Rise of xenophobia in Switzerland

[Aimless]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ction-win.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...n-history.html

I am, of course, out of touch with reality most of the time. I am surprised by this because I've always implicitly associated xenophobia with things like disenfranchisement, economic hardship, etc. And I'd somehow expected that xenophobia would rise in European politics primarily on the backs of small, extreme populist parties. Looks like I knew less about both xenophobia and about Switzerland than I thought

One by one they fall

[Dreadnaught]

While the rhetoric is ugly and I live in a country that benefits from/was founded on immigration, I don't see how it's necessarily xenophobic or racist for electorates to not want large-scale immigration. Or to openly discuss preserving their culture.

Yes, that kind of conversation can go in ugly directions. However we talk about cultural preservation all the time. Most people consider it appropriate for a group of people to gather together and preserve whatever non-violent aspects they define as part of their culture. So why do things get so awkward when European immigration comes up?

Do the Swiss --*who arguably have far more than one culture in a single country -- have no right to say that they want to preserve the status quo? I would advise them against it, but I don't see how it's so abominable to want such a status quo.

NOTE: Bringing up stupid signs/slogans from the Swiss SVP doesn't make an argument. Ignore that for a moment and just think about the core issue.

[Aimless]

Hang on, why do you want to disregard the rhetoric and the propagandized imagery that feature prominently in this trend? They are the only reason why I decided to label this as xenophobia rather than eg. nationalism or conservatism (although I suspect all such sentiments are intertwined and end up fueling each other).

[Dreadnaught]

Mainly because it's become so fashionable to dismiss nationalism as xenophobia. In general, I feel we've become too fixated on the signage behind movements and not the actual rational/irrational basis for why people vote the way they vote. Not to mention what these new parties actually do once they are in office.

[Loki]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15418331

[Aimless]

Well that's heartening, although they remain the largest party at 27%

[Asmodian]

The problem is not immigration as such, if by immigration it is meant legal movement of people who come and obtain necessary papers and actually have a residence or working permit. Those people go through quite a comprehensive screening system and those that get through are actually very much a welcome addition.
The problem is basically the EU, and more specifically the Schengen zone which Switzerland is a part of. Where before we were surrounded by well to do albeit poorer nations they were wealthy enough so that large segments of their populations did not have an incentive to become vagabonds in Switzerland. With the Schengen Zone and the EU people from poor countries mainly Romanians are streaming through France (and I assume other EU states in other parts of Switzerland) in to Geneva and becoming beggars and hustlers here. It is quite reasonable that there is public backlash especially since the change was not gradual but almost overnight from having 2 or maybe 3 beggars in the entire city, to having one sitting outside most cash dispensers in city center, and little scam games running through out main street and open markets.
However attempts to tighten immigration laws would not achieve anything these people are not immigrants they will never get papers and become legal residents. What is needed is for Switzerland to withdraw from Schengen so that police can start kicking these people out and fining them based on lack of visa in their documents.
Unfortunately the public seems to be stumbling in mostly stupid directions such as ban on minarets which was completely pointless, there like 4 minarets in entire Switzerland, they are not used for call to prayer, so really they don’t bother anyone all that legislature did was piss of rich arabs who are not the people we want to get rid of.

[earthJoker]

Hmm, how did I miss this thread till now? Well it was a busy weekend for me, but still...

Anyway the OP link was way off from the start. Of course the SVP aimed to reach the 30%, parties always want to make a good result. But honestly, there were no polls or surveys that hinted that they actually will succeed in their plans. So all in all, the only ones who talked about 30% was the SVP and the foreign press.

Now they have 3% and 8 seats less. The loss wasn't predicted in that amount. But the SVP had one problem over the last months, all topics where overshadowed by the Euro-Crisis and the resulting high Franc. And the SVP had little to say on that topic.

The SVP was for the last two decades an easy target for the left press in the EU to point at the country staying outside of the EU. But nowadays the SVP is not an exception in Europe any more. Most EU countries have their equivalents to the SVP.

Well that's heartening, although they remain the largest party at 27%

25% and what can you archive being the largest party? You need to have a majority to pass laws, they are far from that. Not even together with their strongest ally (FDP) they can get a majority of the seats.

[Momo]

It sometimes amuses me, the British (for example) attitude to immigrants. Most Brits don't really like immigrants, yet they forget that many immigrants come from countries that were colonised. It shows a large lack of foresight: the colonisation of continents without expecting immigrants would want to go and explore the coloniser's homeland too.

[Asmodian]

As far as I know Switzerland never ever colonized anyone. Unless ofcourse you consider it the heir of the Roman Empire.

Or was that just a shot at fing obnoxious brits completely independent of the topic of this thread in which case nice show

[Aimless]

Hmm, how did I miss this thread till now? Well it was a busy weekend for me, but still...

Anyway the OP link was way off from the start. Of course the SVP aimed to reach the 30%, parties always want to make a good result. But honestly, there were no polls or surveys that hinted that they actually will succeed in their plans. So all in all, the only ones who talked about 30% was the SVP and the foreign press.

Now they have 3% and 8 seats less. The loss wasn't predicted in that amount. But the SVP had one problem over the last months, all topics where overshadowed by the Euro-Crisis and the resulting high Franc. And the SVP had little to say on that topic.

The SVP was for the last two decades an easy target for the left press in the EU to point at the country staying outside of the EU. But nowadays the SVP is not an exception in Europe any more. Most EU countries have their equivalents to the SVP.

25% and what can you archive being the largest party? You need to have a majority to pass laws, they are far from that. Not even together with their strongest ally (FDP) they can get a majority of the seats.

I'm just saying, if someone told me only 25% of the cells in my body are cancer cells I'd be a little worried even as I'd be glad about the number dropping by 3% 'cause my foot got chopped off. I'm not trying to attack Switzerland, just surprised and worried.

[earthJoker]

I don't think you should compare your political opponents with cancer cells. Honestly I don't like that kind of vocabulary even if you strongly disagree with their points.

The SVP might run an anti-immigrant and anti-EU stance. But they always respected the democratic values of the country. And don't forget, it's not just a protest party but also the traditional party of the farmers and small business people.

[Momo]

As far as I know Switzerland never ever colonized anyone. Unless ofcourse you consider it the heir of the Roman Empire.

Or was that just a shot at fing obnoxious brits completely independent of the topic of this thread in which case nice show

It was a symbol, meant (upon reflection) to prompt thought about the origins of migration and immigration, the effect that has had upon culture over the millenia and the impact it's had upon our genetic pool; as well as being the cause of things like land-grabs, wars, crusades, the rise of religions and mulattos. The last item of which I in particular am quite grateful for.

But also to try and get a bigger perspective on 'immigration' than the one being pushed politically by people trying to keep the picture small. That is one of politic's greatest tricks, after all!

But to be fair, it needs to be because of the sheer amount of small-mindedness they have to deal with as a result of their having a democracy.

[earthJoker]

It was a symbol, meant (upon reflection) to prompt thought about the origins of migration and immigration

A symbol which failed, because the reasons for immigration into Switzerland has little to do with colonization.

[Hazir]

What is needed is for Switzerland to withdraw from Schengen so that police can start kicking these people out and fining them based on lack of visa in their documents..

Actually this is patent nonsense if the problem is correctly described by you. The people you want to keep out are EU citizens, who actually do not need a visa or special permission to come to Switzerland. You can't stop them at the border without violating Swiss obligations that Switzerland has a very big interest in fullfilling because the treaties that they are part of give you free access to the EU markets. And of course it gives Swiss citizens the right to work and live whereever they want in the EU.

[earthJoker]

Hazir, I think you are not correct. The Schengen/Dublin agreement is part of the Bilaterals II, and actually they could be quit by Switzerland without having to quit the Bilaterals I (which include the free person movement agreement). The Bilaterals I are as you said one big package which can be quite only all or nothing.

But what Admodian said is still impracticable (but not nonsense). To control the traffic over the Swiss boarder around Geneva to a degree that is sufficient to reduce crime would need a huge amount of personal. I would rather see that money invested in additional police officers in Geneva.

[Momo]

A symbol which failed, because the reasons for immigration into Switzerland has little to do with colonization.

It didn't really fail as a symbol, but it certainly can fail in interpretation.

To me, this incident in Switzerland symbolised the migration of humans in history.

To me, it also symbolises the juxtaposition between conservatism and progress, amongst other things.

The logical arguments between reasons for immigration and colonisation may be incongruous, but that shouldn't stop me from regarding the situation from a broader perspective, should it? In fact, it'd be impossible for me not to.

[Hazir]

Hazir, I think you are not correct. The Schengen/Dublin agreement is part of the Bilaterals II, and actually they could be quit by Switzerland without having to quit the Bilaterals I (which include the free person movement agreement). The Bilaterals I are as you said one big package which can be quite only all or nothing.

But what Admodian said is still impracticable (but not nonsense). To control the traffic over the Swiss boarder around Geneva to a degree that is sufficient to reduce crime would need a huge amount of personal. I would rather see that money invested in additional police officers in Geneva.

I am 100% right in saying that border controls on the Swiss border does not do anything about Rumanian or Bulgarian citizens having the right to enter Switzerland. All they need to do is claim they are doing so in order to look for a job in Switzerland and they have the right to stay there for 3 months. From that moment on the burden of proof lies on the Swiss state that a person trying to execute his rights under EU law (which is Swiss law per bilaterals I) is endangering Swiss public order and/or security in order for Switzerland to be able to refuse them entry to the country. I would go as far as to say that a Rumanian gypsy could enforce his right to enter Switzerland in court by simply having a hotel reservation at a Swiss hotel.

Talk that 'Schengen' is the problem is nonsense - if the problem is Rumanian gypsy beggars. If the problem is African illegal immigrants, then you may be advised that these people crossed the Mediterrenean to enter the Schengen area illegally; it should not really be a problem for them to illegally cross a land border of a country that - as per the complaints voiced above - is not able to keep beggars from the streets of its cities.

We have the same open borders, and the same immigration, but besides a somewhat high number of gypsy musicians in the city center of Amsterdam I think we've got the problem rather under control.

[earthJoker]

I am 100% right in saying that border controls on the Swiss border does not do anything about Rumanian or Bulgarian citizens having the right to enter Switzerland. All they need to do is claim they are doing so in order to look for a job in Switzerland and they have the right to stay there for 3 months. From that moment on the burden of proof lies on the Swiss state that a person trying to execute his rights under EU law (which is Swiss law per bilaterals I) is endangering Swiss public order and/or security in order for Switzerland to be able to refuse them entry to the country. I would go as far as to say that a Rumanian gypsy could enforce his right to enter Switzerland in court by simply having a hotel reservation at a Swiss hotel.

You are wrong by the assumption that most of those stay in Geneva longer than one day. They cross the border right after they have done their 'illegal' business. Geneva is an exception here, as the borders are so close to the city.

Talk that 'Schengen' is the problem is nonsense - if the problem is Rumanian gypsy beggars. If the problem is African illegal immigrants, then you may be advised that these people crossed the Mediterrenean to enter the Schengen area illegally; it should not really be a problem for them to illegally cross a land border of a country that - as per the complaints voiced above - is not able to keep beggars from the streets of its cities.

That's what I said, even with Schengen, we wouldn't be capable to tighten the borders to an amount needed to stop this kind of crimes.

It didn't really fail as a symbol, but it certainly can fail in interpretation.

No, it failed from the start. As the topic has nothing to do with the imperial past of the UK, period.

To me, this incident in Switzerland symbolised the migration of humans in history.

Which incident? The prediction of the OP didn't even made it to reality.

To me, it also symbolises the juxtaposition between conservatism and progress, amongst other things.

Conservatives tend to be more national and anti-immigration. Which of course is rooted by their wish to preserve.

The logical arguments between reasons for immigration and colonisation may be incongruous, but that shouldn't stop me from regarding the situation from a broader perspective, should it? In fact, it'd be impossible for me not to.

If it is not possible for you to look at the picture through the appropriate frame, than this is sole caused by you're nescience of Swiss immigration and its cause. But that you don't post your general view of the topic into a specific thread about Switzerland is IMO not only possible but even desirable.

[Momo]

No, it failed from the start. As the topic has nothing to do with the imperial past of the UK, period.

You might be surprised!

Which incident? The prediction of the OP didn't even made it to reality.

The incident of the occurence of the fact that, for many of the Swiss, immigration is their biggest concern.

If it is not possible for you to look at the picture through the appropriate frame, than this is sole caused by you're nescience of Swiss immigration and its cause. But that you don't post your general view of the topic into a specific thread about Switzerland is IMO not only possible but even desirable.

You don't get to tell me how to think.

But if you politely asked me to stay on topic, I would.

[Hazir]

You are wrong by the assumption that most of those stay in Geneva longer than one day. They cross the border right after they have done their 'illegal' business. Geneva is an exception here, as the borders are so close to the city.

That's what I said, even with Schengen, we wouldn't be capable to tighten the borders to an amount needed to stop this kind of crimes. .

My point is that getting out of Schengen will not solve the problem, because no matter how long these people plan to stay, an hour or the full three months, they have the right to enter Switzerland under the EU directives. Quitting Schengen will not change that, nor will it give Switzerland the right to demand these people get a visa to travel into the country.

Otherwise I already realised when writing that we are thinking the same about the problem; the 'problem' is not one of migration, but a problem of public order which the police should tackle. At least, I presume begging is just as illegal in Switzerland as it is in The Netherlands.

By the way, it's funny to see how often Switzerland and The Netherlands are interchangeable, NZZ had a short series on that.

[Hazir]

You might be surprised!


The incident of the occurence of the fact that, for many of the Swiss, immigration is their biggest concern.


You don't get to tell me how to think.

But if you politely asked me to stay on topic, I would.

Would you mind staying on topic? Also, I think we can say that it's not really immigration that's the problem, but public order in the cities. Most immigrants - legal or illegal - actually work and contribute to society. There is just a highly visible group of people who make a living with shady business and begging. The police should deal with those groups as is foreseen by the law.

[earthJoker]

My point is that getting out of Schengen will not solve the problem, because no matter how long these people plan to stay, an hour or the full three months, they have the right to enter Switzerland under the EU directives. Quitting Schengen will not change that, nor will it give Switzerland the right to demand these people get a visa to travel into the country.

I agreed with you on that long ago. I just corrected you, that we could quit Schengen/Dublin without having to quit the Bilaterals I, because it wasn't the same treaty.

[earthJoker]

The incident of the occurence of the fact that

The what?

This fact isn't news, and it's a fact for most countries.

[Hazir]

I agreed with you on that long ago. I just corrected you, that we could quit Schengen/Dublin without having to quit the Bilaterals I, because it wasn't the same treaty.

But I never said that. I just said changing Schengen will not change rights under EU directives.

[earthJoker]

Well, you can make border controls on them, so there is a difference de jure. Which would make it harder for them to cross borders. But we don't have the means to make strict boarder controls anyway so no difference de facto.

[Asmodian]

It seems to have functioned prior to Switzerland joining Schengen in 2004 I do not see any reason why it can not function again. Hotel reservation is great, hotels take credit cards during reservations and will charge a night for cancellations and no shows, that's a great deterrent right there. I was wrong about the visa, but boarder guards still stopped cars with certain license plates and could ask for things such as where they would be staying and/or to demonstrate how they would be financing their stay, same for trains coming from outside Switzerland.
Funny thing is the border guards are still there, they just are not checking documents so I am not convinced as to the cost.

[earthJoker]

It seems to have functioned prior to Switzerland joining Schengen in 2004 I do not see any reason why it can not function again.

There never was a full border control of all trespassers. Only some where picked out. In my whole life, my passport was only checked once while passing by car, all the other times I just showed it closed.

[Flixy]

When we were checked some years ago, going into Switzerland, my brother's passport was in his luggage, and he was still let in I don't think they were very strict either way.

[Loki]

Let's be honest: it's because both of you are white and non-Muslim.