Once that problem is solved, we can talk about "sentiments".
Of course, nobody can agree on where the line is, or escape the shoulder-rubbing with racism and classism while trying to argue where the line is.
Given that I participated in that back in 99, and have been called a Nazi three times over the past two weeks for anodyne views, you’re literally not wrong.
But yeah, most people have lost touch with where food comes from originally, before it's in the shelves of your supermarket.
Has changing zoning laws historically ever boosted housing construction by more than 10%?
I am looking at a 4 room apartment in a very nice villa next to a small national park right now, for 560€, with a train going twice an hour 15 minutes ride to the town with my potential next job. (In germany)
So salaries there are lower, but so is apparently rent. Way less than 40%, more like 20%.
Don't take it too serious would be my advice, downvotes also sometimes happen by accident with a big thump on touchscreen.
(In case you're suspicious of other stereotypes: I'm not wealthy and have no interest in my home as an investment, and I don't live in California)
Stance on immigration and development is not nearly as strongly correlated with left/right as other wedge issues like reproductive rights, government secularism, etc.
I invite you to read the book [How Migration Really Works](https://goodreads.com/book/show/82005192-how-migration-reall...).
Most people think that being anti-immigration equals being racist and wanting refugees to be turned away. And given your comment, that is also what you seem to believe. However, the large majority of immigration is state-sanctioned (so work visas, etc.), is not the immigration you hear about in the news or that racists talk about, and it's neither a left nor a right issue.
Immigration does have economic benefits, but I'm certain you'll agree nothing in the world is only good or only bad. Immigration does lead to larger competition on housing (more people = more demand), and generally this happens in the cities where the housing crisis is the worst. So more immigration undoubtedly benefits landlords.
Immigration also means more competition for jobs, which leads in practice to lower wages. So it also benefits capital-owners.
So you can be leftist, campaign to increase intake of refugees, campaign against the housing crisis and wealth inequality, and be against immigration.
As an example that might change your opinion (beyond talking to a leftist who does not think immigration is nothing but good): when the Tories came to power after Brexit, they implemented policies that greatly facilitated immigration (2-4 times yearly intake to what it was before Brexit) [0]. Corporations and the right are very much pro-immigration. Would you have expected that?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_Unit...
Forget where I first saw that but it’s absolutely true.
The left will try rent control, subsidies, taxes and prohibitions against speculation, banning AirBnB, etc. The right will try mass deportations and population caps.
Nobody will build more housing because that would work, and home owners are incentivized not to do anything that would work, and homeowners vote in much larger numbers.
The problem won’t be solved until renters out vote homeowners and until everyone who wants more affordable housing stops advocating the solutions that will not work.
The entire developed world is basically a big housing cartel where existing home owners work to limit supply to keep the price high.
There was this weird period after WWII where we built tons of housing. It was a major factor in building the largest middle class in human history. Then we stopped.
There might be a population limit that a country wants to set, based on effects of population visible in employment, housing , transportation, and social services.
There might be a motivation to curb immigration from certain parts of the world, based on cultural factors and aligning more with one side of the political spectrum than the other.
This vote, however, does not stem from the federal (or even state-level) government, but instead is an initiative launched by a group of conservative politicians which happen to be part of the SVP party. The Swiss Federal Council (executive body) has come out against this initiative.
Switzerland has a form of direct democracy, where any group of individuals can propose a change in laws and if they collect 100k signatures (within 18 months) this proposed text will be voted on by the whole country. Here is a list of all referendums, a subset of which are these initiatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swiss_federal_referend...
These initiatives are a frequent feature in Swiss politics, and not necessarily indicative of broadly popular legislation. In fact, whether or not an initiative is accepted is heavily correlated with the support it receives form the federal government. Give that they oppose it, I would bet against this passing.
This happened everywhere, to an extent that is genuinely surprising to me.
Pretty much every German company and government position post WW2 is in this category. And funnily enough, a good number of American organizations.
Chile's president is the son of a Nazi.
Japan went on operating business as usual except for the invading China part.
The only way you could argue an initiative is "against the Swiss constitution" in my opinion would be if it runs afoul of the rules: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#tit_4/chap_2
Unless you want to argue that this violates the mandatory provisions of international law, I don't think you have an argument. The text of the amendment specifically clarifies that any of the actions it mandates on parliament have to adhere to the mandatory provisions of international law, so I don't think that's an avenue you can pursue.
For baby 10M+1 are they going to tell a Swiss woman that she can’t have a baby?
In any case, this is definitely not conformant to the treaty that the Swiss have with the EU around rights of free movement.
It's primarily an attempt to control immigration.
At 9.5M, the government has to start limiting the issuance of residence permits and start renegotiating international commitments that drive population growth.
At 10M, the government has to terminate the free movement agreement with the EU.
The right-leaning parties bring up something like this every few years. They always get shot down.
This wouldn't happen because it's not actually a population control measure, it's an immigration control measure - when the population gets above 9.5M, Switzerland would start shutting down immigration/asylum. There's nothing in the initiative that would set controls on births by Swiss citizens. (and it would be unlikely to be needed since Switzerland is facing the same low birth rate of other western countries)
Organic population growth doesn’t have to be criminalized or authoritarian-controlled like China tried.
But, it does seem like a terrible place to live. I fear for the immigrants who form the basis of the economy.
When people talk about immigrants in this context, I don't think they mean people from the US, but lower socioeconomic asylum-seekers and refugees etc. from the middle-east.
It definitely seems their economy was built on European labor, which I believe the vast majority of European countries were.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Switzerland#Pe...
They really don't like asylum seekers either though. Several of their arguments reference asylum seekers specifically: https://nachhaltigkeitsinitiative.ch/argumente/
Switzerland's comparative advantage as an innovation hub was due to it's permissive capital structures and historic openness to white collar immigration.
All that a rule like this does is incentivize moving jobs out of Switzerland. Heck, look at UBS axing 3,000 jobs across all functions in CH and shifting them to India [0] last Wednesday.
If UBS, Novartis, Google Geneva (edit: doh, Zurich - my coffee hasn't kicked in), etc cannot continue to attract employees they will leave, and given the extremely friendly FTAs and BITs Switzerland [1] has signed either unilaterally or part of the EFTA, it's extremely easy.
Heck, look at how Syngenta went from being a Swiss major that employed thousands in Switzerland to a Chinese major that is about to IPO in Hong Kong [2] in just a decade.
Already 1 out of every 3 Swiss businesses is planning to shift out of Switzerland (primarily to the EU and US, but Asia comes up as well) [3].
Switzerland doesn't have the same comparative advantage in finance 40 years ago (why Basel when I can go to London, Frankfurt, or Amsterdam) nor manufacturing (why CH and not DE or CN) and this kind of ruling puts it's entire life sciences industry - the last industry within which CH remains a global leader - in jeopardy.
Additionally, Switzerland is not in the EU and is dependent on the EU-Switzerland FTA. If this were to pass, it would violate that FTA with Switzerland's largest trading partner. The EU can severely push back against CH, and France+Germany+Italy would very much support such retaliation as it would help incentivize Swiss businesses to shift out of Switzerland.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/ubs-plans-hire-3000...
[1] - https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/en/home/Aussenwirtschaftspoli...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/syngenta-targets-up-10-b...
[3] - https://www.thelocal.ch/20251023/swiss-companies-set-to-relo...
The Nazis may have found the Swiss more useful as a 'neutral' country than they would have as conquered territory:
> No, the controversy in Swiss conduct comes from three major factors. The trade in gold, Nazi banking, and Jewish banking.*
> When the war began, Germany had less than 50 million dollars in gold in their national stores. Yet, during the war, the Allies claimed that the Swiss purchased over 300 million in gold from the Germans. Where did the extra gold come from? Well, the obvious answer is that Nazi Germany stole it from the countries they invaded. With most powers unwilling to accept what was obviously stolen gold as payment for goods, the Swiss didn't have the same scruples. They bought the gold for Swiss francs, which Germany than could use to purchase stuff they needed from other neutral powers such as Turkey. When confronted after the war, the Swiss only would admit to 58 million of French and Belgian gold, which they compensated the respective national banks for. Investigations couldn't prove the rest, and when suspiciously new, gold 20-Fr pieces began appearing in the late 1940s, bearing dates from the 1930s, no one seemed able to prove that the Swiss had melted down the gold and was trying to secretly pass it into circulation.
> Gold wasn't all they got though. The Allies also believed there to be hundreds of millions in assets from Nazi officials stashed in Swiss bank accounts. As the occupying powers of Germany, the Allies claimed that ownership of these accounts defaulted to them, while the Swiss not only disagreed, but also claimed near total ignorance, as their strict banking laws prevented any disclosure verifying the claims. […]
* https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4rciqp/why_d...
> The Swiss helped transform almost four-fifths of all German gold into highly convertible Swiss Francs. As a result, Germany was able to buy strategic raw materials from Spain and Portugal.
> Switzerland as a nation was immensely important to the German military machine and economic planning. In 1941, for example, Hitler received a billion Swiss francs as credit for the Russian campaign.
* https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/nazis-neve...
This was largely due to the success of Biogen in the 1980s which helped link American biopharma IP with the Swiss ecosystem along with a fairly permissive PR program for skilled foreign nationals.
Edit: cannot reply
> Roche and Lanza
Roche and Lanza would have remained CDMOs if it wasn't for Biogen bringing an entire generation of Harvard and MIT Biopharma researchers to Switzerland in the 1980s and helped build an ecosystem for therapeutics and biopharma R&D.
Much of Roche's biopharma and therapeutics leadership and IP is derived from Biogen alumni.
Swiss pharma was driven by Roche and Lonza, which are much older than Biogen.
Plus: they are the only(!) country on earth who could offer bunker protection to 95%+ of society in case of war.
Even if you only considered the guns, your claim seems to be false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
As far as I can tell, the problem is inequality leading to widespread insecurity because the rich buy up housing. The right wing has no solutions. What you probably need is Vienna-style public housing and very high taxes to reduce inequality and fund social services. But then the rich always threaten capital flight to tank your economy.
The co-founder of Bitcoin Suisse too has been struggling to obtain Swiss citizenship.
So again, it's not a question of skin colour or wealth, but a far deeply rooted sense of racism and superiority, and general disdain the SVP and their supporters hold for anyone who isn't German Swiss.
They see this as a threat to their entire way of life.
Racism is bad people. This will hurt people living in Switzerland today and those who end up there in the future.
This isn't about racism. This is about unchecked immigration putting a strain on infrastructure and people feeling like they're losing their identity.
This initiative is stupid but the underlying problem is real: we're letting in too many people too fast.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/1awmq1a/...
People should get to move and live where they want.
If Switzerland has a lack of infrastructure it should build more, not xenophobically cap its population. You can’t freeze a society in amber.
Think this through: If the world likes your real estate, they can just come in and take it over overnight? Borders suddenly don’t matter?
Pop caps can easily be understood as visa or naturalization buffers. Hysteria doesn’t help.
The world would be a better place if we defined our communities by how we welcomed people and not by who we excluded
The people who clamor for moving there now could simply remake what they imagine liking about it in another area - careful not to erect borders or engender any kind of pride or loyalty to what they build, naturally.
Yes, this covers about a thousand years of European history.
It's funny to see people pretending not to know the history of spreading Christianity and subsequently colonialism.
What are you referring to in the parent comment? It sounds like you're agreeing with them, but this antagonistic part is mysterious.
That sounds a lot like what us Europeans did in North Africa not that long ago. We were indeed not welcomed.
Westerners are so naive, Islam's objective is to grow and convert as many people as possible. To this end, they have been building mosques all over the world, increasing their population and weaponizing immigration. There is a reason Muslim countries don't allow Christians, Jews and other faiths to flourish in their homes.
Now, is this applicable to all Muslims? Of course not. But don't be naive and think that no one has an agenda. Case in point, my family has Muslims (Shia) and there are some of them I wouldn't want in the West.
No one is advocating for an immigration ban here, or is attempting to bar Muslims. Suggesting caps and enforcing sane limits is a good thing. Nations need to vet their applicants thoroughly before letting them in.
As a final note, I think that immigration is a band-aid for the population collapse in the West. The real issue is the underlying culture change. Perhaps a better avenue is to focus inward and promoting family values instead of outwards to resolve the issue?
Perhaps a better avenue is to focus inward and promoting family values instead of outwards to resolve the issue?
Europeans first stole the resources that fed the industrial revolution and enriched themselves at the loss of everybody else. Then with the US forced everyone to be part of "line always goes up" club, with extreme violence at the times.
You cannot just "exit" the club now. All rare metals, fruits, various produce, chemicals, clothing etc are sourced with the global trade network. Since everybody has to be in the "line goes up or else" club, (we) Europeans have to continue the saga to not lose the entire civilization we have now. Nobody except very big nations with rich resources can afford pulling the plug and be self sufficient.
If you are not joining the ponzi scheme, you cannot buy shit. Without buying rare elements you cannot make advanced silicon, computers, solar cells, batteries. All engineering, medicine, food needs the ruthless capitalism. You cannot quit without turning the world upside down again. And who are you going to force through the inevitable meat grinder?
"Islam's objective is to grow and convert as many people as possible" is it? says who? Why do you think there is one unified islam with one goal? As far as I'm aware, islam is not a prosetylising religion, who's out to convert who?
"building mosques all over the world" yes when a bunch of religious people are in a place, they build a place of worship. From your comment history, you're apparently iranian - what exactly is sinister about building mosques?
"increasing population" yes people like to do that, it's a rather enjoyable process, not exactly mindblowing thing to accuse people of.
"weaponizing immigration" how? who is doing that? are these governments deliberately sending people over? Who are they sending? Why has no leak of this conspirary ever happened? Are multiple governments independantly doing this?
"There is a reason Muslim countries don't allow Christians, Jews and other faiths to flourish in their homes." flourish in what sense? many muslim countries have other faiths there. These are the people of the book afterall. Some countries have sharia law that applies only to muslims - harsher laws only for the majority religion.
"No one is advocating for an immigration ban here, or is attempting to bar Muslims" Yes people are, don't be naive, this is absolutely about muslims.
"promoting family values" Or maybe the real reason people aren't having kids are climate anxiety and economic factors. It's not that people just suddenly hate families now. What do you even mean by "family values", send woman back to the kitchen and that'll make people have kids? I doubt that's what you mean so what is your solution?
Do you not learn anything about Islam in schools where you live? I'm sure you must have spent at least few hours at History class covering Islam expansion starting with Mohamed.
>> What do you even mean by "family values", send woman back to the kitchen and that'll make people have kids? I doubt that's what you mean so what is your solution?
You want more people from cultures who think exactly like that. You believe Muslim women should be baby factories for the West.
"You want more people from cultures who think exactly like that" Many don't think like this. I do not want or not want them.
"You believe Muslim women should be baby factories for the West." No I don't, why would you think otherwise?
On second though, you simply extracted what things you could best insult me with from my reply and put words in my mouth, I will no longer be engaging in this. Goodbye.
If you really want cheap labor, why not import Vietnamese people, Filipinos, etc?
What a horrible calumny to casually post on a ostensibly politically-neutral website! Absolutely shameful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden#Birthplace_of_p...
I've repeatedly called you a dumbass on this website and it's not about to change with this comment: the minister of justice is not in charge of:
* Police
* Arresting people
* Building prisons
* Fixing the prison overpopulation that makes it impossible to send someone to jail.
* Changing laws.
> before you say it: the Crans Montana owner was French, with the name of Macron’s first minister of justice
Macron's ministers of justice were Bayrou, then Belloubet, before Dupont-Moretti. Who hasn't been minister since 2024. That's without considering the fact that it's the most absolute dog shit "link" you could make. Last names can be shared, woohoo. Zero relationship between Jacques Moretti and Eric Dupont-Moretti.
Dumbass.
A French guy emigrated in Crans-Montana cared so little about Swiss lives that he skimmed some laws and dozens of people died in a horrible, avoidable accident which is typical from people skimming laws.
Dupont Moretti was the first minister of justice of Macron, I stand by my words. You can say a minister is not responsible for anything that happens under him, and yet, when one walks into the ashes of a parliament, people hear about it 80 years later. The “reduce prison population by freeing criminals” policy was real and is real under Macron.
The real thing you skipped is that hundreds of French people are killed every year. It’s not a slaughter, because there’s both intent and selection on ethnicity and religion: It’s an intentional genocide.
The Federal Council's official message to Parliament dismantles the whole thing. Real GDP per capita grew 0.82 percent annually between 2002 and 2022, comparable to Norway, Austria, and Denmark. EU and EFTA nationals are net contributors to Swiss social insurance, paying significantly more into AVS, AI, and APG than they receive back.
The SVP frames asylum seekers as the most urgent part of the problem, but recognized refugees make up about 1 percent of total residents. Meanwhile 64 percent of net migration in 2024 came from EU and EFTA countries, overwhelmingly people filling jobs. This is not an asylum crisis, it is labor migration the Swiss economy actively demands.
The initiative would likely require denouncing the ECHR, the Geneva Refugee Convention, and other human rights treaties to hit an arbitrary number. The guillotine clause means killing free movement also kills Schengen and Dublin. And the Federal Council already negotiated a safeguard clause with the EU that allows limiting immigration in justified cases without blowing up the entire bilateral relationship. That is a scalpel.
This initiative is a sledgehammer aimed at a number someone picked because it fits on a poster.
Sorry, not sorry, but facts don't care about feelings.