Swiss referendum on immigration

[-TSS-]

Today on Sunday the people of Switzerland have a referendum on whether to set up quotas for the number of immigrants from various countries. If approved that would put Switzerland on a colision-course with the EU as the Swiss have earlier accepted the Schengen-accord.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/09/swiss-begin-vote-on-immigration-quotas/

Switzerland has a system of direct democracy whereby a petition signed by a certain number of people must be subject to a referendum the result of which is binding.

[Argus]

Today on Sunday the people of Switzerland have a referendum on whether to set up quotas for the number of immigrants from various countries. If approved that would put Switzerland on a colision-course with the EU as the Swiss have earlier accepted the Schengen-accord.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/09/swiss-begin-vote-on-immigration-quotas/

Switzerland has a system of direct democracy whereby a petition signed by a certain number of people must be subject to a referendum the result of which is binding.

The Swedes are holding one too. And the UK is doing its best to restrict newcomers as well. The rising tide of the unwashed taking advantage of the cradle to grave social services in wealthier western countries is starting to worry even the most generous of Europeans.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Argus

[-TSS-]

It looks like the proposal to set up quotas is going to be narrowly accepted in the referendum. It will be fun to watch the EU-tantrums towards Switzerland. Some foretaste of what is going to happen:

http://euobserver.com/political/123041

[Michael Hardner]

The rising tide of the unwashed ...

Meanwhile... elsewhere there is accommodation, meeting of minds, forward motion, prosperity.

[Shady]

Meanwhile... elsewhere there is accommodation, meeting of minds, forward motion, prosperity.

Where? And what does that mean?

Edited February 9, 2014 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

Canada ?

[Shady]

Canada ?

No, try again. We have a very stringent process of gaining citizenship, and which immigrants are allowed in our country. There's actually a point system.

[Argus]

Meanwhile... elsewhere there is accommodation, meeting of minds, forward motion, prosperity.

The Swiss unemployment rate is less than half ours. They have less poverty, and a budget surplus.

And how long do you think the generally positive view the majority of people have of immigration would last if Romanians, Bulgarians, and others could simply drive here, settle in and apply for welfare?

[Rue]

Argus as you are well aware there is a lot of doublespeak on immigration policy in many countries with the politically appropriate and inappropriate all afraid to say anything.

I think as the economy across Europe continues to deteriorate there will be a direct impact on immigration policies with these countries which you have discussed before in previous threads. When a country's economy is on fire, in comes the cheap labour on visiting cl to do the menial jobs. When the economy smoulders, up go the walls and blame for the failures being pointed at the cheap labour.

Europe is faced with huge population movement of Africans, Asians, Muslims and as you said persons from poor countries like Romania,Bulgaria,Albania.

Europe has always viewed guest foreigners as cheap labour not much more. Now they face tensions with that under-class demanding rights and of course the inevitable cultural clash between Muslim and Christian beliefs. Its a powder-keg.

Countries are going to turn inward when they are doing badly xenophobia is one symptom of that phenomena.

Don't ask me though to worry too much about Switzerland. Its a country that has existed off the interest of stolen and plundered money for centuries. Its people have had a whole country come about sucking off the blood of victims. Its been nothing but a big laundry centre for stolen money.

Don't much have a time of day for its origins or its having lived off the interest of blood money and its denial of the stolen money it still keeps hidden from its rightful owners. Also I don't have much time for the way Nestles and Bayer have run their enterprises. Not big fans of either who engaged in predatory and fixed pricing long before the Chinese.

The problem is with over 3 billion people now in China and over 2 billion in India, there is a huge movement of both populations as well as with the Muslims of the Middle east being caused by water and food shortages,

Literally that is what is happening.the shortage of water in India, China, Africa, the Middle East, is causing waves of population displacement which is fuels regional tensions as the displacement of people comes in waves, each ne bigger than the one before it.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Rue

[Remiel]

The problem is with over 3 billion people now in China and over 2 billion in India, there is a huge movement of both populations as well as with the Muslims of the Middle east being caused by water and food shortages,

Where the heck are you getting these numbers? Those are like double the actual populations of China and India (1.36 billion in China and 1.24 billion in India).

[Michael Hardner]

No, try again. We have a very stringent process of gaining citizenship, and which immigrants are allowed in our country. There's actually a point system.

How is that not "accommodation, meeting of minds, forward motion, prosperity" ?

[Michael Hardner]

The Swiss unemployment rate is less than half ours. They have less poverty, and a budget surplus.

Are you trying to say that immigration increases unemployment and budget deficit ? If so, please cite.

And how long do you think the generally positive view the majority of people have of immigration would last if Romanians, Bulgarians, and others could simply drive here, settle in and apply for welfare?

I reject the premise of your question anyway. Here's a similar question on the other side:

"If immigration opponents expressed their racist thoughts, how many Canadians would see that immigration laws are simply based on negative stereotypes ?"

I don't accept that question either. Your position is anti-orthodox when it comes to the Canadian economic view - so you have a tough job ahead of you convincing everyone that the emperor has no clothes.

[Army Guy]

I reject the premise of your question anyway. Here's a similar question on the other side:

"If immigration opponents expressed their racist thoughts, how many Canadians would see that immigration laws are simply based on negative stereotypes ?"

At what piont do we say, we should limit immigration? without sounding racist, it seems to be a fine line. What if we as a nation wanted to fill that gap with increasing our own population growth, be by some other means like tax breaks or incentives etc....If more and more jobs and employment are being sucked to other nations, why are we bringing in more to feed that fire....I'm not sure as i don't fully understand the need for immigration...

Is it because traditional Canadians are to proud to fill those jobs that immigrants take, that sounds like it has racist over tones does it not ? So with growing unemployment, why do we not limit immigration....

And while we don't want to hear those racists thoughts, i think that traditional white and north american natives should have a say on immigration or atleast a voice at the table....

[Michael Hardner]

At what piont do we say, we should limit immigration? without sounding racist, it seems to be a fine line.

We do have limits on immigration. I think you're asking if we should lower those limits.

You can ask "at what point ..." for a lot of policies. The answer is that governments regularly poll "the" public about their attitudes. With regards to immigration, it seems that most think the levels are too low, or about right however 40% think they're too high, or perhaps the standards are too lax. This might explain why some changes are coming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/01/canadians-immigration-policy_n_2784486.html

What if we as a nation wanted to fill that gap with increasing our own population growth, be by some other means like tax breaks or incentives etc....If more and more jobs and employment are being sucked to other nations, why are we bringing in more to feed that fire....I'm not sure as i don't fully understand the need for immigration...

Why ? Because they work for less is one reason. Because it's cheaper to bring in young people than to pay women to drop out of the labour force and have children. These are just a few ideas.

And while we don't want to hear those racists thoughts, i think that traditional white and north american natives should have a say on immigration or atleast a voice at the table....

They actually do have a voice, and in that poll I mentioned they're given special attention.

No matter what the dialogue around immigration is, I don't think we can expect major changes but we'll see.

[bud]

anyone who is questioning canada's immigration system, which allows around 250k people a year, and calling for more restrictions, has very little knowledge on how the immigration system works and canada's severe need for people. not only common sense but also studies show that canada needs to increase immigration even more.

there are programs in canada to encourage kids to go into engineering and sciences, but not enough are. there is a large gap that canadians are not filling. there are many skilled jobs that canadians are not educated to perform. the only way to respond to the need is to bring in qualified foreign workers as temporary workers and giving them a path to become permanent residents.

more importantly is the fact that canada is growing old. the baby boomers are retiring and there aren't enough people taking their spots. canada needs new blood and the only way to do this is by bringing in immigrants. canada already has a pretty tight immigration policy and people who come into canada, are severely filtered before arriving.

The Canadian population is aging. In 2011, the median age in Canada was 39.9 years, meaning that half of the population was older than that and half was younger. In 1971, the median age was 26.2 years.

Seniors make up the fastest-growing age group. This trend is expected to continue for the next several decades due mainly to a below replacement fertility rate (i.e. average number of children per woman), an increase in life expectancy, and the aging of the baby boom generation. In 2011, an estimated 5.0 million Canadians were 65 years of age or older, a number that is expected to double in the next 25 years to reach 10.4 million seniors by 2036. By 2051, about one in four Canadians is expected to be 65 or over.

link

Edited February 10, 2014 by bud

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, we probably can have a look at how Japan does to see what happens when you restrict immigration and allow your birthrate to decline. Thoughts ?

[Army Guy]

We do have limits on immigration. I think you're asking if we should lower those limits.

You can ask "at what point ..." for a lot of policies. The answer is that governments regularly poll "the" public about their attitudes. With regards to immigration, it seems that most think the levels are too low, or about right however 40% think they're too high, or perhaps the standards are too lax. This might explain why some changes are coming.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/01/canadians-immigration-policy_n_2784486.html

Why ? Because they work for less is one reason. Because it's cheaper to bring in young people than to pay women to drop out of the labour force and have children. These are just a few ideas.

They actually do have a voice, and in that poll I mentioned they're given special attention.

No matter what the dialogue around immigration is, I don't think we can expect major changes but we'll see.

I think, there are other options out there aside from increasing our immigration numbers. And sooner or later we are going to have to either increase our population or face reality that Candians will eventually get a new face, new culture, new everything...

Well that is one of the problems we have in this country, Jobs are leaving because labour is cheaper else where, cheaper labor means higher profit margins for companies, with very little trickling down to the consumer....Now we want to bring in the cheaper labor to further eliminate these jobs nobody wants sounds like a good policy to me..sounds like the solution....are we saying that Canadians can not do these jobs? or are we telling immigrants these are the only jobs you can have....

[Army Guy]

anyone who is questioning canada's immigration system, which allows around 250k people a year, and calling for more restrictions, has very little knowledge on how the immigration system works and canada's severe need for people. not only common sense but also studies show that canada needs to increase immigration even more.

Well perhaps your right Bud, i do not understand it very well, but i am trying to wrap my head around it.

there are programs in canada to encourage kids to go into engineering and sciences, but not enough are. there is a large gap that canadians are not filling. there are many skilled jobs that canadians are not educated to perform. the only way to respond to the need is to bring in qualified foreign workers as temporary workers and giving them a path to become permanent residents.

I don't see it as the only way, many other nations have addressed this problem in many other ways, one is to take those jobs like you mentioned and make the entire schooling process free, . or offer tax relief or cash incentives to grow them, you can throw immigrants at the problem all day, but in 10 years from now you'll be stuck with the same option. I'd be interested in how many jobs Canadians are not educated to do....and what the these jobs are doing about getting kids interested in them ?

more importantly is the fact that canada is growing old. the baby boomers are retiring and there aren't enough people taking their spots. canada needs new blood and the only way to do this is by bringing in immigrants. canada already has a pretty tight immigration policy and people who come into canada, are severely filtered before arriving.

The Canadian population is aging. In 2011, the median age in Canada was 39.9 years, meaning that half of the population was older than that and half was younger. In 1971, the median age was 26.2 years.

Seniors make up the fastest-growing age group. This trend is expected to continue for the next several decades due mainly to a below replacement fertility rate (i.e. average number of children per woman), an increase in life expectancy, and the aging of the baby boom generation. In 2011, an estimated 5.0 million Canadians were 65 years of age or older, a number that is expected to double in the next 25 years to reach 10.4 million seniors by 2036. By 2051, about one in four Canadians is expected to be 65 or over.

link

I can remember when the government offered tax savings or cuts for having children, worked out well as you can tell the baby boomers out number the current generation, and if memory serves me Quebec still does it....like i said their are other options, why not create a new program for the next generation, one that will encourage them to have more than the 1.5 children, but rather 3 or 4....

one of the reasons parents do not have more children is because it is very expensive, time off work due to having a child means less wages being brought in, and many more ...address some of these problems and just maybe you'll see a raise in population.....being dependent on immigrants offers a quick fix, but not the only fix....

[Michael Hardner]

I think, there are other options out there aside from increasing our immigration numbers.

Right, but I don't think anybody is really talking about increasing immigration over what it is now.

And sooner or later we are going to have to either increase our population or face reality that Candians will eventually get a new face, new culture, new everything...

Where do you live ? Canada already looks vastly different from where I sit. If you haven't noticed, then you're probably far removed from the centres of commerce and therefore power.

with very little trickling down to the consumer....

Prices are actually very low right now. I have read that the government is worried about price deflation.

Now we want to bring in the cheaper labor to further eliminate these jobs nobody wants sounds like a good policy to me..sounds like the solution....are we saying that Canadians can not do these jobs? or are we telling immigrants these are the only jobs you can have....

As was mentioned, there are jobs that are hard to fill and our unemployment rate is not huge at the moment either. Bringing in cheaper labour doesn't eliminate the job, it fills it with someone else.

Listen - the economics around immigration is pretty complicated but let me ask you - do you trust Stephen Harper to manage all aspects of the economy or not ? Most of the people that question immigration on here voted for him, I'm guessing, and he hasn't changed much in terms of immigration so far.

[Argus]

Are you trying to say that immigration increases unemployment and budget deficit ? If so, please cite.

No, I'm very clearly pointing out the Swiss economy is in pretty good shape. Therefore, this is not a reaction to a poor economy.

I reject the premise of your question anyway. Here's a similar question on the other side:

"If immigration opponents expressed their racist thoughts, how many Canadians would see that immigration laws are simply based on negative stereotypes ?"

Racism plays some part in it, but to suggest it's a major component in opposition is simplistic and ignorant. There are a lot of reasons to oppose immigration, including economic, cultural, environmental, and based on various other qualities of life. The only legitimate one in support is the importation of specific skills which are in short supply. The vast bulk of support for immigration, however, is non-thinking, knee jerk liberalism which assumes, in its own bigoted, paternalistic fashion, that we're the savior of all the brown people in the world. Challenging immigration is, ipso facto, proof that unlike the self-righteous liberal, the challenger doesn't like brown people. And that's the case without regard to whether the immigrants in question even are brown. To the liberal, anyone who isn't an Anglo is a member of the downtrodden and in desperate need of their protection.

[Argus]

At what piont do we say, we should limit immigration? without sounding racist,

As far as liberals go you will never reach that point. In Switzerland, 23% of the people are born externally. In some districts, that figures reaches past 50% and up to 63% in the Geneva area. I can easily understand why so many of the Swiss are growing uncomfortable as they become minorities in their own country.

[Argus]

anyone who is questioning canada's immigration system, which allows around 250k people a year, and calling for more restrictions, has very little knowledge on how the immigration system works and canada's severe need for people. not only common sense but also studies show that canada needs to increase immigration even more.

Sheer, raw ignorance. In point of fact, as I have pointed out numerous times, Immigration is the only major federal government policy which has no set goals, and is based upon NO research to determine numbers and types of immigrant. It is, for the most part, a political program, and Canada's needs form virtually no part in the decision making.

there are programs in canada to encourage kids to go into engineering and sciences, but not enough are. there is a large gap that canadians are not filling. there are many skilled jobs that canadians are not educated to perform. the only way to respond to the need is to bring in qualified foreign workers as temporary workers and giving them a path to become permanent residents.

That's absurd. The only way to respond? How about we train Canadians for these positions? How about we adjust our education program to guide Canadian youth into areas where jobs are needed instead of simply letting them choose whatever the hell they want? For example, we produce vastly more teachers every year than we can possibly use, but every year thousands and thousands of Canadian youths eagerly sign up to go into teaching. And we pay for this. Why? Education and skills training is a mess throughout most of this country, especially for trades jobs.

Furthermore, how is bringing in people to drive taxis, clean floors, and work in malls going to help us with high skilled job shortages?

more importantly is the fact that canada is growing old. the baby boomers are retiring and there aren't enough people taking their spots.

That old canard. Demographers have dismissed this for years. You cannot fight an aging population with immigration. Besides which, if that was a goal we'd be focusing on young people. In fact, the average age of immigrants, due to the number of middle aged and seniors who come here, isn't much different from the average age of Canadians. And what has the government done recently about this? Why, it's reopened the PGP program (parents and grandparents) and expects to be bringing in tens of thousands of them.

canada already has a pretty tight immigration policy

As far as I know, Canada's immigration system is the slackest and easiest in the world. Every other western nation has much stricter limits and requirements.

[Michael Hardner]

No, I'm very clearly pointing out the Swiss economy is in pretty good shape. Therefore, this is not a reaction to a poor economy.

I wouldn't have suggested that.

Racism plays some part in it

Yeah, you missed my point. The point is that you embedded a bad assumption in your question is all.

There are a lot of reasons to oppose immigration, including economic, cultural, environmental, and based on various other qualities of life. The only legitimate one in support is the importation of specific skills which are in short supply.

I don't agree with your values here.

The vast bulk of support for immigration, however, is non-thinking, knee jerk

As opposed to somebody who declares that there is only one legitimate reason to support immigration ? Your viewpoint is so heavily invested in name calling.

To the liberal, anyone who isn't an Anglo is a member of the downtrodden and in desperate need of their protection.

As opposed to you, who assumes Bulgarians (?) are welfare addicts, calls immigrants unwashed...

You should come to these discussion with clean hands before bawling about the liberal viewpoint.

[Michael Hardner]

As far as liberals go you will never reach that point.

So we have more than 50% liberals in Canada I guess.

[-TSS-]

Actually, we probably can have a look at how Japan does to see what happens when you restrict immigration and allow your birthrate to decline. Thoughts ?

It has been estimated that in the year 2040 40% of the Japanese people will be 65 years or older. It goes without saying that any society is going to collapse with an age-structure like that. However, importing illiterate people from the third world, like Europe does, is not helping the problem. On the contrary.

Those people who aren't illiterate are often those who would be desperately more needed in their home countries.