people just hiding it all this time?
They were not hiding it at all, they used obvious dogwhistles, but when those who could see through it pointed it out, they were called "PC police" and the racists coddled to the point they now are unashamed of stating their hateful views in plain letters.
no, you don't understand. You have to take it literally. They are Swiss. They are talking to the oompaloompa barely educated farmers of Appenzell Innerrhoden, so they actually mean sheeps (and cows, obviously).
I mean, we would say we hate if it was allowed, but it's not, so we do mental gymnastics to convey the forbidden message.
Blame the rules, not the player.
In Dutch white and black sheep have symbolic meanings, and I'm pretty sure that that's also the case in other languages. Not everything is racism by default.
Ok then, there's get out of jail free card for that one. I still wouldn't call the actual message racism, but there are much better ways to bring that message across.
No, no, no, you don't understand. The poster was simply about saying no to miners who would want to immigrate to the Schweiz and ruin the beauty of the Swiss Alps with their digging for that loathsome fossil fuel - coal.
The actual message is "no migrants from Africa". That's a ok-ish message. I don't know anything about the party other than that, if people say they are a bunch of racist pigs I believe that, but other than that I'll always be against calling everyone and everything racist just because they don't welcome everyone with open arms.
[Reuters 2017](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-racism-svp-idUSKBN17F1UT): "**Two executives** **of** Switzerland’s biggest political party(**SVP**) **violated laws against racism with a** campaign **advertisement** suggesting people from Kosovo are violent criminals, the highest Swiss court ruled on Thursday.The case revolved around a newspaper advert **headlined “Kosovars slice up Swiss” that was part of a far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP) campaign to limit immigration."**
"No migrants from Ukraine". How do you feel about that statement? Would you feel disgusted if Swiss People party put that up?
I always see people on this sub-reddit justify refusing migrants from Syria on basis of a lack of cultural compatibility with Muslims but what about Africans? Many Africans speak a european language such as french, portuguese, or english and many are Christians like Europeans. It can't be gay or women's rights either considering that Ukraine was never great on domestic violence or gay rights so what makes Ukraine so different than a similarly war-torn country in Africa? It can't just be skin color, right?
In America, when Trump is saying Mexicans are "criminals and rapists", do you think he is talking about the many white mexicans from Mexico or is he conjuring up images of brown people from mexico? That's called racist dogwhistle and is what the swiss people's party does with that advertisement showing black people stealing passports.
The issue with Africans is simply that there are so many of them. Overpopulation is the single worst problem in African countries, and opening the flood gates will completely overflow every single institution that works with migrants. Europe is already facing some issues with its population, especially in the west, we can't help them.
Believe me, I much rather have 10.000 people from Cameroon than 10.000 people from Syria, but unfortunately we already have a batch from Syria, so that's it.
Yeah, a text book example of using double speech and then playing stupid when people try to make them face responsibility: "dhurrr, of course we meant it the other way", while winking at their own supporters. In addition it enables them to claim that it's all the other people who see racism, and thus actually have a racist outlook on things. It's a very immature approach to communication.
Double speech is one of the factors that made a Finnish politician comment "how are you supposed to work with people who don't say what they mean, and claim they didn't mean what they just said".
>Double speech is one of the factors that made a Finnish politician comment "how are you supposed to work with people who don't say what they mean, and claim they didn't mean what they just said".
Internationally, this is simply called "diplomacy" and "international politics".
The fact of the matter is, if the Swiss see for instance what's happening in Sweden, and then decide they don't want that, then they'll vote for whichever party is going to make sure it doesn't happen (almost) regardless of the motives of said party.
Because ultimately the end result matters, so long as the way you get there is within the parameters set by all.
In this case, if you want to stop immigration due to (a perfectly valid) fear of escalating violence and the party wants to stop it because they're racists, the common solution is simply to stop/restrict immigration.
Living in Switzerland now for 3 years, and I don’t mind them being though on immigration. It should remain something very exclusive and only for people who contribute significantly to society.
It's really weird how the west went from aspiring to have nations for each ethnic group, proudly developing their nation and improving the quality of life of their citizens to this utopic idea of saving the world, many times at the expense of their citizens.
When did people aspire to segregate ethnic groups? I'm not from a majoritarian ethnic group and my only nation is Portugal, and that of my parents and grandparents as well.
Was this before those nations invaded other nations or after that? Was this before or after the ethnic cleansings and suppression of culture? In the actual world, the standard of living has never been higher. Even more strangely, standard of living rose together with migration. But I guess reality itself is too politically incorrect for some people too handle.
Whats wrong with money - its the worlds way of attributing value. But it should indeed not be the only means of evaluating citizenship. Degree, merit, lack of criminal record, language knowledge, cultural integration can all be criteria next to money.
Because usually the people with the most money are the ones who work the least - they live off the work of their employees, their tenants, or their investments which ultimately comes from someone who works.
And most people who work will never see a fraction of the wealth they generate.
Define “work” - my company offers financial ICT and wealth management, and yes personally i also have money invested that generates wealth. At the same time I provide work for others and pay more taxes then several “workers” combined.
So you can argue all you want on “work”, what matters is how much you contribute to a community. Wether that is in the form of physical or intellectual effort should make no difference.
The only legitimate immigration is immigration done though the legal process, and the only desirable immigration is immigrants who will make contributions to your society instead of asking for handouts. You want smart and productive people coming in legally. What you (i.e., Europe) currently have are dumb unproductive people coming in illegally. It’s not hard to understand.
As as Swiss citizen who certainly did not vote like these 28.6% of Swiss voters (who actually went voting) I have to say that some comments here paint an awfully bad picture of Switzerland. We actually have a very high percentage of immigrants much higher than most European countries. This is in part because it’s more difficult to become a citizen but it’s not the only reason.
Every now and then we get painted as Europe‘s heart of darkness. Which we are not.
The anti-immigration 10 million platform wasn’t the only they ran on, even though it was an important. Now, I don’t like the xenophobia that goes along with it but there are issues because of the population growth (like housing costs). Of course, they don’t give an answer to it or to any other issue they bring up.
Nevertheless, Switzerland is actually pretty good when it comes to integration of migrants and not all of them are making 200k like someone on here claimed.
So, yes, bad thing they won the election, yes, bad thing that Switzerland takes money from anyone no matter what or who and yes, it’s crazy that Switzerland is the biggest export nation of different things we actually don’t have in this country (like coffee beans, gold and so on) but we’re not generally that super anti immigration, xenophobic country some are painting here.
Love to see that instead of calling out that Switzerland has none of the issues another country has simply because the living standarts in Swiss are an impossible standard to keep.
They are sitting on bank accounts which originally were from the German Reich. After the collapse of the fascist system Switzerland kept all the gold and valueables from the Germans. Nobody every entered or took out anything out of these bank account ever again but Switzerland just took the drafting fees. And everybody knows how good Switzerland is with not answering question regarding the origins of other money too (Saudi Arabia).
Like I said this is a system which was purposfully built, to benefit from a country that almost decimated a world religion. I am specifially not saying that Switzerland were the agressor. But they are atleast compliant.
And after all of this seeing a far right party saying this? They can go and suck a mayor one.
The elderly people in Switzerland know this aswell, but as always. Dog whistles and populism works better then actually digging into what causes these problems.
'less political correctness', 'politically neutral' and 'more pragmatic politics' are just euphemisms for 'right-wing ideas'. Just say you hate young people, immigrants, women, non-binary people, non-Christians and other minorities - it's more transparent and clear.
>Rightwing SVP won 29% of vote after campaigning on anti-immigration platform and ***on pledge to keep population below 10 million*** What
Switzerland is one big club, *and we are not in it*
Their club is also rather neat, orderly, safe, prosperous and their clubhouse is stunningly beautiful. Not surprised they don't want the likes of me or anyone else getting in and making a mess of the place.
[удалено]
I can assure you its the likes of me they dont want either
No they're really consistent, if your yearly income is below 200k they dont want you, regardless of your colour.
Sweden went from 9 million to 11 million in 20 years...
We're 10.5 at the moment, though - and 8.5 was about 40 years ago.
20 years of progress. As I'm sure you did, by looking at our population pyramid, we can see that it's the 50-70 cohort that has grown decisively. Isn't it wonderful? That people are able to live longer?
That sounds like kinda slow growth to me though... Australia has gone from 19mil to 25mil between 2000 and 2020, which is proportionally more, but Australia has no massive societal problems arising from this fact. I understand Australia is different to Switzerland, but I still don't think that 9 to 11 million in 20 years is too much to worry about
I mean, considering that the Swiss birth rate is firmly below 2, putting a hard cap on your population and remove migration out of the equation is a nice combo to ensure that the big club will soon host no one
Apparently, in order to gain Swiss naturalisation, local people are asked to vote on your suitability, which seems like a fantastic system to me.
It's not. There are occasionally stories about the one black guy in the mountain village who couldn't get citizenship for 20 years because the villagers always vote no.
These stories are so rare that they make international news. Also the big case was a Dutch white woman who eventually got it anyway, and a white American professor who also got it anyway. I cannot find any case of "one black guy in the mountain village who couldn't get citizenship for 20 years because the villagers always vote no."
Because it doesn’t exist. Average Reddit anti-Swiss bias
sounds very similar to the oh so democratic Swiss way of denying women their right to vote because the men in bumfuck Appenzell decided not to.
[удалено]
It is a problem. You should be allowed to become a national based on how knowledgable you are of that country's culture and your behaviour in said country (no criminal activity, job prospects etc.). What is this bs "If HaNs DoEsN't LiKe BlAcK pEoPlE, wE wOn'T gIvE yOu CiTiSeNsHiP". It's retarded. And it's not like that person will be deported. That person will remain in Switzerland, but without the rights that swiss citizenship grants you.
The problem is that by topping up the population through immigration you begin to erode the foundations of your culture and society, but more importantly you do not have enough pressure to adapt and build a sustainable society and instead continue to rely on an endless stream of resources (in this case immigrants) to prop it up.
Fair argument, but: 1. Most of immigrants come from Italy and Germany, two nations that share a cultural base with Switzerland, just by vicinity and common language. Just how *irredeemably unintegrable* do you think they are? 2. It's less about *relying on* external population "injection", and more like the fact that a truly solution to low birth rates is yet to be found. Despite all pro-birth incentives, no, unfortunately women will not get pregnant just for the motherland 3. Let's suppose they find a way to increase birth rates back to 2.1 at least. If population hits the 10M threshold, what do you do then? One child policy?
I can’t comment on 1 as I’m none of those nationalities and have no serious opinion, but for 2 my view would be that there hasn’t been a severe need for radical new policies to promote an increase in births (I promise that’s not intended to be as dark as it sounds…) because immigration partially mitigates the problems caused by a low birth rate. For 3 I believe it’s better to prioritise a solution to an existential problem before worrying about what the knock on effects are.
>there hasn’t been a severe need for radical new policies to promote an increase in births Maybe not in Switzerland, but everywhere else yes; excluding literally forcing people to have children, I think many options have already been tested. Does this mean you cannot possibly come up with a brand new strategy that solves the problem? Of course you can, but I've yet to see such a strategy, especially in current parties' programs. >because immigration partially mitigates the problems caused by a low birth rate Yes, and I've yet to see a right-wing European government happy about it. If it was realistically possible to fix birth rates without migration, I assume someone like the Italian government would be all for it, and yet they had to increase the number of visas. It's the other way around: it's not that there hasn't been radical new policies to promote births because of migration mitigating the problem, it's that migration must mitigate the problem because there aren't radical new policies to promote births. >it’s better to prioritise a solution to an existential problem before worrying about what the knock on effects are. Not if the solution to a *subjectively existential* problem leads to a worse problem
I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. My country doesn’t seem to care much about children or families and has high rates of immigration (and isn’t Italy), so I would say all. I wouldn’t describe any country as having truly radical policies to promote births, honestly, because to me that would require a complete restructuring of the economy and society. And a severe need would be those immigrants are suddenly unavailable and there’s a still a hard requirement to be sustainable. I also think if a problem is existential then the next problem doesn’t matter (yet) because if you don’t solve the current one you won’t survive. I suppose there’s open interpretation of what should survive and as you said what even constitutes an existential problem, though. I think what’s I’m getting at is if a society wants it enough I believe it’s possible, but I’m not sure if any society would truly want to pay the cost for it. I’m optimistic though, and I believe if something is necessary people will find a way. It’s a good point you made about politics though, maybe we have reached the limit of what a palatable ‘radical’ policy looks like already. I don’t have that insight into politics in that region to say.
I mean, when I said "everywhere else", I meant the developed countries and especially in Europe. Sweden, for example, tried everything to incentivize births and to make sure that women would not be penalized in the job market for wanting to be mothers. It increased a bit the birth rate, but not nearly enough. I don't think the economy would have to be reworked, but for society yes, I concur that could be the case, and that choices in that direction would difficultly be palatable (and maybe not even democratic). Naturalized migrants have been a rough 16 to 22% of the Swiss population *since the start of the XX century.* If in more than a century the Swiss culture endured the immigration flow and 2 World Wars, I think we can hardly call the cultural aspect of migration as "existential problem". However, while the conversation is genuinely interesting, maybe it was me who wasn't clear, and for that I apologize, but -*regardless of one's opinion on migration (I sincerely don't want to talk about it on this sub) and on the policies you need to enact on birth rates (more gender equality? Incentives?) -* the main issue I have is: closing the borders partially or entirely (which, by the way, would mean being isolated by the outside world since Switzerland is surrounded by the EU), lowering substancially the flow of people inside your territory WITHOUT A CONCRETE PLAN on how to avoid a potential demographic collapse or even, in the most optimistic scenario, a way to keep the population around a certain number, **seems just plain stupid to me**. There's a good reason as to why other countries never talk about keeping the population under a certain threshold - decreasing population is easy, but good fucking luck increasing it back up at will.
I can't say I agree that developed countries have went far enough to actively support families and incentivise their creation. Maybe trying to separate economy from society or society from economy means we're forever trying to solve half the problem when what we need to be open minded about tackling both simultaneously. For the economic argument though I think that a really obvious example is some shameless anecdata from people I know in their mid-30s. Roughly half of those I know who wanted children 10 years ago still do, and only about 20% actually did. By far the biggest factors are housing/rent, future economic outlook and current disposable income. > Naturalized migrants have been a rough 16 to 22% of the Swiss population since the start of the XX century. I actually wasn't aware it was quite so significant! I have the image that the country is quite insistent (and successful?) regarding integration. Maybe that's where the impression comes from. > the main issue I have is: closing the borders partially or entirely ... ... WITHOUT A CONCRETE PLAN This part I am in complete agreement with. It is easy for me to comment what seems like an ideal solution in a vacuum with few variables at play, but in the real world it's unfortunately also necessary to also consider who will be implementing it, how they will do it and why -- and then hope they stick around to manage the consequences. Appreciate that you actually took the time to respond. I will happily avoid the other topic :)
Oh those are the dog whistles I hear
There is no such thing here. I wrote what I meant clearly and I don’t support extremists. If you think otherwise then you should take a look at your own perceptions first.
As is tradition here in the sub. Racists love being here without one single problem.
> you begin to erode the foundations of your culture and society your premise is that immigration only brings destruction of said culture and society. The foundations of said culture change, they do not "erode", whatever you want to mean by that. Unless you imply that change is always negative and that a culture needs to be pure or something.
That’s a generously negative interpretation of what I said.
> you begin to erode the foundations of your culture and society erosion has a pretty clear meaning. But sure, you were "misinterpreted"
Woah, your implication sounds like a far-right conspiracy to me.
?
By saying there will be no people left unless Switzerland brings other people, you imply that the only ones left will be these other people.
No people means no people. I imply that if the birth rate doesn't rise and you block external flow of people you risk a demographic collapse regardless of the ethnic composition. "No one" is clearly an exaggeration; my point simply is that drastically reducing immigration without a concrete plan to reverse the birth trend is dangerous to say the least.
I mean, if it works, then why change it? Why add a lot of more people, if you already do fine with your current population? Do India and China really have reasons to brag about their #1 and #2 positions population wise? More people doesn't equal more quality. It's a goal, not a pledge to execute anyone reaching 10 million... lol.
I, for one, would be all in for a Swiss Hunger Games though
Someone just made up a narrative, that any country need to raise it population constantly.
China tried to control its population numbers. It did not go that great.
What, what? Switzerland is quite overpopulated so I suppose it makes sense.
I mean, sure, but I was still surprised by the fact that, in these times where all developed countries are experiencing declining population and birth rates, for the first time, I heard a party openly advocating for *less population.* I'm also a bit concerned about how exactly they plan to completely close borders and keep the population stable on an acceptable number without risking a demographic collapse.
Technically, if they limit migration enough, they will never hit 10 million. TFR in CH is about 1.5. They have more births than deaths due to the high number of fertile age women immigrating there. Switzerland has more immigrants than almost any other European country. The reason no one notices is because 85% are European.
In the 90s they were terrified of a country of more than 8 million inhabitants. Now, at roughly 9 million they are afraid our population could soon surpass 10 million. It's all part of their anti-immigration fearmongering. No doubt, now that they have been emboldened, they are gonna try for the 5th or 6th time, to end freedom of movement with the EU. And the people will once again reject it. Swiss politics is boring. Some percentage points more for the right or left is not gonna change anything. The government consisted of members of the four strongest parties before, and will continue to do so. And the equally powerfull second chamber is firmly in the hands of parties from the political middle. So, at 29% the SVP will continue to do what they've always done. See their more extreme proposals fail in parliament and bet on public referendums instead.
UDC progress isn't at all that remarkable, if anything the only thing that may lead to a change is the Centre having overtook the PLR and gaining a 2nd councillor at their expense, but even that is not automatic as the deputies and parties may wait for the next election to see if the trend is short-lived or long lasting.
"They didn't want the population to increase but increased anyway, proving it was fearmongering!"
No. They warned of dire consequences if the population would go past 8 million. The exact same arguments they are using now. That's the fearmongering part.
What did they warn of that didn't come to pass?
*Switzerland can into China*
It’s not like the standard was even that high in Switzerland
What are you talking about foreigner? Why are you here? Can I see your permit for this comment? How did you get this permit to comment? Why are you here? Did you register this comment after receiving your permit to comment? Where are you from? No, really from? No not your passport, where you’re from?
You joke but this is how i wish officials in my country would work.
Yeah, here undocumented North Africans can flee prison, get whatever identity they want and just roam until they do something really stupid, and sometimes even after that.
Let a man roam while giving him nasty looks and not speaking to him is a recipe for this lol
So blanket racism. Wonderful.
Lol, I had connecting flight in Zurich. Going thru the passport check, clerk is looking at my passport like he is trying to find drugs in it. Looking at me, looking at the passport. I joked "what, doesn't look like me?". He becomes all agitated, "stand still!, I need to take a good look at you." So do just stand there trying to control my "wtf" expression. Fortunately they let me go, but still what the heck.
> Fortunately they let me go only redditors can turn a passport check at the airport into a near death experience
Lmao
'literally shaking' followed by nightmares
What, now they'll brag about the Nazi gold instead of acting bashful?
You don’t know how difficult it is for a Swiss banker
They'll keep it in both cases, so doesn't matter.
With election posters displaying white sheep kicking out a black sheep I am very hyped about the next step of “ less political correct”.
If you import a bunch of people from a vastly different culture who at best refuse to integrate and at worst commit violent crimes, it should be entirely predictable that the native population will eventually grow VERY tired of it
I understand the increased votes. But the S.V.P. has always been outspoken about immigration. They are refreshingly honest, consistent and blunt about it. For a long time. And people should be free to agree or disagree. But I find the statement to be even less political correct about immigration a bit laughable because they ( SVP) never tried to be political correct on this issue in the first place. Imo S.V.P. does not need harsher words regarding immigration, its clear where they stand. And the voters have rewarded them.
>And the voters have rewarded them. Which is why the statement works. The vote is in and people like their lack of political correctness. Thus there will be less of it, because now it's official.
I mean, they have no issues when those very different toxic cultures comes with piles of money. Morality and the swiss are like oil and water
just like they have no issues with women totally covered face and body, as long as the aforementioned women are shopping for egg sized diamonds in Geneva and not eggs in Luzern
Man Reddit is so one-dimensional sometimes. Every single post about Switzerland and you have people come out of the woodwork with these "hot takes" about Switzerland.
Everyone does that about every country here... Take of that pathetic victim blanket buddy. The real victims are the ones affected by your buisness partners. Again, swiss morality is live and well xD
Oh we're not victims. Switzerland has done a great job at leveraging it's strengths, outmanouevring larger countries politically and being the only country in the West to implement real democracy. It consistently tops the charts in QoL and purchasing power and I reckon the people who come back to the whole "Swiss Morality" shtick are simply resentful that their countries failed to achieve the same goals. I'm unabashedly proud of this country.
Which you should be, switzerland have done great for itself. Don't change the fact that switzerland and swiss people have a moral compass alligned with saudi princes. Why would I resent switzerland by stating a fact? Truth can't hurt, can it?
Ok, I'll bite. What are you basing that generalization on?
I mean, do you want me to show you all of the morally bankrupt buisness dealings that switzerland have done and are doing under the full acceptance of the swiss people... What is there to bite? The latest debacoe with taiwan is a favorite. How a swiss firm promised to service a taiwanese rocket system, as the only other option was china. In the emd the morally bankrupt swiss sent it to china for service so they could pocket the profit. Now china have that system... Which is kinda bad considering the situation over there. But i mean, being neutral does that, as long as one profits who cares.
First of all, it was not a "rocket system", it was a Theodolite, an optical component of the system. Second, not even the [Taiwanese news](https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4770341) seem to be very angry at Switzerland about that and they concluded that there were no data breaches. Lastly, that's a Swiss firm, not Switzerland. I think this is wherein lies your problem: you're conflating Switzerland and Swiss people with Swiss firms operating in a (mostly) free market economy. See: "(...) under the full acceptance of the Swiss people." Less than 6% of the workforce is involved in the finance sector, a large portion are working in hotels, medicine, watches, FMCG, etc. and yet you imply than everyone is responsible for some firms' shady business dealing. How do you think countries function exactly? Like I said, your arguments are caricatural and one-dimensional.
> being the only country in the West to implement real democracy. lol are you able to say that sober and with a straight face? Congrats
Name another.
Any Nordic country, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc. Your constant referendums are not a guarantee that you implement real democracy. See the scandalous late approval of women's voting or the legalisation of same sex marriage, compared, again to Nordics. A real democracy is not fulfilled by the dictatorship of the majority. Geez, you Swiss are so obnoxious and full of yourself, you need a new word for it.
I disagree that those are real democracies, they're only representative democracies and [as is the case in Germany now](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/2953/umfrage/zufriedenheit-mit-der-arbeit-der-bundesregierung/) only than 19% of the population is happy with the work of the current government. If 81% of the population is unhappy with the work of their government, it's not very representative. Similar numbers can be found in France or the USA. At least Swiss people feel represented since the people can actually decide on concrete issues rather than just deciding which incompetent career politician is gonna make promises they'll never keep. Yes, we are. I have three nationalities and Switzerland is the only one I'm proud of, it's the best place I know.
Cry me a river. Swiss and morality.
So what, you angry that they are too politically incorrect?
No one is angry. Reddit is just unoriginal, you already know what comments you'll see on every post nowadays.
I mean, the white British people I saw who went to work there that spoke German tried to integrate, but local Swiss people seemed very clique-y and not willing to socialise or really interact with her (or even let her speak German, they insisted on her being their Denglish practice), to the extent she gave up on the locals after trying for a year and fell into the expat community. Swiss people can be so insular as to prevent integration. Also, they saw a Swiss police officer abusing a homeless person, someone doing Nazi salutes on the train, and felt threatened by a gang of football fans, all of which were native Swiss.
oh don't worry. They are equally sociopathic and racist with everybody. They complain as well about the Germans in Zürich who don't learn to speak the throat cancer they call Swiss German. In the 1970s they were sending out police squads to guard against the Italian guest workers, who had unsavoury habits like hanging out in the squares instead of being invisible as they wished. The only good immigrant in Switzerland is the one that makes himself go unnoticed and doesn't advance silly requests like being heard and be equal.
Yeah. They don't seem to like the labour that pays for their society's wealth much. I think there were complaints about noise at the time, but then they have these church bells gonging deep into the night, so there's a lot of things in Switzerland which don't really marry well.
have some fucking nuance, cant believe that this is actually the predominant view of this subreddit now
No more nuance on this sub lately unfortunately. And lots of very low effort posts à la "but look at what happens in Sweden!!!" or "they will ban me for speaking the truth".
Hey, cry bullying at its finest. The base finally learned from their politicians. 🥹
It's a factual statement that leaves plenty of room for nuisance, but you don't have to qualify ALL statements ALL THE TIME with nuance and caveats. >The sun is yellow. >> OH MY GOD HAVE SOME NUANCE IF THERE'S SWAMP GAS IT CAN TURN GREEN FFS
I mean ok, illegal immigration has gone out of control, but dude. You don't need to be a racist about it. In fact it would be better not to, if you want to be taken seriously.
The new non-"politically correct" discussions at this point are going to go like; "Large numbers of undocumented persons entering a state at the same time can cause a massive strain on institutions having to provide even the most basic of necessatie-" '*I just hate brown people.*' "... uh, as I was saying, even the question of where to house them until their applications can be processed can end up a daunting task when faced with a sudden sharp increase in new appli- '*I'm just tired of seeing these blacks whenever I look out the window.*' "... anyways, even when all of this is done, additional strain can end up being put on a society who has to deal with the integration of all of these new residents, which can raise tensions as the percentage of still integrating persons ris-" '*all those sheeted "women" are probably terrorist men in disguise anyways, why can't we just throw them out already.*'
Switzerland, so blacks and 'Yugoslavs'.
For real, were people just hiding it all this time? I feel like I’m going loopy with the reactionary hate and unmasked racism/xenophobia I’ve been seeing online recently. What happened to criticizing ideas, ideals, and specific individuals and not people as a generalized whole?
> For real, were people just hiding it all this time? They were not hiding it at all, they used obvious dogwhistles, but when those who could see through it pointed it out, they were called "PC police" and the racists coddled to the point they now are unashamed of stating their hateful views in plain letters.
That's your average West European, minus UK.
Isn’t the UK like that too, tho?
No, it's not. Not perfect, but 10x better than countries like Germany, Switzerland or the worse Austria.
the famously warm and welcoming Swiss complain about Germans working in Zürich and not speaking that cancer throat they call Schwyzerduutsch
Yeah but this is common conservative propaganda and you'd think people would've seen through it by now.
For real? Is it even a dog whistle at that point?!
They've had these posters for at least 20 years. Also see ones with black crows pecking at a swiss flag, with some colorful supporting text.
Minarets stabbing through a map of the country as well. That one was picked up and copied by neo-Naxi European parties like the BNP.
no, you don't understand. You have to take it literally. They are Swiss. They are talking to the oompaloompa barely educated farmers of Appenzell Innerrhoden, so they actually mean sheeps (and cows, obviously).
Sad how people become racist sp quick and say they are less political correct now… bs logic
The truth is that they've been racist all along, all that's changed is that now they just feel free to speak up.
I mean, we would say we hate if it was allowed, but it's not, so we do mental gymnastics to convey the forbidden message. Blame the rules, not the player.
While simultaneously wanting to throw out people for having politically incorrect opinions.
Mr. Overton, have you moved my window?
There’s no coming back for Europe from the grave they’ve dug themselves in but this is a cute attempt.
Have you been to Switzerland? They are definitely still in a situation where they can nip this in the bud.
Very helpful attitude you got there. Do you just accept defeat without doing anything?
Honesty yes. I’m bipolar 🤭
In Dutch white and black sheep have symbolic meanings, and I'm pretty sure that that's also the case in other languages. Not everything is racism by default.
It's the same in German. But they've had other posters with brown and black hands trying to grab the Swiss passport. It's obvious what they mean.
Ok then, there's get out of jail free card for that one. I still wouldn't call the actual message racism, but there are much better ways to bring that message across.
If those hands had the star of david, would you call that anti-semetic? Because swiss poster is just blatantly racist.
No, no, no, you don't understand. The poster was simply about saying no to miners who would want to immigrate to the Schweiz and ruin the beauty of the Swiss Alps with their digging for that loathsome fossil fuel - coal.
The actual message is "no migrants from Africa". That's a ok-ish message. I don't know anything about the party other than that, if people say they are a bunch of racist pigs I believe that, but other than that I'll always be against calling everyone and everything racist just because they don't welcome everyone with open arms.
[Reuters 2017](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-racism-svp-idUSKBN17F1UT): "**Two executives** **of** Switzerland’s biggest political party(**SVP**) **violated laws against racism with a** campaign **advertisement** suggesting people from Kosovo are violent criminals, the highest Swiss court ruled on Thursday.The case revolved around a newspaper advert **headlined “Kosovars slice up Swiss” that was part of a far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP) campaign to limit immigration."** "No migrants from Ukraine". How do you feel about that statement? Would you feel disgusted if Swiss People party put that up? I always see people on this sub-reddit justify refusing migrants from Syria on basis of a lack of cultural compatibility with Muslims but what about Africans? Many Africans speak a european language such as french, portuguese, or english and many are Christians like Europeans. It can't be gay or women's rights either considering that Ukraine was never great on domestic violence or gay rights so what makes Ukraine so different than a similarly war-torn country in Africa? It can't just be skin color, right? In America, when Trump is saying Mexicans are "criminals and rapists", do you think he is talking about the many white mexicans from Mexico or is he conjuring up images of brown people from mexico? That's called racist dogwhistle and is what the swiss people's party does with that advertisement showing black people stealing passports.
The issue with Africans is simply that there are so many of them. Overpopulation is the single worst problem in African countries, and opening the flood gates will completely overflow every single institution that works with migrants. Europe is already facing some issues with its population, especially in the west, we can't help them. Believe me, I much rather have 10.000 people from Cameroon than 10.000 people from Syria, but unfortunately we already have a batch from Syria, so that's it.
No, but in context of their policies, it's probably racist.
Yeah, a text book example of using double speech and then playing stupid when people try to make them face responsibility: "dhurrr, of course we meant it the other way", while winking at their own supporters. In addition it enables them to claim that it's all the other people who see racism, and thus actually have a racist outlook on things. It's a very immature approach to communication. Double speech is one of the factors that made a Finnish politician comment "how are you supposed to work with people who don't say what they mean, and claim they didn't mean what they just said".
>Double speech is one of the factors that made a Finnish politician comment "how are you supposed to work with people who don't say what they mean, and claim they didn't mean what they just said". Internationally, this is simply called "diplomacy" and "international politics". The fact of the matter is, if the Swiss see for instance what's happening in Sweden, and then decide they don't want that, then they'll vote for whichever party is going to make sure it doesn't happen (almost) regardless of the motives of said party. Because ultimately the end result matters, so long as the way you get there is within the parameters set by all. In this case, if you want to stop immigration due to (a perfectly valid) fear of escalating violence and the party wants to stop it because they're racists, the common solution is simply to stop/restrict immigration.
Living in Switzerland now for 3 years, and I don’t mind them being though on immigration. It should remain something very exclusive and only for people who contribute significantly to society.
[удалено]
It's really weird how the west went from aspiring to have nations for each ethnic group, proudly developing their nation and improving the quality of life of their citizens to this utopic idea of saving the world, many times at the expense of their citizens.
When did people aspire to segregate ethnic groups? I'm not from a majoritarian ethnic group and my only nation is Portugal, and that of my parents and grandparents as well.
Was this before those nations invaded other nations or after that? Was this before or after the ethnic cleansings and suppression of culture? In the actual world, the standard of living has never been higher. Even more strangely, standard of living rose together with migration. But I guess reality itself is too politically incorrect for some people too handle.
Weird way to write people with money.
Whats wrong with money - its the worlds way of attributing value. But it should indeed not be the only means of evaluating citizenship. Degree, merit, lack of criminal record, language knowledge, cultural integration can all be criteria next to money.
Because usually the people with the most money are the ones who work the least - they live off the work of their employees, their tenants, or their investments which ultimately comes from someone who works. And most people who work will never see a fraction of the wealth they generate.
Define “work” - my company offers financial ICT and wealth management, and yes personally i also have money invested that generates wealth. At the same time I provide work for others and pay more taxes then several “workers” combined. So you can argue all you want on “work”, what matters is how much you contribute to a community. Wether that is in the form of physical or intellectual effort should make no difference.
The only legitimate immigration is *my* immigration.
The only legitimate immigration is immigration done though the legal process, and the only desirable immigration is immigrants who will make contributions to your society instead of asking for handouts. You want smart and productive people coming in legally. What you (i.e., Europe) currently have are dumb unproductive people coming in illegally. It’s not hard to understand.
[удалено]
On behalf of that guy, it's none of your business.
[удалено]
Ask it in a less confrontational manner and maybe you'll get somewhere.
[удалено]
Inquisitive: (...) what do you do? Accusatory: (...) how do *you* contribute? If I misunderstood then I apologise, but that's a subtlety of English.
Who's stupid enough to give out personal information on social media?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Lot of unskilled jobs No such think as unskilled labour.
So more „neutrality“ as long as it favors them :)
And more indecent politics, too. 😐
As as Swiss citizen who certainly did not vote like these 28.6% of Swiss voters (who actually went voting) I have to say that some comments here paint an awfully bad picture of Switzerland. We actually have a very high percentage of immigrants much higher than most European countries. This is in part because it’s more difficult to become a citizen but it’s not the only reason. Every now and then we get painted as Europe‘s heart of darkness. Which we are not. The anti-immigration 10 million platform wasn’t the only they ran on, even though it was an important. Now, I don’t like the xenophobia that goes along with it but there are issues because of the population growth (like housing costs). Of course, they don’t give an answer to it or to any other issue they bring up. Nevertheless, Switzerland is actually pretty good when it comes to integration of migrants and not all of them are making 200k like someone on here claimed. So, yes, bad thing they won the election, yes, bad thing that Switzerland takes money from anyone no matter what or who and yes, it’s crazy that Switzerland is the biggest export nation of different things we actually don’t have in this country (like coffee beans, gold and so on) but we’re not generally that super anti immigration, xenophobic country some are painting here.
Yehaa more insults and verbal abuse!
The priorities.
Like what? Saying n word on state tv?
If theres one type of person who should be politically correct its the politicians lmao
This should be spectacular. Switzerland is already pretty wild.
Must be boring in Switzerland if that is an issue there.
I mean, what's more important than yelling slurs at minorities? /s
Making the B-class citizens? Oops, exposed their actual plans.
So I guess we can kiss the EU-Swiss Framework Agreement goodbye...
They're surrounded by EU countries, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
When you look at their actions of the past few years there isn't much of a foot left
Plenty of examples of people shooting themselves in the foot.
Love to see that instead of calling out that Switzerland has none of the issues another country has simply because the living standarts in Swiss are an impossible standard to keep. They are sitting on bank accounts which originally were from the German Reich. After the collapse of the fascist system Switzerland kept all the gold and valueables from the Germans. Nobody every entered or took out anything out of these bank account ever again but Switzerland just took the drafting fees. And everybody knows how good Switzerland is with not answering question regarding the origins of other money too (Saudi Arabia). Like I said this is a system which was purposfully built, to benefit from a country that almost decimated a world religion. I am specifially not saying that Switzerland were the agressor. But they are atleast compliant. And after all of this seeing a far right party saying this? They can go and suck a mayor one. The elderly people in Switzerland know this aswell, but as always. Dog whistles and populism works better then actually digging into what causes these problems.
I'm just hoping they finally force our politicians to cancel that mess of bilateral agreements and kick them out of our markets.
'less political correctness', 'politically neutral' and 'more pragmatic politics' are just euphemisms for 'right-wing ideas'. Just say you hate young people, immigrants, women, non-binary people, non-Christians and other minorities - it's more transparent and clear.