Why Switzerland Is Weighing a 10 Million Population Limit (bloomberg.com) 204
An anonymous reader shares a report: Growing support for far-right parties is pressuring European governments to introduce stricter controls on immigration. Switzerland is set to vote on a proposal that would take the idea to the next level -- imposing a cap on its population [non-paywalled link]. The initiative could lead eventually to a blanket ban on new arrivals if the number of residents rises from around 9 million currently to above 10 million, with little distinction made between refugees, skilled workers and top managers on six-figure salaries.
Citizens will likely vote on the proposal next year under the country's unique system of plebiscites on constitutional amendments and policy, and polls suggest there's a chance they'll approve it. The risk is it could lead to shortages of critical skills that end up harming Switzerland's competitiveness. The outcome will show how far citizens are willing to go to preserve some of the traits that made their country such an appealing destination. [...] The right-wing Swiss People's Party, or SVP, won 28% of the vote in the last election with a campaign that presented Swiss citizenship as a privilege, not a right. It came up with the idea of a population limit in 2023, presenting it as a way to preserve the Swiss lifestyle and protect its environment from excessive human activity.
Citizens will likely vote on the proposal next year under the country's unique system of plebiscites on constitutional amendments and policy, and polls suggest there's a chance they'll approve it. The risk is it could lead to shortages of critical skills that end up harming Switzerland's competitiveness. The outcome will show how far citizens are willing to go to preserve some of the traits that made their country such an appealing destination. [...] The right-wing Swiss People's Party, or SVP, won 28% of the vote in the last election with a campaign that presented Swiss citizenship as a privilege, not a right. It came up with the idea of a population limit in 2023, presenting it as a way to preserve the Swiss lifestyle and protect its environment from excessive human activity.
Shortage? (Score:5, Insightful)
The risk is it could lead to shortages of critical skills that end up harming Switzerland's competitiveness.
The chance of someone capable of learning critical skills being born in switzerland is the same as anywhere else, if the swiss are not training their own citizens to perform these critical roles then that's already a failure on their part.
Re:Shortage? (Score:5, Insightful)
No handful of local universities can cover all needed topics. Being able to shop the world for products and skills gives an economy more options and better options.
Protectionism and isolationism is economically stupid, almost every economic model shows this. There are ways to improve supplies of critical components without trying to make everything local.
Whether such "protects culture" is another matter. I personally believe such is tribalistic ego in action, but I've hesitantly come to conclude that one must respect xenophobics to a degree, humans are highly imperfect.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the issue. Swiss universities cover the topics just fine. What is lacking is enough students with the talent do become good at the diverse topics. All high-tech nations need immigration to cover that one.
Re: Shortage? (Score:2)
It's good to a point, but what you don't want is Balkanization. Switzerland already has four official languages, so I see why they in particular might be acutely aware of it. There's a similar situation brewing in Mexico City as a lot of foreigners are moving in, with few of them even speaking Spanish, which is pissing off a lot of the locals.
Mexico city also has a related (but not the same) concept progressives are likely familiar with is gentrification, which is somehow bad despite balkanization being awe
Re: (Score:2)
A large amount of immigrants in Switzerland are native speakers of one or the other of the official languages, just of a different dialect of it. It still pisses off some of the locals. Some of the locals will be always pissed off, no matter what you do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's take one at a time: show me one respectable or even semi-respectable economist whose model shows protectionism improves the average economy of a nation.
Re:Shortage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stick with that thought, you're so close. Let us help you across the line:
The chances of someone being born with excellent skills is equal everywhere, so when you have a pool of 10 million people to choose from you have less of them than if you have a pool of 8 billion people to choose from. This isn't a case of making sure you have your own skills, the best results come from attracting the best skills from all over the planet.
Would America have gotten the bomb so quickly without the help of an Italian immigrant (Fermi), a Hungarian immigrant (Teller)? True excellence comes from getting the brightest minds from everywhere together, not shutting yourself out and pretending the rest of the world doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
"The chances of someone being born with excellent skills is equal everywhere"
This is a nice rhetorical assertion, and one I'd like to agree with, but it's (unfortunately, for both the skilled and those in less advanced areas) provably false.
Skill directly correlates to IQ at a population level. The IQ of European-native peoples, Chinese, Japanese, and Jewish peoples is in the 100-105 range average. Africa, India, and the Middle East (to a lesser degree)? Not true at all. A full SD or more different. You've
Re: Shortage? (Score:3)
This means that your average person is not going to have the same chance of being "born with excellent skills".
Of course, this is also not without discounting things like upbringing and environment, and it undoubtedly has some play in the matter.
You are, in fact, disregarding that education (and more generally environmental factors) influences IQ. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the first claim. If you want to make this claim you have to prove that, when accounting for environmental factors, your statement is true. Short of that, you're just wishfully thinking. It is disturbing that your wishful thinking is of racism, there are happier things to wish for.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a nice rhetorical assertion, and one I'd like to agree with, but it's (unfortunately, for both the skilled and those in less advanced areas) provably false.
Except you're missing the bit where this article is about a general limit. Sure you're not going to get the next Einstein from a remote village in Tanzania which doesn't even have power, but the reality is a significant portion of the world isn't actually 3rd world, so putting a blanket ban on immigration does very much cut you off from a significant portion of the high-potential market pool.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You must be a MAGA moron to claim this completely disconnected pile of crap as yours.
Re: Shortage? (Score:4, Informative)
Funny you say that, as current crop of immigrants invading Europe love building bombs.
Yes what you say is objectively true. The current people invading Europe are Russia and they love bombs, and Europe hates them.
Re: (Score:3)
Switzerland is a high-tech country. These _all_ need to import talented people from abroad or things stop working.
Re: (Score:2)
The risk is it could lead to shortages of critical skills that end up harming Switzerland's competitiveness.
The chance of someone capable of learning critical skills being born in switzerland is the same as anywhere else, if the swiss are not training their own citizens to perform these critical roles then that's already a failure on their part.
While the probability of training sometime in Switzerland to have particular skills is likely equal to those in other developed countries, there are far fewer people in Switzerland, so it's not hard to believe that they would exhaust their supply of skilled workers in certain areas. That's not a knock of Swiss efficiency for training workers but rather an acknowledgement of a relatively small Swiss population.
There are those that might believe that a small country can train all the workers it needs in all
Re: (Score:2)
From my contacts with people there, you're right but it even goes beyond that. The Swiss don't bother anymore about advanced studies, many go for trade schools and earn good money. So there glaringly aren't enough Swiss citizens for high tech jobs in Switzerland, and every startup needs to hire foreign talent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
News to me. And I have been living in Switzerland for 25 years now.
Re: Shortage? (Score:2)
So the great monocultured unwashed masses will be ruled by diverse or wealthy foreigners? What could possibly go wrong?
Such a lack of commitment... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Such a lack of commitment... (Score:5, Interesting)
Won't be relevant if the birth rate in Switzerland stays at 1.3, just over half the replacement rate.
In other words, if the cap is a fixed total population of 10 million, they can still allow immigration to the tune of tens of thousands a yearindefinitely to keep their population from declining rapdily, and will eventually end up being a majority immigrant population.
Not sure the right-wing nutballs behind this really understand that, since their proposal actually enforces it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure the right-wing nutballs behind this really understand that, since their proposal actually enforces it.
To be fair to the nutballs, their proposal will actually slow it down as compared to not limiting immigration. That is, from their nutball perspective the proposal is an improvement, just not a total solution. For a total solution, they need to go full right-wing nutball and also ban women from working so they'll stay home and have proper Swiss babies.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure the right-wing nutballs behind this really understand that, since their proposal actually enforces it.
These people generally understand nothing. In the case at hand, it seems actually likely that the limit will not be reached. But that idea disturbs their deranged hallucinations.
Re: (Score:2)
They likely also hold the idea that they will somehow increase the birth rate of citizens. It's just harder to put those ideas to paper and in law because they generally sound weirder. Baby factories, abortion bans, financial payouts for popping out a kid - it all leads to unwanted children raised in terrible circumstances. And it sounds weird because it's eugenicist. People always think of eugenics in terms of culling undesirable genes, but breeding desired ones is the corollary to that.
Many countries with
Sounds great (Score:5, Insightful)
Switzerland isn't exactly increasing in land size nor are their natural resources becoming more abundant. I see zero problems with restricting immigration. That's a choice they as a population get to make.
Open borders are a joke and only serve the business owners. Immigrants are almost always cheaper to exploit and if these same immigrants don't assimilate to the culture of the land they are migrating to, they weaken the overall stickiness of the society.
When a country has most of it's citizens all looking the same, speaking the same, and worshiping the same, adding in a culture that doesn't want to change, doesn't speak your language and doesn't look or dress like you do just adds pressure to social cohesion.
Humans are deeply tribalistic and that's not changing any time soon. We "other" each other in all sorts of ways. It's what humans do.
Re: Sounds great (Score:2, Interesting)
" if these same immigrants don't assimilate to the culture of the land they are migrating to"
Did you just describe South Africa?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the 'natives' who showed up at the cape after the dutch arrived and built infrastructure definitely failed to assimilate.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe? mostly just fools. but here we are.
Re: Sounds great (Score:2)
Reducing immigration is one thing
Putting some arbitrary hard cap on population size is another.
When the cap is reached, how will citizens get the right to procreate?
Re: Sounds great (Score:5, Insightful)
A quick search will reveal that Switzerland's natural birthrate is around 1.3. That's well below replacement level. So the problem of natural born folks running into this hard cap is basically zero unless the country turns it's birthrate around. Considering most 1st world countries have declining birthrates, this is a nonissue.
So good for Switzerland for putting it's native population ahead of foreigners. It's not Switzerland's fault that some foreign countries can't get their shit together.
Re: (Score:2)
When a country has most of it's citizens all looking the same, speaking the same, and worshiping the same, adding in a culture that doesn't want to change, doesn't speak your language and doesn't look or dress like you do just adds pressure to social cohesion.
That's definitely not how Switzerland is structured though, being a country with 4 different National languages and areas which speak those different languages and can have significantly different cultures.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I imagine this "idea" probably won't become a law at the end of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. It is not even clear whether it can be if the vote gets accepted, which is unlikely.
Yup...what have immigrants ever done for us? (Score:2)
Open borders are a joke and only serve the business owners. Immigrants are almost always cheaper to exploit and if these same immigrants don't assimilate to the culture of the land they are migrating to, they weaken the overall stickiness of the society.
When a country has most of it's citizens all looking the same, speaking the same, and worshiping the same, adding in a culture that doesn't want to change, doesn't speak your language and doesn't look or dress like you do just adds pressure to social cohesion.
I wish those immigrants never founded my employer and about 1/2 of my entire industry!...not to mention bolstered us and made us superior to all the companies based in countries that were hostile towards immigrants. Not sure if you're American, but for all of our problems, we're one of the most accepting of immigrants in history. That's why we prevailed and our rivals fell short, especially the Soviet Union, post-war Japan, Korea, and China...and in the future it will be Israel and maybe some parts of Nor
Re: (Score:2)
There are obvious flaws. What about Swiss citizens who just want to reunite their family? "Sorry, we hit the quota for this year, and there next decade isn't looking good either."
Lottery? Great for business planning.
Coming soon everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Root cause: way too many humans, and far too many of those in regions where resources are collapsing due to a combination of population growth and changes in climate are trying to emigrate elsewhere. Sooner or later every country will realize that, politics and racism aside, there simply isn't the capability to absorb more immigrants. Excessive population will lead to catastrophic collapse of the nations currently accepting immigrants.
There is no easy answer to this situation.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Coming soon everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Siberia in Russia, Northern Canada are huge and sparsely populated. Yet there is no migration to these areas. Why? Because current migrant crisis is all about economic migration and not climate migration.
The lack of migration to Siberia and Northern Canada are not persuasive proofs that climate is not a driver of migration - as neither place is particularly friendly in the "local climate" aspects of living there.
Re:Coming soon everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe there is opportunity in this frigid lands.
But that opportunity can't be realized until they thaw a bit.
A refugee that is improverished and seeking a comfortable life simply won't have the resources to flourish in unfriendly territory. Of all the people who could preemptively seize these "great opportunities", immigrants are the least capable in the absence of structured support.
As always, the opportunities will be exploited when it is economically feasible to do so. Hoarding land today for speculative gains in the future isn't an option for immigrants. Your idea is 100% rich people shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you can separate "economic migration" and "climate migration". While there are many other ways to fuck up an economy, climate will at some point become the main thing fucking them up - and every economy at once.
Re: (Score:3)
Root cause: way too many humans of the wrong age.
The focus on immigration usually omits that Western Europe needs working age people in good proportion to that of the old folk we have/are. Limiting to 10m without expelling people is the politically correct kind of cruelty, but eventually the goalposts will shift.
Re: (Score:2)
Limiting to 10m without expelling older people is the politically correct kind of cruelty, but eventually the goalposts will shift.
Clumsy typing on my part.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in government and not thinking about 25+ years in the future, you're doing your country a disservice.
Re: (Score:2)
Many developed economies are based on there being infinite growth. Without it, pensions, healthcare, society in general will collapse.
Either we go cold turkey and charge the whole basis of our socio-economic systems, or we have some immigration to ease the transition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why leave out production-destroying war, made easy by US made weapons?
Why leave out crime, corruption, and dictatorships made by their own people?
Re: (Score:2)
Crime is often left out of the picture because of Thomas Robert Malthus. His book, An Essay on the Principle of Population, concludes that war, famine, and plague ultimately limit a human population. People have generally stuck to that triumvirate of tragedy as the limiting factors since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would those things rise to the level of causing an exodus, unless western arms unimaginably multiplied their power?
Most of these places always high level of crime, poverty, corruption, and never knew any other form of government but dictatorships.These endemic issues also predate colonialism. These don't cause exodus, having an accessible alternative in the West is what cause exodus. Yes when these migrants arrive to the west, they continue destructive behaviors that led their home countries to be drowned in crime, poverty and corruption.
Why was immigration not a problem before colonialism?
Because before modern era border guards would shoot at would-be migrants if they a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"resources are collapsing due to a combination of population growth and changes in climate "
Why leave out production-destroying war, made easy by US made weapons?
Because it doesn't alter the poster's original conclusion/assertion in any way, so it doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.
Because its value therefore begins and ends with scoring Zing-The-Empire points, which are basically emotional NFTs -- you can collect them, and then... what?
Re: Coming soon everywhere (Score:2)
Qhat if the countries complaining about immigration are responsible for it, whether by conducting war, selling the means to conduct war on a scale never seen before those countries became colonizers, or, if you want to go that route, climate change, and economic hegemony?
As for emotions, sure, guilty as charged, but what about the original post isn't rage bait? Why not start pointing at the cause of my emotional response, i.e. the emotions expressed in the post to which I was responsing to?
Re: (Score:2)
Qhat if the countries complaining about immigration are responsible for it, whether by conducting war, selling the means to conduct war on a scale never seen before those countries became colonizers, or, if you want to go that route, climate change, and economic hegemony?
For the same reason - it doesn't change the original comment's conclusion.
I can fully stipulate to framing the last 130 years of U.S. history with a dystopian MIC Imperium narrative, and that neither strengthens nor weakens the OC's conclusion that "Sooner or later every country will realize that, politics and racism aside, there simply isn't the capability to absorb more immigrants. Excessive population will lead to catastrophic collapse of the nations currently accepting immigrants. There is no easy answe
Sounds weak. (Score:2)
Does not sound like "the next level". Next level would be to only to accept people who will, and can assimilate into their culture and social norm or at least not be a burden. Maybe they are already doing that. IDK. dont care really. :D
Interesting coincidence (Score:2)
Birth rates are falling as AI and robotics mean that fewer workers will be required in the future
Along with population limits, this could balance out nicely
Of course, things rarely balance out nicely
We made jobs a limited resource (Score:2)
Stopping immigration especially in countries where birth rates are below sustainability will create a permanent recession like Japan has. I don't think that's really up for debate we've seen it play out in Japan to the extreme and in South Korea to a lesser extent.
But the problem is if you do not have enough places in society for the people who are already here and can vote they ar
Article has cause and effect backward (Score:5, Insightful)
Growing support for far-right parties is pressuring European governments to introduce stricter controls on immigration.
No.
Growing concerns among over how global migration patterns over the past 40 years impact the economic and cultural futures of every country on the planet, is pressuring the rise of "far-right" parties.
Spontaneous combustion doesn't exist. Combustion only occurs when things like fuel, heat/pressure, and oxygen are all shoved together.
Every time you dismissively hand-wave away those concerns because you don't think other people's feelings, drives, fears, and aspirations for the future are valid compared to your more-enlightened opinions, you are adding to the population reservoirs of sentiment that fuel "far-right" parties.
Try listening.
Try acknowledging.
Try reflecting.
Try redirecting.
Try doing the work of actual empathy, not just the performative convenient pseudo-empathy that people talk about on social media but only apply to those who already believe like you.
Or don't. Insist that you are right, that you are more enlightened, that you are better, that others aren't worth listening to, that their concerns are fabricated.
Understand that when you choose that, you've left the path of empathy or democracy or historical dialectic or whatever else you profess to believe in.
Understand that you've left no other alternative; it's Shark vs. Jets, pistols at dawn, might makes right. The biggest guns and highest body count wins.
Tonight when you're doomscrolling and wondering how did we get here, how the world once seemed troubled-but-bright, and now everything just seems to keep spiralling out -- understand that all of us are having the world we all voted for. Yes, even you. We built this together.
Re: (Score:2)
that their concerns are fabricated
So what do you recommend telling people who believe a random immigrant is going to eat their pet? Install a fence and shoot anyone who knocks on your door because they're distracting you from the person sneaking in the back to grab a bite? I'm a man, I offer solutions not "Yeah, the world is a scary place."
Sure they have a lot of valid concerns, but just as many bullshit ones too. The bullshit ones are the only ones I ever hear anyone talking about as they're rarely self directed and instead about other
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, you shot down your own argument;
"Spontaneous combustion doesn't exist."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Many barns have burned down from stacking up hay bales that are too green. The can of oily rags is another classic.
good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Countries shouldn't aim to be competitive. They should aim to be more self-sufficient from the global economic system, so they can have decent lifestyles without increasing their population.
Well, I know who I'd kick out first... (Score:2)
with little distinction made between refugees, skilled workers and top managers on six-figure salaries.
The "top managers" can go away yesterday, please.
Interesting experiment (Score:2)
This will be an interesting experiment. The fertility rate in Switzerland is below replacement rate, so this implies that the population will age.
Who will work to support pensions of the large number of retired people? Who will take care of the elderly?
If this comes to pass, it will be interesting to see how well (or poorly) Switzerland fares, because the entire world is going to go through the same thing in 50-100 years at most.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes? You can offload taking care of elderly people with mobility issues to "AI"?
At some point, there have to be limits. (Score:2)
No country can afford to take in unlimited refugees. At some point, the answer becomes another question. "How to we raise the standard of living for people in that country because we can not afford to take any more of them here?"
LK
Don't take that too seriously (Score:2)
The SVP is basically the political home of all the posturing idiots that criticize anything and everything, but that when in power either cannot perform or suddenly shut up about all that. You only need around 2% signatures from voters to launch even the most stupid "initiative" and this one here certainly qualifies. Most of these just get rejected and that is it. The thing is, when the decision time draws near, many of the ones currently claiming to support this will look at actual facts and then things lo
No problem (Score:3)
Even right now, about 400,000 people commute into Switzerland every day from neighboring countries to work, they can up that number easily.
Re:Conservatives love their Eugenics (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the people per se. It's their political system and their refusal to assimilate that is the problem.
I say political system, because Islam is a political system masquerading as a religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Size (Score:5, Insightful)
So, yeah, putting a hard limit on immigration makes a lot of sense. There are lots of other places to live in Europe. Finland has nothing but room.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And a 30 second look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] would have shown you that this is not the case. The one with delusions is you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not more than in other parts of the world. Probably less. And yes, I actually know that. For example, the fabled "anonymous Swiss bank accounts" have been history for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the reputation is the reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
keep their country
Why, is it going somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't even figure out the mentality needed to post this comment, let alone mod it up. Even the attempt to reframe the proposal leaves the proposal as ugly and racist. And since when was invading a country by military force and imposing your own government the same thing as joining it organically, either because it has a culture you love and believe would thrive in, or because you're escaping persecution?
What a horrific mentality you guys have. What truly horrible people you are. You're not even making an
Re:Globalists call everything they don't like nazi (Score:4, Insightful)
when was invading a country by military force and imposing your own government the same thing as joining it organically
Joining organically? There is nothing organic about what is happening right now. No Western population wants such high level of migration; you had Brexit, you have far-right parties coming to power in France, Trump 2 in US, etc. It is universally opposed, unpopular, top-down globalist policy that is going to destabilize established world order. The real question is why force it on the unwilling population and risk inevitable chaos, unless causing chaos is the goal?
Even the attempt to reframe the proposal leaves the proposal as ugly and racist.
Smearing your political opponents as racist is so passe.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's possible to make a less nuanced and less coherent argument than this. At best, you're telling on yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Globalists call everything they don't like na (Score:2)
Re: Globalists call everything they don't like na (Score:2)
Re: Zimbabwe has the same access to unlimited curr (Score:2)
Did Zimbabwe have an unlimited currency swap line with the Fed?
If the Swiss National Bank was like Zimbabwe and had no access to unlimited Fed dollars on demand, would they have survived 2008, 2020, and the 2022 Credit Suisse crisis?
Re: (Score:2)
Did Zimbabwe have an unlimited currency swap line with the Fed?
Probably the poster you are replying to is misunderstanding a National Bank ability to create more of their own national currency vs. a foreign National Bank having a swap line with the US Federal Reserve allowing said foreign National Bank to effectively "borrow" USD on demand in times of crisis.
Note though that other National Banks have fed lines too and have used them extensively during crisis, sometimes much more than Switzerland.
If the Swiss National Bank was like Zimbabwe and had no access to unlimited Fed dollars on demand, would they have survived 2008, 2020, and the 2022 Credit Suisse crisis?
2008 without the swap line would have had very likely massive negative con
Re: (Score:2)
How important should the ability to repay be, if the borrower just commits exploitative crimes against poor countries like Zimbabwe to get the money to repay?
It's basically the only thing that matters if a lender wants to see their money back. A lot of countries exploit other countries, but not many of those countries have the credibility to get afforded access to a Federal Reserve swap line still.
Re:Tell me again why it's okay for the Swiss to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
(Original reply has disappeared for some reason, apologies if the original reply suddenly comes up)
It isn't OK for the Swiss to do it. Who is telling you that other than white supremacists?
Asylum treaties exist for a reason. And the Swiss will shoot themselves in the foot if they ban skills-based immigration as the world doesn't evenly distribute skills across it.
And, in classic fascist style, it's a dumb law that proffers a simplistic, wrong, answer to a complex question, designed to distract you from the
Re: (Score:2)
At this time, it is 2% signatures. Actually doing it is quite a different question.
Re: (Score:3)
Given how low their birth rate is, well below replacement level, it's a pointless law that will have zero effect. With a birth rate of 1.29, their population would be dropping nearly 50% per generation without immigration.
No effect at all. Just more virtue signaling.
Re:other way around. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:other way around.[clarification] (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>":Roll Eyes: Would they kick their own babies out once they hit ten million?"
Their population is in DECLINE, like almost all Western nations. There is ZERO chance of that happening. They will very likely allow immigration, but with hard caps and based on their own criteria, not just anyone that wants in or crosses their borders without permission. Those criteria will likely be based on things like knowing the language, having valuable/compatible skills/education, already having family there, understa
Re: (Score:2)
What this really comes down to, like all immigration debates, is racism. They don't like the color of the skin or the religion of the immigrants.
Racism is definitely a thing, but discrimination based on religion is not racism. Religions aren't races. Religions also can be better or worse than other religions, while not so much for races. Same for cultures, they vary in goodness. I believe in immigration (I am descended from immigrants), and I believe every race should be welcome, though I am not so sure about every religion or culture.
I'm Canadian and immigrant Mohammad Shafia murdered one of his wives and three of his daughters because the daug
Re: (Score:2)
Celebrate? Switzerlands fertility rate was 1.29 children per woman in 2024.
Re: (Score:2)
There is reason to believe this limit will not actually be reached. And that would be a problem.
Keep in mind that this is the "SVP", which is essentially the "MAGA morons", Swiss version. They only need to collect 2% voter signatures in 18 months to start this. Does not mean they have any real chance of getting it accepted.